Sign in to follow this  
CrypTviLL

Carlos Carrasco 2019 Outlook

Recommended Posts

Accidently drafted this dude in Auction. What do we expect this year?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the top pitchers in the game with an elbow problem that comes and goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been a healthy number of top starters getting off to bad starts already this year. I wouldn't worry about it. He's a guy who will get around 200 innings pitched with over 10.0 K/9 and an ERA around 3.25. Reliable innings-eating starter who is a good #2 or great #3 for your fantasy team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, akief87 said:

There's been a healthy number of top starters getting off to bad starts already this year. I wouldn't worry about it. He's a guy who will get around 200 innings pitched with over 10.0 K/9 and an ERA around 3.25. Reliable innings-eating starter who is a good #2 or great #3 for your fantasy team.

My guess is they are not healthy and a IL stint is around the corner...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carrasco is like this..throughout his career..lots of train wreck starts..followed by 3 straight great ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, OrangeCrush said:

The hard-hit percentage off Carlos Carrasco coming into tonight was the highest in the bigs (min. 20 batted balls) and his 4-seam velocity was down 2.2 mph tonight. This panicky tweet was brought to you by @statcast.

 

Update from tonight:

15 four seam fastballs averaged 90.9 mph (2018: 93.5, 2017: 94.3)

Not a great sign 

 

edit: ah the velocity was for tonight in this tweet already. 

Edited by merlin401

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, merlin401 said:

 

Update from tonight:

15 four seam fastballs averaged 90.9 mph (2018: 93.5, 2017: 94.3)

Not a great sign 

 

edit: ah the velocity was for tonight in this tweet already. 

1

 

I own zero shares but that's gross. I would be terrified if I was an owner. I don't think I can recall Carrassco ever throwing 91 on his fb in his career. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, chud12 said:

 

I own zero shares but that's gross. I would be terrified if I was an owner. I don't think I can recall Carrassco ever throwing 91 on his fb in his career. 

Maybe he could not get loose in the 50 degree temps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chud12 said:

 

I own zero shares but that's gross. I would be terrified if I was an owner. I don't think I can recall Carrassco ever throwing 91 on his fb in his career. 

 

Im terrified. Owned him for 3 years, maddeningly inconsitent. Is either ace or complete turd. Has to be hurt with that velo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, chud12 said:

 

I own zero shares but that's gross. I would be terrified if I was an owner. I don't think I can recall Carrassco ever throwing 91 on his fb in his career. 

 

I also own zero shares of Carrasco, but I'm looking to buy low.  In contrast to someone like Sale or Nola, whose numbers under the hood are even more ugly than their terrible ERAs, Carrasco has still has an elite 17:3 strikeout to walk ratio.  He's just getting killed by an unbelievably unlucky .613 BABIP.  Throughout his career, Carrasco has always been wildly inconsistent from start to start but from year to year he's been very consistent (five years in a row with an ERA under 3.65).

To me, between Carrasco, Sale, and Nola, Carrasco is far and away the best buy low of three.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BABIP is an overrated statistic.  If a ball is hit hard it is more likely going to be a hit.  Carrasco is being hit hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, B&F said:

BABIP is an overrated statistic.  If a ball is hit hard it is more likely going to be a hit.  Carrasco is being hit hard.

 

Many years of data suggest the above is simply not true---BABIP is highly stable over time, and for individuals.

 

There is a slight caveat, which may apply here and may be what you are trying to say: if someone is hurt or really bad, their BABIP will be elevated. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Whizzinator said:

Many years of data suggest the above is simply not true---BABIP is highly stable over time, and for individuals.

 

"Over time" is doing a lot of work in this statement.  From this piece:, BABIP is observed to have only a 0.347 correlation year-over-year, while this Fangraphs page notes that BABIP takes 820 balls in play to stabilize for hitters, and a whopping 2000 balls in play, which can take years.  Neither of these observations screams "highly stable" to me.

What it does say is that paying any attention to BABIP in a 10 inning sample is pretty silly, but here we are.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

"Over time" is doing a lot of work in this statement.  From this piece:, BABIP is observed to have only a 0.347 correlation year-over-year, while this Fangraphs page notes that BABIP takes 820 balls in play to stabilize for hitters, and a whopping 2000 balls in play, which can take years.  Neither of these observations screams "highly stable" to me.

What it does say is that paying any attention to BABIP in a 10 inning sample is pretty silly, but here we are.
 

 

This is a fascinating take. I am interested to hear more about the 10 innings of 2019 vs the other 1100 professional innings. 

Perhaps I am not understanding the point which is completely possible 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

"Over time" is doing a lot of work in this statement.  From this piece:, BABIP is observed to have only a 0.347 correlation year-over-year, while this Fangraphs page notes that BABIP takes 820 balls in play to stabilize for hitters, and a whopping 2000 balls in play, which can take years.  Neither of these observations screams "highly stable" to me.

What it does say is that paying any attention to BABIP in a 10 inning sample is pretty silly, but here we are.
 

 

The statement I was responding to was "BABIP is an overrated statistic" and I don't think either your post or the original suggests that is so.   

Keep in mind the question we were trying to think about is whether a .600 BABIP is likely real or not.  So what matters is much less whether BABIP is perfect (it is not, though it is a good tool to assess when variance is random) it is whether it is more likely that the 10 innings tell Carrasco's going-forward true talent level or his historical BABIP.  I think it is pretty obvious the latter is the truth.

As a statistical aside, there's also a difference between waiting for BABIP to normalize to define a different true talent level (which is what you cited) and using it to project the most probable numbers going forward.   If anything, what you cited is strong evidence that we should not consider Carrasco's first 10 innings to mean anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Babip does correlate to contact so if Carrasco has lost some ticks on the fastball and is getting hit harder his “baseline” BaBip may be higher than usual but that’s all kind of irrelevant because the most important point is:

 

no one in history no matter how bad they are has a babip against over .600 (or .500 or .400) so yes Carrasco has had a ton of bad luck this year 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Smallball said:

This is a fascinating take. I am interested to hear more about the 10 innings of 2019 vs the other 1100 professional innings.  

Perhaps I am not understanding the point which is completely possible 

 

I agree that his entire body of work is much more meaningful than a BABIP number across three bad starts, which I explicitly stated in my second paragraph.  The first paragraph was a more nuanced point about how BABIP is among the more variable stats year-over-year and across even longer periods, which also speaks to how we shouldn't read anything particular into the metric right now -- not "he's being hit hard", and not "he's going to be fine once his BABIP regresses."  Neither of these can be ascertained from that metric alone at this point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tonycpsu said:

 

I agree that his entire body of work is much more meaningful than a BABIP number across three bad starts, which I explicitly stated in my second paragraph.  The first paragraph was a more nuanced point about how BABIP is among the more variable stats year-over-year and across even longer periods, which also speaks to how we shouldn't read anything particular into the metric right now -- not "he's being hit hard", and not "he's going to be fine once his BABIP regresses."  Neither of these can be ascertained from that metric alone at this point.

 

My point is that no one has a .600 BABIP against him over the course of a full season or even a .500 BABIP or .400 BABIP.  Carrasco has been incredibly unlucky this year and there's no way Carrasco's BABIP is sustainable.  Carrasco has a 17 to 3 strikeout to walk ratio in 10 IP, which is still elite.  Did Carrasco suck yesterday?  Absolutely, but his whole career he's been wildly inconsistent from the start to start, looking unhittable for one start, then getting lit up next time out.  However, when you add all the starts up at the end of the year, Carrasco has been incredibly consistent from season to season, posting an ERA under 3.65 five seasons in a row. 

In my opinion, Carrasco is the best buy low candidate in baseball right now.  To me, I'd be far more concerned about someone like Aaron Nola, who has a very poor K to BB ratio, has allowed a ton of HRs, and has a horrible ERA even with a lucky .231 BABIP.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, FootballFan101 said:

My point is that no one has a .600 BABIP against him over the course of a full season or even a .500 BABIP or .400 BABIP.  Carrasco has been incredibly unlucky this year and there's no way Carrasco's BABIP is sustainable.

 

And my point is that "Carrasco has been incredibly unlucky" doesn't necessarily follow from "Carrasco has an unsustainably high BABIP in a tiny sample".  It may very well be luck that has caused so many of his batted balls to find open spaces in his first 10 IP, or it may be any number of other things.

We all know he's a good pitcher, so we all expect him to turn things around, at which point the BABIP would tend to regress toward his career norms.  But there's no fundamental law of mathematics that makes that regression happen -- it's his performance on the field that makes it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this