The Implosion of Troy Percival
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Sep 6, 2008 6:33 PM EDT
in News/Opinion
44 comments
First of all, I'm not out to convince you that Troy Percival is a bad relief pitcher. It's an unnecessary argument to make, as the assertion is pretty much backed with universal acceptance among Rays fans. This is even more true in the immediate aftermath of an event such as today's, when Percival loaded the bases and surrendered a grand slam in the 13th inning of a crucial intra-divison game against the Toronto Blue Jays.
Still, I don't see myself as immune from the emotional swings of being a baseball fan, so I need an opportunity to vent. At the same time, I want to maintain a relatively level perspective on things. We can all blame the umpires and unleash our anger on them. Sometimes that's even the appropriate course of action to take, and I don't disagree with the premise completely in this case. But the fact of the matter is, the umpires are too easy a target. There are three teams that take the field for every game, and one of those teams has no fans and is constantly pummeled by the other two.
So while we can blame the intricacies of losses on the umpiring crew, doing so offers no sustainable solutions for future improvement. In what has quickly turned into the worst week of the season since the last week of the first half, Troy Percival has pitched in two games and surrendered six runs. Small sample size you say? Well, then ponder these facts:
- Since May 8th, when Percival surrendered his first runs of the season and notched his first blown save in an eventual win for the Rays at Rogers Centre against the Blue Jays, he has pitched to an ERA of 6.75. That is not a typo, and that is 29.1 innings worth of sample size.
- Dislike ERA? Well, since I can already hear R.J. screaming about the importance of peripherals, ponder this. Percival has surrendered 24 hits since May 8th. Not a lot right? It's less than one per inning, and 7.36 per nine innings. Yet of those 24 hits, nine have been home runs. Nine. That means that three of every eight Pericval hits surrendered are home runs. To put that into perspective, Andy Sonnanstine has surrendered 193 hits this season. If he were to give up the gopher ball at the rate Percival has in the last 30 innings or so, that would mean that Sonnanstine would have given up 72 home runs. Of course sample size disparities make the comparison tedious, but a 2.76 HR/9 for a closer is just as disastrous as that, on scale, if not moreso due to the consistency of a closer's high-leverage appearances.
- What's more, Percival has given up four doubles and two triples among those six hits in the past four months. That means that five of every eight hits he gives up go for extra bases. Put it this way, his opponents' slugging percentage in this time frame is .541.
- Surely Percival must at least mitigate some of this with his high number of strikeouts, right? Well, he does maintain a decent strikeout rate, having downed 26 on strikes in the relevant time frame. Unfortunately, over the same period of time he has walked 18, or 5.52 per nine. A 1.44 K/BB is simply not acceptable, no matter whether high numbers are involved or not.
So what's the point? Well, essentially this is a more eloquent and fact-based way of saying PERCY SUX!11!!111!! I'm not going to get into why Percival has become so poor, because quite frankly I don't know and neither do you. It could be the various injuries that have landed him on the DL this season still bothering him, or it could simply be a function of him breaking down over a long season. But without a reasonable degree of certainity, it's not worth making conjectures about. More importantly though, it doesn't really matter. September 6th is a little late in the season to be diagnosing things and making corrections.
In other words, I'm not exactly optimistic about finding a remedy for the 39 year old Percival's pitching woes in the last three weeks of the season, and there is sure as hell no room for experimentation in the playoffs. The question now concerns what the team can do to mitigate Percival's penchant for high-stakes meltdowns. The most obvious solution is to move him out of the closer's role in favor of someone like Dan Wheeler or Grant Balfour, but that doesn't get rid of the problem entirely. Is his penchant for blowing games any more palatable in the seventh or eighth innings than it is in the ninth, or 13th as the case may be?
I would suggest that the answer is no, and issue at that point becomes where you slot a guy like Percival if you don't want him in high-leverage situations at all. You might be able to get by stashing him in middle relief, but I for one would be very surprised to see the Rays, and manager Joe Maddon in particular, shuffle Percival off into obscurity so unceremoniously. Nor can I imagine Percival taking that too well.
But as the games get more and more crucial, and Percival keeps getting worse and worse, the need for action gets clearer and clearer. As painful as it may be to address the situation, the pain of inaction could potentially be a lot more.
3 recs |
44 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
YAY PAT DID A POST!
Top Josh Paul Pornos- Big Navi Stroking, 2pitchers1cup, BJ to the Balls, Riggans Your Thingans
BELIEVE in 08!
by SRQman on Sep 6, 2008 6:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
"Well, since I can already hear R.J. screaming about the importance of peripherals, ponder this."
Calling them peripherals demeans their importance, but I’m glad you considered them at all.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 6, 2008 6:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
They are peripheral to the primary indication of a pitcher's success: run prevention
However the pitcher’s success as measured through peripheral statistics can give an indication as to the likelihood of their being successful at run prevention.
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Sep 6, 2008 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Run prevention is a multidimensional aspect of baseball.
You can prevent runs by having good defense or good pitching. The stats I pimp do two things:
1. Examine whether the success is sustainable. (BABIP, LD, GB, et al)
2. Examine whether the success is deserved. (High walk or HR rates)
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 6, 2008 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you 100%
However both of those purposes are geared toward analyzing a pitcher’s potential for future success. The bottom line for evaluating past performance is run prevention. ERA is the baseline statistic for measuring that. All other stats are peripheral to that; they contribute to it, but they are not the sum total. However, when prognosticating, those “peripheral” stats are infinitely more valuable than ERA because they do, as you say, indicate whether this past success was sustained or deserved.
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Sep 6, 2008 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are they really geared toward future success only?
They do tell you who was or was not very good. Plus I much prefer tRA to ERA, it combines all the important aspects and isn’t a “predictor” but instead a “product”.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 6, 2008 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe so.
The baseline for winning games is scoring more runs than you give up, so as far as individual statistics go, ERA is at the heart of measuring that. You could argue that RA is even more central to measuring it, but ERA is more commonly used. I believe that tRA tells you whether someone’s success or lack thereof was deserved or sustainable, but all it does is provide an "average" of what should take place in given scenarios, and how good the pitcher should have been based on how often they give up each type of play.
It is a wonderful stat, and I give Graham and Matthew a lot of credit for it. But it is merely a measure of the theoretical, and past success doesn’t always mirror the theoretical model. But for predicting future performance, obviously the theoretical model is a lot more reliable than using a statistical aberration that differs from the average.
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Sep 6, 2008 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"But it is merely a measure of the theoretical"
I don’t think it is at all. This isn’t theoretical, it’s based upon thousands of situations that tell us EXACTLY what is going to happen. You are assuming far too much out of ERA, because you are stating that the pitcher is theoretically performing at a 4.5 runs level.
You are correct that in the end everything comes down to runs and wins, however the use of ERA doesn’t promote the idea at all because pitchers cannot control their ERA outside of homeruns. Look at Sonnanstine last night, he gave up four balls not hard overly hard and allowed three runs, Balfour allowed a homerun and was charged two. In theory aren’t four singles better than a homerun? Especially when you consider that Bartlett bobbled a ball and Upton nearly made a nice grab on the other?
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 6, 2008 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think it is at all. This isn’t theoretical, it’s based upon thousands of situations that tell us EXACTLY what is going to happen.
It doesn’t tell you EXACTLY what happens, it tells you the historical average of all of those prior incidents and how many runs should be given up based upon those incidents. In that things are constantly changing based on the accumulation of data, nothing can be predicted with absolute certain. It is a theoretical yield, that’s why rarely does anything conform with it exactly.
You are assuming far too much out of ERA, because you are stating that the pitcher is theoretically performing at a 4.5 runs level.
Not true, because I don’t view ERA as a theoretical stat. It is an individual stat pertinent only to the pitcher measured by it.
You are correct that in the end everything comes down to runs and wins, however the use of ERA doesn’t promote the idea at all because pitchers cannot control their ERA outside of homeruns.
True, but at the same time, the use of any other stat cannot determine past success because success in baseball for a pitcher comes down exclusively to run prevention. tRA is great for predicative value, I agree-what should happen in the future based on the peripheral indicators of the past.
Look at Sonnanstine last night, he gave up four balls not hard overly hard and allowed three runs, Balfour allowed a homerun and was charged two. In theory aren’t four singles better than a homerun?
In theory, yes, but not in practice if they result in the same amount of runs given up. You might be more likely to give up less runs with four singles, but the only thing that matters in the effort of winning a ballgame is run prevention. Thus, if both scenarios produce the same amount of runs given up, both pitchers were equally unsuccessful. So yes, theoretically you are correct. And that is the basis of tRA and it is why tRA is so useful. But it is a theoretical yield statistics.
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Sep 6, 2008 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You guys are nerds
But I agree with you 100%. The ultimate peripherals K/9, BB/9, and HR/9 do a great job in predicting future ERA. The one area where they fail miserably however is measuring how “hard hit” a pitcher tends to be, outside of HR/9.
The original DIPS suggested there was no pitcher control over this. Anybody who ever picked up a bat and faced a good pitcher and a bad pitcher knew this was hogwash. Since then additional research has suggested the pitcher has “some” control over this. Until the robust statistics currently being kept by people like Baseball Info Solutions begins to filter its way into everyday sabermetric use, we won’t have a good measure on this I assume. My gut feeling is pitchers DO have a lot to say over “well-hit” balls. Just watching people like Chad Bradford and Brad Ziegler pitch, it is hella-difficult to rip line drives and HR’s against them. I’m sure pitchers with less “unique” styles are also difficult to hit.
by RayFanNY on Sep 7, 2008 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"it is hella-difficult to rip line drives and HR’s against them"
Yes, if only there was some way of including HR and line drives in a pitching stat…
by Graham on Sep 8, 2008 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the same reason you don't hold pitchers fully accountable for their ERA is the same reason W-L is a crappy stats
there is so much more to winning ballgames than what the pitcher does. and there’s so much more to allowing runs than what the pitcher does. why can’t people accept that there’s a lot of noise to be filtered out. just because baseball is a very discrete game and allows for a lot of things to be measured doesn’t mean the simplest measurements are accurate.
by Sky Kalkman on Sep 7, 2008 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i disagree that peripherals only measure talent going forward
they measure demonstrated talent. ERA measures how many runs were given up while a pitcher was on the mound. using that as a measure of demonstrated past talent seems like a poor choice.
by Sky Kalkman on Sep 7, 2008 9:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is that they don't measure success in the past
The fundamental problem here is that you don’t distinguish between being good and being successful. They are two different things. You can be good and unsuccessful if your team around you is deficient defensively, or if you’re unlucky. But the fact of the matter is, success for pitchers has everything to do with run prevention. Everythings else is peripheral to that goal. tRA helps show whether the pitcher was good, and how successful he is likely to be in the future, but it doesn’t account for past success.
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Sep 7, 2008 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but i think you're defining a pitcher's success too much by team results
was Matt Garza’s performance today successful? i’d argue hell yeah, with my starting evidence his nice K/BB ratio. but the team lost.
the same thing goes for judging past performance by ERA. if a pitcher makes good pitches, strikes guys out, doesn’t allow too many walks, but tons of hits fall in, even if the defense didn’t have much a change, is that successful? i argue yes. good pitches were made and the hitters didn’t hit the ball well.
by Sky Kalkman on Sep 7, 2008 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was successful in that he allowed only one run.
He did his job. The bottom line of a pitcher’s success is runs allowed. The K/BB ratio, G:F, and whatever else are peripheral components that explain how he got his outs and thus avoided baserunners. Obviously there is some interdependency with his defense, but RA/ERA tell you the what. The peripherals tell you the how, and based upon that, you can make prognostications about whether that success is likely to be repeatable.
How can you argue that a pitcher is successful if they allow runs? By definition, allowing the runs means they were unsuccessful (as was their defense, perhaps). Put it this way. Say that the Cardinals offered you Albert Pujols for Fernando Perez, and you accepted the trade. You might have done everything right, theoretically, in accepting that trade based upon the evidence available, but if Pujols suffers a career-ending injury tomorrow, you weren’t successful. It is all about the results. K/BB, H/9, etc. are results in a process, but isolated they are not the sum total. Baseball is far too much of an interdependent game to declare success in the ranks of the minutiae. Through the minutiae, you can ascertain evidence about the potential for future success, but having good peripherals means nothing for past performance if it doesn’t result in a limited number of runs allowed.
More broadly, the Rays were unsuccessful because they lost and Garza is part of that. But in the most broad, bottom line stat for pitchers, he was successful within a larger failure. Having good peripherals are even smaller successes within that, but they mean next to nothing in terms of past results.
There is no possible way to term Garza’s outing today a failure; that lies outside the realm of this argument. It was a total team failure, but his case really offers up nothing to this specific point.
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Sep 7, 2008 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this conversation is very interesting...
…but can we all agree that Percival should become the guy who carries the candy bag out to the bullpen?
by zeng8r on Sep 6, 2008 8:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
When I saw the stat line for Percy when he came out to try to close the game
And they showed 8 HR thus far, I kinda sat there astonished, I hadn’t realized he’d given up that many.
Percival looked especially bad today, this was a game that he needed to save and he didn’t do it. He looked flat, almost uninspired. He had what I call the ‘Jeff George’ look about him. This team is very quickly starting to look like the team that lost seven straight right before the ASB; not stats wise, just the presentation that they’ve looked really…blah.
by kericr on Sep 6, 2008 8:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
7-4 Rangers lead
Sox have them right where they want them
by sternfan1 on Sep 6, 2008 9:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If we continue on the pace that we are on now...
We will go 10 and 12 for the rest of the season.
Methinks the team needs this pressure to finish strong.
by plasticman on Sep 6, 2008 10:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What if we go on the pace we've played all year?
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 6, 2008 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would we?
We seem to go on pace for a month, or fall back during a rough week. Either is just as possible.
My argument would be that we are playing harder teams than we have been all season right now. We don’t win against NY as often as we lose. And we’re playing them away. We have been swept all season at Fenway. We may get swept tomorrow in Toronto.
I actually would rather the Sox take the division right now. The Rays seem to play best as underdogs. Every time we start to widen the lead on the Sox, we come crashing down hard. Last time we lost seven in a row.
by plasticman on Sep 7, 2008 1:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you want to use this pace
then you must consider the home-away splits.
Look, we’ll find out this week and next almost certainly. If we fold in Boston and NY, the division title is probably going to evaporate for us. I’ve believed all year that Boston was the best team in baseball, let alone the division. That we’ve held them off to this point is an amazing accomplishment.
I don’t see what this has to do with “folding under pressure.” Without Longoria and Crawford, I don’t feel we can match ourselves up talent wise with the Red Sox, and possibly not even with the Yankees and Blue Jays, over the course of the season. We need Longo back and healthy, very badly.
by RayFanNY on Sep 7, 2008 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would we go on the pace that we have all week rather than the pace we have gone on all season?
I mean, I suppose it is theoretically possible for the sky to fall, but by no means is it likely. And I’m sure the pressure is not lost upon the team.
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Sep 6, 2008 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because of the pressure
We don’t do well against NY. We get swept in Fenway. We have to play most of our games on the road, etc. That’s why. I mean maybe not, but I think we may trend down until the Sox take the lead, and then we will fight for it.
by plasticman on Sep 7, 2008 2:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was at work but yikes!!!!
at least Sox lost
by Underdogs on Sep 6, 2008 11:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Red Sox Lost
Your Welcome from the Texas Rangers
"Well, the Dallas Mavericks got beat by the New Orleans Hornets last night ending their season. Word is that someone on the team is dating Jessica Simpson." - Jay Leno
LSB facebook group ---->>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33345329288
by hinduplaya on Sep 6, 2008 11:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Percy
I started thinking about this and…well, as good as all the stats for pitching are sounding above it comes down to field conditions. Such as… It’s a strong possibility the humidity may drop when Percy comes in the game allowing the balls to carry out of the park. Or maybe the new turf in Toronto or at the Trop is assisting in the balls that carry over the fence, it’s possible! OR maybe its just the fact this guy is 39 and throwing BP fastballs in the “wheel-house” of the opposing players. Make him the associate to the pitching coach Hickey, and the cardiac units around the area can relax a little until next year.
by RayGuy3 on Sep 6, 2008 11:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Rec'd, but hidden.
But still rec’d.
by R.J. Anderson on Sep 7, 2008 12:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Percy was ready and healthy enough
to get the closer position back. He had poor command and he usually has pretty good command. He got bombed two times since the DL, and he’s had a great career. Maddon has to keep him out of the closer role till he straightens himself out with his mechanics, he is very hittable right now.
by sofladude77 on Sep 7, 2008 1:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Percival
You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Anyone who has watched the Rays knows he is finished.
by pontormo on Sep 7, 2008 7:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I just hope Maddon has the balls to deal with this and do what's best for the team.
Percy doesn’t need to be closing in these 1 or 2 run games right now. He seems to have needed a 3-run lead most of the season to get the save. Right now, from what i’ve seen over the time Percy was most recently on the DL, Wheeler should be the first choice to close out the 1 or 2 run games. And yes, I know he gave up the game-tying HR to Markakis last Saturday, but he seems to be the best option right now.
It only took one “non-move” to get Grady Little booted out of Boston after 2003. Joe won’t get booted out of TB if he decides to stick with Percival and it costs the team some needed wins, but he will sure as hell draw the wrath of many fans and don’t forget the media, who just love to rail on a guy if things don’t work out positively. Both he AND Percy will be in the doghouse.
by rayweaver on Sep 7, 2008 7:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
We can all agree Pervical can go die in a fire, right?
Is there a stat that measures how often a pitcher makes me wince in a season?
by ReasonableDoubt on Sep 7, 2008 9:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Percival didn't pitch all that well before the injury
he just happened to allow fewer runs than his skills would have predicted and he allowed his runs, conveniently, when they didn’t hurt as much. these are Percival’s skills, all season:
8.3 K/9 (quite nice)
4.6 BB/9 (not very nice)
23% GB% (not good and the reason why he’s given up so many HRs
.177 BABIP (way too low to be sustainable — although giving up tons of FBs will lower BABIP by 20 to 30 points — and the reason he’s allowed so few hits; it should not continue)
i don’t not want this guy in the game in any situations that are higher than average importance.
by Sky Kalkman on Sep 7, 2008 9:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You can trace some of this back to last season too
Percival benefitted from an unrealistic strand-rate in 2007. That is, he let many players reach base who ultimately failed to score. His strand-rate was way off the major league average. And like BABIP, these things tend to revert to the mean rather violently.
I’d like to see Percy in our bullpen in some capacity. Just nowhere near the closer’s role. I don’t think he is exactly useless. I think he is pitching hurt right now (all the more reason Maddon is making a mistake using him to close).
by RayFanNY on Sep 7, 2008 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here is why Percival is stuggling...
He has no pitch other than the straight fastball, that he can throw for strikes. When hitters know you cannot throw any offspeed pitch for a strike at a reasonable rate, they sit on the fastball. When the fastball they are sitting on is straight fastball with no movement, ALL major league hitters can hit it. When you don’t have good command of that one pitch, they can look for it in a zone — get it, hit it hard, don’t get it, take your walks. His fastball has always been straight, but in Anaheim, he threw in the high 90s and could get away with it. Those days are in Perci’s past. He is a warrior, but he cannot get it done any more. This is starting to remind me of how Fergosi stayed with a worn out Mitch WIlliams in 1993, regardless of his performance. Fergosi was loyal and it likely cost him and his team a ring. If Maddon allows his loyality to Perci to govern his bullpen selections, it is quite possible this team will not make the playoffs (unless Minn/Chi continue to dive bomb).
by ValricoBrian on Sep 7, 2008 6:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
