David Price's Wildness Controls Call-Up.
The whole scenario in which David Price would go to Durham for six weeks and work on a few things like pitch efficiency and expanding his arsenal is not going as planned. Without the benefit of pitch f/x or seeing Price live we don't know how the pitch selection is coming along and which pitches working for him. This is the process part of pitching that we love to talk about. What we do know is the results part of Price's pitching is no where close to where we want them to be.
The numbers:
|
W-L |
ERA |
IP |
K |
BB |
HR |
K/9 |
BB/9 |
HR/9 |
|
1-4 |
4.74 |
24.2 |
21 |
16 |
4 |
7.83 |
5.94 |
1.53 |
Hmmm, not quite the numbers that we were hoping for. The biggest problem for Price continues to be control which was a major part of the pitch efficiency the Rays wanted corrected before throwing him in the big league rotation. Price has been on strict 75ish pitch limit all season. Now 75 pitches isn't a lot, but for Price it should be enough to get him into the 5th inning of not 6th. However, Price is struggling to get out of the fourth inning at this juncture of the season. He has pitched just five innings twice in six starts and has gone four innings or less four times including three starts where he failed to finish the fourth inning.
Last night Price completed four innings, but used up 79 pitches with only 49% of them being strikes. He gave up four runs on six hits and FIVE walks. He did not register a strikeout for the first time all season. He did get a ridiculous amout of ground ball outs(11 out of 12) which was the lone saving grace. For those talk radio hosts calling for Price to come up and replace Jeff Niemann, they are failing to realize that he's just not showing the signs of a player ready for a call up. His K/BB rate is a poor 1.32 and it's even worse against left-handers (6 walks, 4 strikeouts) which is a situation he should thrive in especially with his slider. From the stretch, Price has walked 10 batters while striking out eight. This is a reverse from his normal delivery in which he has 13 K's and just six walks.
Should we hit the panic button? Absolutely not. After all, good processes will lead to good results, you know. It's easy to remember Game 7, and it's easy to point out that Price shouldn't need as much development time as a normal pitcher, but let's try to remember that at this time last year Price was a member of the Vero Beach Devil Rays. The things holding Price back seem to be minor problems and ones that can be corrected with the proper coaching and time to excecute that coaching. Again, the processes have to be in place before the results can show. Even thought it doesn't look like it right now, one day this summer David Price will be called up and he will never look back. But for now any velociraptor sightings in St. Petersburg have been slightly delayed.
0 recs |
69 comments
|
Comments
I suppose the argument could be made that
just because he is having trouble in Durham does not mean he would have had similar problems in TB. And that if the Rays just let him use his two plus-plus pitches up here he would have been better than Niemann has been and earned the Rays an extra win or two which might be critical in deciding the pennant race.
But the more obvious interpretation is that Price, right now, is not a better major league starter than Niemann (even if Jeff is also having problems), and that contrary to the criticisms of a number of BP analysts as well as Neyer and others the Rays were right to send him down. We have to keep in mind that except for one game when he was pulled after 5.1 innings we saw him only in relief last year. And his stay at Durham was promising but not dominating or outstanding.
If, as I suspect, his troubles are related to his working on the off-speed pitches, we need to give him time to work things out in Durham and look for other alternatives in TB should it be necessary to plug someone into the rotation.
by bobr on May 8, 2009 1:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm happy we got Joyce and all
But I do feel that Edwin would have been better than Niemann or Hammel.
I’m not sure why we dumped him, unless the org thought Price was close to ready.
by plasticman on May 8, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or if they thought Niemann or Hammel would be acceptable for the time being.
I do not think either are acceptable. I wish we could have kept Edwin and traded both for Joyce.
by plasticman on May 8, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dumped him?
WTF? Have you seen Joyce’s stats at Durham? .329/.441/.539
by rays_world_champs on May 8, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was talking about losing Edwin, not Joyce.
by plasticman on May 8, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dumping implies we got nothing in return
Kinda like how we dumped Hammel
by rays_world_champs on May 8, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point is we don't have Edwin anymore.
And I think he would have had utility this year. That’s all I’m saying about that.
by plasticman on May 8, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Based on what, at the time of the deal, did you see him being a utiltiy over Niemann or Talbot or Hammel?
Please share.
by R.J. Anderson on May 8, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
results based analysis
Edwin off to a good start in Detroit and Joyce in Durham.
Joyce will be better in the long run, even if he is just a 4tn OF for us.
by Dbullsfan on May 8, 2009 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
You guys have to get off this results v. process dogma. There have been solid arguments made here for a good process based approach. But it’s not like results and processes are divorced from each other.
by plasticman on May 8, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good results are only sustainable through good processes.
You can’t argue that.
by R.J. Anderson on May 8, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Someone could
Statistically it’s certainly possible.
by plasticman on May 8, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its entirely possible to have good results without good processes
but for a long period of time it won’t work.
www.draysbay.com
by Tommy Rancel on May 8, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not at all probable. I don't disagree with that.
That said, in my experience, I have seen people who are very successful due to their talents, yet whom coast and use extremely poor processes.
College is a perfect example.
by plasticman on May 8, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
At the time I did question the trade.
But, now I think the need is even more clear.
by plasticman on May 8, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Rays should've known Edwin's BABIP would drop to .261 and that his IFFB% would raise to 30%.
And to think, only having two pitches is suddenly a good thing for starters, after all that evidence to suggest otherwise. Sigh.
by R.J. Anderson on May 8, 2009 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who would you rather have--Niemann or Jackson?
by plasticman on May 8, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
At the time of the trade last year?
Niemann.
Cheaper. About the same talent level. Oh, and less obnoxious fanboys.
by R.J. Anderson on May 8, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry RJ, i disagree
For a team coming off a WS appearence the risk/reward of trading Jackson, a somewhat poven commodity at the MLB level was the safer bet
by Raymondo on May 8, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, keep E-Jack
I love Joyce, but he wasn’t as much of a need
by Raymondo on May 8, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No. No. No.
This is 100% hindsight.
The Rays had four returning starters, Hammel, Niemann, Talbot, Davis, and Price all a phone call away. Jackson was hardly the best of the three without options.
You can play revisionist history all day, but I’m going to focus on something more important.
by R.J. Anderson on May 8, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im just saying
Sonny’s FIP 3.55
Edwin’s FIP 3.87
www.draysbay.com
by Tommy Rancel on May 8, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sonny hasn't yet perfomed to his FIP though.
I’m not arguing he’s not better than Jackson, I’m simply arguing he’s not as good as his FIP suggests he is.
Tools Whore
by Tyler on May 8, 2009 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Somewhat proven to be below league average*
by R.J. Anderson on May 8, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look at this point it doesn't matter.
In hindsight, I definitely wish we still had Edwin.
The question, the productive one at least, is what do we do while waiting… Davis?
by plasticman on May 8, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It does matter.
You can sit around all day looking in hindsight and never be wrong. It’s pretty obvious we were making the right move when it happened.
And there’s like a 5% chance Davis makes a start before September. He’s probably this year’s Price.
by R.J. Anderson on May 8, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure what to make of your first paragraph
I’m not advocating sitting around in some sort of hindsight think tank.
Obvious? Again, you’re using terms of complete definitiveness to describe thoughts you came by way of statistics.
I hope you are correct about Davis.
by plasticman on May 8, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Davis is the 09 Price
www.draysbay.com
by Tommy Rancel on May 8, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You want Price in the pen?
and making a spot start?
Swav or Die.
by SRQman on May 8, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, i want him to start pitching like he did
last year, how he moved up from A to MLB
by Raymondo on May 8, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, this part makes me cringe:
“For a team coming off a WS appearence”
Aren’t you the same guy who loved it when Friedman talked about not becoming complacent? The Rays upgraded as an organization when they dealt Edwin for Joyce. That’s not being complacent. They also used that Edwin money on Shouse and Cormier. Maybe I’m oddballing it here, but I’d rather have Joyce, Cormier, and Shouse than Edwin Jackson.
by R.J. Anderson on May 8, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was at his game last night
The walks were troubling. The ump seemed to have a smallish zone all night, but that isn’t an excuse. At one point he had back-to-back walks on 9, maybe 10, pitches and half of those weren’t even close. On the bright side, the leadoff batter is really the only person who hit the ball hard (one-hopped the wall down the LF line), other than that i think 4 of his hits were groundballs that just found holes. The amount of GB’s he gave up last night was like nothing i’ve seen before. It did seem as if he couldn’t find the zone with his slider and change. Not too much else of interest in the game other than Orvella doing his best to pitch batting practice.
by Mulva on May 8, 2009 1:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Good to get a first hand account.
It seems very similar to the Scott Kazmir problems we’ve been seeing lately.
Also weren’t there calls for Orvella to be the new Balfour? Whoooops
www.draysbay.com
by Tommy Rancel on May 8, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Holy crap, what the hell happened there?
"Where we all wait in earnest with pudding in hand for the Upton comet to sail through the roofed skies, so that we may meet Him."
by kericr on May 8, 2009 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He woke up and was like damn, Im Chad Orvella
www.draysbay.com
by Tommy Rancel on May 8, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess he is the future closer of this team after all
/Percival’d
"Where we all wait in earnest with pudding in hand for the Upton comet to sail through the roofed skies, so that we may meet Him."
by kericr on May 8, 2009 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ohh
The other thing that stuck out is that Joyce does NOT have Gabe Gross’ arm in RF. He was charging a GB and had a chance to throw a guy out going from 2nd to home, and literally rolled the ball into homeplate. He was in shallow RF and it first bounced 3/4 up the IF grass and literally got to the catcher rolling.
The second throw that stuck out was a hit down the RF line that the batter legged into a double. Joyce fielded the ball at the line, but not deep towards the wall, about the depth he was positioned, turned and fired to second and two-hopped the ball to the base.
Obviously a small sample size, but it left me with the exact opposite impression as to seeing Gross fire to 2nd Wednesday on Damon’s double.
by Mulva on May 8, 2009 1:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Girly arm Hinske bad?
Today, we are all Honkballers.
by RATW on May 8, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
does UZR take into account how well a fielder throws the ball in?
Wasn’t Joyce’s defense one of the reasons we traded for him?
by behn on May 8, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fangraphs UZR does, at least...
On a player’s page you can get a breakdown by range, arm, and errors prevented. That said, range is the biggest contributor to UZR, even for a RF. (For example, Gabe Gross.)
by antimatter on May 8, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was hoping Dbullsfan
would answer this. I’ve only seen two of their games now this year, and he didn’t have a serious throwing attempt in the first one. After the throw to the plate he was clearly upset with himself, so I initially gave him the benefit of the doubt (since he probably just held on too long), but after not making the second throw on a fly, or even one-hop, I was concerned.
by Mulva on May 8, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Someone refresh my memory...
Wasn’t he not pitching that well before last years call up?
by BrokeBearMountain on May 8, 2009 1:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That's a confusing double-negative.
"Where we all wait in earnest with pudding in hand for the Upton comet to sail through the roofed skies, so that we may meet Him."
by kericr on May 8, 2009 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he wasn't pitching well but his k/bb was better than it has been this year.
He has had problems with too many pitches since he started in pro ball. His stuff is good enough to pitch to contact but he wants to be a SO pitcher.
by Dbullsfan on May 8, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So now where do we go?
Nieman sucks, Price not ready, Hammell and E-Jack gone
by Raymondo on May 8, 2009 3:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Nowhere. Niemann stays until Price is ready
www.draysbay.com
by Tommy Rancel on May 8, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on Friedman
He is probably to perfect his pitching and is trying to be efficient
Now, Andrew, you are too smart to think he wouldn’t be a upgrade over Niemann. The time is now (no sarcasm)
2010 Rotation: 1. Shields 2. Kazmir 3. Garza 4. Price 5. Davis with Hellickson knocking on the door, it keeps getting better and better
by joeybw on May 8, 2009 3:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
um how about Davis?
Niemann is sorta useless
2010 Rotation: 1. Shields 2. Kazmir 3. Garza 4. Price 5. Davis with Hellickson knocking on the door, it keeps getting better and better
by joeybw on May 8, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So how many good starts does Price need for everyone to say he's ready
I’m sure if he gets through 6 innings, strikes out 12 and walks none allowed only two hits, everyone will start calling for him immediately. But then the next time he goes out and gets shallacked or is just average, where are we?
How good does need to be to be called up?
by behn on May 8, 2009 4:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
so if he only walks 15 batters over the next 24 innings we call him up?
Unfortunately we can’t measure the processes Price is using so we kind of have to go by the results and the few scouting reports we hear. Especially since he down there to work on some of his weaker pitches, the results may be a bit deceiving.
by behn on May 8, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am sure the Rays are watching his starts
we only have numbers, they know more and when he is ready to improve over Niemann (well i would say that is already the case) he will be called up
2010 Rotation: 1. Shields 2. Kazmir 3. Garza 4. Price 5. Davis with Hellickson knocking on the door, it keeps getting better and better
by joeybw on May 8, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was being a smartass
But, yeah, when he shows better control, he’ll probably be ready to come up.
Ultimately, the performance doesn’t matter. The Rays are aware of his talent, they likely all ready have a plan for his arrival (fuck, probably even a date).
by Suttree on May 8, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
granted that by "working on his weaker pitches"
could mean his is throwing them more than he would in a serious MLB game, but don’t the results (the walks and lack of K’s) indicate that he isn’t throwing them for strikes or making people miss bats with them?
by Mulva on May 8, 2009 4:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I still say he may just be bored
like Clement for the Mariners
no way hes that bad, hes tired of the minors
2010 Rotation: 1. Shields 2. Kazmir 3. Garza 4. Price 5. Davis with Hellickson knocking on the door, it keeps getting better and better
by joeybw on May 8, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In my view, asking if I wish we still had Jackson
is akin to asking if I wish the Rays had signed Ponson or Pavano or Livan Hernandez. My answer to all of those questions is no, I don’t, because there was little reason to expect any of them to produce better than Niemann or our other alternatives and because I am very pleased that we received Joyce and could sign some relievers by making that trade.
Whether it is results based on hindsight or not, the question itself is futile. Dunn and Abreu are performing better than Burrell and are cheaper. Should I question whether we ought to have signed one of them? To what end?
As for Niemann, I think he is destined to become a reliever. But I would not give up on him so fast. In 3 of his 6 starts he gave the Rays a decent chance to win. He really is not all that experienced and may need some time to figure things out. I know the Rays cannot be as patient as they used to be with young players in the majors, but there needs to be some balance between giving up too quickly and sticking with a kid too long. I don’t know that 6 starts, 3 of which were not that bad, are enough.
by bobr on May 8, 2009 5:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 























