Weaver, Chacin and Nolasco

[notherhalo]

3 arguably crappy pitchers who all threw complete game shutouts this year. 

Was there a worse pitcher to toss one?

[Blarg]

AO's trivia phone is ringing off the hook.

[eligrba]

To speed up the research, first check crappy pitchers facing the Angels.

[Angelsjunky]

I wouldn't call Nolasco a crap pitcher. He had a crap year in 2014, missed most of 2015, but has basically been a 2-3 WAR pitcher otherwise. That's not bad at all, a #3-4 type pitcher.

[Oz27]

Shelby Miller had one this year, believe it or not. So did Jeff Locke and Zach Eflin and they were terrible too. So a few really bad pitchers did get one this year, as in most years.

By Bill James' game score, the equal second best pitching performances of the season were made by Jaime Garcia and Vince Velasquez who are both pretty mediocre.

Weaver's this year is probably the least believable, relative to that player's season, when you look through the list of all-time Angels shutouts. Aaron Sele had one in 2002, when we all know he was pretty shitty.

[maximus p]

6 hours ago, eligrba said:

To speed up the research, first check crappy pitchers facing the Angels.

And rookie pitchers making their MLB debut.

[disarcina]

of that bunch -- Nolasco likely to be in our rotation next year -- I think he's under contract for at least two more season.

not sure about Chacin.......if he's not signed beyond this season -- he could get an ST invite but that's about it, I would think.

meanwhile Jered Weaver's agent is probably out letting GM's know he'll be available -- I don't see the Angels making much of an effort to keep him and may NON-tender him because he could accept a Halos offer.......not sure if the MLBPA contract terms have changed in this regard -- I know during the last two off-seasons there was some angst about the rule where the Clubs lost a draft pick if a team signed a F/A who was tendered an offer and rejected it..........the feeling was this caused teams to shy away from signing players who would cost them a draft pick and many MLB 'seasoned' players found themselves unsigned or having to wait until May 1 or whenever the date is that teams could sign these tendered players without losing a draft pick to the player's prior team.

there was talk about changing that rule -- not sure if it's been changed.  The whole discussion about this and experience with the rule shows how the value of top draft picks have increased in value and in importance to teams in today's MLB.........much of this has come at the expense of the veteran player who was either not a starter or fairly marginal -- these guys with 4 years or so of MLB experience are seeing their careers being of shorter duration than in the past as they lose their jobs to young (lesser expensive) prospect who can fill the depth roles.

 

[Angel Oracle]

Nolasco was pretty solid here, mid 3.00s ERA, and really good in September.

Sometimes, a change of scenery helps.   Look at JC Ramirez.   No one expected him to pitch as well as he did here in 2016.

[VariousCrap]

If Nolasco can be the Angels #5 starter next year, I'll take it in a heartbeat.

 

 

[Jason]

Nolasco is our #4 or #5 starter next season. As @VariousCrap stated, I'll take that.

[Taylor]

17 hours ago, maximus p said:

And rookie pitchers making their MLB debut.

For sub-.500 teams.

[DMVol]

2 hours ago, VariousCrap said:

If Nolasco can be the Angels #5 starter next year, I'll take it in a heartbeat.

In 11 starts with the Angels, as AO posted, he had a 3.21 ERA....that isn't a #5 starter, that's more like a 3, if not better on some teams....can he put that number up for 30 starts?  I don't know, we'll see.....but 11 starts here with a 3.21 and a 3.52 ERA in 15 starts with the Dodgers might tell you something....and I thought the trade was terrible, in the interest of full disclosure....

[VariousCrap]

1 minute ago, DMVol said:

In 11 starts with the Angels, as AO posted, he had a 3.21 ERA....that isn't a #5 starter, that's more like a 3, if not better....can he put that number up for 30 starts?  I don't know, we'll see.....but 11 starts here with a 3.21 and a 3.52 ERA in 15 starts with the Dodgers might tell you something....and I thought the trade was terrible, in the interest of full disclosure....

 

I didn't mean to discredit how good he was for the Angels last year.  He was great.  I was just thinking we shouldn't expect that again.  If he does give the Angels around a 3.50 ERA in 2017, I'd be thrilled.

[DMVol]

5 minutes ago, VariousCrap said:

I didn't mean to discredit how good he was for the Angels last year.  He was great.  I was just thinking we shouldn't expect that again.  If he does give the Angels around a 3.50 ERA in 2017, I'd be thrilled.

Don't disagree....I'd take a 3.50 ERA from him right now and run....But it does seem a little odd that a guy from SoCal has pitched really well for the Dodgers and Angels over 26 starts (basically a full season)....we'll see if it was mere coincidence or something else....

[DMVol]

Just now, hangin n wangin said:

....it would be pretty ignorant to think he's going to do that next year. The way Nolasco pitched with the Angels is not the pitcher that Nolsco is.

I didn't say he would.  I merely quoted his stats with the Dogs and Angels and raised the question of whether that was significant....And I didn't call anybody ignorant either....

[DMVol]

3 minutes ago, hangin n wangin said:

I didn't call you ignorant, nor was that what I meant by that post. I'm just saying I think it would be ignorant to expect those numbers from him, based on what he did in limited starts with us last year.It's technically possible, as it is for any pitcher I guess, but I would expect him to revert to his career norms. That's all I'm saying.

I don't know....it does seem odd that he has pitched that well at "home" (obviously those 26 starts include away games too).....I am not normally a stats geek but 26 starts is not a small sample size.....I'd be willing to bet he beats his career #'s but I wouldn't be surprised if he reverts to norms either ....somewhere in between is probably the best bet...

[Angelsjunky]

53 minutes ago, hangin n wangin said:

He's an interesting pitcher, really. His WAR numbers on Fangraphs are very high, considering his career ERA is sitting at 4.52. It's simply because Fangraphs uses FIP, which Nolasco always posts FIP's significantly lower than his ERA.

On Fangraphs, his career WAR is at 24. On Baseball reference, it's listed at 12. It's a pretty drastic difference. Personally, I think his career falls more in line with the 12 career WAR, but I think it could fall somewhere in between those two numbers. Nolasco is just one of those interesting cases where the numbers don't really fall into place.

Yeah. He reminds me of Javier Vazquez, who was similar in that his peripherals were much better than his actual performance.

[Docwaukee]

i wouldn't get my hopes up about Nolasco.  His advanced stats show that he was the same as he's always been except for a couple of things.  His LD% was way down this year.  

with that said.....

Another thing he did which I think has been a point of emphasis among the entire staff and coaches is that he stopped throwing the fourseam and went almost exclusively with the two seam or cutter or sinker or whatever you want to call it.  Interestingly, his release point for the 2 seam, slider and splitter are almost identical whereas the four seamer is a little bit different and closer to his curve.  

Something that was also teased out for Shoe and correlated to his resurgence.  

There is so much scouting and data available these days that even small variances in vertical or horizontal angle from one pitch to the next will tip off the hitter.  Guys who have been around for a very long time might start to become a little too predictable with their arm slots and sequencing.  A reason why certain pitching coaches seem to have success reinventing guys is by making them less scoutable for periods of time.  

Nolasco throws strikes.  He's been able to pitch over 1700 innings so his mechanics are pretty much set.  A little tweak here and there could be huge.  Especially for these guys who have been around the block and can repeat the tweaks with consistency while not getting jacked up.  

Chacin changed his release point in late August and had a great deal of success thereafter.  

I think another thing the halos have done is to really pay attention to sequencing.  Something I'd love to see some data on at some point.  

FYI, they changed JC Ramirez release point when he came to the halos.  About 6 inches lateral.  

Just an observation, but I feel like the team was more focused on location and throwing 'pitchers pitches' previously whereas with Nagy and/or Eppler, the approach is to also maximize deception by refining a consistent release point and throwing pitches that all look the same coming out of the pitchers hand.  

BTW, take a look at Alex Meyer's release point from September:

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/velo.php?player=543542&b_hand=-1&gFilt=&pFilt=FA|SI|FC|CU|SL|CS|KN|CH|FS|SB&time=month&minmax=ci&var=x0&s_type=2&startDate=03/30/2007&endDate=10/31/2016

pretty damn consistent.  watch out for that change up.  

 

[Angelsjunky]

The Angels aren't far from a pretty good rotation, even without signing anyone else. But it involves too many "ifs": If Richards can come back and start 25+ games. If Skaggs can every be consistent and healthy. If Shoemaker isn't impacted by almost dying on the mound. If Meyer can harness his stuff. Actually, Nolasco is the most certain of the bunch: He'll be a decent #4-5 starter.

If I'm Eppler I go hard after Rich Hill, but if I can't get him for three years or less, I go after someone like Anderson or Cashner on a one year deal and let them fight for a job with Meyer. With Richards, Skaggs, and Shoemaker all having serious question marks, chances are whoever gets left out will get his chances.

[ettin]

Since Nolasco's arrival his WHIP is at 1.07 with a .231 Batting Average Against. In that time he has a 48.2% Pull rate (3B/SS side) and a 34.7% Cent rate (up the middle) which of course is where Andrelton Simmons calls home.

Although Ricky will very likely be our #5 starter in 2017 I can't help but think that his numbers will improve slightly with a good defensive SS (and hopefully 2B soon) behind him.

Ultimately he is on the team because he can put the ball on the ground to Simmons and he has an option for 2018 that provides rotation insurance in case Tropeano doesn't return or experiences a hiccup in his recovery.

[disarcina]

I think Nolasco will prove to be a serviceable number 4/5 starter.

He is signed for $12 million for 2017 which is about 4th/5th starter money -- team option for 2018 and he gets a $1 million increase to $13 million if the Halos pick up the option.

Expect more of the same (from the entire 2016 season stats not just his Halos starts) from 2016 he pitched 198 IP, 144 K's 44 BB 4.42 ERA with an 8-14 record.

I think his 2017 numbers will be somewhat close to those -- Nolasco is a seasoned MLB starter. He can eat some innings and induce some groundball outs.

The 2018 team option becomes also a player option if Nolasco pitches 400 IP for combined 2016-17 -- I interpret that to me if he pitches 203 IP in 2017, it gets converted into a  player option.

Some post here said they did not like the deadline deal for Nolasco -- I liked it.  I thought we got as much out of Santiago as we could and traded him at his highest value. With Nolasco we have a seasoned MLB rotation guy at a reasonable price under club control for two years.  In addition to all that -- after the trade, Nolasco -- as pointed out in this thread --- had some good starts and stats for us (and NO, we don't expect Nolasco to keep that level of performance for all of 2017) and after the trade, I don't think Santiago could buy a win for Minnesota -- his initial starts were pretty awful if I remember my review of the box scores right -- and I think he finally got a win but must have been something like 1-5 or worse with Minnesota.  Not sure if Santiago is going to get any better for Minnesota for 2017 --  we got him as a pen depth guy, spot starter and possible 5th rotation guy and traded him as a 4/5 starter who, IMO, had his best years behind -- and got some value in return.  Good deal for us, I think

[totdprods]

15 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

The Angels aren't far from a pretty good rotation, even without signing anyone else. But it involves too many "ifs": If Richards can come back and start 25+ games. If Skaggs can every be consistent and healthy. If Shoemaker isn't impacted by almost dying on the mound. If Meyer can harness his stuff. Actually, Nolasco is the most certain of the bunch: He'll be a decent #4-5 starter.

If I'm Eppler I go hard after Rich Hill, but if I can't get him for three years or less, I go after someone like Anderson or Cashner on a one year deal and let them fight for a job with Meyer. With Richards, Skaggs, and Shoemaker all having serious question marks, chances are whoever gets left out will get his chances.

Rich Hill is as big of a question mark, if not more so, than everyone else we have in the rotation. The guy is 37 and barely made it past 100 innings last year, his first year starting in like a decade. He was leaving every other start the last two or three months of the year with blisters. And he's going to get paid way too much in both years and money this offseason. Only way I'd consider him would be if we went bonkers on the pen and signed one of the elite closers and then some to alleviate the need of Hill being a guy who throws 150+ innings, buts that's committing a ton of money in extremely volatile assets in relievers a 37 year old overnight wonder SP.

Great story and all and major props for gutting it out last season, but I can't see him being a legit rotation option. His body doesn't seem to be capable of keeping up.

Ivan Nova is still my choice for a SP. Recently had TJ so hopefully out of the woods for that, extreme ground-ball pitcher plays to Simmons, and he turned it around in Pittsburgh like so many other pitchers have recently. No draft pick and shouldn't cost a fortune. 

[Troll Daddy]

It's easy to have a negative outlook on Nolasco based on his career numbers. I choose to have a positive outlook based on his tutelage under Nagy and his recent numbers. 

[VariousCrap]

If I'm the Angels, I stay away from Rich Hill.  You don't get that good at 37 years old unless something is up.  Personally, I'm thinking he is a PED candidate.

I'd prefer signing a cheaper Nova, who is younger and can stay with the team for longer.

As for Nolasco, if he can give the Angels a 4-4.25 ERA in 2017, I think we'd all be happy.

Richards, Shoemaker, Skaggs, Nova and Nolaso is a pretty good rotation IMO.

[totdprods]

10 minutes ago, VariousCrap said:

If I'm the Angels, I stay away from Rich Hill.  You don't get that good at 37 years old unless something is up.  Personally, I'm thinking he is a PED candidate.

I'd prefer signing a cheaper Nova, who is younger and can stay with the team for longer.

As for Nolasco, if he can give the Angels a 4-4.25 ERA in 2017, I think we'd all be happy.

Richards, Shoemaker, Skaggs, Nova and Nolaso is a pretty good rotation IMO.

I don't think it's PEDs, I think he legitmately figured out a way to pitch effectively, but unfortunately he's at an age where his body just isn't capable of keeping up with whatever he's discovered. The stamina, the endurance, the mechanics. He barely made it to 100 IP last year. His fingers were shredded and it was max effort to get there. Brilliant results, but at 37 it's not sustainable nor worth investing tens of millions for a couple years, especially with depth returning next season.