My Biggest All-Star Snub

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 8, 2009 10:44 AM EDT

Hint: it's not a Red Sox player.

I've been blogging about baseball for about five years now. I started reading Rob Neyer and Baseball Prospectus religiously in about 2001. That means since I've started paying attention to non-traditional stats, I've had plenty of time to be frustrated at the odd decisions made by fans, players, and managers for the All-Star Game rosters and have written many articles about my frustration. After a few years of actively trying not to let the frustration get to me, I think I've actually succeeded, finally. These All-Star selection shenanigans have achieved such a level of silliness that it's really tough for me to get all worked up to write an article about All-Star snubs anymore. Forgive me if this isn't my most creative or passionate piece, but sometimes you do only need a hammer.

Take a look at these National League All-Star starting pitchers (I'm ignoring relievers for a variety of reasons, one being that if you want to win the game, you want more stud relievers) and some of their important 2009 numbers. The list is initially sorted by the average of Fangraphs' and Statcorner's Wins Above Replacement, but you can click on any column header to sort by a different stat, instead. Unnecessary commentary after the jump.

NL Starter	K/9	BB/9	K/BB	HR/9	GB%	ERA	tERA	xFIP	FIP	WAR
Tim Lincecum	10.5	2.2	4.7	.3	46%	2.23	2.24	2.72	1.96	4.9
*All-Star Snub*	10.3	1.7	5.9	.8	44%	2.95	2.71	2.65	2.48	3.9
Dan Haren	8.9	1.1	7.9	.9	43%	2.16	2.69	2.94	2.78	3.9
Josh Johnson	7.9	2.5	3.1	.5	53%	2.82	3.22	3.39	2.97	3.1
Joel Pineiro	3.6	1.0	3.6	.3	61%	3.39	2.94	3.86	3.05	2.9
Chad Billingsley	8.6	3.8	2.3	.6	43%	3.14	3.58	3.89	3.39	2.4
Ted Lilly	7.9	1.9	4.2	1.4	31%	3.32	3.22	4.00	3.90	2.4
Jason Marquis	4.1	2.9	1.4	.7	58%	3.61	3.86	4.36	4.11	2.0
Matt Cain	7.3	3.6	2.0	.9	36%	2.42	3.69	4.36	3.89	2.0
Johan Santana	8.8	3.0	3.0	1.2	32%	3.29	3.62	4.11	3.91	1.9

Tim Lincecum gets the Albert Pujols treatment here: He's good. After that, Dan Haren and Javier Vazquez (my All-Star Snub, if you didn't figure it out already) are a Lincecum-sized stride above everybody else. Both are striking out a lot of hitters, avoiding walks, and giving up home runs at a good, but not flukishly good, rate. Ted Lilly is the only other NL All-Star starter with a K/BB ratio above 4.0, and he's allowed a ton of home runs. Both tERA (which is tRA * .92 to convert onto the ERA scale) and FIP use raw home runs, which seems appropriate for a value metric. But if you're looking to predict future ERA based on performance so far, I'd look at xFIP (or tRA*), which isn't as pretty for a lot of these guys, such as Joel Pineiro -- which number seems like more of a repeatable skill, the .3 HR/9 rate or the 3.6 K/9 rate?

Again, I just can't muster enough emotion to fill this article with outrage. Javier Vazquez has been one of the best three pitchers in the National League so far this year, you can't really argue intelligently against that opinion, and yet he's not an All-Star. Sometimes it's really just that simple. There are probably some other guys who also have All-Star beefs -- with Ubaldo Jimenez leading the pack -- but it's not quite as cut and dried as with Javier Vazquez. Frankly it's just silly that I'm writing this article.

References:

Hardball Times for xFIP
Statcorner for tRA and tRA WAR
Fangraphs for FIP, FIP WAR, and most other stats.

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Jason Marquis, of all people, makes it ahead of him

I would also nominate Chris Carpenter (1.96 tERA).

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 8, 2009 11:16 AM EDT reply actions

How many innings for Carpenter?

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 8, 2009 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions

77

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 8, 2009 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions

yeah, if they wanted another Cardinal on the team

to appease the home crowd, I’m sure they’d rather see Carp than Ryan Franklin.

godfather of futureredbirds.net

by erik on Jul 8, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions

Mine is Matt Kemp

Including defense, he’s been the best outfielder in the major leagues this season, though I must admit to being stunned that Vazquez didn’t make the team. Jimenez also, w/o question, belongs. I’m a Card buy but wouldn’t put Carpenter on the team simply due to innings. Pineiro’s been worth more than Carp this year.

by chuckb on Jul 8, 2009 3:56 PM EDT reply actions

Dude used to rate poorly in the corners, now he's dominating UZR in CF, nice.

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 8, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions

I mentioned this in a comment at Purple Row today

And I don’t think this totally justifies his snub, but Javier Vazquez’ wretched hitting has to be counted against him as long as he’s a National League pitcher (or until the NL adopts the DH). Vazquez has been one of the worst hitting starters in the league this year and because he pitches so well, also one that’s getting close to the most PA’s of any starter this season. Marquis meanwhile has certainly benefited from his ability to hit, get on base drive in runs and give extra PA’s to the rest of the Rockies lineup. BB-Ref says that a team of nine Vazquez’s would score 0.6 RPG vs 2.6 for Marquis.

Still, I think Jimenez, who’s been better than Marquis at both hitting and pitching this season, would have been the better choice from the Rockies and given Vazquez’s plate handicap, possibly a better pick than him as well.

by Rox Girl on Jul 8, 2009 8:03 PM EDT reply actions

Interesting point. I might have to take a look at that.

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 8, 2009 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions

Too few PA to matter

2009 Marquis PAs: 41
2009 Vazquez PAs: 46

Never would that few PAs make up the difference between a guy with a 2.95 tRA (!) and a guy with a 4.20 tRA. We’re talking multiple wins versus about two runs.

by Tommy Bennett on Jul 9, 2009 9:08 AM EDT up reply actions

I think extremities of performance have a larger effect than you give credit...

50 PA’s of Barry Bonds at his peak is going to have a pretty significant impact on a team’s overall production. It’s the same at the other end. Vazquez has taken off nearly a win of value with his hitting, or one quarter of his pitching value. That’s a pretty substantial tax to be paying in his starts.

by Rox Girl on Jul 9, 2009 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions

Look I love Ubaldo

If I had a vote, I would have used it on him. But there is no way in hell a pitcher with a 136/23 K/BB in 119 IP and 2.49 FIP isn’t an All-Star. He could have gone up there with a limp noodle and still been one of the five best pitchers in the National League. Jason Marquis is league average detritus. Even after you account for batting, here’s what you get in terms of WAR

4.0-0.7 = 3.3 for Javy
2.9-0.0 = 2.9 for Ubaldo

Marquis?

2.1-0.2 = 1.9

And he’s got a 54/38 K/BB.

by Tommy Bennett on Jul 9, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions

I've never once said Vizquel's not All-Star caliber...

Come on, actually read what I type.

by Rox Girl on Jul 9, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions

Errr.... maybe I should read what I type, too

Vazquez, obviously, not Vizquel. I do think Javy’s got the best case, well at least until this weekend ;)

by Rox Girl on Jul 9, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Bonds was WAY more good than Vazquez is bad.

And it’s not quite fair to use straight wRAA — that’s comparing pitchers to the average hitter. You really need to compare them to each other. So Vazquez might be 5 or 8 or whatever runs worse than Marquis, but he’s probably only 2-4 runs worse than the average pitcher.

And again, don’t forget to park-adjust your Rockies numbers ; )

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 9, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions

wRAA's not park adjusted?

That’s one of the reasons I thought we were using it. I don’t know if it’s a bad thing as long as we’re consistent pitcher to pitcher. I look at pitcher hitting sort of like a fee for a hedge or mutual fund. Some of them are going to give you great returns but dock you more on the backside. It’s still usually going to be worth it, but you’ve got to be careful. Of course, there’s Micah Owings, who actually pays you a fee, so the analogy breaks down there, but that’s pretty rare.

by Rox Girl on Jul 9, 2009 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Ok, so...

By Fangraphs’ wRAA, Marquis is at -3 runs and Vazquez is at -8 runs, for a five run difference. That’s not park adjusted, so it’s probably more like 3 to 4 runs difference, but more than I would have guessed.

Pitcher hitting can definitely matter, but it’s usually small.

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 9, 2009 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions

But with Jimenez it becomes really interesting,

Jimenez is just -1 wRAA and nine runs of value behind Vazquez on the mound, meaning a net -2 run difference with one less start, meaning he’s Vazquez’s equal on a per start basis. I still think Vazquez was snubbed, but I really think his poor hitting is being ignored as a large factor in his lack of run support and “bad luck”.

by Rox Girl on Jul 9, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions