Lindstrom back off of DL

[oldsox]

At best, they figured to be adequate set up men. At least Jones. The jury is still out on whether or not Jones would be okay in closer's role. He was so-so in 2013 as a set up guy. Lindstrom never had a chance to be effective in closer role. Bullpen should be better next year.

[Chisoxfn]

Lindstrom still isn't healthy IMO. His velocity is WAY below last year. His fastball velocity is down 1.9 mph over last year. Even worse his change is only down .2, which means there is 2mph less difference between his fastball and change. His slider velco is also down 0.6mph

 

He would have been a perfectly good setup guy if healthy, and probably as a fill in closer.

We will have to disagree there. A year ago, Lindstrom was our fourth best reliever (behind Reed, Jones, & Crain) and then a year later, we expect him to be our best / 2nd best. And this is an older guy we are talking about, not a young player who we would expect to grow / get better. Lindstrom was one of the worst opening day closers in the league (if not the worst) and if you say it should have been Nate, I'd still argue Lindstrom was a below average primary set-up guy. ATake a look at his WHIP, it has been consistently bad throughout his career. Dude has a career 1.4 WHIP over 8 seasons. That is pretty bad.

[Chisoxfn]

C'mon now, not YOU too!

This shouldn't be new. I've been saying this since the original bullpen thread. Don't get me started on FIP and what a great predictor it is. FIP indicated decent numbers for Lindstrom even last year, when he posted a pretty garbage WHIP for a reliever. How are you projecting good / solid ERA results when you have a WHIP over 1.4? That really doesn't make much sense to me. His career WHIP is over 1.4 too.

[chw42]

This shouldn't be new. I've been saying this since the original bullpen thread. Don't get me started on FIP and what a great predictor it is. FIP indicated decent numbers for Lindstrom even last year, when he posted a pretty garbage WHIP for a reliever. How are you projecting good / solid ERA results when you have a WHIP over 1.4? That really doesn't make much sense to me. His career WHIP is over 1.4 too.

 

FIP and WHIP are almost completely independent stats. FIP weights home runs, walks, and strike outs. WHIP only takes walks and hits into account.

 

One says a hit is all the pitcher's fault while another says only hits that are home runs are the pitcher's fault (and they really screw up his FIP).

 

FIP cannot predict WHIP because it's not what it's trying to predict. It's supposed to project ERA, which it does a decent job of doing.

[southsider2k5]

FIP and WHIP are almost completely independent stats. FIP weights home runs, walks, and strike outs. WHIP only takes walks and hits into account.

 

One says a hit is all the pitcher's fault while another says only hits that are home runs are the pitcher's fault (and they really screw up his FIP).

 

FIP cannot predict WHIP because it's not what it's trying to predict. It's supposed to project ERA, which it does a decent job of doing.

 

His 2013 FIP was 3.16, or his best since 2007.

[chw42]

His 2013 FIP was 3.16, or his best since 2007.

 

And it was 3.16 the year before too.

 

FIP can predict ERA fairly well as long as talent-level stays constant. In this case, Lindstrom's talent level has fallen dramatically.

[southsider2k5]

And it was 3.16 the year before too.

 

FIP can predict ERA fairly well as long as talent-level stays constant. In this case, Lindstrom's talent level has fallen dramatically.

 

Judging by his huge velocity drop, injury seems to be the clear front runner for me. He hasn't been right all year.

[chw42]

Judging by his huge velocity drop, injury seems to be the clear front runner for me. He hasn't been right all year.

 

That or he aged a lot in one off-season.

[chw42]

This shouldn't be new. I've been saying this since the original bullpen thread. Don't get me started on FIP and what a great predictor it is. FIP indicated decent numbers for Lindstrom even last year, when he posted a pretty garbage WHIP for a reliever. How are you projecting good / solid ERA results when you have a WHIP over 1.4? That really doesn't make much sense to me. His career WHIP is over 1.4 too.

 

One more point about WHIP and relievers.

 

There's a reason why Lindstrom's WHIP is bad yet he has a career 3.66 ERA.

 

He's a heavy ground ball pitcher (49%), who can get himself out of trouble with men on base using the ground ball (similar to Petricka).

 

So while his WHIP is bad, he shouldn't be judged entirely on it due to his pitching style.

[Chisoxfn]

FIP and WHIP are almost completely independent stats. FIP weights home runs, walks, and strike outs. WHIP only takes walks and hits into account.

 

One says a hit is all the pitcher's fault while another says only hits that are home runs are the pitcher's fault (and they really screw up his FIP).

 

FIP cannot predict WHIP because it's not what it's trying to predict. It's supposed to project ERA, which it does a decent job of doing.

My point is, his WHIP sucked, yet his FIP indicates he would be good. That makes zero sense. And when I look at relievers, one of the biggest things to focus on, imo, is his WHIP as an ERA/FIP can be a pretty bad indicator. You could be a pretty crappy reliever and have a good ERA because the guy behind you is really good and bails you out a lot, etc. Everyone talks about relievers FIP this and FIP that...just go back to a really simple stat...WHIP. He gives up a lot of hits and walks per nine innings and has over a long career. Last year's numbers were pretty much in-line with his career numbers and while the ERA might have been solid, the WHIP wasn't, and he is not a good reliever.

[2nd_city_saint787]

This shouldn't be new. I've been saying this since the original bullpen thread. Don't get me started on FIP and what a great predictor it is. FIP indicated decent numbers for Lindstrom even last year, when he posted a pretty garbage WHIP for a reliever. How are you projecting good / solid ERA results when you have a WHIP over 1.4? That really doesn't make much sense to me. His career WHIP is over 1.4 too.

 

I think he's been able to stick around so long with that high a WHIP because he simply does not give up the long ball that often at all. Teams have to work to score their runs.

 

[chw42]

My point is, his WHIP sucked, yet his FIP indicates he would be good. That makes zero sense. And when I look at relievers, one of the biggest things to focus on, imo, is his WHIP as an ERA/FIP can be a pretty bad indicator. You could be a pretty crappy reliever and have a good ERA because the guy behind you is really good and bails you out a lot, etc. Everyone talks about relievers FIP this and FIP that...just go back to a really simple stat...WHIP. He gives up a lot of hits and walks per nine innings and has over a long career. Last year's numbers were pretty much in-line with his career numbers and while the ERA might have been solid, the WHIP wasn't, and he is not a good reliever.

 

One of the reasons people even use FIP is because over small sample sizes, hits can be due to luck. For relief pitchers, this is even more evident since they only pitch 60-70 innings a year if they're lucky. A coupe of dinkers in a bad spot can raise their ERA by half a run. That can also raise their WHIP by about .1 or maybe even .2.

 

WHIP is a nice simple stat to look at to see how many base runners a pitcher gives up. The less the better obviously. But at the same time, it's too simplistic for its own good and it definitely shouldn't be used as an end-all-be-all stat to evaluate relievers. For instance, a ground ball pitcher may give up more hits than a strike-out pitcher, yet their ERAs may actually be similar because the ground ball pitcher has a better chance of inducing double plays to reduce the damage in any situation with runners on. Case and point: Matt Lindstrom (also, Jake Petricka).

 

And honestly, what you're saying about FIP making no sense since it doesn't match with WHIP also doesn't make a lot of sense. WHIP measures base runners. FIP measures runs. Those two things measure different things. Just because one is higher does not necessarily mean the other one has to be high. Yes, I get that more base runners = more likely to give up more runs, but it's not a perfect 1-to-1 relationship and it differs for different pitchers.

Edited August 19, 2014 by chw42

[chw42]

I think he's been able to stick around so long with that high a WHIP because he simply does not give up the long ball that often at all. Teams have to work to score their runs.

 

He's a ground ball pitcher. For them, giving up base runners isn't as big of a deal since they usually won't give up home runs with guys on and they can cancel out those runners with the double play.

[Chisoxfn]

One of the reasons people even use FIP is because over small sample sizes, hits can be due to luck. For relief pitchers, this is even more evident since they only pitch 60-70 innings a year if they're lucky. A coupe of dinkers in a bad spot can raise their ERA by half a run. That can also raise their WHIP by about .1 or maybe even .2.

 

WHIP is a nice simple stat to look at to see how many base runners a pitcher gives up. The less the better obviously. But at the same time, it's too simplistic for its own good and it definitely shouldn't be used as an end-all-be-all stat to evaluate relievers. For instance, a ground ball pitcher may give up more hits than a strike-out pitcher, yet their ERAs may actually be similar because the ground ball pitcher has a better chance of inducing double plays to reduce the damage in any situation with runners on. Case and point: Matt Lindstrom (also, Jake Petricka).

 

And honestly, what you're saying about FIP making no sense since it doesn't match with WHIP also doesn't make a lot of sense. WHIP measures base runners. FIP measures runs. Those two things measure different things. Just because one is higher does not necessarily mean the other one has to be high. Yes, I get that more base runners = more likely to give up more runs, but it's not a perfect 1-to-1 relationship and it differs for different pitchers.

And more baserunners tend to lead to more runs. Its pretty simple. I agree with you on WHIP and there are other things to look at from a pitchers perspective, but we are talking about a guy with a WHIP at 1.4 over an 8 year career. That is no longer a sample size issue in total.

[chw42]

And more baserunners tend to lead to more runs. Its pretty simple. I agree with you on WHIP and there are other things to look at from a pitchers perspective, but we are talking about a guy with a WHIP at 1.4 over an 8 year career. That is no longer a sample size issue in total.

 

More base runners also leads to more chances for said base runners to be eliminated on double plays for a ground ball pitcher.

 

We're also talking about a guy with a 3.66 ERA and 3.48 FIP during his career over 400+ innings. My point was that judging a player based on a stat that depends on luck over a 60-70 inning sample size isn't enough.

 

Baseball is about run prevention, not technically base-runner prevention. Over the course of Lindstrom's career, he's been good at limiting runs, yet not so good at limiting base runners. His ability to do the former has kept him in the league for 8 years.

 

I'm not saying he's good - he's mediocre at best now, but he's clearly been an effective pitcher in the past despite allowing a decent amount of runners on base.

Edited August 19, 2014 by chw42

[Chisoxfn]

More base runners also leads to more chances for said base runners to be eliminated on double plays for a ground ball pitcher.

 

We're also talking about a guy with a 3.66 ERA and 3.48 FIP during his career over 400+ innings. My point was that judging a player based on a stat that depends on luck over a 60-70 inning sample size isn't enough.

 

Baseball is about run prevention, not technically base-runner prevention. Over the course of Lindstrom's career, he's been good at limiting runs, yet not so good at limiting base runners. His ability to do the former has kept him in the league for 8 years.

 

I'm not saying he's good - he's mediocre at best now, but he's clearly been an effective pitcher in the past despite allowing a decent amount of runners on base.

And what I've been saying is that he is not a very good or above average reliever. He's average and yet we looked at him to be our best or 2nd best reliever to start the season. No bullpen with Lindstrom as your #1 / #2 is going to be very good. ERA is something that relievers don't control as well as other pitchers, since often times, they aren't around for the other guys, so I do in fact look at WHIP more significantly then ERA. For example, Lindstrom comes in with runners on, gives up more baserunners and lets runs score which weren't his. I think WHIP / Inherited runner statistics are going to be more valuable then ERA when it comes to judging relievers. Starters, ERA is still a pretty solid stat as they have a bigger sample size and they have greater control for the runs they allow, etc.

 

Lindstrom was 154th in inherited runs statistics in 2013 out of 294 AL relievers. That puts him slightly below average at best. He ranked similarly in 2012 (again, slightly below league average). 2011 was more of the same.

 

Edit: As I continued to query some of the inherited runner stats, I noticed some slight differences between sites and I didn't want to pay to filter, long story short though, by sheer math, he ranked at least slightly below average in 13, 12, and 11. Which I would expect, given his below average WHIP.

[shysocks]

WHIP sells Lindstrom short a bit because it treats all baserunners equally. Who would you rather have, a guy who allows only singles with a WHIP of 2.00, or a guy who allows only homers with a WHIP of 1.00?

 

Obviously it's an impossible example, but it sort of applies here. From 2011-2013, Lindstrom allowed an OPS of .661, .642, and .683. Put those figures into 2014 and he would rank 138th, 117th, and 175th out of 372 pitchers with at least 30 innings. His WHIP of 1.31 during that period would tie him for 223rd.

 

If you're allowing lots of runners but few are hitting for extra bases, you can still be effective. Lindstrom's WHIP belied three somewhat effective years prior to this one.