Hitting the Foul Pole

We decided to dust off this blog and give it another try in 2012.  Between busy years for both of us, and a lousy on field product, 2011 was a difficult year to blog about the Twins.  So we didn’t do it.

Earlier this week I finally got around to reading Jonah Keri’s The Extra 2%.  It details the Tampa Bay (Devil) Rays rise from laughingstock to elite AL contender.  The driving force behind this change was a new ownership group.  Led by Stuart Sternberg and a cadre of Wall Street trained analysts.  The rest you know.

I came across this article while reading Hardball Talk this morning.  The cubs have signed a deal with bloomberg sports for a new player evaluation system.  This is something I can only assume the Twins do not have, but would laugh the Bloomberg Sports sales rep out of the room. Probably while giving him wedgies or something.  As with most people (or person) who read this blog, I am very frustrated with the arcane approach to player evaluation the Twins have taken, well, forever.

The extra 2% spends about half a chapter with quote from AL east executives lamenting the Garza/Young trade of 2007.  Because Tampa got such a good deal, they knew they would have another strong team in their division.  Even with Terry Ryan back in charge, I’m not sure I can envision the Twins staff outsmarting the likes of Freidman, Epstein, Cherrington, etc.

I am hesitant to blame ownership, because the Pohlad family has always been pretty hands off.  So the brain trust that has been in place  since the 90s is running this team with a pretty good head of steam, and it does not appear is if they will be changing course anytime soon.

Welcome back to the  blog everyone, anybody have any thoughts on the topic.

The Twins have finally won consecutive games — and all it took was removing Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau from the lineup. Obviously this is a coincidence, and shouldn’t be taken to mean that the Twins are a better team without their two best players. But let’s consider, shall we?

This is a graph of the 10-day moving average of the wOBA of a bunch of players:

You can see in that graph that the Twins’ offense has been meek this year — nearly the entire team was sitting below .300 wOBA for the whole year. Mauer, on the handful of days he played, was below a .300 wOBA.

But another thing you can see is that as soon as Mauer left the lineup, something happened. Delmon and Cuddyer and Valencia started swinging the bat — you can see a strong upswing in all their lines as soon as Mauer’s cuts off. And when Morneau left,* they continued to rise; except for Cuddyer, whose trajectory increased violently to match Kubel’s. (Kubel, by the way, has been hitting very well lately. A .450 wOBA is excellent.)

Now, if I’m being honest, I’d assume that the timing of this is just a coincidence.* These guys are better hitters than their .200 wOBA was showing, and it was only a matter of time until they started making better contact. But let’s just say the coincidence is striking.

* Except for Thome’s precipitous drop coinciding with Morneau’s absence from the lineup. He’s played a lot of consecutive games now, and for the second year in a row that’s not what he signed up for.

But still, I wonder if there’s something to this. Gardy’s teams have always performed better than their talent should have allowed — until the team had talented players. Maybe there’s something about Gardy’s style of coaching that simply works better when there’s less talent to work with, when there are no stars in the lineup. I doubt it can be quantified, but it seems believable that a manager could be more inspiring when the players know they can’t rely on great players to win the game for them. I also think it’s believable that, without lineup mainstays like Mauer and Morneau, Gardy has more freedom to tinker, to mix and match players, and to make moves.

That move-making doesn’t always work, but it’s worked the last two days. And Gardy’s “let’s stick together in the face of hardship”* act appears to have lit the fire that was necessary to get some of the Twins’ essential bats to start clicking.

* Assuming, of course, that he’s done anything. I hope it’s fair to assume that.

The Twins were a very fun team to watch this decade when they were plucky underdogs — and without Mauer and Morneau, that’s what they can be again. Of course, it’d be best if Kubel and Young and Cuddyer and Valencia continued to hit well as Morneau and Mauer return, allowing the Twins to perform as the expensive machine they’re supposed to be now that their payroll has rocketed past $100M.

What do you think? Coincidence? Gardy doing a good job? The players banding together without the protection of the stars? What are you talking about, it’s only two games?

Last week, the Twins signed Francisco Liriano to a one year, $4.3M deal to avoid arbitration this year. It was a wise move — salary arbitration can be a rough process, with potential ramifications for the relationship between the team and the player, because in the course of making its case the team essentially has to do everything it can to insult the player. Additionally, the Twins have in the past signed a deal like this one to avoid arbitration while continuing to work on a long term extension; that’s exactly what they did with Morneau, ripping up and replacing his one year contract with a six year extension after just one week.

So, a week later, what happens? Well, we get a report from Joe Christensen that says that the Twins’ relationship with their ace left hander is apparently already sour, and they do not plan to give him an extension — in fact, he says that trading Liriano “isn’t just crazy talk.”

One thing is clear: The Twins don’t plan to sign him long term. Last weekend, they avoided arbitration with a one-year, $4.3 million deal. From what I’ve heard, their long-term talks went nowhere, with Liriano’s camp hinting it wanted a three-year, $39 million contract.

First, let’s take a look at Liriano’s demands for a 3/$39M deal. He has two years of arbitration left, so that deal would cover one year of free agency. The second year of arbitration typically is valued at 60% of free market, and the third and final year is typically 80% of free market value. So this three year deal would effectively pay for 2.4 years of Liriano’s free market services, which means Liriano’s agent is placing a year of Liriano’s services on the free agent market at $16.25; now, how good would Liriano have to be to be worth that price? I can’t tell how much a win is going for on the free agent market right now, but it seems like it’s somewhere between $4M/win and $5M/win. At $4M/win, that contract would value Liriano as a 4 WAR pitcher; at $4.5M/win, he’d have to be a 3.6 WAR pitcher; at $5M/win, he’d have to be a 3.25 WAR pitcher.

On the other hand, his $4.3M deal this year is supposed to be 60% of his free market value, which means his current contract values him at just $7.1M, probably taking into account his shaky track record and the fact that he remains a significant injury risk.

Let’s take a gander at said shaky track record — in 2006 he put up 4.1 WAR in a shortened season prior to his injury, and that injury and his slow recovery from it led to 0 WAR in a missed 2007, 1.5 WAR in 2008, and 1.1 WAR in 2009, before he broke out again and posted 6.0 WAR as one of the top pitchers in the league in 2010. And all his predictive statistics indicate that his performance was sustainable and will even improve with better-than-the-worst-luck-in-the-league. If you believe he’s healthy and can remain healthy, Liriano seems like a safe bet to be a 4 WAR pitcher and the contract is a no-brainer. If you think he’s a huge injury risk or that his success in 2006 and 2010 was a fluke and his true talent lies somewhere in the “can’t throw strikes or get anybody out” range that he showed in 2008 and 2009 while his velocity was down, then you probably wouldn’t want to guarantee him any more money or years than you absolutely have to.

The Star Tribune is — at the very least — strongly implying that this is the Twins’ thinking. That the Twins front office is actually down on Liriano and does not want to sign him to an extension. That they are, like some sportswriters and fans, selectively seeing only Liriano’s failures in 2010 and not his dominant outings. That they’re seriously entertaining the idea of trading Liriano for pennies on the dollar.

in his final 20 starts, including the postseason, he didn’t finish the eighth inning once.

That seems like an odd measure of talent. The ability to finish eight innings in a start? In the second half of your first full major league season in your career, after pitching all winter in winter ball and all summer at multiple levels the previous year while recovering from major elbow surgery? I hope that’s not a “stat” that people lend any real credence to.

In his much-hyped showdown with Colorado’s Ubaldo Jimenez, the Rockies batted around in the first inning. The Twins won all five of Liriano’s starts against the White Sox, but his performances were more white-knuckle than dominant.

He had a bad game, and then he won a bunch of games against a division rival during a pennant race, but those don’t count because they were close games.

Then, in Game 1 of the Division Series, Liriano had a 3-0 lead in the sixth inning when the Yankees came back to tie it. Afterward, Liriano was his usual polite self, but it was a huge letdown for the team.

Then he lost a game in the playoffs, and it counts because it was a close game.

Oh, and if you think that “logic” from the Star Tribune (or, worse, the Twins) is inane, here’s some more. This time from Howard Sinker, “analyzing” how the Twins could make a trade work.

The fact that manager Ron Gardenhire has talked about the need for more speed in the middle infield is all well and good. But when you have the chance to replace Alexi Casilla with Michael Young, this is a time when you sacrifice speed and some defense and go for the bat. Casilla would make a fine fifth infielder.

And as Jim Bowden, the former Reds and Nationals GM, said on his XM/Sirius show Wednesday afternoon, the Rangers are in a position where they won’t get 100 percent value for Young.

In a deal with the Twins, that would mean Texas picking up a big chunk of Young’s salary. For the Rangers, it means getting a lefty pitcher who doesn’t have Lee’s credentials, but brings a lot more to them than other options. (Somehow, I don’t think that signing ex-Brewer Dave Bush is viewed as a replacement for Lee.)

Rangers beat writer Evan Grant wrote the other day that “right now, about all you can get (for Young) is a bad contract.” The Rockies had been talking about a Young deal that included second baseman Eric Young Jr.

So Liriano totally blows away anything that’s been discussed — which is why the Rangers have so far dismissed what’s on the table.

So, let me get this straight. The Twins suddenly have an “opportunity” to replace their speed-oriented middle infield with a “bat” in the form of Michael Young. And the Rangers are in the position of having to either eat Young’s ridiculous salary or take a pittance in a trade, or both. That’s why the trade market for Young’s services are ice cold — other teams realize he’s an old man whose contract matches his production so poorly that he’s not worth acquiring even if the Rangers pick up most of his salary. And since the Rangers won’t get full value, and the best offer they’ve received so far is Eric Young Jr — who has never been better than replacement level in his career, with a -0.3 WAR and -0.4 WAR in the last two seasons — the obvious solution is that the Twins should offer Francisco Liriano, their best pitcher, one of their best players?

Sinker is right that Liriano totally blows away anything that’s been discussed in the Young talks thus far. And that’s because if the Twins are offering Liriano to the Rangers, the return should be more like Neftali Feliz + high end prospects, rather than drastically-overpaid-old-guy. Dave Cameron expects that Liriano’s trade value is somewhere between Marcum’s and Garza’s,* and thus should yield someone close to a top prospect but not an absolute-top-shelf prospect. Note in that article that Michael Young isn’t mentioned, because it’s ludicrous to even consider that.

* That’s the Garza 2 trade, when the Rays got all of the Cubs’ top prospects for him. Not the Garza 1 trade when the Twins got a busted prospect for him. Bill Smith just keeps looking better and better, eh?

Oh … and if it’s a good idea to scrap the speed-in-the-middle-infield plan in favor of an infielder who can actually hit, what about the one the Twins gave up, JJ Hardy? He offered elite defense at shortstop — something Young absolutely does not. He offered a bat with some pop in it — something Young absolutely does not. He had an affordable contract — something Young absolutely does not. He yielded a couple of mediocre relief pitchers in a trade — not anything close to the value of Liriano.

I can’t tell what the Star Tribune is doing here. Have they actually heard, from the Twins, that Liriano-for-Young talks have happened, or that the Twins are considering starting such talks? Are they accurately representing the Twins’ views on Liriano? Or are they making this up, speculating for the sake of stirring the hot stove pot, baiting clicks to their website where they automatically refresh the page every 30 seconds to goose their pageviews and falsely inflate their pageview statistics to get a better rate on their advertisements? Have they really become this desperate, now that Phil Mackey and ESPN have rendered them completely useless? Ouch.

Publicly, the Twins keep saying Liriano is a big part of their 2011 plans. They’d love to see him prove the skeptics wrong and blossom into a 20-game winner, even if this leaves fans screaming about their decision not to sign him long term.

When your best hope is that you get embarrassed — and you work to ensure that’ll happen no matter what — then you’re doing something wrong.

What do you think? Are the Twins seriously considering this, or is the Strib just stirring the pot? What do you think is the right thing to do with Liriano — go year to year through arbitration, sign him to a long term extension, or trade him? And what do you think is a reasonable return in trade, or size of contract?

Last year, Rob Delaney pitched 80 innings at AAA, and struck out 92 batters. His 10.4 K/9 ratio ranks among the best in the entire Twins system. His 2.6 BB/9 ratio is excellent given that high strikeout rate. But he gave up too many hits, at a 9.2 H/9 rate, and it drove his ERA to 4.72; while I’ve watched Delaney and been excited by his 4.93 K/BB ratio in the minors, and his ability to regularly top 10 K/9 (he’s done that at every level of the minors), the Twins have apparently been turned off by … something. Maybe it’s his ERA, or his win-loss record, or maybe they see something in his delivery and don’t think he’s for real.

They finally called him up to the majors, and they let him pitch one inning. He didn’t do well: 1 inning, 2 hits, 1 homer, 1 run, 1 walk, 0 strikeouts. Obviously, that sample size is as small as it gets, and I wouldn’t consider it wise to make a decision based on a single inning.

The Twins, though, designated Delaney for assignment yesterday, to make room on the 40-man roster. It’s possible — but I personally think it’s unlikely — that Delaney will pass through waivers and remain with the organization. The Twins had to be willing to risk losing Delaney in order to acquire the guy they did, so ideally it’d be worth that risk.

---

Dusty Hughes spent 2010 in Kansas City, earning the major league minimum. I suppose that’s the generous way to describe his contribution to the Royals. He pitched 56 innings, with 5.4 K/9, 3.8 BB/9, and 9.4 H/9; that all added up to an unsustainably non-descript 3.83 ERA.

In his final year at AAA, his numbers were little better. 81 innings, 7.8 K/9, 4.2 BB/9, 8.1 H/9, and a 3.50 ERA. His career K/BB ratio in the minor leagues is 2 K/BB, but that’s trended steadily downward as he’s ascended through the ranks, bottoming at 1.7 K/BB in his two years at AAA — still better than the 1.42 K/BB he had in the majors in 2010.

Here’s what Rany Jazayerli had to say about Dusty Hughes in his Royals Report Card:

Probably the easiest grade on the entire roster. Everything about Dusty Hughes deserves a C grade, starting with the fact that he somehow spent the entire season on the roster without really making an impression on anyone.

He pitched in 57 games for the Royals, but judging from the way they used him, you’d think the only reason he was on the roster was because the Royals were too embarrassed to go without a lefty somewhere in their bullpen, and, well, Hughes was just standing there, so…

He wasn’t used in high-leverage situations at all; just eight times in those 57 games did he pitch in a situation where his “Leverage Index” was 2 or more, and just twice after the All-Star Break. He was kinda used as a lefty specialist, but not really – he faced right-handed batters 54% of the time. He was kinda effective against left-handed hitters, but not really – they batted .260/.351/.323 against him.

Hughes wasn’t bad, not really – he gave up a ton of baserunners (88 in just 56 innings), but minimized the damage by allowing just three homers. But he wasn’t good either. He wasn’t really anything. He was just there.

More power to him that he earned a full year’s worth of a major-league salary, and got a big contribution to his pension. But unless he takes a significant step forward – the easiest path being that he starts throwing more strikes – his job security is almost non-existent. I don’t know what Dusty Hughes really does for the Royals.

---

This is a particularly non-exciting move.

There are two things about Dusty Hughes that are the least bit interesting: he has an arm, and it’s on the left side of his body.

While the Twins are currently desperate for bullpen arms, it’d be tough to find one more mediocre than this. Plus, they have Glen Perkins available as a lefty out of the pen; I know they don’t like him, but is the plan to have him rot in AAA forever? Is he worse than Dusty Hughes? They also have Brian Duensing, who is fighting for a spot in the rotation but may ultimately find his best success in the bullpen. Is Hughes good enough to mix into the bullpen with Jose Mijares and Duensing? Is it more important to have three bullpen lefties, or to have as many talented arms as possible?

And that’s what I have against the move; the only real complaint about it besides “this is pointless.”

In their effort to bolster their collection of relievers, they risked losing a potentially-talented right handed reliever who could have helped them this year. In return, they got a decidedly-not-talented left handed reliever who could conceivably help them this year — if by “help” you mean “turn a two run deficit into a four run deficit thirty or forty times.” He certainly shouldn’t pitch in close games; even the Royals knew that.

Will Dusty Hughes make the 25 man roster? Probably not. And if Delaney passes through waivers, this move will be promptly forgotten.

But … I just don’t see the point of doing it in the first place.

There are a few reasons to be concerned about giving Carl Pavano a multi-year contract — among them his age, injury history, and low rate of striking people out — but this article over at Fangraphs makes me wonder if there’s hope that Pavano could reverse his recent trend toward contact inducement. The article points out that while Pavano’s strikeout rate is dangerously low and getting lower, the decline in strikeouts was met by a corresponding jump in groundballs.

Almost across the board his pitches have higher GB% and lower whiff (swinging-strike) rates. The only exception is his four-seam fastball had slightly higher whiffs in 2010. Swinging strikes and ground balls generally trade off, but it is interesting to see to play out so clearly for one player from year to year.

The difference is the most striking with Pavano’s slider which went from 37.5% GBs in 2009 to 59.2% in 2010, accompanied by a decrease in whiff rate (per pitch) from 12% to 10%. It looks to me that this was caused by location in the strike zone.

One of the tenets of modern baseball analysis is that pitchers have very little control over balls in play — that’s why most people were so sure that Pavano’s 5.10 ERA in 2009 would drop significantly once his .329 BABIP dropped. Sure enough, in 2010 his BABIP was only .281 and his ERA went down to 3.75 despite shockingly identical FIP (4.00 vs 4.02) and xFIP (3.96 vs 4.01).

My question is, was his improvement from 2009 to 2010 merely a coincidence, or did he have some control over the decline in BABIP? Chiefly, he knew coming into 2010 that he’d have a significantly improved infield defense behind him, with Orlando Hudson and JJ Hardy manning the middle infield. Did Pavano consciously trade swings-and-misses for weak-contact-inducement?

As with most of my musing, there’s no way to know Pavano’s intentions. But there are a few ways to look at the Pavano prism moving forward. One way is to assume that he didn’t actively try to shape his K/9 vs GB%, that his skills are declining as he ages, and he was fortunate enough to run into a 50-point drop in BABIP that made people think he’s a top-of-the-rotation workhorse. If that’s what you think, you’re probably terrified about what’s going to happen to him as the middle infield behind him switches from the excellent Hardy/Hudson combo to the giant question mark that is Casilla/Nishioka.

On the other hand, if you think he tried to trade strikeouts for ground balls in 2010, then presumably you think he could reverse that trend in 2011 if he saw a need to. And given that giant question mark behind him in the infield, maybe he’ll see a need to trade ground balls back into strikeouts.

The important thing for the Twins is that Pavano stays healthy enough to throw 200 innings at a Scott-Baker-like 4.00 FIP/xFIP. How he gets there isn’t crucial to the bottom line, but I think it could be an interesting thing to watch.

So as the 2011 season progresses, I’ll be watching Pavano’s BABIP but perhaps even more tellingly, his K/9 and GB%. If his K/9 stays around 4 and his GB% stays above 50%, then he hasn’t been able to adjust back to his previous ways (whether he tried to or not).

Tell me in the comments, what are your thoughts? Do you think Pavano tried to make the strikeouts-for-grounders trade? Would such a trade be possible? Was it a good idea in 2010, and would it be a good idea to trade back in 2011?

Joe Mauer’s 8 year, $184M extension was the crowning achievement of Bill Smith’s excellent offseason last winter. It was the fourth-largest contract ever bestowed upon a baseball player, but it was more than that. It was the hometown hero getting locked up through his prime and into his twilight years. It was the golden boy making good. It was validation of every schoolboy’s dream, that he can one day star for his favorite team. It was a symbol of the Twins emerging from the mid-market doldrums, announcing that they can compete with the big boys dollar-for-dollar, and actually hang onto their players once they become expensive stars.

This week, Mauer won his third Gold Glove and his fourth Silver Slugger. When you’re voted the best hitter and fielder at your position, well, let’s just say that puts you in the upper echelon of the league. Elite, if you will. So, why have I been getting this feeling, lately, that the Twins are going to come to really regret this contract?

Maybe it’s the fact that the Twins locked him up after his otherworldly 2009 season, when he hit .365/.444/.587, leading the league in all categories to win the “Modern Triple Crown.” I’m not crazy enough to think that he’s going to be able to repeat that performance again, ever. But the contract pays him as if he’s going to do that every year until he’s 36.

According to Baseball-Reference, Mauer dropped from a 7.9 WAR in 2009* to 5.6 in 2010. By Fangraphs’ estimation, he dropped from an 8.0 WAR in 2009 to 5.1 in 2010. Was 2010 the outlier, or was 2009?

* Strangely, Baseball-Reference pegged Mauer at 8.7 WAR in 2008, when he his .328/.413/.451 … rating the season in which he posted a 134 OPS+ as nearly a full win better than the one he posted a league-leading 170 OPS+. Fangraphs had him at 5.7 WAR that same year. I like WAR as a statistic, but they’re going to have to iron this sort of thing out. That’s a massive gap, no?

Well, Mauer’s Fangraphs WAR by season: 1.2, 3.5, 5.9, 3.2, 5.7, 8.0, 5.1. His Baseball-Reference WAR by season: 1.5, 3.4, 7.0, 4.6, 8.7, 7.9, 5.6.

The way Fangraphs puts it, Mauer’s 2009 is a massive outlier, the one time in seven years that he bested even 6 WAR. Baseball-Reference is more generous, saying he was better than 7 WAR in three of seven seasons. I don’t know which one is “right,” but the fact that they disagree so heavily doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence.

If Mauer can continue to post a 7+ WAR season almost 50% of the time, he’ll be worth that contract — as long as the Twins are competitive the entire time. But if he’s only going to be a 5 WAR player, as Fangraphs indicates, then he’s already significantly overpaid, and the situation will only get worse as he ages and inevitably declines. And he wouldn’t be worth anywhere close to this kind of money if he weren’t a top defensive catcher.

“There will be a point where I’m not going to be able to play there anymore,” said Mauer of his catching responsibilities, during a conference call to talk about his Gold Glove award. “But I hope I don’t have to worry about this for a long time.”

A typically diplomatic response from the staid Mauer, and maybe the question shouldn’t even have been asked of him while he was celebrating a third consecutive Gold Glove. But everybody knows Gold Gloves are often undeserved. (I’m sure everyone reading this noticed that Mauer didn’t exactly look like his awesome self of old behind the plate this year. This Gold Glove, I think, was won more in the past than in the present.)

Maybe, though, when you sign a contract like this, it’s about more than just production on the field. You’re signing a Face of your franchise, someone who represents the team, and the organization, and the fanbase. To a certain point, that guy, that Face, what he brings to the table goes beyond simply what he offers on the diamond. Joe Posnanski talked about this when he wrote about Derek Jeter’s contract negotiation with the Yankees.

Everyone here knows how much I love Joe Mauer, but I’m not sure how ready he is for all the stuff that comes with being one of baseball’s biggest stars. I saw him really struggling with the media and his role as face of the franchise after his big contract — and that’s in Minnesota. It’s not anywhere close to as easy as people think.

I wish I could find the old Land o’ Lakes commercial featuring Mauer; it seems to have been scrubbed from the internet. For good reason, too, if you’re Mauer or his agent, or the Twins, or MLB. That video shows a Joe Mauer who is not ready to represent a baseball team, who cannot handle the role of leader under the bright lights that today’s media shines.

In the end, I think that’s what has been bugging me. Joe Mauer is an excellent baseball player, with all that that entails: times when you’re up, and other times when you’re down; good years and bad years; victories and defeats. But maybe when the contract is this big, well, maybe you’re expecting more than just a baseball player. You expect someone superhuman, you expect good years without bad, victories without defeats. And you’re not going to get it.

It’s time, then, to adjust expectations. Mauer is an excellent baseball player, a guy who can post 5+ WAR seasons, a guy who can give you 130 OPS+ seasons year in and year out; he’s not a superhero who can toss out 8 WAR, 170 OPS+ mega-seasons with any regularity. The only thing to do is enjoy it, hope he loosens up a bit in the limelight, hope he stays healthy, and hope his contract doesn’t hamstring the Twins in the future.

That seems like a lot of hoping, for 184 million dollars.

Matt Capps joined the Twins on July 30, and pitched an inning for the save — early on he had some struggles, blowing two of his first three save opportunities and allowing plenty of baserunners. But he’s been solid, if unspectacular, assuming you’re the sort of person who wouldn’t make fun of him because his middle name is “Dicus.”

With the Twins, Capps has a 2.08 ERA in 26 IP, with 16 saves in 18 chances. He’s struck out 21, walked 8, and is holding batters to a .255/.314/.330 line which isn’t bad.

Meanwhile Jesse Crain has emerged as a legitimate relief ace; during the same time period (since July 30), Crain has pitched 24.1 IP in 27 games, with a 1.48 ERA, 24 K, 13 BB,* and is holding batters to a phenomenal .175/.290/.213 hitting line. Seriously, opponents are slugging .213 against him.

* This is higher than I thought it would be, and I’m guessing it comes from two things. One, he recently had a stretch of 7 straight games in which he walked a guy. Two, he’s been relying extremely heavily on his slider, and if the hitter lays off it there’s a chance it misses the strike zone and gets a walk. The thing is, it’s tough not to swing at that pitch.

Capps and Crain use their arsenals completely differently — Capps is all fastballs all the time, while Crain has focused much more heavily on his breaking balls this year.

Capps throws his 94 MPH fastball 81.5% of the time, his slider 14.7% of the time, and his change is only thrown 3.8% of the time. Capps uses his fastball this way for good reason; his fastball is +2.07 runs per hundred pitches, while his slider is -1.04 and his change-up is listed at a “you should never throw this” -8.48 (seriously, the only way it can get that bad is if batters clobber it every time you throw it).

Meanwhile, Crain only throws his 94 MPH fastball 42.3% of the time, his slider comes in 46.2% of the time, his curveball 10%, and he throws his change just 1.4% of the time. Crain’s fastball doesn’t seem to be of the same quality as Capps’, despite both averaging at least 94 MPH; it’s only been worth -0.94 runs per hundred, while his slider is +3.05, his curve is +4.21, and his change is +3.22. Maybe Crain’s offspeed stuff is simply nastier than Capps’, maybe he has better command of it, maybe his fastball sets up his other stuff extremely well.

More subjectively, Capps comes right at you and even though he’ll occasionally lose the battle and give up hits (especially when his BABIP sits at .319), his stuff is good enough to beat you. Crain keeps you more off balance, throwing mostly sliders and curveballs — and he’s talked about how his slider is really more like three different pitches, since he throws it at different speeds and with different breaks.

Considering all the numbers, I believe Crain is the better pitcher. But what does that say about their roles?

First, let’s assume that one of the roles is going to be Closer. I don’t think it necessarily should, but you know and I know that Gardy — like most managers — wants/needs to have a Closer sitting in the back of the bullpen. The ideal Closer is a guy like Mariano or Nathan, an elite pitcher who gets everybody out, blows them away, provides that nice warm feeling of confidence. That’s the guy you want, but it’s not always the guy you’ve got.

Since the Twins don’t have that guy, who should they put there? The easy fallback answer is “best pitcher,” but I’ve been railing for years that the best reliever shouldn’t necessarily be the Closer, and I still believe it. One guy is going to allow more hits and more baserunners — he’s the guy who should come in with the bases empty, so the only runners he has to deal with are his own. One guy allows fewer hits and fewer baserunners and strikes out more batters — he’s the guy you should feel more confident dealing with other people’s runners, in high-leverage situations that are not the 9th inning.

Rarely have I agreed with the way Gardy uses his bullpen; I’m the guy who thinks that a healthy Joe Nathan should be used the same way Crain is used now, and that the Fireman is a more valuable role than the Closer. But I hereby put the Seal Of Approval on the way Gardy’s set up Capps and Crain in the bullpen. It gives the Twins their best chance to win.

The internets have been raging with debate the past couple of weeks, as people desperately try to find another topic that could drive a wedge between the mainstream/old-school media and the basement-dwelling/not-printed-on-real-paper blogosphere. This time, the narrative chosen is “CC Sabathia vs Felix Hernandez.”

The basic premise is that on the one hand, you’ve got a good pitcher having a good season for a great team and racking up Wins by the handful, and on the other you have a good pitcher having a better season for a horseshit team and tossing back peripheral stats — but not Wins — like they’re Pabst Blue Ribbon. It’s made for a good fight, with plenty of entertaining back-and-forth and name-calling. My Twitter timeline is filled with “anyone who thinks CC Sabathia deserves the Cy Young is a moron,” and my RSS feeds are filled with “anyone who doesn’t think CC Sabathia deserves the Cy Young is a moron.” So yeah, it’s fun. Joe Posnanski even weighed in, with an interesting start-by-start comparison of the two heavyweight contenders. He found that King Felix had the edge.

But my question is this: why has the field already been culled to two? If we as a collective blogosphere are going to throw our support behind a pitcher who deserves consideration for a Cy Young award despite a lackluster win-loss record, why is it Felix Hernandez?

There’s another pitcher having a tremendous season this year, and since this is a Twins blog you may have guessed that I’m going to say his name is Francisco Liriano. You’d be right. So, without further ado, I’m going to follow in Posnanski’s eminent footsteps and try to do a start-by-start comparison of King Felix and Franchise Liriano, and see which of them ought to be wearing the crown.

1st start

• Hernandez vs OAK: 6.2 IP, 3 ER, 4 K, 6 BB, ND
• Liriano vs CHW: 6 IP, 3 ER, 3 K, 5 BB, ND

Comment: Quality starts for both pitchers, Felix had 1 more K and 1 more BB. I’m giving this one to Felix because of a substantial advantage in RE24.

Advantage: Hernandez (1-0)

2nd start

• Hernandez vs TEX: 7 IP, 2 ER (3 R), 5 K, 2 BB, ND
• Liriano vs BOS: 7 IP, 0 ER, 8 K, 2 BB, W

Comment: Pretty clear victory for Liriano, with no runs and more strikeouts.

Advantage: Liriano (1-1)

3rd start

• Hernandez vs DET: 6.2 IP, 2 ER, 9 K, 2 BB, W
• Liriano vs CLE: 8 IP, 0 ER, 6 K, 2 BB, W

Comment: Another obvious victory for Liriano; more innings, 0 runs.

Advantage: Liriano (2-1)

4th start

• Hernandez vs BAL: 9 IP, 0 ER (1 R), 6 K, 0 BB, W
• Liriano vs DET: 8 IP, 0 ER, 10 K, 1 BB, W

Comment: Oh boy, this one was quite the duel! Felix has more innings but gave up an unearned run. You’ll notice that Felix’s ERA is helped considerably by all the unearned runs surrendered by his supposedly-excellent defense; Liriano does not get that advantage. Also, Liriano had a bunch more strikeouts. Liriano had the RE24 advantage and I’m using that to break ties. Feel free to score at home.

Advantage: Liriano (3-1)

5th start

• Hernandez vs KCR: 7 IP, 2 ER (3 R), 7 K, 3 BB, L
• Liriano vs CLE: 7 IP, 3 ER, 9 K, 3 BB, W

Comment: Another close one. Felix’s ERA gets the benefit of another unearned run, but both guys left the game after 7 innings with 3 runs on the board. Liriano has a 2 K advantage.

Advantage: Liriano (4-1)

6th start

• Hernandez vs TEX: 4.1 IP, 5 ER, 5 K, 4 BB, L
• Liriano vs BAL: 6 IP, 5 ER, 3 K, 1 BB, L

Comment: Their good outings have been aligning, and their clunkers are aligning too. That’s kind of annoying. They both gave up 5 runs, but Liriano pitched deeper into the game. Felix has 2 more strikeouts, Liriano has 3 fewer walks. Again, Liriano has the RE24 advantage.

Advantage: Liriano (5-1)

7th start

• Hernandez vs LAA: 3.1 IP, 7 ER (8 R), 3 K, 4 BB, L
• Liriano vs NYY: 6 IP, 3 ER, 7 K, 0 BB, L

Comment: A bad start for Hernandez, and a quality start for Liriano.

Advantage: Liriano (6-1)

8th start

• Hernandez vs BAL: 7 IP, 1 ER, 7 K, 2 BB, ND
• Liriano vs BOS: 4.2 IP, 5 ER, 6 K, 3 BB, L

Comment: Liriano got clobbered in this one.

Advantage: Hernandez (2-6)

9th start

• Hernandez vs OAK: 6 IP, 3 ER, 6 K, 2 BB, ND
• Liriano vs NYY: 7 IP, 2 ER, 7 K, 2 BB, ND

Comment: More innings, fewer runs, more strikeouts.

Advantage: Liriano (7-2)

10th start

• Hernandez vs SDP: 7 IP, 2 ER (3 R), 6 K, 1 BB, L
• Liriano vs SEA: 6 IP, 3 ER, 7 K, 0 BB, W

Comment: This is a close one. Liriano has the K and BB advantage, and they’d have given up the same number of runs but for Hernandez’s secret unearned-run weapon. I don’t want to penalize him for that, but I also don’t think it’s reasonable to reward him for it. Felix has the RE24 advantage.

Advantage: Hernandez (3-7)

11th start

• Hernandez vs LAA: 8 IP, 1 ER, 7 K, 3 BB, ND
• Liriano vs OAK: 7 IP, 1 ER, 10 K, 2 BB, ND

Comment: Good outings for both pitchers. Felix went deeper, Liriano had more strikeouts and fewer walks. Felix had a better RE24, Francisco had a better WPA. Tough call.

Advantage: Hernandez (4-7)

12th start

• Hernandez vs MIN: 8 IP, 1 ER, 9 K, 1 BB, W
• Liriano vs ATL: 8 IP, 1 ER, 11 K, 0 BB, W

Comment: Another strong outing for both of them. Same distance, same runs … Liriano had double-digit strikeouts, and I like that.

Advantage: Liriano (8-4)

13th start

• Hernandez vs TEX: 6 IP, 7 ER, 5 K, 3 BB, L
• Liriano vs COL: 7 IP, 3 ER, 6 K, 3 BB, L

Comment: Felix turns in another bad performance.

Advantage: Liriano (9-4)

14th start

• Hernandez vs SDP: 8.2 IP, 2 ER, 9 K, 1 BB, W
• Liriano vs MIL: 5 IP, 3 ER, 7 K, 1 BB, L

Comment: Clear victory for Felix.

Advantage: Hernandez (5-9)

15th start

• Hernandez vs CIN: 9 IP, 1 ER, 9 K, 1 BB, W
• Liriano vs DET: 6 IP, 6 ER, 6 K, 2 BB, L

Comment: Liriano gets his doors blown off and Hernandez is lights out. Another easy one.

Advantage: Hernandez (6-9)

16th start

• Hernandez vs CHC: 9 IP, 2 ER, 8 K, 1 BB, ND
• Liriano vs TBR: 7 IP, 1 ER, 10 K, 1 BB, ND

Comment: Felix goes all the way, but Liriano gives up fewer runs and strikes out more batters. This seems to happen pretty frequently. Liriano has a narrow RE24 advantage.

Advantage: Liriano (10-6)

17th start

• Hernandez vs NYY: 9 IP, 0 ER, 11 K, 3 BB, W
• Liriano vs DET: 1.2 IP, 7 ER, 1 K, 2 BB, L

Comment: Bam. Liriano was pitching injured in this one; Hernandez, clearly, was not.

Advantage: Hernandez (7-10)

18th start

• Hernandez vs KCR: 7 IP, 2 ER, 6 K, 2 BB, ND
• Liriano vs CHW: 7.2 IP, 2 ER, 8 K, 2 BB, W

Comment: Got more outs, gave up the same runs, struck out more batters, walked the same number. I think this one is clear.

Advantage: Liriano (11-7)

19th start

• Hernandez vs NYY: 9 IP, 1 ER, 9 K, 2 BB, W
• Liriano vs CLE: 7 IP, 0 ER, 8 K, 4 BB, W

Comment: More innings, gave up more runs. But this time, Hernandez also strikes out more batters and walks fewer. That 0 on there is nice, though, and Liriano ekes out another RE24 tie-breaker.

Advantage: Liriano (12-7)

20th start

• Hernandez vs LAA: 8 IP, 3 ER, 3 K, 0 BB, L
• Liriano vs KCR: 7 IP, 0 ER, 6 K, 0 BB, W

Comment: Another scoreless outing for Liriano, with twice as many strikeouts.

Advantage: Liriano (13-7)

21st start

• Hernandez vs CHW: 8 IP, 0 ER, 8 K, 0 BB, ND
• Liriano vs SEA: 7 IP, 0 ER, 11 K, 2 BB, W

Comment: Both pitchers were on in this one. Felix went deeper, but once again I like it that Liriano put up double-digit strikeouts. RE24, however, is going with Hernandez.

Advantage: Hernandez (8-13)

22nd start

• Hernandez vs CHW: 7 IP, 2 ER (4 R), 3 K, 3 BB, L
• Liriano vs CLE: 4.2 IP, 4 ER, 6 K, 6 BB, ND

Comment: At first I thought this would be an easy one — 4.2 innings for Liriano is pretty rough. But they both gave up 4 runs, Liriano struck out twice as many guys … you know what? I don’t care. If you don’t complete 5 innings, you can’t win this game.

Advantage: Hernandez (9-13)

23rd start

• Hernandez vs MIN: 7 IP, 3 ER, 4 K, 1 BB, L
• Liriano vs CHW: 5.2 IP, 1 ER, 4 K, 2 BB, W

Comment: Felix gets 4 more outs, but surrenders 2 more runs. I don’t know which way to go on this one. RE24 gives a pretty clear decision in favor of Liriano.

Advantage: Liriano (14-9)

24th start

• Hernandez vs TEX: 6.2 IP, 3 ER, 3 K, 1 BB, L
• Liriano vs CHW: 5 IP, 5 ER, 5 K, 4 BB, ND

Comment: At this point, I really like the easy decisions. As many runs as innings means you lose.

Advantage: Hernandez (10-14)

25th start

• Hernandez vs OAK: 8 IP, 0 ER, 13 K, 1 BB, W
• Liriano vs TEX: 7 IP, 2 ER, 6 K, 1 BB, W

Comment: More innings, 0 runs, double-digit strikeouts? Easy!

Advantage: Hernandez (11-14)

26th start

• Hernandez vs CLE: 6.2 IP, 0 ER (6 R), 7 K, 4 BB, L
• Liriano vs DET: 7 IP, 0 ER, 7 K, 1 BB, ND

Comment: Liriano went deeper, walked fewer, and if I credit Hernandez for “0 earned runs” I have to ignore the fact that you can’t give up 6 unearned runs without falling apart after your defense lets you down.

Advantage: Liriano (15-11)

27th start

• Hernandez vs NYY: 8 IP, 0 ER, 11 K, 3 BB, W
• Liriano vs KCR: 7 IP, 2 ER, 4 K, 0 BB, W

Comment: More innings, 0 runs, double-digit strikeouts? Easy!

Advantage: Hernandez (12-15)

28th start

• Hernandez vs BOS: 7.1 IP, 1 ER (2 R), 9 K, 1 BB, W

Comment: At this point, I find myself staring at a conundrum. Hernandez has made four more starts than Liriano has. He’s showing himself to be a workhorse, while Liriano has been asking for extra days of rest to keep his arm fresh for the playoffs — something Felix does not have to worry about. Still, this was a good start.

Advantage: Hernandez (13-15)

29th start

• Hernandez vs LAA: 7 IP, 0 ER, 8 K, 3 BB, ND

Comment: Another good start. It seems weird to keep playing this game when only one guy is on the field. But if I didn’t, Liriano would get the benefit of Hernandez pitching more often. That’s clearly unfair.

Advantage: Hernandez (14-15)

30th start

• Hernandez vs CLE: 8 IP, 0 ER, 9 K, 1 BB, W

Comment: King Felix dominates again and ties it up!

Advantage: Hernandez (15-15)

31st start

• Hernandez vs LAA: 6.1 IP, 4 ER (7 R), 5 K, 3 BB, L

Comment: So the question people are going to ask after this one is “Did Liriano win it, or did Hernandez lose?” On the other, probably more important, hand … I think I’ll have to go with the old adage: you can’t win if you don’t play.

Advantage: Nobody (15-15)

So, we played the start-by-start game and don’t seem to be any closer to a decision. When they’re both actually on the mound, Liriano seems to be the better pitcher — through 27 starts, Liriano had a pretty strong 15-12 lead. But Hernandez took advantage of starting more games to tie it up at 15-15. So maybe we should take a look at their overall stats?

Hernandez has a 2.39 ERA, 3.01 FIP, and 3.26 xFIP in 225.2 IP, posting 8.68 K/9, 2.51 BB/9, and 0.60 HR/9, with a 53.2 GB% and .286 BABIP. Those numbers have helped him accumulate an impressive 5.9 WAR.

Liriano has a 3.24 ERA, 2.37 FIP, and 3.04 xFIP in 172.1 IP, posting 9.50 K/9, 2.72 BB/9, 0.21 HR/9, with a 53.9 GB% and .341 BABIP. Those numbers have led to an even more impressive 6.1 WAR.*

Felix leads in ERA, IP, BB/9 (narrowly), and has a significantly lower BABIP.

Liriano leads in FIP, xFIP, K/9, HR/9, GB% (narrowly), and WAR.

* Note that WAR is a cumulative stat, not a rate stat; it takes into account the fact that Liriano has a significant disadvantage in innings pitched.

This just tells us once again that Liriano’s candle burns brighter but not as long. While they’re both on the mound, Liriano is the better pitcher. Since Hernandez is able to last longer, he’s able to nearly close the gap in value.

I don’t know how to calculate what a 55-point gap in BABIP does to their numbers, though. Over this many innings, that’s a lot of extra baserunners for Liriano that only got there because Liriano’s defense doesn’t convert outs behind him as well as Hernandez’s does. If Liriano didn’t have to face all those extra batters, would he have gone deeper into games and accumulated more innings? Or, conversely, would he have had fewer opportunities to strike out the next batter? And if the Mariners defense had allowed baserunners without committing so many “errors,” then all those unearned runs would have actually counted against Hernandez’s ERA and you may not be quite as impressed.* I don’t know, but I don’t think you can just ignore that BABIP.

* If Hernandez’s 17 unearned runs actually counted against his ERA, it would be 3.07 rather than 2.39 … and we might not even be having this conversation.

At the end of the day, though, I think this clearly demonstrates that the ongoing debate about the AL Cy Young award is misguided — it shouldn’t be “CC vs Felix,” it should be “Felix vs Liriano.” And I’m surprised that the entire statistical community has jumped onto the King Felix Bandwagon. Dave Cameron takes a jab at said community:

I would be tempted to chalk this up to the power of the narrative, where people were voting for Sabathia because the media has kept him at the forefront of the discussion, but we see this same rejection of DIPS theory in the vote totals for Hernandez, Liriano, and Lee. Even though you’re spending your Friday afternoon reading FanGraphs, most of you guys still seem to vote along the lines of innings and ERA. To me, that’s interesting.

I don’t want to guess at the motivations of the mob — whenever I try that, I’m always way off. Still, I wonder if the issue is that people saw a good pitcher with an 11-11 record and decided it was more important to reject Wins as a meaningful stat than to actually use more meaningful stats to embrace excellence.

But if you ask me, I think King Felix’s crown belongs to Francisco Liriano.

Lately Bill Smith has been making solid moves to bolster the Twins’ chances at a playoff run this year, making it difficult for reasonable fans to criticize him without celestial bodies aligning to bring about an unforeseen situation that would require far more bullpen arms than even Wild Bill would be able to acquire.

Well, there must have been a syzygy of some sort last night, because last night’s 13 inning half-marathon showed just how frayed are the seams of the Twins’ bullpen. Coming into the game, Matt Capps and Brian Fuentes were known to be unavailable — Capps had just pitched two consecutive days, and Fuentes has a bad back for some reason.

So let’s take a look at what happened, shall we?

• Scott Baker pitched just two innings before leaving with elbow tendinitis — his return is unknown.
• Manship pitched well, leaving with a 3 run lead.
• Rauch pitched well too, leaving with a 4 run lead through 7 innings.
• Flores came in, despite the fact that he’d pitched in two consecutive games — but he’s not a Closer, so his arm doesn’t need to be protected. He got one out and gave up one hit, and his night was done after 7 pitches.
• Guerrier came in,* despite the fact that he’d pitched in two consecutive games — but he’s not a Closer, so his arm doesn’t need to be protected. He’s also been struggling through one of his patented dead-arm periods (which he got because he’s been pitching way too often). He got lit up, and by the time he left, the lead was gone.
• Crain came in, despite the fact that he’d pitched in two consecutive games — but he’s not a Closer, so his arm doesn’t need to be protected. He’s pitched well lately, but if there’s one thing Gardy loves doing to a guy who’s pitching well, it’s ride him until his arm falls off. So enjoy that, Crain. Oh, and Crain gave up a home run, and the last Twins lead of the night was gone.
• Having exhausted all the available options in the bullpen, the Twins went with the only strategy that made sense. Continuing to preserve a veteran Closer at the expense of young starters! Duensing came in despite having pitched on Tuesday. One day’s rest, baby! That’s never turned into a long term problem for a team in the past!
• Then they needed another pitcher, so finally they brought in — no, wait, never mind. They didn’t go to Capps. Instead, they went with Friday night’s starter, Nick Blackburn, who mercifully lost the game.

* Scott Ullger was managing at for the late innings, because Gardy had been ejected earlier in the game by Joe West, who continues to be very adamant that nobody can question any of his myriad terrible calls. I’m guessing Ullger was thinking, “What would Gardy do in this situation? I know! Put in Guerrier!” It worked about as well as you’d have guessed.

So the Twins managed to keep Fuentes and Capps out of the game, preserving the health of their pair of mercenary Closers at the expense of everyone else on the pitching staff, who have also been dramatically overworked in recent days. And if you noticed a pattern up there, I wouldn’t call you crazy. It seems like every pitcher in the bullpen has been used in every game — Gardy must have heard about this newfound vaunted bullpen depth, and forgot that it doesn’t really matter whether you have 3 guys or 8 guys if they’re all exhausted all the time. But it didn’t have to be this way, Smithers; no, it didn’t have to be this way at all.

Apparently, Gardy had been “begging” Bill Smith for bullpen help, made possible by the September 1 roster expansion. I don’t know exactly why Smith was reticent to do it, but here are two possibilities:

Possibility The First: Gardy said he’d been trying to get ahold of him for the last two days. So maybe Smith is simply incommunicado. If true, that’s pretty bad.

Possibility The Second: Bill Smith is waiting until the Rochester Red Wings season is over before taking away their most talented relievers. (I saw this a few days ago, but can’t find the link to it right now. Damn internet.) If this is true, and Smith values AAA wins as much as he values MLB-pennant-race wins, that’s really bad.

So basically, there wasn’t any excuse not to have more relievers in the bullpen. At least Slama and Burnett, maybe Perkins and Neshek and Swarzak. There are warm bodies waiting in AAA, and they could have been out in the bullpen last night if Bill Smith had called for them.

And, because Blackburn was wasted in relief the night before his scheduled start, the Twins needed to find another starter for Friday night. Who should they go with? Pavano? No, they won’t move him up a day. Swarzak? Too bad, he started on Wednesday. Perkins? Too bad, he pitched two innings in relief on Thursday.

Say hello to your Friday night starter: Matt Fox.

Who the hell is that?, I hear you asking. Well, good question. The Twins drafted him in the 1st round back in 2004, and here are his AAA numbers this year: 123 IP, 3.95 ERA, 7.6 K/9, 3.7 BB/9, 9.1 H/9, 1.2 HR/9. For what it’s worth, every single one of those peripherals has trended in the wrong direction at each level throughout the minors. His stuff just doesn’t play at the upper levels.

Put another way, Anthony Swarzak’s AAA numbers look like this: 231.1 IP, 4.28 ERA, 5.4 K/9, 2.8 BB/9, 10.0 H/9, 0.8 HR/9. So Fox has performed better than Swarzak, but Swarzak’s just 24 and still a prospect — Fox is 27 and on the brink of not being a prospect any more.

Matt Fox is 27 years old, doesn’t have much in the way of stuff, doesn’t have a track record of good performance in the minors, and is pretty clearly not a prospect. Good for him for making it to the majors.

But it took a whole lot of random, disconnected events all converging at once to get him this chance. Even if he makes the most of it, he probably won’t stick around.

So hopefully he enjoys himself while he’s here.

And hopefully Bill Smith has learned that he should never let this happen again.

Last night Liriano struggled a bit — but those struggles merely highlight why he’s having a better year than you’d think based on a glance at his superficial numbers.

Sure, he loaded the bases three times. But do you remember how he gave up his only run? On a squib-shot off the end of the bat of Pierzynski that went foul down the third baseline, spinning wildly to the left, which somehow managed to take an abrupt right turn and die in the grass in fair territory.

In other cases, the bases got loaded up when Delmon Young dropped a line drive that was basically right at him and Valencia made a bad throw to first on an attempted sacrifice bunt. How did he handle that one? By inducing an easy grounder back to himself which he threw home for a double play — but Mauer didn’t throw to first. So how did he handle that? By striking out Konerko and Quentin in impressive fashion to escape the inning unscathed.

It’d be easy for Liriano to fail in these situations, when his teammates aren’t giving him any help. But it’s a sign of a good, mature pitcher who can overcome that sort of adversity. He may not have racked up the strikeouts or gone deep into the game, but he showed what can only be called “grit.”

You may not be impressed by his 3.26 ERA, but what about his league-leading 2.14 FIP? Here’s an awesome little list of the league leaders in FIP over the last ten years:

• 2009: Zack Greinke (2.33)*
• 2008: Tim Lincecum (2.59)*
• 2007: Jake Peavy (2.84)*
• 2006: Johan Santana (3.04)*
• 2005: Johan Santana (2.80)
• 2004: Randy Johnson (2.30)
• 2003: Pedro Martinez (2.21)
• 2002: Pedro Martinez (2.24)
• 2001: Randy Johnson (2.22)*
• 2000: Pedro Martinez (2.17)*

* Cy Young Award winners

So … yeah. Leading the league in FIP tends to indicate that you’re a great pitcher having a great season.

And I think it’s worth pointing out that Liriano’s FIP is lower than all of those.

Francisco Liriano is one of the best pitchers in the league this season; if his defense would give him any sort of support (his league-high .349 BABIP indicates that they’re not), he’d have a lower ERA and would be able to pitch deeper into games, which would convince people that he’s actually doing well.

But you don’t need that to be convinced, do you?