September 10, 2012; Houston, TX, USA; Chicago Cubs starting pitcher Chris Volstad (32) reacts after a pitch in the fourth inning against the Houston Astros at Minute Maid Park. Mandatory Credit: Troy Taormina-US PRESSWIRE

A quick heads up for readers of this blog: 90 percent of what you read this offseason will be about starting pitching. For me, this is a good thing. The Royals need starting pitching so we should write primarily about starting pitching. I’m just warning you so you’re not surprised by the repetitive theme of starting pitching, starting pitching, starting pitching.

With that in mind I’d like to write about … starting pitching. Specifically, the Earth shattering move the Royals made last week, signing Chris Volstad off waivers. Michael already covered this briefly, but I’d like to think more about it because I just read a post by the great and wise Rany Jazayerli that got me considering the Volstad move.

Let’s first note where everyone is starting the conversation: Volstad is not very good. We can all pretty much agree on that. He’s about replacement level. Nothing special but not Kyle Davies. He was once a well thought of prospect who never matched the expectations people had for him. He’s 26, right handed, doesn’t throw overly hard, and is extremely tall. He relies heavily on his defense and isn’t a strikeout pitcher.

I’m not going to consider whether or not Volstad is a good sign. It’s really too early to know that or even speculate with certainty because of how unset the Royals rotation is. I want to consider whether or not there is any way Volstad can have success in Kansas City.

After having poured over statistics, and having watched him pitch for the Cubs last season, my answer is maybe but probably not. I would put his chances of success in Kansas City at 20 percent, which is better than I would have given him with the Cubs.

Why so low? For one reason, moving into the AL for the first time will probably hurt Volstad. He’s only ever pitched in the NL so his strikeout numbers, never very good, will probably slip a bit. He walks to many people, and in the AL that kills. His lack of strikeout stuff makes him a wannabe Derek Lowe without Lowe’s command (in his prime anyway).

So, why so high at 20 percent (which is 20 points higher than Luke Hochevar)? Because Volstad is only 26, and he’s had “success” before. I use “success” in its loosest form. He’s never been Justin Verlander, but he’s been a decent pitcher before. His sinker has decent movement. His only real obstacle, that is, to reaching his potential as a solid 4, potentially decent 3, is his lack of command. He walked 3.48 hitters per nine innings last year. That’s not good at all when he’s only striking out 5 or 6 hitters per nine (in the NL). In 2011, maybe his best year statistically (3.64 xFIP), he only walked 2.66 hitters per nine. He needs to be around the 2-2.5 range to be effective.

If he can locate his sinker down in the zone consistently and get ground balls without walking people, he can be successful in Kauffman Stadium with the Royals’ defense. That’s a very big if. That’s why he only gets 20 percent, but that’s better than Hochevar’s 0 percent.

The bigger questions still lie out there. Will Volstad make the rotation? Make the team? What role will he fill? Isn’t he just Luis Mendoza, only taller and maybe more volatile? These are all questions that need to be answered. Not now, but eventually.

March 22, 2012; Tempe, AZ, USA; Kansas City Royals starting pitcher

The optimism is looking a little less enthusiastic right about now. Soria’s out for the year. Salvador Perez is out for half the year. The starting rotation has looked pretty bad in spring training, even everyone’s golden boy Felipe Paulino—wanted to see him shine, felt like he might not, hate being right.

The shine has come off the apple a touch, and the Royals are starting to look a lot like the same team that finished last season—pretty good offense, terrible pitching. Even fan-favorite and potential-filled Danny Duffy was roughed up in his last spring start, no doubt brining on worries that all the talks of mechanical tweaks improving his command were just talk.

But I’ve decided to help boost morale a little. Why? Because I was a little stunned by Duffy. I wasn’t sure how a guy could look as good as he does and still put up bad numbers. I know Luke Hochevar has that problem, but his brain is as fragile as Rush Limbaugh’s grip on reality. Duffy though seems mentally tough. So, I re-watched his last start and saw some things that make me think that Duffy should be ok. I focused on his terrible second inning in which he gave up four runs. Here they are:

• Against the first hitter of the second inning, Duffy dominated. He threw a great 0-1 changeup for a swing-and-miss strike and went right after the hitter 0-2 to get a pop-out in foul territory. Easy and efficient.
• Alex Gordon lost a ball in the sun and essentially gave the Angels an out. It happens in baseball, but it doesn’t make it any easier to hold offenses down. That hitter, Bobby Abreu, eventually doubled to left field on a 3-2 fastball on the outside edge.
• With runners at second and third with one out, Duffy struck out Alberto Callaspo on three pitches. He started four of the first five hitters of the inning out in 0-2 counts. (if Gordon hadn’t lost the ball in the sun this inning would be over)
• Fifth batter of the inning hits a weak looking fly ball to left-center. I was shocked that Gordon didn’t get to it. He reached for it—without diving for some reason—and barely missed it. Two runs came in to score. From there, it falls apart.

If you’re not catching the theme so far, it’s that Duffy had some bad breaks in his last outing. That game could have looked very different if one or two things go his way. I know it’s a pitcher’s job to limit damage when things don’t go his way, but at the same time, a pitcher is going to have a tough luck outing from time to time. Duffy wasn’t wildly inaccurate. He didn’t walk a ton of hitters. He didn’t get hit really hard. He just had some tough breaks.

Actually, I’d say it was a pretty encouraging start. He pitched ahead of many hitters. He used an effective changeup from time to time. He didn’t nibble the way he did last season. It looked like he isn’t afraid of contact so much now. These are the things we want to see from Duffy.

I think he’s headed in the right direction and still expect him to have a much-improved season. Does it mean the Royals rotation problems are solved? No. Paulino hasn’t looked great. Bruce Chen has looked abysmal. Luis Mendoza has looked good, but who knows with him really. But I think Duffy still looks terrific despite some ugly looking numbers. When the season hits, don’t be surprised if he’s looking like the Royals best starting pitcher at times.

You can stay current on all the Kings of Kauffman content and news by following us on Twitter, Facebook, or by way of our RSS feed.

Or follow me on Twitter @MarcusMeade

July 24, 2011; Kansas City, MO, USA; Kansas City Royals pitcher

Is everyone having a good time riding the optimism train? Good, now let me be the one to crash it. Just kidding; I like optimism. It allows fans of perennial losers a way to continually reconnect with the team that repeatedly breaks their hearts.

Obviously, optimism is like smack to Royals fans right now. We just can’t get enough of it, and it will probably claim more than a few victims if those pie-in-the sky expectations aren’t met. Oh well, O-T-S-S (Only the Strong Survive).

I was thinking yesterday about regression, since it’s one of the things that may sneak up and ruin the current state of optimism. Bob Dutton wrote a piece about Alex Gordon and Jeff Francoeur and the likelihood that they regress. In a tremendous shock, the hitting coach Kevin Seitzer thinks they won’t—or at least that’s what he told Dutton.

There is one candidate who few are mentioning as a regression candidate who I believe may regress in a big way. In fact, many are talking about him as a breakout candidate, a potential driving force behind the Royals rotation: Felipe Paulino.

It’s interesting to me that few are mentioning him as a regression candidate. I say few because I did read one piece from John J. Parent at Call to the Pen that mentions the possibility of Paulino, who turned 28 in October, regressing. But many, many, many more are on the “Paulino takes a step forward” bandwagon including but not limited to Rany Jazayerli and Michael Engel. Me? I move between the two, but for this piece I want to talk about why he might fail and why no one is seeing it.

August 8, 2011; St. Petersburg, FL, USA; Kansas City Royals pitcher

Paulino is a sabrmetricians pitcher. Why? Because he strikes people out, he has swing and miss stuff, and seemingly the only knock on him is when hitters put the ball in play against him, it drops for a hit more than one would expect. Sabermetricians call this “bad luck.” For the last two seasons Paulino has had an FIP and xFIP lower than his ERA—in 2011 much lower. Sabermatricians love these pitchers because other people undervalue them, and perhaps Paulino is undervalued.*

*I would like to note that I am neither a sabermetrician (the math’s too hard) nor an enemy of sabermetics. I like sabrmetrics and think it is an extremely effective means of evaluation in many cases … but not all.

But sometimes, and this is not a stance in opposition of sabermetrics or statistics in general, there are elements that we as observers cannot or do not understand based on our perspective. Sometimes we’re too deep into the trees to see the forest. Sometimes we can see the forest but no trees. Sometimes we’re at a beach where there are no trees.

To me, Paulino seems to be a candidate who may defy the principle sabrmetrics is really built on—inductive reasoning.* Sabermetricians use slices of a pitchers performance that exist entirely within his control (strikeouts, walks, home runs allowed) and attempt to use those numbers to project overall performance. I’ve often written articles that champion a player as undervalued and ready to breakout because I saw something in his peripheral numbers that I thought gave hope to his overall performance. And often times, it works … but not always (For our purposes, I’ll use ERA for overall performance of pitchers because to me the overall objective of a pitcher is to not give up runs).

*For all the logicians reading, if I’ve misused this phrase I apologize, but it seemed to fit my point at the time.

Paulino is an example of how we may be seeing trees and missing forests. Here are some interesting facts. 1) Paulino has never had an ERA under 4 in the major leagues. 2) Before last season, he had never had an ERA under 5.11. And most importantly 3) His career ERA is 5.28 while his career FIP is 4.18. Of course, some could say that he’s moving toward his career FIP now that he has a good defense behind him. His ERA with the Royals was 4.11 so maybe he has figured something out and will begin to meet the potential many stat hounds see in him on a consistent basis. But he never has before.

And that’s the crux of why I’m uncertain about Paulino and why I see him as a candidate for regression. Throughout the entirety of his career, he’s never been a consistent performer. Yes, he strikes guys out. But if he’s going to strike out eight hitters a game and give up five runs doing it, I’d rather he not be pitching. Sometimes, and I know it’s hard to read, there are things that get lost in the translation between the small slices of stats and the overall performance. Sometimes, pitchers give up runs for reasons we can’t fully predict or understand, not immediately anyway. Sometimes, pitchers are successful for reasons we can’t fully understand. Paulino may be that guy who should have always been consistently good but never was. I feel like that might be the case looking at his overall track record of mediocrity.

There have been a few guys, even in the era of sabermetrics, who for some reason, never fulfilled their potential, never lived up to the hype. Why? Because they had something about them or their game that eluded analysts, statistical or otherwise. When hitters put balls in play against Paulino, the get hits at a high rate. Many statisticians call this “luck,” but some pitchers have consistently high BABIPs. You can’t call it “luck” if it happens all the time. This could be the thing about Paulino’s game that doesn’t match the dogma so we don’t understand it. Or maybe it’s something else.

OR he may breakout and help the Royals win the World Series. This is the scenario I’m hoping for. I’m just open to the possibility that it may not occur. I know a lot of people are driving the Paulino bandwagon because so many have claimed to like him for so long (Right, just like you liked that band before everyone else. I got it). But don’t be surprised if he takes a step backward this season.

You can stay current on all the Kings of Kauffman content and news by following us on Twitter, Facebook, or by way of our RSS feed.

Or follow me on Twitter @MarcusMeade

There he is. Maybe he needs to have a beard to be dominating. Does anyone know his splits with and without a beard? Photo Credit: Kim Klement-US PRESSWIRE

At this point in the year, there isn’t much left to write about. Starting pitching? Been done to death. Eric Hosmer and Mike Moustakas? Yeah, been done. Bullpen, Johnny Giavotella, Lorenzo Cain? Done, done, and done.

Still, there is one player who I don’t think has gotten the attention he deserves: Aaron Crow. It seems like after he disappeared down the home stretch last season, he fell from our collective consciousness like Tila Tequila and voting. I don’t know why. He’s as interesting a player as any, in part because of his Jekyll and Hyde 2011 season and career, and in part because he’s moving back to the rotation.

Admittedly, I too put Crow on the back burner until virtually every other topic was exhausted. But now … every other topic is exhausted, so it’s Crow time.

If you watched the Royals in 2011, you know that Crow had a magical first half, blowing away hitters with burning fastballs in the mid to high 90s and a slider that vanished mid flight. It was terrific to watch a Mizzou product have such success with the Royals. People were jazzed.

Of course, after earning the Royals’ lone All-Star bid (Alex Gordon was robbed!) Crow seemingly disappeared. He was sick for a stretch, then ineffective. And eventually, Greg Holland took over as the young, dominant, setup man.

Many were scratching their heads wondering what to make of Crow, a young player who is as confusing as any after getting drafted in the first round twice, struggling mightily in AA and A ball in 2010, then making the MLB All-Star team in 2011 with a 2.08 ERA, 9.14 K/9, and .197 BAA. In the second half of 2011, he morphed again: 4.34 ERA, .313 BAA, 1.93 WHIP. Who the hell is this guy?

If you watched the games consistently, it was clear why Crow was struggling. He lost his command. Why he lost it is unclear—to me anyway. Maybe it was mechanical. Maybe it was mental. Maybe it was arm fatigue from him being unfamiliar with a relief role. I have no clue, but hopefully Dave Eiland does.

In the first half, Crow walked that fine line between too wild and just wild enough. His walk rate (4.15 BB/9) was low enough to not hurt him, while his monthly BABIP ranged form .208 to .270, all pretty good. These numbers tell me he would occasionally nibble but was pretty good at staying out of the heart of the plate and got weak contact as a reward. In August and September that BABIP ballooned to .500 and .471 respectively. These are from small sample sizes, but those sample sizes are small because he was getting rocked, and the Royals called his number less and less. He also walked nine hitters in 11 innings over that stretch. When he was missing it wasn’t by a nibble it was by chunks, and that caused walks and middle of the plate fastballs.

Now, let’s look at how Crow did as a starter in 2010. As is the common theme of his pro career, he walked a lot of hitters (4.45 BB/9). This makes no sense for Crow, who should have been living in the strike zone against AA hitters with his stuff. He also only struck out 6.79 per nine innings in AA, though we can assume that’s an anomaly since he faired much better against Major League hitters in 2011. Hitters at AA hit .274 off of him, which isn’t bad unless you’re walking hitters as often as Crow does. Interestingly, when he was demoted to high A, his secondary numbers were dynamite: 10.84 K/9, 1.28 BB/9. He was mowing them down and getting relatively unlucky with a .378 BABIP.

I’m going to try to make sense of all this data to give us a comprehensive look at Crow as a starter in 2012. The first thing that should be clear is that he probably needs to start in AAA whether he pitches well in Spring Training or not. The key for Crow will be command, and after analyzing the data, I have to believe that’s as much a mental issue with him as anything. I have a feeling that getting knocked around a bit in AA caused a spiral and the same thing happened in the second half of 2011.

If Crow finds a way to command his fastball, he should be fine. To this point in his career, he has a tendency to let it leak out over the plate and get hit. In 2011 his fastball cost him a run per 100 pitches according to Fangraphs. This graph should illustrate why:

courtesy of fangraphs

As you can see, his fastball spends too much time over the heart of the plate. If he continues to do that, he’ll never reach his potential. But time in AAA should help him refine his command and understand how to use his fastball and maximize its effectiveness.

Part of that process will be working on his changeup. Those who claim he doesn’t have a third pitch are wrong. He has one; it just isn’t very good. But he has to throw it. It will be a big part of keeping hitters off balance so when he does make a mistake with a fastball, it will be harder for hitters to key it. If he ever gets to the point where he can throw all three pitches for strikes, he’ll be very dangerous.

For 2012, let’s hope for solid progress in AAA, a walk rate under four, a strikeout rate over seven, and refinement of his changeup. If he can do that, he should be in the majors by September at least. If he can’t, he might spend all of 2012 in AAA and wait until next season to get his shot at the rotation. Either way 2012 is a defining year for Crow. This will tell the Royals brass if he can make it as a starter or if he needs to move back to the bullpen, be a two-pitch pitcher, and setup closers for the rest of his career. He’s too old to be seen as a potential starter if he doesn’t make significant progress this season.

You can stay current on all the Kings of Kauffman content and news by following us on Twitter, Facebook, or by way of our RSS feed.

Or follow me on Twitter @MarcusMeade

August 10, 2011; St. Petersburg, FL, USA; Personally, I think Crow starts the year in AAA, but ends it pitching in the Royals starting rotation. Photo Credit: Kim Klement-US PRESSWIRE

When you watch Royals games, do you have a friend who predicts a home run before an at bat, and then it happens?

That friend jumps, dances, and duck-walks right along with the home run trot, and pronounces him/herself the prognosticator of prognosticators? Maybe, you even mention that the friend predicts a homerun on virtually every at bat and was bound to be right eventually despite his/her 0-1,567 streak?

I’m that guy.

I celebrate my correct predictions as if the thing I predicted was so unheard of I must have some special connection with the forces of fate, like how Al Gore knew the Internet would be a hit before he invented it.

Now, I’m going to make another fairly obvious prediction and examine the possible ramifications of this occurrence.

Prediction: The Royals will trade Jonathan Sanchez before the 2012 trade deadline … if they aren’t in serious contention.

I know it’s obvious. In fact, it seems bound to happen. Sanchez is a free agent after this season, and I’m sure the Royals want to get some value for him. No surprise if this happens.

But before I start looking at the ramifications of trading Sanchez midseason, I’d like to pose an interesting question to readers and myself. Would/should the Royals consider trading Sanchez even if they are in contention?

Tough question. If Sanchez isn’t pitching well, and a starter in Omaha is lighting it up (Mike Montgomery, Aaron Crow—who I think is going down to season as a starter, Everett Teaford—same as Crow), maybe they ship him off and make a call to Omaha. That doesn’t seem out of the question, especially if one of the AAA starters is really grooving to the tune of a sub 3 ERA, 7-8 K/9, 3.5 or under BB/9.

The really, really tough question: what if Sanchez is pitching well, not Cy Young well, but sub 4 ERA well? The fact is that if Sanchez is pitching like he did in 2010, not only is his value playing for the Royals at its peak, his trade value is at its peak as well. I haven’t read anyone who thinks Sanchez is staying past 2012. For a small market team, like the Royals, will it be prudent to trade Sanchez nearing the deadline, to get some value for him even if he’s pitching well and they’re in contention?

The demand for him, if he’s pitching well, will probably be pretty high. Starting pitchers with his stuff, and a World Series ring don’t come around too often for a playoff push. They demand pretty high return. Sanchez is no CC Sabathia, but could Sanchez warrant a Matt LaPorta type prospect, minus the three others, the Brewers gave up for a Sabathia rental?

These are interesting questions to consider. Personally, I think the Royals have to look seriously at the prospect of trading Sanchez midseason unless they’re leading in the division and he’s pitching lights out. To get no value for him at all would be terrible unless the value they get is a playoff run.

Now, let’s assume Sanchez is traded this season. If you’re like me, which I hope for the sake of your mental health you aren’t, you believe that Crow, Teaford, and Montgomery will start the year in AAA. If you’re like me, you believe that Montgomery will get his call up in May or June, when someone either gets hurt or is ineffective (This is, of course, predicated on Montgomery pitching well, which I believe he will). That means either Crow or Teaford gets the call up when Sanchez is traded, assuming they haven’t already been called up to take someone else’s spot.

The potential is there for the starting pitching rotation to look very different by midseason than it will when the season begins. It will probably begin like this:

1. Hochevar
2. Sanchez
3. Chen
4. Paulino
5. Duffy

It may be this after the trade deadline:

1. Hochevar
2. Crow (not necessarily the #2 just taking Sanchez’s spot)
3. Montgomery (Chen has an injury and ineffectiveness history, despite his last two seasons)
4. Teaford (Paulino is by no means a sure thing in terms of effectiveness)
5. Duffy

The possibility exists that Duffy may struggle as well. Perhaps Crow or Teaford will be asked to take his place at some point. Will all these things happen (Paulino ineffective, Chen hurt/ineffective, Sanchez traded)? Probably not. But the potential for them to happen is there, and it is reasonable to see how each could happen.

Starting pitching presents a pretty unusual situation for the Royals in that theirs is pretty terrible, but pretty deep. It’s like a 20 piece chicken mcnuggets meal. They’re made with God knows what, but you get 20 J. Who can turn that down? Each of the Royals starters is barely major league worthy (based on past performance), but they are at least major league worthy, all five of them. So, what do they do when someone from AAA is ready to be called up?

I would like to mention the dark horse rotation candidate very few people are talking about as well—Luis Mendoza. I like Mendoza, though I understand that he’s a long shot for good reason. He’s 28; he’ll be 29 in October. He had an incredible year in 2011 in Omaha, but still, his secondary stats don’t jump out at anyone (5.05 K/9, 3.37 BB/9, 1.25 WHIP, 3.80 FIP). The WHIP is pretty good, and his walk rate is decent (and often lower). He’s a groundball pitcher who doesn’t strike out a lot of guys and doesn’t walk a lot of guys.

Instead of the rotation, I’d like to see him get a chance as a swing man in the Royals bullpen (does long relief, gets spot starts). Perhaps he could move into the rotation when Sanchez is traded if none of the guys in Omaha look ready. In two starts for the Royals in September last season, he won both games, gave up 11 hits in 14.2 innings, 5 walks, and 2 earned runs. That’s pretty good, especially when looked at in comparison with his AAA season numbers (12-5, 2.18 ERA, 144 innings, .31 HR/9). Some of those will come back to earth against major league hitting and as a result of a regression to the mean, but the Royals need a swing man. I think he might be a perfect fit.

Note: If my prediction that Sanchez will be traded comes true, AND Montgomery gets called up in May or June, AND Crow/Teaford gets called up for Sanchez, AND Louis Mendoza becomes the Royals’ swing man, I reserve the right to jump, dance, and duck-walk all I want.

You can stay current on all the Kings of Kauffman content and news by following us on Twitter, Facebook, or by way of our RSS feed.