Monday, August 27, 2007

More Cordero Numbers? Sigh

Alright... last time... I promise*

From 2005 to 2007, do you know how many relievers have had more perfect appearances of 1 IP or more than Chad Cordero? Take a guess.

Two: Joe Nathan and Bob Howry.


The more "dominant" Jon Rauch has 25 fewer perfect outings, despite pitching in more games than Cordero.

Now to be fair, he's also on this list, relief outings with 3 or more baserunners, where he's 11th. (That list doesn't have any truly great pitchers, but take a scan; there are some quality relievers there, including our very own Jon Rauch, who has just 6 fewer of those games than Cordero)

But if you really want to crush him, you look at this list, the most games with a homer. He's tied with Jorge Julio for second on the list.

Breaking that list down a bit more... When he gives up a gopher ball, he...
Has 5 saves and 11 blown saves. The Nats went 5-6 in those blown saves, making them 10-6 when he allows a homer in a save situation. Of his 11 BS, he personally gave up the lead in 4 of them, taking a loss. The other two losses came later in the games.

The team is 11-15 in the 26 games he's given up a homer, meaning that they're 1-9 when he allows a homer in a non-save situation (such as against the Rockies over the weekend). The poor record reflects his usage; they're putting him in, for the most part, in end-game situations where one pitch can make a difference. And nine times it did.

Interesting, control is not a problem in those situations; he has just 5 walks in those 26 games.

Of those 26 games, he allowed just a solo homer in 13 of them for a 6-7 team record.

No, I don't know what any of those random numbers mean (and the trivia ones at the end mean nothing), but I figured I'd throw them out there....

(Wasn't I supposed to be defending this guy?)



*promise does not hold in VA, MD or DC

11 Comments:

  • Wouldn't the lack of walks in those 1-swing situations indicate that, more often than not, the enemy got to him before he had a chance to walk anyone?

    It's one explanation - although by all accounts it seems his problem isn't walks, it's keeping balls from being too meaty an offering. Gopher balls down the middle don't elicit too many free passes.

    By Anonymous mrm0to, at 8/27/2007 1:38 PM  

  • I've read all these stats and posts, and agree, Cordero is not awful. In fact, he's a little better than average. Its just that his mistakes are often huge and soul-crushing.

    More importantly, if the Nats want to be a third place team, "a little better than average" would be fine. But shouldn't they strive for excellent? There must be other pitchers with location issues who can throw faster than 91-92 mph

    By Anonymous Sec 515, at 8/27/2007 2:21 PM  

  • Sure, excellent would be fine. But to buy an excellent closer is going to be $8-10 million on the market.

    There are better places to spend that money.

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 8/27/2007 2:26 PM  

  • In fact, he's a little better than average. Its just that his mistakes are often huge and soul-crushing.

    I agree. I've defended Cordero over at BPG. I've pointed out that many of his lifetime numbers, with the obvious exception of total saves, are indistinguishable from Trevor Hoffman's.

    Bur the loss on Friday took all of the wind out of my sails. It was disheartening that I'm convinced (irrationally perhaps) that it led to the Nats being swept by the Rockies.

    By Anonymous Hisownfool, at 8/27/2007 2:29 PM  

  • Yeah, that's pretty irrational.

    If Cordero has enough pull to get Hanrahan to suck and to convince the Nats bats that they can't hit mediocrities like Elmer Dessens, then Cordero might be the most powerful force in the universe. :)

    I'm not convinced there's momentum in baseball, save for the times a clubhouse turns completely poisonous -- which usually comes after a bunch of good players start slumping simultaneously.

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 8/27/2007 2:35 PM  

  • Instead of this dead horse, what are Flores numbers as catcher. I was listening to the game and Sutton was losing patience with Hanrahan throwing to spots against the pitcher instead of down the middle. But that was where Flores set up the only time I paid attention. Can Flores call a game?? What do the numbers say?

    By Anonymous Tofu Dog, at 8/27/2007 2:39 PM  

  • People who've looked at catcher's stats can't really identify anything to show whether or not a catcher affects those sorts of things all that much.

    Obviously, they have SOME effect. I don't think it's as large as some make it out to be, but it exists, especially in terms of framing pitches.

    That being said, any numbers with Flores are going to be limited because he just hasn't played enough to break through the noise of randomness in the stats.

    (That being said, blaming Flores for Hanrahan's shittiness yesterday -- if that's what Sutton was doing -- is stupid. Hanrahan has been walking a tightrope all season and got murdered by a great hitting team in a park that's tough on pitchers (even post-humidor))

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 8/27/2007 2:46 PM  

  • You're right about the lack of adequate sample, but I just did a quick once over for this year. I am prone to error, but I get him at 16-14 for the games where he has caught the whole thing and the staff has a 3.91 ERA with him behind the plate. At least there is no egregious discrepancy against him, and since he probably will hit better than Schneider, it says he may receive at least as well if not better. He has caught some of the Lannan and Hanrahan games that were stinkers though.

    By Anonymous Tofu Dog, at 8/27/2007 3:22 PM  

  • He also caught the Levale Speigner start over the Twins!? (which, alone, should qualify him for sainthood)

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 8/27/2007 3:24 PM  

  • Off topic.

    ESPN article on the Vidro

    "Meanwhile, the Nationals have since traded both Snelling and Fruto, getting outfielder Ryan Langerhans from Oakland for the former, and first baseman Chris Carter from Arizona for the latter."

    One would add a clause in there at the end I would think.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/27/2007 3:47 PM  

  • By Blogger wwwwww, at 10/26/2009 9:07 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home