推 nomad51227: 03/25 22:56
http://natsbaseball.blogspot.tw/2014/03/roark-vs-jordan.html
As I saw it the 5th starter role was Detwilers to lose. Perhaps he didn't last
super long in games* but he was moderately effective, especially considering
the role. Expand out his 2012 stats to a full year and he'd be about the
40th-50th most valuable starter in the NL. Given that there are at least 75,
there's no shame in that. The Nats had one of the better #4s in the role of a
#5.
這是我對知道Det丟掉五號先發時的看法。或許他一場比賽裡無法投很長＊
但還是頗有效率，特別就他的位置來說。擴張2012年的數據成完整年度來看的話，
他在國聯最有價值投手排行榜能排40~50名。看成每隊五個先發總共就有75人，
排在這個位置並不丟臉。國民擁有很棒的四號先發之一，卻排在他們的五號位置。
Yet 2012 also saw Detwiler perform really well in the pen. It's something I
actually spoke up about a few times, but before finishing that horn toot, I'll
note I brought it up to explain why he wasn't as good a starter as you'd think,
not because I thought he should be moved to the pen. The Nats needed another
dependable lefty in there and they could use another solid long relief option.
Moving Detwiler to the pen solves both issues. As Matt Williams said
"We're a better team with him coming out of the bullpen"
Except that's a half-truth. They are a better team with Detwiler coming out of
the bullpen... if their other options at 5th starter can pitch as well as
Detwiler did. Can they? He went over this in a cursory manner a few weeks ago,
let's dive in now.
同年的Det在牛棚也很不賴。我已經說過好幾次了，但在我停止吹噓前
我會解釋為什麼他當先發並不是你想得那麼好。
國民需要另一個可以信賴的左投與可靠的長中繼人選，
把Det移到牛棚可以同時解決這兩個問題。
就像Matt Williams所說，
＂當他從牛棚出發時我們會成為更好的隊伍。＂
雖然這句話只有一半是真的。他們的確會變成更好的隊伍，
如果其他五號先發可以投得跟Det一樣好。
可以嗎？過去幾週只有粗略地帶過，現在來深入探討看看。
Taylor Jordan is 25** His minor league career doesn't exactly inspire
confidence. He was very good in rookie ball in 2009, struggled in A ball in
2010, did better in A ball in 2011, had Tommy John, then struggled again in A
ball during his comeback in 2012. Not an auspicious beginning, but in 2013
though he looked like a different pitcher, mastering his control and breezing
through High A and AA.
TJ年方25＊＊，他的小聯盟生涯並非一帆風順。2009菜鳥年他表現得非常好，
2010年在1A很掙扎；2011年同樣層級就投得好多了。但換過韌帶後，
2012年又陷入困境。雖然一開始不盡如人意，2013年他卻完全脫胎換骨，
掌控好球帶並輕鬆駕馭A+與2A。
That's the type of pitcher Jordan is, a fantastic control pitcher who keeps his
walks down (2.1 BB/9 in his minor league career) and is nearly impossible to
homer off of (14 homers in 339 minor league innings). He's not a strikeout
threat (ignore what you see this spring) putting up mild K numbers in the
minors. This is exactly what we saw in his major league stint. No walks, no
homers, but no Ks. He's not a guy that's going to dominate. You'll get your
hits but they won't be homers and I'll get out of the inning before anything
bad happens.
這就是Jordan的投手型態，控球令人驚喜。他能保持低保送率（小聯盟生涯2.1 BB/9），
幾乎不可能把他的球扛出牆（339局僅挨14轟），加上溫和的三振數字。
這也正符合我們所看到他那少量的大聯盟表現。沒保送，沒被轟，但也沒三振。
他不是絕對壓制型投手，你可以敲安打但球飛不出去，
他也能在情況變壞以前結束半局。
The worst thing you can say about him is he lacks experience and thus 2013
could just be a fluke. That might have been true about the domination in the
minors. abnormally low BABIPs and high LOB% suggest ERAs that were well under
what they should have been. But in the major leagues we saw a .322 BABIP and a
66.9 LOB%. Those aren't lucky breaks. They seem more than reasonable. I think
2013 MLB Jordan is a fine guess at what he'll be going forward.
你可以說他的劣勢是缺乏經驗，2013年也可能是假象。
在小聯盟的主宰級數字或許是如此，低BABIPs與高LOB%都顯得異常。
這可以說明ERAs之所以低於它應該有的樣子。
但是在大聯盟.322 BABIP與66.9 LOB%就沒辦法稱得上幸運了，
反而高得不合理。
我想用他2013年在大聯盟繳出的數字來推敲他的未來沒有問題。
Roark is 27. One of the whatevers dealt to the Nats for Cristian Guzman, he
slowly moved up the minor league ladder by attrition. He was mostly mediocre
but never flat out terrible, and when the Nats had need of organizational
depth, they kicked him from AA to AAA. After another blah year in AA though it
looked like he "got it" in 2013. Although his surface stats didn't look any
better than Jordan's in the minors (more homers, every slightly more walks,
same strikeouts) he didn't suffer the same drop in stats when he moved up to
the majors. Everything remained the same, if not better and he put up that
great 1.51 ERA line.
27歲的Roark是Cristian Guzman交易案裡一個無所謂的路人，
小聯盟走得不但緩慢又跌跌撞撞。
他非常平庸但也從沒慘到絕望，
而當國民需要補充組織深度時才將他從2A拉上3A。
經過又一個枯燥的球季後，2013年的他看起來似乎＂掌握住了什麼＂。
儘管他小聯盟的表面數字沒好過Jordan
（更多轟，更多保送，一樣的三振率），
上大聯盟後他的數字卻也沒被修正。
一切都一模一樣，除了那超讚的1.51 ERA。
Roark has morphed into something a lot like Jordan, after being more of a wild
strikeout type guy in his early years. 2008 and 2009 showed a guy striking out
a batter an inning, but walking too many and giving up too many homers. The
2010-2012 Tanner gave up some K's for some better control (around 0.8 HR/9, 2.8
BB/9, 7.3 K/9). Until finally arriving at that 2013 that was a lot like
Jordan's. I don't think the endpoint was fluky. I think this is the pitcher
Roark is now.
就如Jordan一樣，Roark也產生不少質變。早年的他也是個三振狂人，
2008與2009年K/9都超過9，但也投太多保送挨太多轟。
2010-2012用控球取代三振（0.8 HR/9 2.8 BB/9 7.3 K/9），
直到2013年就更像Jordan了。
我不認為這是假象，我想這就是Roark現在的樣子。
If Roark is Jordan then why the big discrepancy in major league results? Part
of it is Roark adjusting better, but part of it is things going his way. Roark
had spent the minors with a BABIP in the .280-.320 range. Last year he had a
.258 BABIP in the minors, a .243 in the majors. His LOB% was on the high side
(though not crazy) in the majors as well at 79.8%. And while Roark doesn't give
up many homers a 2.6% HR/FB rate is something that no one keeps up for an
entire year.
如果Roark就是Jordan那為何上大聯盟後差異這麼大？
其中一部分是Roark適應得更好，
另一部分則是Roark運氣比較好。
Roark小聯盟時期的BABIP落在.280-.320，
去年在小聯盟是.258，上大聯盟後更低到.243；
79.8% LOB%也相當高（但還不至於高得離譜），
他2.6% HR/FB也並非能維持整個球季的數字。
To put it another way, in 2013 we saw this
Lucky Jordan Minors: 1.00 ERA
Jordan Majors: 3.66 ERA
Roark Minors: 3.15 ERA
Lucky Roark Majors: 1.51 ERA
Very similar results, very similar pitchers (at least in 2013). There's a good
sense of how either of these guys will pitch in the majors. An ERA aropund
3.50, maybe up to 4.00 as the league gets comfortable against them, feels about
right. Basically Detwiler, so the "gamble" that either of these two will pitch
like Ross is probably a fair one. Ross offers more security for reaching the
above numbers, but injury history and age suggest his time has passed.
非常相似的數字，幾乎一樣的投手（至少在2013年）。
不難看出在大聯盟他們各自會長成什麼樣子。
ERA約略在3.50，等打者熟悉他們後也許將攀升至4.00。
以Detwiler為基礎，
認為他們會投得像Ross而把賭注下在他們身上並不吃虧。
Ross能更安全地提供更好的數字，
不過傷病史跟年齡使時間已經不站在他這邊了。
The question then becomes who to choose and to me the answer is obvious and is
why I started the analysis of each player with a statement of ages. Jordan is
25. Roark is 27. Jordan is 2 years and 3 months younger than Roark. Jordan is
more likely to continue pitching at this level for more years than Roark making
him a more useful piece in the rotation, or a more useful piece in a deal.
Jordan also holds out more hope for improvement.
接下來的問題是誰將被選上而對我來說答案顯而易見，
這也是我之所以從年紀開始分析的原因。
Jordan是25歲，Roark已經27了。Jordan比Roark年輕兩年三個月。
比起Roark來看Jordan更像能繼續提供這樣的數字好幾年，
不管在輪值或交易中他都更有價值。
Jordan也擁有更多進步的可能性。
At this point the choice is simple - Taylor Jordan should be the #5.
此時此刻選擇很簡單－Taylor Jordan應該成為五號先發。
*just under 5 2/3 a game. For reference ZNN has been around 6.5 innings the
past 2 years, Gio under 6 1/3 and Strasburg just under 6, though he was given a
short leash in 2012 and in 2013 he was at the same level as Gio).
每場低過5.2局。JZ過去兩年都能吃6局半左右，Gio低於6.1局而小史低於6局。
不過小史2012年是被嚴格控管，到了2013年他就跟Gio差不多了。
**By the way 6 months younger than Strasburg, so when you consider Jordan a
"prospect" think about that.
順帶一提Jordan比小史還年輕六個月，所以當你認為Jordan是個＂新秀＂時想一想。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 1.34.47.100