Thursday, August 19, 2010

The Crain Game

“What have you done for me lately?”

It’s the mantra of sports fans everywhere, and especially baseball fans. It’s the reason that Twins followers have almost completely forgotten about the earlier struggles of Joe Mauer, who’s hitting at a blistering .442 clip since the All-Star break. It’s the reason that Scott Baker was the most popular odd man out yesterday when I asked readers which of the club’s bottom three starters they would exclude in a playoff rotation. (I can almost guarantee the results would have been different had I posted the article after Baker twirled eight shutout innings against the Rays just two weeks ago.)

It’s also the reason that Jesse Crain has become the relief arm du jour of Twins Territory. Crain has been flat-out spectacular since the beginning of June, having allowed only three earned runs and 17 hits over 30 1/3 innings, good for a 0.89 ERA and .167 BAA.

It’s a great turnaround story, because prior to his resurgence, Twins fans were widely at wit’s end with the right-handed reliever. On May 20, at which point Crain’s fly ball tendencies helped lead him to 7.31 ERA, Aaron Gleeman looked at the reliever’s overall body of work and declared that he “just isn't very good.” Phil Mackey last night penned his apology to Crain for a column he wrote (but didn’t publish) just two days after Gleeman’s article in which Mackey concluded that the struggling Crain might need a fresh start elsewhere. That same week, I’d posted my own Crain rant.

I like to think that Gleeman, Mackey and I are three of the least reactionary Twins writers on the web, but no one could be blamed for being fed up with Crain’s poor early results. I had liked the team’s decision to bring him back at $2M this season, figuring that perhaps his late-season success from ’09 would carry forward into 2010 and even predicting before the season that he’d ultimately steal the closer role from Jon Rauch and wind up as the team leader in saves. But, outside of the occasional strikeout, there was nothing pretty about Crain’s performance over the first couple months of this season.

Just about everything about Crain’s performance has been pretty since then. He’s been nearly unhittable and has only been getting better recently, with just four hits and one run allowed in his past four innings of work. He’s shored up his command and he’s striking out batters with regularity.

Any number of factors might be contributing to Crain’s turnaround. He credits Rauch with helping him refine his approach on the mound and he seems to have developed his slider into a lethal and unpredictable pitch. Furthermore, he’s likely gained increasing confidence as his run has gone on, which would help explain why his performance keeps getting better and better. In addition, a .230 batting average on balls in play since the start of June (as opposed to a .294 mark prior) would suggest that some plain old good fortune has played into Crain’s run. Most likely, it’s a combination of all those things, and more.

Whatever the reason behind it, Crain’s run has been hugely impressive and vital for a bullpen which has experienced its fair share of turmoil recently. If not for the acquisition of Matt Capps (another guy whose recent struggles are causing fans to forget about a long track record of success), my prediction that Crain would finish the season as closer might have actually come true.

For the time being, he’ll have to settle for being the team’s top set-up man and most reliable option in high-leverage situations. He’s come a long way since that week in May when even his staunch defenders were wondering whether a designation for assignment might be beneficial for both him and the team.

Early in the 2009 season, few would have guessed that Crain would be one of the team’s most trustworthy relievers by the time the playoffs rolled around, but sure enough, he was. This season is shaping up the same way. In a game where fans tend to judge a player by his latest appearance, there’s something to be said for Crain’s ability to finish strong.

20 comments:

Ed Bast said...

1. Not to beat a dead horse on Capps. But. "Long track record of success"? Wow. Long? This is his 5th MLB season. Career WHIP of over 1.2. Last 2 years his WHIP is around 1.4 - not good at all. Posted a 5.80 ERA last year, since you love ERA for relievers.

Okay, stats are great, but the guy's a closer. His job is to get saves. That's what he gets paid to do. Career line: 98 saves in 132 chances. THE GUY IS 74% FOR HIS CAREER IN SAVE OPPORTUNITIES. That is just terrible. MLB average is 85%. The guy is well below average. "Long track record of success?" Not even close. More like "A medium-length track record of poor performance."

2. I was beyond done with Crain. His "performance" vs. Detroit (5 runs on 4 pitches, I believe) was one of the worst stretches of pitching I've ever seen - every pitch right down the middle and crushed for extra bases. Now he's our best reliever. So....

Let's hope he keeps it up, and let's hope Capps turns it around and becomes at least an average closer.

Nick N. said...

Capps' career SV% rate is 78 (he has 126 career save chances, not 132). Nathan's is 89 percent. That means, based on career trends, we could expect Capps to blow one more save than Nathan per every 10 chances. That's not accounting for the fact that most AL batters have never seen Capps before, and while the hasn't necessarily played into his favor yet it certainly could down the stretch.

So what is that, maybe one or two extra blown saves down the stretch compared to the elite guy the Twins had there before? Is that really worth getting so worked up about?

Rauch's career SV%, by the way? It's 68 percent.

Like I've said, Capps is clearly no Nathan but he's better than Rauch and a fine closing option. I can't help but feel like you and many others are overreacting to some initial struggles with the new team. He'll be fine.

thanatoschristou said...

I do think alot of fans are over reacting to Capss' early struggles Nick, but it is something to pay attention too. My own concern for this whole pitching staff, with the possible exception of Crain, is that we see 4-5 sliders or fastballs or chane ups in a row. I would like to see a little more variation in pitches because few of these guys have a strike out pitch to set up. They pitch to contact which is fine but sooner or later hitters catch up to the same pitch and drive it.

Anonymous said...

I like to think that Gleeman, Mackey and I are three of the least reactionary Twins writers on the web

You guys do a pretty good job of hedging your bets. There's almost always something relevant to link back to.

Nick N. said...

You guys do a pretty good job of hedging your bets. There's almost always something relevant to link back to.

What you call "hedging your bets," I call taking a reasoned stance. I'm not going to write up some rant on how a player sucks or claim that the front office/coaching staff is made up of incompetent boobs, because there is a rationale behind every decision and there are many ups and downs over the course of a baseball season. If I disagree with a decision, I make it clear. I guess I can't really speak for Mackey or Gleeman, but I don't think you can point out many issues that I haven't taken a distinct position on.

Ed Bast said...

Nick,

Probably I am overreacting. I am much more concerned with starting pitching than the closer role. But that's where part of the Capps frustration lies: the Twins used the #2 (?) prospect in the organization (plus another prospect) to land a guy who is probably their 3rd or 4th best reliever (based on the limited visual evidence) and didn't go out and get a starter.

So now we have to think about things like yesterday's post: Who do we want in our playoff rotation, Brian Duensing or Kevin Slowey or Scott Baker. With those guys on the hill, chances we aren't going to need to worry about our closer.

But who knows, I hope I'm proved wrong. Go Twins!

Matt said...

I'll pass final judgement on Cappy when he's had a bit more time here. It can't be easy to just switch teams and play the next day, especially when you've never done that before (like Cliff Lee has).
It's pretty much a forgone conclusion that the Twins own the White Sox right now. The other legitimate AL contender on the schedule with some games left is Texas. After those seven games are up, I'll pass judgement on Cappy and the rotation headed into (hopefully) October. Until then, the Twins just need to keep mashing to take the pressure off the pitching.
Crain has been sizzling, but we've seen this before, haven't we...
I think the only way the Twins win in the playoffs is with offensive output. They're not winning 3-2 in October with this staff.

Anonymous said...

Capps has a long track record of success eh. 4.03 career xfip. More like a track record of being alright. I think you are confusing being paid like you have a long track record of success with actually having one.

Nick N. said...

Capps has a long track record of success eh. 4.03 career xfip. More like a track record of being alright.

And guess what? That 4.03 career xFIP is (by a significant margin) the best of any pitcher in the Twins' bullpen, Crain included. At no point have I said Capps is a spectacular reliever, but there's zero doubt that he upgrades the bullpen, and he's a fine closing candidate.

These anti-Capps arguments are getting lamer and lamer. Just give it a rest guys. Let's come back to this topic when we have more than an 11-inning sample size as a Twin to dissect.

VodkaDave said...

Nick,

I believe I was the one who told you guys the whole season that Crain would turn it around.

Steve L. said...

I have a feeling most Twins fans won't embrace Capps until Nathan attempts his comeback next year and isn't lights out like he was prior to Tommy John Surgery. People often overlook the fact that getting Capps was an insurance move in addition to helping for this year. Now, do I think the Twins could have done better than Capps for Ramos? Yes, but not at the deadline this year, Pretty sure they tried to get the best guy they could, and Capps was it. Heath Bell for Ramos before the year started would look a lot better now wouldn't it?

Anonymous said...

"These anti-Capps arguments are getting lamer and lamer." How is quoting matt capps mediocre career xfip a "lame" refute to your claim that matt capps has a long track record of success? A 4.03 xfip isnt very good and your claim wasnt matt capps makes the twins bullpen better. Ive personally believed that the twins bullpen for the past few years hasnt been very good, and their success has been significantly more lucky than good. The twins like to fill their bullpen with command control guys with low k rates and high fly ball rates and have gotten away with it a lot. Just because Capps is better than the other twins relievers does not make great reliever and isnt a indicator of a track record of success, which was your original claim.

The reason youre getting so much anticapps stuff is because you are over compensating for his rough start as a twin. You were pro trade, and since coming in capps has been at best average. Since then every blog post has been partially filled matt capps has been much better than people think for the twins crap; quoting his 1.8 era and blaming delmon for his blown saves. Youve interjected an unproven opinion that capps has been a really good reliever in the past and nonsense about the trade being good because rauch is struggling. You talk about how good capps has been all the time and you back your claims up with sketchy stats or just straight up editorialize on the subject. Couple that with capps not pitching well and you are begging people attack capps.

fenring said...

The average for balls in play has a lot to do with how hard they are hit.

Nick N. said...

A 4.03 xfip isnt very good and your claim wasnt matt capps makes the twins bullpen better.

That's all I've ever claimed. Success is relative, and while a 4.03 career xFIP might not strike you as great it's still better than anyone in a Twins bullpen which ranks as one of the best in the league (and has ranked near the top of the league for much of the past decade, regardless of whether you think they're "lucky").

Since then every blog post has been partially filled matt capps has been much better than people think for the twins crap; quoting his 1.8 era and blaming delmon for his blown saves.

This is the second time I've mentioned Capps since the trade was made. So... no.

Anonymous said...

It’s the reason that Scott Baker was the most popular odd man out yesterday when I asked readers which of the club’s bottom three starters they would exclude in a playoff rotation. (I can almost guarantee the results would have been different had I posted the article after Baker twirled eight shutout innings against the Rays just two weeks ago.)

i would never say that about baker. and one game doesn't make a season. baker has been pathetic this year. you can say that he is unlucky all you want. sure, he is unlucky that he is facing major league hitters who can hit a pitch right over the middle and hit it hard. how unlucky for him. he has been terrible this year. seems like he gives up a couple runs and then gives up on himself.

David said...

If Nathan comes back full strength next year, Twins bullpen should be damn good. Crain, Guerrier, Capps and Nathan to go from 7-9? Good night.

Keep up the reasoned analysis, Nick. I always look forward to your posts.

Anonymous said...

"If not for the acquisition of Matt Capps (another guy whose recent struggles are causing fans to forget about a long track record of success)" Your claim was that he had a track record of success not that he was better than the other twins. To your other point, acquiring mike avilles would improve the twins bench because hes better than tolbert, casilla, punto, but that ability relative to twins players does not make him a good player.

"while a 4.03 career xFIP might not strike you as great it's still better than anyone in a Twins bullpen which ranks as one of the best in the league " The twins rank as one of the best in the league according to ERA not xfip. ERA is a bad stat that should be paid almost no attention. The twins relievers are almost exclusively low strikeout control, control pitchers that dont generate many groundballs. Capps being better than them by itself does not impress me.

I think im starting to see your pov on Capps. It seems like you put a fair amount of stock in his shiny low 3's era and possibly some value (but hopefully none) in the fact that capps has closed in the past. You should forget about era. ERA is why we are stuck with blackie who was always terrible.

Nick N. said...

ERA is why we are stuck with blackie who was always terrible.

Yeah, he's been a real burden the past two years.

I hate to say it, but games are decided by runs that actually score, not runs that should hypothetically score. Whether you believe they should or not, the Twins relievers prevent runs from scoring, and have done so for many years.

NYC Wine Bars said...

next post, thanks for sharing

Dick said...

You may want to go through and remove the spam from the comments!