5th starter - Buchholz - Colon - Tavarez
Long Relief - Tavarez
6th Inning - Timlin - Lopez - Aardsma - Corey
IMO, he couldn't displace any of the above and that is why he was DFA'd. He was given every opportunity to take the #5 starter role and he failed. He then failed horribly as the bridge from the 5th to the 7th inning.
Thanks for your 2007 contribution and good luck hooking on elsewhere. Good move by Theo IMO.
His LOB rate was extremely good (or high) compared to league average last year. Is it a safe to assume that LOB% is similar to BABIP in terms of luck involved?
No, and certainly not in the way implied. BABIP is a measure of luck to the extent that we believe that pitchers cannot control the outcome once the batter is able to actually put the ball in play. OTOH, more effective pitchers tend to have higher
LOB%, but the deviation is pretty wide and the relationships are not universally consistent. If anything, LOB% jibes better with common-sense notions of good pitching as opposed to BABIP.
To put it another way, a pitcher who strands a high percentage of baserunners is likely to be a better pitcher if that's the only thing we know about them, since very good pitchers tend to allow very few baserunners, and most of those don't score. Bad pitchers, OTOH, tend to allow a lot of baserunners, and a lot of them *do* make it home, if for no other reason than the other baserunners coming up behind them.
This makes intuitive sense when you think about it-- a pitcher who gives up, say, an average of one baserunner per inning can theoretically do that all night without allowing a run for LOB% of 100%, whereas a pitcher who allows a lot of baserunners per inning will typically see a certain percentage of those baserunners score.
It also makes sense from a cigar-chomping, "non-stat" POV to think that the ability to step it up when there are runners on base is a sign of a better pitcher. Such a "clutch" pitcher would theoretically have a higher LOB%.