Giants Make Obvious Move, Sign Mark Melancon
When your favorite team signs a new player, you don’t want to hear about the downside. You don’t want to hear about other players whom your team could have signed, or how your player will age, or if the deal constitutes an overpay. You want to hear about how awesome that player is and how much better he’ll make your team. I’m here for you. I’ll tell you those things about Mark Melancon, who has reportedly signed with the San Francisco Giants for what is likely to be something like four years and $62 million. And then… then comes some cold water. Just warning you.
The Giants needed a good reliever. Their bullpen was 22nd in wins above replacement last year, second-worst among teams that saw some postseason action. They were 15th if you base your value metric on runs allowed, which might be fair given their extreme park. They were 17th by strikeout- and walk-rate differential (K-BB%), which is the barest bones way to evaluate them, but splits the difference.
That’s not terrible, but it’s not good. Not for a contender. It looked a bit worse because of context. They cost their team win probability in sum (20th) and were seriously un-clutch (25th). They were poor in high-leverage situation. Melancon can help them there. He’s first among qualified relievers in WPA since his first season with the Pirates in 2013. He’ll give the Giants an opportunity to leverage an excellent pitcher in the most important crucial moments of a ballgame.
The 31-year-old has demonstrated basically all the skills you want from a top reliever. He’s been among the best at controlling the strike zone (having ranked 26th by K-BB% among the same sample of 123 cited above), while also limiting balls in the air (16th in ground-ball rate). The ability both to command the ball and keep it in the park should help him avoid the big inning, even if his strikeout rate was only 64th among the reliever sample, on par with Fernando Salas and Justin Wilson.
Melancon has a great cutter! It was 19th in total whiffs last year and 20th in ground-ball rate, among the 87 who threw a cutter a 100 times according to PITCHf/x. It had an inch-plus more horizontal movement than your average cutter and was a couple miles per hour zippier. And he has good command of it: he pitched inside to a lefty more than any other righty in the game last year (third when you combine righty and lefty batters) and yet hit only one batter last year. Check out his heat map to lefties below. Even if studying cutters by movement and velocity is problematic, you can say it’s a great pitch.

So far so good. Here comes the worry.
First, it’s a lot of money. Only twice before has a reliever received $60 million or more in net present value relative to today’s dollars, and if it’s $62 million in present value, it’s the biggest reliever deal ever. The two contracts with the biggest value in our dollars before this one were the ones handed to B.J. Ryan and Jonathan Papelbon. By a strict WAR-to-dollars calculation, neither worked out. Both Billy Wagner in 2006 and Joe Nathan in 2008 got $59 million in today’s dollars. Once again, neither worked out by dollars to peanuts.
Relievers never do work out by that metric, though, so we can use the sniff test and say it’s been a 50/50 proposition on deals this big. The Mets and Phillies were probably okay with their deals; the Twins and Blue Jays, probably not. We’ll get more data once Melancon, Aroldis Chapman and Kenley Jansen sign and live out their contracts, but a deal of this size for a reliever is rare.
Could the money allocated elsewhere, more wisely? Perhaps The Giants are currently 23rd on the left-field depth chart, with unproven youngsters Jarrett Parker and Mac Williamson expected to receive most of the plate appearances there. But the corner outfield market is deep, they can probably find a cheap player to address that deficit. The rest of the team is in decent shape. Call this one a wash, too.
How about this, though: the Giants bullpen performed most poorly by a stat, clutch, that’s prone to wild variance. They were exactly the 100th-least-clutch bullpen this century in 2016. Of the other 99 teams, all but 10 improved the next season by that measure. Yes, many probably changed personnel, but clutch isn’t a thing that’s very sticky on the player level. Its year-to-year correlation is basically a flat line. The r-squared is .0004, meaning last year’s clutch explains less than half a percent of a pitcher’s clutch percentage next year. The Giants pen was going to improve without Melancon.
Lastly, there’s how Melancon will age, a fair criticism since the Giants gave him four years and will have him under contract when he turns 35. As I pointed out in my worrisome-free-agent piece for ESPN, a reliever’s value is tied tightly to his velocity, and velocity and strikeout rates mostly just decline every year in tandem.
A relevant passage from that piece:
The pitchers who ranked in the top 50 in saves last season averaged 94 mph on their fastballs, and Melancon was below 92. Only nine of the 50 averaged a lower fastball velocity, and of those nine, only Francisco Rodriguez, Jonathan Papelbon and Jeanmar Gomez still are considered closers.
The top 50 in saves last season averaged 10 strikeouts per nine innings, and Melancon averaged just over eight. Sixteen of the group of 50 had fewer strikeouts than Melancon, and they include the three from above, plus incumbent closers like Sam Dyson and Ryan Madson.
One critique I received regarding this analysis is that Melancon has already succeeded with below-average velocity, so perhaps he can be expected to age differently. It’s a fair point, so I tried to go find seasonal comps for Melancon’s 2016 campaign. I found pitchers since 2000 who threw a cutter more than 30% of the time and averaged less than 91 mph, while also recording similar strikeout and ground-ball rates. It’s a mostly uninspiring bunch.
| Season | Name | IP | vFC(pfx) | FC% (pfx) | SV | K% | K-BB% | GB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Mark Melancon | 71.1 | 90.9 | 58.8% | 47 | 24.1% | 19.6% | 54.2% |
| 2013 | Casey Janssen | 52.2 | 89 | 35.1% | 34 | 23.8% | 17.6% | 47.9% |
| 2013 | Mariano Rivera | 64 | 90.8 | 88.7% | 44 | 21.1% | 17.6% | 46.1% |
| 2011 | Casey Janssen | 55.2 | 90.6 | 30.7% | 2 | 23.8% | 17.5% | 47.3% |
| 2015 | Mark Melancon | 76.2 | 90.6 | 59.0% | 51 | 21.2% | 16.4% | 57.5% |
| 2013 | Logan Ondrusek | 55 | 90.1 | 22.5% | 0 | 22.8% | 15.9% | 45.5% |
| 2013 | Jamey Wright | 68.1 | 87.5 | 41.5% | 0 | 22.9% | 15.4% | 51.1% |
| 2016 | Scott Feldman | 52.1 | 88.8 | 30.7% | 0 | 18.4% | 14.8% | 53.9% |
| 2016 | Carlos Torres | 82.1 | 89.8 | 33.2% | 2 | 23.0% | 14.2% | 44.6% |
| 2010 | Casey Janssen | 68.2 | 88.6 | 19.9% | 0 | 21.1% | 14.1% | 46.6% |
| 2014 | Carlos Torres | 92 | 89.6 | 50.4% | 2 | 23.4% | 14.0% | 47.0% |
| 2016 | Tony Barnette | 60.1 | 87.9 | 30.3% | 0 | 19.9% | 13.4% | 46.3% |
| 2015 | Carlos Torres | 57.2 | 89.5 | 40.0% | 0 | 19.8% | 12.4% | 48.3% |
| 2014 | Samuel Deduno | 58 | 89.4 | 46.1% | 0 | 22.1% | 11.9% | 49.1% |
| 2013 | Alfredo Simon | 87.2 | 89.8 | 20.8% | 1 | 17.6% | 10.3% | 45.3% |
You can say ‘”mostly” because, man, any list with Mariano Rivera on it can’t be downplayed completely. And Melancon did have one of the better K-BB% figures of this group, even if that has to be slightly discounted by the fact that strikeout rates increased with some regularity over the course of this sample.
I left the saves category in, too, to show that few of these have been trusted in the same way the Pirates and Yankees trusted Melancon and Rivera, respectively. You could say that Melancon has been Mo-lite, in that he’s done something similar, but not for as long as the Yankee great.
But if you’re going to get excited about the Rivera comp, you have to be equally worried about the Janssen comp.
From 2010 to 2013, Janssen had a run that was comparable to Melancon’s, built on similar stuff. The then-Blue Jay righty was 15th in that time frame by WPA (out of 213), 37th in K-BB%, and 86th in ground-ball rate. It’s not a perfect match for Melancon, but he also built his career on a cutter and curve and command and uninspiring velocity — and he had a similar time frame of good work before it kinda fell apart. If his injuries had happened at a different time, he may have signed a big deal before he got hurt.
So, the Giants got better next year, most likely. But they also spent a bunch of money on a reliever, and it seems to be about a 50-50 proposition that it’ll work out. He’s either Ryan or Papelbon. Or, more correctly, he’s either Janssen or Rivera. That’s a heck of a bet on which to spend $60 million.
With a phone full of pictures of pitchers' fingers, strange beers, and his two toddler sons, Eno Sarris can be found at the ballpark or a brewery most days. Read him here, writing about the A's or Giants at The Athletic, or about beer at October. Follow him on Twitter @enosarris if you can handle the sandwiches and inanity.
What percentage of this was already prepped? If you banged this out in the time since the signing then you may actually be a baseball robot.
I’m still not willing to accept that the former (if true) necessarily disproves that latter!
Eno wrote it yesterday. Everyone in the game has assumed this deal was happening for months.
Sullivan could have done this without prep. While grilling for scads of friends. All while traversing the Ingraham Glacier.
“Only twice before has a reliever received $60 million or more in net present value relative to today’s dollars, and if it’s $62 million in present value, it’s the biggest reliever deal ever.”
Maybe for another month or so.
With older pitchers, it’s all about command. Since they (and Melancon falls in this category) don’t have much raw stuff (usually thought of as velocity), they cannot afford to make mistakes and miss their spots. They have to live on the corners and be able to repeat that spot consistently. This isn’t ground breaking, of course, but it explains why certain guys (like Rivera) can keep succeeding without as much stuff as they used to have. Even at 40, Rivera could dot the corner with good movement three pitches in a row and get the backward K.
So the real question is “how does command age?” We know how velocity ages, but does command decline with age too? Is our sample just polluted by guys who never had command but covered it up with nasty stuff for swinging strikes so their command seems to have gotten worse, but really it just became easier to hit so we noticed their mistakes more?
We haven’t come up with a reliable way to measure command, so we can’t age it. But I think there is for every Mo a Janssen. And I wrote a glowing interview once with Janssen about his plus command.
What about edge%? I remember that being used a while back, but I haven’t seen it in a while. I specifically remember it in an article with gifs of Lincecum getting crushed…
The problem with edge%, or really anything else, is determining intent. If you don’t know where the pitcher meant to throw the ball you can’t tell how close he was to hitting his spot. And we don’t every really know exactly where the pitcher meant to throw the ball. Even the catcher’s target is an imperfect proxy.
Thanks for the great and timely analysis, Eno. Melancon’s greatest value for the Giants is likely to be in the playoffs.
I’m not arguing with he overall message here, but the discussion of the chart seems pretty downbeat given that Melancon had the highest K%, highest K-BB% and highest GB% of all the names on the list.
If, as the Giants undoubtedly hope, he helps them deep into the playoffs once or twice, then the team gets more TV$ and the overall cost gets discounted.
You’re looking at it from an absolute value perspective. What about opportunity cost?
You have to eliminate the pain of the late season meltdowns if you’re a Giants fan. Once you do that, I think it’s pretty clear that the bullpen would be significantly better next year due to regression.
Then you start to think — is Melancon a better option than a Josh Reddick, who cost less?
There isn’t reason to believe that the bullpen would be better due to regression, because the problem was the lack of a competent closer. The bullpen might well however have gotten better anyway due to some of the young guys, especially law and smith, improving and/or being used more in high-leverage situations.
For some years now, the Giants have been a real estate development concern that owns a MLB franchise. Accordingly, “TV$” is but one of the categories of “more” by which Dancin’ Melancon’s contribution to the team’s W/L record would effect a meaningful discount on what the Giants pay him – & likely not even the largest such category.
Speaking as a Red Sox fan, teams that have a serious hole may tend to fill that hole by projecting that need onto a player. I’m a little surprised that the Giants went down that path. It’s a cheaper strategy to throw second rate starters against the wall until a closer sticks.
I agree with you and i was waiting all of last year for bochy to do that. Smith and gearrin were both fantasic down the stretch last year but bochy didn’t take them seriously. Frankly i think bochy acted like a spoiled kid who wanted a shiny new toy and management caved in to him
You can’t have an R^2 of -.019.
Duh. Dammit. Fixing! Thanks
I LOVE this signing!!! If they had him last season the G-Men would have won the world series. I think of the big 3 closers on the market, Melancon was the best deal to be had– Chapman and Jansen aren’t that much better but will cost wayyy more. A closer is one of the most important roles on a baseball team and you need to have a lock down save monster if you are going to win. Look out MLB the Giants look like WS winners already!!!!
I loved this. If last season, g-Men to win the title. I think the big three markets farm, Melancon has the best offer for Get-Chapman and Jansen is not much better, but the price is vaiii better. The country is one of the most important roles of the baseball team and should lock the monster, if you win. View MLB champion Giants as VS!
What are you using now that Google improved their translation tool?
I’ve always used a proprietary combination of Google, Bing, and others if those are down, so the Google impact didn’t totally kill the translations. But I’ve had to not post translations more often because the Google switch has changed the quality of the result. – Serb.
To all the people that love this signing: What happens when the command starts to fade? and it will…
For when exactly is that start to the fade scheduled?
(Asking for a team considering when to start training him as greeter.)
Eno, I’m a big fan of this piece, your work, and your obviously vagina-shaped heat maps, but you didn’t answer the only question I’m pretty sure Giants fans are asking after this signing:
Do you think Melancon will be able to hold a 3-run lead in an elimination game?
Well, I’m a big fan of this song, your job and the directory will appear as a vagina, or did not answer, but only care giant fans agreed:
You think Melancon will keep the three points at the neck to remove
The reason that giants’ relievers’ clutch rating was so abysmal last year was specifically that they didn’t have a closer they could trust, or more accurately bochy didn’t use their most effective relievers in a closer role. Casilla was the closer for almost the whole season even though a number of other pitchers were more effective. It wasn’t just a matter of bad luck and so it couldn’t be expected to regress towards the norm. Melancon should be able to solve that problem.
That’s probably the key benefit for the Giants specifically with getting one of the “big 3” FA closers. Melancon’s track record has earned him the long leash that Bochy had given Casilla last year as the closer. Barring a sudden collapse by Melancon, the Giants’ bullpen structure won’t be a headache for Bochy or Giants fans.
Yes, the only problem now is they don’t have a real loogy and there are a number of relievers who aren’t good against lefties (strickland and kontos), but compared to last year things look great.
If the reason the signing is poor is mostly just money, then won’t Jansen and Chapman just be worse deals?
$15.5 million a season will likely be $5 million less per year than Chapman and Jansen and those two will have much longer deals. And long deals scare me more when talking about closers.
Sure Melancon costs a ton, but he is still a bargain compared to the market.
No, I wrote some words about how it’s more than just money, it’s his skill set in particular.
I’ve watched Melancon flirt with regression & diminishing velocity for several years in Pgh… still a valuable RP, but SF will be lucky to get 2 years of high-leverage production from MM, imo. That contract will end up being 1-2 years too long + $30mil. too much.
I would be very happy with two years of high leverage production because he would then opt out of the contract and the Giants can move on to internal closer options like Law, Okert, or maybe Strickland, if he further develops. That is the ideal situation in my eyes. The worry is if he has a down second year, which would then stick the Giants with that contract. That’s a gamble worth taking, I think, he most likely should be still pretty good for the next two years.
Would Bochy overuse Melancon in the playoffs? Would Bochy have used Chapman like Maddon did?
It doesn’t seem likely. The giants have quite a few othet solid relievers–law, smith, gearrin, kontos, and strickland– and also a number of starters who can easily pitch 8 innings or even a complete game (bumgarner and cueto), neither of which the cubs had last year.