The Other Uncertainty Regarding Brett Anderson
It technically happened two days ago — but also sort of happened just today for those among us who celebrate the New Year’s holiday (and its Eve) with sufficient piety. It, in this case, represents the official signing by the Dodgers of left-hander Brett Anderson to a one-year, $10 million contract upon which the two parties agreed in principle about two weeks ago (and which could pay even more to Anderson, if he meets certain incentives).
Anderson is intriguing, naturally, for what he’s been able to accomplish on the field. Among the 223 pitchers who’ve thrown 250-plus innings in a starting capacity since 2009, Anderson has recorded the 15th-best park-adjusted xFIP (tied with several others). Very positive, that. One is compelled to note almost immediately, however, that remaining on the field has been difficult. He’s averaged, by way of example, just 40 innings each of the last three seasons. Less positive, that.
New Dodgers GM Farhan Zaidi is less concerned about Anderson’s health than one might suppose given the latter’s history, characterizing Anderson’s injury-plagued seasons as “a run of bad luck.” Zaidi et al, being very smart and having a decidedly vested interest in the matter, are more qualified to speak on the issue than the present author. So I’ll stop doing it immediately.
Another uncertainty regarding Anderson, however — perhaps related to his injuries and perhaps not — concerns his fastball velocity. For, simultaneous to recording the worst park-adjusted xFIP (96 xFIP-) of his career in 2014, Anderson also recorded his lowest ever average fastball velocity (89.8 mph). There’s a distinct relationship between velocity and success, nor does Anderson appear to be immune from it.
Here, for example, is a graph of xFIP- versus average fastball velocity for all of Anderson’s seasons in which he’s faced at least 150 batters:

There’s been a remarkably strong relationship, one finds, between Anderson’s ability to throw the ball hard and to prevent runs (or, at least, do the things that lead to run prevention). Relative to previous years, he didn’t excel at the former in 2014 — and, though he produced an excellent ERA (68 ERA-) in 2014, both the indicators and his track record (which reveals no tendency to outperform his fielding-independent numbers) suggest that ERA was untenably low. As such, it really does appear as though throwing at least, say, 90 mph is of some importance to Anderson — and that dropping below that figure would challenge his ability to prevent runs at a league-average rate. Given the Dodgers’ aspirations at the moment, league-average innings are the sort they’d obviously prefer.
Carson Cistulli has published a book of aphorisms called Spirited Ejaculations of a New Enthusiast.
But how much is his loss of velocity due to injury that comes back if he maintains health?
who is Brett Armstrong?
we are legion
Dodgers’ criteria for signing a starting pitcher:
1. Must have a history of injury problems.
2. Must have experienced a recent change in velocity (McCarthy’s spike, Anderson’s plummet).
3. Must have had best year(s) with the Athletics.
4. FanGraphs must agree to write multiple articles criticizing the signing.
When did they criticize the McCarthy signing?
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-bet-on-brandon-mccarthys-shoulder/
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/dodgers-sign-brandon-mccarthy/
Did you actually read either of those articles? They are not negative at all. The worst they do is point out that if McCarthy’s injury problems come back then he probably won’t be worth the money, which is kind of obvious and pretty much needs to be said in any article about a guy that has been as fragile in his career as McCarthy has been.
JayT, “criticism” doesn’t always have to be negative. Similar to “regression”, most people think of the word in a negative connotation first, but both words (and many others) can be used in positive, negative, and neutral contexts. In this case, the FG writers’ analysis (perhaps this word is preferable?) was from a neutral, objective standpoint, but it can still be considered criticism, much like a movie review can be considered criticism.
In the same way, “regressing to the mean” does not always mean a bad thing; for Michael Brantley, it may be a negative phrase, but for Prince Fielder, it would be a welcome change to get back to the consistent, durable, slugging first baseman he was for years in Milwaukee and Detroit.
5. Must be interesting follows on twitter
I know the Padres (most likely) aren’t as good as the Dodgers but I must say I’m beginning to salivate at the thought of all of our right handed power taking a crack at the 3/5 of the Dodgers rotation that is left handed, despite one of them being named Kershaw. It’s going to be interesting, not to mention exciting.
I still believe this was one of the craziest signings of the off-season. Dodgers can throw $10 million away and not even blink, but expecting a full season from Anderson at this point is wishful thinking.
I doubt the Dodgers expect a full season out of Anderson. They probably see him as what he is — a #2/3 when healthy — and they probably believe there’s a 10% chance he pitches like that for 200 IP, a 20% chance he pitches like that for 150 IP, a 30% chance he pitches like that for 100 IP, a 30% chance he pitches like that for 50 IP, and a 10% chance he pitches like that for 0 IP. Or something like that. Insert your own percentages. The Dodgers have Kershaw, Grienke, and McCarthy signed long term; not sure about Ryu. They have SP’s coming up who will be ready to fill out the rotation in 2015 and 2016, so they needed to find a guy who would sign for one year. They have Nicasio as insurance, if/when Anderson hits the DL. I’d say the dollars are high given his injury history. Colby Lewis got 1/4. Capuano got 1/5. Anderson’s better than both those guys when healthy, but it seems like that kind of deal with an innings-based incentive (like 1/6 with an option for 2016 and a 4M buyout if Anderson hits 150 IP, to make it a 1/10 deal if pitches like a #2/3 for a chunk of the season), would have been better than 10M guaranteed. But whatever. Couple million bucks to the Dodgers is chump change, and Anderson may be the highest-ceiling free agent SP who signs a one-year deal this offseason.
87% chance those numbers mean shit.
you can make the numbers more meaningful:
if 200 innings of ace level pitching is worth 30 million, 200 innings of #2 SP is worth $20 million, and 200 innings of #3 is worth 15m, 200 innings of #4 worth 10m.
Assuming those are roughly market rates, you can calculate where 10m for 1 year becomes a good bet.
If he can be an ace for 1/3 of a season, I see that as being owrth 10 million. He is not really a high end ace, it is more likely the think there is a 50/50 shot he is a 2/3 type guy for the season, and a a chance he is healthy and yet does less. With those odds, 10m is about the point where you should be buying.
A regression with five observations. Nice!
the standard error puts him somewhere between ’13 Volquez and ’99 Pedro 🙂