Kenley Jansen’s Simple Baseball
We all agree that Kenley Jansen was never going to leave the Dodgers, right? Certainly not after Aroldis Chapman agreed to terms with the Yankees. The Nationals might’ve been a player, but they have their limits. It was almost unimaginable that Jansen could choose to join the Marlins on purpose. As long as the Dodgers were in there, they had to be considered the heavy favorites, and now there’s an agreement in place. All three of the big free-agent closers have signed new contracts in the span of a week.
Mark Melancon is really good, but he just doesn’t work as a comp. Chapman works a lot better, and his deal made these negotiations easy. Chapman and Jansen are basically the same age. They’ve been similarly dominant, and Chapman signed for five years and $86 million, with an opt-out. So Jansen is getting five years and $80 million, with an opt-out, taking a small penalty because Jansen had a draft pick attached. Do you value a pick around $5 – 10 million? Voila! We’re all agents.
It’s an open question whether any of these relievers are worth it. Whether the market is just out of control. There’s no question at all that, in hindsight, Jansen has been worth an awful lot. By our own numbers, over the last five years, Jansen has been worth $86 million. But can he do that over the next five years? On the one hand, he’s starting from a good spot. On the other hand, pitcher.
Between 26 and 28, Jansen was worth 7 WAR. Now, between 1969 and 2011, there were 26 relievers who were worth at least 5 WAR between the same ages. Over the following five years, on average, they were worth 4.8 WAR. Meanwhile, out of that pool, there were 15 relievers who were worth at least 6 WAR between the same ages. Over the following five years, on average, they were worth 5.7 WAR. The story is what you already knew: History isn’t encouraging. Yes, there was Mariano Rivera. Yes, even Jonathan Papelbon worked out! But no one was more dominant than Eric Gagne. Insane between 26 and 28. Pretty much nothing from 29 on. What are you gonna do?
You hope, I think, based on a few things. Why might Jansen age pretty well? He has yet to lose any velocity. He has yet to have any elbow problems, and his shoulder hasn’t barked since 2011. In theory, teams are now better than ever about knowing how their players are doing physically. Jansen, then, will be closely monitored. And there’s the whole thing about his background. Jansen used to be a catcher, and he didn’t pitch before he was 21. That saved him from untold wear and tear, wear and tear that can catch up to an ordinary pitcher. Troy Percival was a catcher, and he started pitching at 21. He held out, physically, until his mid-30s. On the other hand, Jason Motte was a catcher who started pitching at 24. He missed his entire age-31 season. There’s no eliminating the risk. There’s always going to be risk.
Yet I do think Jansen has one more thing working for him. Kenley Jansen reduces the act of pitching to something incredibly simple. For example, check out this plot of individual pitcher-seasons between 2008 and 2016.
On the x-axis, the rate of pitches thrown in the strike zone. On the y-axis, the rate of contact on swings against pitches in the strike zone. I set a minimum of 50 innings pitched. Jansen had six qualifying seasons, from 2011 to 2016. They’re all down there in blue. They’re all grouped together. Jansen has an unusually high zone rate, and, relatively speaking, it’s been almost impossible to get the bat on the ball.
We can focus differently. For this plot, I’ve just considered the past three seasons. You see Kenley Jansen’s percentile rankings in a few different measures. “Simplicity” isn’t familiar, but that’s my stand-in for the simplicity of a pitcher’s approach. All that does is sort pitchers by how often they’ve thrown their primary pitch. What would be more simple than a guy who throws the same pitch literally all of the time?
The player pool comprises 302 pitchers. Only one has thrown a higher rate of pitches in the zone. Only two have yielded a lower contact rate on would-be strikes. No one has had a higher overall strike rate. Two pitchers score better by adjusted FIP. And no one’s repertoire has been more simple. Jansen has thrown that cutter 93% of the time. And his cutter is really just a four-seamer that he very subtly manipulates. Jansen, in short, gets the ball, and he grips it the same way over and over. Then he throws some kind of high strike, and the hitter frequently misses it. There’s been no sign of the league catching up. Jansen was maybe just more dominant than ever. This is all he is.
On my part, I’m just guessing, but I feel like Jansen’s approach makes him more dependable. I think it makes him less likely to break down, especially when compared to some dominant reliever who throws a truckload of sliders. Now, Jake McGee has had a similar profile, and he’s had some arm problems, but he’s been pitching for a lot longer than Jansen has. Motte has had arm problems, and he’s also a converted catcher, but Motte used to throw 96-97, instead of 93-94, so perhaps that’s a difference-maker. Again, there’s no eliminating the risk. It’s just trying to figure out how great it is. Jansen doesn’t set my risk alarm off.
I can’t know what’s going to actually happen. I don’t think all the big free-agent closers are going to keep it together for the medium-term future. Something bad will happen to someone, or someones, and that’ll cause observers to once again question the team investment. It’s going to take a while before we can have an honest evaluation of whether the market right now is just nuts. At the very least, though, this is what we can say: Kenley Jansen, up until now, has been exceptionally fantastic, with an exceptionally simple approach. For 2017, he should again be amazing, and he should make the Dodgers a few wins better. They couldn’t really afford to lose him. They could afford to keep him. And so continues the National League arms race. It looks like it could again come down to the Cubs and the Dodgers, with the Nationals trying to reach the same level. Good luck to them, because the first two are setting a near-impossible bar.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.


So as the Nationals miss out on another target, Rick Hahn’s phone rings with a call from the 202 area code….
When Chapman loses a nickel he’ll still dominate, and he’ll lose it slower than Jansen will. Chapman is a freak. Dogs over payed. Chapman is cheaper at 90 than Jansen at 80.
What exactly are you basing any of that upon? Chapman dominates with velocity. Jansen dominates with movement. I would theorize lost velocity hurts the guy who relies on velocity more. I would also theorize that the guy who throws much, much harder (not only than Jansen, but than just about anybody in the league) will lose his velocity faster.
Let’s also remember that Jansen is capable of throwing his cutter at 98 but he throws it at 92-93 because it moves better.
Good movement comes from throwing hard.
When Chapman loses a nickel, he’ll be throwing 95, and do you know how many 95-chucking relievers there are in the league now?
Rajai Davis disagrees.
I don’t think the idea that hard throwers lose velocity quicker has much evidence behind it. One tree does not make a forest, but for instance Barry Zito lost a lot of velocity very quickly, and often it’s pitchers with middle-of-the-road velocity who quickly turn into batting practice when they start losing a tick or two.
To be clear, Chapman averaging 97 mph on his fastball instead of the 100.4 mph he averaged this past season is still one hell of a relief pitcher. I just don’t think that’s an 17 million/year, top 3 in the league relief pitcher. At the same time, I think Jansen sitting 92 instead of 94.3 (which he can tick up to 98, 99) is just as effective, because of how that cutter moves.
Well removing 3.4 MPH off Chapman Vs 2.1 off Kenley would certainly seem to hurt Chapman more. Chapman’s velocity was also at a career high this year. It’s possible that taking the first month off influenced that but it also seems to be a good sign for his future if anything.
How do you figure? Soft-tossers don’t lose velocity at all because they never had it. Sometimes they even find a few extra ticks as they age and try to reinvent themselves. Hard throwers have a lot of velocity to lose in the first place… and they are pretty certain to never add any more.
My handy Portuguese-Azerbaijani-Latin-Hawaiian-English translator says:
I have a nickel over Grant to pay, and then left the Jansen. Chapman, a mistake. The dog in the price. Jansen Chapman 80 90 cheaper
Disagree 100%. If Chapman loses a little velocity, then he is not the same guy. Kenley doesn’t rely on velocity. I have seen him pitch a lot and he is better when he is throwing in the low 90s.
Oh now I see: the cohorts averaged 5+/6+ WAR over THREE year periods and then struggled to accumulate the same amount of WAR over the next FIVE years…..disregard the previous version of this comment.
29 to 33, not 29 to 31. Went from comparing three years to five years. It’s not a great overall picture.
It sure isn’t! Something about the wording of that section made the two different time spans less than readily apparent. Nice piece! That plot with Jansen hanging out bottom/right really drives his uniqueness home.
Who’s that top right point putting it in the zone ~63% of the time and drawing contact nearly 95% of the time? Nicolino?
2012 Bartolo Colon!
A lot less contact in 2013, once she claimed I was the father of her kids. And no more putting it in the zone either.
And that makes me have to ask, who’s in the upper left corner? It’s hard to imagine how a pitcher could be allowed to throw at least 50 innings while putting it in the zone 33% of the time and allowing 93% contact.
I did a spit take (Tom Glavine):
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=50&type=15&season=2016&month=0&season1=2008&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=10,a
Ha! I guess PitchFX zone classifications probably don’t work for Tom Glavine, since as everybody knows he never through a pitch in the strike zone but the umps gave him the calls anyways.
Funny thing, the next three leftmost dots are all the last three seasons of Brad Ziegler. So I guess it is possible to be successful with that profile.
Christian Betancourt, inevitable closer.
While the Nats need Jansen, and are surely unhappy to have lost the bidding war, they must at least be happy with raising the price the Dodgers had to pay.
I think the Marlins are the ones who really bid him up.
Theory: This is the only way the Marlins ever accidentally sign any FA’s that aren’t AAAA players. They make a bunch of upbidding bad faith offers and get caught bluffing once in a while like the guy who “price enforces” every single player in your auction leagues.
It’s kind of a tough argument to say that the Dodgers offer to Jansen was bid up by Miami, when the contract is the exact median crowdsourced contract from the FA primer, and $5 million a year cheaper than what Dave Cameron estimated.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2017-top-50-free-agents/
Reports are, Jansen took less money with the Dodgers. Also, it wasn’t really necessary for the Nationals to raise his price. He has signed for basically his market rate, as Jeff pointed out, and would have anyway. If not for the Nationals, Jansen’s agent would likely have drummed up interest elsewhere and gotten to approximately this same point.
Not shown on the plot and feeling slighted: champan’s 59.5 z-contact% in 2014
This took me a minute to figure out. There are two relevant data sets. Jeff used “Pitch-f/x plate discipline numbers”, not “plate discipline” numbers. Wherefore, that 59.5 was turned into a measly 63.3
Does anybody know how “plate discipline” numbers are calculated? Do they reflect how a pitch was actually called rather than where it was located? If so, might plate discipline zone% – PitchFX zone% be a measurement for how good a pitcher is at getting calls outside of the strike zone?
Jeff, I give you permission to use this idea to write an article confirming or denying the conventional wisdom about Tom Glavine that I mentioned above. All I ask in return are some GIFs…
The “plate discipline” numbers are from BIS, with in/out of zone decided by their video analysts (who also have Pitch F/X data available). I believe they do have a rule that a pitch called a ball must be considered as out of zone, and a called strike must be considered in zone.
Scatterplots are my God.
I understand you need data points, but going back to 1969 to look for relievers with +5 WAR seems a stretch: reliever usage was a diferent beast back then.
Jansen is the new Rivera. It would be so interesting to see an elite cutterer come in and try and make it as a starter sometime, because as a reliever they are untouchable. Kenley was even able to get through the lineup twice in the playoffs when going for up to 3 innings, it doesn’t seem to matter how long as look you get at him.
“In theory, teams are now better than ever about knowing how their players are doing physically.”
I don’t think there is a shred of evidence behind that assertion. Aren’t pitchers falling apart faster than ever before? I know it doesn’t fit the progressive narrative…
I think it’s a pretty safe assumption to make, no? Improved technology and more study regarding biomechanics leads me to assume that medical staffs know more now than they did ever.
The real problem is the author’s having “theories” about things that really don’t rend themselves to theorizing. Either he knows about the state of MLB teams’ medical expertise or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, he should just not say anything about it.
I believe it’s widely accepted that teams are spending more on health.
And MLB has that centralized injury database.
That, at least, is a big advantage. Plus, we no longer expect pitchers to suck it up and pitch like Real Men.
Jansen’s simple repertoire, plus not pitching until age 21, may well help him stay healthy. But one thing I’ve not seen discussed is his usage rate, specifically, pitching with no rest.
Over the last 4 years, Jansen leads MLB with 84 innings on zero rest, and only the lefty specialist Javier Lopez has more than his 88 such games.
Jansen’s no-rest games and IP as a share of his totals is the highest of the top 140 in relief IP since 2013.
Just a thought.