So You Want to Try to Salvage Carlos Gomez

Just about one year ago, the Houston Astros were trying to get to the playoffs, and they decided Carlos Gomez was worth a bushel of pretty good prospects. In the present day, the Astros are again trying to get to the playoffs, and they decided Carlos Gomez isn’t worth much of anything. Wednesday, Gomez was designated for assignment, and that’s a tough break for someone coming up on free agency. Of course, the damage was already done.

You might not realize how swift the fall has been. Though the scenarios aren’t exactly the same, Gomez has kind of Shelby Millered. On the season, Gomez has been among the least-valuable regulars. He’s not even 31 years old. And between 2013 – 2014, here are the position-player top five, by WAR:

  1. Mike Trout, 18.5 WAR
  2. Andrew McCutchen, 15.3
  3. Josh Donaldson, 14.1
  4. Carlos Gomez, 13.1
  5. Miguel Cabrera, 12.6

McCutchen this year has been a disappointment, but the Pirates aren’t on the verge of dropping him or anything. The Astros have set Gomez free, and anyone can have him. Someone will take the chance; the track record alone demands it. Plenty of team officials will look at Gomez and see a player they might be able to rescue. Yet I honestly don’t know how to be encouraged.

If you want to be optimistic about Gomez, here’s the starting point: He’s Carlos Gomez, and not very long ago, he was one of the best outfielders in the world. He hasn’t forgotten how he did that. There are two ways you can look at his projections. Over the rest of the year, we have Gomez projected for about 0.6 WAR — that would work out to a little over two wins per 600 plate appearances. That’s a roughly league-average player. Any team would love to have a free league-average player.

On the other hand, we have both current projections, and preseason projections. Compared to what the projections were in March, no hitter’s projection has dropped more than Gomez’s has, based on his 2016. Mark Teixeira comes close. He’s retiring. Gomez isn’t supposed to be close to retirement, but he’s gotten worse in just about every way. And one of the things about projections is that they can be slow to pick up on sudden changes in talent.

Prepare yourself for a handful of rolling-average plots. I want to give you some perspective on where Gomez is. To start with, here’s his entire career, in wRC+:

gomez-wrc

Gomez wasn’t very good following last year’s trade, but this year he’s been even worse. You kind of knew this — you could at least guess this based on the transaction that the Astros made. But this has looked more like pre-breakout Gomez, the version who didn’t hit for power. The version who simply didn’t hit. Let’s break this into components. Gomez hitting fly balls:

gomez-fly-balls

When Gomez blossomed, he blossomed as a hitter with power. He said that previous coaches had told him to try to hit the ball on the ground and run, and that didn’t work for him very well. Gomez started to swing for the fences, and while he might still swing hard, the air balls haven’t been there so much. Statcast knows of 339 hitters with at least 50 tracked batted balls in each of the last two seasons. Gomez’s average launch angle has dropped more than eight degrees. Only Drew Butera has had a bigger drop, and no one’s looking to Drew Butera for offense.

If you’re not hitting the ball in the air, you probably don’t want to pull it. However:

gomez-pull

That’s just Gomez rolling over on a bunch of pitches. Those are easy outs. So we’ve got Gomez producing less, with less power. Oh, is that ever not it.

gomez-strikeouts

Gomez’s strikeouts have gone way up. Now, on the bright side, there’s been something of a recent downturn — the strikeouts might be regressing, in a positive way. But the underlying concern is more swinging and missing. This plot might be even worse:

gomez-contact

Gomez, for years, made contact with about 76% of his swings. This year, he’s at 66%. Out of everyone with at least 100 plate appearances in each of the last two seasons, Gomez owns the third-biggest drop in contact rate, behind only David Wright and Desmond Jennings. Put it together in your head, now: Gomez has become more grounder-prone and more strikeout-prone. That’s a dreadful combination, and if the Astros saw anything encouraging in there, it didn’t outweigh the discouraging factors. The Astros are prepared to play a lot of Jake Marisnick, and Jake Marisnick hasn’t hit. He is, at least, a good defender. Gomez used to be one of those. I forgot to say that his defense has apparently gotten worse, too.

As I see it, there are just a few things to find moderately promising. One, yeah, this is Carlos Gomez. Two, in that last plot above, you see a drop in contact right in the middle of those star-level seasons. He bounced back. And then, these are Gomez this year:

Gomez has still been able to clobber some baseballs. He’s still been able to tap into his bat speed. By average exit velocity on balls hit in the air, Gomez is in the 59th percentile, around names like Nolan Arenado and Marcell Ozuna. The pop is still in there somewhere, or at least it has been. That means there’s a realistic path toward Gomez hitting some more. His talent hasn’t completely eroded.

But the swing consistency just isn’t there. It’s not for lack of trying, but Gomez and the Astros couldn’t get him figured out. You can talk about pressure, and maybe that’s it. You can talk about a league change, and maybe that’s it. You can talk about psychology, and maybe that’s it. But this sure feels like something physical. The decline has been so sudden, so dramatic, and it’s coincided with known health issues. Remember that Gomez wasn’t ultimately traded to the Mets. The numbers make it look like Gomez just physically isn’t right, and if that’s the matter, he wouldn’t get good again tomorrow. He’d need, at the very least, extended rest. Maybe more. I’m not really in the business of this sort of speculation, but depending on things, it could be the best-case scenario. If it’s not something physical, that could be more troubling.

At the end of the day, I don’t actually know what’s been wrong with Carlos Gomez. I know how the issue has manifested in the stats, but I don’t know the problem in specific. I know the raw ability is still in there. Gomez has shown enough flashes, and that’s why he’s going to remain a major-league player. I just don’t see any reason to believe he’ll be a good major-league player again soon. Not to defer to authority, but the Astros would love to have a good center fielder, and they wouldn’t drop Gomez if they thought there was something to salvage. There are still skills present, and presently hidden. They need an awful lot of help getting out.

We hoped you liked reading So You Want to Try to Salvage Carlos Gomez by Jeff Sullivan!

Please support FanGraphs by becoming a member. We publish thousands of articles a year, host multiple podcasts, and have an ever growing database of baseball stats.

FanGraphs does not have a paywall. With your membership, we can continue to offer the content you've come to rely on and add to our unique baseball coverage.

Support FanGraphs




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.

newest oldest most voted
ThomServo
Member
ThomServo

31 is fairly old, under recent age-curves, for a CF that relies a bit on speed for production.

I’m not sure any 31 year old in decline, with a really poor past 365-days, can be said to ‘still have the raw skills,’ as age is a very important raw skill- particularly for players up the middle who rely a bit on speed/athleticism. Maybe the high-end bat speed is still there occasionally, given exit velocity, but perhaps the ‘recovery’ is no longer there to repeat the high-intensity work throughout games/season.

Lastly, purely offered an empirical matter, recent ‘speed/defense’ players who had an established ‘no power’ baseline in the MLB; and then subsequently experienced a sharp ‘power gain’ that elevated the player from ‘fighting for a job’ to ‘star,’- have an extremely high correlation with incidents of ‘getting caught with PEDs.’ This is purely a statistical matter, no guess-work required- I am aware that ‘getting caught’ might not be proof, etc.. Such a correlation does not mean anything about Gomez, save only that in recent samples similar players profiles have had a high correlation with known PED use- such matter-of-fact correlations say nothing of unknown use, or Gomez specifically, etc. In general during the past few decades- the ‘skinny speed/defense guy goes from scrub-to-star with power surge and then breaks down’ phenomenon hasn’t always been quite the ‘head scratcher’ as the sports media has pretended.

jdbolick
Member

I understand why you went to the PED angle, but some people make that accusation seemingly every time a player experiences significant decline, and this column provides compelling evidence against that applying to Gomez. As Jeff showed with the exit velocity data, when Carlos actually hits the ball, he’s still hitting it hard. His HR/FB% also hasn’t fallen that far from where it used to be, especially if you take out infield flies. The problems, as illustrated by this column, are that he doesn’t make contact nearly as often and that when he does he’s not hitting the ball at an advantageous launch angle. Neither of those would appear to be attributable to a cessation of PED use. Furthermore, 2016 was the last year of Carlos Gomez’s contract, so if he had been a PED user then it wouldn’t make much sense for him to stop now. I cannot say whether or not Carlos Gomez has used PEDs, but I can say that the available evidence does not support your hypothesis and I request that you look for evidence supporting your suspicion before making such a serious accusation.

SteveM
Member
SteveM

If you read, you’d see that ThomServo specifically stated, “Such a correlation does not mean anything about Gomez”. He reported a correlation, never did he make an accusation.

jdbolick
Member

He did include that qualifier, but he was clearly making the implication. It’s similar to when someone presages an insult with “No offense intended, but …

SoxWatcher
Member
SoxWatcher

Absolutely making the implication. It’s the oldest slime-move in the book — “I’m not saying you did xyz, but there’s a high correlation that you did”. I don’t know why I’m still surprised to see such implications made so freely – or see the implications then defended with “well, he didn’t actually ACCUSE him…”.

Zach Walters Appreciation Guild
Member
Zach Walters Appreciation Guild

If I read, I’d have found a circle of implied accusations covered with qualifications, deflecting non sequiturs, and the clothes lying on the floor of his room – all of which are designed to hide the accusation.

That, or it’s a circuitious unreadable mess.

Either’s fine.

maguro
Member
maguro

I would actually be interested in seeing the data behind his assertion, assuming there is any. It seems like all kinds of players have been caught using PEDs and I don’t recall there being much of pattern at all.

Momus
Member
Momus

Equally as annoying as the implied accusation is that everyone just assumes the premise – that there is a correlation – when I see no evidence that one exists.

soddingjunkmail
Member
soddingjunkmail

Great post, although I’d disagree on the characterization of the accusation as “serious”.

A bunch of baseball fans discussing whether or not a baseball player cheated seems to me to be about as non-serious as something can get.

Momus
Member
Momus

“recent ‘speed/defense’ players who had an established ‘no power’ baseline in the MLB; and then subsequently experienced a sharp ‘power gain’ that elevated the player from ‘fighting for a job’ to ‘star,’- have an extremely high correlation with incidents of ‘getting caught with PEDs.’”

I’d be interested in the list of names you feel warrants this correlation. Since the start of 2015 the overwhelming majority of MLB players suspended for PED use have been pitchers (9 out of 15), another was a dog-slow power hitting 1B, another was a 38 year old outfielder, and yet another was a catcher. So… the correlation is Dee Gordon?