Archive for Jon Garland

Few baseball terms are misused as frequently as ‘consistency’ and ‘volatility’. Much like some of the more arcane statistics that have fallen by the wayside — looking at you, W/L records and batting average — the terms are often conflated with overall performance. We thought they told us more about a player than they actually did. Pitchers perceived to be more consistent are often deemed to be more valuable than their volatile counterparts, as long as their numbers aren’t drastically different. While that perception might make sense from a logical standpoint it fails to hold up under the lens of quantification.

Consistency might keep fans and managers from reaching for the Tums jar, but it should not be used as anything other than anecdotal. It certainly should not be used as a performance marker. Why? Well, because consistency itself is inconsistent.

Read the rest of this entry »

Your task today? To file projections for three recent movers (if not so much shakers): Jon Garland, Xavier Nady, and Jim Thome. Your compensation? Something like, but not quite exactly, the satisfaction of a job well done.

Garland moves southward in the NL West to the cavernous and pitcher-friendly Petco Park. Or PETCO. Or whatever.

After missing all but seven games last season to his second Tommy John procedure and the subsequent rehab, Nady looks to make his return with the Cubs, who signed the outfielder to a one-year, $3.3MM contract.

The Twins hope the contract they just gave a 39-year-old Jim Thome is right on Target. (Get it? Like Target Field?)

Yesterday, Dave discussed the Jon Garland signing, largely criticizing the acquisition based on the fact that they failed to offer Randy Johnson, a superior pitcher even at this stage, a deal as lucrative. While I am not going to continue the discussion about that particular signing, the idea arose that 200 innings from Garland is less productive than 120 or so innings from Johnson should he sustain injuries. This reminded me of something Tango posted last year showing that Albert Pujols‘ numbers were almost equivalent to the production of Mark Teixeira and Jeff Francoeur combined. Whew, spelled both correctly.

All too often, injury-prone pitchers are written off as ineffective. This could not be further from the truth as certain pitchers who fit this mold are wildly productive in the time they spend on the field. Even though they fail to stay healthy enough to log 200 IP in 35 GS, they end up posting some very solid numbers.

Take a look at Ben Sheets, for starters, who produced a 2.43 FIP in 106 IP back in the 2006 season. He made 17 starts, with a 9.83 K/9 and 0.93 BB/9, good for a K/BB of 10.55. Even with a .344 BABIP and 67% LOB, Sheets still managed a 3.82 ERA. All told, his half-season produced +4.0 wins. In the same season, the aforementioned Garland produced +3.9 wins in 211 innings. Yes, Sheets was slightly more productive than Garland even though he pitched almost exactly half of the innings.

This is not the only example either. In 2007, Randy Johnson made just 10 starts, pitching in 56 innings. His 3.20 FIP and 5.54 K/BB helped him produce +1.6 wins that season. In one-fourth of the season, he produced more than 200 innings of Tom Glavine, or 170 innings of Boof Bonser. His win value also surpassed the combined output of Kip Wells, Livan Hernandez, and Scott Olsen in ~520 IP.

Granted, we never know what would have happened if the injured pitchers lasted the entire season. Still, do you really believe Johnson and Sheets would have declined so rapidly that their statistics would drop them into the average category? When pitchers with half of a season or so of statistics are evaluated, the most common reaction is to think they could not possibly be as productive as innings-eaters who stay on the field. This simply is not a universal truth. 106 IP of Ben Sheets in 2006 (+4 wins) + 105 IP of Replacement Level pitching (+0 wins) is equal to, or greater than, 211 IP of Jon Garland (+3.9 wins).

Examples like this will not always surface, but injury-prone pitchers do have value, even if that value is only seen for half of a season.

Arizona GM Josh Byrnes has had, for lack of a better description, an interesting offseason. In 2008, the Diamondbacks ~$66.2 mil payroll rose above heights not seen since the 2005 season. The team led the division for most of the season before crumbling down the stretch, necessitating some personnel moves in order to ensure such an event does not repeat itself. With a mix of veterans signed to longer deals and young, productive players still under club control, few roster spots are actually available, however.

Compound that with the supposed lack of payroll flexibility and Byrnes finds himself in a tricky situation. How can he upgrade the team if a) certain players with plenty of value like Orlando Hudson, Adam Dunn and Randy Johnson cannot be retained, and b) he only has $4-$6 mil to spend? Sure, upgrades can be made in that ballpark of cost, but it is much tougher. In the current market, though, perhaps things would be a bit easier.

Unfortunately, he has been turned down a few times, most recently by both Randy Wolf and Jon Garland. The exact terms of the deals offered to these Type B free agent starters are not known, but according to Nick Piecoro of the Arizona Republic, Garland’s offer included two option years. In speaking to Nick, I also learned that the Diamondbacks generally do not give out incentive-laden contracts.

If the team did favor the incentive-laden deals, one could surmise that both pitchers were offered such contracts. In Wolf’s case, the deal may have featured a lower base salary with incentives for playing time given his recent injury history. His deal may also have included options that automatically vest if a certain games started threshold was met. In Garland’s case, the options may have automatically vested based on games started and innings pitched totals. This way, if he became ineffective, the team can easily cut ties with the righty.

Because they are not normally in favor of such deals, it appears more likely that both pitchers were offered salaries lower than they would liked. And, they were both likely offered option years in their contract as opposed to guaranteed years. Someone like Garland, who has routinely logged 190+ innings in 32+ starts, may have wanted guaranteed seasons to protect himself. That way, if he repeats his 2008 season, or worsens, at least he doesn’t have to worry if his option will vest.

If the salary aspect of these offers become available, we will know if the deals were rejected due to money or if the lack of guarantee dissuaded the hurlers. Based on fair market values, Garland projects to about +2.7 wins next season at $12.1 mil. Wolf looks like a league average, +2.0 win pitcher, with a FMV of $9 mil. The current market may depress their values, but if the Diamondbacks only have $6 mil to spend, they would really need to convince a player like Garland that the absolute best deal he will receive is half of his fair market value. A negotiating tactic like this should work more with an injury-prone pitcher like Wolf, but given his rejection, apparently not.

It will be very interesting to see how much these pitchers were offered as well as where (and for what) they end up signing. Neither is an elite talent, but both have value. Garland declined arbitration because he felt he could command a higher fee than the $12 mil earned last season. Wolf was not even offered arbitration because the Astros felt the $10 mil he would command carried with it too much risk. Regardless, both players consider themselves well above the reported amount of money the Diamondbacks have left to spend.

It seems weird when two pitchers turn down the same team in the same week, but under these circumstances, it at least makes some sense. Still, they may regret their decisions when the marketplace for such players continues to dwindle and the Mets, the only team reportedly interested in either, shore up their staff.

In order to cope with the loss of two starting pitchers from last year’s club, the Twins imported veteran starter Livan Hernandez to fill innings at a reasonable clip. At this point in his career, though, it was clear that Hernandez wasn’t going to be much more than a pitch to contact innings eater. Well, he’s lived up to that persona and then some.

A guy who posted average strikeout rates in his prime is now transitioning into the second stage of his career as the new Nate Cornejo. His K/9 this year stands at a paltry 2.83, second lowest in baseball among starting pitchers. Only Jon Garland, who we discussed previously, is missing bats with less frequency than Livan Hernandez. In fact, both Garland and Hernandez are posting remarkably low strikeout rates compared to recent history.

Since 1988, only 17 pitchers have tossed 100 or more innings in a season with a K/9 of 3.00 or less, combining to make it happen 22 times. Kirk Rueter was the last to do it, pitching himself out of baseball in 2005 with a 2.10 K/9. The previously mentioned Cornejo did it in 2003, but only lasted 25 innings into the 2004 season before seeing his career end as well. Clearly, this isn’t a list of guys who went on to have long, productive careers after watching their ability to rack up the strikeouts all but disappear.

However, Hernandez has managed to succeed despite the strikeout rate by dramatically cutting down on his walks and keeping the ball in the yard. In all, he’s actually posting a not horrible 4.46 FIP, and while he probably won’t be able to keep his home run rate this low, that he’s not walking anyone should give the Twins hope that he can squeeze together a few more months of useful pitching. Hernandez isn’t a guy you want in your rotation long term, but given the choice between paying Carlos Silva $48 million over four years or paying Hernandez $5 million for one year, it seems pretty clear that Minnesota made the right choice.