Archive for Randy Wolf

Last season, the Milwaukee Brewers’ starting rotation consisted of Yovani Gallardo and “staff.” The club boasted a potent offensive attack, ranking third in the NL in wOBA and second in Park-Adjusted Batting Runs, but Milwaukee’s starting staff placed just 13th in xFIP. While there were many Bernie Brewer slides, Milwaukee finished the year with a disappointing 80-82 record due largely to the ineffectiveness of the non-Gallardo starters.

Over the winter, the Brewers sought to end those rotation woes by snagging a pair of lefties, Doug Davis and Randy Wolf, in free agency. Yet, even after yesterday’s 3-0 victory over the Mariners, the narrative for 2010 is much the same as it was last year. Milwaukee’s offense is second in the Senior Circuit in wOBA and paces the league in Park-Adjusted Batting Runs. But the starters are the bane of Bernie Brewer’s existence yet again — 12th in the NL in xFIP. At 34-41, the team sits 7.5 games back of the division-leading Reds and nine games behind the Mets for the Wild Card.

Davis tossed just 33.1 innings with Milwaukee this season (7.56 ERA, 4.49 xFIP) before being placed on the DL with pericarditis. Wolf, inked to a three-year, $29.75 million deal, has just been howling bad.

Anyone expecting the 33-year-old to repeat his 2009 season with the Dodgers was bound to be disappointed. Wolf posted a 3.23 ERA in 214.1 frames with L.A. last year, but his peripherals suggested he was the same low-four’s ERA pitcher on display in 2007 and 2008 — with 6.72 K/9 and 2.44 BB/9, his xFIP was 4.17. Heading into 2010, both CHONE and ZiPS expected that Wolf’s .257 BABIP would climb toward the .300 range, and his FIP would settle in around 4.20. CHONE and ZiPS valued the former Phillie, Dodger, Astro and Padres as a 2.2-2.3 WAR pitcher. The FANS were more optimistic, expecting Wolf to match his 2009 output with 3.0 WAR.

Instead of stabilizing Milwaukee’s rotation, Wolf has been the unit’s biggest offender. In his first 97 innings, he has -0.8 WAR, which ranks dead last among NL starters. He is striking out 5.29 batters per nine innings, the lowest mark of his career, while issuing 4.64 BB/9 — his highest rate of free passes handed out since 2006, when he was fresh off Tommy John surgery. Wolf’s 5.39 xFIP is worst among qualified NL starters.

From 2007-2009, Wolf induced swinging strikes 8.1 percent of the time (8.6% MLB average those years). This season, batters are coming up empty just 5.6 percent (8.3% MLB average). His contact rate, 82.4% from ’07 to ’09, is 86.5% (the MLB average has remained around 81%). Wolf’s not getting hitters to chase off the plate as much, either. His outside swing percentage was 24.3 percent from 2007-2009, with the MLB average ranging from 25% to 25.4%. In 2010, his O-Swing is down to 21.1% (28.4% MLB average).

On a per-pitch basis, Wolf’s fastball has gotten hammered. The upper-80’s offering was worth +1.01 runs per 100 pitches from 2007-2009. This year, the heater has a -1.41 runs/100 mark. Looking at Wolf’s Pitch F/X data from 2009 and 2010, he’s getting fewer whiffs, strikes, and swings. Last year, Wolf deceived batters to swing through his fastball 6.4 percent. This year, it’s 5.8 percent (the MLB average is around six). His strike percentage was 69.1 in ’09 and 65.8 in 2010 (62-64% MLB average). Batters swung at the fastball 49.2 percent last season, and 43 percent this season (45-46% MLB average).

Wolf’s hasn’t been terrible versus same-handed hitters, but he’s losing the zone against righties, and fooling fewer of them:

Wolf likely won’t be this bad all season long, but the Brewers clearly haven’t received the return they were expecting. There’s also the question of whether he’ll come close to justifying a $9.5 million salary in both 2011 and 2012. Manny Parra is intriguing, Chris Narveson hasn’t embarrassed himself, and Davis could resume his average innings-munching, but Milwaukee needs Wolf to turn it around. In terms of clearly above-average starters, Gallardo remains the lone wolf.

Reputations are interesting in the sense that they can alter our perception of a player. For instance, Jon Garland, who just signed a questionable deal with the Diamondbacks, has the reputation of a durable, grounder-inducing pitcher. This reputation is sound given that he routinely logs 200+ IP in 33+ GS, but it also masks his shortcomings. Adversely, the reputation for falling prey to injuries can mask a player’s true production level. Just look at Ben Sheets: 130 IP of Sheets at the top of his game is more productive than 200 IP from someone like Garland.

And the lack of a reputation prevents similar pitchers from being acknowledged. Which brings us to Braden Looper, an average or so pitcher who projects to perform similarly to this past season in 2009, performance similar to that of Garland’s. Despite the similarities, Looper lacks the reputation or track record of being extremely durable. I have seen perhaps two teams expressing even cursory interest in the veteran. The track record set by Garland may be worth the extra interest and salary, but this is interesting nonetheless.

If Looper throws 185 IP with a 4.54 FIP, down from the 199 at 4.52 in 2008, he would still be worth right around +1.65 wins. No, this isn’t going to light the world on fire, but he isn’t going to cost much, especially in this economy, and the return is not going to be that far off of someone like Garland. Looper would have made more sense for a team like the Mets than Tim Redding, yet his name never even surfaced.

Randy Wolf’s recent reputation comes as an injury-prone pitcher. From 2005-07, he managed just 43 starts coming off of Tommy John Surgery. Still, in 18 starts during the 2007 season, Wolf produced +1.7 wins. Last season, in 33 GS and 190 IP, he produced +2.0 wins. It seems safe to say that Wolf is, at worst, a +1.8 win pitcher next year. Exceeding the league average production in 2008 is not out of the question, either, given that he has now pitched a full post-surgery season.

Garland, Looper, and Wolf all project quite similarly to each other in 2009. Despite this, Looper’s lack of a reputation and Wolf’s supposed inability to stay on the field are important enough to teams that these pitchers are rarely mentioned. If a team seeks a decent 4th or 5th starter to fill out their rotation, one that does not come at too steep of a price, either of these two is likely to be just as productive as Garland, if not better.

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.

Well, it is officially 2009, meaning pitchers and catchers report in less than two months. This offseason has seen CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett sign extremely lucrative deals with the Yankees, Javier Vazquez shipped to the Braves, and negotiations begun on a deal between Derek Lowe and the Mets. As obvious as it may sound, starting pitching is very importance to the success of a team, and these teams have made great strides to strengthen their respective staffs.

There are several other options available on the free agent market, though, that would not require long-commitment/big-money contracts. Doubly important, their classification as Type B free agents means that the teams they eventually sign with do not have to surrender a first-round draft pick next season. As of right now, there are five such pitchers on the market: Paul Byrd, Jon Garland, Braden Looper, John Smoltz, and Randy Wolf.

Byrd is 38 years old and coming off of a relative down season spent with both the Indians and Red Sox. It did not seem to make much sense when the Red Sox acquired him last season and it won’t make much sense if he signs anything other than a 1-yr deal with little monetary investment. Byrd projects to log 175 innings with a 4.78 FIP next season. These numbers make him worth +1.2 wins. This below average projection pegs his fair market value at around $6 mil. If a team finds itself needing some veteran experience in the rotation, it could do worse than Byrd, but anything over 1-yr/$6 mil is really overvaluing his potential contribution.

Garland, 29, happens to be the youngest of this quintet. He has also been one of the more overrated pitchers in recent history. Garland has shown himself to be very durable, but his combination of good, not great, ERA figures with 200+ innings pitched has hidden his poor controllable skills. Next season, Garland projects to 184 innings at a 4.58 FIP. This makes him a +1.7 win pitcher, just slightly better than Byrd, and nine years junior. Jon is coming off of two consecutive seasons during which his salary exceeded $10 mil. At +1.5 wins, his fair market value is $8.5 mil. I can definitely see Garland signing a 3-yr deal somewhere, but fear that the signing team will pay much more than this fair market value. In fact, I would not be surprised if Garland signs a 3-yr/$36 mil deal similar to the one currently offered to Derek Lowe.

Next up is Braden Looper, of whom I wrote about not too long ago. Though Looper is 34 years old, I am very surprised his name is not being tossed around that much. His projections are sunnier than Garland and in the same vicinity as other pitchers making substantially more money. He also projects to 184 innings next season, but with a 4.42 FIP, deeming his value at +1.9 wins. Braden’s fair market value would then be $9.5 mil. A team looking for a safe bet to fill out the back end of their rotation would do themselves wise to sign Braden to a 2-yr/$18 mil deal.

John Smoltz, 41, is the elder statesman of the group as well as the most curious case. From 2005-2007, he easily surpassed the 200-innings plateau. Last year, however, injuries sidelined him for the majority of the season. Marcel has him pegged for 94 innings at a 3.50 FIP, numbers that fall vastly above or below his marks from the previous three seasons. Under this scenario, Smoltz would still be worth +2 wins. A more optimistic projection would see Smoltz pitch 190 innings with a 3.35 FIP, deeming him closer to +4 wins. Ideally, Smoltz would return for the Braves for one more season before hanging up his glove. Smoltz could be worth anywhere from $10-$20 mil next season, but he definitely has the potential to be the best of this group, even at 41 years of age.

Lastly, we have Randy Wolf, who has been linked to a slew of teams, including the Mets. The former all-star has seen his fair share of injuries over the last several seasons, but projects to log around 180 innings with a 4.40 FIP. These numbers, very similar to those projected for Looper, place Wolf around +2 wins, $10 mil. At 32 years old, a 3-yr deal would not be in the realm of absurdity, but his injury history may make him risky to some front offices. Whoever inks Wolf to a deal should include an option and performance bonuses to protect themselves if he should find himself on the familiar disabled list.

Later on tonight, we will look at the Type B relievers on the market.