The Dodgers’ Attempt to Beat the Market
Over the course of a few days during the winter meetings, it seemed like all that was happening was that free-agent relievers were signing multiyear contracts. And not just multiyear contracts — reasonably expensive multiyear contracts. Both Jake McGee and Bryan Shaw got three years. An incomplete selection of the relievers who got two: Brandon Morrow, Tommy Hunter, Juan Nicasio, Joe Smith, Anthony Swarzak, Steve Cishek, and Pat Neshek. These are all good pitchers. They deserve what they’ve gotten. But people are still relatively unaccustomed to seeing non-closers get $8 million a year. This is the bullpen age, indeed.
As the run on relievers was taking place, a common refrain was that teams were looking to sign the next Brandon Morrow, or the next Anthony Swarzak. Not that Morrow or Swarzak didn’t still get their money, but neither was considered valuable a year ago. They popped up, almost out of nowhere, and they became deadly weapons. So, teams figure, why wouldn’t there be other pop-up relievers? Why spend so much on a guy if you think you can find the next bullpen breakthrough?
Every team is looking for the next pop-up. It’s not easy to spot success before success. The Rangers think they have someone in Chris Martin, and I wrote about him, but he’s been terrific in Japan. It’s a different sort of gamble. Wily Peralta and Yovani Gallardo have signed with the Royals and Brewers, respectively, but they might still start. I don’t know if they’re necessarily considered the same kind of pop-up targets. This all leads me to Tom Koehler. I wanted to find a pitcher who’s been identified as a potential next Swarzak or Morrow. The Dodgers signed Koehler for $2 million, and if he hits all his incentives as a reliever, the salary tops out at $2.95 million. He’s under control for 2019, and the Dodgers see him in the bullpen.
Koehler, this past season, was bad. He had an ERA of almost 7. The bulk of his career has been spent as a starter, and there’s a perfectly good chance his 2018 goes off the rails. And yet the Dodgers think they might see something, something that could handle high-leverage situations. What is it the Dodgers are thinking? I’d like to give it my best guess.
It’s not very hard to get started. When the Blue Jays prepared to stick Koehler in their own bullpen last year down the stretch, Koehler embraced the decision. Therefore, he has the right attitude, being open-minded about how he might prolong his career. And even though Koehler made just 14 relief appearances, totaling 12 innings, he did end up with 11 strikeouts and just three walks. He mostly kept the ball on the ground.
Koehler didn’t go into the year thinking of himself as a reliever. He’d long been a starter with the Marlins, and he was only shifted at the end of last August. So Koehler didn’t have much time to prepare for the new, shorter role. Still, he did succeed, and I’ll note that, last year, while Koehler threw just 59% strikes over 13 starts, that strike rate skyrocketed to 67% in the bullpen. Koehler found himself more in control.
Even with the Blue Jays, there was a modest velocity gain. That was with a midseason adjustment. I ran some numbers covering the past decade, looking at guys who moved from the rotation to the bullpen between seasons, and fastballs gained an average of 1.7 miles per hour. A standout case from 2017 would be Archie Bradley, who gained more than three miles per hour. I bet the Dodgers figure Koehler can get his fastball a little hotter. The relief appearances are shorter, and simpler, and Koehler has all winter to prepare his body and workout regimen for the role. He would already sit comfortably around 93, touching 95. Perhaps he could get to 95, touching 97.
There’s another thing that has technically already happened. With the Marlins last year, as a starter, Koehler threw 61% four-seamers or curveballs. With the Blue Jays, he threw 82% four-seamers or curveballs. Koehler already simplified his repertoire, and I’m going to guess he’ll do that even more. In the bullpen, the fastball should play up, and Koehler generates a fair amount of rise. And the curveball has already been a weapon in the past. Koehler gets a lot of vertical drop. The four-seamer/curveball combination might be all that reliever Koehler needs.
This is Koehler throwing his curveball for a strike:
This is Koehler throwing his curveball for a different kind of strike:
By movement and velocity, it’s similar to the curveballs thrown by Trevor Bauer and Corey Knebel. Those were two standout pitches in 2017. Of course, a pitcher also needs to be able to command his pitches — movement and velocity aren’t everything — but reliever Koehler ought to have better control. That curveball is good enough to be both an at-bat-starter and an at-bat-ender.
As for the four-seamer, we can look at that too. Koehler’s fastball doesn’t generate extreme amounts of rise or anything, but it’s good enough, as four-seamers go. Last season, in zero- or one-strike counts, Koehler ranked in the 53rd percentile in terms of average vertical location. However, in two-strike counts, he ranked in just the 32nd percentile. That’s a complicated way of saying the following: With two strikes, Koehler didn’t throw that many high fastballs, relative to the rest of the population. The high four-seamer is a favored putaway pitch. Compare 2017 Koehler and 2017 Knebel.
Knebel made a habit of elevating. More importantly, the Dodgers made a habit of elevating. I assume this is a change they’re going to try to implement. When the Dodgers acquired Tony Cingrani, there were things they wanted him to change right away. They also had suggested changes for trade acquisition Yu Darvish. They’re likely to tell Koehler that his fastball could be better if he spotted it higher up. At that point, it would just be a matter of Koehler executing the strategy.
Maybe the Dodgers have big ideas for Koehler’s sinker or slider. I don’t have any inside information. Maybe they want him to make specific mechanical corrections. This entire article is mostly speculative, but all I’m trying to do is figure out why the Dodgers might believe in Koehler’s right arm. My best guess is that they think he’ll gain a couple ticks as a full-time reliever, possessing better control, and he could thrive by balancing his four-seamer and his curveball. A reliever only needs the two pitches, if they’re good enough. Koehler’s pitches, at least, have the right shapes.
It might work out, and it might not. It’s possible Koehler just won’t be able to throw enough strikes. It’s also possible he won’t make the average transition to the bullpen. He might not gain any velocity at all. The move isn’t for everyone. This is just the risk the Dodgers are taking, rather than roll the dice on some more proven $8-million-a-year alternative. Everyone wants to find the next pop-up reliever. The Dodgers think they’ve found their guy. Whether it works means nothing to me, but this is interesting, because it’s not an investment in what a guy is. Instead, it’s an investment in what a team thinks a 31-year-old could be.
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.

Wait, a bunch of non-closer middle-class relievers are getting reasonably expensive multiyear contracts on the FA market? I thought the middle-class free agent market was dying. Someone let Sawchik know.
Do you have an off switch?
iuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
like Timothy answered I am amazed that someone able to make $7869 in four weeks on the
computer . find out here…
Dodgers sign Tom Koehler: “hmmmm yes very interesting here’s some colored blobs”
Diamondbacks sign Tom Koehler: “LOL morons don’t you know he had a 7 ERA last year”
Nearly every team in baseball is run by an analytical front office. The Diamondbacks now included. So I guess that means we’re biased in favor of like 26 organizations.
When will you stop being so unfairly biased against the Diamondbacks about the players whose upside they’re gambling on, like that Breakout Player piece on Ketel Marte just the other day
What do you mean, now? I’ve been talking to an analyst for years.
There are four teams without an analytical front office? I’m curious as to which teams you think those are. My guess is the Marlins, the Tigers, and…who? The Rockies? The Reds? The Rangers?
It seems like the Ruben Amaros and Dave Stewarts and Frank Wrens are out. Even the good old-fashioned GMs have moved on and not been replaced (like Schuerholz), moved to teams with more infrastructure already in place (like Dombrowski), or incorporated a lot more analytics under the radar (like Sabean and Moore).
The Orioles, bless their hearts, definitely march to the beat of their own drums.
The beat goes on and they’re so wrong
I believe the Red Sox would be one of those teams. Not that they don’t have or use analytics at all, but that their decision-making doesn’t seem to be guided by it.
so so true mr. regfairfield…
You have just always been so unlikable.
Cingrani may have been terrible in CIN and a dfa canidate. However teading Van Slyke for him was an absolute no brainer. The upside of Cingrani was easily higher than a mediocre outfielder. Suprised no other teams thought that way
Wouldn’t there be some minor league FA’s that fit this same profile that would sign for the minimum? Or is Tom Koehler that good that you need to guarantee him $2.0m+ plus a spot on the 40 man roster?
I’d love to explore, but unfortunately I don’t have any minor-league pitch-tracking data. It’s a reasonable question.
“all I’m trying to do is figure out why the Dodgers might believe in Koehler’s right arm”
Because that’s the arm he pitches with…?
Obviously, having more money available to spend than any other team is a huge advantage. But I think it’s moves like these that can really allow the Dodgers to be in a class of their own, particularly when thinking about long term, sustained excellence. Not to overstate the importance of Tom Koehler of course. I’m just impressed when a team with significant resources recognizes the importance of efficiently using those resources, even at the margins.
They are doing exactly what every other team is doing the only difference is that when they make a mistake they can afford to absorb it. They gave there closer 80 mil, these are not efficient use of resources (I’m not arguing the merits of that contract, just saying it isn’t efficient. Tom Koehler is the affects of larger spending in other places and the need to make significantly smaller moves to get under the luxury tax for 1 year due to the expected benefits.
>Tom Koehler is the affects of larger spending in other places and the need to make significantly smaller moves to get under the luxury tax for 1 year due to the expected benefits.
I mean if this was the first time the dodgers had done this, then maybe. But they did the same thing with Brandon Morrow literally last season. It has very little to do with the luxury tax and a hell of a lot to do with their philosophy on relief pitching in general.
Jansen was the exception, not the rule.
Exactly, and when you do have the money to spend, and you make the exceptions for the truly elite (i.e. Jansen), then that’s smart.
Ok fair enough on the efficiency of the dodgers bullpen spending but it doesn’t change my larger point about the dodgers ability to obsorbe mistakes.
Taking flyers because the giant payroll can afford to absorb and write off millions and millions of dollars of mistakes is not different from having lots of money available; it’s actually the very direct result of it.
It’s not 2002 anymore. Most of the big market teams are being run efficiently and in a resource-aware manner. With that sort of level playing field in front office smarts, having the most resources is quite a useful tie-breaker.
Hey Jeff, love your writing. One small thing caught my attention here … “but reliever Koehler ought to have better control” … why is that? Guys don’t typically come into better control by moving to the bullpen do they? I’m curious. Thanks
Strikeout rates tend to go up and walk rates tend to go down with reliever conversions, probably because the pitchers don’t have to throw their worst pitches very often, and they don’t fight the same kind of fatigue.
Actually, I find no meaningful difference in walk rates in reliever conversions.
Spanning the last 5 years, I found 118 pitchers with at least 150 batters faced in each role, and compared their UIBB% in each role. Yes, there were a few more with lower walk rates in relief (64-54). But there was zero difference in either their combined UIBB% (both 7.6%) or the unweighted individual average difference.
Presumably, the pitch-selection edge Jeff noted for RPs is offset by the tendency to work more carefully in later innings.
You’re right, I was misremembering Tango’s rule of 17. Other things improve, by about 17%, but walk rate isn’t one of them.
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/rule_of_17/
Looking at starter-reliever conversions from the past decade and focusing on strike rate, there’s an improvement I find of only about one percentage point. Which isn’t nothing, but it’s not big. Of course, in Koehler’s own particular case, there’s the small-sample evidence of his high strike rate as a reliever just last season. I’m sure that didn’t escape the Dodgers’ notice.
Signing Koehler is all well and good, but shouldn’t signing a high-upside $2M reliever make it possible to sign a $10-12M proven reliever like Addison Reed and have a powerhouse bullpen — as opposed to signing 2 $5M-$6M relievers?
If you believe that Addison Reed will be good for all of those years, not get injured, etc.
This front office clearly believes, and they’re not the only ones to believe this, that reliever performance is not predictable enough to be worth betting significant money on because of the frequency of injury or ineffectiveness.
How many of these 2 year/15-18m contracts do you think we’re going to look at in 2020 and think were good deals? It’s almost certainly under half.
The number of relief pitchers you can count on being really good every year is extremely low, and they cost a lot more than a few million dollars
And how many Koehlers can you realistically expect to be 2017 Morrow good? I agree that there are few relievers I would feel comfortable giving a three year contract to, but 29 year old Addison Reed would be one of them.
Apparently there isn’t a competitive baseball team that agrees with you at the moment, since there doesn’t appear to be any interest in such a contract for Reed.
Look how good Maeda was as a reliever; the guys with the stuff to be an entirely fine relief pitcher are plentiful and not terribly predictable.
I think you deeply underestimate the unpredictability of the relief pitcher.
But they did give Jansen 5 years @ $18 million. So let’s not portray their belief as a hard and fast rule.
And depending on how well he does, how he is used (single inning or multiple inning stints), a team might be be willing to look at him like the Padres did with Trevor Cahill last season (did quite well w/the padres on a 1.75 mil deal).
Good, now they can package this contract with 10 other broken-down crap pitchers’ contracts for another Matt Kemp trade and Fangraphs can hail it as the next genius move.
beat the market? after having spent over a BILLION dollars on baseball players over the past 6+ years and with NOTHING to show for it…the are simply out of $$$$
its closer to 1.5 Billion actually…
Nothing to show for it? Five division titles and an NL pennant isn’t nothing.
hahahah.
hahahahahah!
Do you know how many teams would kill for 5 straight division titles with 3 LCS and 1 WS appearance?
Since the question came up, let’s see what the Dodgers *have* gotten for their last-6-years salary outlay of $1.36bn (tops in MLB and twice the average, all per Baseball Reference):
— #1 attendance, 50% above average
— #2 franchise value, per Forbes
— #1 record in regular season
— #1 with 5 playoff appearances (two teams have 4)
— #1 with 5 division titles (one has 4, three have 3)
— #1 with 45 playoff games
— #2 with 23 playoff games won
— #2 projected 2018 record (95 wins)
They haven’t won a championship, and I’m sure that’s frustrated their fans. But by that standard, 24 other clubs have been abject failures in this span, and 7 franchises might as well not have been born, notably including the one nearest to them.
None of that matters for 1.36 Billion dumbass and how many of the playoff appearances ended in the divisional series.
“#1 record in regular season” LOLOLOL!!!!!
“notably including the one nearest to them…”
The Angels?
A mistake in my last clause has been graciously brought to my attention. I should have just said “the Padres” instead of being coy.
being coy? Take the Dodgers salary minus it from the Oakland A’s salary, and now think…that money could have literally fed every single homeless person in LA county for those 6 years…now that is “being coy” my friend.
Here we have an argument that will definitely stand up to close scrutiny! Unlike YOUR team’s morally disgusting profiteers, MY team is composed exclusively of volunteers and donates 100% of its revenue to Médecins Sans Frontières.
The way the Padres have played in recent years, I’m not convinced they aren’t composed exclusively of volunteers.
It’s been hard for me to understand why Koehler hasn’t had more success. When he was with tbe Marlins especially, but even in the AL east he had ENOUGH control/command with that electric stuff to walk away without a 7 era.
Of course that’s why MLB is the best league in the world, when even the Daniel Cabreras of the world cannot just “get by” with 98 and a wicked breaking pitch.
Not a baseball question, but why as an annual
“no ad member” are there ads before each of these videos? Not trying to be whiny, genuinely wondering if this is in error.
Ads on videos come from the video hosting site so Fangraphs can’t prevent you from getting them.
Must be exciting to be a reliever this era. The pig paycheck is right around the corner if you can get it together. No longer do you need to be a starter or a closer.