The Pomeranaissance
If your favorite team is one of the few looking to improve itself via free agency this offseason, thereβs a good chance they could use bullpen help. Every team except the Yankees could, after all, and even they could use another good reliever on the margin. Thereβs only one problem — the cupboard is somewhat bare.
Our list of the top 50 free agents features only one reliever, Will Smith, among the top 20 players. Miss on Smith, and the next tier is in the mid-20s: Dellin Betances, Will Harris, Drew Pomeranz, and maybe Chris Martin if youβre into that kind of thing. None of those players are the type of impact reliever fans dream of signing to turn the bullpen from a weakness to a strength.
Or at least, none of them are now. Pomeranz, who is likely a full-time reliever now after two years as a swingman, has the potential to be an absolute star, the kind of game-changing reliever you pencil in for four big outs whenever you need them, or maybe six big outs in a key playoff contest.
That would be a wild sentence to read after 2018, when Pomeranz signed a one-year contract with the Giants after a dismal season in Boston. Itβs mildly less surprising after 2019, when he excelled in Milwaukee. But still, the dude had a 4.85 ERA in his good season, and heβs 31. Rather than lean too hard into a half-season of ERA in Milwaukee, letβs build a more detailed case for the Pomeranaissance.
Jake Mailhot dug into Pomeranzβs performance in Milwaukee and had one key takeaway: switching from the rotation to the bullpen unlocked his fastball. The pitch, which sat 91-93 mph in the rotation, was suddenly more like 94-96 in the bullpen. Want to start missing bats? Add three miles an hour to your fastball and swap out some marginal pitches for more heaters.
And thatβs exactly what Pomeranz did. As a starter from 2016 to 2019, he threw his four-seam fastball 44.9% of the time. When he dabbled in relief with the Red Sox in 2018, he kept that number more or less constant, coming in at 43.8%. But when he switched to the bullpen this year, he let the fastball eat: it made up 72.6% of his pitches, with two separate 26-pitch outings that featured 25 fastballs.
That might not sound like a great plan — arenβt fastballs usually the pitches you want to avoid? But for Pomeranz, his newly nitro-boosted offering was a weapon rather than a hindrance. He generated swinging strikes on 15.6% of the four-seamers he threw, a rate that would have been in the 94th percentile for four-seam fastballs last year if heβd spent the entire season in relief.
He does it in the normal way that people get misses with a fastball — with a deceptive delivery and a lot of movement. Thatβs always been Pomeranzβs calling card — even as a starter, he generated tons of ride — but adding velocity to an already hard-to-hit fastball has a compounding effect. Fastballs with great movement can be hit, and 95-mph fastballs can be hit, but 95-mph fastballs with great movement are another story altogether.
Throwing 75% fastballs had another benefit; it indeed let Pomeranz excise marginal pitches from his repertoire and focus on his strengths. As a starter this year, he threw five pitches, including a pedestrian two-seamer:

Thatβs a lot of ephemera, and other than the curve, none of the secondary pitches showed much separation from his fastball:

No matter which metric you prefer, the sinker, change, and cutter were clearly his three worst pitches. They generated the least swinging strikes, the least whiffs per swing, and had the worst linear run value per pitch. Batters turned more batted balls into line drives against his cutter than his four-seamer, which is hard to do.
By throwing so many fastballs, Pomeranz could cut out the junk and focus on what he does best:

That curveball, by the way, is no average secondary pitch. Itβs nearly a perfect 12-6 rainbow, and he generates excellent movement despite middling spin. In fact, his combination of drop and velocity is quite rare. Take a look at every pitcher who throws a faster curveball with more drop (excluding gravity):
| Player | Velo (mph) | Drop (in.) | Whiff/Sw% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tyler Glasnow | 84.2 | 11.04 | 43.36% |
| Gerrit Cole | 82.8 | 9.02 | 31.87% |
| Mark Melancon | 82.3 | 9.6 | 39.19% |
| Colten Brewer | 82.2 | 9.94 | 36.41% |
| Will Harris | 81.5 | 9.23 | 37.33% |
| Drew Pomeranz | 81.4 | 8.94 | 27.47% |
Thatβs an excellent list, and also Colten Brewer. And even these numbers undersell Pomeranz, because they include the curveballs he threw as a starter. In his time as a reliever, he added velocity and started missing more bats. In fact, only Cole and Glasnow would remain on the list if we used Pomeranzβs relief numbers as a baseline.
Thereβs something deceptively simple about Pomeranzβs transformation. Throw two pitches, and throw them well. It shouldnβt be that easy. Shouldnβt he suffer against opposite-handed batters now that he doesnβt use a changeup? Shouldnβt batters be able to sit on one of the two pitches?
But baseball doesnβt need to be complicated. Pomeranz has two pitches that are head and shoulders above the rest. They also pair well — they break in nearly opposite directions, and while spin mirroring is far from a settled science, it stands to reason that itβs harder to pick up opposite spin than skew spin.
And while gifs can lie, it sure does look difficult to tell the two apart. Eric Hosmer looks lost on this curveball:
While that was a good pitch, it surely doesnβt hurt that Hosmer had fastball on the brain after the previous pitch:
So if Pomeranz has ascended to this new level of excellence, why isnβt he a bigger ticket free agent? Itβs not as though no one saw his improvement: itβs everywhere on the baseball internet. The problem is that this isnβt some random reliever; itβs Drew Pomeranz, the same pitcher who was below replacement level as recently as this June.
Our brains are slow to incorporate new information, and usually thatβs good. Jordan Zimmermann had two excellent starts at the beginning of this season, and our brains discarded it as irrelevant. But in Pomeranzβs case, I think our rational minds are missing something. There was never a question of whether his best two pitches were good enough — no one has ever looked at his fastball or curveball and thought he wasnβt a big league pitcher. The issue was always with the other pitches, or with the command and durability, or with his inability to end at-bats with a low-90s fastball.
All those things are still relevant, but theyβre less relevant out of the bullpen. If he was simply a rookie reliever with the numbers he posted — 47.2% strikeout rate, 1.88 ERA, 1.67 xFIP, and a .220 wOBA allowed — weβd be calling him Baby Kimbrel and the Mets would be lining up to trade their top five prospects for him. Is the weight of Pomeranzβs former struggles enough to offset this?
If I were signing players, Iβd take the gamble that this new Pomeranz is here to stay. Could he turn back into a pumpkin next year? Absolutely. But he could also turn into peak Andrew Miller, or left-handed Nick Anderson, and it would hardly be surprising. Kiley projected Pomeranz for a two-year, $16 million contract, and the crowd had him at 2/12. Iβd be willing to go well past either of these numbers, and I suspect that some team with a bullpen hole and an eye for upside will as well.
Ben is a writer at FanGraphs. He can be found on Bluesky @benclemens.
He seems like the best FA reliever to me. I would prefer him to Harris, Betances, and Hudson by a mile. Will Smith is close, but I think I like DP more. He was incredible with the Brewers last year and with the Giants out of relief before that. 2 for 16 would be a steal.
You would prefer Pomeranz “by a mile” to Will Harris, who over the last five years has put up xFIPs of 3.31, 2.83, 2.94, 2.77 and 3.04, respectively, in close to 300 innings of work? And is coming off a largely dominant postseason and a 1.50 regular season ERA, to boot? Really?
Yes. https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2019&month=0&season1=2019&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=3192,7146,11847,11426,8048&startdate=2019-01-01&enddate=2019-12-31&sort=17,a
For sure. Pomerantz is potentially one of the top 5 or 6 RPs in baseball. He looked absolutely incredible last year.
Smith is close? Huh? You seem to think way too highly of Pomeranz..
I’m not alone, https://twitter.com/ByRobertMurray/status/1195105802303860736?s=20
But Steve, how do we know the “one evaluator” Murray is sighting isn’t you π
I successfully dodged bothering to participate in the reliever crowdsourcing malaise, but do people really think 2/16 is possible?
He had 173 inning in his good year with the Red Sox. If he were to start 81 games this season throwing two innings he can go 0-10 and win the Cy.
Are we going to see these types of improved guys go back to starting but aiming for 2 times through the order at ‘max’ velocity? A ton of the classic starter approach to pacing themselves is just mental so other than potential injury risk (which isn’t very clear on max vs. accrued effort) many pitchers would seem to be incentivized to ‘try harder’ for shorter stints, particularly if recent game strategy has them being removed earlier regardless.
i can see him as a opener and go once through the order
I didn’t even read this and it’s already one of my favorite articles here based solely on the title.
Benβs article illustrates why Pomeranz represents a unique gambling opportunity. If he fails casual fans will be angry, but more analytical fans will appreciate the risk/reward nature of signing him.
Using GIFs of Hosmer looking lost against a lefty is only proof that the pitcher does indeed throw lefthanded.
I enjoyed the article, and I found the conclusions backed up my own thoughts. As much as sample-size caveats apply, Pomeranz has always had talent, and it really is just an elevation of his two best tools, which have been there for years, rather than some new off-the-wall approach.
However, the title just brought to mind the image of a Pomeranian in Ren-faire regalia which… honestly, now that I think about it, just makes this better.
We have been told for quite a few years now that one the most important reasons that starters aren’t going more than 100 pitches, + or -, is that they are going full bore from the first pitch and aren’t pacing themselves like some claim that starters did years ago. I have always argued that was BS and this seems to support my thesis. Pomeranz looked like a soft-tossing junk-baller during his time in Boston when the truth is he was holding back on his heater and holding back by a lot. i wonder how many on this site ever saw Bob Gibson or Tom Seaver throw their Number 1. There was no holding back by these men and they pitched huge innings, with high pitch counts, for many, many years. It is time for some more honest reasons for coddling pitchers. I know I would rather see a cruising Jacob deGrom pitch the 9th than Edwin Diaz.
Would injury concern be one reason to “coddle” your starters? For every Gibson, there’s a dozen guys who had careers cut short. I do think there’s a point where you may hit over-coddle, and if there’s one truth I’ve come to, it’s that no single approach will fit every pitcher. Bodies are different, health risk is different. Health is something to think about though.
Of course health issues are a part of the equation but how do we know if any of today;s pitchers can shoulder the load that many great pitchers of the past did routinely if they are never tested. `With bullpens being what they are today it behooves teams to see what they have and let the wheelhorses carry more of the load. Today’s organizations seem to think that they can send their relievers out there 70 times and warm them up another 20 and continue to get quality work. It isn’t working and one reason a great pitcher, like Jacob deGrom, only earns 10 or 11 wins is because he is forced to turn the game over to such stiffs as Edwin Diaz and watch the lead evaporate. It seems that more pitchers than ever are breaking down despite the futile attempts to keep them healthy. Arms fall off or they don’t and there has never been any proof put forward that the present day is any different. The great pitchers of just one generation ago, Randy Johnson, Schilling, Morris, Glavine, Maddox and many more routinely threw 250 innings and kept on going. Johnson and Schilling were true power pitchers in every sense of the word but were still great into their late 30’s. One of the things missing from today’s game is a good amount of truly dominant starters and I don’t mean Stephen Strasburg who has only reached the qualifying innings amount 4 times in his career, much less 250 innings year after year. If there was any evidence that pitchers pitched for more years when they threw fewer innings each year I might agree but that isn’t the case. Top of the rotation men like Sale and Price both began their decline before reaching 30 despite coddling. As good as Jacob deGrom has been since he first came up he has never won more 15 games and has 66 wins. That is a travesty.
Sorta like Rich Hill.
Great article title