Jim Johnson as a Starter: Yay or Nay?
by Stacey on Nov 29, 2011 10:02 AM EST
in Commentary & Analysis
Email
Print
There has been a lot of talk about moving Jim Johnson to the rotation in 2012, and I understand the inclination. He's still relatively young (he'll turn 29 next June), he's a fantastic relief pitcher, and starting pitchers are more valuable than relievers. No brainer, right?
I don't think so. In fact, I think the Orioles should leave Jim Johnson in the bullpen where he has excelled.
JJ has made just one major league start, back on July 29, 2006. There is really no information to be gained from one start, so it's best to ignore it (I'm sure JJ would rather forget it happened as well, since he gave up eight earned runs in just three innings). But he was primarily a starter in the minor leagues, with 127 of his 144 minor league appearance being starts.
Way back in 2005, Johnson made twenty-seven starts for the Frederick Keys. While he struck out a very good 9.5 batters per nine innings, his walk rate was higher than it had ever been before at 3.6 BB/9, and he had a very pedestrian WHIP at 1.271. He earned a promotion to Bowie in 2006 where he made twenty-six starts. His ERA jumped up to 4.44 at AA as his walks went down just a bit (3.2 BB/9) and his K rate plummeted (7.2 per nine). That was good enough to be sent to AAA Norfolk for the 2007 season, where as a twenty-four year old he made twenty-five starts, pitching 148 innings. He got his walk rate under control at 2.9 BB/9, but his strikeout rate continued to drop as he struck out only 6.6 batters per nine.
2007 was the last time JJ spent any time in the minors other than injury rehab, as he's been a member of the Orioles bullpen since 2008. In his four seasons in the O's bullpen, JJ has excelled. He still doesn't strike out many batters with an average of just 5.8 K/9 in his big league career, but he's learned not to walk many and he is able to use his sinking fastball to his advantage.
Johnson had a pedestrian minor league career as a starting pitcher and there is little to indicate that he'd be anything more than a Brad Bergesen type in a major league rotation. In 2011, Johnson threw 917 of his 1234 pitches for fastballs. That's about 75%, and he threw it with an average velocity of 95 mph. That's what JJ is built for. If he were to move to the rotation he'd have to use his fastball less often and rely on his other pitches more, and his velocity would likely drop given that he'd need to preserve his energy to pitch at least five innings.
In the article by Steve Melewski that I clipped for this morning's Bird Droppings, he compared Johnson to C.J. Wilson, and that's just not a fair comparison (although in Melewski's defense, he only compared them for innings pitched purposes). As a relief pitcher, Wilson was a strikeout pitcher. He struck out 10.3 batters per nine in 2009, his last year in the bullpen. Since becoming a starter, Wilson's K/9 dropped to 7.5 in 2010 and 8.3 in 2011. Johnson really can't afford for his K rate to drop much more (especially if that goes hand-in-hand with a velocity drop), and that's just what would happen if he joined the rotation.
Jim Johnson can be a mediocre starter or a fantastic reliever. And don't we already have enough mediocre starters?
Data obtained from FanGraphs, Baseball Reference, and Texas Leaguers.
112 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Leave JJ alone
He ain’t broke. Don’t fix him. He’ll be a great closer. No point in subtracting from Column-A simply to add to Column-B.
Co-sign
you did not even bring up JJ’s injury history, and you might not even need to. There’s this weird school of thought that seems to be that JJ will simply be really good as a starter because he’s really good as a reliever “and he has plenty of plus pitches”, which I am not sure matches up with reality, or is a fair benchmark if he is moved to the rotation. The comparisons to C.J. Wilson are as inevitable as they are wrongheaded (noting, too, that C.J. Wilson is only one example, which isn’t nearly enough information to say “yes, do it, this will probably work”).
On the other hand, there is a sort of “what do we have to lose?” vibe regarding JJ’s 2012 role. Getting creative and hitting a hail mary is a low percentage move, but if it does happen to work, it really, really helps. So long as the O’s don’t think they need to spend even more money on the bullpen without Johnson.
I'll develop my own image. I'm an original man. A one and only. I just need some help.
you did not even bring up JJ’s injury history,
He’s had one season with an injury no? It’s not uncommon for a pitcher to hit the DL at least once in his career.
There’s this weird school of thought that seems to be that JJ will simply be really good as a starter because he’s really good as a reliever "and he has plenty of plus pitches",
I just want to say that’s not my rationale. I want to see how his sinker translates as a starter.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
Give him a shot
I say we start him for a little while, see if he is just as good as a starter. Worst case scenario we move him back to his current spot.
That's not even close to the worst case scenario
worst case scenario is that he sucks as a starter and gets injured. Slightly less worse, but still really bad and possible is that he sucks as a starter and is then thrown off his routine and so continues to suck when he goes back to the bullpen.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
Regardless - the worst case scenario is clearly NOT that we just move him back to the bullpen and everything's fine.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
I am going to argue that at this point
our team is decidedly lacking in the mediocre starter department. I say give him a start and see how he fares, he can’t do any worse than the majority of our starters last year, if he ends up anywhere near mediocre he will be a top 3 pitcher in our rotation. Besides, we can always go pay 10 million for a new relief pitcher.
ooh ooh, can we give up draft picks too?!
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Nov 29, 2011 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I wouldn't move him out of the bullpen
but I would use him for more than one inning at a time. My offseason plan contest entry will address this.
"The key to winning baseball games is pitching, fundamentals, and three-run homers."
Agreed, but...
JJ has been exceptional out of the pen, why mess with success? I think the only reason it is being considered is an extremely weak rotation. When you look at which you would rather have starting your games JJ or Matusz, then the picture is a little more murky. Ideally, the issues with the rotation are fixed and JJ can stay within the ’pen and maybe be joined by some of these guys who are struggling on the rotation to see if they can do better there. But really, I think the chances of picking up one or two decent starters this year is slim to none, then with all the trade talk around Guts, you really are depleting what little talent you have left in the rotation. If you are not really concerned about wins and losses in 2012, then do it. Pull the trigger, trade Guts and get some high level minor leaguers, move JJ into the rotation as a stop-gap and throw Tillman, Matusz, Arrieta and whoever else we have get out there and see who can stick around when we have some decent pitchers on the club, and hope what little fanbase you have left will stick around for losing season numbers 15 and likely 16. Really, I think it depends on your philosphy going into 2012, can you pull out a winning season? Do you even try or do you simply work on developing for 2013 or 2014?
Jim Palmer
Palmer has been advocating for JJ to join the rotation. Should we pay attention to his recommendation?
Let's just add Palmer to the rotation
by Steven_G on Nov 29, 2011 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Jim Palmer has also been advocating for Jim Palmer to join the rotation.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
Do it
If he and Buck think it’s a good idea.
The temptation to use Johnson’s stats as a minor league starter is logical, to be sure, but in this case irrelevant, for one very good reason.
He’s not the same pitcher he was then
He broke out in the bullpen in a big way after having spend an offseason working with Dave Schmidt, I think it’s spelled, minor league pitching coordinator in those days (or something similar). They retooled his motion, with an emphasis on the stride. It helped that they lived near each other in Florida.
The next year in spring training, then-bullpen coach Alan Dunn worked with him too.
Had he not been retooled, it’s very possible he wouldn’t have been an effective reliever, either.
Palmer wouldn’t have advocated the old Johnson go to the rotation, but he is advocating the “new” (albeit a few years now) Johnson go in.
It’s also understandable that people would say “if it ain’t broke…”, but that’s a bit too facile for me. When you get a chance to climb those golden stairs, you take the first step.
He already knows about starting, and he’s a different — and better — pitcher than he once was. He also, from a distance, seems to have the mindset required to make the switch.
Let him start and see what happens.
Are you saying
that the retooling he did that resulted in him becoming an effective reliever will also translate into him being an effective starter? Or that he is good at receiving instruction so he can do the same thing in relearning how to become a starter? None of the above?
Mother, did it need to be so high.
Retooling
It made him a more effective pitcher. He already has several years of experience as a starter, so I don’t think he’d have to relearn much.
starting and relieving are very different skills
they require different conditioning regimens and reward different skill sets. Look, this is a team that’s employed Koji Uehara — isn’t that a good enough case study?
by AndrewTorrez on Nov 29, 2011 9:07 PM EST up reply actions
no
Koji was much older and had already shown himself to be injury prone and an inneffective starter for his Japanese team.
"End of season like this, to make Boston go home sad, crying, I’ll take it all day."—Robert Andino
leave him in the pen
JJ is really the only reliever I feel good about on this team. Who would take his spot in the pen? If JJ is a starter and pitches well for seven innings who would he hand the ball too? His lead will be lost just like when our other starters had a good outing.
I would much rather have JJ throw 7 good innings
then have him pitch 1+. The problem last year was that we didn’t have many leads to preserve because our starting pitching was so bad. There is no question that JJ’s role in the starting rotation would be more valuable than a role in the bullpen if JJ could pitch as well as a starter as he does as a reliever. However, the real question is whether he can translate relief success to starting success.
Mother, did it need to be so high.
I just want to note that JJ became a different pitcher when Kranitz taught him a sinker. The start he made in 2006 and his minor league numbers are all pre-sinker JJ. As a result, I don’t think they’re a reliable indicator of his potential as starter. I don’t think he’ll be a top of rotation starter but he could be decent. I could see something like 2011 Zach Britton performance – a couple wins over replacement, lots of ground balls, and definitely a rough patch of starts at some point to even some good starts. I’m not sure if his sinker will translate as a starter. In particular, I’m worried that he can’t maintain the quality of his sinker multiple times through the line up. But I think it’s worth a shot.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
Part of what makes his sinker so great
is that he throws it about as hard as anybody in baseball – that is clearly not sustainable multiple times through the lineup.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
i thought the sink is the important part.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
Lots of guys have sink
almost nobody has sink at 95-97
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
Strong "nay"
Yes, starters are more valuable than relievers.
But Johnson was never a top prospect, still doesn’t have a great starter’s repertoire, and (as birdman alludes to, above), has a minor-league history that suggests replacement-level mediocrity.
To me, the only reason you would screw with the one thing that the Orioles’ coaching staff has done right over the past decade is if you think there’s serious upside there. Is anyone making that argument? Do even the most ardent JJ-to-the-rotation, orange-glasses supporters think that Johnson as a starting pitcher could be a front-of-the-rotation guy? Of course not.
So you’re talking about taking a successful — and potentially elite — high-leverage relief guy for .. what, exactly? The chance that he might become a fringe-average back-of-the-rotation guy IF everything pans out?
and (as birdman alludes to, above), has a minor-league history that suggests replacement-level mediocrity.
That wasn’t me. Actually, I’m sort of arguing the opposite – his minor league numbers are NOT representative of his skills because he learned a new pitch after he arrived in the majors which changed his pitching repertoire.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
misuse your allusion!
"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition,from Moses to Sandy Koufax,YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I'M LIVING IN THE FUCKING PAST!"- Walter Sobchak
by j.q. higgins on Nov 29, 2011 2:01 PM EST up reply actions
right, right, that's my point
His minor-league numbers suggest mediocrity, and you have to make an argument to the contrary — such as birdman’s argument that they’re not representative because Johnson’s repertoire has changed.
What I’m saying is that even in an ideal scenario, there’s not enough upside on JJ — even granting the best-case-scenario arguments for the other side — to screw with the only pitcher the Orioles have managed to coach successfully over the past decade.
by AndrewTorrez on Nov 29, 2011 6:08 PM EST up reply actions
Why
…would you think there’s not enough “upside”, based on statistics that are probably no longer applicable?
Remember, it wasn’t just a new pitch, it was also a new stride and motion.
because there's zero evidence to support it?
JJ is striking out fewer than 6 batters per 9 in relief. His career xFIP is 3.92. Even if he transitions successfully to starting — a proposition that strikes me as highly dubious, given his current repertoire — you’re talking about a 5-inning, league-average SP. And that’s a best-case scenario.
by AndrewTorrez on Nov 29, 2011 9:06 PM EST up reply actions
That might not be a bad trade off.
A league average starter for 2011 generated around 2.7 fWAR. JJ’s career year was last year in which he put up 1.6 fWAR. Highest qualified reliever last year, Craig Kimbrel, put up 3.2 fWAR. That, to me, tells me that even the best shutdown relief pitcher in the league is worth only slightly more than a league average SP. I would take JJ as a league average SP.
Mother, did it need to be so high.
I'm with Stacey
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Leave JJ alone!
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
But almost the entire pitching staff is broke.
If JJ can be a more useful piece at starting pitcher than reliever, I would like to give him a shot at doing so. For a bad analogy, it’s like having a car with a broken down engine but has a few parts that still work well, like a window motor or the AC. It would be nice to have AC and window motor still working 100% but I would much rather try to fix the engine so the car runs better overall (in this world, parts for the AC and window motor can be used on an engine :) ).
Mother, did it need to be so high.
It's true that a starter >>> a reliever,
but there is no guarentee that JJ would be a decent starter. Looking back to 2005, I can’t imagine that Mazzone would have converted him to a reliever if he felt that JJ would be a good starter, as it is not as if the starters back then were good either. JJ has blossomed as a reliever, and I think there’s a good chance that converting him to a reliever won’t yield the results we hope for in the rotation and now we have additional problems in the bullpen.
But I definitely see the logic towards trying him as a starter, I’m just not of the persuasion that he would be a better starter than someone like weak sauce.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
I'm pretty sure it was Kranny who converted JJ to a reliever not Leo.
Leo left after the 2007 season. JJ moved into a full time BP role in 2008. IIRC, Kranny taught him the sinker during the 2008 spring training.
BTW, All of this talk is reminding that I miss Kranny.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
Miller, Mazzone, Kranitz....
….they all just blend into one.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
mizzonitz?
"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition,from Moses to Sandy Koufax,YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I'M LIVING IN THE FUCKING PAST!"- Walter Sobchak
by j.q. higgins on Nov 30, 2011 9:37 AM EST up reply actions
I say start him
I’ve been wanting to see this for a few years now. His delivery has always reminded me of Roy Halladay’s. And starters are just worth more than relievers.
"Tragedy is what happens to me. Comedy is what happens to you." -Mel Brooks
I vote yes
I don’t think giving him 10 starts or so is going to forever wreck him as a reliever. See what happens after that.
More to the point, I’d far rather have to fix the bullpen because we have majorly upgraded 1 of our 5 starters than continue to fix the starters in the hopes of preserving a great 1/8th of our bullpen.
"End of season like this, to make Boston go home sad, crying, I’ll take it all day."—Robert Andino
I certainly understand the "what can it hurt?" arguement
And that’s why I wouldn’t get like, angry, if they put him in the rotation. I just don’t have much faith that it’ll work.
yes
I’d guess that the most likely outcome of JJ in the rotation is something like a 4ish ERA over who knows how many innings. I can’t really picture him actually jumping right up to 200 innings. Is that worth whatever risks exist? I guess so, because of the “why not” attitude, but I strongly disagree with the idea that this is going to really be a critical step in the quest for relevance.
I'll develop my own image. I'm an original man. A one and only. I just need some help.
It's depressing that "a 4ish ERA" would constitute such progress for the rotation, relative to last year.
"So I said, 'Looks like they've finally got Ogea in the pen. I wonder if the glove fits.' I thought I was going to get fired." - Mike Flanagan, RIP
by Eat More Esskay on Nov 29, 2011 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
terrifying fact
the best starter (by ERA) last year was Jeremy Guthrie (of course). He had a 4.33 ERA.
More Terrifyingier Fact: That was basically the same ERA that Kevin Gregg had.
I'll develop my own image. I'm an original man. A one and only. I just need some help.
Seems to me that the most obvious answer to what can it hurt is pretty obvious.
His arm.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
Arms
Relievers hurt those too. Often.
Read the S.M. article and he suggests relieving might be tougher on the arm.
Pitching is bad for your arm period.
Taking a guy who’s spent the last 4 years training, preparing, and pitching as a reliever and making him a starter is a great way to make it worse.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
fangraphs article
Fangraphs did a piece on Aaron Crow moving to the rotation. A couple of tidbits.
Tom Tango has given us the rule of 17% — strikeout rate decreases by 17% when a reliever moves to the rotation. If we treat the rule as gospel, Crow could manage a 20.3% strikeout rate as a starter. That would go up against an 11.7% walk rate, as Tango also states that walk rate is flat in the move.
If you look for players that struck out around 20%, walked around 10%, and kept about half of their contact on the ground next year, you get some interesting names. Gio Gonzalez (22.8% K, 10.5% BB, 46.7% GB), Derek Holland (19.2%, 8.0%, 46.4%), Ubaldo Jimenez (21.9%, 9.5%, 47.2%) and Ricky Romero (19.4%, 8.7%, 54.7%) provide the nice part of the neighborhood. A.J. Burnett (20.5%, 9.9% and 45.2%) is the warning sign.
If we use the Tango rule, JJ is looking at about a 13K% (15.9 K% in 2011), which is worse than the guys named above. But he does better job in ground ball percentage (56.5% GB career) and walks (5.7% in 2011) than those guys name above.
It still seems to make sense to move Crow to the rotation. Except that Jeremy Greenhouse also pointed out that velocity changes with a move in roles. He reliably found that pitchers lose about 0.7 MPH when they become a starter. Crow had a 95 MPH heater, which could suffer a mile-per-hour drop and still be fine.
Luckily, JJ relies on sink to get betters out rather than blowing them away. But if the a slight drop in velocity affects his sink, then he’s fucked. Otherwise, I think some legit ground for moving into the rotation. I would give a 10 starts or so. If his sinker isn’t sinking, then move him back.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
In looking at starters
who sport a high GB%, around a 7% walk, 13% SO, I see Fausto Carmona and Rick Porcello. Porcello 2.7 fWAR starter. FS was a 1.5 fWAR starter. If JJ turns into something between Porcello and Carmona, he would be a decent starter which I’d rather have than a good reliever.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
ehhhhh
I think he relies on both sink and velocity. The velocity combined with the sink is what makes him so nasty.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
I'm not sure if losing around 1 mph on his sinker is going to hurt Jim Johnson too much.
The Tango research indicates that’s about as much as he would lose. His current career average fastball velocity is 94.1 mph, which roughly translates to 93 mph as a starter (Fangraphs does not have a separate category for sinking fastballs velocity and I couldn’t find it anywhere else so I used fastball velocity in general). The vast majority of sinkerball starters do just fine with an average sinker slower than that. It seems like losing a tick on the sinker won’t turn JJ into a pumpkin.
As far as your previous points about changing workout regimines or other conditioning and mechanical changes that need to occur before one can become a starter, I don’t have any knowledge of how these changes effect pitchers so I can’t comment on them.
Mother, did it need to be so high.
Who knows what the impact of losing 1 mph would be
It could certainly take him from having one of the best sinkers in the league to just a pretty good sinker and who knows what the impact on his effectiveness would be.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
It could also have no effect at all, which is why I am willing to have the O's give it a shot.
The range in average velocity is interesting. I am not sure if JJ would be able to dial it up in later innings or not. Verlander has figured out a way to do that (I’m sure he is probably an outlier but I don’t know that for sure). I’m also not sure if the ability to dial it up from, say, 95 to 97 as a reliever would have an appreciable effect from 93 to 95 as a starter. I know that contact rates tend to decrease as speed increases but I don’t know the difference in contact rates between a 95 mph fastball and a 97 mph one. I would guess that the most important factor is the speed change itself and not necessarily the speed at which its thrown but I could be way off on that.
Mother, did it need to be so high.
Verlander hasn't figured out anything
He’s always been able to do it because he’s a total freak of nature.
And dialing it up 2 mph from where you’re sitting is ALWAYS a huge advantage.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
I also wonder about the range and not just the average velocity drop
When you’re a reliever it’s nice to be able to dial up 97 sometimes to get a key out, which JJ does on a regular basis. Even if his average only drops from 94 to 93, if he loses that top end after the first or second inning that could be a problem as well.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
yeah, i'm guessing the sink is what is important.
losing a couple of miles doesn’t seem like a big deal unless it affects the sink. if it does, then JJ as a starter won’t work.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
because it's the sink which causes the batter hit the ball of the bottom part of his bat.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
You mean the top half of course.
But I think it’s the combination of movement and velocity that leads to miss-hits.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
Err
I see now you said bottom part of the bat.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
i'm not talking about missed bats though.
i’m talking about grounders.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
Neither am I - miss-hits are not missed bats.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
absolutely.
I agree with Tango’s 17% rule.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
What does that have to do with what we're talking about?
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
I agree with mis-hits are not missed bats. You are concerned about missed bats as far as I can tell. According to Tom Tango, that’s a legit concern. If JJ moves to the rotation, he will miss less bats which will lead to a 17% reduction in SOs.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
I specifically said I am not concerned with missed bats.
I am concerned with miss-hits which are what he depends on and with any drop in velocity you can expect miss-hits to decrease.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
oh when you said miss hits are not missed bats
i thought you were concerned about strikeouts. As far as a drop in velocity leading to less mis-hits (i.e., more liners than grounder), I guess we’ll see. I don’t think it will but I’m just guessing.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
Well I hope we won't see.
But I certainly don’t see any reason to expect strikeouts to fall but poor contact to remain the same – that just doesn’t make any sense. Velocity+movement+location is what causes batters to put the ball in play poorly – decrease any of those and it seems obvious to me that quality of contact will improve.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
Well, as I already said, as long as the ball hits the bat on the bottom portion of a bat with sinker action, then it should lead to a grounder. the velocity of the pitch may affect the speed the grounder (?) but it’s still a grounder.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
That's not how it works though.
there are tons of guys throwing sinkers with tons of movement in the upper 80s in college. It’s the velocity combined with the movement that make major league hitters miss-hit resulting in grounders. You can’t just take away one of the factors resulting in grounders and expect grounders to continue at the same rate.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
okey dokie
i guess we’ll see.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
btw,
i don’t disagree with anything you said. i could certainly see his GB% dropping for the reasons you mention. i guess it’s just a matter of much it changes.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
that's certainly true
I hope we won’t see though. :)
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
Velocity isn't necessarily the determining factor.
For example, Derek Lowe, who lives by his sinker, has consistently thrown his fastball at between 87 and 89 mph, with 87 being the average from 2002 to 2003 (pitch types and average velocities are only available from 2002 to present). His groundball rates have steadily decreased over the years even though his average velocity increased from 2002 to its peak in 2008 at 89.2 mph average. Tim Hudson is another example. His velocity has decreased from an average of 91.5 to an average of 90 from 2002 to present, yet his GB rates in recent years are higher than they have been before. Now I know there is a lot of factors that go into these rates and this is just a couple examples but it at least appears possible that a decrease in velocity will not equal a decrease in GB rates.
Mother, did it need to be so high.
I never said it was the determining factor.
I said that it was one of three primary factors and if you decrease any of them effectiveness is going to suffer.
Derek Lowe and Tim Hudson both went from the AL to the NL – of course the GB rates increased.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
I think maybe you misunderstood me.
Lowe’s GB rates went down when his velocity went up, and Hudson’s GB rates went up when his velocity went down. Both moved from the AL to the NL. If a move from the AL to the NL leads to increase in GB rates, you would expect both players’ GB rates to go up. This did not happen. I am also unaware of any statistics showing that GB rates increase with pitchers moving from AL to NL or that NL hits more GBs than the AL.
I agree with your premise that pitcher effectiveness is a combination of velocity + movement + location. That was a great way of putting it. But it is unclear to me that a decrease in velocity would necessarily mean that movement and location stay static or decrease along with it. It seems possible that a decrease in velocity can be offset by better location or even more movement. So if JJ can offset his decrease in velocity with more movement or better location, it seems like he can remain just as or close to as effective. Given that our rotation last year was the worst in MLB, I think it’s worth giving JJ a shot to see if he can make it work.
Mother, did it need to be so high.
by salvotion on Nov 30, 2011 11:52 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
My bad
skimmed it and thought you were saying both had increased GB rates with lower velocity.
Pitcher stats generally improve when moving from the AL to the NL, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that a GB pitcher would get even more GBs when moving from the AL to the NL.
That’s a decent point about the movement or location improving as velocity decreases. I could buy that for location, but not so much for movement – movement is related to the force with which the ball spins which is generally related to velocity.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
damn, look at the big brain on salvotion.
rec’d.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
I want JJ to stay JJ, not turn into Mitch Atkins or Jojo Reyes.
Stay in the bp!
"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know, that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom?" ~ Death
No
I love JJ but I think he is best in the pen…he is good at it and has been for years… I think he will battle health issue in the rotation…..to much wear and tear….he is not used to the innings….he may have been used to it years ago in the minors…but he is has been in the pen for years now….stay put JJ
just vote no
until this season inevitably goes up in smoke and all our young arms fall apart and we have to choose between another jojojangles start or, wth, let’s throw JJ out there… then, mabye.
Good lord, what happened to the supposed Orioles young talented SP?
This is grim.
Am I the only one flagging this guy?
Seriously, do we have to wait for the money shot or a "F*** THE SOXXXXXX!" before we ban him? Doubleteapot… BAN HIM!!
by AlohaSox on Sep 28, 2011 10:20 PM CDT
Unless
they trade for or sign a strong inning eater, I’d try him in the rotation.
Nah.
That would let ol’ Gregg to slide back into his closer role. Do not want. Whats the use of having JJ pitch 6 or 7 strong only to have it blown in the 9th.
Throw him in the rotation
I’m so disgusted by our past & present starters, I just want to give the guy a shot to see if he’s capable of giving up less than 4 runs in six innings. We’d have to actually, you know, be good in order to truly miss him in the bullpen.
Luke Scott Luke Scott Luke Scott you still my boy-Adam Jones
This is exactly it.
We’d have to actually, you know, be good in order to truly miss him in the bullpen.
Who cares what our bullpen looks like if our starters consistently put us in a three or four run hole? Even average and below average relievers are more likely than not to throw one inning without giving up a run. Even (gasp) Gregg. If we have starters that can actually put the team in a position to be ahead after 5 innings, even an average to below average bullpen should be able to preserve a lead most of the time.
Mother, did it need to be so high.
Really???
If we have starters that can actually put the team in a position to be ahead after 5 innings, even an average to below average bullpen should be able to preserve a lead most of the time.
You think if a team can hobble through the 5th inning with a slight lead an average to below average bullpen can hold it for 4 innings????
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
If the lead is only one run, then probably not. But that is a problem for *any* bullpen.
The worst bullpen in the league last year was the Twins at 4.51 ERA, meaning, on average, their relievers gave up one run every two innings. An average bullpen last year had around a 3.7 ERA, meaning they give up a little more than one run around every three innings. The best bullpen in the league, the Braves, had a 3.03 ERA, which averages out at slightly less than one run every three innings. (O’s were at 4.13 with starting rotation at 5.13!). If the O’s have a one run lead after 5, have to rely on the worst bullpen in the league and do not score any more runs, they will most likely lose. If they have an average bullpen in the same scenario, they average out at a tie. If they have the best bullpen in the league, they also average out at a tie. So, yes, a bullpen around average should give you a pretty decent chance of preserving a one run lead after 5, even in comparison to the best bullpens in the league. As you can see, even the best bullpens are likely to result in a tie with a one run lead and no further runs scored.
In contrast, our starting rotation from last year had a 5.13 ERA, compared to a league average of a little less than 4.1 ERA, and was much less likely to have a lead to give to the bull pen. The difference between a league average starting rotation for the O’s and a league average bullpen is much greater. Rotation is where we need the most help. That is why I am in favor of the JJ experiment. It might not work out, he might get injured, the whole world could end. Who knows. But at least it’s worth a shot.
Mother, did it need to be so high.
by salvotion on Nov 30, 2011 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Of course if JJ's move to the rotation only results in a robbing Peter to pay Paul thing
(i.e. any improvement to the rotation is offset by an equal decline in bullpen quality) then nothing will improve at all. Regardless, I still think it’s worth a shot.
Mother, did it need to be so high.
And I don't see JJ as offering much in the way of help.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
You sure love a guy who agrees with you.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
brilliant minds think alike :()
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
A factor that's been missed so far is his trade value.
If we plan on making him a building block for the future, I say we should take the risk of moving him to the rotation. He has the potential to be MUCH more valuable in that role, and a rebuilding small market team needs that kind of potential, even if it comes with some risk.
On the other hand, I wonder how his trade value is impacted by the move. If he proves to be only a mediocre starter halfway through the season, other teams will likely not be willing to give up a big ransom to take on that risk (not to mention we probably won’t be shopping him in this scenario). However, if he remains dominant in a full time role as the closer, he would probably bring back a huge haul at the deadline. I mean, we got Tommy Hunter AND Chris Davis for a six month rental of Koji last year, imagine what we could get for a better, younger reliever with time left on his contract and closing experience.
The only scenario I don’t approve of is leaving him in his current role with the intention of building around him in the future. The other options increase our future potential to a larger degree.
Doug Fister is only a mediocre starter and the Tigers gave up quite a bit for him.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
That's because mediocre starters are actually very valuable.
Again, 2.7fWAR for a league average starter, which, according to FanGraphs’ calculation, is worth around $13MM a year. The top 5 relievers last year produced 3.2 (Kimbrel), 3.0 (Papeldouche), 2.8 (Sean Marshall), 2.8 (David Robertson), and 2.4 fWAR (Rivera). If JJ is one of the top 5 relievers, he is worth about as much as a league average starter and maybe a little more. That is a lot to hope for from JJ who just had a career year at 1.6 fWAR.
Let’s be realistic about JJ’s value in the bullpen.
Mother, did it need to be so high.
I agree completely
but do other teams actually value a mediocre starter the same as a top reliever (especially a guy arbitrarily labeled a “closer”) at the deadline? For example, I don’t think the O’s could’ve gotten as much for Guthrie (~2-2.5 WAR) as the sox could have gotten for Papelboner— just look at that ridiculous contract he signed. When it comes to trades, the point is not JJ’s value in the bullpen, but his perceived value.
Plus, if we move him to the rotation, we probably wouldn’t be looking to trade him, regardless of how successful the experiment is.
this is exactly what I was trying to say above
only much more well-stated.
Salvotion’s point is well-taken: being a league-average starter has more actual value to a team than being a reliever unless you’re one of the very best shutdown relievers in baseball. I acknowledge this.
However: (a) I think league-average starter is probably JJ’s ceiling, not his expected value; (b) I think Salvotion is underestimating how drastically that value drops off when you’re talking about a league-average starter limited to 5 IP/GS; and — by far the most important — © the market value for players in trade seems to value high-leverage relievers more highly than fifth starters who strike out 6 batters per nine.
Doug Fister isn’t a good comp here; he was averaging 7 IP/GS before the trade AND a 116 ERA+. Does anyone honestly think Jim Johnson can do that as a starter?
by AndrewTorrez on Dec 1, 2011 10:18 AM EST up reply actions
I'm thinking about doing some analysis on this sometime soon.
I’m very curious about historical rates of fWAR improvements in starter to reliever conversions as well as HolyO’s point about perceived values of closers being greater than perceived value of league average starters. I know there are a number of very successful reliever to starter conversions and a number of failures. I have not looked into the trade value difference between closers and league average starters at all. Really interesting questions. Not sure when I’ll get around to it.
Mother, did it need to be so high.
ya, these are really interesting questions.
It would be great to see something on the average trade return for starters vs. closers with similar WAR. Maybe when I finish my grad school applications I’ll try get around to it myself.
If they can make him into any kind of ok starter, they can get tons of value for him in the latter half
teams were begging for SP at the deadline last year, and they always do. remember bruce chen?
"End of season like this, to make Boston go home sad, crying, I’ll take it all day."—Robert Andino
I miss his jokes
I'll develop my own image. I'm an original man. A one and only. I just need some help.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Camden Chat
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Official Sponsor of Camden Chat GameThreads
