Giants sign Randy Johnson
What a weird offseason in San Francisco.
The Giants signed Randy Johnson to a one year deal worth $8 million yesterday. This signing comes on the heels of several other acquisitions: Edgar Renteria, Bobby Howry and Jeremy Affeldt. This is a disturbing trend – that’s four smart, sensible moves by Giants GM Brian Sabean.
All of these deals are short-term deals (two years or less), thereby limiting the team’s risk. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that each of these players is going to be productive – perhaps even more so than they were last year.
Johnson had a 3.91 ERA last year, but a 3.76 FIP and should benefit from gettingout of the hitter-friendly environment of Chase Field. While he may not pitch 200 innings this year, Johnson did manage 184 innings last year as well as 205 innings in 2006 and 225 in 2005. While Johnson’s fastball now hovers around 90-91 MPH, he still struck out 8.46 hitters per nine last year, while walking only 2.15 per nine. In other words, despite his advanced age, Randy Johnson has a very reasonable chance of being an above-average starting pitcher for 170+ innings next year.
The scariest thing about this development is that the San Francisco Giants now have to be considered outside threats in the NL West. Don’t laugh – it’s true. As pathetic as their offense is, their pitching is so good as to make up for it. You know how good Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain are; Jonathan Sanchez is on the brink of breaking out (although his ERA was 5.01 last year, his FIP was 3.85 and there’s reason to believe he can be even better than that); Barry Zito had a 4.33 ERA and 80/54 K/BB ratio in his last 106 innings of 2008; and Randy Johnson is Randy Johnson.
Furthermore, there’s reason to believe that Matt Cain and/or Jonathan Sanchez could join Lincecum as an elite pitcher in 2009. Both of them have tremendous stuff, and there’s a chance that either/both of them “figure it out” in 2009, elevating them to the level of the NL’s best. Of course, this may not happen, but even if both pitch worse than their stuff, they should each be productive pitchers.
On the other hand, questions abound – how well will Lincecum hold up after his huge workload last season? Can Barry Zito build on his “strong” finish to 2008? Can Randy Johnson’s back hold up? And the Giants lack quality depth for their rotation as well. And, then there are their offensive issues. So there is considerable risk for the Giants 2009 season, and chances are they will not compete for the division. However, there is a reasonable chance that the Giants can contend in what should be a very weak division – if they avoid setbacks, and one or two things go their way (like Sanchez elevating his game, for example), then the Giants could really surprise some people.
0 recs |
50 comments
|
Comments
Bobby Howry as smart and sensible
Time will tell but that could be a pretty bad signing. Last year wasn’t good. That’s also a whole lot of Sanchez love.
by ol Pete on Dec 28, 2008 9:41 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Howry - meh
He’s lost his velocity. He was the human gasoline can for the Cubs in ‘08, we’ll see if things go better as a Giant – but his stuff isn’t what it used to be.
by Harry Pavlidis on Dec 28, 2008 10:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I somewhat disagree.
Yes, Howry’s stuff isn’t what it used to be, and Howry himself isn’t as good as he used to be. However, his tRA+ was still 112 last year. His tRA* was 4.15, which equates to a 3.75 ERA. He still induced swinging strikes 8.5% of the time. His K/BB ratio was 59/13 in 70 innings. Plus, even with his velocity down, his fastball still averaged over 91 MPH last year.
He’s obviously not a stud anymore, but I think he could be a heck of a lot better than he was last year.
by Peter Bendix on Dec 28, 2008 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
His ERA was 5.35
That was playing with one of the better defenses behind him and probably the premier set-up man in Marmol and Wood closing. His WHIP was 1.5. Throwing fastballs without a lot of movement over the plate prevents walks. IMO the best case scenario is it as an okay signing and the potential downside is big.
by ol Pete on Dec 28, 2008 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What..
For 2.75 million next year? If by halfway through the season he’s still horrible then he just gets cut.
The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."
by WalrusMan on Dec 28, 2008 11:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Using ERA...
Is not a very good method of predicting pitcher performance.
by Peter Bendix on Dec 29, 2008 9:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It has value in evaluating past performance.
by ol Pete on Dec 29, 2008 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Its a record of past events. Have you ever seen Howry pitch?
by ol Pete on Dec 29, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes I have.
Why does being a record of past events make ERA a good way to evaluate pitching performance?
by Graham on Dec 29, 2008 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And why does the question...
“have you seen Howry pitch” matter in this discussion?
by Peter Bendix on Dec 29, 2008 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My having seen Howry pitch is a record of past events that means Howry is bad.
by Graham on Dec 29, 2008 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good luck with your effort to sell tRA or whatever it is you’re peddling.
by ol Pete on Dec 29, 2008 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good luck with your effort to evaluate and predict performance using ineffective and outdated methods.
by Peter Bendix on Dec 29, 2008 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They’ve already proved effective. The outdated part is great.
by ol Pete on Dec 29, 2008 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The answer is obvious. Do you want me to dig around the web and find an explanation of the scientific method?
by ol Pete on Dec 29, 2008 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
indeed.
while i don’t agree with your point about ERA, one can’t properly evaluate a pitcher, or any player really, based solely on stats. the best analysis takes both stats and in person scouting into account.
by larry on Dec 29, 2008 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree 100%.
But an average fan (and I include myself in that) seeing a guy pitch two or three times (or even 20 or 30 times) does not add much – if any – value to their judgment about the player.
Whether or not I’ve seen Bobby Howry pitch – or whether ol Pete has seen him pitch more or less often than me – is pretty much irrelevant to our discussion.
by Peter Bendix on Dec 29, 2008 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that may be true.
just thinking that if one were an average fan and they were to have written a good article about, say, paul konerko, it could have been even better article if that person had watched konerko and seen the effect the injury to his hand had on him.
by larry on Dec 29, 2008 5:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How can an average fan
“see” the effect that an injury has?
And thanks for the compliment, I think? :)
by Peter Bendix on Dec 29, 2008 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well, maybe i'm giving the average fan more credit than they deserve.
but the detrimental effect on konerko’s hitting was pretty obvious if you watched but may not have been as obvious to people who don’t closely follow konerko because the white sox didn’t announce the injury and whatnot. someone who watched the games knew he got hit and when and where and could certainly connect the dots. i suppose one could look at just the stats and say “there was a problem” but knowing the injury and being able to add some color via anecdote i think is generally beneficial to analysis.
besides, you stat people need to get out from behind the computers in your basements and actually watch some baseball. they play on the field, you know.
by larry on Dec 29, 2008 5:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not trying to be snarky:
But seriously, what exactly would I be able to add to an analysis of Paul Konerko if I had watched him?
Yes, I understand and appreciate the value of scouting for amateurs, minor leaguers, and even young big leaguers. But we’re not talking about scouting – we’re talking about adding information to an analysis of an established big leaguer – and not for “advanced scouting” purposes either (in other words, identifying his weaknesses in order to help get him out). What additional information would I be able to add to an analysis of Paul Konerko had I watched him?
by Peter Bendix on Dec 29, 2008 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i don't really know your skillz
so i’m not sure what you in particular could add. if it’s nothing, that’s fine. just saying that the best analysis (i’d probably say most especially for reading/entertainment purposes) combines both. hell of a lot easier to know what to be looking for when you’re analyzing a player if you’ve watched them for a whole season.
by larry on Dec 30, 2008 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Which part?
You seeing a pitcher two or three starts out of 30-35 (I’m using SPers instead of RPers in this case) is telling you next to nothing about that pitcher. He could be in a cold stretch, or hungover, or simply having a bad day.
by R.J. Anderson on Dec 29, 2008 9:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
both
observation has value and it is relevant to the conversation. I’ve seen Bobby Howry a lot more than 2 or 3 times, but your statement supports me. If I saw a SP for 3 starts and he was bad in all of them that would show me he was pitching poorly and was either a poor pitcher or was “in a bad stretch” or hungover a lot (Bronson Arroyo?) or whatever.
by ol Pete on Dec 29, 2008 10:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How well did Howry pitch when you watched him?
by ol Pete on Dec 29, 2008 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Howry is spent
His velocity is closer to 90, not 94, and he doesn’t do a very good job of changing speeds. I’ve seen games where he threw a handful of 91 mph fastballs and nothing else. He’s very hittable. He gave up 13 homers in 70 innings – pretty much an even split home/away. I think he as a bit unlucky, and his HR/FB rate should drop – especially at home – but, just the same, I won’t miss him this year.
by Harry Pavlidis on Dec 29, 2008 10:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know what you're saying, but...
It’s not like fastballs at 90 are that slow. Yes, Howry’s stuff isn’t the same as it used to be, but it’s not awful. His K/BB ratio was still excellent. And 8.5% of his balls in the air became homers – higher than the league average of 6% for relievers, and well higher than any season in Howry’s history. Not to mention his ridiculously high BABIP.
While I agree that Howry isn’t the same pitcher that he used to be, it appears that he suffered from a tremendous amount of bad luck in 2008.
by Peter Bendix on Dec 29, 2008 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
fastballs at 90 aren't that fast
Don’t you think that there is a possibility that throwing them over the heart of the plate will result in fewer walks or more HRs or a higher BABIP?
by ol Pete on Dec 29, 2008 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, no.
There is simply no research to back up this assertion. Plus, how do you explain his 59 strikeouts in 70 innings?
by Peter Bendix on Dec 29, 2008 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmmm
I’m cracking open the Howry egg right now, I won’t be able to get to the bottom of the question ol Pete asks, but we can surround it a little bit.
by Harry Pavlidis on Dec 29, 2008 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My hypothesis...
Would be that the drop in Howry’s stuff from 2007 to 2008 doesn’t justify the drop in his stats – in other words, his 2008 stats were skewed by bad luck, or things out of Howry’s control.
For example, his tRA+ fell from 119 to 112, which seems like a fairly accurate representation of what could happen when a pitcher’s fastball average falls from 92.3 MPH to 91.2 MPH, and he loses .5 strikeouts per nine innings.
Incidentally, his tRA* in 2007 was 4.14, and his tRA* in 2008 was 4.15.
I’m looking forward to reading your analysis, Harry!
by Peter Bendix on Dec 29, 2008 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he lost more gas than that
The #‘s at fangraphs, I think, understate his velocity from 2007. The #’s from 2007 are not complete, as 2008 are, in PFX, however.
I’ll have more later
by Harry Pavlidis on Dec 29, 2008 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, at least you’re willing to go on the record. The idea that in 3 ball counts throwing straight fastballs over the heart of the plate doesn’t result in fewer walks or more hits or more HRs is an interesting belief.
By “research” I assume you mean mathematical analysis.
by ol Pete on Dec 29, 2008 3:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm serious...
Show me research that says that pitchers maintain high strikeout rates and low walk rates but higher-than-average homer rates and higher-than-average BABIPs at the same time.
It doesn’t exist.
by Peter Bendix on Dec 29, 2008 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you're changing the discussion somewhat
but its pretty irrelevant. FWIW “research” has concluded all sorts of incorrect things from the causes of ulcers to whether the earth is flat or round. The existence of bold conclusions based on mathematical analysis of existing data doesn’t mean the conclusions are true.
by ol Pete on Dec 29, 2008 10:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sanchez.
I’m a huge Sanchez fan. His FIP last year was 3.85, and I think he can be even better than that.
by Peter Bendix on Dec 28, 2008 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If they had concentrated on improving their defense,
instead of that terrible renteria contract, they could have really been a threat. I see an Abreu or Burrel deal coming to really make their defense look bad.
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
by hazel on Dec 28, 2008 12:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Their defense wasn't THAT bad.
They ranked 13th in park adjusted defensive efficiency last season. Replacing Vizquel with Renteria will hurt that, but removing Vizquel’s offense is absolutely worth it.
The Giants probably won’t have a top-10 defense next year, but they may not be bottom 10 either, and they have enough strikeout pitchers in their rotation so as to minimize the damage their defense can do.
by Peter Bendix on Dec 28, 2008 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention, their 1B and 2B defense should be improved.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on Dec 28, 2008 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OTOH
Sandoval at 3B could be an adventure.
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
by Cookyman on Dec 28, 2008 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That he could, but Castillo was below average so I would imagine he can’t be too much worse.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on Dec 28, 2008 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True
I also expect our OF defense to decline, due to age and Schierholtz related issues. Overall I’d say (runs above average): +5 C, 0 1B, 0 2B, -10 3B, -5 SS, +10 RF, 0 CF, 0 LF. Total runs above average: 0. Sounds about right.
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
by Cookyman on Dec 29, 2008 4:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d definitely take +0 defense in CF from Rowand. The rest of your assessments seem pretty good.
/deer head
Bay City Ball
by xanthan on Dec 29, 2008 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 









BtB on Facebook















