What's the Fuss? #3 Tim Redding
Tim Redding is a free agent commodity. Sort of.
The righty from Rochester became a free agent after the Nationals non-tendered him - making him their only arbitration eligible player to be shown the door. According to mlb.com, Washington made the decision after being unable to move him to Colorado at Las Vegas meetings.
Redding made $1 million in 2008, and was due for a raise via arbitration. Now that he's a free agent, he may not even get a guaranteed deal. Eric Seidman pondered the Redding question a couple weeks ago, listing four suitors. Even now, Jon Heyman has him as a top 20 free agent (of what's left), 8th amongst pitchers.
7 Jon Garland
10 Derek Lowe
11 Oliver Perez
12 Andy Pettitte
14 Ben Sheets
16 Randy Wolf
18 Freddy Garcia
20 Tim Redding
I don't exactly agree with these rankings - Jon Garland? Really? But, there you have it. Nonetheless, I think Redding may indeed be a nice bargain - if you set your expectations correctly.
With the Rockies apparently set with Jason Marquis, and Heyman not mentioning the Rangers (as Eric had), the Mets and Orioles remain. With Mark Hendrickson gone to Balitmore, suddenly the fuss over Redding, and his job options, thin out. Especially with the Mets still talking to Derek Lowe and Oliver Perez.
Redding had a decent year for Washington, setting career highs in starts, innings and strike-outs. Ten wins was enough to both lead the club and match his career high. Redding also gave up 11 more home runs than he ever had before. Counting stats are a double-edged sword.
If someone does offer him a deal, here's what they'll be getting. A 5'11" righty who throws the basic four pitches:
- Change (CH): easy to put in play, but doesn't get hit too hard
- Curveball (CU): seems to place it well enough, but a lack of sink may explain why it is fairly easy to hit
- Fastball (FA): very average, maybe ever so slightly below. Almost all are four-seamers, but he may mix a cutter or sinker in.
- Slider (SL): isn't very nasty, and average in effectiveness
if you need definitions for any of the following, click the "pitchfx" tag at the end of the post
| cfx | # | mph | pfx_x | pfx_z | deg | rpm |
| CH | 217 | 83.3 | -5.7 | 6.4 | 222.1 | 1,038.9 |
| CU | 412 | 78.3 | 6.6 | -1.4 | 205.5 | 782.9 |
| FA | 2098 | 91.6 | -5.1 | 9.2 | 208.5 | 1,390.6 |
| SL | 594 | 85.5 | 1.8 | 4.7 | 161.1 | 662.7 |
His stuff even looks slightly below average.

The inset looks like a big smear of pitches, but, park by park, game by game, they are fairly distinct. Still, all pitches are on a continuum, we just try and give them discrete labels.
Let's go into the outcomes/effectiveness.
| cfx | # | LHH | RHH | Swing | Whiff | B:CS | ISZ | Paint | Chase | Watch |
| CH | 217 | 201 | 16 | 0.484 | 0.133 | 10.2 | 0.244 | 0.115 | 0.366 | 0.151 |
| CU | 412 | 214 | 198 | 0.563 | 0.172 | 7.2 | 0.328 | 0.100 | 0.415 | 0.133 |
| FA | 2098 | 1104 | 994 | 0.431 | 0.139 | 1.9 | 0.437 | 0.121 | 0.277 | 0.371 |
| SL | 594 | 213 | 381 | 0.493 | 0.222 | 3.1 | 0.416 | 0.125 | 0.319 | 0.263 |
| 3321 | 1732 | 1589 | 0.462 | 0.160 | 2.5 | 0.407 | 0.118 | 0.311 | 0.319 |
Notice the low whiff rates (fastball's not bad, though). His stuff doesn't seem to fool anyone.
| cfx | B:CS | ISZ | FatIns | FIISZ | Swing | InPlay | HR | Foul | Whiff | nkSLG | TBP |
| CH | 10.2 | 0.244 | 0.120 | 0.491 | 0.484 | 0.600 | 0.019 | 0.248 | 0.133 | 0.462 | 0.138 |
| CU | 7.2 | 0.328 | 0.209 | 0.637 | 0.563 | 0.461 | 0.017 | 0.349 | 0.172 | 0.514 | 0.138 |
| FA | 1.9 | 0.437 | 0.280 | 0.641 | 0.431 | 0.369 | 0.022 | 0.469 | 0.139 | 0.548 | 0.092 |
| SL | 3.1 | 0.416 | 0.264 | 0.636 | 0.493 | 0.355 | 0.014 | 0.410 | 0.222 | 0.481 | 0.088 |
| 2.5 | 0.407 | 0.258 | 0.634 | 0.462 | 0.396 | 0.020 | 0.424 | 0.160 | 0.522 | 0.100 |
So, he seems to be a bit of nibbler - throws less fat pitches than average and his B:CS is on the higher side. His stuff just isn't all that great, but he manages to avoid getitng hit all that hard. If I had to pick an average looking big league pitcher, Redding would probably be on the short list.
Looking around at a few projections, Redding projects to around 4.90 next year (think between 4.6 and 5.2). 170 innings at 4.90 is about 1 WAR. Which would be worth $4.5 million at 2008 prices. Using FIP, Fangraphs' Eric Seidman has him at 1.3.
Redding may be Mr. Average, but he may be a good bargain - he could end up being worth as much as $6.5 million but could end up getting just around $1 million, again.
0 recs |
21 comments
Comments
Heyman ranking Garland seventh is a joke.
He’s probably not the seventh best SP left, not along the seventh best overall.
by R.J. Anderson on
Jan 3, 2009 5:18 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Heyman always seems to want people to scratch their heads
in wonder. He succeeded here.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on
Jan 3, 2009 6:15 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
and I think he ranked them by pulling the names out of a hat.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on
Jan 3, 2009 6:16 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
as i thought was pretty obvious, he listed the first sixteen in alphabetical order.
it’s not a ranking.
by larry on
Jan 3, 2009 6:24 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, I don't think even Jon Heyman would consciously name Bobby Abreu the #1 remaining free agent
Like Larry pointed out, the first 16 are in alphabetical order. I think he added the last 4 after listing the first 16 and was just too lazy to place them in their alphabetical spots.
by JamesK on
Jan 3, 2009 6:50 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
well now I can refrain from asking him to stop writing about baseball
I was just getting ready to fire off an email
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on
Jan 3, 2009 7:00 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
20 is certainly a rounder number than 16.
i’m guessing either he or his editor thought a top twenty list made more sense. it’s okay to make a list and not necessarily put it in any order. especially on a blog type thing.
by larry on
Jan 3, 2009 7:02 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Heyman...
…is really not that great of a writer, IMO. I feel he gets things wrong/makes bad predictions too much.
by squid92 on
Jan 3, 2009 9:08 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Good at getting "inside" info and rumors, awful at analysis
by JamesK on
Jan 3, 2009 10:18 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think we tend to underrate how important that is, though.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on
Jan 5, 2009 1:03 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
jon garland
jon garland is a ace he is the best pitcher out there and I would love to have him on my team . ..Who ever gets him is Lucky. He is going to have a good year in 2009. His era was kind of big in 2008 but it will be lower in 2009 I do not think he really liked being on the Angels . I would like to see him come back to the AL Central.
by kate20 on
Jan 3, 2009 11:30 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
"I would like to see him come back to the AL Central."
So would the White Sox, Indians, Twins, Royals, and Tigers hitters.
by R.J. Anderson on
Jan 4, 2009 12:16 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well...
He’s durable, at least. If the option is Jon Garland or a crop of replacement-level pitchers, I’d rather the Indians’ hitters face the latter.
Webmaster of Driveline Mechanics
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com - An Unconventional Look at Scouting
by Kyle Boddy on
Jan 4, 2009 5:24 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The best thing I can say about Garland
Put him on a team with a very good infield defense and he’s a very good #4 starter. I think his days of being a reliable, average or a bit better #3 SP (2003-06) are well behind him and won’t be seen again. He’s down in #4 territory now, but gets enough groundballs that a good IF defense can still help him more than most pitchers.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on
Jan 4, 2009 12:41 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
BTW
I missed this before, but Rosenthal says Redding is looking for two-years. If all the reporting is accurate, I guess you can say Redding and the Rockies were never close.
by Harry Pavlidis on
Jan 4, 2009 1:04 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Jon Garland
You have to be joking . Are you kidding me ? Jon Garland is an ace you have not seen his best year yet he will be a 20 game winner he is so good he just had a bad year with the Angels . You know he is only 29 years old , he has a lot of good years ahead of him , Any team would want him on their team.
by kate20 on
Jan 5, 2009 10:14 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Larry inspires me
there aren’t many blind baseball fans, or readers of this blog. Thanks for posting.
by Harry Pavlidis on
Jan 5, 2009 11:42 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs










BtB on Facebook
BtB_Sky on Twitter




