Davis, Garland, and Washburn
by Jordan M on Jan 7, 2010 2:00 PM CST
in Rumors and Speculation
Email
PrintOrganized by alphabetical order in the title to prevent an indication of preference at this point.
There has been speculation that the Brewers will sign one of these pitchers to fill out the rotation. Realistically, they all would make the team better by a win or even two depending on who is bumped from the rotation. These three have all been very close to exactly average pitchers over the past three years, producing about 2 wins above replacement level per season.
Here's a quick look at some of their numbers. The CHONE projections are first, and the progression of FIP from '07, '08, and '09 are in parentheses.
Davis: 4.41 FIP, 6.25: 4.37 k/bb ratio and 44.6 GB %; (Last 3 years: 4.72, 4.15, 4.84)
Garland: 4.72 FIP, 4.55: 2.71 k/bb ratio and 46.3 GB %; (Last 3 years: 4.36, 4.76, 4.48)
Washburn: 4.73 FIP, 5.28: 2.96 k/bb ratio and 36.2 GB %; (Last 3 years: 4.77, 4.72, 4.58)
It's pretty tough to pick out the best option out of the three of these. They're pretty much equal in terms of projected performance for next year. I tend to be biased towards pitchers with higher strikeout rates, but I can also see the argument for Garland based on durability and ability to throw with the right hand.
Garland, though, just strikes me as a bad idea. First of all, his projected line looks a lot like Braden Looper's did last year, and looks a lot like Looper's does this year, for that matter. We saw first-hand last year what happens when a low strikeout, low walk pitcher happens to start giving up home runs. There's also this, from Ennder at Brewerfan.net:
Garland age 26-29. 129 GS, 820.1 IP, 1.40 WHIP, 409 K, 218 BB, 91 HR, 4.41 ERA
Suppan age 26-29. 129 GS, 818.1 IP, 1.37 WHIP, 449 K, 258 BB, 106 HR, 4.52 ERA
So generally I would prefer Davis or Wasburn. Don't let the projected FIP difference throw you off too much, they're about equals in terms of skill. It wouldn't be a bad idea for the Brewers to get one of these guys on a 1-year deal to finish out their budget, and it's too bad they had to throw $3.5 million at Latroy Hawkins. A one-year deal for Washburn at $6 or $7 million would be tough to complain about, but we have no idea if it's out of the Brewers' budget.
If Washburn does sign with the Twins, Melvin would probably be wise to investigate a trade for one of their younger excess starters. We'll assess that situation when Washburn decides where to sign, which will likely be soon.
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Washburn/Twins
Is out, at least speculated at fangraphs.
I take Garland if only for the age, and right handedness. They all project pretty much equally, imo. But Washburn’s #s in a hitter friendly park as a fly ball pitcher are not a good combo.
At least with Garland you get a better ground ball rate and more potential for upside surprise.
Signing any of the 3 is a waste of money in my opinion because in the end it changes the W/L record by about 2 games, still well out of contention.
Should we bother playing out the season, do you think?
"I will agree that the attitude [at BCB] is ridiculous and they have done so much to instigate animosity and then block us from responding. Real mature!"
by roguejim on Jan 7, 2010 2:44 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
I wouldn't even risk injuring Gallardo this year, just let him stretch out his arm every couple days and don't let him near a baseball
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
Long term
Id just rather see any team spend for the long term. And a signing like one of these guys to minimally improve the team could suit a team better long term if its spent on player development and scouting. These are the kind of guys that get picked up on a top of the division team that needs that extra push to get them over the top or for insurance, and also for a team that can afford to spend the money on something that doesnt have as big of an impact.
So even a one-year deal for one of them wouldn't be useful?
I don’t follow. Seems to me the team has been able to sign most of the players they draft as it is.
Its more of a cumulative effort
$6 million for one year of one of these minimal improvement type of guys, is money that could be spent on different things down the road.
As Ive stated often here, I would much rather good money be spent on scouting and player development than on aging Free Agents like Randy Wolr, or any of these 3 guys.
Whether its used on draft picks, or player develpment staff or scouts, or a latin american or asian baseball academy, imo, that is money much better spent on the long term health of the organization, as far as the product on the field goes.
Randy Wolf and any of these 3 guys makes the Brewers probably 3 wins better than last year, at a cost of about $15 million. I dont think 83 wins is a playoff caliber team, so why spend money on guys like this to make a playoff spot, when you probably have a very low chance of getting it? I mean if it were Roy Halladay or Cliff Lee thats a different story.
Does any team have an Asian academy?
I know some teams have multiple Dominican academies or Venezuelan academies, but does anyone know which, if any, teams have Asian academies?
And FWIW cali, I agree with you. None of these guys are much of an improvement. The money would probably be better spent on player development.
"A D+ Grade? That must have been a Wittardo grade"- @73_MC
by BrewHaHeather on Jan 8, 2010 11:10 AM CST up reply actions
I can agree with the argument
But as far as “upside”, I’d rather take the guy with the high k rate and hope he has good control for the year, over the guy with the low k rate and hope he walks fewer guys for a year. I don’t think you get the upside with Garland, but I can understand the argument for him.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
If forced...
If the choice is ONLY for 1 of these 3, I’d take Garland. Much like the above posters, age and GB% make him the least of the bad options. I also agree that if it takes 1yr/$6M to sign them, please don’t bother. We’ve got plenty of B prospects to offer in mid-season trade for someone more likely to help us.
If one is signed, who gets bumped from the rotation?
I would guess Bush, because he has experience pitching out of the bullpen (only eight years ago).
But Suppan has more recent experience pitching for a team that isn't the Brewers
I suggest we let him rely on that.
When there is a scuffle in Ireland, there’s no need to specifically mention in the news story that alcohol was involved
by Getting Yosted on Jan 7, 2010 3:33 PM CST up reply actions
davis
because of the hair. and i’ve heard his wife is cuh-ray-zee. that should make for some fun. as for wins? we’ll all win!
FWIW
Your Garland/Suppan comparison got me thinking:
Garland age 26-29. 129 GS, 820.1 IP, 1.40 WHIP, 409 K, 218 BB, 91 HR, 4.41 ERA
Suppan age 26-29. 129 GS, 818.1 IP, 1.37 WHIP, 449 K, 258 BB, 106 HR, 4.52 ERA
So I jumped over to B-Ref and did a search for other pitchers with similar numbers in that timeframe, and found another significantly more optimistic comp:
Andy Pettitte, age 26-29, 127 GS, 813.1 IP, 1.45 WHIP, 556 K, 297 BB, 71 HR, 4.32 ERA
I see your point regarding low strikeout numbers, but I think we as a fan base are just a little too eager to compare every available free agent to Jeff Suppan.
That's all I've got for you today, unless you're interested in some Chris Capuano/Tom Haudricourt Fan Fiction.
by Kyle Lobner on Jan 7, 2010 4:36 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
You're right
But can you blame us? We’re scarred. If we sign a Garland and he turns into a Pettitte instead, then maybe we’ll be over it.
by Cheeseandcorn on Jan 7, 2010 4:39 PM CST up reply actions
Trends in walks and HR rates
I don’t think the Pettite comparison is great (he was much more wild and got 20% more strikeouts than Garland, while giving up much fewer HRs).
That said, I think the Suppan comparison is bogus too. Suppan always trended up or even in HR and walk rate. Garland has trended down since 2004. He has improved as a pitcher where Suppan never really did.
by kingcharlesxii on Jan 7, 2010 4:50 PM CST up reply actions
Davis and Washburn
Keep in mind Davis and Washburn are both significantly older than Garland. I’d be fine giving any of them a 1 year deal but anything longer to them would be dangerous as they’re at the age where pitchers often start to decline rapidly. Garland I’d be willing to do a 2 year deal or even longer.
Davis is the best at HR/9 but if that walk total spikes any higher than it already is, it will be disaster. Washburn gives up HRs at a high rate but his walk rate is much lower (I think that 2.96 walk rate is a bit pessimistic honestly).
Garland has a decent HR rate that has actually been decreasing and his walk rate has also declined since 2004 . His strikeout rate is low but hopefully the Brewers and their newly improved defense would turn more of those balls into outs and it hasn’t really been dropping, which would be a warning sign that he’s losing stuff. The decreasing HR and walk rates give me a lot of optimism about him and tells me he is learning how to pitch better.
Random thought
A six-inning Davis start followed by a three-inning Vargas save might just set a team record for longest nine-inning game.
Has a nine-inning, regular season game not involving the Yankees and Red Sox
ever stretched past five hours?
Nope
Even the longest 9-inning NYY-BOS game was 4:45. The longest nine-inning NL game was 4:27. More here. The longest 9-inning game in Brewers history was this 4:22 loss at Chicago.
"It's pretty tough to pick out the best option out of the three of these."
Based on the projections you listed, isn’t Davis significantly better across the board? He was also very successful during his time here in Milwaukee and is the most “durable” of the three (assuming durability can really be projected)
I don’t think three left-handed starters would be a problem, though I’m wary of signing one of Davis/Washburn because the powers that be would probably subsequently bump Parra from the rotation in their infinite wisdom. Of the three pitchers, Davis is my favorite though.
Ryan Braun: He loves it.
Bedard, Lowry, Sheets
I am starting a movement to change the discussion from Davis, Garland, Washburn to Bedard, Lowry, Sheets. These pitchers will either make us much better, or get hurt and make us no better. Its a gamble I prefer to perhaps marginally better. Any thoughts on who is best of this trio?
by JayzTazay on Jan 7, 2010 9:50 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
They all have ace numbers
To be honest, I rather have Petersen experiment on these three before Mulder. I guess if I had to bet on one making it through the whole year, it’d be Bedard, who at least pitched in 2009.
"I will agree that the attitude [at BCB] is ridiculous and they have done so much to instigate animosity and then block us from responding. Real mature!"
I'm with this 100%
But I’m not holding my breath. This is the one thing that would bring the Brewers to championship contention IMHO. OF the 3 I’d pick Sheets, as he’s the one furthest removed from his injury and most likely to be 100% healthy. And the one with the best peripherals too. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Bedard, Lowry, Sheets
I’m asleep through this Jon Garland, Doug Davis, pursuit. and would love to see some upside. But despite some name recognition value, I don’t think these guys bring that much to the table. None of them could be counted as innings-eaters, no matter how you shake it.
Sheets has a grudge with the organization, I would simply cross him off the list. If offered one-year deals from all of the Mets, Cubs, and Brewers, he’d come here last, and would probably pick Texas before any one of them.
Bedard is pretty much not an option while recovering from a torn labrum. If he plays at all this season, it will only be at the end of the year, a 2010 version of Tim Hudson. Or maybe a 2010 version of Ben Sheets?
Noah Lowry is the Jeff Suppan comp. When healthy (2005-2007), an 87 mph fastball balanced by the junk, mainly a good slider and a not-so-good changeup. Hitters sit on the fastball, then hit the sh!t out of it.
This makes no sense to me
I tend to be biased towards pitchers with higher strikeout rates
If strikeouts don’t make a hitter bad, why do they make a pitcher good?
Seriously, I don’t understand this.
It was explained well in a thread toward the end of this past season
Essentially, even though strikeouts aren’t really a much better end result for the pitching team than any other kind of out, they’re a proxy for the skills that make a pitcher effective — painting the corners, getting two-strike counts, deceiving the hitter, having good stuff.
But for hitters, they don’t really serve as a proxy for the lack of skills that make a hitter bad. In other words, there’s a lot of hitters that strike out a lot and are still really good (Ryan Howard, Adam Dunn, etc.), but not a lot of pitchers that strike out a lot of guys and are still really bad.
I think that made sense. Hopefully. Jordan M will correct me if I’m wrong.
by Cheeseandcorn on Jan 8, 2010 11:31 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, actually
It’s pretty counter-intuitive, but it’s true. I can try to explain it more when I have some time or get you a link, but that’s basically the idea. As the post above me says, it’s also a proxy for skill.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
Does it also relate to your comfort level in predicting future performance?
What I mean is: a guy like Washburn is obviously very dependent on his defense, and, with those low GB% numbers, he’s even more reliant on his outfield defense. When you’re pitching with the Death to Flying Things defense behind you in Seattle, then, your numbers — at least the traditional ones — make you look like the cat’s pajamas. On a different team, with a different defense, though …
Yeah, it's also a very stable stat, too
A pitcher has pretty much no control over what happens after the ball is put in play (usually we exclude home runs). So the two most important things a pitcher can do is not allow the ball to be put in play, and not put the batter on base for free. A hitter, on the other hand, has more control over where the ball goes and if it’s a hit or not, and is usually making a tradeoff for more power at the risk of a strikeout. There’s no downside for a strikeout for a pitcher, but for a hitter, it’s a risk/reward tradeoff of the higher probability of the strikeout vs. the higher probability of the extra-base hit.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
NL Central Standings
| W | L | PCT | GB | STRK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cincinnati
|
25 | 19 | .568 | 0 | Won 6 |
|
St. Louis
|
25 | 20 | .555 | 0.5 | Lost 1 |
|
Houston
|
21 | 23 | .477 | 4 | Won 3 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
20 | 24 | .454 | 5 | Lost 2 |
|
Milwaukee
|
18 | 26 | .409 | 7 | Won 1 |
|
Chicago
|
15 | 29 | .340 | 10 | Lost 9 |
(updated 5.25.2012 at 3:41 AM CDT)
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
- The Juice: Mesoraco’s grand slam helps Reds complete four-game sweep of Braves
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
- Local radio host honors Cubs’ Tony Campana with parody song
- Roy Halladay bobblehead with glove on wrong hand selling on MLB.com
