Brian Sabean Appreciation Thread
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 28, 2008 7:32 PM PDT
in Seattle Mariners News, Good
Email
PrintSo as you've all surely heard by now, Barry Zito - the durable front-of-the-rotation starter with ~5.8 years and $114m left on his contract - has been bumped to middle relief. By the Giants. The move, while surprising, is long overdue, as Zito's been nothing short of an absolute disaster of Chernobylian(?) proportions. Over 39 starts with San Francisco, he's put up a 91 ERA+, a 5.16 xFIP, and a 10% walk rate. And while 2007 was bad, 2008 has been a total catastrophe, as for six starts Zito was far and away the worst pitcher in the Major Leagues.
Don't believe me? Observe:
ERA: 7.53
RA: 9.42
xFIP: 6.01
tRA: 6.37
K%: 7.8%
BB%: 10.6%
StS%: 8%
Cntc%: 88%
GB/FB: 0.84
FBv: 83.7mph
The entire package is an unthinkable nightmare, but perhaps the greatest horror is that 8% swinging strike rate. Thanks to his little league fastball, Zito's missing as many bats as Carlos Silva, yet he's walking more guys than Daniel Cabrera and giving up more flyballs than Jarrod Washburn.
Barry Zito has zero strengths. Zero. The only differences between Zito and Steve Trachsel are the famous curveball that hasn't been a weapon in years and the fact that, while Trachsel will walk and likely retire in the fall, Zito's still guaranteed another nine figures. Barry Zito's contract is the worst contract ever signed in baseball history, and as much as you might want to tell me I'm wrong, you won't be able to prove it, because I'm right. No contract has ever gone so sour so fast. And there isn't any indication that things are about to get better.
I knew from the get-go that Zito was a bad idea, but never at any point did I think he'd fall apart this quickly. That's come as a surprise. But the fact of the matter is that smart front offices knew what they were doing and stayed the hell away. They saw the red flags, understood the market, and looked elsewhere without even placing a call to Zito's agent.
Bill Bavasi offered him six years and ninety-nine million dollars.
There but for the grace of Sabean go I, and you, and the Mariners, and all of our collective hopes and dreams. This team tried its damndest to kill itself in the face, but thanks to the existence of another, more stubborn holdout from the daunting realm of intelligent thinking, we were spared. We were spared. Mr. Sabean, I am forever indebted to your misguided courage. Regardless of your intentions at the time, you fell on a nuclear grenade, and for this gesture I cannot thank you enough. May this thread be construed as a token of my appreciation.
And damn you Bill for ever thinking this was a good idea for the Mariners. Damn everyone who thought this was a good idea for the Mariners. All of you are stupid. There, I said it. Maybe you've gotten smarter over the past year and a half, but if you wanted the Mariners to sign Barry Zito as a free agent, you were stupid. Stop being stupid. Brian Sabean can only prevent so many bad decisions.
218 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Sadly
Zito was and is my favorite non-Mariner pitcher in baseball.
It happens. He is terrible.
I must agree.
Even the unmitigated disaster that was Mo Vaughn pales in comparison to Zito’s monstrously absurd contract.
*Visiting Angels fan* Never give up, never surrender!
A pitcher of HoRamian proportions
...and now I'm here
It's almost hard to fathom how bad that contract is.
Felix Hernandez may be The King, but Justin Upton is a GOD.
You're a Mariner fan.
It’s not that hard.
...and now I'm here
as bad the M's are
I can’t think of a contract anywhere near this bad that they’ve given out.
FREE JEREMY REED!!
yeah, I'm not looking forward to this next season with a reallllllly desperate Bavasi
FREE JEREMY REED!!
Hafner's contract expire this year?
6/120 here we come.
...and now I'm here
I think it is.
We’re talking about a guy who over the course of his contract will eat more money than the M’s have paid Jose Vidro, Richie Sexson, Kenji Johjima, and Jeff Weaver COMBINED.
*Visiting Angels fan* Never give up, never surrender!
One year contracts? Meh.
Jarrod Washburn, Richie Sexson, Miguel Batista, Carlos Silva?
Besides, it is not as though he does not have several other bad, long contracts. They’re just not as bad…. yet.
Also, for fun: 
This photograph amuses me, though I’m not positive I know why.
...and now I'm here
Think how long ago his career would have been over
If it weren’t for
1) Bonds’ [unlikely late career surge] which transformed him into the best hitter ever.
2) Absurdly good years by Ellis Burks, Rich Aurilia, JT Snow, Marquis Grissom etc.
It was 6/99? I thought it was 5/99. Less money but dear god six years? Thank you Brian Sabean!
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
That contract is worse than
the 8/140 that Juan Gonzalez turned down (which the Tigers would still be paying)
I can’t wait till he gives Adam Dunn a 7/126 deal.
by JI on Apr 28, 2008 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions
That Gonzalez contract might've been worse
but since Juan didn’t sign it…
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 28, 2008 8:03 PM PDT up reply actions
at least the Tigers would have gotten
+ / – 2 good seasons out of him; compared to Zito’s 0.
by JI on Apr 28, 2008 8:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, one and a half
plus it had that extra eighth year. But yeah, Zito probably still wins out.
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 28, 2008 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I guess if you adjust for inflation
yeah
(I would find it interesting if someone adjusted these horrible contracts over the last 10-15 years for inflation)
by JI on Apr 28, 2008 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Adjusted for "the going rate"
for players’ top salaries in MLB, wasn’t Albert Belle’s contract (1998?? 1999?) right up there?
I mean, Zito played last year. Eleven wins. I don’t believe Belle even performed one year for Baltimore.
"I never predict anything, and I never will." Paul Gascoigne, English footballer
by One won lost won on Apr 29, 2008 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I've actually found that pitching wins and teams wins are very strongly correlated
in fact, the R value is very near 1. Look at last years M’s – pitchers combined for 88 wins, and the team won 88 games! Who would have thought that after all the time you guys spend talking about how pitcher wins are a useless statistic!
Sabermetrics at their very best :)...
by seattlebruin on Apr 29, 2008 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
True
I should go pen an article where I do no research what-so-ever (especially not looking up Albert Belle in Baseball-Reference [which takes about 0.4 seconds] and see that he actually played two seasons in Baltimore) about pitching wins being the ultimate gritty indicator.
Also, I've always thought the five-inning requirement was funny
just because it doesn’t really make any sense and really encourages managers to leave a struggling pitcher on the mound with a one-run lead in the fifth just so in case they get out of the jam, they qualify for the win
by seattlebruin on Apr 29, 2008 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Of course, the other side of that argument is,
if you take out all the games the M’s lost, they went undefeated. So pitching wins is obviously infallible as an indicator.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
Okay, I see Belle played for Baltimore
and they took out insurance, so it did not cost them at all. Only the fact that he had to remain on the 40-man roster (to collect insurance) was a pain….
...a very minor pain!
Altruistically speaking, even if Zito thought, “Heck, I cannot pitch…I’ve lost it!” and decided, “I won’t rob the Giants, I’ll simply retire and they’ll be off the hook..” the MLBPA would NEVER allow him to do it! It would ruin all the future gimongous multi-year idiocy.
"I never predict anything, and I never will." Paul Gascoigne, English footballer
by One won lost won on Apr 29, 2008 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions
You mean, no one is like Tony Gwynn
He told his agent to shove it, and the MLBPA went after him for not selling out to the highest bidder.
"I never predict anything, and I never will." Paul Gascoigne, English footballer
by One won lost won on Apr 29, 2008 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions
No
I mean no one would or should retire and forfeit their guaranteed payday.
I’m tired of people acting like these greedy players are putting their teams out of business, it’s total bullshit. These owners are billionaires, most of them have held their cities for ransom, lied, and cheated their way to publicly funded stadiums. I do not have one iota of sympathy for the owners; they’re making $texas off the game, those who play deserve their share of the profits because without them there is no game. I don’t understand why I’m supposed to be outraged that Albert Belle got paid, but then happened to get hurt; it’s a ridiculous double standard.
So if someone is truly feeling guilty for taking a paycheck they think they do not deserve, invest it in something righteous, and use that money to make the world a better place. Don’t give back the owners.
by JI on Apr 29, 2008 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Owners see a higher% of revenue now
then they did 10 years ago.
Most definitely agreed
People always talk about how greedy players cashing in big time on free agent payday are the bad guys, whether they live up to the contract or not, yet many of them are the same people who complain how their employers don’t pay them enough. Well guess what? In the same way their company can’t run the show without them, team owners can’t run baseball without the players. The players are the blue collar workers who make The Man his money, and until they as a whole get a big raise, the players are getting cheapskated.
I guess people just lump millionaires and billionaires together and don’t think about the big picture.
Hmm... Needs more Bonds.
Who said you're supposed to be "outraged" about Belle??
Where’s your instructions for that?
Which sentence?
I think you read something, maybe everything, then synthesize some “realm” of heros and villians populated with your own grand mythologies.
You ought to actually absorb what’s been written.
Not ONCE.
Not ONCE did I say the owners are getting ripped or even came close to saying players are putting them out of business. Or even defend, advocate, or even condemn, how the owners do business.
Your fabrication about my “take” on owners. 100%
By the way, another “no one” is Keith Foulke. He retired from the Cleveland Indians, rather than go on the DL for ONE DAY of the regular season, which is all he needed to get his millions. He didn’t.
So, instead of getting “tiredd” at hypothetical people and “outraged”, why don’t you read what is written?
Why not? Give us the “reason” for what YOU do, instead of all the unjustified opinions about what everyone else purportedly does?
"I never predict anything, and I never will." Paul Gascoigne, English footballer
by One won lost won on Apr 29, 2008 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Why don't you calm down and do the same?
I was explaining my reasons why, and why I think those sentiments are misplaced. I can see why you would think that I was representing your view, and I should have been clearer, but at no point did I “fabricate” your opinions.
by JI on Apr 29, 2008 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Zito's contract is worse
but while we’re talking about bad contracts (as opposed to the worst), I love that the Mets will be paying Bobby Bonilla through 2035.
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 29, 2008 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Divide by 5.866, move the decimal six spots to the right
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 29, 2008 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh wait, you said a month
now divide your final answer by 12.
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 29, 2008 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Bobby Bonilla earned $136 over my lunch break
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 29, 2008 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions
If it weren't for Bobby Bonilla benig injury prone
Albert Pujols’ career would have be delayed several months / a year.
So I salute him.
by JI on Apr 29, 2008 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
You need to learn to take pleasure in other people's misfortune.
by JI on Apr 29, 2008 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
other people's misfortune is someone else's fortune
I want that person to be me.
Take that pychiatrist!
I am envisioning success. Now give me back my pills.
In other news
Jon Garland is still awful. 4 runs in 2.1 innings. However, he has managed to strikeout a season high 2 batters.
FREE JEREMY REED!!
3.
3 batters. But yes, he still sucks, and Graham was still right.
*Visiting Angels fan* Never give up, never surrender!
heh, don't feel too bad
making fun of Garland is the only thing a desperate M’s fan (me!) has over the Angels.
FREE JEREMY REED!!
Well, I have some possible good news.
Our offense seems to be sucking just as much against A’s pitching as yours did.
*Visiting Angels fan* Never give up, never surrender!
I'm beginning to hate John Garland with a fiery passion.
Seriously, who the ** gives up a HR to Jack Hannahan?
*Visiting Angels fan* Never give up, never surrender!
So we're losing this game.
It’s okay. Just DFA Garland and call up Adenhart.
...
It’s not going to happen, is it?
*Visiting Angels fan* Never give up, never surrender!
My team has given up 14 runs and counting
to the Oakland A’s.
Oh and addendum:
Chris Bootcheck is forbidden from pitching again. Ever.
*Visiting Angels fan* Never give up, never surrender!
Here's the world's smallest guitar
playing the worst saddest tune, just for you.
...and now I'm here
I've never been more happy to see a free-agent leave
"Evidently, a large number of people said, 'We really need more vermin at the ballpark, Artie.'" - Nick (AN), 10/7/07
That last paragraph...
...was a bit much. I appreciate the sentiment, but you don’t have to be stupid to miss something that many professionals also missed. Regardless of whether or not they should be professionals.
Visiting Mariners' fan
All the evidence pointed to Zito being a lousy investment
if a given person chose to ignore that at the time, I can’t think of a better way to characterize his intelligence.
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 28, 2008 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions
No, it wasn't. If anything, that paragraph wasn't strong enough.
But this comes from someone who made denigrating Barry Zito his sole mission of the 2006 offseason. I say this now to everyone who had the nerve to think I wasn’t right:
I was totally right. You were all totally wrong.
soriano
Another contract that isnt looking too hot at the moment is Soriano for the Cubs. Soriano’s slow start and the rest of the cubs doing well with out him during his injury are leading some cubs fans to be pretty short sighted and think the team is better off with out him… might not be a zito disaster but who knows?
CUBS WIN CUBS WIN CUBS WIN
by GarlicFryCubFan on Apr 28, 2008 8:11 PM PDT reply actions
Yeah it looked pretty bad at the time
Soriano is basically a poor man’s Vlad Guerrero. I’d be surprised if he made it to the end og it.
by JI on Apr 28, 2008 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Well it's bad... but there are lots of terrible contracts in the Major Leagues
Zito’s just happens to be the worst of all time
by seattlebruin on Apr 28, 2008 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions
So, you think that a 37 OPS+
is representative of Soriano’s true talent level?
Also, Soriano is a very good defensive outfielder.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
His actual ERA in Safeco will run in the threes.
I can’t believe people read that.
Three days ago, Sabrmatt made a post about how the Mariners lost all their games because their were unlucky. They should have won all of them, ergo the team is really, really good.
...and now I'm here
Well, according to the almighty Pythag
you guys are 2 games worse than you should be. So that’s something.
*Visiting Angels fan* Never give up, never surrender!
yeah, the M's have been pretty unlucky with 1 runs games
I think they’re like 1-7
FREE JEREMY REED!!
Pythag doesn't matter until the end of the year.
I’ve watched these games. We legitimately deserved to lose.
...and now I'm here
Okay, well, yeah.
We still suck. Don’t comfort me in my misery.
...and now I'm here
On the one hand, our run differential is good
on the other, we’ve scored too many runs for our actual batting performance. BP’s adjusted third-order standings put is smack dab at 12-14.
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 28, 2008 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions
But our
BA w/ men in scoring position and BABIP are low and due for regression. We can go all day and not reach a conclusion besides our 1B/DH/RF trifecta really suck and need to be switched out with medicre replacements as soon as possible.
by Edgar for Pres on Apr 28, 2008 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Examples #34,565 and 34,566 of why nobody actually takes Detectovision seriously.
Felix Hernandez may be The King, but Justin Upton is a GOD.
8 ) Felix, Zito, Batista, Horacio, Washburn, and eight-game winning streaks in July.
Felix Hernandez may be The King, but Justin Upton is a GOD.
I didn't even understand this statement
...and now I'm here
Me either.
No snide or sarcasm implied. I’m not sure what he’s(?) talking about.
...and now I'm here
I think he's saying that with that rotation, we would be stringing together 8 game winning streaks.
Felix Hernandez may be The King, but Justin Upton is a GOD.
I was going to say this, but decided against it.
Only because I’m not sure why Baker does.
...and now I'm here
So he can claim he agrees with an M's blog?
...and now I'm here
I'm not sure what my comment was supposed to mean.
by JI on Apr 28, 2008 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions
But my response works.
So let’s run with that.
...and now I'm here
Funy thing about Detect-o-vision
I stopped going because they decided to make it a pay-site. Haven’t really thought about them since.
I was thinking the same thing
Who’d pay for that rubbish when you have the two best M’s baseball blogs for free! (1-2 Punch! Yay!)
Everybody has their moments
If you dig back far enough in this archive, you’ll find somebody awfully hesitant about the possibility of dealing Jeremy Reed for Jonathan Papelbon.
Context
Zito never looked like a good idea.
At the time of all those Reed/Boston discussions, Reed looked like a good OF on the up-and-up, and Papelbon was a guy who wasn’t going to stick in the rotation.
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 28, 2008 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Was it even a rumor?
Far as I know it was just a hypothetical. Believe it started at USSM.
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 28, 2008 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions
The one that got away
I think I’d take Jose Paniagua for Alfonso Soriano over that one.
by Defenestrator on Apr 28, 2008 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Context
That. Advisor to Beatles: “Wow, you guys are really popular. Perhaps even more popular than a particular religion.”
Zito. Advisor to Napolean: “Yes, invading Russia sounds like a great idea.”
Missing out a on a relief ace ....
is now where the near the same clusterfuck as spending 1/4 of your teams salary for the next 6 years on someone who contribute negatively to your team.
Sorry about the typo's
What I meant was…
Missing out on a relief ace is no where the same clusterfuck as spending 1/4 of your teams salary for the next 6 years on someone who contributes negatively to your team
Que?
Ah, but that’s not what I meant. I was merely referring to the fact that everyone gets evaluations wrong once and a while. Now there certainly is a credible counter argument that Jeremy Reed projected to be a worthy outfielder and that Paps didn’t exactly show J.J. Putz of the East Coast type potential while it was certifiable that Barry Zito would indeed suck. But could anyone foresee all three players developing or imploding in such pronounced fashions?
by Defenestrator on Apr 28, 2008 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions
The Giants got the evaluation wrong....
And they were betting on Zito being legit ace. You are talking about the risk/reward of developing prospects. How about this, you evaluate prospects with little major league experience and let me evaluate pitchers with 1200+ innings of major league experience. I’d be willing to bet I’d come off as the better talent evaluator.
Again
It’s not about whether or not Zito would be an ace, but whether or not he would turn into a human t-ball stand.
by Defenestrator on Apr 28, 2008 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions
120 million dollars isn't about being an ace?
So you were ok with Barry’s performance last year? As I mentioned below, Barry pitched better in his first year with San Fran than he did in his last year with Oakland. Are you Bill Bavasi?
Dude
I never said the contract was OK, in fact I’m pretty sure I said it was unwise at best. My point is that it strains credulity for anyone to claim that Zito would have been this bad. I would have expected seasons akin to his 2005-6 performances, which is obviously not acceptable for a player who will take up 127 million dollars of payroll in six years. Unless you’re the Yankees. Or the Blazers of earlier this decade. You probably wouldn’t notice. But I digress.
by Defenestrator on Apr 28, 2008 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions
But
You did compare the evaluation of prospects to evaluating Zito. And I guess we have a different opinion of what a human t-ball stand is. But if you have a FIP of just a shade under 5.00, you are probably pretty close to a t-ball stand in my book.
I did indeed
The point I was trying to make though (and I concede that I may have failed or it may be flawed), is that anyone advocating the signing of Zito now looks like a brainless space kangaroo hopped up on meth. But that’s due in large part to Zito’s unprecedented collapse. If he holds true to his 2004 to 2006 line, yes, it’s a bad deal, but not on the level it is now. Which couldn’t be foreseen at the time. Much like Reed and Papelbon riding development elevators in the direction opposite of each other couldn’t be foreseen.
by Defenestrator on Apr 28, 2008 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions
If Zito were running a 5.00 ERA I still would have posted this thread
and the people who advocated signing Zito would still have been idiots.
Reed/Papelbon thing: justifiable idea, bad results
Zito thing: unjustifiable idea, bad results
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 28, 2008 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think that's fair though
Because a 5.00 ERA is half a run larger than his highest career mark to that point. I’m just glancing at the park factors, but wouldn’t the (seemingly) small difference in run and homerun prevention between McAfee and AT&T Park be more than covered by the drop off in offensive prowess that occurs when switching leagues?
I’m not saying pulling down a 6 year/127 million dollar contract for skirting the very limit of a “quality start” on average every time out is reasonable, but it’s only a flesh wound for a high revenue club. It’s not the scorched earth that the current scenario is.
by Defenestrator on Apr 28, 2008 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions
What Zito did in his good years was never relevant
Barry Zito isn’t that pitcher anymore, and he wasn’t that pitcher in 2006 or 2007. He began his tenure with the Giants with all signs pointing towards a major ERA regression, and – what do you know? – it happened.
I think it would still be a bit of a scorched earth scenario. Obviously it wouldn’t be quite this bad, but you’d be talking about a below-average starting pitcher in year two of a seven-year contract. Year two.
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 28, 2008 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Half a run larger than his career era...
But Barry had for whatever reason (park, defense, whatever) out performed his peripherals. Jeff whole point was that very few people didn’t see this fall coming (Sabean and Bavasi namely). Sure it has been drastic nonetheless, foreseen by many. 20+ organizations run from the smoke and two idiots run into the fire.
I'm just going to ignore the Reed and Papelbon talk
It has no relevance to what we are discussing.
Yes you are correct. It went from a horrible contract with the potential to be the worst in the history of MLB to the worst contract in MLB history.
Hindsight is 20/20
Certainly there were indicators that signing Zito to a deal of that magnitude was unwise, but to stretch the Russian analogy to its breaking point, I don’t think anybody foresaw a failure along the lines of Stalingrad.
It doesn't matter that Zito has completely lost every shred of his talent
even if he turned in seven seasons like his 2007, he’d still be a terrible contract.
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 28, 2008 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions
He lost what remained of his fastball in the middle of '06 and sucked the rest of the year
He never had any command. It was very obvious that it was going to be a terrible idea.
The A's colors are green and gold.
If it weren't the A's being such penny-pinchers and A's being in contention in late '06
I would say Barry Zito’s collapse was foreseeable by the fact he hit free agency in his supposed prime age in the first place without being traded. I can’t think god enough that the Giants “outwitted” the Mariners.
Yes, but he was only 28 at the time
I don’t think that age sits outside the standard deviation for a pitcher’s prime. I don’t know what his loss in velocity has been attributed to, but it’s a little unusual (if not downright inexplicable) to see a starting pitcher deteriorate to the extent he has at this point in his career. I know his pitching statistics in the years prior warned of mediocrity up ahead and a nine figure contract could be construed as a reckless gambit, but so much as to require an indefinite demotion to the bullpen before he turns 30? A little insane.
by Defenestrator on Apr 28, 2008 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Nobody forsaw he would completely break down this fast, no, but
so what? Many of us predicted this would indeed happen at some point soon. In fact;
“Whoever signs Zito is likely to be seriously regretting the move by about August 2007.”
That was written August 18th, 2006.
Barry didn't pitch a whole lot worse in 07 than he did in 06
In fact his FIP improved. He just got worse results in his first year at San Fran. The indicators pointed at the Zito signing being a horrible deal. Sabean just learning the hard way.
My sig from the beginning of the year :D
At least we don't have Zito's contract.
I wanted Jason Schmidt personally....
Will spend most of his 3-year deal being injured but he’d probably be better than Zito if he pitched right now.
And I still wish we had gotten Kevin Millwood.
Make that three
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 28, 2008 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn't want Schmidt but was okay with Millwood and Burnett
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 28, 2008 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions
I wanted Burnett something fierce. All the way up to this past July
Yep, so glad we got Washburn instead.
He's pitched a little less than 80 innings less than Burnett ths past two years
But his xFIP in the 380 odd innings he has pitched has been ~5.32 while Burnett’s in his ~300 has been ~3.75. It’s about a 52 run difference over those 310 innings. Even factoring in a replacement RP to cover those additional 80IP, we’d net over 10 runs. Plus, Burnett likely bolts after this season.
Man I wish we had Burnett.
Wait....
the first time I remember encountering the username rljaws was when you, ‘Jerry’ and I were all debating the acquisition of Burnett. Jerry thought he was amazing, and my hazy recollection was that you and I did not advocate spending money on someone so likely to be injured. Is that wrong? I’d point to the thread, but, y’know, search is fucked and all.
depends on the time
coming down the stretch, I wanted Millwood over Burnett because Millwood wasn’t getting press for his good season because he had a mediocre W/L record and so it was thought that Millwood would cost a lot less. But when the offseason rolled around, Millwood got plenty of suitors and his inflated cost made it better to fork over the comparatively little more money for Burnett.
Granted that was 2+ years ago, so I can’t remember exactly what I said, but I recall really liking Burnett’s talent and kept trying to figure out a way the Ms could get both.
I'd still take Burnett
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 28, 2008 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions
I wanted Weaver
On Washburn’s contract.
Whoops.
Ill Ligitamus Non Carberendum
by PositivePaul on Apr 29, 2008 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions
No contract has ever gone so sour so fast. And there isn’t any indication that things are about to get better.
I would argue that the Immortal Darren Dreifort contract ended up being worse and went sour more quickly. He put up a 5.13 ERA in 94 innings during the 1st year of his 5 year 55 million dollar contract. His total production over 5 years was 205 innings pitched with an 87.44 ERA+ I know it’s splitting hairs since the difference isn’t huge but Zito did put up a league average 196 innings last year so if its all for piss at least Zito and the pitching staff weren’t the reason the Giants were in last place last year. Thank god for Brian Sabean though either way
Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles
Zito's taking up a significantly higher percentage of his team's payroll than Dreifort did
those Dodger teams spent an awful lot.
Dreifort’s contract was terrible. So were (are) Neagle and Hampton’s. But I still think Zito qualifies as the worst of all time.
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 28, 2008 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions
I can't come up with a halfway decent argument
for any contract being even close to as bad as Zito’s. Hampton is the closest I can think of, but that’s more about injuries than overall shittiness.
Exactly. You can't predict injuries for the most part.
Barry Zito was a known quantity of suck.
Also, Mike Hampton was a pretty decent pitcher with an insane GB streak which Colorado was desperate for.
Isn't it also true
That Hampton was in the Mariners farm system, so they could’ve possibly have gotten 6 cheap years of good Mike Hampton?
Well Yeah
but then we wouldn’t have gotten an awesome year of Eric Anthony hitting .237 in partial playingtime
Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles
Denny Neagle
had a career .89 GB/FB ratio per ESPN ground out/ flyout ratio. They wanted him and Hampton for their change-ups. Because of the thin air in Denver breaking balls had less bite because there is less air pressure build-up on the ball. The Colorado management theory was that a good change-up wouldn’t be effected by the thin air the way a good breaking ball would be, they invested heavily in this theory and got boned
Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles
Sorry
I just realized you were talking about Hampton not Neagle, my apologies
Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles
The funny thing is, since Zito is currently pitching at below replacement
He’s hurting the team by staying healthy.
by Graham MacAree on Apr 28, 2008 10:59 PM PDT reply actions
Your right about the %
technically they would have been about the same in 2001 and 2007 since both took up approximately 10% of the pay roll but that is a horseshit fallacy since Zito’s contract is extremely backloaded but after pro-rating Zito takes up about twice as much salary as Dreifort. However you could argue in 2005 when Depodesta and Mccourt were in power the Dodgers cut some serious pay-roll to the point where Dreifort took up 13% of payroll. So the question is whether 196 innings of league average pitching at 18% is worth less then 0 innings of pitching for 13% of payroll, I would consider the Zito the better value in that framing. Of course that scenario doesn’t take in to count the future production of Zito which can be assumed to be negative to whatever degree you choose, it could be conceivable that Zito is out of the league in 2012 so we could safely assume that whatever % of the payroll the Zito contract takes it will still likely be higher then that of Dreifort
Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles
I forgot to hit reply
Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles
Okay, my question is
What the hell happened to the pitcher who won the Cy Young? I mean yeah, that park helped him, and he had an OK defense behind him, but I’ve never seen someone with a decent amount of talent just suddenly lose it all. I have no clue what happened to him – did they substitute him out for his evil twin and no one noticed?
Zito was awesome in 2001
Zito has not been awesome since. Considering his fastball has dropped 4mph since 2005, I imagine it’s dropped quite a bit more from the days when he was actually good, so I’m going to go ahead and pin this one on overuse. Call it Dontrelle Willis Disease. Zito was good, Oakland ran him into the ground, Zito is no longer good.
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 28, 2008 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Perhaps
His reliance on a “gimmick” pitch (that looping curve) had something to do with it? Hitters figured it out?
I'd rather know a little about a lot than a lot about a little
by Sportszilla on Apr 28, 2008 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions
I never really buy into the "figured (someone) out" theories
if that were true re: Zito, why did it take people so long to figure out?
I think there’s something else at play. Zito threw 195 innings as a 22 year old rookie, then threw 210+ for the next six seasons. That very easily could’ve just used him up.
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 28, 2008 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, something's wrong with the curve
It would appear from checking FanGraphs…he threw it 25.4% of the time in 05, and after that year dropped to 18.6% (down to 17.4% this season)...considering that it’s supposedly his best pitch, and the fact that his fastball has gone from borderline to shitty, there has to be some reason he’s using the curve less.
Besides, can’t there be more than one factor at play here? Guys may wear out from overuse (and I agree that it’s probably happened to Zito), but when a guy collapses this epically, I generally suspect there are multiple explanations.
I'd rather know a little about a lot than a lot about a little
by Sportszilla on Apr 28, 2008 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Fangraphs' pitch data only goes back to 2005
what I’m most interested in is what Zito looked like in 2001. There’s obviously something wrong with the curve now, but his peak ended years ago. That’s what I’d like to know more about.
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 29, 2008 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions
He was at 91-92 in 2001-2002
Mid to high 80s 2003-first half of 2006, and low 80s since then.
The A's colors are green and gold.
Any consensus among you guys?
Overuse, or something else, or what?
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 29, 2008 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions
That's as good a guess as any
We don’t really know what caused it more than anyone else. Zito himself has had a ton of various bs stories to explain it over the years… He always threw a ton of pitches even in good innings, so I’d guess that in those 228, 229, 231 IP years he probably led the league in pitches.
The A's colors are green and gold.
Overuse?
Well, sort of. All of the A’s starters suffered when Rick Peterson left after the 2003 season. Peterson was really good at taking care of the staff’s health. Those who followed weren’t abusive, but they weren’t as careful either.
But more than that I think Zito just declined. Some guys do that, it’s not so rare. His decline wasn’t nearly as sudden as some on this thread made out. He’s been gradually getting worse since about 2004; it’s not like he dropped off a cliff overnight. His last season in Oakland was pretty mediocre. I think a variety of factors helped disguise it from the general public - luck, reputation, park - but people who could see past that knew he was in decline.
A couple other things. It has always been true that Zito is remarkably durable. That was a big part of his value when he was good. Now that he’s bad, it’s no asset at all that he’s still durable.
About the curve. Because of its unusual motion, that was always a very hard pitch for umpires to call. From their position behind the plate, they genuinely had a hard time telling if it crossed the plate at the right height. Over the years we saw a lot of Zito’s curve strikes called balls and vice versa. There were nights when Zito had a stingy ump and he was just f*cked because his best pitch was completely taken away.
Because they often just couldn’t see it, the umps frequently had to call it on faith, and I think Zito got a lot of mileage out of his curveball’s reputation. Later on, the trend of the umps turned against it, and that proved really bad for him.
formerly known as mdl
Not quite correct
He was equally awesome in 2002, and still pretty good in 2003. After that, not so much.
formerly known as mdl
Not equally awesome
the K rate dropped (though it was still good), and he got lucky on BABIP and strand rate, which is why his FIP moved over 4 in 2002. Again, he was a GOOD pitcher, but he wasn’t the borderline ace that he was in 2001.
In 2003, his K rate plummeted to below 6/9IP. I think whatever’s been plaguing the guy started in 2003.
He didn't really get lucky on babip in 2002
He’s had a consistently low babip his entire because he gets (got) a ton of pop ups and lazy fly balls from right handed hitters, which was not a fluke. He averaged a 16% IFFB rate from 2002-2005. He’s an oft-cited example of the phenomenon that some pitchers have some control over babip. My subjective impression from the time (when I wasn’t looking at K-rates) was that he was nowhere near as good starting in 2003 as he was in 2001 or 2002, and that was the first drop in velocity.
The A's colors are green and gold.
I'd suspect
That it had something to do with the fact that much of his success ERA-wise was due to a string of years where his FIP didn’t match his results. Now, maybe there was something going on to explain this, and a lot of people wanted to say that Zito was the exception to the rule, but it’s also possible that he was just really lucky for a few years. Looking back, it’s hard to figure out why his results were good: he never struck many guys out (after 2002 at least) and he never had great control.
I'd rather know a little about a lot than a lot about a little
by Sportszilla on Apr 28, 2008 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I mean guys get lucky
but it’s really hard to imagine a guy going from the Good Zito to the Unmitigated Disaster of All Pitchers in Major League Baseball – either there’s some talent there or there’s not – luck can’t take you all the way to the top if you have no talent.
by seattlebruin on Apr 28, 2008 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Well sure
He obviously had some talent…but I think it’s clear at this point that either he never had Cy Young-caliber talent (thus the early part of his career was more or less a mirage), or that he was overworked and is now paying the price, or both.
I'd rather know a little about a lot than a lot about a little
by Sportszilla on Apr 28, 2008 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions
So which one is Dusty Baker?
Art Howe or Ken Macha?
by Defenestrator on Apr 29, 2008 1:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Short answer is Macha,
but it’s really not about Macha. It’s about Rick Peterson.
Peterson is a genius. Hudson, Mulder and Zito all pitched a ton of innings in all their years with Oakland, both before and after Peterson. The difference is that Peterson was scrupulous in watching their arms and making sure they were well taken care of. If a starter needed to come out, Peterson would insist, even if it meant taking him out in the 8th with a one-run lead when he still looked good. Especially early in the season. Fans would bitch and moan as the relievers lost games where the starter was taken out “too early”, but Peterson was firm, and Howe would defer to him, as would Macha in 2003.
It was because of Peterson that Hudson, Mulder and Zito were all able to pitch so many innings without wearing out. After Peterson left, Macha continued to rely on his starters to pitch a lot of innings, but since Peterson wasn’t there to look out for them, Macha would give in and leave a guy in a little longer, especially with the game on the line. I think Mulder suffered the worst for it, but it hurt all of them.
Losing Peterson was the worst setback the A’s have suffered in Beane’s tenure. Giambi, Tejada, Hudson, Mulder. Those were minor. What hurt was losing Peterson.
formerly known as mdl
Rick Peterson
the genius who could fix Victor Zambrano in 10 minutes? The genius who did not like Scott Kazmir’s mechanics and advocated the Zambrano for Kazmir trade?
Peterson’s like any good pitching coach; he has some successes, and some failures.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
ZZZZZZZZiiinngggggg!
Ill Ligitamus Non Carberendum
by PositivePaul on Apr 29, 2008 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Peterson is also "credited"
with getting Aaron Harang run out of Oakland. Apparently Peterson detested Harang so much that he marched into Beane’s office and demanded that he be traded out of the organization. (Beane traded Harang for Jose Guillen as a rent-a-player at the deadline in 2003.)
The point you're missing is
that Zito’s path from awesome to disastrous did not happen overnight. It went something like this:
2000 awesome
2001 awesome
2002 awesome
2003 very good
2004 decent
2005 OK
2006 not so good
2007 OK
2008 horrible
That’s correcting for luck. The role of luck was to make 2004-2006 look a little better than they actually were, so that the decline appeared to happen more quickly than it actually did.
formerly known as mdl
I'm not saying he fell off the cliff overnight
but even over a five-year period it seems very uncommon for a guy who was performing as well as Zito to go to someone who has been an absolute disaster for SF. I’ll have to put more thought into this later; it just seems strange to me, especially the part about his velocity dropping so dramatically over the course of 5-6 years – he’s still only 29, and even with 1650 innings on him, shouldn’t he still be in his physical prime, or at least somewhat close to it?
by seattlebruin on Apr 29, 2008 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions
No, it's not correcting for luck
2002 wasn’t awesome, and 2003 clearly wasn’t either. He had good results though. 2004 was pretty bad, even simply looking at the results.
Check the FIPs, BABIP and strand rates in those decent/very good seasons. There were warning signs.
Well, OK
I’ll defer to stat-heads who are better informed than me. I was a huge Zito fan back then, so I guess I continued to see awesomeness a little longer than I should have. Anyway, I still think he didn’t decline suddenly.
formerly known as mdl
He was a decent/good pitcher for a while
but the decline from peak level happened almost overnight.
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 29, 2008 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions
I saw you mention that below
sounds quite intriguing. Was this investigated? What’s the YTY correlation for IFFB% for the league, what’s the park factor for ‘em, etc.?
I mean, this would be interesting if true – it doesn’t seem like it’s perfectly correlated with throwing a curve, though seeing guys like Randy Wolf and Adam Wainwright makes me wonder if there isn’t some sort of relationship there.
From what I can tell OAK does indeed inflate IF/FB%
as you’d expect from the foul territory, but it’s by about 4% a year.
It happened pretty quick
Zito struck out 23% of the batters he faced in 2001. He never again got back over 19%. Something happened between 2001 and 2002 to make him significantly less awesome, and the process never reversed itself.
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 29, 2008 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Zito outperforming his FIP was par for the course.
The reason was his insanely high infield fly rate from 02-05. Ken Arneson did a series over the 2006 offseason over at catfishstew suggesting (IIRC) that the high number of infield flies was due to his unique style of pitching.
Since an infield fly has about the same run value as a strikeout but isn’t factored into FIP, Zito always looked like he was outperforming his FIP. Something like DIPS 3.0 or tRA would probably capture it better.
stat-addled alien overlord
How much does pitching in the A's stadium
inflate IFF% since the foul territory is huge?
by Edgar for Pres on Apr 29, 2008 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions
He has a career .262 BABIP in the Coliseum.
Career .266 BABIP. So it looks like theres a small effect, although we haven’t properly regressed.
stat-addled alien overlord
Also, how strong is a pitcher's ability to control his IFF% on a year to year basis?
by seattlebruin on Apr 29, 2008 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Again, not sure.
Some scouting stuff here:
http://catfishstew.baseballtoaster.com/archives/576977.html
http://catfishstew.baseballtoaster.com/archives/575894.html
http://catfishstew.baseballtoaster.com/archives/575440.html
stat-addled alien overlord
Interesting, though it's clearly not
attempting to prove anything. I actually think that’s a nice job describing Zito’s approach, and it had, to me, an unexpected conclusion: that Zito didn’t get his pop-ups on the off-speed stuff – he used that to get in people’s heads. He got the pop-ups on inside fastballs. OK. That may be why the IFFB% plummeted when he lost a few (more) ticks on the FB. He was fighting a rear-guard action for his last few years in Oakland, where that inside FB had to be perfect. The result was more walks. Now that it’s even slower, batters aren’t taking walks, they’re just killing the ball. Intriguing.
I checked the leaders in IFFB in 2007 and 2006, and while some names show up consistently (Chris Young, Josh Beckett), others don’t. Love to see some numbers on this.
from what I can tell
IF% correlates just as well as FB% does with an r ~ .65 year-to-year
actually
considering what I’m sure they’re saying about him, this is probably a point in his favor
I'd rather know a little about a lot than a lot about a little
by Sportszilla on Apr 28, 2008 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions
During this "Worst GM" match, some people have defended him.
Or, at the very least, thought Bavasi might actually be worse. You know we’re doing badly when the Giant’s own bloggers pause before making their choice.
...and now I'm here
Red flags?
What were the red flags? Guy won a Cy Young award. Yea, he never seemed like a staff ace, but ‘red flags’?
+ strand rate, + increasing FIP, etc.
They were all over the place.
Yeah
I would argue that, at the time of his free agency, Barry Zito was nothing but red flags.
by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 29, 2008 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Look on the bright side
He OPS-ed .255 last year, good for an OPS+ of -33!
God only knows how much HGH $126M can buy
by seattlebruin on Apr 29, 2008 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
I love how
That even with the Ho and Vidro trades, our 06 offseason could have been ten thousand times worse.
gary Gaetti's FA contract with the Angels was pretty bad
I think they DFA’ed him cold after one season
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Josh Hamilton on public relapse: ‘It was just wrong. That’s all it comes down to.’
- Photo: The Marlins’ ridiculous-looking home run sculpture is almost complete
- Yankees GM Brian Cashman lures alleged stalker into police dragnet
- Report: Josh Hamilton had a relapse with alcohol
- Happy Birthday Boy! Wes Ferrell, the best-hitting pitcher of all-time, would be 104
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
