At the moment, the Mariners are known to be interested in bringing in two final pieces - a bat and a starting pitcher. We've already talked a lot about the state of the offense and isolated that bat as likely being a righty capable of playing the outfield. The rotation, however, has drawn a considerably lesser amount of attention, and it's for that reason that I think it would behoove us to take a look at what we currently have on hand.
The top of the rotation, right now, should be known to anyone. For the third year in a row, the M's will attempt to field the best 1-2 punch in the league, only this time they'll be doing it with a little more statistical support. Cliff Lee and Felix Hernandez. It's all anyone's talking about. Ask the average baseball fan and he'll tell you that the Mariners will go as far as Cliff Lee and Felix Hernandez can take them.
But it's behind those two that things become a whole other kind of interesting. Slotting in at #3, right now, is Ryan Rowland-Smith. Then there's Ian Snell. Then there's Jason Vargas. Then, serving as the depth, we find names like Doug Fister, Luke French, Garrett Olson, Nick Hill, and maybe Yusmeiro Petit. The list goes ten names deep, each of them with some argument for why he deserves to break camp with a spot. Each of them but Olson.
Still, the assumption is that, for the time being, the rotation will go RRS/Snell/Vargas. Now, in theory, were the team to go all 2003 on us, we'd see something like the following breakdown:
Felix: 33 starts
Lee: 33
RRS: 32
Snell: 32
Vargas: 32
However, we know that to be unrealistic. Last year's team, for example, gave starts to 12 different pitchers. 11 in 2008. Seven in 2007, but ten in 2006. At some point, the depth is almost certainly going to come into play, and to assume otherwise is to be foolish. So a more probable breakdown would be something like this:
Felix: 32 starts
Lee: 32
RRS: 25
Snell: 25
Vargas: 25
Assorted: 23
The numbers, of course, serving as examples only. The point is, you can't plan on the best-case scenario. You have to assume that, at some point, some guys are going to miss some starts, and you'll have to dip into your reserves. This is something against which teams have to protect themselves.
Here's why this matters: as the Mariners poke around for another starting pitcher, it's tempting to compare different possible names to Jason Vargas. The reality, though, is that a new starting pitcher wouldn't only be taking starts from Jason Vargas unless everybody stayed perfectly healthy and effective. In reality, he would end up taking starts from both Vargas and that pool of other guys currently on the outside looking in.
Let's just go ahead and use the damn Jarrod Washburn example. Let's say the Mariners decide to sign Jarrod Washburn. Washburn would come in and knock Vargas out of the top five. With Jarrod's age and recent history, let's keep things simple and pencil him in for 25 starts. The same 25 starts that we gave to Vargas above.
Now you've taken 25 starts away from Jason Vargas, but at the same time inserted Vargas into the group labeled 'Assorted'. Which means Vargas, as the #6 guy, will get a good number of his starts back, at the expense of guys further down the latter. Guys like, say, Luke French. So in this scenario, you aren't so much replacing Vargas with Washburn as you are replacing some Vargas and some other guys with Washburn.
That matters because it establishes a different baseline. For example (again, just for example), let's say you think Washburn's a two-win guy, Vargas is a one-win guy, and the Assorteds are replacement level. The easy thing to do is to say "adding Washburn adds a win." But if you consider the chaining of the rotation, where Vargas is still able to pick up a number of starts, then, in this example, a more accurate statement would be "adding Washburn adds a win and a half." It changes things. When you're dealing with a starting rotation, a new pitcher doesn't just take a bunch of starts from one guy. He takes a handful of starts from a handful of guys.
Now, this is all much ado about something that, in the end, makes a pretty small difference. And in truth, after Felix/Lee a lot of the projected performances of our starting pitchers kind of run together anyway. But it's still something to keep in mind as we consider the possible benefit of adding another arm. We don't just care about Jason Vargas' projection. We care about everybody's projections, because if the Mariners add an arm, everybody's affected.
0 recs | 85 comments
Feel free to delete this comment...
…but the “against” in the parenthetical in the second-to-last paragraph should be “again”. It confused me for a bit is all.
Anywhence, thanks for the article, it illuminated.
RunningFool - January 20, 2010
Chaining.
Exactly. Just as it works in the bullpen, it works in the rotation as well. And from the rotation, it can even spill over in the bullpen a bit as the better your SP depth becomes, the better the mop up and long reliever likely are in the pen.
Matthew - January 20, 2010
I am in awe of J/M/G's collective blog output
in the past few weeks. You guys are awesome, keep up the great work.
Omerta - January 20, 2010
Is bringing up Sheets off topic (OT)?
I read a bit about it on Prospect Insider and got a bit excited. I’m cruising for a letdown here I imagine.
A Steamy Day in Cleveland - January 20, 2010 via mobile
Get unexcited...
…the better Sheets looks, the more bidders, the higher the price and the less likely the Mariners could field a winning bid.
rtang - January 20, 2010
My guess is either $6.5 mil for one year with incentives up to $9 million
or $7.5 mil with a vesting option at like 140 innings.
lailaihei - January 20, 2010
As Dave tweeted:
Jeff Sullivan - January 20, 2010
It's possible things have changed now that there aren't a whole lot of other good options available, though
OlSalty - January 20, 2010
Yeah
Just something to keep in mind. With this many potential suitors, Sheets coming to Seattle would surprise me.
Jeff Sullivan - January 20, 2010
So welcome back, Jarrod!
abender20 - January 20, 2010
Maybe Jarrod and Bedard?
OlSalty - January 20, 2010
So... bats then
Poochie - January 20, 2010
Bedard!
Jeff Sullivan - January 20, 2010
Don't forget trade, there's ALWAYS the trade possibility.
lailaihei - January 20, 2010
The problem is that most teams have their rosters almost set by now and have mostly moved the guys they wanted to move already
Not that it couldn’t happen, but the options in trade probably aren’t great/available for the right price right now either.
OlSalty - January 20, 2010
There are a number of pitchers that could be moved for not very little.
Think decent pitchers on non-contending teams. Koji Uehara?
lailaihei - January 20, 2010
Living here in DC I got to see a bit of him last year
I really have no idea if he’s any good but he seemed fun to watch. I mean, if it’s between “meh” and Jarrod, I’ll take “meh” any day.
Robert Lintott - January 21, 2010
He was just an example I thought of off the top of my head.
Good pitcher without an albatross contract, it shouldn’t take too much to get him.
lailaihei - January 21, 2010
I guess Smoltz would be good too
but he’s probably headed back to St. Louis
Poochie - January 20, 2010
As long as he doesn't go to Texas...
Pretty sure that would be terrible.
OceanBird - January 20, 2010
Do not underestimate the magical powers of Yusmeiro.
diderot - January 20, 2010
Let's all please try to keep this at least sort of on topic
Thanks.
Jeff Sullivan - January 20, 2010
So would you rather go upside (Bedard) or consistancy (Washburn) to maximize wins?
Lets say 50% of the time Bedard is worth 3 WAR and 50% of the time he isn’t worth anything. Washburn is worth 1.5 WAR all the time. (Just a thought exercise) Both come at the same price. Which do you get for this team?
Edgar for Pres - January 20, 2010
Obviously Washburn.
lailaihei - January 20, 2010
Bedard!
Dewey N - January 20, 2010
To expand: I don't think the upgrade of Washburn over Vargas is enough to justify choosing him over a high risk/upside pitcher
Dewey N - January 20, 2010
Washburn.
I know he won’t be as great as he was last year with us, but he has high floor.
supershane - January 20, 2010
In 2008, Jarrod Washburn was awful
Matthew - January 20, 2010
True
He was awful in Detroit last year too. I guess I’m hoping that his 2009 Mariners outing wasn’t a fluke. The statistics say it is, but he did add the sinker.
supershane - January 20, 2010
Pretty much nothing changed in 2009.
His BABIP was .242 with Seattle in 2009. There’s your difference.
Matthew - January 20, 2010
Wow
I knew he benefited from our defense, but I didn’t realise that his BABIP was so low. I’m seeing your point know. He really wasn’t that great, and certainly not much better than what Vargas brings to the table.
supershane - January 20, 2010
Ok just to make this easier...I'm taking away the names.
Lets say 50% of the time Pitcher A is worth 3 WAR and 50% of the time he isn’t worth anything. Pitcher B is worth 1.5 WAR all the time. Both come at the same price. Which do you get for this team?
Edgar for Pres - January 20, 2010
Bedard would be my pick
but it isn’t an easy choice. Arrgh.
Bart's Evil Twin - January 20, 2010
But if you assume 50% injury risk for Bedard,
then he would project at only 25% of that 3 WAR.
nathaniel dawson - January 21, 2010
Pitcher B
It still averages to a 1 win improvement with either, and you always take the less risky pitcher.
lailaihei - January 20, 2010
No it doesn't and no you don't.
The replacement for Pitcher A is not replacement level for that 50% of the time he isn’t worth anything.
Matthew - January 20, 2010
I'm assuming, of course, that the 50% chance of the replacement level performance isn't because of injury.
If it is, then Pitcher A.
lailaihei - January 20, 2010
Woudn't matter if it's injury or not.
The team has above replacement level pitchers already. If the hypothetical pitcher was healthy or not, but producing 0 WAR, then that pitcher would get replaced.
Matthew - January 20, 2010
Alright, depends on what assumptions you make, I guess.
I was kind of thinking along the lines of if Bedard or whoever Pitcher A is has that kind of upside that he wouldn’t be replaced by Vargas just because he pitches at a replacement level for the first 10 starts or whatever.
lailaihei - January 20, 2010
Well, I would say either keep it fully in the realm of reality or theory.
In theory, he would get replaced. In reality, Bedard wouldn’t be healthy and pitching at a replacement level.
Either way, same conclusion.
Matthew - January 20, 2010
That's true.
In any case, it’s not worth signing real Washburn at all, while Sheets, Bedard, and Smoltz make sense.
lailaihei - January 20, 2010
I would take pitcher A,
because you could then plug in a pitcher for the other 50% of the time who can get you additional value over replacement.
But I’m not sure Bedard will be worth that.
killer_ewok18 - January 20, 2010
The answer is Pitcher A and here is my explaination
This team as it stands right now is about 87 wins (something like that).
Adding Pitcher A gets this team up to 90 wins 50% of the time and 87 wins the other 50% of the time.
Adding Pitcher B gets the team up to ~88.5 wins all the time.
The 90th win is worth way more than the 88th win because it increases your chance of playoffs alot. Therefore, the 50% of the time where Pitcher A contributes gives a ton of value.
I’m gonna say based on this logic, Washburn is a crappy idea (among others) and an injury reclaimtion is a great idea.
Edgar for Pres - January 20, 2010
That math is only right if you assume they are replacing replacement level players
Which is not true
Dewey N - January 20, 2010
Right, but since the replacement is above replacement level
it only further boosts the merits of Pitcher A
Matthew - January 20, 2010
Ye I wasn't arguing that the logic behind it was wrong
Just the wins added
Dewey N - January 20, 2010
Yeah I had it in there but then deleted it cause I thought it was confusing
and forgot to add it back in.
Edgar for Pres - January 21, 2010
Bedard.
Every time.
Easy choice.
Matthew - January 20, 2010
Easy for you
but some of us are morons! (Or maybe its just me.)
Bart's Evil Twin - January 20, 2010
Your's not the only one. I had a problem following it too.
TrustBaseball - January 21, 2010
The difference is that you get a full year of Washburn at 1.5-2 wins, replacing a maybe 1 WAR pitcher (who is still going to throw some innings)
Whereas Bedard even when pitching hurt was worth ~2 wins in only 83 innings while pitching hurt. Bedard is worth more even if he just pitches half a season, as many times as he has screwed us with his health problems before you have to gamble on a half season of a healthy Bedard over a full season of healthy Washburn.
OlSalty - January 20, 2010
God why the hell do I keep making this same typo where I repeat myself.
Something is seriously wrong with my brain.
OlSalty - January 20, 2010
Nah just work through it you'll be just fine.
Robert - January 21, 2010
Brain echo.
It’s cause is that the left side of the brain doesn’t know what the right side is doing. The only cure that I know of is beer. Lots of beer.
ToddK - January 21, 2010
If they both could be had for within our budget limitations, I would take it though.
OlSalty - January 20, 2010
Agreed,
but I would guess that the team isn’t likely to sign 2 more SP right now.
Bart's Evil Twin - January 20, 2010
That woudn't make a lot of sense
since you’d obviously start Bedard and only sub in Washburn if Bedard got injured, but at that point you’d be into the season and the marginal value of Washburn over Vargas/et al diminishes with each passing day.
Matthew - January 20, 2010
Except that Bedard
isn’t likely to be available until the second half of the season. Or am I missing something?
Bart's Evil Twin - January 20, 2010
Aren't our #4 and #5 respectively both worth only around 1 WAR?
Washburn is a slight upgrade over one of those, then you roll out Snell or someone for half a season at #5 until Bedard is ready to pitch to maximize your win value.
OlSalty - January 20, 2010
I believe Snell will be worth 4 wins
Dewey N - January 20, 2010
I was going to cover that
but I don’t think they’d really be wise to start Washburn over Snell.
Matthew - January 20, 2010
That's a fair point
But there’s also the possibility of moving Washburn around the deadline (when Bedard is presumably coming back) to keep Snell in the rotation as well.
OlSalty - January 20, 2010
Or if Washburn sucks at that point, move him to the pen
All of this depends on getting Washburn for really cheap, though. He just doesn’t seem to have many suitors right now which is the only reason I’m entertaining this possiblity at all.
OlSalty - January 21, 2010
I can't see any scenario where I want Washburn outside of him signing for the league minimum
Poochie - January 20, 2010
I'd give him a couple mil, but no more
Matthew - January 20, 2010
He's going to get substantially more than it's worth it for the Mariners to sign him.
That’s all that really matters.
lailaihei - January 20, 2010
Bedard.
If (when) Bedard isn’t healthy, the person that takes his place in the rotation is ~Washburn. When he’s healthy he’s awesome. If you’re going to spend a large chunk of the remaining payroll space on pitching (and assuming you’re using the money on a FA) I don’t see why Washburn would even be in the discussion.
Aaron Campeau - January 21, 2010
How about Feierabend as a down-the-list mop-up guy?
Has anyone heard about his recovery from the Tommy John’s?
supershane - January 20, 2010
I don't think anyone even nose he's still on the team
Dewey N - January 20, 2010
I almost included him but whatever
He’s around and very distant.
Jeff Sullivan - January 21, 2010
I had a case of the Tommy John's one time.
It was a rough recovery.
seattle_since_81 - January 21, 2010
I think Bedard would be a decent choice
I say open up the fifth spot in Spring Training to competition between that grouping of guys(Vargas, Fister, et al). See how well the winner does at the beginning of the year in hopes that one of them figures it out. If it works, then we could have a rotation spot filled cheaply. If it doesn’t work out Bedard would eventually be healthy. Plus it would be insurance in case one of the top four guys gets injured. He still racks up swinging strikes when he does play so I think he’d be a good choice as long as it’s at a decent price.
Scrupio - January 20, 2010
I love that no matter who the LL community believes is the right choice for this new pitcher the Front Office is almost certainly go with someone else.
Not that it has anything to do with what we say, just they are looking at a lot more information then we are.
mark sobba - January 21, 2010
It's a bit of a problem isn't it
Building a team around a rotation is a bad idea because pitchers contribute to only one side of the game and the injury risk is tremendous. On the other hand, because of what you describe (ie chaining), the rotation is almost always the easiest way to improve a ball club.
I’m starting to resign myself to the idea that Washburn is headed our way, but I’m still holding on to the hope that the Mets panic and sign him for three years or something.
Bearskin Rugburn - January 21, 2010
Z is too smart to bring Washburn back. I think he's got someone else in mind.
TrustBaseball - January 21, 2010
I want Bedard but...
Can we assume do to the fact that the M’s, to my knowledge, have done nothing with regards to him, that he isn’t in the M’s plans? or is he still a possible piece of the pitching jig-saw puzzle?
Emperor_Doom - January 22, 2010
I know for a fact that our medical staff is still working with Bedard on his rehab.
Sec 108 - January 22, 2010
Whoa really?
Is it common for teams to do that with injured FA pitchers? I guess they could just be doing it for continuity of treatment’s sake…
OlSalty - January 22, 2010
I think it is a common practice. Helps to keep goodwill with the union in particular.
Sec 108 - January 22, 2010
Actually I suspect that's part of the CBA
The M’s are the employer of record until some other team signs him and takes over the obligation for his healthcare. If that’s not in the CBA then I would expect it to be pro forma language in every contract. It’s not like these guys are going to be happy to just sign up for COBRA or whatever.
wandergeist - January 22, 2010
Technically
While RRS is #3 on the depth chart, he won’t be taking the 3rd start, right? Wak will stick Snell or some other RH in between Lee and RRS?
wandergeist - January 22, 2010
No idea
Jeff Sullivan - January 22, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.