Josh Fogg, Shawn Chacon, and the Non-Dominant Pitcher

by azibuck on Oct 31, 2007 4:55 PM EDT Comment 22 comments

Over at WHYGAVS, Pat mentions Shawn Chacon leaving, with this comment:

"Fun aside for everyone that misses Josh Fogg: aside from win/loss record (which is terribly arbitrary), Chacon's career numbers are pretty similar to Fogg's. And he's younger!" I'm not setting out to prove anyone right or wrong, or to defend either of these guys. But I had been looking at Fogg's numbers at BBRef during the playoffs and was just trying to see what was there.

I present this because it interested me, and hopefully you.

Fogg and Chacon have arrived at their career figures quite differently. I'm not going to go in depth with their stats, just use ERA+ to try and show... something.

Chacon's ERA+ by year, and yeah, he was a reliever a lot, but here it is:

2001 105
2002 83
2003 108
2004 69
2005 131
2006 71
2007 110

And now Fogg's:

2002 97
2003 83
2004 93
2005 84
2006 89
2007 97

Fogg tops out at 97 (twice), but never lower than 83. Chacon is clearly in a good year bad year pattern, so can we stop the relentless bashing and get him back in 2009? (smiley face here) But seriously, if they're so replaceable, they wouldn't keep getting (well-paying) jobs. And the notion of replacability seems to be at the core of the criticism of them, and I don't think it applies well to Fogg.

When I was browsing Fogg's figs, I started looking at game logs. I wanted to look at innings pitched and runs allowed. It's known that he's not going to K many guys, and he will walk some, and I'm not interested in his dominance, just his effectiveness.

Fogg, in what we all probably think was a pretty bad 2005, gave the Pirates 11 umambiguously good starts, 8 unambiguously bad ones, and 9 mediocre ones. The team went 9-19 in those starts. I used old-school, quick and dirty benchmarks. 6 IP and 3 runs or less was good. 5/3 was mediocre, 5/2 was good. If he didn't go five it was bad, regardless of runs. The point was, did the team (forgetting the offense generated) have a reasonable chance to win when he left the game, based on how he pitched. If you disagree with the metrics, do your own diary, I won't get into a hair-splitting contest in the comments.

So in 2005, 20/29 starts were good or mediocre. For perspective, in 2002, 24/33 were good or mediocre, and in 2007, it was only 18/29. Yet most people would probably consider 2007 his best year.

Looking at his starts points out a problem I have when most people evaluate this type of pitcher. All pitchers get compared to some sort of gold standard, like Johan Santana. But there are always guys who are effective who don't K a lot, and BB more than you'd like. It's pointless to look at Fogg's Game Scores, for example. Even on his best day, he'll give up more baserunners, and whiff far fewer than other Game Score kings. And while we look at hitters' splits (L/R), starting pitchers really don't get that luxury. The stats are there, but they must face the whole lineup anyway.

Fogg and other non-dominant pitchers may have some sort of platoon-like advantage over certain types of teams or hitters. I also wouldn't discount the umpire effect. Fogg might be a dragon slayer -- if the home plate ump is generous with his strike zone. And most teams, especially NL teams, are not dragons. If I had the ability (and desire, and time), I'd do a full-blown research project on it.

This is going to sound like veteranosity, and I don't mean it to. Sort of. Er, well, I guess I sorta do. At some point, some pitchers that don't have filthy stuff just "get it." They understand how to pitch. They are effective, but with limits. And Fogg is one of the better of this type, because he's consistent. His fluctuations in ERA are due to subtle changes in the number of good/bad/mediocre starts. But basically, in 66% of his starts he gives his team a chance to win. Some years it may be closer to 60%, other years closer to 70%. And a particularly horrendous outing or two might skew his season numbers further, because it's unlikely he'll have a particularly dominant outing or two to offset it.

So what? So... I think Fogg has value, and that Fogg might = Matt Morris. The number of poor outings they produce is large enough, and sometimes come in spurts, so that we might over-focus on the bad. The trick is paying Fogg what he's worth, and that's way above the minimum, but well below Mo(rris) money. And I don't want to debate Fogg's salary either. I'm just saying he may not be as fungible as some think.

0 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Yeah

by bucdaddy on Oct 31, 2007 9:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

10 men, 4 starters

Nicely put. It's too bad that salary comes into play. I think you must consider into the mix the very plentiful cheaper alternatives. These guys always have the glimmer of upside when younger. For example, how about digging a little deeper into effectiveness per dollar. It would be interesting where Snell, Gorzo stack up. Or if you only want to look at 4 or 5 starters, can you compare Maholm, Youman, et al. In the big picture, if money is no object, you can buy consistency in the 4 or 5 slot. Rebuilding, i'd rather take a flyer on a younger guy. I guess the question is...does a Fogg type make the difference from pretender to contender, or does making room for a young Santana make contending possible. Maybe for a 1 year window, when you have ALL the other peices, you buy a Fogg. Other than that, to have a better start 10% more often, or in real terms 3 starts...for the money, lets take a flyer on 3 younger guys. Lord knows at least the Pirates have a ton of "almost Foggs" at the Major League minimun. Lets also think about the "starter by committee" approach for the 4 or 5 spot. Why not look for 2, 3 inning wonders for an equal price. Or how about now that 6 innings is the new gold standard, go back to a 4 man rotation. It worked pretty good for a lot of years. Use the number 5 starter money to upgrade the longmen. God forbid a team get back to an 11 man staff, let alone the old 10 man staff. With all the advances in modern medicine, I can't believe this isn't practical. Kinda like running a 3-4 defense in football saves money. You know, a top pass rushing DT costs way more than a 4th linebacker. I'm just saying, and rambling

by Doug Froebel on Oct 31, 2007 11:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

azibuck

That`s some real good stuff. Thanks a lot.
I hope we go into 2008 with another quality veteran starter on board. I`m not too keen on the potential Youman/JVB/Bullington merry-go-round for the 5th spot. There`s a good starter coming out of Japan for 2008-Kuroda from the Hiroshima team-but the Pirates are probably too busy scouting reports of washed-up players over here that they could sign to offer him anything.
A "consistent" #5 guy. It would be nice.

by patthatt on Nov 1, 2007 12:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You underestimate the impact...

...of Fogg's lack of stamina. In 2005, for example, he went fewer than 6 innings in 13 of his 28 starts. In 2004, it was 13 of 32, and in 2003, it was 11 of 26. That's a little north of 40% of the time.

When you've got a pitcher who consistently fails to go six innings, there are a number of cascading effects that flow from that failure. Your bullpen needs to cover the rest of his innings, and thus you need to carry more relievers, which ends up costing you bench spots on the 25-man roster (along with extra PHs and tactical flexibility and the potential to run an extra platoon). You also end up using a large chunk of your bullpen in one shot, which means that the guys covering for Fogg are either unavailable or at least some degree of tired the next day, reducing your chances of winning THAT game.

Veterans like Fogg and Chacon (and Armas) get paid because teams fear the unknown. When you're a GM, the unknown can get you fired if it fails, but if a Fogg fails then you can point to him and say, "He was always good for a 5-ish ERA before; how could we have known?" That's why these guys get more money than you'd expect. They're security blankets.

Right now, there are dozens of relatively undistinguished guys pitching at AAA who can give you a typical Fogg-type season in the rotation. Look at what Washington did last year. Because they had virtually no internal pitching depth, they basically held open casting calls for the rotation, and they got Fogg-type results out of a lot of the guys they settled on. Jay Bergmann was a middle reliever with a career ERA of 5.76. Mike Bacsik had been cut or traded by five different organizations (including the Nats themselves in spring of '06). Tim Redding had kicked around the edge of rosters since he washed out of Houston's rotation in '04. Those three guys combined for 56 starts of slightly better than Fogg-level pitching, and combined they made less than Fogg did by himself last year.

Even though DL sucked at finding rotation filler, it's really not that hard.

by Vlad on Nov 1, 2007 7:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well... there you go again

Dozens? Name one dozen. Bergmann (and Shawn Hill) was Washington property (i.e., not freely available), and a young guy with a right to improve. (I like Bergmann, he was on my fantasy team and I watched him pitch twice. I think he will develop into exactly the type of pitcher I'm talking about. He may throw hard enough to keep the K's up though.) Bacsik? Only 11/20 starts were good or mediocre, and if he duplicates that once, let alone 5 times like Fogg, I'll concede.

Let me help you out with the list of names. You could substitute Bacsik or Redding (or Micah Bowie, 93 ERA+ and several winnable starts) with the name Marty McLeary. Some guys are good pitchers, some guys have good years. If McLeary had been in Pittsburgh in 2006, in the rotation or bullpen, I think he would have been good. He pitched very well that year. Then reverted to form. In fact, in 2006, Bacsik was Bowie -- an older, very effective starter/reliever at AAA. I would make a substantial wager that Bacsik doesn't duplicate or improve on his 2007 season, and you can use any metric you want.

But I don't doubt you, or someone, could come up with that list of a dozen names, that could have ONE Fogg-type year.

That's why these guys get more money than you'd expect. They're security blankets.

YES!! YES!! Exactly! We're not talking about some inexplicable security blanket, like Jim Tracy and Jose Hernandez, or Lloyd McClendon and Abe Nunez. The reason Fogg is a security blanket is very explicable. I just explicked it, that's the point.

This part isn't in reply to you, I'm just saying -- I wasn't saying we never should have let him go, or even that we should get him again. I'm solidly in the "gambling on greatness" camp.

by azibuck on Nov 1, 2007 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Artificial definitions.

You err when you conflate "good" and "mediocre". It's like judging hitters purely by batting average; at some point, you have to account for the additional value from extra-base hits.

Functionally, a team like us has very little chance of winning a 5-inning, 3-run start. In 2005 (the first year in your example), we averaged 4.20 runs per game. If a given starter on that team turns in a 5-inning, 3-run start, we need to have four relievers put up an aggregate 2.70 ERA to even get that game tied and into extra innings. For the 2005 Pirates, Fogg's "mediocre" starts provided very little extra value.

== I very deliberately didn't mention Hill, given that he was regarded as at least a fringe prospect at the start of the year, and therefore notionally of value. You're going to object to Bergmann, though? He was a middle reliever/swingman, an eleventh-round draft pick with an undistinguished minor-league career, who had put up a grand total of 24 games started over the three prior seasons combined (at all levels, majors and minors). Washington is the only team in baseball that would've hung onto him over last offseason, since they had basically no roster depth anywhere.

==
Your challenge is going to be difficult to meet and then test in any sensible way, simply because scrubby AAA starters often don't get rotation slots (because they're all taken up with more proven, but equivalent, mediocrities like Fogg). Still, I'm game. Going solely from people who were bumped from rosters last month, I can cull a dozen reasonable possibilities: Jaret Wright, Victor Zambrano, Brad Halsey, Shane Komine, Jason Windsor, Mike Bacsik, Victor Santos, Mike Wood, Mike Maroth, Jorge Campillo, Jamie Vermilyea, and Kurt Birkins. Some are coming off injuries, and some are maybe 5-10% scummier than Fogg, but the difference between him and any one of them is more cosmetic than anything else.

Let's look at Mike Bacsik for a second. He's an interesting comp, in that he's the same general type of pitcher as Fogg (soft-throwing homer-prone guys who live by changing speeds), he's got a reasonably substantial ML track record as a starter (35 GS, a tiny bit over one full season for most guys), and he's within one year of the same age. As a starter, Fogg has averaged a 4.93 ERA, a 1.47 WHIP, and 5.66 innings per start. In the same role, Bacsik has averaged a 5.34 ERA, a 1.50 WHIP, and 5.39 innings per start. Fogg is a little better... but is he several million dollars better?

When you pay for Fogg's proven veteranosity, you aren't actually buying any extra stability or security. You're just buying the appearance of such, and a ready-made excuse if he bombs.

by Vlad on Nov 1, 2007 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like Bergmann

He just wasn't, and isn't available. Your description of him is interesting though. I can't prove it but I'll bet it fits alot of guys -- undistinguished, mid-to-low round pick, reliever/swingman. Take two dozen of those and pick the one that will have a Fogg-type year.

The Nats rolled the dice on Bacsik and he put up Fogg-lite starts. His 11 innings of 0.79 ERA are included in his final numbers. That's nice. Now do it again and again (5x), but better, sometimes a lot better, and you've got another Fogg. Are you actually saying Bacsik could have been doing that in 2004-5 when he never played in the majors? If you're saying Bacsik = Fogg, I'm declaring victory.

And see, darn it, I didn't want to be Fogg's #1 fan here. I didn't go look at the other guy's you listed yet, but you might as well have included Tony Armas, and Bullington and JVB. Any of them might have a Fogg-like year next year. But you (an organization) can only pick one or two. You can invite your whole list to Spring Training, but that's not going to be terribly meaningful.

Fogg will put up a Fogg-like year next year. That's not as horrendous as some think, is not as easily obtainable as some think, and I'd bet Fogg against your entire field.

by azibuck on Nov 1, 2007 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I sorted the numbers for only SP games.

So no relief appearances for either guy were counted.

I have no problem believing that Bacsik could have been Fogg-like in 2006. Pitching as a swingman, he put up a 2.79 ERA and 1.15 WHIP at AAA. Additionally, he was pitching in Tucson, which is usually a strong hitters' park in the more hitter-friendly of the two AAA leagues. Out of the eight pitchers on staff who got 5+ starts, he had the best WHIP and second-best ERA.

I'm not trying to set up Bacsik as some kind of paragon here, but he's a lot more like Fogg than he is unlike him. They're both limited, space-filler types with serious holes in their profiles (Bacsik is a FB guy who needs a huge park, while Fogg gets killed by LHBs). The biggest difference between the two is in opportunity: Bacsik was unlucky enough to come up with good teams that had a lot of depth, so he got buried after starting slow, while Fogg came up with a crap team (i.e. us), and he was hot enough at the start that he was already regarded as "established" by the time he cooled off. The sad truth of things is that for most teams, Fogg wouldn't have lasted nearly as long in the rotation as he did with us.

The guys I tagged there are all ones who have either had extended periods of at least Fogg-type success as ML starters in recent years, or guys who have put up strong numbers in AAA rotations without receiving an extended ML tryout. A couple are rehabbing, which isn't particularly desirable, but the pool from which I was drawing is pretty restricted (since I don't have time to do more than a cheap and half-assed sample right now), and if you consider the population of minor-league free agents as a whole it'd be pretty easy to toss any who aren't healthy back into the bucket and pull out some other ones.

by Vlad on Nov 1, 2007 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bergmann

I'm with Azi on Bergmann. He didn't do particularly well as either a starter the first part of '04, or a reliever in '03 in low A ball. They promoted to high A anyway for the rest of '04, put him in the pen and he blossomed: a 1.14 ERA in 31 2/3 innings. He really took off in '05 zipping all the way to the majors at age 23. He had a 1.22 ERA in 37 innings in AA, a 3.16 in 37 more innings, allowing only 26H, with a 39/13 K/BB, and topped his year off with a 2.75 ERA in Washingotn in 19 2/3 innings. Back in AAA to begint '06 he started 4 times and relieved in 22 games with a 3.28 ERA and fine peripherals again: 60 2/3Inn, 54H, and a 60/22 K/BB. He didn't do so well though when called up to the big club: 6.68 ERA in 6 starts and 23 relief appearances.

This was not an "undistinguished" minor league career. Spending a lot of time in the pen and initially failing as a starter is not a clear sign of lack of talent. He did very well as a reliever and the Nats quickly began trying him again as a starter. I think he's there to stay; a 4.45 ERA in his first extended look in the rotation with the Nats last year is nothing to sneeze at. Baseball Prospective agrees ('06 book) even before seeing what he did in '07: "throws in the low 90s and both his slider and curve fool people; given some direction, he could settle into a useful career". Sickels seems even a bit more optimistic.

Fogg had some early success too, in his callup with the White Sox and first full year in the Buc's rotation, before settling into his brand of marginal mediocrity. Bergmann has better stuff; I think he'll do better.

Bergamnn is on the protection bubble with one of my fanatsy teams. Btw, Azi, Vlad, do either of you play Scoresheet? You should, it's a very realistic fantasy game.

by rogero on Nov 1, 2007 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Minor league relievers are a dime a dozen.

If you aren't putting up PlayStation numbers, and you don't have super velocity or a crazy breaking ball, teams don't really care about you (particularly if you're right-handed). It doesn't necessarily make sense, but it's the way things work.

by Vlad on Nov 1, 2007 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bergmann

Sometimes it works that way for the dumber teams, but certainly not in this case. We know the Nats cared because they zipped Bergmann all the way to the majors, where he made 15 appearances, from high A ball the previous year, on the basis of his numbers in the pen. And they started experimenting with him as a starter again.

Here is Sickels on this point in his '06 book: "[Bergmann] has a very good arm, but he struggled enough as a starter that I left him out of the '05 book despite his low to mid 90s fast ball. I should have paid more attention to how well he pitched after converting to relief during the second half of '04." He goes on the detail further improvements Bergmann made and concludes he should have a spot on the Nats' staff in '06.

The smarter teams realize, as is obvious each year during the playoffs, how valuable a quality pen is. They try to provide for one, not by signing 18 mediocrities to their 40 man squads as Littlefield did, but by at times taking talented pitchers who could start, like Broxton and Myers, and putting them in the pen instead. Besides developing the quality arms already in relief.

by rogero on Nov 1, 2007 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just notes

I know I can be a jackass sometimes, so I feel compelled to note that I (feel like I) have nothing better to do than look this stuff up and argue with people. I'm having a good time.

I sure wouldn't hold it against any team, including Pgh, that brought in Komine, Windsor, Campillo, or Vermilyea.

That said, I know you didn't spend much time or thought on this, but come on, one or two ML starts? I'm all for rolling the dice if a guy has upside, but Vegas wouldn't even list the bet if we're talking Fogg v. any of those four in 2008.

Jaret Wright -- A few things are being discussed here, and things have a way of getting off track. So maybe I'm not understanding your point in listing him, because doesn't he disprove your point? He's definitely in Fogg's class as a pitcher, but he's made over 20 million dollars the last three years.

Zambrano -- Yep, was Fogglike as recently as 2005, but he's been horrific ever since. Not nearly the "sure" thing Fogg is.

Halsey -- I was so ready to agree with you. But, he's not available.

Santos -- Yeah, not the worst gamble the Pirates ever took, but he's only bettered Fogg's worst year twice.

Wood, Birkins -- Are these the guys "unlucky enough to come up with good teams that had a lot of depth"? Hey, I'm joking. Wood actually might be worth a longer look as a starter, but we're still talking about a lottery ticket. One of the scratch off ones that doesn't pay much and almost isn't worth winning becuase it just screws up your taxes.

Maroth -- no doubt, but we'll see what he signs for.

by azibuck on Nov 1, 2007 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A couple quick replies

Halsey was put on waivers last month (Link: People have to pass through waivers for a team to outright them to the minors). Thus, he met my criteria (a guy, available on waivers within the last month, who's reasonably likely to be cheap next year AND better than Fogg's baseline level of performance).

Similarly, Jaret Wright and Mike Maroth were both earning big bank from their LAST contracts. Neither one is going to get much this time around (particularly Wright, since he was hurt for almost all of last season).

Zambrano's issues are health-related. If he's fully rehabbed (and he should be by spring of '08, if he's ever going to be), there's no reason why he wouldn't be back to his old cover-your-eyes--but-still-effective form.

If you aren't willing to trust that a minor league player's decent performance will translate to adequate in the majors, I can't do anything about that, not without writing a friggin' book. The broad validity of MLEs was established and hashed out a long time ago.

by Vlad on Nov 1, 2007 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

MLE's

I sure wouldn't trust them for a minor league veteran, like McLeary or his type. The time to jump on them is during their decent performance in AAA. But I'd bet against it the following year if that AAA performance is at all out of line with what he usually puts up.

And for younger minor league vets, I admitted I'd try to find them too. You might get a Fogg-like year, but you're probably more likely to get someone that never sees a major league field.

Are any GMs all over this angle? Seems like Beane would be, and he released some of the guys you listed.

Is there a website that gives MLE's for current players?

by azibuck on Nov 2, 2007 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think so.

Minorleaguesplits.com used to do it, but they don't anymore. You can still always crank some out by hand if you really need 'em, of course.

Also, minor quibble: Beane didn't release those guys, he just bounced them off the 40-man and outrighted them to the minors. The first time a guy passes through waivers, he can't decline an outright assignment if the team decides to give him one.

by Vlad on Nov 4, 2007 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Correction

I meant to write, "in 2006 Bacsik was McLeary."

by azibuck on Nov 1, 2007 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

According to Elias...

...no FA compensation for Chacon (Link).

One fewer reason for us to worry about not offering him arb.

by Vlad on Nov 1, 2007 9:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Cards GM

Wasn't sure where to put this from the PG today:

"St. Louis hired John Mozeliak as the general manager, promoting him to replace the fired Walt Jocketty. The 38-year-old Mozeliak was assistant GM for the past five years."

I guess no Antoneyti for them either, huh?

by bryanzane on Nov 1, 2007 9:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

rankings

Does anyone know the methodology (or what they smoke) for doing these rankings? Gorzelanny and Ollie are ranked below Fogg and Morris??? Catcher is a pretty pathetic position in the NL, but Paulino is ranked fourth. They must take at least the previous two years into account. That would explain why O. Perez is so low.

by aih on Nov 1, 2007 5:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes, two years.

They coarsely sort players into one of five categories: SP, RP, C, 2B/SS, and 3B/1B/OF. They then determine each player's numerical ranking among his "peers" within each of five categories, average the rankings, and list the players from lowest to highest.

It's a spectacularly jackass system, but at least it's jackass in a consistent (and thus predictable) manner.

The real funny ones this year are that Mike Lowell is ranked above A-Rod, and that Andruw Jones is a Type B.

by Vlad on Nov 1, 2007 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

aih

And what is the compensation for type B? I am dismayed to see that Eric Gagne is still a Type B, so the Red Sox will get a draft choice when he leaves -- "compensating" them for the loss of a player they don't want and who never did anything for them. What a ridiculous system!

by aih on Nov 1, 2007 6:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

free agent compensation

A type A free agent brings:

If Team X offers arbitration to a Type A player who rejects the offer and signs with Team Y, Team X is awarded two compensation picks: (1) Team Y's first-round pick (if it's in the back half of each round in the next draft) or its second-round pick (if it's in the front half of each round), plus (2) a supplemental pick between rounds one and two, often referred to as a "sandwich pick."

A type B brings:

The compensation for the loss of a Type B player is the signing team's first- or second-round pick, under the same formula, but no sandwich pick is awarded.

by Thunder on Nov 1, 2007 10:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs