Pitchers who run 4+ walk rates aren't all the same.
But ... to paraphrase Spock ... "There are two possibilities Captain. They are unwilling to throw strikes -- they are unable to throw strikes."
The "unwilling" is usually a judgement on their stuff. They cannot "miss bats", so against better hitters they nibble and pray and walk that way. Batista was such a pitcher. He could get AAAA hitters out (and did), and would simply pitch around MLB hitters to prevent from being clobbered. Think - Survival of the smartest.
But, even top athletes simply cannot repeat a motion with the hair fine consistency needed to hit the zone on demand. But, this manifests in different ways. On a good day, they CAN throw strikes - (except for 3 batters in the 4th where they 'lost it' for moment). On a bad day, they might as well be throwing knucklers for all they know about where the thing is going.
So, in the end, it is next to impossible to judge a pitcher's CONTROL based on a couple of outings.
In 2009 with KC, what did he do through April 29th? In his first 8 outings, he walked ONE (1) batter and fanned 8. That was over 11 innings. He had a 0.82 ERA at the time. What was his final line? He had a 5.0 BB/9 rate and a 6.8 K/9 rate. He pitched great for a MONTH just last season. In September? He walked at least one batter in his final 9 games, (11 walks total in 12.2 innings).
Does Wright have a new pitch? No idea. Maybe he does.
What I *DO* know with certainty is that the ability to repeat an athletic motion inevitably WANES with age. Mind you, the point where this begins is different with each person. Nolan Ryan's control improved in his 40s, (though this is likely because he stupidly overthrew the ball for the first 20 years of his career, likely costing him countless wins ... but I digress).
Is there a possibility that Wright could have one of those stellar late 30s career years? Sure. Atlanta pulled guys like that out of a hat routinely during their run.
But, the likelihood is very, very low for this pitcher. His resume fairly screams of an inability to hold onto his throwing motion for extended periods. I have no doubt that the reason he is still employable today, despite what is by and large a pretty pathetic statistical mess over 16 years of play, is precisely because he looks exactly like he has looked thus far for Doc throughout the entirety of his career. He *LOOKS* like he could be a reliable arm - and "on occasion", he is.
There ARE good, successful 36-year-old bullpen arms. Almost none of them had an entire career of mediocrity to overcome. Bill Swift is Doc's comp. Swift posted 4.50 ERAs from age 23-27. He actually put things together at age 28, (2.39 ERA; then 1.99; then 2.08). What was Swift like at age 34? 5.40 ERA; then 6.34; then 5.85 and done. Swift's final season was age 36.
I agree that age arcs don't apply to pitchers like hitters. But, age 36 is the point when decline tends to strike BOTH groups. If Jamey were 29 or even 31, I'd be on board. At age 36? Uh-uh. Wishful thinking in the extreme. As I noted when Batista was signed, (who was a much better pitcher at EVERY point of his career), that a 3-year-deal starting at age 36 was insantiy. I said before he threw the first pitch that Seattle would be lucky to get ONE good year out of him. Seattle WAS lucky - getting the one good year - one disasterous year - and then one semi-miracle year in relief. Batista was perhaps the smartest pitcher I've ever seen in terms of doing everything humanly possible to leverage his fading skills to their utmost success. His 1.52, 1.86 and 1.65 WHIPs were a study in experience and guile. They were NOT a recommendation to rely on 36-year-old pitchers for the future.
At no point was Jamey Wright ever as good as Batista. But, personally, I'd sooner bet on Olson becoming the go-to guy in the pen then I would Jamey Wright.
=== Morning Sudoku Dept. ===
Compare pitches #1 and #6 above to pitch #4, very carefully, and see if anything jumps out at you.
If you need to phone a friend, check Brooks and compare his FF to his SL -- especially the speed and V-Breaks.
Got it yet?
................
Spec Sez:
Is it possible to be mediocre for 15 years ... and then make a mechanical adjustment that makes you good?
Spec quotes Baker, who as usual, is alert very early on to an emerging story:
Wright, 36, had a 5.00 ERA in 466 major league games with 10 different teams over the years. But he made an adjustment last season in Seattle that he says has worked wonders with his curveball and sinker.
Wright's longtime nemesis has been an ability to consistently find the strike zone. The mechanical change, he added, has helped him better locate his heavy-moving fastball for strikes.
Ask Jamie Moyer whether it's possible to be mediocre for a long time and then get good. Pitchers' careers don't really have arcs the way pitchers' do; any pitcher, any age, can find his mechanics or find his key pitch.
Mike Marshall, as he hit his 28th birthday, was a lousy pitcher. Shortly, he figured something out that gave him three years as one of the most unusual, and valuable, pitchers in big league history.
Bill Swift might be an interesting parallel.
.
=== Show Me Up - Please, Dept. ===
Wright has looked terrific. Halfway through ST, I waved him off as a perennial fringe pitcher, but it's high time to ask about a plateau leap.
If anybody wants to check his PFX's, he's got a really novel arsenal right now. He throws a 91 FB that breaks armside -4", and an 89 slider that breaks gloveside +4".
I don't remember seeing this among recent AL pitchers: he's got two 90+ "fastballs," one that swerves left at the last instant, and one that swerves right at the last instant. What is distinctive here is throwing a pitch that breaks either left or right, at the same speed?!
Here against Torrealba on April 5, you can see the effect:
A fairly distinguished list, you'd agree. Do any of them have cutters that "mirror-image" their fastballs? Maybe somebody wants to go into pitch f/x and look for that. One thing's for sure: few of them have CT that match their FB in velo. Halladay does. . === What's Changed? === Wright's two-pronged FB/SL also has the big overhand curve, and he's good with that too. The natural question: to what extent was he doing this, before? ........... Geoff Baker picks out Wright's control as the key issue. He's right. Sabermetrically, Wright has been way over 4 BB's for his career, and just in 2009 he was over 5. So that's one thing. Wright seems to have harnessed his control, and if so, then yes. He's a new pitcher. ............ A 33-33-33 TYPE PITCH MIX IS CRUCIAL to exploit the Marshall approach. Don't trust me; read Marshall's site. Or check out the blizzards of opposite-breaking cutters that Halladay and Lee throw. Maybe the Phillies want to make Wright their fifth man :- ) In every year before this one he threw his FB 60% of the time, and his "fork tongue" cutter seldom. This year, he's 25% FB's, 25% "cutters" and 50% change curves. For two innings -- and from what I saw in ST -- Wright has indeed gone to the random pitch mix. . === Dr's Prognosis Dept. === I don't know whether Wright will consciously pitch to the 30-30-30 type mix that would exploit his wacky pitch arsenal. For all we know, he might revert tomorrow to the routine pitch selection that made him a fringe pitcher in the past. But if Jamey Wright plans to (1) pitch ahead in the count, and (2) mix that FB/CT evenly in the Mike Marshall recipe, well .... guess here is that he's going to get a couple of very fun years in reward for his years of toil. If Jamey Wright can execute this thang he's doing, he might want to get into the rotation. Haren and Billingsley did. ......... :- ) Not predicting 17 wins for Wright, of course, but IFF the strikes and the pitch mix were for real, then --- > a Bill Swift redux might not be out of the question. . Worth watching, Dr Dspan>
Comments
Over the 3-year run starting with the season he turned 29 ('72-'74). Marshall came out of the pen to throw in 263 games. He pitched 503 innings, had 43 wins, 70 saves, and finished 4th, 2nd and 1st in the Cy. All the while, he was tying up the like of J. Bench with that baffling screwball. He was quite something.
I remember reading a Hank Aaron quote once...he said that all good hitters were guess hitters. Or words to that effect.
If Wright used to throw FB's 60% of the time, that meant a batter could sit "dead red" and be right 60% of the time. Without an overpowering FB, that meant they could square Wright up a lot. Add a touch of "Wild Thing" to his abilities (or lack thereof) and you get a wonderfully uninspiring pitcher.
This new Wright, however, the one (seemingly) with control and a three pitch arsenal that he throws with some degree of randomness....This is an interesting guy. Even J. Bench might struggle.
In '74 Marshall threw in 106 games....averaging 2 innings an outing.
My, oh my!
moe
And Wright has a lot to prove. No doubts there.
Agree also that with any veteran pitcher, you'll find 3-week stretches in which he threw great.
Agree also that in principle, if there's no compelling factor in a specific case, Wright's the last guy you want to bet on (unless in a stoploss situation).
Will also be watching to see if the ST/April pitch mix persists. Yet another big caveat.
...........
Don't know if you've been watching Wright on TV, Sandy, probably not?
But he visually looks night-and-day from the old Wright. The statline is not the reason I'm intrigued. ... ten games with no walks is something that might (and does) occur to anybody. Silva had a great two months.
The weird thing is the way he is throwing the ball. The game against Texas, that's who he's been since March: a 33-33-33 pitcher who throws everything to spots at will. All of a sudden he'll start a Josh Hamilton type off with a show-me tease FB and then two change curves, and that was never Jamey Wright.
........
As posted above, the thing to do here is not to give him $25M, but to watch for further developments.
Marshall threw 200 IP out of the pen and was as fresh when he finished as when he started.
He claims that he can teach that to other pitchers, and I'm sure he's right, with respect to some of them.
Honestly, the 2002 Braves had THREE (3) 36-year-old bullpen arms each have a monster season at once.
Two - Remlinger and Holmes had previously shown ability - and just happened to have everything come together at one time.
Chris Hammond, though, would be the only one to truly take his game to another level. He had a resume not too far removed from Wright's (though he never had the walk rates that Wright has always had). Then, after an injury, he had a year in the minors at age 35 that was a brand new template - and had a 2002 season for the record books - (0.95 ERA with only 1 HR in 76 innings). He remained serviceable for another 3 years, too.
So, yes - it is possible. But, Hammond is the ONLY pitcher I know of (though I'll admit there could be others), who didn't show SOME inkling of stardom before age 36.
I'll be thrilled if you're right, Doc. But, I've gotta believe the only reason Wright has survived for so long is that he's had an ability to "flash" this kind of performance all along. How many guys with a 4.4 / 4.9 walk-to-K rate survives for 16 seasons?
Gee, there's a research idea ... how many pitchers retired with an ERA over 5.00 (his is currently 4.99) with more than 1700 IPs.
Ran B-Rs stat lookup for "over 5.00 ERA and 1700 or more IP" and there's just one guy. When I run it for 4.99 I get 2, so the 2nd is Wright.
Jamie Wright has one solitary companion on this list, and his name is...
Sidney Ponson.
So not quite a singular feat, but lightning had to work hard to strike twice.
There are 20 guys with an ERA over 4.50 and that many innings, a list that includes our old friends Brett Tomko and Miguel Batista.
It's not an easy thing to do. Pitching that long while being that mediocre takes a number of factors to come together.
~G
Wow!
(I keep forgetting about the B-R lookup thingy).
Looks like Wright is working toward the "Worst pitcher with a 20-year career" Award ... or something close to it.
As of the end of April, Wright has the April of a 2003 Shiggy season.
He's throwin' the stuffin' out of the ball. Nice timing, amigo: without you, we'd have Brandon League and a bunch of gutkick late losses.