Add new comment

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.