FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Why don’t we talk about how Gregg got very similar money as Jenks and has worse periphs, not to mention Jenks won’t even close in Boston where he could have with Baltimore.

    Comment by Kyle — January 12, 2011 @ 4:59 pm

  2. IMO, had Jenks signed the same exact deal with CWS, it would have been a “bad move”.

    I think both signings are likely plus moves for their respective teams.

    I think, even for sabermetric fans, there is still quite a bit of bias involved.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — January 12, 2011 @ 5:11 pm

  3. This is going to be fun.

    Comment by Sandy Kazmir — January 12, 2011 @ 5:15 pm

  4. Not that it’s a *huge* deal for relievers like these, but Jenks is 5 years younger.

    Comment by Bill — January 12, 2011 @ 5:17 pm

  5. Meh, classic Dave cherry pickin.

    30 year old, 3.19 career FIP
    35 year old, 4.31 career FIP (throw out his early years and it’s still around 4)

    Yea, Jenks is worth about 2/12 and Farnsworth is worth about 1/3.5. Farns has had a decent couple years, so it’s worth the 3.5 to hope to get that type of production out of him again, but I don’t seem them as comparables to the same degree you do. However, I don’t think the deal warrants negative criticism, as you said it has gotten. I’ll take your word for it. Certainly not a horrible deal.

    Comment by Lee — January 12, 2011 @ 5:19 pm

  6. Dave, this is an excellent post. I love the contrarian view, but…

    The last 2 seasons Kyle Farnsworth has a clutch score of -3.81. That’s worst in baseball among RP’s (min 50IP) by a wide margin. Next closest is Esmerling Vasquez at -2.57.

    I was forced to watch these 2 seasons from my sofa and at the K, and I can say, without hesitation, that The Professor deserves all the abject mocking that the bounds of human dignity will allow. The Rays and their army of 2%’ers may not deserve such ridicule, but Mr. Farnsworth has a heap of outstanding karmic debt payable to Kansas City, plus the juice.

    Comment by 3rd Period Points — January 12, 2011 @ 5:38 pm

  7. In addition to the above well thought out statistical evaluations I can share my own observations. In 2008 the White Sox were in a ntight pennant race with the Twins. They had to play a double header against the Tigers on September 14th. After winning the first, they were cruising in the second till giving up 2 in the 7th and 5 in the 8th to tie the game at 7. Bobby Seay started the 8th and got two outs but gave up a hit and a walk. In comes Farnsworth. As a White Sox fan I said “Thank you Jimmy Leyland” and sat back, all tension gone. An infield single and a DeWayne Wise (DeWayne Wise!) grand slam and -0.391 WPA later my faith in Farnsworthless was rewarded.

    Oh, and Jenks has 2.8 more WAR in 500 fewer innings.

    Comment by MikeS — January 12, 2011 @ 5:51 pm

  8. Not that many people give much (or any) weight to clutch score around these parts, but that is hilarious.

    Comment by Lee — January 12, 2011 @ 5:54 pm

  9. Did you completely ignore that Dave used xFIP?

    Comment by Bryz — January 12, 2011 @ 5:58 pm

  10. There’s a reason that every fanbase that has ever watched Farnsworth pitch for their team hates his guts. I am looking forward to the Rays fanbase being added to that long list.

    Comment by Joel — January 12, 2011 @ 6:09 pm

  11. If over 830 innings a pitcher’s xFIP is more than a half a run over his FIP, it’s probably safe to say he gives up more homers than the average guy. By how much? Well, not by as much as it looks, you still have to regress it, but that’s a decent sample size.

    You can’t blindly take stats at face value, everything has context. Dave pretty clearly cherry picked some stats to make his point, without presenting the entire picture. Which, tongue in cheek, is what I did in my post, to make it clearly look like Jenks was a slam dunk over Farnsworth.

    The truth is, both deals are in the range of being OK. Jenks on the good size of OK, and the Farnsworth deal, probably just what he deserved to get. I agreed with Dave’s thesis. The Rays shouldn’t take flak for this deal. But it certainly wasn’t as good of a deal as Jenks to the Sox.

    Comment by Lee — January 12, 2011 @ 6:10 pm

  12. Yes Lee, everytng is context. The conext here is home park. xFIP is park neutral, FIP isn’t.

    Comment by philosofool — January 12, 2011 @ 6:26 pm

  13. Theo could sign Willie Bloomquist to a multi year deal and most of the “expert” analysis would be positive

    jim Hendry is an idiot for giving Dempster 14m a year
    Hendry is an idiot for trading so many prospects for a relatively cheap Garza
    But last year everyone loved the idea of Theo giving Lackey 86m

    Look at the numbers. Lackey is a less durable version of dempster

    Comment by mister_rob — January 12, 2011 @ 6:33 pm

  14. Not sure what your point is, philosofool. You do know that all xFIP does is normalize HRs, right? Farnsworth’s career innings pitched

    CHI – neutral/ery slight hitters park
    NYY – neutral
    KC (for less than 100 IP) – solidly a pitchers park

    This adds up to: Farnsworth has pitched in a neutral HR environment over the course of his career.

    All citing xFIP is doing is claiming his HR rate will get better than it has been throughout his career.

    But I’m sure you understood that…

    Comment by Lee — January 12, 2011 @ 6:39 pm

  15. IIRC, Posnanski made a post detailing Farnsworth’s performance in close games v. non-close games, and the conslusion was thathe pitches great in non-close games, and not so well in close games.

    But, that has seemingly been the rep on Farnsworth “great ability, weak mind”.

    Posnanski: In high leverage situations, the league hit .548/.605/.774 against Kyle Farnsworth.

    This is where looking at MLB players as if they were NFL players “6’4, 230, muscular build, 95mph” can lead people to faulty expectations.

    Not sure whether Jeff Smardzija is the next Farnsowrth, but they could be cousins in performance.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — January 12, 2011 @ 6:47 pm

  16. I don’t think it’s “cherry pickin” when you actually put forward an argument for why it makes sense to consider recent data to be more important than career data. Did you miss this paragraph?

    “While Farnsworth might have been near Jenks’ equal the last two years, he certainly wasn’t in years prior, and the lingering memories of past seasons drives a large part of the perception difference between the two. However, given some of the changes Farnsworth has made to his pitching repertoire, it might be time to deemphasize his early career results.”

    Comment by Nadingo — January 12, 2011 @ 7:00 pm

  17. I blame “The Dugout” cartoons.

    Comment by Sockmonkey — January 12, 2011 @ 7:01 pm

  18. I stand very corrected. Looking at his cutter and related stats, it’s pretty compelling. I retract what I said. This is a great pickup, and it looks like Farns could really repeat the last two year’s FIP performance.

    Comment by Lee — January 12, 2011 @ 7:13 pm

  19. One projection system (CHONE):
    Jenks – 3.23 ERA
    Farnsworth – 3.71 ERA

    Comment by Sky — January 12, 2011 @ 8:11 pm

  20. Everyone loved the Lackey deal, really? Huh, not what I remember.

    The Lackey deal confused me, but in his favor, his stats have come in the AL.

    Comment by Sky — January 12, 2011 @ 8:15 pm

  21. Not to feed the trolls, but in last year’s post on Fangraphs, Matthew Carruth wrote,

    “Even still, this looks like a vast overpay in terms of annual value. And possibly worse than that is guaranteeing five years to a pitcher, much less for his age 31-35 seasons.”

    Comment by McExpos — January 12, 2011 @ 8:19 pm


    “But that’s the beauty of this deal for the Cubs – they’re not paying him like they expect him to repeat his 2008 season. At $14 million per season, they’ve essentially valued him as a +2.5 win pitcher, which would translate to a 4.25 FIP over 180 innings. In other words, they’ve built a regression of almost a full run per nine innings into Dempster’s expected performance, based on this contract.

    If Dempster really did establish a new level of performance in ’08, this is going to go down as a massive steal for the Cubs – they’d be getting an all-star pitcher for the same price that Carlos Silva got last winter. He can take a pretty sizable step back and this still would be a positive value contract. Essentially, for this to be a bad deal for the Cubs, Dempster’s going to have to get injured. If he stays healthy, this looks to be a big winner for the north side club.”

    You were saying?

    Comment by Dave Cameron — January 12, 2011 @ 8:45 pm

  23. They can out-drink 95% of the MLB that’s for sure.

    Comment by West — January 12, 2011 @ 9:33 pm

  24. what rays fanbase

    Comment by fredsbank — January 12, 2011 @ 10:23 pm

  25. He was saying that he doesn’t have the slightest clue what he’s talking about.

    Comment by Small Sample Goodness — January 12, 2011 @ 10:55 pm

  26. If the signing of Farnsworth seems principally derided it could be because Yankee fans are very loud.

    Comment by 81 — January 12, 2011 @ 11:48 pm

  27. One other thing to consider; $3.5 million is a much bigger investment for the Rays than $6 million a year is for the Red Sox. While the one year length protects the Rays long term, it could still effect them this year if they need to make a midseason deal and ownership isn’t willing to take on more payroll. The Red Sox of course of have significantly more payroll flexibility, and it’s difficult to imagine Jenks contract having any real effect on their ability to make trades.

    Comment by frug — January 13, 2011 @ 2:04 am

  28. The Rays are well below last years payroll of 70 million and will likely not exceed 35 million unless they spend big for a DH and additional bullpen help. The Red Sox OTOH are right at the salary cap threshold, and given the teams relucatance to spend past the threshold, Jenks 6 million will have more impact on the Red Sox abaility to add payroll during the season if any holes develop (much like 2010) than the Rays.

    Farnsworth at least looks like he keeps himself in shape, so his 35 yo body may be as young as Jenks 30 yo. He is signed for only 1 year and his past 2 years he has been pitching better than his career numbers due to the addition of the cutter, unlike Jenks.

    Jenks will also find himself pitching in non closing situations, and some closers do not handle this well. Jenks did pitch better in non-closing situations last year so maybe he will do ok with a different role. However, there is a big difference pitching the 7th and pitching the 9th in non closing situations.

    Anyways, the Red Sox can afford to go after the younger and more established releiver. The Rays are in a different situation and got a good deal to fill one of their holes in the pen, and I look for them to do the same at DH. I would not count the Rays out at all.

    Comment by pft — January 13, 2011 @ 2:29 am

  29. Baseball has a salary cap now? A lot’s changed since I went to bed.

    Comment by 81 — January 13, 2011 @ 7:53 am

  30. In that case the Red Sox probably haven’t made a bad move in a decade. Julio Lugo was a good deal because they have the financial flexibility to absorb it. John Lackey is a good deal because they have the financial flexibility to absorb it. Josh Beckett is a good deal…. Sox fans bust my gut at the seams.

    Comment by Sandy Kazmir — January 13, 2011 @ 9:03 am

  31. Actually, I was really down on the Lackey deal. Like, really, really down. And the Beckett extension. And spent the season in a gloomy mope of justified low expectations.

    And my reaction to Jenks was ‘6 a year for two years? For a reliever?’.

    Comment by NBarnes — January 13, 2011 @ 9:09 am

  32. Farnsworth’s clutch or WPA performance in Kansas City was awful. Sure, it’s probably not predictive, but I think it had a lot to do with his lesser contract offer.

    Comment by Detroit Michael — January 13, 2011 @ 9:23 am

  33. @81, it is pretty obvious PFT is talking about the Luxury Tax (178M this year), which I have heard it referred to numerous times as a *soft* salary cap…and the BoSox have tried hard in the past to stay below it, so they could have more flexibility and that is why the are waiting on (announcing) the Gonzo extension (so they could make more moves before opening day, i.e. Crawford, Jenks and Wheeler and not get hammered on the tax). The fact they are already at this threshold, barring any salary dump moves (Scutaro or Cameron could be very expensive bench players) and if their recent tendencies hold true, as pft said, they will not be very flexible this year. Though they should/could be again in 2012. I would also agree with pft’s analysis of the Rays still being a possible contender in the ALEast and WC.

    Comment by bcp33bosox — January 13, 2011 @ 10:37 am

  34. There’s two things you are overlooking: papelbon and jenks. Jenks is a proven closer who can step in if pap gets traded. I’m not saying this should happen, but it’s likely to happen. Farnsworth has big platoon splits, so hes not goog closer insurance if he faces three Lefties in the 9th, at least from the red sox standpoint

    Comment by Will — January 13, 2011 @ 4:21 pm

  35. I blame the Tuck! Sez cartoons. Not for anything related to Farnsworth. I just really don’t like them.

    Comment by Nadingo — January 13, 2011 @ 5:43 pm

  36. This article represents why Dave still rules this site. Good article Dave.

    Comment by highrent — January 13, 2011 @ 9:02 pm

  37. What bugs me about this article is that Dave notes that the difference in contracts likely comes down to past history, and then at the end he says the two pitchers “have” to be seen as similar…based on his opinion that the earlier results should not really be taken into account.

    Dave, do you honestly think the Red Sox would have signed Jenks to this deal if they were guaranteed that he would perform like he has over the past two years? Don’t you think they expect some degree of rebound.

    The fact of the matter is, given how the Beltre signing (another player coming off the lowest perceived value of his career) worked out, clearly the Red Sox and the evaluators of this signing ARE taking the earlier results into account, hence the different reactions.

    As for Farnsworth…the people who have noted his poor mental makeup and weak clutch performance are right on the money (and I still can’t believe that Dave said they BOTH have “less than closer makeup”). Following the 2005 season, I asked an ATL fan friend of mine if he wanted Farnsworth to return to the team, as “he did really well for you!” To my complete surprise, he told me not to trust the numbers alone, and that Farnsworth didn’t live up to his, something that was confirmed to me as I watched him a lot during his time in NY. Farnsworth is Exhibit A that even the best analyzed numbers sometimes mislead.

    Comment by Peter — January 14, 2011 @ 7:10 pm

  38. This post demonstrates the limitations of sabermetrics when used without any reality checks. Jenks was a lock-down closer for a contender (and ’05 World Series winner) for 4 years, and an effective one when healthy for the last 2 years. Farnsworth has been one of many good-stuff-but-can’t-close guys his whole career. From 2007 – 2010, Farnsy has exactly 1 save, with 11 blown saves. Careerwise, it’s 27 SV, 36 BS. You are actually comparing Jenks, who saved as many games (27) games LAST YEAR (4 blown) as Farnsy has in his entire career? Jenks’ 173 SV/26 BS mean nothing compared to Farnsy’s 27 SV/36 BS? Has Farnsy’s 95-mph heat inexplicably scared the last 7 teams he’s played for from using him as a closer? Do you believe Farnsy’s just been inexplicably unfortunate HIS ENTIRE CAREER since his peripherals are so gosh darn good? Here’s the reality: Jenks’ problem isn’t his head, since he’s always been borderline retarded – that actually helps him forget his bad outings. It’s his health. He is a very large man who had a good size pin in his pitching elbow before he ever reached the bigs. Farnsy’s problem isn’t his head either, it’s his guts. Some guys put up great numbers in the 7th, but can’t pitch the 8th. Farnsy can’t pitch when it’s close. As for that golden cutter, Jenks started throwing it 2-3 years ago, and it is effective if you have the guts to close. Not widely known, but Jenks was a starter with the Angels — he has always had other pitches to go to if he needed them.

    Comment by MikeS — January 30, 2011 @ 4:49 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Close this window.

0.139 Powered by WordPress