Is there a more frustrating starter in the game than Rich Harden?

Since he broke into the big leagues at age 21, Harden has compiled a 3.58 FIP, while punching out 9.35 batters per nine frames. The slim right-hander totes a searing four-seam fastball, a knee-weakening slider and a changeup making MLB hitters resemble beer league softball players in the second game of a double-header.

Unfortunately, any discussion of Harden’s immense talent includes the qualifier, “when healthy.” His DL history reads like a Tolstoy novel. Shoulder ailments have haunted Harden throughout his career. But you name it, and the soon-to-be 28 year-old has strained it. The latest entries into the file are a back injury that sidelined him in May, and shoulder fatigue that cut his September short.

Overall, Harden made 26 starts for the Cubs in 2009. His 4.09 ERA in 141 IP doesn’t look near as shiny as his Gibson-like 2.07 ERA in 148 innings between Oakland and Chicago in 2008. But there wasn’t near as much of a difference between those two campaigns as you might think.

Harden’s Expected Fielding Independent ERA (based on a pitcher’s K’s, walks and a normalized home run/fly ball rate) was 3.70 in 2009. In 2008? 3.70.

In 2008, Harden whiffed 11.01 hitters per nine innings. In 2009, he posted 10.91 K/9. He wasn’t as sharp painting the corners this past year, issuing 4.28 BB/9 compared to 3.71 BB/9 in 2008.

In ‘08, The 6-1 righty posted a very low .265 BABIP on the season. Granted, Rich is an extreme fly ball pitcher (his 49% FB rate in 2008 was highest among starters tossing 140+ IP). Fly balls have a lower BABIP than grounders, and Harden is adept at getting batters to pop the ball up. Over the past two seasons, he has the fourth-highest infield/fly ball rate among starters.

Those two factors combine to depress his BABIP more than that of most starters (his career BABIP is .284). But a mark in the mid-.260’s was bound to regress. In 2009, Harden’s BABIP climbed to .304.

Harden’s HR/FB rate also changed drastically between 2008 and 2009. In ‘08, Rich gave up a dinger on just 6.5% of his fly balls. That was fifth-lowest among starters, and well below the typical 11-12% average for pitchers. In ‘09, Harden’s HR/FB rate skyrocketed to 15.1% (third-highest among starters).

According to Greg Rybarczyk’s Hit Tracker Online, Harden gave up nine “Just Enough” home runs in 2009. “Just Enough” homers are defined as “balls that clear the fence by less than 10 vertical feet” or balls that “landed less than one fence height past the fence.” In other words, Rich surrendered plenty of wall-scrapers. Expect to see fewer taters hit against Harden in 2010.

Harden benefitted from an abnormally high rate of stranding runners on base in 2008 as well. His 84.4 LOB% was the highest among starters. In ‘09, Harden’s LOB% came back down to 74.3%, right around his career 74.9% mark.

Despite the massive gap in ERA, the difference between Rich Harden’s performance in 2008 and 2009 was largely superficial. He combined superb pitching with some fortuitous breaks in ‘08, but then saw Lady Luck turn a cold shoulder to him in 2009. His skill-based numbers were very similar.

Entering 2010, fantasy owners are in much the same position as MLB GMs when it comes to evaluating Harden. How much are you willing to bet on his transient brilliance?

Harden strikes me as the ideal middle-round target. Yes, there are three things that you can guarantee in life: death, taxes and a Rich Harden DL stint. But 125-150 excellent innings from the free agent hurler may well be more valuable than 175-200 frames from a more mundane starter. There’s risk, to be sure, but snatching up a top-shelf talent at a reduced price is worth the trouble.

Because he did not pitch this season due to elbow and mental issues, Justin Duchscherer will be passed over by many major league clubs as he enters free agency for the first time this offseason. Even though MLB teams may not want him, your fantasy team will.

In 2008, Duchscherer posted a 2.54 ERA and 1.00 WHIP with 10 wins in 22 starts before hip issues sidelined him for the last month of the year. While his ERA and WHIP were fantasy gold, it didn’t look to be sustainable. David Golebiewski tackled this after the 2008 season, noting that a 3.69 FIP and .240 BABIP indicate an almost certain rise in his ERA and WHIP. Because he doesn’t strike out too many batters (6.04 K/9 in ‘08), his ERA and WHIP encompass most of his value outside of wins.

Fantasy owners should be praying “The Duke” leaves Oakland. If he stays, his wins will likely suffer, stealing away a good chunk of his fantasy value. The A’s have expressed interest in meeting with Duchscherer and bringing him back next year, but Duchscherer needs to decide if that is the best option for him and his family. That is typically the case, but the issue is magnified because he suffers from clinical depression.

If he decides he wants to stay in the Bay Area, the Giants have made public their desire for another starter, and Duchscherer could fit in well there. There haven’t been many rumors surrounding Duchscherer, because teams don’t want to target him if his mind isn’t in the right place. If he is determined to be healthy, there will be many more teams interested, such as the Yankees and Red Sox, who can gamble more than other organizations can.

Because he doesn’t overpower hitters (~86 MPH fastball), the elbow shouldn’t be a problem. If his mental health is right, he should be too. Keep your hopes up that he will leave Oakland, but plan on him staying in the bay area. Whatever team he joins will be better off, and it could mean a couple of more save opportunities for the closer. A’s players should pray it’s with them, because they could use a chance to win more games next year.

By the time right-hander Edwin Jackson got shipped from Tampa Bay to Detroit for OF Matt Joyce, he had acquired the pejorative “thrower, not a pitcher” tag.

You’re likely familiar with Jackson’s story by now. By 19, he was in AA and whiffing over a batter per inning. Prior to the 2004 season, Baseball America named Jackson the best prospect in a Dodgers top 30 list that included the likes of Franklin Gutierrez, Chad Billingsley, Jonathan Broxton and Russell Martin.

BA gushed that Jackson was “the complete package,” fitting “the profile of a top-of-the-line starting pitcher to a tee.” He beat Randy Johnson on his 20th birthday. Jackson looked poised to take LA by storm.

Except he didn’t. The next three years of Jackson’s career were essentially lost, as he got pummeled in AAA and the majors. He couldn’t find the strike zone with a GPS. Exasperated, L.A. jettisoned Jackson to Tampa Bay in January of ‘06 for middle relievers Danys Baez and Lance Carter. From 2004-2006, Edwin posted rates of 6.95 K/9 and 5.21 BB/9 between AAA Las Vegas and Durham. He was a mess.

Two seasons in Tampa’s rotation produced FIP’s of 4.90 and 4.88, respectively. After Jackson’s trade to the Tigers, we chronicled his tenure with the Rays. His ERA dropped dramatically from 2007 to 2008 (5.76 to 4.42), but that supposed progress seemed questionable. Jackson’s walk rate improved, but that came at the expense of considerably fewer K’s. His BABIP dipped 50 points from ‘07 to ‘08, thanks to historically improved D in Tampa.

One season later, Jackson’s ERA has again dipped by a big margin. In 2009, he registered a 3.62 ERA in 214 frames. With the Tigers facing a payroll crunch (I suppose that can happen when a club has a combined $65.5M tied up in Magglio Ordonez, Jeremy Bonderman, Carlos Guillen, Dontrelle Willis and Nate Robertson in 2010), Detroit is reportedly willing to listen to offers for Jackson. Is Edwin finally making good on the Baseball America’s bold prognostication?

The 26 year-old did make legitimate progress this past season. His K/BB ratio climbed from 1.4 to 2.3, as he raised his K rate to 6.77 per nine frames while issuing 2.94 BB/9. However, Jackson’s performance was more commensurate with a low-to-mid four’s ERA than his mid-three’s mark. He benefitted from a .281 BABIP, which helps explain the discord between his 3.62 ERA and 4.28 FIP.

Jackson’s searing mid-90’s fastball wasn’t all that special (-0.41 runs/100), but a biting upper-80’s slider (+1.89) made life difficult for opposing batters. He improved his outside-swing percentage from just 21.7% in 2008 to a healthy 27.2% in ‘09 (25% MLB average).

As he reached unprecedented territory in terms of innings pitched, Jackson appeared to hit the wall:

April-June (6.98 K/9, 2.41 BB/9, 3.25 FIP)

Fastball/100 pitches: +1.06
Slider/100 pitches: +2.0
Z-Contact%: 87.5
Zone%: 49.6
F-Strike%: 58.4

July-September (6.56 K/9, 3.5 BB/9, 5.35 FIP)

Fastball/100: -1.75
Slider/100: 1.82
Z-Contact%: 88.7
Zone%: 46.8
F-Strike%: 50.8

MLB avg Z-Contact% is 87.8%
MLB avg Zone% is 49.3%
MLB avg F-Strike% is 58.2

Keep in mind that the run values for the fastball and slider are subject to things like BABIP and HR/FB rate. In Jackson’s case, he had a an extremely low BABIP during the first three months, while giving up few homers. In the second half, his BABIP regressed, as did his HR/FB rate.

But even so, Jackson clearly had problems locating from July onward. His rate of pitches thrown within the strike zone fell three percentage points, and his first-pitch strike percentage plummeted from league-average territory to barely over 50 percent.

In all, Jackson provided 3.5 Wins Above Replacement for the Tigers, a performance worth nearly $16M on the open market. The former Dodger and Ray has two years of team control left.

Jackson clearly took a step forward in 2009, but it’s important not to get too caught up in his ace-like ERA in the first half or his punching bag act in the second half. The truth lies somewhere in between those two extremes. A top-of-the-line arm? Not at the present moment. But Jackson looks like an above-average starter.

Angels right-hander Ervin Santana entered the 2009 season with plenty of helium. In 2008, Santana bumped his fastball velocity to a career-high 94.4 MPH, with his wicked slider also popping the mitt harder than ever before at 84 MPH.

Santana was thoroughly dominant in ‘08, whiffing 8.79 hitters per nine innings, while issuing only 1.93 BB/9. That combination of force and finesse led to a 3.30 FIP, which ranked 4th among A.L. starters.

Santana’s season wasn’t fluky. Sure, the fly-ball slanted starter gave up a homer on 8.9% of his fly balls, a rate that we would expect to regress more toward the 11-12% MLB average. But Ervin garnered plenty of outside swings, with a pared-down contact rate and an excellent first-pitch strike percentage.

His Expected Fielding Independent ERA (XFIP, based on a pitcher’s K’s, BB’s and a normalized HR/FB rate) was 3.64. That also ranked 4th in the A.L. Any way you cut it, Ervin was among the top starters in the Junior Circuit.

Looking to lock up the talented righty before his salary exploded in arbitration, the Angels inked Santana to a 4-year, $30M extension prior to the 2009 season. The contract also included a $13M club option for 2013.

Just when it looked as though Santana would settle in as one of the better arms in the A.L., injuries took their toll. Ervin had a sprained ulnar collateral ligament. The sprain was not considered severe enough for Tommy John surgery to be the best course of action, so Santana took the rest and rehabilitation route.

Santana took the mound for the first time in 2009 on May 14th. He would make six starts before heading back to the DL, this time with a triceps injury.

He returned in July, and would go on to post a 5.03 ERA in 139.2 frames. Santana’s K rate dipped to 6.89. While his walk rate remained decent (3.03 BB/9), Ervin’s gopher-itis returned. He served up 1.55 HR/9. Santana’s 12.8 HR/FB% was perhaps a little high, but not obscenely so. Rather, the soon-to-be 27 year-old just gave up a ton of fly balls: his FB% was 42, one of the 20 highest rates among starters.

Santana’s XFIP climbed to 4.77. His BABIP (.320) was rather high, but Ervin clearly wasn’t the same fire-breathing starter. His percentage of contact within the strike zone was 91.2%, two percentage points above his career average and well above the 87.8% MLB average.

His slider remained nasty (+1.92 runs/100 pitches), but Santana’s fastball was thumped. The pitch has been a bit below-average during his career (-0.27 runs/100), but in 2009 it was shredded for -1.39 runs/100. Among starters tossing 130+ IP, Santana had the fifth-worst heater on a per-pitch basis.

Santana’s fastball took a roller coaster ride in 2009. The pitch gained velocity as the year progressed, with run values all over the map:

Santana’s fastball, by month

May: 90.7 MPH, -4.28 runs/100
June: 91.2 MPH, +1.11 runs/100
July: 92.2 MPH, -2.48 runs/100
Aug: 92.3 MPH, -0.16 runs/100
Sept/Oct: 93.3 MPH, -0.16 runs/100

His vaunted slider also gained a few ticks during the year, though the pitch remained effective all season:

Santana’s slider, by month

May: 81.1 MPH, +1.98 runs/100
June: 81.4 MPH, +3.99 runs/100
July: 82.3 MPH, +1.57 runs/100
Aug: 82 MPH +1.74 runs/100
Sept/Oct: 83.3 MPH, +1.96 runs/100

Santana’s increased fastball zip and performance offer some hope heading into the 2010 season. By the end of the year, Ervin’s fastball looked more like the ‘08 version, as opposed to a batting practice pitch that hitters couldn’t wait to beat into submission.

Watch Santana’s health closely as spring training approaches. He’s unlikely to reach the heights of 2008, but he could be a bargain if his elbow problems are in the rearview mirror.

Heading into the 2007 season, Florida’s Josh Johnson looked like an ace-in-waiting.

As a 22 year-old rookie in 2006, the 6-7 righty posted a 3.99 FIP in 24 starts and seven relief appearances. Johnson punched out 7.62 batters per nine innings, while issuing 3.9 BB/9. He showed sharp stuff, with a 92 MPH fastball (an average offering, with +0.03 runs/100 pitches), a wicked mid-80’s slider (+1.81) and a mid-80’s changeup (+1.70).

Johnson finished 4th in Rookie of the Year voting, looking poised to take over where A.J. Burnett and Josh Beckett left off.

Sadly, Johnson never was healthy in ‘07. Battling elbow problems, Josh didn’t make his first big league start until mid-June. Some blame the balky elbow on then-manager Joe Girardi’s decision to send Johnson back out to the mound after a rain delay in September of ‘06. Whatever the cause, Johnson made just four starts before again succumbing to injury. He underwent Tommy John surgery in early August.

After rehabbing, Johnson returned to the bump in July of 2008. He made 14 starts for the Fish, looking none the worse for wear. Johnson whiffed 7.94 batters per nine frames, lowering his walk rate to 2.78 BB/9 in the process. The 2002 fourth-rounder posted a 3.73 XFIP.

Johnson’s stuff was nastier than ever. His fastball crept up to an average of 93.5 MPH, with a +0.51 run value per 100 tosses. Josh had some problems pulling the string (-2.41 runs/100 with the changeup), but his biting mid-80’s slider stifled the opposition (+1.54). In less than a half-season’s worth of pitching, Johnson compiled two Wins Above Replacement.

In 2009, Johnson established himself as a full-fledged ace. Josh was somewhat fortunate in terms of home runs served up (0.6 HR/9, 7.5 HR/FB%), but he was an elite arm regardless. Throwing 209 innings, Johnson had a 3.42 XFIP that ranked 5th among National League starters. His K rate climbed to 8.22 per nine innings, with unusually sharp control for a power arm (2.5 BB/9).

As if the whiff rate and ability to paint the corners weren’t enough, Johnson induced grounders at a career-high 50.3% clip. He jumped ahead of hitters often, with the best first-pitch strike percentage of his big league tenure. Johnson got first-pitch contact or gained the 0-and-1 advantage on the batter 63 percent of the time (58.2% MLB average).

Johnson’s fastball found another gear this past season:

The 25 year-old’s cheddar sat at 95.1 MPH in 2009, a mark topped only by Ubaldo Jimenez and Justin Verlander among starters.

Radar gun readings are nice, but results are better. Johnson’s fastball was among the best in the business, at +1.04 runs per 100 pitches (8th among starters). His 87 MPH slider remained sinister (+1.28), and Josh even succeeded on the rare occasion when he tossed a changeup (+2.51). Johnson was worth 5.5 WAR, a performance that would earn him near $25M on the free agent market.

26 in January, Johnson possesses every attribute desired in a premium starting pitcher. He misses bats, rarely gets behind in the count and keeps the ball on the ground. He won’t sneak up on anyone entering 2010, but Johnson is well worth a high-round draft pick. There’s nothing fluky about the performance of this Fish.

Recently, reader Pat left a comment on an article, asking:

“Can’t alot of pitchers HR/FB rates be expected to increase in the second half just due to the weather? … [T]herefore it would seem like a good strategy in a points league to stack pitching in the first half (and then look to make moves around the allstar break to acquire hitters).”

The reasoning here is that since bats tend to heat up as the weather gets warmer, hoard pitching early and then pick up hitters when the season is in full swing and 80 and 90 degree days are the norm.

Seems like a reasonable strategy, but would it work?

Since we would hoard pitchers early, let’s look at the top 20 starting pitchers, as determined by the final dollar values from the RotoTimes Player Rater, and check out their monthly HR and HR/FB data.

If HR prevention is the goal of this strategy, 16 of our 20 top pitchers had a HR/FB rate less than 11 percent in the final month of the season. Even August, the month last year where more HR by far were hit than any other, saw eight of our 20 pitchers have a HR/FB rate beneath 11 percent.

And this does not even take into account that the pitchers who were ranked top 20 at the beginning of the year often are nowhere to be found near the top of the leaderboard at the conclusion of the year. Using my friend Troy Patterson’s 2009 Starting Pitcher Rankings, here are the ones that did not make the top 20 at the end of the year:

Johan Santana (1), Brandon Webb (4), Jake Peavy (5), Cole Hamels (8), James Shields (10), Roy Oswalt (11), Ervin Santana (13), John Lackey (14), AJ Burnett (15), Edinson Volquez (16), Scott Kazmir (17), Carlos Zambrano (18), Chad Billingsley (19) and Daisuke Matsuzaka (20).

If you went into your draft convinced to load up on pitching, you could have wound up with a staff of Santana, Webb, Peavy, Hamels, Oswalt, Lackey and Burnett and at the All-Star break found other owners willing to offer you very little hitting in return.

Now, let us look at how pitchers as a whole fared in 2009. Here are the first and second half splits for all of the pitchers in MLB in 2009:

1st half – 4.32 ERA, 1.389 WHIP
2nd half – 4.33 ERA, 1.391 WHIP

It does not always work out this close, but this is yet another example of how easy this strategy could go awry.

Finally, you also have to consider how your league will handle trading with you when you have such an obvious need for hitters. Will your league-mates be willing to help you out and offer fair or even somewhat reasonable trades given how needy you are for offense? In friendly leagues that might not be a problem but it would likely be a bigger issue the more competitive your league is.

The best pitchers can dominate (or like Rodriguez in June – get lit up) at any point in the season. Stacking up on pitching only to turn around and deal it for hitting at the All-Star break seems like the fantasy baseball equivalent of market timing and not the best way to ensure long-term success.

Earlier today, in Part I of the series, I published a chart of 34 pitchers who had a difference of 0.50 or greater between their FIP and xFIP at the All-Star break and their 2nd half ERAs. Here I want to go into more detail rather than just giving a raw score for the two metrics

In rating the two systems, I considered the metrics to recommend keeping a pitcher if at the All-Star break they were at 3.50 or lower, to listen to a trade if they were between 3.51 and 4.00, to actively look to sell the player if they were between 4.01 and 4.50 and to either sell or cut a pitcher if they were above 4.51.

Of course, we also have to consider what the pitcher’s actual ERA was at the break, too. A pitcher could still be a sell candidate if one of the metrics was significantly higher than his ERA. For these extreme cases, I considered a difference between 50-75 points to be a “listen” candidate, while above 75 to be a “sell high” guy.

Zack Greinke – His xFIP was 101 points higher than his ERA, making Greinke a sell high guy. This was a big win for FIP.

Joel Pineiro – After allowing just three home runs in 17 first half games, Pineiro served up eight home runs in 15 games after the break. This was a big win for xFIP.

Tim Lincecum – It was a very good second half of the season for Lincecum, just not as good as the first half. He did have a slightly higher HR/FB rate in the second half, and xFIP did a better job predicting his post-break ERA. Still, those fantasy owners who kept him based on his FIP did not end up disappointed.

Dallas Braden – Made just four starts after the break due to a foot infection. Officially a win for xFIP, but one we should probably dismiss due to lack of playing time.

Paul Maholm – His second half ERA was lower than his first half one, despite more HR allowed. Still, this was a pitcher that FIP would have identified as a potential buy candidate at the break, so a win for xFIP.

Tim Wakefield – Made just four starts in the second half due to leg and back injuries. Officially a win for xFIP, but one we should probably dismiss due to the lack of playing time.

Clayton Kershaw – He had a 5.0 HR/FB rate at the break and was even better in the second half, as he finished the year with a 4.1 mark. His ERA finished two full runs below what xFIP predicted. This was a big win for FIP.

Derek Lowe – Opponents posted an .888 OPS versus Lowe in the second half of the season, including 10 HR in 331 ABs. This was a big win for xFIP.

Cliff Lee – Everyone thinks the move to the NL turned things around for Lee but he was 3-0 with a 1.44 ERA in his first three games with Cleveland after the break. His HR/FB rate has been below 11 percent the past five seasons. This was a big win for FIP.

Carlos Zambrano – This was the closest one, as Zambrano’s second half ERA of 4.14 was just barely closer to his first-half FIP than his xFIP. Zambrano pitched worse in the second half than in the first, but it had nothing to do with his HR rate, which declined slightly from the 5.8 he posted in the first half. This was a slight win for FIP.

Jair Jurrjens – Both FIP and xFIP predicted Jurrjens’ ERA to rise in the second half and instead he pitched even better after the break. If you went strictly by FIP at the break, you would have listened to offers for Jurrjens. If you went by xFIP you were in the sell/cut area. This was a win for FIP.

Jeff Niemann – As with Jurrjens, both of our metrics predicted an ERA rise from Niemann in the second half. FIP had him as a sell while xFIP had him as a sell or cut guy. This was a slight win for FIP.

Nick Blackburn – Yet another pitcher that both metrics forecasted a rise in ERA. Except this time, the actual rise was more drastic than even the more pessimistic xFIP predicted. Since you might have kept him if you used FIP, this was a big win for xFIP.

Edwin Jackson – Pretty much the same thing as with Blackburn above, except you were even more likely to keep Jackson if you used FIP. This was a big win for xFIP.

Mike Pelfrey – The spread with our two metrics was not nearly as great with Pelfrey as it was for Blackburn and Jackson, but the end results were the same. This was a big win for xFIP.

Jon Garland – FIP projected Garland to be virtually the same in the second half as he was in the first half while xFIP had him being noticeably worse. The trade to Los Angeles invigorated Garland, or perhaps it was simply leaving a bad home park, as he finished the year with a 5.29 ERA at Chase Field and a 1.67 ERA at Dodger Stadium. This was a win for FIP, but probably not a pitcher anyone was targeting at the break.

Felix Hernandez – Again, both metrics predicted an ERA rise in the second half, although xFIP was more pessimistic, making him a sell high guy with a difference of 94 points. Hernandez pitched even better after the break, making this a big win for FIP.

Justin Verlander – Both metrics predicted an ERA drop in the second half for Verlander, with FIP being the most optimistic. Verlander pitched well, but saw his ERA go up, making this a win for xFIP.

Brian Bannister – A 3.66 ERA in the first half made Bannister look like a useful pitcher. Both metrics saw an ERA increase, but xFIP was the most pessimistic. This was a big win for xFIP.

C.C. Sabathia – Our two metrics were split on how Sabathia would fare in the second half. With a predicted decrease from his first half ERA, this was a big win for FIP.

Brad Penny – Our two metrics were split again. But Penny’s ERA went up in the second half. This was a win for xFIP, but not many people who used FIP were angling to acquire Penny.

Vicente Padilla – His HR/FB rate went up significantly in the second half, yet Padilla produced a lower ERA after the break, thanks to a move to the NL. Neither metric identified Padilla as a pitcher to target, although FIP came very close to hitting his actual mark.

Jarrod Washburn – Both metrics identified Washburn as a sell candidate as his ERA was 92 points lower than his FIP and 150 points lower than his xFIP. Officially a win for xFIP, although you likely would have made the same decision regardless of which metric you used.

Jered Weaver – A win for xFIP, which had him as a sell, while FIP had him as a listen. There are also extra points for xFIP for exactly predicting his second half ERA.

Joe Blanton – The metrics were split on how Blanton would fare in the second half. This was a big win for xFIP, which forecasted him to be a useful pitcher and he ended up better than that.

Bronson Arroyo – Technically a win for xFIP but not many fantasy players were running out to acquire Arroyo based on his 4.99 first half xFIP.

Jamie Moyer – Repeat the comment from Arroyo, except sub in 5.06 xFIP.

Trevor Cahill – Same as the above two, except with a 5.18 FIP.

Chris Volstad – Our two metrics were split on Volstad. FIP saw him continuing to be a sell/cut guy while xFIP saw him being a useful pitcher with a sub-4.00 ERA. This was a win for FIP.

Rick Porcello – Both systems predicted a rise in ERA but FIP elevated him to cut status. This was a win for xFIP.

Braden Looper – The two metrics were split on Looper, with xFIP predicting a drop in ERA. Looper actually pitched worse in the second half but neither system would have advocated acquiring him at the break.

Josh Geer – Made just three starts after the break due to lousy pitching. Not one that either system would have suggested to add.

Rich Harden – While most of the players with above average HR/FB rates have been of little or no value in regards to fantasy, Harden is the exception. Both systems saw him improving on his first half ERA but xFIP was much more bullish. And Harden exceeded those expectations. This was a big win for xFIP.

Randy Johnson – Appeared in just four games after the break due to a rotator cuff strain. Officially a win for FIP, but one we should probably dismiss due to lack of playing time.

*****

If you made your fantasy decisions this year based on xFIP, you would be feeling very good about your choices with Pineiro, Lowe, Blackburn, Jackson, Pelfrey, Bannister, Blanton, Harden and to a lesser extent Maholm, Verlander, Weaver and Porcello.

If you made your fantasy decisions based this year based on FIP, you would be feeling very good about your choices with Greinke, Kershaw, Lee, Hernandez, Sabathia and to a lesser extent Jurrjens and Volstad.

From a pure bulk standpoint, you were better off in 2009 using xFIP at the break. But those who relied on FIP were more likely to make the right call on four of the five pitchers with the lowest ERA in the second half among the 34 pitchers in our sample.

We really cannot make any inferences for the future based on this one small sample. What we can say is that judging strictly from results in 2009 it would be a mistake to ignore FIP completely and absolutely while making fantasy decisions at the All-Star break. This year if you used xFIP you would have made the wrong decisions on some of the best pitchers in the game.

Back at the All-Star break, I wrote a piece here asking Should Fantasy Owners Use FIP? I included a chart of all of the starting pitchers who had a difference of 0.50 or greater between their FIP and xFIP.

The article ended with a promise to follow up and see which metric did better in predicting pitchers ERA in the second half of the season. Here is the table from the original article, with one additional column, this one the pitcher ERA in the second half of the season.

There are 34 pitchers in the above chart. On a raw scale, the xFIP metric did a better job of predicting 2nd half ERA, coming closer than FIP on 20 of our pitchers. Furthermore, xFIP did a better job of forecasting 14 of the 24 players with low HR/FB rates and did a better job forecasting six of the 10 players with high HR/FB rates.

In the original article, I projected the two systems would be fairly close to 50-50, so xFIP slightly exceeded my expectations (59-41). But what really surprised me was how few players’ 2nd half ERA fell in between the range of their first half FIP and xFIP. For example, Pineiro had a 2.99 FIP and a 3.77 xFIP and his second half ERA was 3.83, outside the range of the two systems. Only six of the 34 pitchers had 2nd half ERAs inside the range. Both FIP and xFIP correctly forecasted three of those pitchers.

Later today I will post a breakdown of all 34 pitchers in this survey.

At an age when most young hurlers are hopping a Greyhound bus from Inland Empire to Rancho Cucamonga, Clayton Kershaw is starting pivotal playoff games for a Dodgers club seeking its first World Series title since, well, Clayton was born.

The fifth inning of Kershaw’s NLCS game one start highlighted that he is still in the nascent stages of his career. The 6-3 power lefty did walk 4.8 batters per nine innings during the regular season, with a 55.6 first-pitch strike percentage (58.2% MLB average).

Yet despite those occasional bumpy moments, Kershaw has proven capable of quashing opposing lineups. He punched out 9.74 hitters per nine frames, the 7th-highest rate among starters tossing 150+ innings.

Kershaw was extremely tough to hit on pitches within the zone, with an 83.3 Z-Contact% that ranked 6th among starters (the MLB average is 87.8%). And when batters were fortunate enough to make contact, they often popped the ball up, with a 13.5 infield/fly ball percentage (7th among starters).

Most fans know Kershaw for two things: searing fastball velocity and a slow curveball so dastardly, Vin Scully dubbed it Public Enemy Number One.

To be sure, both of those pitches are electric. Kershaw’s run values are a little inflated due to a very low HR/FB rate (4.1%)- some balls that probably should have left yard stayed in, boosting those linear values. But still, his 94 MPH gas was worth +1.48 runs per 100 pitches (third best in baseball). That 73 MPH yellow hammer was similarly effective, with a +1.54 mark. Clayton would rather not talk about his seldom-used changeup, though (-1.78).

But did you know that, since June, Kershaw has integrated yet another quality breaking pitch into his arsenal? Take a look at his pitch usage by month:

April

Fastball (FB) 79%, Curveball (CB) 15%, Changeup (CH) 6%

May

FB 73%, CB 20%, CH 7%

June

FB 72%, Slider (SL) 8%, CB 15%, CH 5%

July

FB 69%, SL 10%, CB 18%, CH 3%

August

FB 67%, SL 11%, CB 20%, CH 2%

September/October

FB 72%, SL 16%, CB 11%, CH 1%

Gradually, Kershaw has added more 81 MPH sliders into the mix. The pitch is fascinating, in terms of how it moves in relation to his world famous curveball. Looking at Clayton’s Pitch F/X data, we see that his new toy breaks away from lefties (in to righties) an average of 4.8 inches. Kershaw’s curveball has similar horizontal movement, breaking away from southpaws 4.1 inches. That curve, of course, has plenty of vertical “drop”, falling 6.8 inches more than a pitch thrown without spin.

Kershaw’s slider creates an interesting dynamic for hitters. They see a big, bending breaker coming toward the plate, but which is it? As an example of how difficult finding that answer might be, here are Kershaw’s release and movement charts from his 10/3 start against the Rockies (his last regular-season start):

Release Point:

Movement:

In this start, Kershaw’s release gave away nothing to the opposition. And, you can see how much the slider and curve mirror each other in terms of horizontal break. Looking at this another way, here’s Clayton’s flight path chart for October, courtesy of Trip Somers’ Pitch F/X tool:

This is a bird’s-eye view of Kershaw’s pitches as they head toward home plate. The flight path of the slider and the curve overlap. Same release point. Same flight path. The poor batter probably won’t know what’s coming until it’s too late.

Overall, Kershaw’s slider was worth +1.36 runs per 100 pitches during the regular season. And, as Somers’ amazing tool shows, the pitch has become an even bigger part of Clayton’s arsenal in the playoffs. Kershaw has gone to the slider 27 percent of the time in the NLDS and NLCS, throwing it for a strike almost 65 percent of the time.

I guess the only question left is, what will Vin Scully call this vicious breaking ball?

On Tuesday evening, Detroit Tigers right-hander Rick Porcello will look to tame the Twins and pitch his club into a divisional series matchup against the leviathan otherwise known as the New York Yankees. Much has been written about the 20 year-old’s ascension from Seton Hall Prep to the Motor City in the blink of an eye. Just how has Porcello combated unrelenting American League line-ups as a 20 year-old? Let’s take a look.

Porcello, of course, spent very little time on the farm. The highly-touted 6-5 starter came with all the scouting accolades, but teams selecting at the top of the 2007 amateur draft shied away. The Tigers, at pick number 27, finally came calling, gambling that an agreement could be reached. Detroit eventually kept Porcello from becoming a North Carolina Tar Heel, dishing out a cool $3.58M bonus.

Making his pro debut in 2008, Porcello tossed 125 frames for Lakeland of the High-A Florida State League. In its 2009 Prospect Handbook, Baseball America noted that Rick’s best offering was “a heavy two-seamer that averages 92 MPH and ranges up to 95, with boring action in on the hands of right handers.” That pitch was on full display in the FSL, as Porcello posted a 64.1% groundball rate. He also did a nice job of painting the black (2.38 BB/9), though his strikeout rate was less than anticipated for a premium prospect (5.18 K/9).

Baseball America offered some clues as to why that whiff rate was modest. He “shelved his slider to focus on his curveball”, and the Tigers “placed him on a 75-pitch limit for each start.”

In 2009, Porcello shot straight to the majors. Heading into his tilt with the Twins, Rick has racked up 165 frames in his rookie campaign. He has again burned worms at an impressive clip, inducing a grounder 54.4% of the time. That’s the highest rate in the A.L., and places fifth among all starters. Porcello has been stingy with the walks as well, issuing 2.73 BB/9.

In most cases, there’s a trade-off between grounders and punch outs; more of one usually entails less of the other. That has certainly been the story with Porcello. He has whiffed just 4.42 batters per nine frames, fourth-lowest among starters. Only Joel Pineiro, Nick Blackburn and John Lannan have fooled fewer batters on a per-inning basis.

The reason for the lack of swings and misses becomes apparent when one looks at Porcello’s pitch usage. Rick has relied upon a 91 MPH sinker about 77 percent of the time. True to the scouting reports, that pitch has excellent tailing action in on the hands of righty batters and is responsible for the hefty groundball rate.

But, as Harry Pavlidis showed earlier this summer, that sinker gets very few whiffs. Still, Porcello’s boring two-seamer has been worth +0.81 runs per 100 pitches this season.

Porcello does feature three other pitches: an 81 MPH slider (used about five percent of the time), 77 MPH curveball (eight percent) and an 81 MPH changeup (ten percent). None of those offerings are instilling much fear in opposing batters, though. Porcello’s slider comes in at -1.17 runs/100, with the curve worth -2.53 per 100 tosses. He hasn’t pulled the string especially well, either (-0.98).

Armed with one plus pitch and a three other seldom-used offerings in their nascent stages of development, Porcello has often had the ball put in play against him. His overall contact rate is 84.7% (80.5% MLB average), with opponents putting the bat on the ball 91 percent of the time on pitches within the strike zone (87.8% MLB average).

It’s not especially surprising that Porcello, using a sinker nearly four out of five pitches, has generated so few K’s. As Dave Allen explained back in August, there is a positive relationship between the vertical movement of a fastball and its whiff rate (the higher in the zone, the more whiffs generated; the lower in the zone, the fewer whiffs gotten).

There is also an inverse relationship between vertical movement and groundball rate. In other words, a fastball thrown high in the strike zone is likely to generate more swings and misses, while generating fewer groundballs. By contrast, a fastball like Porcello’s, buried at the batter’s knees low in the zone, is going to garner a higher groundball rate but few whiffs.

At an age where most pitching prospects are in A-Ball attempting to refine their secondary stuff, Porcello has managed to keep his head above water in the DH league. But his FIP (4.81) is more indicative of his performance than his ERA (4.04). Porcello obviously has plenty of development time left, though, and has a strong base of skills to build upon.

With strong groundball tendencies and quality control, Rick doesn’t have to post obscene K rates to be a successful starter. Will Porcello become a different sort of pitcher in the years to come, mixing in more breaking balls and changeups? That would likely lead to more strikeouts, but may come at the expense of some of those grounders.

That’s a question for another day, though. For now, Porcello will look to get Twins batters to chop that sinker into the dirt often enough to clinch a playoff berth.