Jason Marquis? Randy Wolf? Wrong Place, Wrong Time

by Sam Page on Nov 19, 2009 10:15 AM EST

Last season, Jason Marquis and Randy Wolf were good deals for their respective teams. The Rockies traded aging reliever Luis Vizcaino for Jason Marquis and got a 3.8 WAR ($17.1MM), all-star season out of the veteran. The Dodger signed Wolf for $5 Million plus incentives and he produced a 3.0 WAR ($13.6MM) performance.

Now, coming off career-years, both players are linked to the Mets, Marquis because of his hometown connections and Wolf presumably because of his shiny ERA. That alone is a scary enough, but there's a more important circumstance here that makes it almost impossible to talk about how these two could help the Mets. First consider Wolf's batted ball line:

LD%: 18.3 GB%: 39.6 FB%: 42.1 HR/FB%: 9.2 BABIP: .257

Now a Mets pitcher's:

LD%: 16.8 GB%: 35.7 FB%: 47.5 HR/FB%: 8.6 BABIP: .296

The Mets pitcher is Johan Santana, and while he's obviously extremely better than Randy Wolf, it doesn't really matter for this exercise, because we're comparing their batted ball tendencies, and both are extreme flyball lefties. Notice how Wolf had nearly .40 points of BABIP in his favor, despite giving up more linedrives.

Similarly, Jason Marquis' line:

LD%: 17.0 GB%: 55.6 FB%: 27.4 HR/FB%: 7.8 BABIP: .291

and Mike Pelfrey's:

LD%: 18.7 GB%: 51.3 FB%: 27.4 HR/FB%: 9.5 BABIP: .321

Both are righties that pound the zone with two-seam fastballs. Notice how, like Wolf, Marquis had a big advantage in BABIP, and even HR/FB despite pitching in Coors Field. The common theme here is that Marquis and Wolf both benefited from a good amount of luck and defenses significantly better than the Mets'. Sadly, both pitcher may be an upgrade over most of the Mets current personnel, but that doesn't make either a good investment. Before they even think about pitching, the Mets need to have a plan to address their fielding, and then should look for some pitchers undervalued this year, not last.

Tweet Comment 49 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Marquis will have the same exact problems that Pelfrey has/had, regarding groundballs.

Last season would have been a good time to get Marquis, and I was in favor of attempting to trade for him at the time, obviously not knowing he’d have a decent season this year with Colorado (or that we’d have a super crappy injured season). At the time, after the 2008 off-season, the Cubs seemed to be very close to a deal with the Padres to acquire Jake Peavy, but they had too many pitchers in their line-up, had to move someone to make room for Peavy. They eventually traded Marquis to Colorado for Luis Vizcaíno. Vizcaíno, over the course of his career, had been a below-average-to-average reliever, at best. He was promptly designated for assignment, and released. So, the Cubs, thinking a Peavy deal was imminent, basically got rid of Marquis for nothing, to make room in their rotation. Of course, that deal never actually came to be, but we could have theoretically had Marquis for virtually nothing, like the Rockies got. We were looking to get rid of Schoenweis and Heilman, anyway, so we could have actually netted something decent for either/or, instead of what did happen (and Heilman ended up with the Cubs anyway).

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Nov 19, 2009 10:33 AM EST reply actions

And now

Marquis will be looking for a three-year deal at $8-10 million per. He might be worth that, but just barely.

by Eric Simon on Nov 19, 2009 10:41 AM EST up reply actions

And

as much as I love fangraphs, I am not to keen on the 4-4.5 mill for each WAR. If we could get Marquis 2/12 or 3/18 I’d do it

by MetsKnicksRutgers on Nov 19, 2009 10:52 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah I don't think their numbers

necessarily take into account the current economic situation, few teams are going to be willing/able to pay those prices for every player.

by Gina on Nov 19, 2009 11:14 AM EST up reply actions

good point

This was an issue with their take on Rios’s contract and his trade, signed at the height of the market (and the stock market) and before Toronto’s attendance fell off a cliff (a bit hyperbolic maybe, but i think their attendance was down about 20%).

by wobatus on Nov 19, 2009 5:28 PM EST up reply actions

Yup

Wolf, not as much, but Marquis is definitely in the “that boat has already sailed” category.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Nov 19, 2009 3:43 PM EST up reply actions

Who would be the undervalued pitchers this year?

The market seems a lot more barren this year than last to me at least. Also even with Reyes not being an all-world fielder I imagine inserting him and Beltran back into the defense there’d be a significant upgrade over our defense from last year.

by Gina on Nov 19, 2009 11:04 AM EST reply actions

Also this being said

I also want no part of either of those guys for 3 years 10 million per.

by Gina on Nov 19, 2009 11:09 AM EST up reply actions

agreed

I think folks on this site are pretty attuned to this. I cringed when i heard marquis really wanted to come here and I thought please no. Wolf a little less so but I look at sam’s batted ball numbers above and pretty much don’t want him either. Last year, good sign. he’s pricier now.

by wobatus on Nov 19, 2009 5:31 PM EST up reply actions

if Marquis really, really wants to come here

I’ll take him – 1 year, $1 Mil. He really wants to be here, right?

"[The Giants] beat us down. We were beat by a grown-man team, a team we want to be like one day. They came in here and took it to us. Out-manned us, out-gunned us. ... It wasn't even close." - Raheem Morris, 9/27/09

by cjmulrain on Nov 20, 2009 12:31 AM EST up reply actions

yeah

Come on Jason, $1 million buys a lot of Gray’s Papaya dogs, and the SI Ferry is free, uh, priceless.

by wobatus on Nov 20, 2009 9:31 AM EST up reply actions

Well

Sheets, Harden, Bedard probably.

"I got my pregnant wife (the Yankee fan) with me. Hoping my kid learns to kick her everytime the Mets score." -Schifftis-

by future on Nov 19, 2009 11:55 AM EST up reply actions

Maybe Sheets

Are Bedard and Harden expected to sign for similar/cheaper contracts than Marquis and Wolf. If so then I’m just totally befuddled and officially waive the white flag in attempting to understand baseball gms, and if not wouldn’t it depend on how much more they’d sign for, since even though they have higher upsides they also come with more risks? As in Wolf and Marquis are very likely to hit a certain number where as Harden/Bedard could be boom or bust because of injuries.

by Gina on Nov 19, 2009 11:58 AM EST up reply actions

Yea injuries aren't a great undervalued market, per se

but durability is definitely overvalued, so I think you go with the more talented pitcher with the checkered history.

by Sam Page on Nov 19, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions

The problem with Bedard

He might not be able to start the season. You might have him as late as the middle of the season. He is far from a person you want to rely on. If you have depth, you can afford to take a look at him. I have also read that he could be in the same boat Ben Sheets was in last year, where he could miss an additional year.

by Coolpapabell on Nov 19, 2009 1:58 PM EST up reply actions

He absolutely can't start the season.

He’s going to be ready to pitch again sometime around June or July. For a team that signs him, that might not be a bad thing- presuming he’s effective and doesn’t get injured, that leaves him “fresh” for the second half.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Nov 19, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions

Well then

The only way I look at Bedard is if the Rotation is set, and Bedard could kick an underperforming out of the rotation. If the asking price is anything more than $4M then, I would say, “no thanks”.

Of the three high injury risk free agent arms (Harden,Bedard, Sheets), it appears that Harden would give you more innings. Additionally, Bedards might not e signed until well into the season. If our rotation needs help, then we could kick the tires on him when after spring training.

by Coolpapabell on Nov 19, 2009 4:02 PM EST up reply actions

Nice job...

Even a novice like me can see how both pitchers may get overpaid for what seems like two fortunate series of events last year. If they were to sign deals like Wolf did last season, than they would both be good values, but the likelihood of that happening is nil. based on that the Mets should steer clear.

by Joe D. on Nov 19, 2009 11:59 AM EST reply actions

You're wrong on Wolf

in my opinion. He’s one of these guys where he never looks like a good deal, but the guy produces. It’s also kind of a leap to say it was a career year for him. He’s had very similar years. In ‘02 he had a lower era, threw 2 shutouts and his era+ was 121, just one off this year’s 122. And in ‘03 his peripherals were just as good, he just had a slightly higher era, but a better K rate. The dude is just really consistent, and knows how to pitch. Last year was really the year to sign him, but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t help them for the next 2-3 years. I’d think he’d thrive at Citi Field. If they could get him in the 8-10 million range, I’d say it’s a good deal. There aren’t many better pitchers out there other than maybe Lackey.

by Mackey Sasser on Nov 19, 2009 12:00 PM EST reply actions

One problem with Wolf

is that he’ll be pitching 2010 as a 33-year-old, which is two years older than any of Marquis, Pineiro, and Lackey, three years older than Garland and five years older than Harden. Wolf might be worth $10 million in 2010 but there’s a good chance he won’t be worth it in 2011 and 2012. A one-year deal with an option, or even a two-year deal with an option would mitigate some age-related risk.

by Eric Simon on Nov 19, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions

I don't disagree

I’m just worried he’ll command too many years, and his crappy stuff will wear thin by the end of his contract.

by Sam Page on Nov 19, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions

Off topic but...

Whats the deal with all the Reese Havens posts all over the place?(not on this site) The guy hits .245 in Low-A and gets promoted anyway. Hits .247 in High-A. Plays 9 games in AFL hits .320 and all of a sudden he’s being pencilled in at 2B in 2011? I heard of hype but usually it comes from the team, this time it’s being driven by a few blogs.

by Joe D. on Nov 19, 2009 1:10 PM EST reply actions

Look past the batting avg.

I know average is the statistic people are quickest to associate with a player’s hitting skill because its how they’ve been trained, but actually it’s the least stable of the majors batting skills. In both seasons in the minors so far, Havens has exhibited high ISO (Isolated power) and walk rate. These skills are less dependent on luck or opposing fielding, so Havens could potentially post very good stats next year just because of a good swing in batting average, not necessarily because he improved much. Also, plate discipline and power are generally harder skills to acquire. Putting the ball in play more can be done with minimal change in approach.

by Sam Page on Nov 19, 2009 1:28 PM EST up reply actions

In addition

He hit in a very hard league for hitters (see: Ike Davis A/AA splits) and his BA stayed the same, despite his BABIP going down, which is a good sign.

by Sam Page on Nov 19, 2009 1:32 PM EST up reply actions

minorleagueball

There was a huge debate about havens there, starting with Dewey Finn listing him as a top 2B, but the thread was long and Meddler made a lot of points in Reese’s favor. There’s a lot to like, lotta ISO for a middle infielder.

by wobatus on Nov 19, 2009 5:34 PM EST up reply actions

ha dewey finn and meddler

the unlikely allies

by Sam Page on Nov 19, 2009 9:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I could live with this 2011 lineup

SS) Reyes
2b) Havens/Castillo
1B) Davis
3B) Wright
CF) Beltran
LF) Bay or Holliday
RF) Martinez or Pagan
C) Thole

by Mackey Sasser on Nov 19, 2009 3:04 PM EST reply actions

Me too.

I would really like that line-up.

by Coolpapabell on Nov 19, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions

Looks/Sounds good to me.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Nov 19, 2009 3:42 PM EST up reply actions

too many stats

you guys are getting crazy with some of these stats..I like old school stats..W-L ERA BB and K..and IP

by Rickfansince76 on Nov 19, 2009 4:13 PM EST reply actions

you are at the wrong blog

"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"

by firejerrynow on Nov 19, 2009 4:15 PM EST up reply actions

this

has to be a baiter

by MetsKnicksRutgers on Nov 19, 2009 4:16 PM EST up reply actions

I wonder if people who like old school stats

Play atari in their grandmothers basements

by Gina on Nov 19, 2009 4:53 PM EST reply actions 2 recs

Pong

definitely. I killed at that game. And beer pong, although i only played once. And ping pong. pretty much anything with pong.

A lot of the oldfangled stats are incorporated in the new fangled ones. There’s no babip without batting average. :)

by wobatus on Nov 19, 2009 5:37 PM EST up reply actions

BABIP's not even that advanced of a stat

I understand people not liking/understanding WAR or VORP or UZR or wOBA – complicated formulas that you can’t really figure out while you’re watching a game. But BABIP is so simple, same with like LD%, same with K rates and BB rates. They’re just a slightly different way of dividing the same numbers we’ve already been dividing, and they provide a pretty good baseline for predicting future performance.

by cjmulrain on Nov 20, 2009 12:34 AM EST up reply actions

We don't care about the stats. We got out there and WATCH the game. With our EYES!

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Nov 19, 2009 9:31 PM EST up reply actions

But he said he liked old school stats

by Gina on Nov 19, 2009 9:41 PM EST up reply actions

I meant those other stats. The ones with the fancy names, and the lowercase letters, and the percentage signs.

Bah, too complicated. Eyes. Watch. Game. That’s all that you need. What kind of credible stat starts with a lowercase letter anyway? That’s grammatically improper. If a stat can’t follow the rules of grammar, it can go to Hell.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Nov 19, 2009 9:58 PM EST up reply actions

haha

rec’d

by JoshNY on Nov 19, 2009 9:45 PM EST up reply actions

2011

hopefdully castillo, pagan(i’m waiting for him to run the bases backwards) and fmaqrt will be playing for other teams in 2011. and don/t hold your breath waiting for the mets to sign that $$$ LF/ this year it will be pitching and patching.because our pitching is santana and then pray. I’m envisioning delgado platooning with murphy and 2 new SP with one coming via a trade(maybe arroyo and philips from the reds)

by bob c on Nov 19, 2009 5:28 PM EST reply actions

Lowe cost 14 million

And wasn’t for as many years and didn’t have as many injury problems.

Plus last year it wasn’t whether Lowe was worth 14 million it was whether Lowe for 14 million was a better deal than Ollie for 12. The 12 was essentially good as spent it was whether we’d be better off spending the extra 2 for Lowe.

by Gina on Nov 19, 2009 8:41 PM EST up reply actions

even with the extra year.

One way to look at it, for me, is to note that Lowe had the worst season he could have possibly had (short of his arm falling off), and it’s still not at all clear he won’t be more valuable than Perez at 3/45 versus 2/24.

by SeanSchirmer on Nov 20, 2009 4:13 AM EST up reply actions

There's nothing wrong, btw, with Marquis.

It all comes down to salary and years, and what other pitching help the Mets get. If Marquis gets something such as 2/14 with an 8-9 million dollar vesting option for 2012 if he hits 360 innings total or 200 innings in 2011, AND he’s picked up in tandem with a better, equally durable starter AND the Mets improve their defense (Polanco or Lopez at 2b, Holliday or Cameron or Granderson in the OF) then signing Marquis is a very sound move.

by SeanSchirmer on Nov 20, 2009 4:18 AM EST reply actions