Heyman: Twins asked about Santana

[nicksaviking]

 

Hughes is done.  His fastball has sat at 90 for two years. 

 

Good lord, that high? I checked fangraphs, I guess he did somehow average 90 MPH, I thought it would have been 88ish.

 

I'm guessing he threw one real blazer last year that hit 250 MPH which offset all of the mid 80's pitches I thought I watched him throw.

[jimmer]

Hughes is done. His fastball has sat at 90 for two years.

regardless of his very good first year with us, I have never thought much of him as a starter. Horrible decision to extend him.

[jorgenswest]

Would it be useful to look at a similar set of pitchers? Should we wonder how they maintained their performance from 34 to 36.

 

I looked at B-R's similar lists but they may not be refined enough. I wonder of the following criteria will be too restrictive.

 

-pitchers that pitched 750 innings in the 5 seasons from ages 29-33

-pitchers that had an ERA+ centered around 102 in those year

-pitchers with a good age 33 season and an ERA+ of better than league average.

-pitchers with careers since LaRussa changed bullpen usage

 

If I can find a group of 15-30 pitchers that were healthy for 5 years and coming off a good age 33 season, would that give us any hint at the likelihood of Santana remaining at least league average? Should I get rid of any criteria or add any?

 

Note- For B-R's play index search I will need ERA+ as I can't search the varied ERA estimators relative to the league. ERA+ will work fine at the 750 level. It isn't as good as the others for the age 33 season. It will help to look at the sample for the group over an individual.

 

Anyone interested? Anyone ready to dismiss any findings now?

[nicksaviking]

 

Would it be useful to look at a similar set of pitchers? Should we wonder how they maintained their performance from 34 to 36.

I looked at B-R's similar lists but they may not be refined enough. I wonder of the following criteria will be too restrictive.

-pitchers that pitched 750 innings in the 5 seasons from ages 29-33
-pitchers that had an ERA+ centered around 102 in those year
-pitchers with a good age 33 season and an ERA+ of better than league average.
-pitchers with careers since LaRussa changed bullpen usage

If I can find a group of 15-30 pitchers that were healthy for 5 years and coming off a good age 33 season, would that give us any hint at the likelihood of Santana remaining at least league average? Should I get rid of any criteria or add any?

Note- For B-R's play index search I will need ERA+ as I can't search the varied ERA estimators relative to the league. ERA+ will work fine at the 750 level. It isn't as good as the others for the age 33 season. It will help to look at the sample for the group over an individual.

Anyone interested? Anyone ready to dismiss any findings now?

 

You've put together really good comp stats but I think the issue is that Santana doesn't have any available comps for other teams to choose from.

 

Had he been a free agent he likely would have been the top guy available. As it were, it's a seller's market for starting pitching. Santana isn't going to get what Sale got obviously, but for teams that want to win now, they're just going to have to overpay for pitching. Santana's value is going to be tied more to demand than comparable pitchers currently under contract.

[jimmer]

I dont even really look at a pitchers ERA anymore. I dont consider ERA a result of a pitchers performance.

 

I also really only look at the last two or three years and then take into account age and other factors when trying to figure what to expect from the player in the future. What a player did 8 years ago has little to do with the player he is now.

[jorgenswest]

You've put together really good comp stats but I think the issue is that Santana doesn't have any available comps for other teams to choose from.

 

Had he been a free agent he likely would have been the top guy available. As it were, it's a seller's market for starting pitching. Santana isn't going to get what Sale got obviously, but for teams that want to win now, they're just going to have to overpay for pitching. Santana's value is going to be tied more to demand than comparable pitchers currently under contract.

It looks like your in the dismiss group. If we found out almost every similar pitcher coninued to contribute at league average or found out that 1/2 of the pitchers had significantly declined over ages 34-35 it seems that would have no value to you and shouldn't have value to the Twins.

 

Fair enough.

[nicksaviking]

 

It looks like your in the dismiss group. If we found out almost every similar pitcher coninued to contribute at league average or found out that 1/2 of the pitchers had significantly declined over ages 34-35 it seems that would have no value to you and shouldn't have value to the Twins.

Fair enough.

 

I'm advocating trading him, I don't like old pitchers. That's not at all the point though, there aren't league average 28-year-old pitchers available for other teams to chose from. Why should the Twins be offering Santana up in trades at a value that is based on a shortcoming that cannot be used as leverage against them?

 

If the other team tells the Twins they should devalue Santana because he's no spring chicken, all the Twins have to say is 'why don't you go and try to find one of those then'.

[AlwaysinModeration]

Would it be useful to look at a similar set of pitchers? Should we wonder how they maintained their performance from 34 to 36.

 

I looked at B-R's similar lists but they may not be refined enough. I wonder of the following criteria will be too restrictive.

 

-pitchers that pitched 750 innings in the 5 seasons from ages 29-33

-pitchers that had an ERA+ centered around 102 in those year

-pitchers with a good age 33 season and an ERA+ of better than league average.

-pitchers with careers since LaRussa changed bullpen usage

 

If I can find a group of 15-30 pitchers that were healthy for 5 years and coming off a good age 33 season, would that give us any hint at the likelihood of Santana remaining at least league average? Should I get rid of any criteria or add any?

 

Note- For B-R's play index search I will need ERA+ as I can't search the varied ERA estimators relative to the league. ERA+ will work fine at the 750 level. It isn't as good as the others for the age 33 season. It will help to look at the sample for the group over an individual.

 

Anyone interested? Anyone ready to dismiss any findings now?

Here you go, had to lower it to 650IP. Haven't looked at their age 33 or post age 33 results:

 

Traschel 106

Liriano 106

D Davis. 106

AJ Burnett 105

Peavy 103

Beckett. 103

Kazmir. 102

Hammel. 102

Washburn. 102

JA Happ. 101

Suppan. 101

Guthrie. 101

Lohse. 101

ESantana. 101

Millwood. 101

Loiaza. 100

Wolf. 100

Rueter. 100

Harang. 99

Feldman. 99

[AlwaysinModeration]

Here you go, had to lower it to 650IP. Haven't looked at their age 33 or post age 33 results:

 

Traschel 106

Liriano 106

D Davis. 106

AJ Burnett 105

Peavy 103

Beckett. 103

Kazmir. 102

Hammel. 102

Washburn. 102

JA Happ. 101

Suppan. 101

Guthrie. 101

Lohse. 101

ESantana. 101

Millwood. 101

Loiaza. 100

Wolf. 100

Rueter. 100

Harang. 99

Feldman. 99

Of this list, I would say Peavy, Guthrie, Lohse, Millwood, and Loiaza are good comps.

 

Peavy pitched a 101 ERA+ at 33, then pitched two more years, 108 and 74 at age 34 and 35.

 

Guthrie posted a 132 at age 33, then went 102-95-72, done at 36.

 

Lohse posted 133 at age 33, then went 115-107-68, done at 36.

 

Millwood posted 88 at 33, then 127-81-115-90, done at 37.

 

Loiaza posted 108 at 33, then averaged 83 and was done at 36.

[AlwaysinModeration]

Of this list, I would say Peavy, Guthrie, Lohse, Millwood, and Loiaza are good comps.

 

Peavy pitched a 101 ERA+ at 33, then pitched two more years, 108 and 74 at age 34 and 35.

 

Guthrie posted a 132 at age 33, then went 102-95-72, done at 36.

 

Lohse posted 133 at age 33, then went 115-107-68, done at 36.

 

Millwood posted 88 at 33, then 127-81-115-90, done at 37.

 

Loiaza posted 108 at 33, then averaged 83 and was done at 36.

A few more notes:

 

Doug Davis (106ERA+ age 29-33) posted a 108 ERA+ at age 33, then bombed to 57 over the next two years, done at 35.

 

Steve Traschel posted a 107, then posted 88 and 94 in his age 35 and 36 season, playing sporadically at age 34 and 37, done at 37.

 

Miguel Batista posted a couple of 103/102 seasons as a starter after 33, and became a solid closer for some of those years, lasting until 40.

 

Javier Vasquez posted 81 and 106 in his age 33 and 34 seasons and then retired.

 

Brad Radke, who posted a 110 ERA+ from age 29-33 posted a 104 at age 33, and then was done.

 

Finally, Ervin Santana pitched a 124 ERA at age 33, with a 101 ERA+ from age 29-33 (including years of 74 and 90 in that stretch.). He's headed toward his rapid decline phase, although he might post another 100+ year or maybe two if he is lucky. He also has a history with PEDs, which may have helped him more in the past than going forward. The Twins should trade him for whatever they can get.

[Mike Sixel]

 

regardless of his very good first year with us, I have never thought much of him as a starter. Horrible decision to extend him.

 

Firable offense, it turns out. I think I was warm on it too...sigh....

 

As for Santana, I still think he's under rated, he just produces, for like 6 years in a row now. I don't get how they can't get around a 50-75 rated prospect and a minor league filler type for him. I would ONLY keep him if the team felt his mentorship could help the young pitchers.

[drivlikejehu]

Pitcher aging is tricky. It usually overlaps with a decline in velocity . . . but in Santana's case, velocity has been quite stable, fluctuating a bit but basically between 92-93 since 2008. His recorded velocity last year was higher than it was in 2009.

 

Peavy's peak season was with a fastball averaging 94. Last year he was at 89. His loss of fastball velocity over the years is fully consistent with his decline in performance. Injuries of course are a major factor, whether impacting velocity or not, and are closely related to the declines of many veteran pitchers.

 

So while Santana could go off the rails at any time, that's true of basically any pitcher. His unusual career progression limits the degree to which age itself should be seen as a risk factor independent of injury.

[jorgenswest]

I pulled a group of pitchers from B-R and looked at how they performed age 34-36 here

 

I didn't have velocity data to consider but that would have been helpful. 

[Linus]

I would keep him. I think the Twins can play 500 ball next year which means they could hang around the 2nd wild card. If they aren't at that level then trade him at the deadline but I'm not punting on any baseball season.

[Doomtints]

 

It looks like your in the dismiss group. If we found out almost every similar pitcher coninued to contribute at league average or found out that 1/2 of the pitchers had significantly declined over ages 34-35 it seems that would have no value to you and shouldn't have value to the Twins.

Fair enough.

 

Yes, that's a fair way to assess.

 

With pitchf/x, we can see if a pitcher is on the decline.  Santana has not shown that decline starting yet.  We no longer need to be so black and white about things.  Santana's decline is certainly coming and it's not unreasonable to predict that will happen next year based on his age alone, but there is no data to back up that decline starting with him personally.

 

If Santana only had one year left on his contract the Twins would have no trouble moving him if they wanted to.  That second year is one hell of a question mark, even if next year looks like a reasonable risk. 

[Doomtints]

 

 

I pulled a group of pitchers from B-R and looked at how they performed age 34-36 here

 

I didn't have velocity data to consider but that would have been helpful. 

 

Your data suggests that if he declines, the decline won't be going off a cliff.  I think we all expect him to be a little worse in 2017, so this surprises no one.

 

Thanks for doing this. 

[Doomtints]

 

 

A few more notes:

Doug Davis (106ERA+ age 29-33) posted a 108 ERA+ at age 33, then bombed to 57 over the next two years, done at 35.

Steve Traschel posted a 107, then posted 88 and 94 in his age 35 and 36 season, playing sporadically at age 34 and 37, done at 37.

Miguel Batista posted a couple of 103/102 seasons as a starter after 33, and became a solid closer for some of those years, lasting until 40.

Javier Vasquez posted 81 and 106 in his age 33 and 34 seasons and then retired.

Brad Radke, who posted a 110 ERA+ from age 29-33 posted a 104 at age 33, and then was done.

Finally, Ervin Santana pitched a 124 ERA at age 33, with a 101 ERA+ from age 29-33 (including years of 74 and 90 in that stretch.). He's headed toward his rapid decline phase, although he might post another 100+ year or maybe two if he is lucky. He also has a history with PEDs, which may have helped him more in the past than going forward. The Twins should trade him for whatever they can get.

 

Unfortunately a lot of these players played some time ago so there is incomplete or missing pitchf/x data.  Without knowing if their velocity was dropping it's hard to know what was going on.

 

This is also missing injury information.  Radke's pitching arm was so shredded by the time he retired he could barely lift it.  Gardenhire couldn't believe he kept going out there pitching at a competent level when on off days he could not lift anything with his pitching arm. 

[Oxtung]

Yes, that's a fair way to assess.

 

With pitchf/x, we can see if a pitcher is on the decline.  Santana has not shown that decline starting yet.  We no longer need to be so black and white about things.  Santana's decline is certainly coming and it's not unreasonable to predict that will happen next year based on his age alone, but there is no data to back up that decline starting with him personally.

 

If Santana only had one year left on his contract the Twins would have no trouble moving him if they wanted to.  That second year is one hell of a question mark, even if next year looks like a reasonable risk.

 

Those signs of decline will be just as obvious to the other teams too and their trade returns will be reduced commensurate to the decline. If you want to maximize the return the Twins need to trade him before he begins to decline.

[Doomtints]

 

Those signs of decline will be just as obvious to the other teams too and their trade returns will be reduced commensurate to the decline. If you want to maximize the return the Twins need to trade him before he begins to decline.

 

Sure.  But he has 2 years left on his contract.  As stated elsewhere, 2017 may be a reasonable risk but 2018 isn't. 

 

If the Twins unload him now they won't get anyone of consequence in return.  His value as a potential 12-15 game winner and mentor in 2017 is worth more than the Jim Hoey they would get in a trade. 

 

If his decline still has not started by this time next year, he will be traded so quickly our heads will spin with the Twins getting a real prospect in return. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Sure.  But he has 2 years left on his contract.  As stated elsewhere, 2017 may be a reasonable risk but 2018 isn't. 

 

If the Twins unload him now they won't get anyone of consequence in return.  His value as a potential 12-15 game winner and mentor in 2017 is worth more than the Jim Hoey they would get in a trade. 

 

If his decline still has not started by this time next year, he will be traded so quickly our heads will spin with the Twins getting a real prospect in return. 

 

Are you in the room?  If so, this is a rather bold claim.  To be clear, you're arguing when he's a year older with less team control (under a reasonable contract) and after a year you fully acknowledge probably won't be as good.....that he'll magically have more trade value?

 

Huh?

[drjim]

His max value will come at the deadline assuming he stays healthy and pitches similar to last year.

 

Those are two big ifs, but I find it an acceptable risk if they aren't blown away, and I'd be surprised if they are

[jorgenswest]

I think I have shifted my opinion. I earlier stated that they need to take the best offer. Now I believe that his decline will be slow and while the risk of injury might be greater among older pitchers all pitchers carry that risk.

 

For the games he starts over the next three seasons, i think he will stay in the neighborhood of league average and perhaps slightly below in 2018-19. Where else are the Twins going to find that production even if he misses time due to injury?

 

Should they trade for a prospect like May or Meyer, there is also a risk that they either won't develop or they will suffer an injury.

 

All of us would trade Santana for a DeLeon level prospect. Beyond that I think I stick with Santana. I don't know how many starts he will make over the next three years but I think they will be hard to replace.

[TheLeviathan]

 

His max value will come at the deadline assuming he stays healthy and pitches similar to last year.

Those are two big ifs, but I find it an acceptable risk if they aren't blown away, and I'd be surprised if they are

 

If this is true, then we likely gave up on his best value 5 months ago.

[drjim]

 

If this is true, then we likely gave up on his best value 5 months ago.

 

I don't think so, vet pitchers like him have less risk at 1.5 years than 2.5 years. Different for a pitcher in their prime.

[Lonestar]

I don't see that much surplus value with Ervin. Now the Twins could eat part of his 2017 salary to create value and/or trade him to a team that has troubles signing free agent pitchers like the Rockies or Marlins.

 

I would keep him until the trade deadline approaches, at least. 

[Doomtints]

 

Are you in the room?  If so, this is a rather bold claim.  To be clear, you're arguing when he's a year older with less team control (under a reasonable contract) and after a year you fully acknowledge probably won't be as good.....that he'll magically have more trade value?

 

Huh?

 

I'm sorry you feel the need to pretend not to follow what I'm saying and want to take things out of context to attack them. Merry Christmas.

[ashbury]

Are you in the room? 

I'm sorry you feel the need to pretend not to follow what I'm saying

Moderator's note: In the Holiday spirit, I'd like to suggest we all refrain from making things personal, and from taking things personally.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm sorry you feel the need to pretend not to follow what I'm saying and want to take things out of context to attack them. Merry Christmas.

 

Where did I get your argument wrong?  You stated you expected 2017 to be not quite as good, you clearly stated we'd get "nothing" for him now, and then you stated this time next year we'd get a "real prospect".

 

Were you being facetious?  Otherwise I can't make any sense out of this.

[DocBauer]

I agree that Santana could fall off a cliff at any time. But isnt that true of any pitcher? Injuries and overall wear and tear can affect anyone at any time. But it's also true that every pitcher is unique unto themselves. And there really is no proof, no concrete evidence to suggest to the Twins or anyone else that Santana is preparing to fall off that cliff immediately.

 

In fact, the numbers, and other various numbers posted here, indicate how relative and consistent he was last season and the years before.I agree with an earlier comment that he is a solid ML #3 who sometimes pitches well enough to almost be a 2. (At worst, on a deep staff he's a very good 4 and not overly expensive by today's standards)

 

Personally, I'd love to keep him to help lead the staff, but feel he is a valuable trade chip at this point. Not as valuable as Cozier, but valuable to a number of teams with an open window and a need to deepen their rotation for a run.

 

IMO, and hope, the Twins would acquire a mix of 3 strong arms from a Cozier deal, and then trade Santana for 2 quality position players, not quantity. I believe his experience, history and strong 2016 would be worth a pair of prospects ranking in a team's top 10-15 overall. And I'd target 2 of 3 spots between catcher, infield and outfield, preferably AA or high A. For a post season hopeful team, I feel this would be fair value.

[AlwaysinModeration]

I agree that Santana could fall off a cliff at any time. But isnt that true of any pitcher? Injuries and overall wear and tear can affect anyone at any time. But it's also true that every pitcher is unique unto themselves. And there really is no proof, no concrete evidence to suggest to the Twins or anyone else that Santana is preparing to fall off that cliff immediately.

 

In fact, the numbers, and other various numbers posted here, indicate how relative and consistent he was last season and the years before.

I think the numbers posted above paint a slightly different picture:

1)most of the pitchers with similar profiles of Santana start to decline in their age 34 or 35 or 36 age season, and most precipitously. And the vast majority were done by 37 with at least two years of below average performance. Now, Santana may buck that trend and pitch above average for two or more years. But he would be an outlier.

2) He posted an ERA+ of 124 last year, and was slightly above average in 2015 for half a season. In two of the three years before that, he posted considerably below average seasons (ERA+ of 90 and 74). I don't think consistent is the right word for him.

 

But I agree with your conclusion that the Twins should trade him and look to get a couple of prospects that would slide into the Twins' 10-15 rankings. That would be great - maybe a bit low, but great. And I don't care if they are hitting or pitching prospects.