Photo: Keith Allison |
The short answer?
Nothing. Jim Johnson is who we thought he was (sorry for the link, I couldn’t resist).
He’s a groundball pitcher who pitches to contact and doesn’t strike out
a lot of batters. His tremendous success
in 2012 has almost been a double-edged sword, as his club record 51 saves gave some
people unrealistic expectations that he was an elite reliever; someone who is
nearly automatic in save situations. However,
despite his success in 2012, Johnson should not be viewed in that light. Typically, when you think of an elite
reliever, you think of someone who can dominate hitters, and limit the number
of batters who reach base (i.e., high strikeout rate/low walk rate). Jim Johnson doesn’t really fit that bill.
To illustrate this point, let’s take a look at the 2013
saves leader board.
When you think of the best relief pitchers in the league,
many of the names above come to mind, and for the most part, they all share
similar traits as high strikeout/low walk pitchers. Only 6 of these top 15 pitchers have a
strikeout rate less than 25%. Of the
ones who don’t, Mariano Rivera, Addison Reed, and Steve Cishek are fairly
close. Edward Mujica is just over 20%,
but his BB% sits at an incredibly low 1%.
Rafael Soriano has the lowest strikeout rate on this list, however, a 17.7%
strikeout rate is unusual for Soriano, who has a career rate of 25.4%. Then there’s Johnson, who is having one of
the best strikeout seasons of his career, with a rate nearly 3%
higher than last year. Still, among all relievers
with at least 30 innings pitched, Johnson only ranks 136th in K% and 65th
in BB%. To put it another way, if you could choose to have any one of these
relievers, would Jim Johnson even be in the top 10, even though he
leads the league in saves? Probably not.
Don’t get me wrong, Johnson is a very good pitcher who
induces a lot of ground balls (also a good trait to have in a reliever), but
those ground balls can find holes and are often times subject to the whims of
the Luck Dragon. Other than the number of blown saves, Jim
Johnson’s 2013 doesn’t look all that different from his 2012. His strikeouts are up slightly, but so are
his walks. His LOB% is virtually the
same, and while he’s getting less ground balls than he did from 2011-2012, his
55% GB% is only slightly under his career level of 57.3%, and still well above
the league average of 44.1%.
There are
differences between this year and last year though, and unfortunately they are
the result of the aforementioned dragon.
In 2012, Johnson sported a well below league average BABIP of .251, helping
fuel his 2.49 ERA. Additionally, the few
times that he allowed fly balls, they only left the park 6.8% of the time. So far in 2013, his luck has shifted,
as both his BABIP and HR/FB% have jumped well above his career levels, to .321
and 10.3% respectively. The fact that
Johnson’s xFIP is only 0.23 runs higher than it was in 2012 helps confirm that
his luck has changed considerably in comparison to last year.
Even if there appears to be sufficient evidence, it’s difficult to say that only a pitcher’s
luck has changed and leave it at that. If
you can point to a more tangible reason why Johnson may be struggling, you can look
at the movement and command of his sinker, his most effective pitch and
the one he throws most often (48.8% in 2013).
According to Pitch F/X information from Brooks Baseball, Johnson’s
sinker has had less horizontal movement this year than it did in 2012, which when combined with a
slightly lower velocity, will likely help the pitch become much more hittable.
Additionally, Johnson’s command of his sinker has not
been executed as well this year either, as the two figures below will
show. As you can see, in 2012 Johnson
peppered the outside edges of the strikezone, rarely leaving the pitch out over the plate. Compare that to the
current season, where he’s throwing the pitch over the middle of the zone with
increased frequency.
Jim Johnson is a good relief pitcher, and one that the Orioles
should be happy to have on their roster.
But he’s not an elite relief pitcher, and just because he racked up 51
saves last year does not make him one. His
underlying numbers tell us that he benefitted from good luck in 2012, the way
those same numbers tell us he is suffering from bad luck in 2013. Additionally,
decreased effectiveness and command of his sinker may also be contributing to
his struggles.
Despite Johnson’s recent string of blown saves, the Orioles
don’t really have another option who would present an obvious upgrade, though they may
be able to find more success finishing games by shifting to a match-up based approach. However, managers are not generally fans of using
a “closer by committee”, so the Orioles will likely stick with Johnson for the
moment and pray that the Luck Dragon has a change of heart, which isn’t all
that bad of an idea.
5 comments:
Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. While I understand that "closer by committee" is often considered a last resort, it's probably the least evil when there's no dominant reliever available. At the very least, you would get to spread out the risk by diversifying that way. A possibility is this:
* Use Hunter for 2-inning saves;
* For one-inning saves, use O'Day vs. R and Matusz vs. L.
that would definitely be a possible solution, but what are the chances they even try it?
I understand the caveat that pitch/fx classification type should be treated with caution, but JJ relies heavily on his 2 seam fastball. He threw it about 60% last year and 46% this year. His pitch/fx pitch value for this pitch has dropped from 6.8 to -3.9 this year. I'm assuming that's a severe drop in quality but I'm not sure how to interpret these numbers exactly so please correct me if I'm wrong Jon. The drop in quality in his bread and butter pitch most likely explain the greater % of HRs given up as well as his increase in BABIP this year (.321) in comparison to the past two years (about .260).
@steve
Two things I would note: (1) pitch value is not a statement of the quality of the pitch, but a description of how effectively the pitch has been used which can be a quality issue or a use issue or a small sample size and (2) I am unsure how to really use pitch values effectively because I am not sure whether they ever really stabilize in their worth. For instance, a two seamer can be bad because other pitches are not working. It is a complicated issue, so I tend to avoid those numbers.
Gotcha. Very informative. Thanks Jon!
Post a Comment