The GM of the Philadelphia Phillies has been accumulating the players to potentially pull off the greatest single–season heist in the history of baseball.

How will they do this, you might ask?

By utilizing the 3-3-3 rotation.

I will explain why recent rotation alterations by the 1993 Athletics and 2012 Colorado Rockies were not successful. Then I will show how the Phillies version of the 3-3-3 will change the baseball world. But first, let me explain the 3-3-3 rotation and its benefits.

The classic 3-3-3 rotation uses three groups of three pitchers each, pitching once every three games.

Game 1 – Innings 1-3 (Pitcher#1) Innings 4-6 (Pitcher #2)  Innings 7-9 (Pitcher #3)

Game 2 -Innings 1-3 (Pitcher #4)Innings 4-6 (Pitcher #5)Innings 7-9 (Pitcher #6)

Game 3  – Innings 1-3 (Pitcher #7) Innings 4-6 (Pitcher #8) Innings 7-9 (Pitcher #9)

Ideally, each pitcher will throw three innings or 30-50 pitches per appearance. By the end of the season each pitcher will pitch about 162 innings over 54 appearances.

This rotation will help pitchers succeed by:

1) Allowing hitters only one plate appearance against each pitcher

2) Eliminating fatigue by keeping pitch counts down

The more opportunities a hitter has against a pitcher, the better success he has. Dave Fleming of Bill James Online provided statistical evidence from 2008 supporting this fact:

 PA  BA OBP SLG OPS

1st PA in G 108606 .255 .328 .398 .727

2nd PA in G 44505 .270 .334 .431 .765

3rd PA + in G 34520 .282 .346 .453 .800

Notice how every hitting statistic increases with each at-bat. To make a few comparisons, Eduardo Nunez was an All-Star last year, and his OPS was .758. All-Star Xander Bogaerts had an OPS of .802. So if you leave a pitcher in past the third AB (generally 7th or 8th inning) you’re facing a lineup full of 2016 Xander Bogaertses. Not exactly a winning formula.

A similar pattern was echoed in pitch counts:

PA BA OBP SLG OPS

Pitch 1-25 87685 .261 .333 .410 .743

Pitch 25-50 39383 .257 .326 .400 .726

Pitch 51-75 31791 .270 .333 .429 .763

Pitch 76-100 24261 .277 .344 .450 .795

The fact that pitches 1-25 were less effective than 25-50 is due to lineup construction. The rest of the numbers clearly show that pitchers are exponentially worse after the 50th pitch.

In this post, I will explain:

1) Why the 3-3-3 rotation did not work for La Russa in 1993

2) Why the Rockies’ alternative rotation wasn’t accepted in 2012

3) The benefits the 3-3-3 rotation will provide the Phillies in 2017 and beyond

Before we begin, there a few concepts we must accept:

1) Baseball is not archaic; it is ever-changing

2) Categorizing pitchers as only “starters”, “relievers” or “closers” is limiting to the pitchers’ value and abilities. We have to look beyond these inadequate labels. I will use these terms in this article, but attempt to focus on these underlying meanings:

a) Starter – Pitcher trained to throw 5+ innings

b) Reliever – Pitcher trained to throw 1-2 innings

c) Closer – Pitcher with experience throwing the last inning

3) There is no one system that produces winners or losers. You must utilize your personnel to the best of their abilities and limitations

Why the 3-3-3 rotation did not work in 1993

1) The Athletics did not have the personnel to execute the strategy

2) The experiment lasted one week

First, the Athletics had one of the worst pitching staffs in the league in 1993. They were in last place when they implemented the 3-3-3 rotation and had lost nine of their last 12 games. Here is a list of their ERAs in ascending order:

Name                      Training      ERA    Synopsis

Bobby Witt                 SP           4.21     97 ERA +

Goose Gossage          RP           4.53    Age-41 season

Todd Van Poppel      SP           5.04     21-year-old rookie

Ron Darling               SP           5.16       79 ERA+

Bob Welch                  SP           5.29     Age-36 season

Mike Mohler          RP / SP     5.60     Started 9 of 42 appearances

Kelly Downs           RP / SP     5.64     Started 12 of his 42 appearances

Shawn Hillegas      RP / SP      6.97    Started 11 of 18 appearances

John Briscoe             RP            8.03    Started 2 games in 139 IP in career

Only Bobby Witt and Goose Gossage had an ERA under 5.04. Witt was by far their best pitcher and his 97 ERA+ shows he was below average.

The second reason it did not work is the experiment only lasted one week. The public and media backlash from the switch to this rotation was so great that La Russa was forced to abandon the experiment after one week. One week! I don’t care what you do in baseball, if it only lasts one week, then you didn’t give it a real chance. Buster Posey hit .118 in his first week in the MLB in 2009, but the Giants wisely kept him around for 2010.

Why the Rockies’ alternative rotation did not work in 2012

1) They did not have the right personnel

First, let’s describe the specifics of the Rockies’ new rotation. It was a four-man rotation of Jeff Francis, Jeremy Guthrie and rookies Drew Pomeranz and Christian Friedrich. In each start, these four pitchers were given a strict 75-pitch limit. Three rotating pitchers called “piggybacks” would then relieve them.

Game 1 – Francis (75 pitches) Piggyback #1 Reliever #1 Closer #1

Game 2 – Guthrie (75) Piggyback #2 Reliever #2 Closer #1

Game 3 – Pomeranz (75) Piggyback #3 Reliever #3 Closer #1

Game 4 – Friedrich (75) Piggyback #1 Reliever #1/2 Closer #1

Similar to the 1993 A’s, the Rockies made their switch out of desperation. When implemented on June 20th, the Rockies were 18 games below .500 and in a 6-15 slump, on pace to lose over 100 games. Here is a look at the top six Rockies pitcher stats by the end of the year, with ERAs in ascending order:

Name                       Training         ERA       ERA+     IP

Jhoulys Chacin           SP               4.43        105         69

Drew Pomeranz         SP               4.93         94         96.2

Alex White               SP/RP           5.51          84          98

Jeff Francis                 SP               5.58          83          113

Christian Freidrich    SP               6.17          75           84.2

Jeremy Guthrie          SP               6.35          73          90.2

Only one of these starters was even an average pitcher. Three of the four rotation mates were at least 27% worse than the average pitcher in 2012. The issue with the 1993 A’s and the 2012 Rockies are they made these moves in the middle of last-place seasons. They were desperate to change what were the worst pitching staffs in the league. No team heading for a last-place finish is going to respond well to a complete overhaul of the staff in the middle of the summer.

The good news for this particular experiment, however, is that the Rockies pitching staff performed much better after the change was made. In the first 21 games that it was implemented, the starting pitchers improved from a league-worst 6.28 ERA to a league-worst 5.22 ERA. That’s more than an entire one-run improvement! Still the league worst (control your laughter), but that’s a major improvement.

I believe that gives us hope that an alternative and better rotation can be found in the correct circumstances. With the right rotation mates and the correct distribution of pitch counts, I believe there is room for improvement. The key is to train and implement the rotation before the season begins. No pitcher is going to be motivated to try a new system if it is implemented in the middle of a terrible season. It has to be the game plan to begin with, and everyone must be on board. Below you will see why the Phillies have the perfect staff for a 3-3-3 rotation. I have used the 3-3-3 rotation as my basis, but implemented some changes inspired by the 2012 Rockies to ensure success.

How the 3-3-3 Rotation will benefit the Phillies

1) Utilizing the perfect personnel

2) Peak value from assets

3) Health (Physical and Mental)

Personnel

The Phillies have eight middle-of-the-rotation MLB-ready starters who have demonstrated the ability to get MLB hitters out for multiple innings per appearance. The Phillies have five quality relievers who have demonstrated the ability to get MLB hitters out for one inning+ per appearance. Let’s take a look at the 2016 Phillies stats in order of ascending ERAs:

Name             Training    MLB IP 2016    ERA 2016      MLB service

Asher                 SP                27.2                    2.28              0.061 years

Neris                 RP                 80.1                   2.58               1.104 years

Benoit            RP / CP           48                      2.81                Final Year

Neshek          RP / CP            47                     3.06                Final Year

Eickhoff             SP                 197.1                  3.65                1.045 years

Hellickson       SP                 189                     3.71                Final Year

Ramos             RP                 40                       3.83               0.101 years

Buchholz         SP               139.1             Career 3.96          Final Year

Velasquez        SP                131                       4.12                1.086 years

Nola                  SP                 111                      4.78                 1.076 years

Gomez          RP/ CP           68.2             4.85 w/ 37 SV       Final Year

Eflin                   SP               63.1                     5.54                  0.111 years

Thompson        SP               53.2                     5.70                 0.058 years

Asher, Eickhoff and Hellickson were MLB starters with ERAs under 3.71 last year. Buchholz has the ability to be a front-line starter coupled with a career 3.96 ERA. Velasquez and Nola showed great promise despite rather average ERAs in the 4s. Velasquez sported a 10.6 K/9 ratio while Nola’s curveball has the best horizontal movement in the Majors (9.3 inches, beating out Gerrit Cole). The only two pitchers who disappointed were Eflin and Thompson, two young starters getting their first crack at the majors. Let’s count on them performing better next year.

The best reason why this personnel is perfect is because all of the trained starters have generally similar projections. From a projection and performance standpoint, all of these pitchers are middle- to back-of-the-rotation guys with upside. Nola and Velasquez are projected #2/#3 guys while Eflin, Thompson, Asher and Eickhoff are #3 to back-of-the-rotation guys (Though Eickhoff did have an impressive year in 2016). There is no Kershaw or Verlander or Bumgarner or Cueto who are expected to dominate and throw eight innings every start.

By only allowing them up to 50 pitches and one time through the lineup, the numbers listed in the introduction illustrate that the 3-3-3 rotation puts these players in the best possible position to succeed. Since the numbers are now in their favor, pitchers will have a refined focus and confidence. They can make a structured game plan on how they’re going to attack each hitter. This will limit extended innings under duress and ultimately build confidence in the minds of these young pitchers.

You may ask, Kevin, the Phillies aren’t going to contend in 2017. Why go through such a drastic change to get marginally better?

The answer is using the 2017 season as a stage for their assets to increase in value.

Asset Valuation

The Phillies are not in line for a winning season in 2017. They most likely won’t win 80 games in 2018. But 2019 is their year. That amazing 2018-2019 class of Kershaw, Donaldson, Machado, Harper, Pollock, LeMahieu, Keuchel, Harvey, Wainwright, Corbin, Smyly and Shelby Miller will be theirs for the taking, as the only money they have tied up is to Odubel Herrera. Even the 2017-2018 class of Arrieta, Cobb, Darvish, Duffy, Pineda, Tanaka (option), and Cueto (option) could insert an ace or #2 into their staff.

That is why they need to act now. They must increase their pitchers’ values now and acquire better assets with 2019 in mind. The free-agent market will be booming from 2017-2019, thus lowering trade-market value of any player after this year’s deadline. Instead of trading away prospects to get the guys they need, teams will simply open their pocketbooks. Now is the time to trade these middle-of-the-rotation guys away. Especially because they are not all in the 2019 plans.

“Utility Pitchers”

What is the most overpriced asset on the market right now? Relief pitching. More specifically, pitchers who can pitch multiple innings in relief in tough situations. See: Andrew Miller, Kenley Jansen, and Aroldis Chapman. By utilizing the 3-3-3 method, you are training your starters to pitch multiple innings in different scenarios and relieve in later innings. The 3-3-3 method trains your pitchers to achieve the greatest possible value by becoming what I like to call “utility pitchers.”

What makes players like Ben Zobrist, a .266 career hitter, and Ian Desmond, a .267 hitter, worth $60-70 million? They are utility players. Teams these days love utility players and are willing to pay big money for them. They are more valuable now than they have been in all of history. The same can be said for utility pitchers.

If you have ever been to the Arizona Fall League, it is used as a stage for the game’s top prospects. Starting pitchers generally pitch three innings, and relief pitchers will pitch 1-2 innings each for the remainder of the game. They do this to give teams’ top minor-league players exposure to higher competition with an added benefit of raising prospect value in the eyes of other teams. By sending their players to compete with top minor-league competition for all scouts to see, a good showing will raise potential trade interest. For example, this year the Giants sent a young catcher named Aramis Garcia, a former second-round pick. Garcia doesn’t fit into the Giants MLB plans with a player like Buster Posey entrenched at catcher until 2022, but they used him as one of their eight player selections anyway. I can surmise they did this to boost his stock for potential trade scenarios. The Phillies do not have all their current pitchers in their 2018-2019 MLB plans, so why not show them off to other teams?

By using the 3-3-3 method in the MLB as a stage for their abundance of young pitching talent, their pitchers will:

1) Get experience against the top talent in the world

2) Potentially increase their trade value

3) Limit innings to 130 – 160 IP

4) Give young pitching the best chance to succeed at the MLB level

5) Keep their innings down and arms fresh

The Phillies 2017 3-3-3 rotation, which you will notice is a quasi version of the 3-3-3 that I referenced above, would look like this:

1st Group – Hellickson (3) Asher (3) Eflin (2) Neris (1)

2nd group –  Nola (3) Eickhoff (3) Thompson (2) Gomez (1)

3rd Group –  Velasquez (3) Buchholz (3) Benoit (1) Ramos (1) Neshek (1)

Why this particular grouping?

1. Ability to sell three of what we call “closers” at the deadline. They can also switch Benoit and Ramos to the closer role on any particular day, giving Klentak five pitchers with closing experience to sell.

2. Give Eflin and Thompson only 2 IP per appearance because of their struggles last year. This should increase their confidence by decreasing their perceived pressure.

3. Since the Phillies signed two relievers to one-year deals in the offseason, it is apparent that Klentak wants to sell them off at the deadline. This is why I chose the quasi 3-3-3 system.

Imagine Klentak’s bargaining power at the deadline if he has even three of these newly trained utility pitchers pitching well, especially if one is a guy like Asher, Eflin, or Thompson? He could promise 5+ years of control of a utility pitcher who can be a traditional starter or a multi-inning reliever out of the bullpen.

Some people will read this and think that this would be a “demotion” or “devaluation” from being a “starter.” This is not true. All of these pitchers made it to the MLB as what you would call “starters.” They have excelled at pitching 6+ innings per game. This experiment would simply add value to all of them. Just as playing Ben Zobrist at LF, RF and SS doesn’t take away his ability to play 2B.

Most relief pitchers don’t get drafted as closers or relief pitchers. They are given chances at various roles and stick with whichever role suits their strengths best. Look at Chapman and Andrew Miller. Look at Joe Blanton! Terrible pitcher as a labeled “starter” but excelled in a set-up role for the Dodgers last year. General managers won’t trade for a guy for a postseason run if he hasn’t proven that he is going to be a solid contributor in the specific role they need for their team. So by using 2017 as a value-booster, you train all of your pitchers for multiple roles so you can have the leverage to trade any of your guys to any team. Every postseason team needs pitching. The 3-3-3 rotation will give Klentak unlimited options to acquire talent that will help the 2019 team be successful. GMs are most vulnerable at the deadline, and it is time to take full advantage.

Some people might argue that bringing up all of these pitchers at once would be a waste of MLB service time. But what is more important to a GM who has multiple pitchers with middle-of-the rotation ceilings? An option year or service time? This experiment is exactly that, an experiment. It is a trial run for one half of a season to ramp up current asset valuations to acquire a lot of quality pieces for the future. Since all of these pitchers are already on the 40-man roster, sending them to the minors would waste an option year anyway. So why not give this a try? The worst thing you could lose is half a season of MLB service time on a few guys who have served less then 20% of one year in their career.

HEALTH

In an arm-health study by Dr. James R. Andrews the following chart is comprised:

Ages 14 and under – 66+ Pitches (4 days rest) 51-65 (3) 36-50 (2) 21-35 (1) 1-20 (0)

Ages 15 and over – 76+ Pitches (4 days rest) 61-75(3) 46-60 (2) 31-45 (1) 1-30 (0)

These pitchers are prized assets. Millions of dollars coupled with thousands of hours of prep, coaching and playing time are used per arm. Why don’t we take better care of these players?

As a kid, your parents told you to eat your vegetables, sleep eight hours a night and stay in school while getting 60 minutes of exercise a day. But as we grow older we continually skip our vegetables, sleep five or six hours a night, forget to keep our brains active, and rarely exercise. We feel that we can still function this way, but more importantly, we feel we have to function this way. This is because we put too many responsibilities on ourselves at the expense of our own well-being. I’m arguing that we are giving these pitchers too many responsibilities, at a detriment to their peak physical health. Why? Because traditional baseball knowledge tells us that a five-man starting staff is the right way to go in 2017. But look back at history: there used to be one-man, two-man, three-man and even four-man rotations. Those proved to be unsuccessful. I am saying that the five-man rotation isn’t working either. It’s time to make a change.

What if we treated these valuable multi-million-dollar arms with the care that we take with our Little League arms? I propose a hopeful plan of three innings finished for each starter, but an absolute maximum of 36-50 pitches no matter what. These pitchers will then receive two days of rest for every 36-50 pitches, thus receiving the care a child under 14 would receive (see chart above). It is impossible to argue that this wouldn’t be a healthier system than the one we have now. Finally, let’s shift back to trade value. If Klentak is making deals on July 31 and a playoff contender is asking him how his players can help them win a championship, health is another big concern! If he can say that his pitchers have been put on a stricter regimen than any other team in the league, and that his players’ arms are healthier and more fresh than any other team in July in the history of baseball, that is going to increase his bargaining power. Remember, keeping players healthy, putting them in the best position to succeed and increasing trade value all are focused on the 2019 season. Klentak’s initial plan has always been focused on the 2019 season. And this plan will add tremendous benefit to that goal.

Conclusion

Now I am not saying that every team should utilize this strategy. I am not saying this is the future of baseball for eternity. I am saying that with the Phillies assets, at the perfect time in their development, this will be a great strategy to use. A Double-A or Triple-A prospect is worth much less than an MLB-proven prospect. A pitcher who can relieve, start and spot-start is worth more than just a conventional “starter” or “reliever.” More utility is always better than less utility. Healthier arms are better than overused arms.

I am saying the Phillies should give this a try for half of a season in which they won’t win more than 80 games. There is nothing to lose. And hey, if everything goes to plan, maybe this starts a revolution. If not, then they seamlessly revert to a five-man rotation in August. The goal of business is to buy low and sell high, looking for the most reward for the least amount of risk. This is about as high-reward as you can get in a sub-.500 season with about as little risk as I can imagine.

A new idea is always crazy before it makes sense. In the 1920s and 30s it was a rule that star pitchers had to throw 10-20 relief appearances in addition to their normal starting roles. In the 1880s, catching a ball on one bounce was an out. It even used to be legal for a first baseman to grab a runner by the belt so he couldn’t steal second! It is time for a new discussion about the modern-day pitching staff. It is time for rebuilding teams to try new things to get an edge on the competition. It is time for the game of baseball to go through yet another change. We owe it to the fans, to the players, and to the history of our beloved game. We owe it to ourselves to put our reputations on the line for the greater good of baseball.

Is Ivan Rodriguez going to make the Hall of Fame when the results are announced today? In my opinion, it’s close to a toss-up.

Does the man they called Pudge deserve to be enshrined, though? Most would agree he does, whether it’s because he’s the all-time games played leader at catcher, the all-time hits leader among catchers or because of some combination of his traditional stats (311 HR, 2844 H, .296 AVG, 13 Gold Gloves, 14 All-Star appearances) and sabermetric stats (+68.9 career fWAR). Will he be? Who knows! At least, this year, that is. If he doesn’t go in this year he’ll almost certainly be close enough to make his enshrinement in 2018 a mere formality.

What are his chances for this year, though, since that’s what’s important right now?

I’ve been following how Rodriguez has been doing via Ryan Thibodaux’s amazing BBHOF Tracker (check out his twitter handle @NotMrTibbs if you have yet to do so). A few dozen ballots in, I realized that Rodriguez was tracking extremely well with voters who checked off fellow superstar catcher Mike Piazza’s name last year. From that point on, I decided to follow along as Ryan tracked ballots and see if I could get an accurate bearing on whether Rodriguez would join the ranks of first-ballot Hall-of-Famers.

Over at the Tracker, there’s a row labeled “Estimated Net Gain Needed” for returning candidates. I wanted to see how many Piazza voters Pudge could afford to lose, so I used the same assumptions to calculated Pudge’s allowable net loss that were used there:

Total voters: 435

Returning voters: 415

New voters: 20

I used Piazza’s percentage for the returning voters (83%) and new voters (8/10 on new voters in 2016, 80%) to calculate Piazza’s expected votes if he were put back on the ballot — or, essentially, how I expected Pudge would do if he exactly cloned Piazza. All the math worked out to -33.45, meaning Rodriguez could afford to lose 33 Piazza voters, but 34 would presumably put him just under the assumed 327 votes needed (327/435 is just over 75%).

How has I-Rod actually fared, though?

Through 247 ballots tallied in the Tracker, 208 voters have voted for whom information is known about their 2016 voting. 180 of them voted for Piazza last year, whilst 28 withheld a vote. Of the 180, Pudge has picked up 157 of them. He’s also picked up a stunning nine of the 28 who didn’t vote for Piazza last year, which is significantly better than how I’d expected he’d do there, and is partially what’s kept him afloat.

All in all, with about 57% of the approximate vote total counted, Pudge has 158 votes from these 200 returning voters, 14 fewer than what Piazza had. That net -14 is about 40% of his allowable net loss. What does all that mean for his chances, though?

To answer that, I delved a little deeper into the numbers, breaking down how Pudge has done based on size of ballot combined with if they voted for Piazza.

I also utilized the information at the bottom of Thibodaux’s Tracker to see who we knew for sure did not vote in 2016 and how that affected the percentage of Piazza’s voters who were available to vote for Pudge.

So far, there have been 12 confirmed, eligible 2016 Hall-of-Fame voters who did not cast a 2017 ballot, 11 of whom did vote last year. Of those 11, 10 had public ballots last year and Piazza went 8/10 on them, a touch below his overall 83% mark. There are actually nine voters who have publicly revealed their ballots this year who didn’t vote last year, too — Jeff Blair, Steve Dilbeck, Lynn Henning, Kevin Modesti, Jim Reeves, John Romano, Gary Shelton, Willie Smith and Clark Spencer. Those nine went 7/9 on Pudge, essentially cancelling out the lost Piazza voters.

The projected net-loss-allowed figure also used an 80% assumption for Pudge and new voters, but Pudge has actually fared a little better, going 13/14. If six more first-time voters cast ballots and Pudge was named on five of them, he would go 19/20 on new ballots, gaining a much-needed three-vote cushion. At that point, he’d essentially be able to lose as many as 35 of Piazza’s voters.

There are two key ways to look at how Pudge will do on the remaining ballots. Most players do worse when private ballots are tallied; they tend to skew more anti-PED and put fewer names on their ballots. Last year, Mike Piazza finished the pre-results portion of ballot-tracking at 86.3% and fell 3.3% from pre-results to the final tally.

According to Thibodaux’s tally, Piazza got 102 of the 129 fully private, untracked votes last year, or 79.1%. He got 81 of the 100 public ballots released after the announcement, meaning he got 79.9% of all votes not released at the time of the announcement.

Going back a bit, Pudge has gotten 166 votes on the public returnees, whereas Piazza had 180. If that ratio were to hold on the remaining ballots, taking Piazza’s post-results percentage and multiplying it by 92.2%, the percentage of Piazza voters Pudge has gotten, would leave Pudge around 73.8% on private ballots. Thibodaux’s estimates say Pudge needs to get 130 of the remaining 187 ballots, which translates to 69.52%. All in all, much of this is good news for Pudge. Bagwell dropped about 6% from pre-results to final last year, but Bagwell hadn’t done quite as good against Piazza voters and had more certainty among his private voters. Pudge is on his first try; people can estimate how he’ll do all they want, but most voters seem to consider him a clearly superior candidate to Bagwell, despite the fact that Bags was likely the better player.

Rodriguez, I don’t believe, drops quite as much as Bagwell did. Does he drop as little as Piazza, though? Who knows! And that’s exactly the issue. One projection system I’ve seen (authored by Nathaniel Rakich, @baseballot) estimated Pudge’s public/private differential will be an 8.5% drop-off. From where he is right now, he can more than afford that differential and still survive and be elected.

One last thing I’ve looked at is how small-Hall voters who had Piazza have voted on Pudge. Last year, pre-announcement, there were 11 voters who voted at max five players and selected Piazza. Eight of these selected Rodriguez this year, which isn’t fantastic, but is still very good. Additionally, two others who had five-or-fewer ballots and didn’t vote for Piazza chose to vote for Rodriguez. Some have been afraid that Rodriguez’s chances would be ruined by small-Hall ballots, but I’d counter that this research has made me feel the exact opposite. At announcement-time last year, Piazza had votes on 11 ballots of five-or-fewer names. Right now, Piazza currently has votes on 10 of last year’s five-or-fewer voters.

It’s going to be close. It could go either way. However, there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about Pudge’s first-ballot chances when the results are announced at 6 p.m. ET.

…
Note: While writing this, another previously private voter released his ballot and voted for Pudge despite not voting for Piazza last year, meaning Pudge is now -13 at the 57% mark.

One of the most controversial issues in baseball history has arisen recently in regards to the Hall of Fame. Historically the debates over a player’s worthiness of enshrinement have focused almost squarely on a player’s career statistics and in fact for many that remains the case today. But recently a new trend among candidates has begun to emerge. The morality of their careers now seems to matter more than ever and not just with borderline candidates. Players like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens have numbers that put them in the conversation for being the greatest position player and pitcher of all-time, respectively, but because people question the means by these players attained their numbers, they have been thus far shut out of receiving the game’s highest honor. The issue? PEDs, or, more simply put, any drug concerning the use of anabolic steroids or HGH.

I feel that it is important to differentiate the difference between PEDs and these two families of drugs, because in a technical sense over-the-counter aspirin could be considered a PED. The idea of punishing a player for taking a simple Tylenol seems utterly ridiculous even under the most draconian of PED rules.

It is specifically the use of anabolic steroids and/or HGH that has been the square focus of people’s outrage and it’s the attitudes people have about these two drugs which I will be focusing on.

The Health Risks

To date no long-term study on the long-term health effects of these drugs has ever been done, mainly because no scientific institution of significance would ever approve of such a thing, but the anecdotal evidence seems to be mixed at best and not good at worst.

Countless athletes across various sports have contracted various health issues during and after their playing careers, some of which no doubt stem at least in part from steroid use. Others however have had minimal to non-existent side effects of use and with the rigors of sports such as football it’s almost impossible to make the distinction between issues that were caused by the side effects of drug use and the side effects of the physical toll caused by playing the sport itself.

Another issue as it relates especially to sports like football and other combat sports like MMA and boxing is the issue of facing opponents who are on steroids or HGH themselves. Regardless of any physical effects Barry Bonds’ PED use may have had on himself, it’s hard to correlate any direct negative health consequences this would have on another player because of the non-physical nature of the sport. Taking steroids or HGH to add more power to your jab would seem to be a different story, especially over time.

Less mentioned is the role that illegal or hard drugs may have played in many of the more notable cases of steroid-attributed health issues. Steroids rose to prominence around the same time as the drug cocaine did and while the long-term health effects of steroids may not be very well documented, the long-term health effects of cocaine use certainly are.

Unlike the scare-tactic view of Len Bias’ allergic reaction death, the more likely health outcome of cocaine use, especially long-term, is a premature heart attack. Sadly there is probably no greater evidence of this than among some of the more recent celebrity deaths. In addition to having and or succumbing to serious heart-related issues, Carrie Fisher, Whitney Houston and Robin Williams were all noted heavy cocaine users and I have no doubt that use played a significant part in the health struggles all three went through in their later years.

Ken Caminiti was both a steroid and cocaine user. How much of an impact each had on his health independent of the other is impossible to say. It is worth noting though that Caminiti’s off-field lifestyle may help explain why he is now dead and why others like McGwire are still alive even though their total HGH and/or steroid use over the course of their lives may have been close to equal.

How serious the side effects of drugs like steroids and HGH are from one person to the next is impossible to say, but I haven’t seen any anecdotal evidence yet to suggest that aside from the most extreme cases that steroid use on its own can cause your mortality to be lowered by 20-30 years.

As it relates to a sport like professional baseball, in the grand scheme of health risks related to the sport, I actually don’t view the direct side effects of steroids or HGH as being that significant of a health risk. If a player suffers an injury such as an ACL tear, it is just assumed that player will undergo major knee surgery and 6-9 months of serious rehab like it’s nothing.

Guys have developed lifelong chronic pain by trying to play through injuries that they wouldn’t have had they taken better care of themselves instead of playing baseball. Derek Jeter broke his ankle in the 2012 ALDS trying to play through a bone bruise and even received a cortisone shot to alleviate the pain. In terms of long-term health effects, I would put that injury up there with any side effects that could come from a steroid cycle.

Many may claim we take these types of health issues players go through to get on the field for granted because it’s what they want to do and they are getting financially compensated, but I think the real reason is because most people can’t really relate to it. Most jobs aren’t entirely dependent on your physical well-being. If you have a debilitating injury you’re probably not given the options of getting it fixed ASAP just so you can have the opportunity of getting your old job back, or find a new line of work.

For a player like Joe Mauer, the financial implications of this decision may not be nearly as severe as, say, a nine-year backup catcher who needs one more year in the league to get a full pension, but the expectation to handle these serious injuries that require surgery to fix them is all the same.

All this being said, the biggest health risk I see with steroid and HGH use as it relates to baseball isn’t any direct side effect stemming from use, but rather the long-term effects from the increased amount of injuries caused that can be attributed at least in part to steroid or HGH use. As always, it is important to note that your mileage may vary with this statement. In a sport like baseball, it may mean a chronically sore elbow or shoulder caused by overuse. With football, it could be a more damaged brain caused by being hit by a 280 pound player who added on an extra 40 pounds of muscle by taking steroids.

Looking at the issue through that lens I think should give people a different understanding of how the risks of these drugs should be viewed. The conventional argument of “no player should have to choose between using a drug that could potentially cause them harm and playing” can still hold true, but the long-term consequences can be very different. Say what you want about Roger Clemens, but aside from Mike Piazza, I didn’t see him trying to cause bodily harm to any opposing player he came across. For someone like former defensive end and noted steroid user Mark Gastineau, causing physical harm to the opposing player is pretty much in the job description. The amount of physical strength he gained from those drugs was used against his opponents in a way that caused more adverse harm to them than would otherwise exist.

This may not quite be the boogeyman “all drugs can kill you” view that many anti-drug advocates have taken, but it takes a far more honest look at the risks associated with these types of drugs not just on an individual level, but a league-wide one as well. Looking at it through that lens makes the type of sport a lot more relevant to the discussion and I think subsequent punishments.

However strict the MLB and NBA are with regard to steroids and HGH, sports like the NFL and UFC should be far stricter and far more serious about talking about this problem. Regardless of how you feel about steroids in sports morally, I don’t see how anyone using steroids while playing baseball is causing any type of increased health risk for any other player beyond the increased incentive for that other player to use just to keep up with the rest of the pack. I can’t say the same when it comes to combat sports and for that reason I can’t say the issue should be viewed the same across all sports.

The Attitude

At the heart of the media and fan outrage toward the issue of steroids, I think, is what simply boils down to the idea of an otherwise perfectly healthy person taking a potentially dangerous drug purely for the benefit of making themselves a better athlete.

I add in the word “perfectly healthy” because when it comes to players trying to play through injuries and ailments, people tend to be far more understanding. A cortisone steroid for instance can have health effects that are just as adverse as an anabolic steroid, but because cortisone steroids are almost entirely associated with players recovering from injury, their use is tolerated largely without question.

Which is actually worse for your health is tough to say, but it is fascinating to me that the same people who would condemn the use of blood doping by Lance Armstrong having no issue giving praise to the athlete who “gutted it out” through an injury that would have kept most people on the bench. One is viewed as a selfless action, the other selfish, yet aside from the issue of one athlete being perfectly healthy and the other not, the dynamic between doing what’s best for your career or team versus doing what’s best for your health is almost identical.

What seems to bother people more than anything when it comes to PEDs is when athletes are able to obtain results through these drugs that would be impossible to achieve without them.

In all, 52 players have been suspended under the MLB’s adopted drug policy, which began in 2005. Of those 52 players, most fans of the sport could only name a small handful of players who have actually been caught, but even the casual fan will have no issue recalling that Álex Rodríguez was one of the 52 players that have been suspended. When it comes to Bartolo Colón, his ability to provide entertaining at-bats appears to have caused most fans to come down with a case of amnesia.

The amount of outrage a player receives over using PEDs appears to be more correlated to their overall ability and whether or not they are likeable than it is to the act of using itself. It may not be a coincidence that at the same time that David Ortiz is getting more and more attention for being a serious Hall-of-Fame candidate, the overall view towards known PED users seems to have softened somewhat. It certainly hasn’t been lost on me that some of the same writers who have been pounding the table how they would never vote in a person with a PED cloud around them tend to get a bit quieter on the subject matter when it comes to David Ortiz. A 2003 failed drug is now seen as a “minor association” with PEDs.

Is this is a sign of writers softening their stance on the issue, or is it simply the case that a lot of this “outrage” over PEDs is really just an excuse to perform a litmus test on a player’s “likeability”? Each writer will have a different answer to this question, but as a whole the group probably falls somewhere in the middle.

What Should The Hall of Fame Be About?

“Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”

That is the official verbiage by which all Hall-of-Fame players should be voted on, yet the phrase itself is incredibly vague and unspecific as far as how much weight should be placed on each characteristic.

If you are to view all of these attributes as being equal though, then a player like a player like Carlos Delgado should have a slam-dunk case for getting into the Hall of Fame. In addition to his three Silver Slugger Awards and his 473 career home runs, and having no PED-related issues; Delgado was also one of the most active players in baseball when it came to charity work, activity trying to increase exposure of the game, while also being a spoken advocate of things like improving education in his native home of Puerto Rico.

On the flip side of the argument though is Roberto Alomar, who spit in umpire John Hirschbeck’s face during an argument over balls and strikes in 1996. It was a disgraceful moment in baseball history for everyone involved, and thankfully it didn’t prevent Alomar from getting into the Hall of Fame, but it was amazing to me how many fans and writers were willing to completely disregard Alomar’s 17-year career over one 30-second incident. Anyone who thought this incident alone was bad enough to warrant being kicked out of the Hall needs to pick up a history book.

I bring up these two players because it offers proof that the whole case with character and integrity is really a one-way street. As honorable as Delgado’s off-field actions were/are my guess is very few voters even know about how extensive Delgado’s charity work is, let alone care enough about it to the point where it could actually influence their vote.

If I were voting it would not influence my vote one bit and in my opinion Delgado is not a Hall-of-Famer, but I’m not someone who also claims to put a great deal of weight on things like “character” and “integrity” when it comes to voting.

I’m not asking for anti-PED voters to vote for Carlos Delgado. What I’m asking is for them to be consistent about what it is they want from a player and not look at things like character as someone thing that can only be a pure negative.

The Hall of Fame doesn’t necessarily need to honor the best players who ever played the game. I would be all for honoring players that weren’t just great on the field, but also people who anyone associated with the game could be proud of, but that would seem to change the Hall-of-Fame worthiness for some of the players who are now in.

A player like Joe DiMaggio who easily has the numbers and the reputation to warrant induction would not be someone I would consider worthy of induction under this new system because of his off-field transgressions and general personality which was not described as all that friendly, to put things mildly, based on numerous accounts.

It’s impossible to talk about baseball in the 1940s without mentioning Joe DiMaggio, and some may feel that his service in WWII should go a ways in overcoming some of his more off-putting attributes, but is DiMaggio’s situation really all that different from someone like Curt Schilling, who is being held out for a lot of the same reasons that DiMaggio was given a free pass on? (i.e. Just not being a nice or good human being.)

These are the unintended consequences of morality run amok. You wind up doing things you don’t agree with or don’t support, but have to do anyway, else risk contradicting yourself and calling into question how strongly held your principles on this really are. The alternative is what I think we have now. A double standard where players like David Ortiz have their PED issues overlooked or brushed under the rug simply because they were a popular player who voters would very much like to get in, while less popular players like Kevin Brown are treated like almost chopped liver because they didn’t get well with the media and weren’t marketed very much during their career.

Some may think putting players like Bonds and Clemens in will damage or even ruin the integrity of the institution itself. That may in fact be true, but the alternative to that is the Hall of Fame loses credibility as an evaluation tool for confirming a player’s greatness. This aspect was already damaged during Frankie Frisch’s reign as head of the Veteran’s Committee. Guys like Chick Hafey and Jesse Haines may be Hall of Famers, but have nowhere near the kinds of numbers you need to have in order to view their enshrinement as a serious endorsement of their greatness.

But Roger Clemens does not need a plaque in Cooperstown in order for people like me to consider him the greatest pitcher of all time, just like Pete Rose doesn’t need a plaque to be considered one of the greatest hitters of all time. But if the Hall of Fame wants to be viewed as the foremost authority on player greatness, the Hall of Fame needs these players to be members way more than those players need the Hall of Fame.

Just speaking for myself, I’ll take a morally ambiguous Hall of Fame that that can be viewed as an authority of player greatness over a morally righteous Hall of Fame that can’t.

When looking to the future, there are countless ways to try and find undervalued pitchers.

One such way is to look at which pitchers’ FIPs outperformed their ERAs last year. This is a good approach, but it isn’t enough. For one, there will be players who consistently underachieve on their metrics, like the ever-teasing Michael Pineda. He sits second on the 2016 leaderboard in ERA-FIP, but his ERA is more than half a point greater than his FIP for his career and over a point greater each of the past two seasons.

The other problem with this approach is that FIP has become mainstream enough that everyone will be doing this same thing. Players who outperformed their FIP will be be common targets on draft day, driving up their prices and eliminating any sleeper potential that they had. This, too, is the downside of projections and other easily accessible data.

A different approach is then needed. In that spirit, I decided to create a linear regression model to predict a subsequent year’s ERA based on the difference in first- and second-half splits from the previous year, as well as that year’s ERA. This would help find the players who improved the most from the beginning of the year to the end, and perhaps players who are likely to carry over those improvements into the next season.

The model was generated using data from 2002 to 2015 obtained from FanGraphs’ splits leaderboard, with only pitchers with at least 50 IP in each half-season being considered so as to remove potential outliers. Non-significant variables were removed, and a final model was created. The resulting model was then used with 2016 data to predict ERA in 2017. The following graph shows those predictions, after being rescaled, plotted against 2016 ERA:

For the most part, the predictions line up with their 2016 counterparts. The labeled data points, though, are the ones I want to focus on. Based on this model, each of them are expected to see their ERA drop significantly from last season to this one and could help provide value in the latter rounds of drafts.

Jeff Samardzija
2016 ERA: 3.81
2017 Projected ERA: 3.40

The Shark has had a rough career. Since becoming a starter in 2012, he’s only had one season in which he’s beaten last year’s mark of a 3.81 ERA. He’s played for four different teams in those five years, he’s on the wrong side of 30 and his name is at the same spot on the pronunciation scale as Jedd Gyorko’s. But he does have a few things going for him. He’s struck out over 20 percent of the batters he’s faced in all but one year since 2011, and he’s pitching in a park where home runs go to die. His average fastball velocity is holding steady above 94mph and it was only two years ago where he had a sub-3 ERA with the estimators to back it up. He’s proven he can put up solid numbers, so the predicted improvement isn’t unreasonable. He had a 3.66 FIP in the second half of 2016 that exactly matched his ERA, a substantial drop from his first half numbers. The biggest contributors were his strikeout rate, which rose from 18.9 to 21.9 percent, and his HR/9, which dropped from 1.15 to 0.94. There’s no reason to think the rates are unsustainable either — his HR/FB dropped to a near-league average (in a normal year) 10.8 percent, and his strikeout rate improved almost directly with an increase in his O-Swing%:

Samardzija was able to get batters to swing at pitches out of the zone more frequently as the season went on, and consequently was able to produce more strikeouts. Steamer projects him for a 3.66 ERA, which isn’t all that far off this model’s prediction. If he can bring his strikeout rate back to what it used to be, and AT&T Park does its job, Samardzija could provide some sneaky value in 2017.

Ivan Nova
2016 ERA: 4.17
2017 Projected ERA: 3.72

Moving to the NL seemingly agreed with the former Yankees second-round pick. After posting an unsightly 4.90 ERA in 21 games (only 15 starts) in pinstripes, he turned his season around in Pittsburgh with a 3.06 ERA and 2.62 FIP in his final 11. Switching leagues undoubtedly helped, but there are more reasons behind his improvement. For one thing, he increased his strikeout rate while decreasing his walk rate — just doing those two would be reason to expect a lower ERA. Perhaps more significant, though, is that he halved his HR/9. Much of this is due to a change in scenery — his HR/FB dropped from 21.3 percent before his trade to just 7.8 percent afterward. Of course, he can’t be expected to repeat his performance. He walked just three batters in 64 2/3 innings, good for a 1.1 percent walk rate and a 17.33 K/BB. While Nova is probably better than Phil Hughes, it’s unlikely that even he can replicate that kind of walk rate. Look for Nova to improve on his ERA from last year, but don’t expect him to be as good as his second half. He’ll fall somewhere in the middle, but even that will be more than useful.

Wily Peralta
2016 ERA: 4.86
2017 Projected ERA: 4.35

Don’t look now (unless you promise to come back), but Peralta had a 2.92 ERA in the second half of 2016. Part of this was admittedly due to an inflated 81.7 percent strand rate, but even accounting for that, he managed a 3.75 FIP and 3.59 xFIP during that stretch. His success can be due largely in part to his increase in strikeout percentage, which jumped from 13.6 percent to 20.8 percent. It’s difficult to determine the exact reason behind this, but one explanation might be his increase in velocity. At the start of the year, his fastball was only averaging under 95 mph, a continuation of his 2015 trend and a disgrace to fireballers everywhere. By August, he was closing in on 97 mph, and presumably striking out batters as a consequence. Here’s his velocity by month since 2014, via BrooksBaseball:

Not only did Peralta see an increase in his strikeout rate, but his walk rate improved as well from 8.7 percent to 6.5 percent, which is the lowest to reasonably expect given his career numbers. His WHIP dropped from 1.88 to 1.15, his HR/9 from 1.64 to 1.02 and his wOBA against from .421 to .295 — seemingly everything improved except his age, but I’ll give him a pass on that account. The secret behind his success? His ability to limit hard-hit balls and induce soft contact. Take a look at the trends for each type of contact rate:

In case that doesn’t do it for you, here’s his Statcast exit velocity broken down by game date, via Baseball Savant (with a linear regression line added for those last few skeptics who aren’t convinced):

Peralta’s not an ace, but he has the potential to help out teams this season. Monitor his velocity during spring training, and buy him for a discount on draft day.

Clay Buchholz
2016 ERA: 4.78
2017 Projected ERA: 4.02

Of all pitchers who threw at least 50 innings in each half of the season, Buchholz improved his FIP the most — his first-half FIP was 6.02, so he gave himself quite an advantage, but he still brought it down to 3.74 following the Midsummer Classic. He’s already proven himself to be a capable pitcher, with four sub-3.50 ERA seasons in his past seven seasons, and now he goes to Philadelphia, where pitchers go to be reborn (see: Hellickson, Jeremy). Also, he moves from the AL East to its NL counterpart. Besides going up against a pitcher instead of a designated hitter, he will be facing the likes of the Braves and Marlins instead of the Blue Jays and Yankees.

Despite the difficulty of his former division, Buchholz still managed to improve as the 2016 season wore on. He marginally increased his strikeout and walk rates, doubling his K-BB% to a still-mediocre 9.3 percent in the second half of the season. While that’s not exactly comforting, it’s worth noting that his walk rate in the first half the season was higher than anything he’s put up since 2008, so it’s not likely to approach that number anytime soon. Furthermore, he was able to bring down his bloated HR/FB rate, despite the league’s general struggle to do so. In the first half of the season, 15.9 percent of Buchholz’s fly balls resulted in home runs, which would have been higher than any single season in his career. In the second half that number improved to 5.1 percent, which was much more reasonable given his average rate of 6.5 percent over the previous three seasons. Steamer projects him for a 4.07 ERA, but it’s not difficult to envision a scenario where he does better than even that.

With all that being said, not all of the pitchers on this list are going to live up to their projections. No model is perfect, and none of these guys have exactly had exemplary careers. But they all showed significant improvement over the course of last year, and that’s a strong indication for what to expect from them in 2017.

Spelunking through the FanGraphs archives as one does, today I ran across Dave Cameron’s 2008 post entitled “The Worst Season in Recent History.” At the time, Dave found that in 2002, Neifi Perez was worth 3.5 wins below replacement for the Kansas City Royals.

Since then, changes to the way that WAR is calculated have revised Perez’s WAR for 2002 to -2.9, opening the door for some other contenders to the throne of worst season in recent history. Taking “recent” to mean the last 25 years, three seasons are virtually tied for that crown. Cristian Guzman in 1999, Jose Guillen in 1997, and David McCarty in 1993 each were worth 3.1 wins below replacement. But Guillen’s season holds a special place in my heart, and I’d like explore it a bit more as we come up on its twentieth anniversary.

The Pirates, having performed one of the more drastic teardowns that the major leagues will see, rushed the 20-year-old Guillen to the majors from A-ball and made him their opening-day right fielder. For the season, he had 526 plate appearances in 143 games, slashing .267/.300/.412. This was good for a wRC+ of 82, as his reasonable batting average and isolated power were vitiated by a 3.2% walk rate. His bat was worth 12.2 runs below average; acceptable from a middle infielder or catcher, not at all good from a corner outfielder.

But Guillen was not just any corner outfielder that year. According to the defensive metrics we have for 1997, he was one of the worst fielders there was, worth 29 fielding runs below average even for a right fielder. Combined with the positional adjustment of -5.7 runs for playing right field, this gave him an eye-popping -34.7 Def rating. This is the sixth-worst of the last 25 years, ahead of such luminaries as Adam Dunn and Brad Hawpe, as well as 36-year-old Dante Bichette and the tragedy that was Ken Griffey Jr.’s last full season in Cincinnati.

Dave’s article about Neifi Perez estimated that his negative value reduced Kansas City’s effective payroll from $47 million to $34 million. In 1997 a win above replacement was not worth as much; according to Lewie Pollis’ estimates, a win in 1997 was worth $1.65 million, giving Guillen a value of negative $5.115 million dollars. But…remember where I mentioned that the 1997 Pirates had performed a drastic teardown? Notoriously, in 1997 their entire opening-day roster was making less money than Albert Belle. According to Baseball Chronology’s numbers, over the course of the season the Pirates increased their total payroll to $15.12 million, but Guillen’s negative value ate up a full third of that.

You may also remember that, despite their scanty payroll, the 1997 “Freakshow” Pirates unexpectedly contended for the division crown late into the season. They finished the season 79-83, five games behind the Houston Astros. If they had been able to replace Guillen with the mythical replacement player, they would have finished 82-80, short of the division crown, but delaying the onset of their streak of losing seasons five more years, and saving long-suffering Pirate fans the brunt of many jokes about a streak that became almost old enough to drink.

If they had replaced Guillen with the players who actually wound up filling in in their outfield, they might well have won the division, as Mark Smith and Turner Ward combined for 2.7 Wins Above Replacement in 414 plate appearances. (Or, well, they could have given more plate appearances to some of the rest of the collection of below-replacement villains you can find at that link. And there’s no reason to think Smith and Ward would have continued to produce that well given more appearances. But let me dream.)

Guillen continued to frustrate despite his evident talent, moving to the Devil Rays, Diamondbacks, and Reds before breaking out for a few decent years at age 27. In all, the decision to promote him from A-ball before his 21st birthday was one of the poorer recent decisions.

Jose Guillen finished seventh in the 1997 NL Rookie of the Year voting. Tied for 11th, with one third-place vote, was Neifi Perez.

It was when I was in sixth grade that I first began to seriously examine baseball.  I made my first annual Top 100 MLB players list that year.  Of course I didn’t know about advanced stats at the time, so Miguel Cabrera was atop that list.  Ironically that was before his Triple Crown.  Brian Kenny had educated me by then, and Trout has been first on every list since.  Anyway, back to the point, I also received the Bill James Historical Abstract that year, and became obsessed with his all-time rankings.  There was his all-time Top 100, and a Top 100 at each position.  Thinking about this the other day, it occurred to me how unusual the second-base rankings were.  Far be it from me to question the Godfather of Sabermetrics, but they seem wrong to me.  Here is the Top 10:

1. Joe Morgan
2. Eddie Collins
3. Rogers Hornsby
4.  Jackie Robinson
5. Craig Biggio
6. Nap Lajoie
7. Ryne Sandberg
8. Charlie Gehringer
9. Rod Carew
10. Roberto Alomar

Again, this seems wrong, but it is Bill James I’m refuting, so some research is probably required.  First, let’s rank the group by career rWAR:

1. Rogers Hornsby 128.7
2. Eddie Collins 122.2
3. Nap Lajoie 104.8
4. Joe Morgan 99.6
5. Charlie Gehringer 79.6
6. Rod Carew 76.7
7. Craig Biggio 65.5
8. Roberto Alomar 65.2
9. Ryne Sandberg 64.2
10. Jackie Robinson 59.4

Career rankings are tricky, because at some point a great peak is better than a long career.  Volume does matter.  Players like Robinson, who played only 10 seasons, suffer in career totals.  Let’s see the players ranked by the total fWAR from their four top seasons.  The group is ranked here by four-year peak:

1. Hornsby 45.6
2. Morgan 38.7
3. Collins 38.0
4. Lajoie 36.4
5. Robinson 33.2
6. Gehringer 30.8
7. Carew 28.7
8. Sandberg 28.1
9. Biggio 26.9
10. Alomar 25.7

That’s nice.  We now know who the best among the group were for their career and for condensed excellence.  However, simply having a long career doesn’t mean a player is the best, nor does having the best brief period of dominance.  Luckily, there’s JAWS.  JAWS is a system used for ranking players that combines career WAR and WAR over a player’s seven-year peak.  It is often used for analysis of Hall of Fame candidacies.  Let’s check out our group when using the JAWS system:

1. Hornsby 100.2
2. Collins 94.1
3. Lajoie 83.8
4. Morgan 79.7
5. Gehringer 65.6
6. Carew 65.4
7. Sandberg 57.2
8. Robinson 56.8
9. Alomar 54.8
10. Biggio 53.4

After seeing these three lists it is evident that only four of the ten are in the running for the title of being the top second baseman of all time:  Collins, Hornsby, Lajoie, and Morgan.  So far all I’ve used to evaluate these players is WAR.  Now, WAR is definitely a great tool, but it is not the only tool.  How about comparing the remaining four players in a few other ways?  Let’s see career wRC+ and Def for starters.

• Collins:  144, 68.3
• Hornsby:  173, 126.5
• Lajoie:  144, 86.3
• Morgan:  135, 14.0

Hornsby is the top-rated player in both wRC+ and Def.  He lead all three lists of WAR metrics.  This doesn’t really look close.  Why then did Bill James have both Morgan and Collins ahead of Hornsby?  He was clearly the best hitter of the three, so then why?  He led both of them in defensive value, so that can’t be why either.  Maybe it’s baserunning?  Let’s check out these three players (sorry Nap Lajoie) in BsR.

• Collins 42.3
• Hornsby -1.8
• Morgan 79.0

Here we go!  Finally, a reason to question Hornsby as the greatest second baseman.  Morgan was first for Bill James, so clearly he believes that the mediocre baserunning of Hornsby and the tremendous baserunning of Morgan makes a huge difference.  Let’s concede hitting to Hornsby, and focus on the two final candidates in just fielding and running the bases.  For their careers the difference in fielding was 112.5 runs, while in baserunning it was 80.8 runs.  Hornsby still wins.  No matter how it is examined, Hornsby always comes out on top.  The greatest second baseman in baseball history is Rogers Hornsby.

Every offseason I do a top 100 MLB players list.  Around the new year is when I start to consider this list seriously, beginning by naming the best player at each position.  Usually, about half of the 10 positions (excluding DH) are close, and the other half are runaways.  This year there is a position that goes beyond even calling it close: third base.

The hot corner currently claims three of the probable top five players in baseball in 2016 NL MVP Kris Bryant, 2015 AL MVP Josh Donaldson, and three-time AL All-Star Manny Machado.  Mike Trout and Clayton Kershaw would of course round out the top five, with players like Mookie Betts and Jose Altuve just missing.  Ranking all of the top players against each other, however, will be discussed in a later article.  For now the focus will stay on the three incredible third basemen.  On the top 100 prior to the 2016 season, Donaldson was the highest-ranked 3B, coming in at #2 overall behind only Trout.  Machado was close behind Donaldson at #9 overall, while Bryant was third at the position in the #18 slot.  But 2016 has now come and gone, and all three of these players had spectacular years.  Now how do they rank?

Let’s start with WAR over the last two seasons, since that’s how long Bryant has been in the league.  For purposes of being fair, we’ll use rWAR.

1. Josh Donaldson 16.3
2. Kris Bryant 14.3
3. Manny Machado 13.5

Well, according to WAR, Donaldson is the clear champion of the position.  He has been worth far more than his competition over the past two seasons.  Just for the record, two players whom I am certain people will try to argue belong with this group in the comments, Adrian Beltre and Nolan Arenado, finish well behind Machado in rWAR.  As useful as WAR is in comparing players, it is not a be-all-and-end-all ranking.  How do the three title players of this article order in OPS+?  This will be the last two seasons as well.

1. Donaldson 151
2. Bryant 142
3. Machado 130

Donaldson wins handily again.  Baseball is about more than just hitting.  How about baserunning?  I’ll rate by XBT% and BsR.

1. Bryant 51% XBT%, 14.4 BsR
2. Donaldson 39%, 4.2
3. Machado 46%, 0.7

Here we go — a list that isn’t topped by Josh Donaldson.  Of course Kris Bryant is a very good baserunner, so this was to be expected.  What’s interesting to me is the edge Donaldson has over Machado despite taking the extra base 7% less of the time.  This can be attributed to Donaldson being on base more often.  Aside from hitting and baserunning, there is defense.  How are these three by the top metrics there?  DRS and UZR/150 should serve this purpose well, again using the past two seasons.

1. Machado 21.0 UZR/150, 27 DRS
2. Donaldson 15.5, 13
3. Bryant 13.1, 7

Bryant is hurt in DRS by his flexibility in positions, but the UZR/150 makes up for that.  Machado is in another world when compared defensively to these competitors.  He is simply incredible on defense.  This, however, does not make up for his being behind both Bryant and Donaldson in hitting and baserunning.

It seems that Donaldson should place first in the position, with Bryant second and Machado third.  One thing is bothering me about this entire analysis, though.  The 2015 and 2016 seasons are being counted as the same in terms of importance.  That should not be.  I’ll re-rank the group by rWAR, weighting 2016 over 2015.  A weight of 1.75:1, or 7:4 in whole numbers.

1. Donaldson 21.88
2. Bryant 20.34
3. Machado 18.50

Well, the order is the same as the original list using WAR, even if the two leaders are much closer.  How about using wRC+?  The weights will remain at 1.75:1.

1. Donaldson 425.3
2. Bryant 396.8
3. Machado 359.8

Donaldson is still the best offensive player.  He still is the best at the position.  One factor is still not being taken into consideration: age.  Donaldson will be in his age-31 season in 2017, meaning he should be entering into a decline.  Bryant will enter his age-25 season, and Machado his age-24.  They should both be improving.  Steamer projections clearly buy into this improvement, at least for Machado, who is projected to have the highest WAR of the three.  Until this actually comes to fruition, however, Bryant’s superior numbers will keep him above Manny Machado.

How to handle the age factor?  In the WAR lists I included, Donaldson’s an average of 10.8% better than Bryant, and he’s 19.5% Machado’s superior.  It seems unlikely that a combined Donaldson decline and Bryant or Machado improvement would make up this gap.  Even if it was more likely, the numbers that have already occurred would take precedence over the numbers that may occur.  Donaldson is still the champion of the hot corner.  The top three third basemen in the MLB right now are:

1. Josh Donaldson, Toronto Blue Jays
2. Kris Bryant, Chicago Cubs
3. Manny Machado, Baltimore Orioles

Despite an influx of information resulting from the advent of Baseball Info Solution’s batted-ball data and the world’s introduction to Statcast, surprisingly little remains known about pitchers’ control over the contact quality that they allow.  Public consensus seems to settle on “some,” yet in a field so hungry for quantitative measures, our inability to come to a concrete conclusion is maddeningly unsatisfying.  In the nearly 20 years since Voros McCracken first proposed the idea that pitchers have no control over the results of batted balls, a tug-of-war has ensued, between those that support Defensive Independent Pitching Statistics (DIPS) and those that staunchly argue that contact quality is a skill that can be measured using ERA.  Although it seems as if the former may prevail, the latter seems resurgent in recent years, as some pitchers have consistently been able to outperform DIPS, hinting at the possibility of an under-appreciated skill.

It is also widely assumed that a hitter’s BABIP will randomly fluctuate during the season, and that changes in this measure often help to explain a prolonged slump or a hot streak at the plate.  Hitters’ BABIPs can also vary drastically from year to year, making it difficult to gauge their true-talent levels.  Research in this field has been done, however, and there have been numerous attempts to develop a predictive model for this statistic, one that projects how a player should have performed, or perhaps more succinctly, his expected BABIP, or xBABIP.  Inspired by the progress, and albeit limited, success of these models, I embarked upon a similar project, instead focusing on the BABIP allowed by pitchers, rather than that produced by batters.  What began as a rather cursory look at exit velocity evolved into a much deeper look, and with this expansion of scope, I achieved some success, though not as much as I had hoped.

My research began with a perusal of Statcast data, and I began to use scatter plots in R to visualize each statistic’s relationship to BABIP.  Most of the plots looked something like this:

View post on imgur.com

In the majority of plots, it seemed as if there may have been some signal, but there was quite a bit of noise, making it difficult to detect anything of significance.  This perhaps explains the lack of progress in projecting BABIP: after looking at these plots, it appears quite simply difficult to do.  Despite these obvious challenges, I remained hopeful that I could perhaps develop something worthwhile with enough data.  Therefore, I began aggregating information, collecting individual pitcher-seasons from FanGraphs, Baseball Savant, Brooks Baseball, and ESPN, then manipulating and storing the data in a workable format using SQL.  Since Statcast data only became available to the public in 2015, my sample size is unfortunately a bit limited.  I also wanted to incorporate the defense that pitchers had behind them along with park factors when creating my model, so I removed all pitchers that had changed teams mid-season from my records.  This left me with a grand total of 641 pitcher-seasons (323 from 2015, 318 from 2016), and 188 pitchers showed up in both years.  For the remainder of my study, I used the 641 pitcher-seasons to develop the model, but when checking its year-to-year stability and predictive value, I could only use the 188 common data points.

To begin, I fed 29 variables into R: K/9, BB/9, GB%, average exit velocity, average FB/LD exit velocity, average GB exit velocity, the pitcher’s team’s UZR, the pitcher’s home park’s park factor, his Pull/Cent/Oppo and Soft/Med/Hard percentages, and an indicator variable for every PITCHf/x pitch classification.  (Looking back on this, I wish I included more data in my analysis to truly “throw the kitchen sink” at this problem, perhaps including pitch velocity, horizontal and vertical movement, and interaction terms to more accurately represent each individual’s repertoire.  Alas, I plan on keeping this in mind and possibly revisiting the topic, especially as more Statcast data becomes available.)  This resulted in an initial model with an adjusted R-squared of about 0.3; I then ran a backwards stepwise regression with a cutoff p-value of 0.01 to determine which variables were most statistically significant.  Here is the R output:

View post on imgur.com

For clarity, the formula: xBABIP = -0.157 + 0.005684 * BB/9 + 0.0009797 * GB% + 0.003142 * GB Exit Velocity – 0.0001483 * Team UZR + 0.005751 * LD%

I again obtain an adjusted R-squared of about 0.3, and I don’t find any of these results to be overly surprising, but to be fair, I had little idea of what to expect.  Before examining the accuracy of my entire model, I checked each variable’s individual relationship to BABIP, along with the year-to-year stability of each.  These can be found below in pairs:

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

I was most perplexed by the statistical significance of BB/9, and even after completing my research, I still find no entirely compelling explanation for its inclusion.  Typically, BB/9 is considered a measure of control rather than command, but intuitively, these skills seem to be linked, and perhaps pitchers with better command and control are able to paint edges more effectively, thus avoiding the barrel and preventing strong contact.  I was disappointed that its relationship to BABIP appeared so weak, but because of its relative year-to-year stability, I hoped that it would retain some predictive power.

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

Previous research has indicated that ground-ball hitters are able to sustain higher-than-average BABIPs, and thus, its inclusion in my model should not come as a shock.  Again, it would have been nice to see a stronger correlation between GB% and BABIP, but there is obviously quite a bit of noise.  However, it does seem that generating ground balls is a repeatable skill, which lends itself nicely to the long-term predictive nature of an xBABIP model.

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

Again, as previous research has suggested, the inclusion of GB exit velocity is to be expected.  However, its correlation with BABIP is not as high as I would have hoped; I suspect this may be a result of the unfair nature of ground balls.  In a vacuum, one would expect that low exit velocities are always superior, yet a fortunately-placed chopper may actually have better results than a well-struck ground ball hit right at a fielder, and thus, exit velocity’s signal may be dampened.  There does appear to be some year-to-year correlation though, which offers some promise of an unappreciated skill.

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

Here, I’m surprised by the lack of correlation between UZR and BABIP; I collected this data to control for the quality of the defense behind a pitcher, assuming that this could be a pretty significant factor, and although it did remain in my model, the relationship appears to be quite weak.  We should expect a very low year-to-year correlation between UZR, as pitchers that changed teams in the offseason were included in my study, and even if they remained on the same roster, teams’ defensive makeups can change drastically from one season to the next.  Thus, the latter graph is rather useless, but I chose to include it for consistency.

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

Unsurprisingly, LD% has the strongest relationship to BABIP, checking in with an R-squared of about 0.15.  I obviously wish that there were a stronger correlation between the two, yet despite the noise, when looking at the data, I think it is fairly evident that there is a signal.  And although I have read that LD% fluctuates wildly from year to year, I was shocked by the latter graph.  It seems as if this is entirely random, and that this portion of a pitcher’s batted-ball profile can be simply chalked up to luck.  This revelation is a bit discouraging, as it suggests that my model may struggle with predictive power, since its most significant variable is almost entirely unpredictable.

I anticipated that more variables would be statistically significant, and I am surprised by their disappearance from the model.  I assumed that Hard% would be highly correlated with BABIP, but it disappeared from my formula rather quickly.  I also assumed that pitchers who generated a high true IFFB% would exhibit suppressed BABIPs, but nothing turned up in the data.  And finally, I thought that K/9 may have been significant; it can be considered a rough estimate of a pitcher’s “stuff,” and I speculated that pitchers with high K/9 probably throw pitches with more movement than usual, perhaps making them harder to square up, but my model found nothing.

After considering each of the significant variables individually, I wanted to examine the overall accuracy of my entire model.  To do so, I plotted pitchers’ xBABIPs vs. their actual BABIPs, along with the difference:

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

As mentioned earlier, after incorporating all of the statistically significant variables in my model, I achieve an R-squared of about 0.3, a result that I find satisfying.  I obviously wish that my model could have done a better job explaining some of the variation in the data, and I suspect my model could be improved, although I have no idea by how much.  There is an inherent amount of luck involved in BABIP, and it is entirely plausible that pitching and defense can in fact account for only 30% of the observed variance, and the rest can only be explained by chance.  Despite the lower-than-desired R-squared, I do believe it still verifies the validity of my model, if only for determining which pitchers over- or under-performed their peripherals, saying nothing about why they did so or if they can be expected to do so again in the future.  The lack of correlation in the difference plot indicates that pitchers have been unable to systematically over- or under-perform their xBABIP from year to year, and along with the residual plot, suggests that my model is relatively unbiased and doesn’t appear to miss any other variables that obviously contribute to BABIP.

After determining that my metric had some value in a retrospective sense, I set out to determine whether it had any predictive power.  Because of the lack of year-to-year correlation for most of the statistically significant variables included in the model, I was quite pessimistic, although still hopeful.  I first checked the year-to-year stability of both BABIP and xBABIP:

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

It seems that both measures are almost entirely random, although xBABIP is perhaps just a bit more stable from season to season.  Despite this, comparing 2015 BABIP to 2016 xBABIP revealed that, as expected, my model holds little to no predictive power:

View post on imgur.com

Again, although disappointing, this result was to be expected, as the most powerful variable in my model, LD%, fluctuates wildly.  Despite this lack of predictive power, I stand by my model’s validity when considering past performance, and as more data accumulates, perhaps it can be adopted in a stronger predictive form.

Even after concluding that my metric has little predictive value, I thought it would be interesting to look at some of the biggest outliers.  2015’s biggest under- and over-achievers (with their 2016 seasons included as well), along with 2016’s luckiest and unluckiest pitchers can be found below:

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

Although the model holds no predictive power after quantitative analysis, anecdotally, it appears to do a decent job.  Each of the 10 pitchers featured as an over- or under-achiever in 2015 saw the absolute value of their difference fall in 2016 (although the sign did change in some cases); in no way am I suggesting that the model is predictive, I just find this to be an odd quirk.  I also find it perplexing that George Kontos appears an over-achiever in both years and can think of no explanation for this.  Along with outperforming xBABIP, his ERA has also beaten FIP and xFIP in each of the last two seasons and five of the last six, suggesting a wonderful streak of luck, or perhaps hinting that the peripheral metrics are missing something.

Ultimately, although it would have been nice to draw stronger conclusions from my research, I am mostly satisfied with the results.  When developing his own model for hitter BABIP, Alex Chamberlain achieved an R-squared of about 0.4 when examining the correlation between BABIP and xBABIP, the highest I have found.  However, his model included speed score, a seemingly crucial variable that I was unable to account for when analyzing pitcher’s BABIPs.  With this in mind, I find an R-squared of 0.3 for my model entirely reasonable, and despite its lack of predictive power, I consider it to be a worthy endeavor.  As the sample size grows and more Statcast data is released, I plan to revisit my formula in coming offseasons, perhaps refining and improving it.

In baseball analysis, we often use comparable players or “comps” to discuss what we think the player is likely to do in the future. Prospects are the most comped players because the general baseball public does not know much about minor leaguers. Comparing these young players to major leaguers allows fans to imagine what these prospects could someday become. Comps are also often used in projection systems. Data analysis has found that similar players often perform similarly throughout their careers. Thus, using former players who compare well with current players aids projection systems in forecasting what a particular player is likely to do in the coming years. Comparable players are also used in contract negotiations and arbitration battles. Players at similar ages with similar careers can expect to get roughly the same contract. In fact, the arbitration process is almost solely interested in comparing similar players and their wages.

Sometimes, players aren’t viewed as being similar when in reality they are actually quite alike. Recently, I found that Julio Teheran and Jose Quintana top each other’s similarity score lists on Baseball Reference. I had usually thought of Quintana as one of the game’s best pitchers and a true ace, while Teheran was at least a rung below that and probably more of a number 2 or 3 starter, so I did some research and found that these two pitchers are more alike than many probably realize.

Both pitchers are from Colombia and they were actually born only miles apart. Colombian-born baseball players are actually quite rare as there have only been 19 such players in MLB history, and this includes at least one set of brothers and a set of cousins. In fact, just this past season Teheran and Quintana became the first Colombian-born pitchers to ever start against each other in the same game. The two are apparently also quite good friends off the field and even work out together in the offseason. They each have also decided that they will pitch for Colombia in the upcoming World Baseball Classic. That will make for a formidable 1-2 punch for the Colombian pitching staff and will be hard for any other team in the tournament to match up against.

These two pitchers also match up quite well statistically, as their numbers look quite similar in a multitude of categories.

You might be able to find two pitchers with more similar numbers, but it wouldn’t be easy. They were both virtually 5-win pitchers according to Baseball-Reference, and the difference there likely comes from Quintana throwing a few more innings than Teheran. Their ERA, FIP, and xFIP are all almost identical and they both achieved their numbers in similar ways, too. Neither pitcher allows many baserunners, and they both strike out about eight batters per nine innings. In 2016, they both also had nearly identical ground-ball rates, and they suppressed homers to the same degree. Both pitchers had incredible seasons in 2016 and were both deserving All Stars, and while Jose Quintana did have a slightly better year and has been the better pitcher for the past several years, Julio Teheran has considerably closed the gap on his fellow statesman.

After seeing how closely the two pitchers’ 2016 stats aligned, I wanted to see how closely their styles of pitching matched up as well. While the approaches are not quite as similar as the statistics, you can see by the pitching styles how the stats could end up so similar. Using PITCHf/x data from Brooksbaseball.com I found that the biggest similarity in their repertoires is their four-seam fastballs. They both rely heavily on this pitch while throwing them about as hard and with similar amounts of movement.

These fastballs are not particularly special for two pitchers with such pedigree. They are each thrown with just average velocity and with roughly an average amount of downward and horizontal movement. They produce roughly the same amount of ground balls as the average pitcher and miss about as many bats as the average fastball. The most unique aspect of either of these pitchers’ fastballs is that Jose Quintana induces an exorbitant amount of pop-ups, which are basically as good as a strikeout. This allows his otherwise average fastball to play up better than the average starter.

After the four-seamer, their repertoires begin to deviate quite a bit. Quintana relies heavily on his sinker and his curveball as secondaries and mixes in a changeup occasionally. He throws his sinker just as hard as his four-seamer, but he gets more movement from the sinker. Julio Teheran uses his slider as his main secondary, throwing it over 26 percent of the time, while he mixes in a sinker, a changeup, and a curveball as his tertiary offerings. His slider is a plus pitch and he uses it to miss bats, while the other pitches are basically used as change-of-pace offerings to keep hitters off of his fastball and slider combination. Both of these guys get by with just average or better stuff, but command of their arsenal coupled with their mastery of the art of pitching have made them two of the upper-echelon pitching talents in the game.

It would only make sense that two players this similar would have similar contracts, but these contracts go way past similar — they are borderline identical. They are each under team control for the next four years. Teheran will make $37,300,000 and Quintana will make just a few hundred thousand more at $37,850,000, assuming that their respective option years are picked up, which is a pretty safe bet. Their yearly salaries are basically identical as well:

Neither player’s salary ever deviates more than just a few hundred thousand dollars in any year under these current contracts. It only makes sense that two players with so many similarities would be compensated so similarly, but should they actually be valued the same?

Probably not; while they did have virtually the same season statistically this year, Quintana’s track record for this level of success is longer. Teheran does also have a successful track record, but he did struggle in 2015, and Quintana just seems to be the surer bet at this point. Steamer projects Quintana to be worth over a win more than Teheran in 2017. However, I do believe that their values should be a great deal closer than public perception. Teheran is two years younger than Quintana and could just be hitting his prime, he is signed to the same contract as Quintana, and his stuff may actually be better. Quintana is currently being aggressively shopped and the asking price is said to be roughly the same as the Chris Sale package. Julio Teheran is not worth that kind of package, but it might be closer than you think.

The Seattle Mariners finished second in the AL West with an 86-76 record. With a strong offense — they scored the sixth-most runs per game during 2016, led by Robinson Cano, Kyle Seager, and Nelson Cruz — the Mariners starting pitching lagged behind. With fans hoping for a bounce-back performance from Felix Hernandez, the King waned further, seeing an increase in ERA, FIP, and walk rate with decreasing number of strikeouts, first-pitch strikes, and swinging strikes. Hernandez was worth only 1 win above replacement, and at 30, it is unlikely the King will ever become the dominant pitcher he once was.

Despite logging only 121 innings, James Paxton pitched well, leading to a 3.5 fWAR, the highest among all Mariner pitchers. Paxton has always shown some upside, having strung along a 3.43 ERA and 3.32 FIP in 50 starts across four seasons. The 28-year-old has struggled to remain healthy, having only pitched 286 innings since 2013. Throughout the 2016 season, Paxton showed his best form.

Paxton averaged the highest fastball velocity for left-handed pitchers at 96.7 MPH. It was almost 3 MPH faster than the lefty ranked second, Robbie Ray. Among pitchers with 100 innings pitched, Paxton had the fifth-best FIP-, 17^th-best SIERA, and 21^st-best strikeout-minus-walk percentage. Furthermore, Paxton threw strikes. This was evident in his first-pitch-strike rate — 62.4% — and with the Mariners pitcher posting an elite 4.7% walk rate. Throughout the season, Paxton was unlucky, with a .347 BABIP and a strand rate hovering close to 66%. Paxton’s average exit velocity on line drives + fly balls was slightly above average. Couple that information in with a Deserved Run Average (DRA) of 3.09, and it is fair to say Paxton pitched fairly well and should have an impressive 2017 campaign.

One of the reasons for Paxton’s success? He changed his release points:

James Paxton Release Point Changes

In addition, Paxton’s cutter became one of his main pitches. Having reluctantly thrown it in years past, Paxton’s cutter was his second-most-used pitch and was quite effective. Among pitchers who threw 200 cutters, Paxton’s had the best whiffs per swing rate. Batters kept swinging, and they kept missing. It also boasted the lowest wOBA allowed in his arsenal.

James Paxton Cutter Vertical Movement

The big change in Paxton’s cutter, aside from the 1-mile increase in velocity: less rise (In 2014, Brooks Baseball classified the cutter as a slider). As the season wore on, Paxton also got more rise in his fastballs, leading to a greater induction of pop-ups. Paxton’s curveball was second in velocity among left-handed pitchers who threw at least 200. It featured an above-average ground-ball rate and swinging-strike rate.

Paxton showed significant growth during the 2016 season. With Felix Hernandez unlikely to return to his previous form, Paxton has the tools and ability to become the Mariners’ ace. The key for him will be to stay healthy in a pivotal season for both the Mariners and the 28-year-old pitcher.