Edwin Jackson - scouting over stats
by slurve on Jun 7, 2009 11:56 AM EDT
63 comments
This winter, the Tigers were lambasted on this site for trading away Matt Joyce for Edwin Jackson. It was a pretty even split here between those who liked/disliked the deal. Jackson was described as "garbage" along with other similar adjectives. I was on the side of liking the deal for the Tigers as I had watched quite a few of Jackson's starts last year. Most that didn't like the deal kept pointing at his overall stat line and missed the forest for the trees, as there were quite a few excellent starts turned in by Edwin last year - but his poor starts obscured the big picture for many here.
I really liked what I saw of Jackson last year and stuck my neck out in support of him in the face of stats/data that are generally very good indicators of luck and/or future performance. I acknowledged that but held my ground that he was quite possibly someone who was on the verge of taking a major step forward this year. Jackson has done just that. On the year he has a 2.16 ERA with a WHIP below 1. His K:BB ratio has improved quite a bit this year, while his fly ball tendencies are right where they have been throughout his career. This is probably one of the best examples of what I was talking about when I mentioned actually watching what was going on and not simply quoting dry stats. While Jackson does allow hitters to elevate the ball - the contact is generally poor, resulting in many routine pop ups. People have argued that this will "normalize" as he pitches in Comerica, but so far the home/road splits are very similar.
So what does everyone think now that the season has started and Jackson has seemingly taken off as some predicted?
0 recs |
63 comments
Email
Print
Comments
hah one of his biggest comps on baseball reference is Bob Gibson
Gibson was terrible until his mid to late 20’s.
by Bravesin07 on Jun 7, 2009 12:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Is that sarcasm?
Gibson was the man from pretty much the start. I have to assume then that you’re being sarcastic.
by joltinjoe on Jun 7, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
He had nice ERAs from the start, but it was only when he was 26 that his control improved, and from that point on, he was an outstanding pitcher
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jun 7, 2009 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah...
Last night, Jackson struck out Abreu/Vlad/Hunter to end the game, touching 98 MPH.
by slurve on Jun 7, 2009 12:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i saw that
i watched that 9th inning and he looked like a different animal out there…for most of the game he was 93-94mph occasionally at 96mph, but come the ninth he was 96, 97, 98, and even 99mph…and his slider has dramatically improved overall
by miraclemets on Jun 7, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he should
pitch teh 8th inning! (sarcasm)
by RollingWave on Jun 8, 2009 2:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I argued for Jackson earlier
Everyone kept pointing to the peripherals, I was pointing to the potential, saying that he should at least be a solid mid-rotation starter even with mild improvements but with the potential for more. It’s not the first time I’ve seen scouting win over stats either. I feel like Ervin Santana’s 2008 is a pretty good comp to Jackson’s 2009.
The 2008 Rogelio Moret League Fantasy Baseball Champions!
by The Congo Hammer on Jun 7, 2009 12:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
I stated the following in that thread:
Peripherals do not mean everything (although they often mean A LOT). However, some guys with good peripherals (i.e. Glendon Rusch) never turn into effective pitchers while some guys with mediocre peripherals have lengthy effective careers.
Statistics are important when judging future success, HOWEVER scouting is almost equally important.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jun 7, 2009 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
we see a lot of ‘stars’ from Moneyball book not making it to the higher level.
If you know the name of the felony being committed, press one. To choose from a list of felonies, press two. If you are being murdered or calling from a rotary phone, please stay on the line.
by lard of the dance on Jun 7, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Detroits pitching coach, Knapp is a big reason for this
Of course, he came over from Minnesota.
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jun 7, 2009 12:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Be careful...
you don’t want to hurt yourself patting yourself on the back.
Adam Dunn: Proof that even sabermetrics doesn't have it right.
by Boxkutter on Jun 7, 2009 1:36 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Cuidado yourself
It was an interesting discussion from earlier in the year and it damn well deserves being re-hashed as Jackson has been one of the best pitchers in the league so far. I happened to have predicted it could happen to a chorus of smug, condescending assholes such as Paul Thomas. Being right about something and talking about later isn’t patting myself on the back. I’ve been right about plenty of things before and haven’t gone back to “pat myself on the back”. I’ve also been dead wrong about things and have dredged that stuff back up later. If you have something to add to this thread, by all means contribute. If not, please troll elsewhere.
by slurve on Jun 7, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The topic is great...
but you mentioning yourself almost as much as you mention Jackson is a little too much. Other than a couple lines, most of this post is you congratulating yourself on being right and the reasons you were right. I think Edwin is having a great year so far, I did not think he had it in him, but after last season I was not so sure he didn’t. Not sure if I participated in the discussion that was had at the time of the trade.
Adam Dunn: Proof that even sabermetrics doesn't have it right.
by Boxkutter on Jun 7, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Unavoidable
I really don’t see it as congratulating myself, it was merely reviewing things that took place. For example, one of your lines in the post above contains the word “I”:
“I think Edwin is having a great year so far, I did not think he had it in him, but after last season I was not so sure he didn’t.”
See what I mean? Should have known better to include the word “I” so many times from my days of English class, but wasn’t really thinking about that. People are turned off, as you were, when you use that word too much.
by slurve on Jun 7, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unavoisable
Don’t see it as congratulating myself – but it was a conversation I was involved in heavily. When talking about yourself, it’s hard not to include the word “I” so much. Should have known that from my days of English class. For example, you use the word “I” three times in a single line in your post above – see what I mean? People are naturally turned off by that, just as you were, even if it isn’t really justified.
by slurve on Jun 7, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jackson
I just see this as an affirmation against the morons that said that a 24 year old that has two plus pitches and has been getting better every year of his major league career, was garbage.
I repeat, YOU WERE ALL MORONS!
by CoolCat23 on Jun 7, 2009 8:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think there was reason to be skeptical.
His walk and K rates were a little worrisome in 08. Certainly not indicative of his success. He is definitely pitching much better this year. K’s are up and walks are down in 09.
For the record it wasnt me calling him “garbage,” though! I wasnt a big Jackson fan. I admitted he had upside (“Nice arm with some upside.”), but attributed much of his 08 success to the improved Tampa defense (“So I would not expect performance like this going forward.” Doh!). Clearly, he has taken a step forward, though, and I was wrong.
I also said I thought Detroit won the trade and that “I wouldnt call him garbage or anything.” Whew. Was afraid it was me for a second… but then I remembered I wasnt impressed by Matt Joyce. It seems like even then Tampa could have gotten a better return, no? I do like Matt Joyce more now, but even if Jackson was last year’s Jackson… well, I mean who the hell wouldnt rather have that than Joyce? Nevermind the improved stud Jackson…
by alskor on Jun 7, 2009 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thing is
Tampa could really use last year’s Edwin Jackson, let alone the ’09 model.
by Fanon on Jun 7, 2009 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right.
And what role in 09 does Joyce really have? They had Gross, Kapler, Ruggiano, Fernando Perez and Ben Zobrist as options to go along with CC and BJ. What was the rush to get another corner OFer? I like Joyce some… and its not like the Rays dont have pitching depth… but I dont get it. Like I said previously, I do think Jackson was fairly lucky last year, so I can get selling high on him – but he was a real live arm with great upside and the chance to put it together and become a really good pitcher. Why are you rushing to trade that away for a piece you dont need? Bad move.
by alskor on Jun 7, 2009 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually like Joyce
I have to assume that they thought he was getting lucky last year as well.
by Fanon on Jun 8, 2009 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
ZOMG THEY HAVE KAPLER! WHO NEEDS AN OF!
by rglass44 on Jun 9, 2009 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe they needed
some OF help, but they sure look like they need the pitching help quite a bit more at this point.
by slurve on Jun 9, 2009 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's results based analysis at it's finest.
Congrats!
They have dealt with injury, Kazmir falling off a cliff, and Sonnanstine being way suckier than expected. Someone would have to have come off the 25-man to make room for Niemann, and I wish it had been Percival. They got a quality corner OF who is cost-controlled for a guy who was never even a league average starter. He may have thrown hard, but he had no idea where it was going. It wasn’t like he struck guys out. It’s like if the O’s had traded Cabrera for anything rather than letting him waste money, a roster spot, and their time.
by rglass44 on Jun 9, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's an old saying
“You can never have too much pitching”
by slurve on Jun 9, 2009 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can if you have no options.
Then you are forced to do something. You ignore the role of money, the 25-man roster, and other unforeseen circumstances. Then you ignore his previous 60+ starts in favor of 12. All this while congratulating yourself on being smarter than everyone. Maybe we should keep a journal of your posts, so we can go back and call out where you are wrong. Going forward what do you expect of Jackson? This year? Next 2 years? I’ll remember it.
by rglass44 on Jun 9, 2009 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Journal
http://www.sbnation.com/users/slurve
search away.
by slurve on Jun 9, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
good point.
I don’t really care, nor was I trying to be an ass (although my sarcasm comes off that way on the interwebz). I am just tired of people on the outside looking in and saying the Rays made a mistake. Jackson was frustrating. Jackson was bad. Jackson threw hard. They got a guy that should be good for cheap when they had to make a move. Sonny and Niemann wouldn’t have fetched quite as much, and no one saw the Zobrist break out coming. The trade may work out for both teams, just the Tigers, or just the Rays; but just because through a couple months it looks like Jackson has turned it around, I am hesitant to buy into it.
by rglass44 on Jun 9, 2009 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alright that's better
I know I can come across much in the same way.
I know it’s still early, but fuck, have you seen him yet this year? That 9th inning against the Angels the other night damn near brought a tear to my eye. Struck out three very good hitters while dealing some upper 90’s filth at the late stages of a complete game.
I’m definitely a believer. There were some flashes last year that struck some of us here that he may be ready to click. We said it, and now it’s happening. This isn’t like we threw a dart at a board full of names of pitchers. There is a link in my original post at the top of this thread to what started all of this. It’s a pretty good read IMO.
by slurve on Jun 9, 2009 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just got burnt by him last year.
I kept pimping and pimping, and when he started pretty good last year I thought he’d figured it out. Then he got terrible. We’ll see, and I still root for him because he was always the consumate pro even when he didn’t make the playoff roster.
by rglass44 on Jun 9, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ehh...
Again, you’re looking at his 2008 K-rates and walks from an overall numbers point of view. The gist of what most of us were saying is that his bad games were skewing his overall numbers. When he was stringing consecutive good games together last year, he was every bit as good as he has been so far this year – he just needed to learn how to be more consistent and that is is exactly what he has done.
I’m with you on Joyce – I have warmed up to him a bit, even so would still prefer last years Jackson to him.
by slurve on Jun 7, 2009 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think
One of the thing people miss is that pitcher’s past performance aren’t quiet as much of a indicator of their future success (or failures) compare to hitters.
There are quiet a bit of examples one could drawn here. if you looked at Curt Schilling up till his trade to the Phillies. and you can draw the conclusion that he turned into … um. Curt Schilling, then you either can see the future. is lieing, or is outright crazy.
JJ putz suddenly went from a guy who couldn’t whiff enough people because he had nothing but a fastball to suddenly stringing together several very good years because he found a second pitch.
Things like this happen a lot more for pitcher than hitters. something people should keep in mind when evalutating young pitchers. The chance of a guy with the stuff to put it together is much higher than the chance of a young hitter already in the majors with awesome tools but a horrific K/BB ratio make good on his .
by RollingWave on Jun 8, 2009 2:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Very True...
Randy Johnson is the one that jumps out to me.
by slurve on Jun 8, 2009 8:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
uhmmm
I wouldn’t go that far, Edwin’s having a nice season no doubt, but K-Johnson? :).
I myself liked the deal for Detroit, as I didn’t really see much in Mr. Joyce, but who knows if he could turn into something.
That being said, I am sure Edwin Jackson will have at least a few years of productive seasons, and I would always be very hesitant in giving up young pitching (when they’re relatively) healthy.
"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"
by feslenraster on Jun 8, 2009 8:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There's a reason why teams are so reluctant to part with power arms
Stats are fact.
And for years the stats said Jackson had control issues, both in the strike zone and finding the strike zone.
Everyone said Jackson had electric stuff but he couldn’t deliver over the plate and there is a long list of throwers who failed to figure out the most basic concept of pitching: throwing strikes. Hell, it’s the reason Rich Ankiel plays in the outfield now! But there’s always that hope that maybe, just maybe, someone or something can come along and “flip the switch” on a guy with a million dollar arm and a 5 cent head and turn him into something great and it seems as if Edwin’s the latest example of that phenomenon.
Stats are fact. They are often the best predicator to future performance. But eyes on the ground (scouting) is absolutely crucial in determining if the statistical prediction holds water. In the few times I saw Edwin Jackson pitch his performance did more to support his struggling stat line than suggest otherwise, so kudos to those who saw a lot of Jackson’s games and argued against his statistical record. (I’d specifically praise the writer of this post ‘cept it seems he’s already been accused of an over-inflated ego and I don’t want to add any fuel to that discussion.)
I didn’t see the light going on for Jackson, but it did. That’s baseball. No matter how much we try to make it into a science there’s always going to be some art and magic to keep things interesting.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 8, 2009 12:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Right.
If we wanted to express it as a probability that Jackson would put it all together… well, the chances were pretty low. With that arm, it was stupid to give up on him, though.
A lot of it is indeed that pitchers are very hard to predict.
by alskor on Jun 8, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's where
most of the disagreement took place. I agree, if you were to stick strictly to numbers, the statistical probability would be quite low for an improvement. That’s what was getting me so agitated looking back on it – I was having a hard time convincing people to let go of that way of thinking. We are human after all, and trying to sum everything up with stats and formulas is selling us short.
by slurve on Jun 8, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm still not sure it was the wrong move for the Rays
Would he have had a similar breakout for them? I kinda doubt it. Some times players just need new environments or new voices helping them out to really succeed. At the same time, TB had to find a way to clear space for their other young pitchers who looked, at the time, more likely than Jackson to give you 6 solid innings. And while Joyce wasn’t exactly a huge return, there were a lot of people who thought he’d be an excellent platoon fit, and it was unlikely that the Rays could’ve gotten more for, say, Jeff Neimann or Andy Sonnanstine.
Jackson’s done great, and there was always the chance that he was going to. But if you’re the Rays and you’ve got a lot of other guys who are a lot more likely to succeed, at some point, you’ve got to cut bait on the “high-risk/high-reward” type lest you end up like the Mets with Oliver Perez.
by mraver on Jun 8, 2009 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see
any reason that Jackson would not have continued to get better had he stayed with the Rays. He started turning the corner in Tampa last year – no reason to think that would have stopped in Tampa this year. There were a lot of people trying to explain away most of his success because of the defense he had behind him. I don’t agree with that, but good defense is a valuable asset to a contact pitcher none-the-less.
To me, the winner of the trade is secondary. The focus of what I’ve been discussing is on Jackson’s breakout. Personally, I think they could have gotten more for him, but who knows, Joyce may prove me to be under-estimating him. I still think he needs to get better better against lefties, but he’s been mashing against righties. Have to wait at least a few more months to see how that goes.
by slurve on Jun 8, 2009 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When exactly did he break out in Tampa?
Seriously, his peripherals were terrible all last year. His numbers got progressively worse throughout the season and was eventually left off the playoff roster entirely for the first two rounds and once added during the WS was good enough to give up a mammoth home run to a pitcher that had spent all of two months in the NL in his career.
Tools Whore
by Tyler on Jun 8, 2009 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The title
of this is Edwin Jackson – scouting over stats, and you’re pointing at stats. The whole point of this was what the stats didn’t tell us. Not sure if you saw the original thread that spawned this conversation, but if you read that you can see where most of us who liked him as someone who could take a step forward this year got our ideas – I think it’s safe to say most based that on what we saw in the first half, not what they saw later in the year.
by slurve on Jun 9, 2009 3:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you see with your eyes the rope Joe Blanton hit off him?
by rglass44 on Jun 9, 2009 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That he was just as bad visually last year as statistically.
He had no idea where the ball was going and didn’t do anything well. He threw hard. How many guys that throw hard don’t figure it out?
by rglass44 on Jun 9, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's EXTREME small sample
sized analysis at it’s best – CONGRATS!
WTF does grooving a single pitch to a good hitting pitcher prove? Nothing – that’s what. A few years ago Clemens got a pitch of his pounded by a player in Hi-A during a rehab assignment. What did that prove? You guessed it, nothing as he still had another Cy Young award ahead of him.
He wasn’t just as bad visually – especially during the first half. So far his results this year back up what some of saw in him last year. Don’t know about you, but I think 12 starts is a much better sample size than the single pitch he grooved to Blanton while he was struggling last year.
by slurve on Jun 9, 2009 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about 60+ starts over 12?
I watched probably 25 starts by Jackson last year and 20 the year before. You know what my eyes told me? He was Daniel Cabrera.
by rglass44 on Jun 9, 2009 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Colletti blew it more than the Rays did
Trading a guy with gobs of talent but questions going forward for a corner outfielder you like who’s under team control is one thing. Trading a young guy with gobs of talent for a rental of Danys Baez is unfortunate.
by aap212 on Jun 8, 2009 1:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget Lance Carter!
I think the Dodgers also sent Cuck Tiffany to the Rays as well, who was pretty highly regarded iirc.
I am like your Dan Aykroyd and biglow would be Jane, the ignorant slut. -Chad
by thecoolest on Jun 8, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
jackson is still pretty young
The guy is 25 years old and was graded A by John in 2004, number 3 pitching prospect in the game. Last year he had some good stretches but as always had some control issues. This year he is showing better control. He always had the arm. This result was always conceivable. But well done for calling it slurve.
Now if only my Mike Pelfrey will be good I swear it prediction ever comes true I have a war and peace sized post to compose.
by wobatus on Jun 8, 2009 2:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Difference is fastball command
At least from looking at it on the outside.
In years past, he had dominating stuff, but he couldn’t put it where he want to.
This year, he can hit all the spots and do so with an upper 90s fastball.
Or is Kendry perhaps the one who needs to sit?
by BBFan1 on Jun 8, 2009 9:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He started pretty well last year.
Not this well obviously, but we’ll see if it continues. The move to Comerica definitely helps (and out of the AL East), but I still don’t buy the hot start. What kind of “ace” never Ks more than 7 and doesn’t induce groundballs?
by rglass44 on Jun 9, 2009 10:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He did
and I doubt he keeps it up this well all year. I don’t think anyone ever said he will. While he has exceeded even my expectations, his start isn’t shocking to me either. He has a history of tailing off as the season goes, but still think he’s capable of being at least league average the rest of the way, which is what the original argument revolved around.
“The move to Comerica definitely helps (and out of the AL East)”
So far his numbers on the road are slightly better – we have yet to see any Comerica effect we keep hearing about. As far as the AL East – he’s pitched 13.1 innings and allowed 2 runs.
“What kind of "ace" never Ks more than 7 and doesn’t induce groundballs?”
I don’t know – who called him an ace?
by slurve on Jun 9, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are hailing him as the second coming of Jesus the pitcher.
Your “I told you so” bodes well through 9 starts. Color me unimpressed. He may have turned it around, and he might become a LA pitcher. He is in arb. already, so a league average starter for 3 years versus a LA OF for 6 seems to be in teh Rays favor. What am I missing? For the Tigers to win this trade either Joyce needs to be worse than LA or Jackson needs to be significantly better.
by rglass44 on Jun 9, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am?
Please provide a factual quote in place of extremely poor use of hyperbole and the attitude of a complete dick. Wahhh – slurve was right about something, wahhh…..
Again, I don’t really care who won that trade, that was a minor footnote in all of this for me. As far as what you’re missing… Joyce has yet to show he can produce in the majors. Pitching is what wins. The Tigers are in first place – 5 games above .500, while the Rays are a game below and in 4th. Apparently you missed quite a bit. That arb clock/years of control is nice and all, but ANY major league team will sacrifice some of that for a player that is a big piece to them contending (ya know, like Jackson has been so far) in the short term.
by slurve on Jun 9, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right.
The Rays don’t have any pitching. If they hadn’t traded their 5th starter they’sd have the best record in baseball.
Replace Sonny with Jackson. How many wins does that add? Well, if you want to be a simpleton, it would add 3 (from 3-6 to 6-3). The Rays are in third place.
by rglass44 on Jun 9, 2009 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Talk about simpleton
What about the impact of Jackson saving the bullpen some? Obviously you’re here with the sole purpose of being an ass. I’ve responded for my final time. Have a nice day.
by slurve on Jun 9, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That "you" wasn't calling you a simpleton.
I was merely using a rather crude measurement.
by rglass44 on Jun 9, 2009 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hrm
Slurve, I was right there with you on calling Edwin Jackson. However, I don’t think it’s quite the time to declare victory on this one. While I do believe Jackson’s turned a corner to become a front end starter, I’d still rather you refrain and wait till the end of the season. Besides, isn’t it more fun to include the phrase “Cy Young”?
by GuyinNY on Jun 11, 2009 8:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Cy Young?
NOW you’re talking crazy! That’ is Greinke’s to lose at this point. I don’t think any of us set our sites quite that high, and he does have a track record for not pitching as well in the second half, so in that regard you may be right. At the same time, he has done enough IMO to blow the garbage and/or below replacement labels he was given a few months ago out of the water.
I don’t expect this level to keep up the entire year, but he is doing some things that demonstrate he may be able to sustain numbers that are close.
by slurve on Jun 12, 2009 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
