Janssen Could Be the Key Man in the 2012 Toronto Bullpen

by Marc Hulet on Nov 17, 2011 11:11 AM EST in Toronto Blue Jays Opinions

It’s no secret that the Toronto Blue Jays bullpen is one area of weakness that will require a fair amount of attention from General Manager Alex Anthopoulos and his baseball operations staff this winter.

The club has lost key contributors from 2011 including Octavio Dotel, Marc Rzepczynski, and Jason Frasor. A number of free agent relievers are also likely to find new homes: Frank Francisco, Jon Rauch, and Shawn Camp.

The biggest holes in the bullpen are found in the high-leverage roles, commonly known as the closer and set-up roles. Right now Casey Janssen is the only pitcher with enough on his resume to suggest he could handle an increased, high-leverage role.

Janssen posted a WPA (Win Probability Added) of 2.05 in 2011 while also recording 18 shutdowns with just four meltdowns [For explanation on both stats please visit: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/sd-md/]. He also did a nice job of keeping the ball in the park with a HR/FB rate of just 4.3%, tops on the staff.

Throwing first-pitch strikes is also vital for any reliever in tight situations and the right-hander led the bullpen (and was second on the staff behind rookie Henderson Alvarez) by throwing first pitch strikes 64.1% of the time. The next closest reliever still in the bullpen (Carlos Villanueva) is almost 10% lower at 55.3%.

As it stands, Janssen should be first in line for saves in 2012 but we all know Anthopoulos will work his magic this winter and find at least two or three addition arms with late-game experience or the raw potential to handle the eighth and/or ninth innings.

Villanueva had his moments in 2011 – at least before he was moved into the starting rotation and got hurt – but he’s a fly-ball pitcher with an average-at-best fastball who succeeds by mixing his pitches with above-average control. His value lies in the long reliever role.

Litsch has transitioned from starter to middle reliever and his results were up and down last season. A renewed dedication to conditioning could help him raise his ceiling a bit.

Luis Perez and Joel Carreno are the new kids on the block. They both have value but their inexperience will keep them from key roles in the ‘pen until they get some more MLB innings under their belts. Perez is a lefty with above-average ground-ball rates but he
lacks command of his stuff. Carreno is a right-hander with a decent fastball-slider combo but he to is inconsistent with his command.

* * *

If I were whispering in the GM’s ear, I would suggest the club look at the availability of relievers such as Greg Holland (Kansas City), Sam LeClure (Cincinnati), Bobby Cassevah (LA Angels), Trevor Bell (LA Angles), Eric O’Flaherty (Atlanta), and Antonio Bastardo (Philadelphia).

Tweet Comment 83 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Totally agree re: most of the relievers to be pursued…great list. I don’t entirely understand the appeal of Cassevah or Bell though. What do you see appealing about them? The other 4 are pretty self-explanatory awesome, but I don’t understand the Angels ones…curious.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

by Jevant on Nov 17, 2011 11:25 AM EST reply actions

Value of relievers

This is something I’ve been thinking about, and this is as good a place as any to bring it up. Many statheads downplay the importance of relievers (e.g. see past discussions on the Francisco-Napoli trade, etc.). Basically it comes down to the fact that even a good reliever only has a WAR of about 1, i.e. he doesn’t contribute all that much to the team’s success, principally because he doesn’t pitch all that many innings. So it’s not difficult to find acceptable pitchers for the relief corps. I think this argument is oversimplified. Consider Brett Cecil of 2010. He pitched 172.2 innings, and had a WAR of 2.6. Now consider Scott Downs of 2010. He pitched 61.1 innings, with a WAR of 1.2. Of the two, who contributed more to the team’s success? Clearly it’s Cecil, because he had a larger WAR. However, who pitched better? Here it’s Downs, with a WAR/100IP of 2.0, whereas Cecil’s WAR/100IP was only 1.5. So who is harder to replace? Probably it’s Cecil, because of the large number of IP. However — and this is my point — the answer is not that obvious. Some would argue that Downs, the better pitcher, is harder to replace. All this to say that I think it’s very reasonable for AA to spend some effort concentrating on the bullpen. (And it’s perfectly justifiable to trade starting players for relievers, if the situation calls for it.)

by DavidLondon on Nov 17, 2011 11:44 AM EST reply actions

Downs was a failed starter

I understand your approach in terms of looking at rate statistics, but there’s a certain fallacy to that because relievers have a number of advantages. In the bullpen you can go all out for a few batters, only use your best couple pitches (don’t have to worry about going through the order multiple times), and most relievers benefit from a platoon advantage if they have splits, if they have a smart manager. So it’s not just a question of IP, it’s also a matter of fungibility.

by MjwW on Nov 17, 2011 11:53 AM EST up reply actions

But Downs was an awesome and reliable reliever

I see David’s point, which is while Downs didn’t provide that much value in WAR, when he did contribute, he was very effective. While I do agree that you can get better value with a starter, you still need effective relievers to be a good club. At a certain point, you will have to spend money on relievers, but it’s really about making sure you get value.

by siggian on Nov 17, 2011 1:16 PM EST up reply actions

you don't necessarily need to spend (much) money on relievers

because failed starters have a pretty good chance of becoming good relievers

I tweet.

by benk on Nov 17, 2011 1:21 PM EST up reply actions

Agree but disagree

Not every failed starter becomes a good reliever so I disagree with them having a “pretty good chance.”

Also, not every reliever started their pro career as a starter, although a good number have.

by siggian on Nov 17, 2011 1:35 PM EST up reply actions

I didn't say every

but plenty of them do. it’s possible to build a bullpen (or at the very least, a good chunk of it) out of failed starters I’m nearly sure

I tweet.

by benk on Nov 17, 2011 1:36 PM EST up reply actions

This could be interesting to study

But I’m nowhere near motivated enough to actually do the work.

My gut feeling is that perhaps only a third of failed starters become relievers (if the percentage is even that high).

by siggian on Nov 17, 2011 1:55 PM EST up reply actions

It would

But the most difficult thing would be defining failed starters. Hypothetically, if McGowan went to the pen, is he considered a failed starter, when it’s really injuries that did it. That seems to me to be the big methodlogical hurdle

by MjwW on Nov 17, 2011 1:58 PM EST up reply actions

I think you just have to assume that every reliever that started their career as a starter would have to be considering a ‘failed starter’, no matter the reasons for the switch.

by masterkembo on Nov 17, 2011 2:15 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah

Failing as a starter due to injury makes you no less of a failed starter than failing due to insufficient ability. The point is that there some reason or factor that prevented the player from continuing to start for his team.
If, in the theoretical study, you wanted to also break down the results by injury vs ability, that would make sense, but they still both fall under failed starters.

Check yoself before you rec yoself.

by Gerse on Nov 17, 2011 2:31 PM EST up reply actions

I think the more difficult assessment to make here, is if a guy is converted from a starter to a reliever in low A ball, is he a failed starter? How about in AA? Or does he have to pitch as a starter in the majors to be classified as a failed starter? There are plenty of MLB relievers that were starters in A ball but were converted in the minors and have never started a game in the majors…or only started a few games in the majors.

Guys like Paplebon and KRod for example…

by masterkembo on Nov 17, 2011 2:35 PM EST up reply actions

It would probably have to be a function of # of MLB starts, IP/start, and ERA

(not that RA/ERA are good measures of ability, but it is perfectly descriptive of the outcome.)

I’m thinking the fewer starts the pitcher had, the higher the higher ERA threshold would have to be to imply that he was intended to be a starter rather than just acting an injury fill-in or a Sept. call-up.

Check yoself before you rec yoself.

by Gerse on Nov 17, 2011 2:46 PM EST up reply actions

Yep

McGowan was just a topical example of one circumstance. There’s a lot of judgment calls to be made here, since pretty much every reliever will have been a starter at some point in their professional career, or if you go back further, college and high school.
The more I think about it, the more I think trying to do a study of this would be futile in terms of getting any sort of meaningful information

by MjwW on Nov 17, 2011 2:47 PM EST up reply actions

When people talk about the failed starters in this regard

It generally seems to be failed MLB starters. For ease of data collection, and to actually make the study useful (rather than, as you said, recognizing that all pitchers were starters at some point), I think you’d have to limit it to guys who started in the MLB.

Check yoself before you rec yoself.

by Gerse on Nov 17, 2011 2:49 PM EST up reply actions

Okay

But I still don’t think you get anything meaningful from this type of study. You get all sorts of reasons for converting a starter – actual injury, limited repertiore, inury risk (ie, relying on a slider 30+% of time), arm action, need, etc.

by MjwW on Nov 17, 2011 2:55 PM EST up reply actions

Probably right

I think the initial goal was just to confirm/refute/quantify the claims about failed starters becoming useful relievers, not any deeper analysis than that.

Check yoself before you rec yoself.

by Gerse on Nov 17, 2011 3:11 PM EST up reply actions

fWAR is somewhat limited in assessing relievers

That’s why B-R adjusts for leverage in their version of WAR. I don’t necessarily love this approach, as I think it tends to overvalue high-leverage relievers, but there is some merit into at least considering rWAR for relievers.

I prefer to look at Shutdowns and Meltdowns for relievers as well as WPA. To me, this does a better job of accounting for the context in which relievers perform.

by MjwW on Nov 17, 2011 2:06 PM EST up reply actions

I'm pretty sure fWAR adjusts for leverage as well

Illuminate My Heart, My Darling!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!

by Pikachu on Nov 17, 2011 2:38 PM EST up reply actions

Does it?

I seem to recall reading something to this effect, but looking at the data I’m not sure. Using Papelbon 2011 as an example, B-R credits him with 15 RAR, 1.7 leverage and 2.0WAR. Fangraphs, using FIP, credits him with 3.0 WAR based of 28.6 RAR. Using a rough baseline of 10 RAR = 1 win, I don’t see leverage applied here. Further, Papelbon had a 1.53 FIP, and reliever replacement is about 5.50, which means Papelbon would get 4 RAR / 9 innings, and since he pitched 64IP, the 28.6 RAR computes to0.

by MjwW on Nov 17, 2011 3:02 PM EST up reply actions

I'm only going on hearsay

ask Jono

Illuminate My Heart, My Darling!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!

by Pikachu on Nov 17, 2011 3:05 PM EST up reply actions

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/war-and-relievers/

by Jono411 on Nov 17, 2011 3:53 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks for the link

I knew I had seen it somewhere that did use some leverage (hadn’t seen that article, before I read Fangraphs), but I also knew it wasn’t full credit just based on the mechanics of the calculation. I like the methodology, though giving half the credit seems somewhat arbitrary, but I still wouldn’t use straight WAR in assessing relievers – SD/MD and WPA give sme important infomation.

by MjwW on Nov 17, 2011 4:02 PM EST up reply actions

Spot on

To add to that:
Looking at IP for pitchers who do not have the ability to convert roles is a waste of time.
Why does a RP’s WAR/100 matter relative to a starter’s? If he doesn’t have the ability to go 160+ innings, it’s a totally irrelevant comparison since you cannot just fill a team with 13 relievers.
Also, possibly moreso than with batters, you cannot simply look at the rate stats since there is significant value in just being able to go 6+ innings every start at a moderate level of competence (due to the entanglement of starters’ impact on the bullpen).
Lastly, You absolutely cannot simply simply extrapolate the results from 70 IP to the additional 90-130 – if you did, you’d be looking at an All-Star level starter (4.5+ WAR). The remaining innings would have to be massively regressed to account for the factors you mention.

Check yoself before you rec yoself.

by Gerse on Nov 17, 2011 1:25 PM EST up reply actions

*

“Looking at WAR/IP for…”

Check yoself before you rec yoself.

by Gerse on Nov 17, 2011 1:26 PM EST up reply actions

You’re taking my method of comparison more literally and pushing it farther than I would have. My point is simply that saying that relievers are a dime a dozen, and easily replaced, is wrong. There are relievers who are very good, and they don’t grow on trees. I don’t believe, as benk says above, that you can just take failed starters, turn them into relievers, and voilà, you have a good bullpen. I think it takes quite a bit more care than that — there are relievers who are better than others, and you have to choose them carefully.

BTW, if you don’t like WAR/IP, how would you compare relievers and starters?

by DavidLondon on Nov 17, 2011 2:08 PM EST up reply actions

Fair enough

I don’t think anyone believes that they’re infinitely available, it’s just that teams tend to have so many fringey or nearly-ready pitchers in the high minors that you can try them out for a week or two, and if it doesn’t work out, you go on to the next guy. The alternative is you pay 5+ million per year for 2 years for a player who are only marginally less likely to spontaneously implode at some point.

It’s not that relievers don’t have value, of course, it’s that the output:cost for established “closers” (and some other relievers) is both lower and far more volatile than it is for starters or position players.

Re: the last question: WAR. It’s cumulative, it indicates the value provided by each player. I don’t think reliever WAR is perfect, but no reasonable tweak you could make could get them up to levels on par with starters.

Check yoself before you rec yoself.

by Gerse on Nov 17, 2011 2:37 PM EST up reply actions

eh

I’d stay away from O’flaherty

Illuminate My Heart, My Darling!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!

by Pikachu on Nov 17, 2011 11:56 AM EST reply actions

Why?

He’s posted three consecutive impressive seasons, with increasing strikeout rates. He’s a lefty, something we currently lack in the pen. Oh and he’s 26.

Jose Bautista has a higher midi-chlorian count than you do.

by Jays11 on Nov 17, 2011 12:44 PM EST up reply actions

precisely

kind of hard to buy low on a player who’s performing extremely well. And yes, you should be trying to buy low every time, all the time.

Illuminate My Heart, My Darling!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!

by Pikachu on Nov 17, 2011 2:36 PM EST up reply actions

Sometimes though, you get what you pay for

Hic sunt fortuna dracones

by JaysfanDL on Nov 17, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions

but is O'flaherty the kind of player you want to pay fair value for?

If it was a player like Pujols, I wouldn’t object, but O’flaherty?

Illuminate My Heart, My Darling!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!

by Pikachu on Nov 17, 2011 2:49 PM EST up reply actions

probably not

Hic sunt fortuna dracones

by JaysfanDL on Nov 17, 2011 2:57 PM EST up reply actions

I don't disagree that he's a good player though

Illuminate My Heart, My Darling!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!

by Pikachu on Nov 17, 2011 3:01 PM EST up reply actions

I'm in favour of the Jays getting Kuo

Injury risk, but can be very good when healthy.

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr

by Frag on Nov 17, 2011 12:06 PM EST reply actions

Marc, I think you underrate Litsch

3.63 xFIP, 3.64 SIERA in 2011 with a decent enough GB rate (~45%). solid peripherals. I like him as a setup guy a lot (though I’ve always been a big fan of his)

I tweet.

by benk on Nov 17, 2011 12:13 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

according to the splits, he was much better as a reliever last year too

Given his past success as a starter, it’s not a stretch to think Litsch could be an effective reliever.

Hic sunt fortuna dracones

by JaysfanDL on Nov 17, 2011 12:29 PM EST up reply actions

I don't think it's a stretch at all

the guy had one solidly above-average season as a 24-year-old starter in the AL East

I tweet.

by benk on Nov 17, 2011 12:40 PM EST up reply actions

What past success as a starter? He had an excellent season in 2008. Since then, he has not pitched more than 50 innings in a season as a starter — he’s always been injured. That’s the reason he’s in the bullpen now — he’s not a starter. Hopefully he’ll turn out to be a reasonable reliever, but I do understand Marc’s skepticism.

by DavidLondon on Nov 17, 2011 2:14 PM EST up reply actions

The excellent season in 2008

would be the past success as a starter …

by Playoffs!!!!1 on Nov 17, 2011 3:32 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, Sandy Koufax had some past success as a starter, too. You want to try him out now as a reliever?

by DavidLondon on Nov 17, 2011 5:06 PM EST up reply actions

You make it sound like 2008 was a lifetime ago

Illuminate My Heart, My Darling!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!

by Pikachu on Nov 17, 2011 5:09 PM EST up reply actions

i think we already have the makings of a pretty solid bullpen

with janssen and litsch in high leverage roles, carreno in middle relief, perez as a LOOGY, and villanueva in long relief, we’re a couple quality relievers away from having a really good bullpen.

my hope is that we round it out by bringing back francisco and trading for matt thornton, with janssen and thornton splitting the closer role depending on handedness of the expected batters.

by Jono411 on Nov 17, 2011 12:48 PM EST reply actions

you don't like Nathan/Broxton?

I think the addition of either or both would give us a really nice ’pen

I tweet.

by benk on Nov 17, 2011 12:50 PM EST up reply actions

yes, please.

by khaleeji on Nov 17, 2011 1:14 PM EST up reply actions

i like nathan but don’t think he’s much better than francisco, and will likely cost a few million more.

broxton is a big question mark. if he can somehow regain his prior velocity and command then he’d be a great pickup. but even 2010 version of broxton is no better than francisco, and i think it’s really unlikely he magically reverts to his 2008-2009 form.

by Jono411 on Nov 17, 2011 1:15 PM EST up reply actions

Broxton will probably be Francisco-like this year, but next year (further removed from elbow surgery) he well could approach his ‘08-’09 form. Nathan will depend on the quality of the sales-pitch

by khaleeji on Nov 17, 2011 1:17 PM EST up reply actions

sure

but I’d say it’s highly likely that Nathan+pick or Broxton+pick (or both+pick) is more valuable than FF + maybe pick

I tweet.

by benk on Nov 17, 2011 1:22 PM EST up reply actions

Litsch

My concern with Litsch is his home-run rates when batters put the ball in the air against him. He also allowed a line-drive rate of 25% in 2011, which is very high and tells us that batters are making very solid contact against him. Add in the fact that the fly balls are becoming more common for him (He was a ground ball pitcher in the minors) and I’m worried.

For Cassevah, he had a 70% ground-ball rate in 2011. That is well above average and most pitchers are in the 40-50% range… If you keep the ball on the ground there is less chance of them going over fence for a home run – a key trait for relievers that are typically working in close games with men on base.

As for Bell, I like the combination of low line drive rate and high ground ball rate. It’s a small sample but I like the risk of acquiring him to see if he can repeat it – if the price is right.

by Marc Hulet on Nov 17, 2011 1:20 PM EST reply actions

but LD rates fluctuate wildly from year to year

and home run rates seem to be pretty random too – doesn’t help that Rogers Centre is pretty homer-happy

I tweet.

by benk on Nov 17, 2011 1:24 PM EST up reply actions

Gerald laird off the table now too…
slowly running out of options

Rent this for cheap!!

by Bowling_Guy25 on Nov 17, 2011 1:23 PM EST reply actions

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/11/tigers-agree-to-sign-gerald-laird.html

Rent this for cheap!!

by Bowling_Guy25 on Nov 17, 2011 1:23 PM EST up reply actions

Matt Treanor signed with the Dodgers too

another backup catcher off the market

Hic sunt fortuna dracones

by JaysfanDL on Nov 17, 2011 1:27 PM EST up reply actions

I still want Castro

but if we’re “forced” to re-sign Molina, it’s far from the end of the world

I tweet.

by benk on Nov 17, 2011 1:28 PM EST up reply actions

I'm warming up to the idea of Ivan Rodriguez

Castro would be ok too.

Hic sunt fortuna dracones

by JaysfanDL on Nov 17, 2011 1:30 PM EST up reply actions

Fisk was the original "Pudge"

Hic sunt fortuna dracones

by JaysfanDL on Nov 17, 2011 1:57 PM EST up reply actions

Definitely prefer the sandwich pick

Molina is a passed machine, and the ridiculous first half BABIP which was the redeeming quality is unlikely to be repeated

by MjwW on Nov 17, 2011 1:56 PM EST up reply actions

His best redeeming quality may actually be his pitch framing ability

If that study is at all accurate, I believe that would make Molina worth 1 more WAR in 2011 (if the +10 runs saved = 1WAR, which I am not sure it is).

by Playoffs!!!!1 on Nov 17, 2011 3:36 PM EST up reply actions

if the +10 runs saved = 1WAR, which I am not sure it is

It is, roughly. +/-0.5 a run maybe, but 10/1 is good as a rule of thumb.

by masterkembo on Nov 17, 2011 3:42 PM EST up reply actions

It's interesting

But I think there’s a lot more that needs to be done to understand the defensive contributions of catchers. It’s one study, albeit a very compelling one, and I still worry about some multicorrelation effects. Until there’s a better overall picture, I think you have to balance off the passed balls with the pitch framing, and ultimately we’re talking about a 37 year old catcher with a marginal bat. I’ll still take the pick every day and twice on Sundays

by MjwW on Nov 17, 2011 3:49 PM EST up reply actions

Kershaw wins CY

blah

Illuminate My Heart, My Darling!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!

by Pikachu on Nov 17, 2011 2:39 PM EST reply actions

oh wow

27 of 32 first place votes? Really, BBWAA?

Illuminate My Heart, My Darling!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!

by Pikachu on Nov 17, 2011 2:41 PM EST up reply actions

They probably were in love with the fact Kershaw won the pitching triple crown

This is the BBWAA we’re talking about.

Hic sunt fortuna dracones

by JaysfanDL on Nov 17, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions

you are correct

sigh

Illuminate My Heart, My Darling!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!

by Pikachu on Nov 17, 2011 2:43 PM EST up reply actions

I saw somewhere a stat that shows that Kershaw started against far more winning teams than Halladay.

In fact, IIRC, it was something ridiculous, like three times as many.

by Defense Counts! on Nov 18, 2011 5:25 AM EST up reply actions

doesn't neccesary mean that he faced stronger opponents

In fact, both Halladay and Kershaw have the same OPS against, with .743

Illuminate My Heart, My Darling!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!

by Pikachu on Nov 18, 2011 4:33 PM EST up reply actions

Do you mean they faced opponents who had the same OPS?

by Defense Counts! on Nov 18, 2011 7:47 PM EST up reply actions

The average OPS of the opponents they faced were the same

Illuminate My Heart, My Darling!
Rookie writer at Baseball Canadiana
Twitter? I hardly know her!

by Pikachu on Nov 19, 2011 11:26 AM EST up reply actions

Kershaw had a fantastic season and I have no problem with him winning the Cy. The margin is not nearly as big as the writers voted, but I think either way you slice it, Halladay and Kershaw were the number 1 and 2 pitchers in the NL. The writers have made significantly worse choices than the number 2 pitcher in the past – at least they didn’t pick a closer this time!

by masterkembo on Nov 17, 2011 3:32 PM EST up reply actions