So the Nats signed Edwin Jackson and for the first time in his career Jackson's new team's fanbase resisted the urge to fall in love with his average fastball speed of 94.5 MPH and his 2010 no-hitter. While Jackson still holds a tremendous amount of upside, he seems to have settled in to his role as a solid #3 or above average #4 starter who will eat innings like Cookie Monster at a Girl Scout Jamboree. Still, I think most Nats fans, along with people in baseball, view his signing as a boon for Mike Rizzo and the Nats. The question it now raises is what to do with John Lannan?
Depending on who you talk to Lannan is either the model of consistency, a gritty left-hander who guile's his way to victory and the second-coming of Kurt Rueter or he's a bum with a batting practice fastball who has lucked his way in to a respectable ERA, as reflected in his career FIP of 4.61. Most likely the answer lies somewhere in between, as Lannan is mostly consistent, but betting on him to continue to out-pace his FIP a la Matt Cain probably won't happen either.

Still, Lannan is a valuable commodity in a league where John Garland was once again signed to eat an inning or 200 for the Indians, Barry Zito continues to make the Opening Day roster and--to steal a term from Mattew Berry--Big Fat Bartolo Colon signed sooner than Edwin Jackson. It remains to be seen though, what a commodity such as John Lannan is valued at however, would someone simply agree to eat his salary and return an org. player or two or would the Nats be able to not only dump his salary, but get a valuable commodity back in return?
Without being allowed in on GM discussions it's tough to say, surely there are those GM's that flat refuse to look at these new fangled statistics such as OBP and WHIP (Hello, Brian Sabean!) let alone factor in things such as FIP or xFIP, in which case Lannan's value may never be higher. Considering that Lannan put up a 3.70 ERA last year and won ten games those who believe that Saber-metrics are the devil's work and are built on black magic might be willing to part with a "B" prospect or two and take on the salary.
Consequently, if you think Lannan had the best year he's going to have last year, it might seem like now is the time to trade him, especially when you consider the Nats will open camp with Strasburg, Zimmermann, CMW, Jackson, Gonzales, Detwiler, Gorzellany and Lannan. However, look a little deeper and you'll notice a trend here. Strasburg is coming off TJ surgery and will have an innings limit of 170 or so, Zimmermann is only a couple of years removed from TJ, Detwiler has great stuff but struggles to throw said great stuff over the plate at times, while Gorzellany throws lots of pitches over the plate, but far too many are hit far too far, far too often. Finally, Ching Ming Wang's arm is currently attached to his body using an intricate system involving two cases of Hubba Bubba, two rolls of duct tape and a paper clip. The only sure things in Nats rotation are Gonzales and Jackson, which leaves three more spots in the rotation for an organization who traded their AAA spot-starters to the A's for Gonzales.
While I'm a big fan of pitching depth, mainly because you can't have too much pitching, if the Nats are able to acquire a "B" prospect for Lannan, Rizzo should pull the trigger. I understand the need for organizational depth and the fact that a lot of these guys are big time injury concerns, but I just don't think Lannan is that much better than either Gorzellany or Detwiler and Detwiler holds a lot more upside.
Lannan posted a 3.70 ERA last year, but it came along with a 4.28 FIP, while Gorzellany is just a year removed from posting a 3.92 FIP while playing in the hitter friendly Wrigley Field. They're both left handed and can both throw a baseball utilizing their left hand, but Gorzellany has already proven he can be effective out of the pen, while Lannan is an unknown. Finally--and most importantly--Lannan undoubtedly has more trade value at this point than Gorzellany.
As for Detwiler, it's tough to gauge from his stats, but in watching him he has a lot of life on his stuff and gets good late break on his fastball, if he can hit his spots consistently he can be a middle to front of the rotation starter, if not he still projects as a decent LOOGY and has more cost controlled years left than Lannan.
As long as Rizzo can get a prospect or two of value he should deal Lannan, if not, stash him in AAA--yes it will undoubtedly hurt his feelings--and wait for a starter to get hurt, whether it be a Nats starter or someone else's.
Talk amongst yourselves and feel free to disagree as vehemently and with as much vitriol as you like.
0 recs | 25 comments
Are we sure that Rizzo looks at these stats?
RobBobS - February 13, 2012
I would be thoroughly shocked if there was any GM in charge of building together a professional baseball team who didn’t even consider how often a batter gets on base or how often a pitcher allows baserunners.
mk7676 - February 13, 2012
I recall Rizzo saying something along the lines of using all methods of evaluation but favoring scouting
of course what Rizzo says and what Rizzo does may not agree
TJL - February 14, 2012
Yeah, OK, this was a bit of an exaggeration
Someone on FanGraphs was musing the other day on which teams used scouting and statistical methods, and the Nats were solidly in the “scouting please; statistics not so much” category.
I have no idea if this is accurate, but it’s at least plausible.
RobBobS - February 14, 2012
lannan seems to be an era-fip exception
4 years is a good sample size… but that goes for his huge unearned average every year, too, si i’d say his true number is a bit higher than his era but below his fip. my issue is that he can’t pitch 6 innings on average. but the main thing here is that while i’m fine with him 5th, his contract pretty much is his market valuedespite it being an arb number, so I don’t think they could get anything for him even if they wanted to.
William.Hatheway - February 14, 2012
Innings Improvement Needed?
If I commented more about your Lannan hate, would get “snarky” again? lol I do agree, however, that it would be nice to see John at least get “to” the 7th inning a little more often, like he did in 2009. In 2009, he averaged 6.1 innings an outing. Last year, he averaged about 5.2 innings per outing, so it appears on the surface that he needs to get that last OUT in the 5th inning. However, actually looking at his game log, he pitched into the 6th inning 12 times, and into the 7th inning an additional 5 times last season…..so in just over half of his starts, he went into the 6th or beyond. In 2009, he into the 7th and beyond, with two complete games and four 8 inning performances, 13 times during the season, and into the 6th inning an additional 9 times. So, 22 out of 33 games started, John went either 6 innings or more. Will he duplicate his 2009 effort in 2012? If he can, I’d say he is either definitely in our rotation in 2012, or a much valued pitcher for a trade.
sullyzz - February 14, 2012
Will-has-no-hate-for-John-anymore!!!!!
Smart of you to look at the logs. I guess the games I was at were the ones he was stuck in the fifth, which is really hard on the pen. But yeah, as you point out, he’s capable of going deeper.
William.Hatheway - February 16, 2012
I'm a little confused
Are you saying in 2009 he pitched 6 innings 22 of 33 starts? Because if he pitched into the 6th but didn’t complete the sixth, that means he didn’t go six innings. That looks to me like he only went six innings 13 times in 2009, and 5 times last year. That’s worse than I thought.
rarumberger - February 16, 2012
I see your point, and I did miscalculate slightly....He was actually much BETTER last year than I said
In 2009, he pitched 6 full Innings or more in 22 of the 33 starts (made it to the 7th and beyond), and completed 5 full innings (making it to the 6th inning) in 30 of those 33 starts He pushed the team into the 8th inning and beyond 13 times in 2009.
My interpretation, is that if a pitcher pitches 6.0 innings, he completely finished the 6th inning. For instance, a pitcher who pitches 6.2 innings, was taken out of the game after getting the first 2 outs in the 7th…..in other words, he did not quite make it through the 7th inning.
A pitcher who has a complete game is credited with 9.0 Innings pitched (unless he then pitches into extra innings). If a pitcher does not make it out of the 1st, he is only credited with 0, 0.1, or 0.2 innings pitched.
A pitcher who did not complete the 6th inning, would only be credited with 5.0, 5.1, or 5.2 innings pitched. So, Lannan did a great job of getting beyond the 7th inning in 2009.
Where I was unfair to Lannan, is in last years stats. Lannan DID complete 5 full innings of pitching, and pushed the team into the 6th inning in 29 of his 33 starts. Lannan actually completed 6 full innings or more 17 times last season. Sorry for the confusion.
sullyzz - February 16, 2012
Ah, I see.
That’s pretty much exactly as I’d expect.
Has anyone checked to see what Lannan’s average innings pitched depending on which manager he played for? It seemed like Riggleman only ever let Lannan pitch the sixth inning if he had a shutout going.
rarumberger - February 16, 2012
I would agree that he is an ERA/FIP exception
Except everyone else that I’m aware of who outperforms their FIP regularly is good or really good, while Lannan is average to slightly below average. Given that Lannan missed a good chunk of 2010 I’m not sure I would characterize it as 4 years of data, but three is still decent. That being said, Livo has a job this year so there are definitely teams that could use Lannan’s services.
Pig.Pen - February 14, 2012
Wait a second
He has an ERA+ of 100 or more in 3 of his 4 full seasons. How could he rate as “average to slightly below average”?
RobBobS - February 14, 2012
He's 36-49 over that period
if we’re going to try to use a single stat to pigeon hole him then I say he’s below average. of course we’re not going to try to do that
TJL - February 14, 2012
ERA is a lot more relevant that "wins"
Strasburg himself might not have managed a winning record playing in front of the Nats’ woeful offense the last several years.
RobBobS - February 14, 2012
my point was that neither are particularly relevant
as much as a prefer hard numbers to decide things, using them to gauge lannan’s value to the nats vs. trade value is likely impossible
TJL - February 14, 2012
Well....
ERA+ is a flawed stat because you’re basically just dividing the league ERA by the pitcher’s ERA, not bad for a crude stat, but a crude stat nonetheless and not one that should be taken by itself.. He has a career ERA+ of 103 and 100 supposedly represents average, but intermingled with Lincecum and Halladay’s ERAs are every September call-up and spot starter so at best Lannan is roughly average, but when you take in to account his WHIP 1.423 career and his career FIP of 4.61to me that says below average. Consequently, I stand by my claim that he’s average at best and below average at worst.
Pig.Pen - February 14, 2012
Well, ERA+ is adjusted for ballparks
But it is a very broad stat, and lands in an area that Lannan is good at. Lannan’s WHIP is high, but his GIDP% is also high … which may be why he consistently outperforms his FIP. And his ERA does consistently outperform his FIP, leaving open the question of whether he is consistenly fortunate … or that FIP is not capturing a positive aspect of his game. We can (and have, ad nauseum) had this discussion many times. I do think there is still growth potential in his game; he noticeably added velocity last year, and it enabled him to attack the zone better through most of the season.
To me, a key point for Lannan is whether you rate him as an above average MLB starter (as measured against the more or less 150 pitchers in MLB starting rotations) or whether he is an average #4 starter or an above average #5 starter. He’s not going to pitch above #5 in the Nationals’ rotation unless someone gets hurt. Of the three #5 candidates, I think that Wang has the slight early edge for the #5 spot going into Viera, because he has no options and is not a good bullpen candidate. Detwiler will make the team unless dealt, but can pitch out of the bullpen (3 LHRP in the pen!). Lannan isn’t a bullpen candidate and is the only one who can be sent to AAA, so he will have to win the #5 spot outright to avoid Syracuse.
d_c_guy - February 14, 2012
ERA+ is supposedly adjusted for ballparks
But the formula is (League Average ERA)/(Pitcher’s actual ERA) which would seem to favor pitcher’s who pitch in the biggest ballparks like Oakland or San Francisco and like I said is fairly crude. However, I’m not basing my opinion just on statistics because his stuff is fairly flat and slow he may miss bats or get outs with magic fairy dust, but typically 3 years is about the max you’ll see someone outperform their FIP so Lannan is due for regression.
As for where he slots, I would put him behind both Wang and Detwiler and would say that while he’s probably an average #5, he lacks the upside of a lot of other team’s #5 and wouldn’t have been the #5 pitcher for any of the playoff teams.
Pig.Pen - February 15, 2012
I don't think we're that far apart
I’ve often said that watching Lannan pitch makes my eyes bleed. That said, I thought that, in addition to the fact that he consistently outperforms his FIP (which only sets him up for regression if you believe that FIP is a true measure of his game, which I question), his stuff was better last year. His fastball was consistently 90-91 instead of 87-88, which is a pretty big difference. It doesn’t make his stuff great, but it certainly moves it from marginal to solid.
But the bottom line is, like I said above, that because he has options he has to win the job outright. Assuming no trades and exactly equal performance, the tie break order (IMO) goes (1) Wang; (2) Detwiler; (3) Lannan.
d_c_guy - February 15, 2012
After 3 years, which he is way over (that one season you mentioned was still 145 IP)
ERA is the best determinant… over all the other stats I love. So, yeah, it was enough of a sample.
William.Hatheway - February 16, 2012
Ask yourself a question.....
I saw nearly all of the Nat’s games last year. I gotta tell ya, I never really looked forward to any of his starts. Did you? BTW, that stupid necklace things these guys wear today REALLY look stupid on him.
Grandpaallewis - February 16, 2012
Many players are wearing those necklaces these days…..Storen is another pitcher who sports one. MLB seems to be the one sport that tolerates things like that moreso than other sports. The NFL is very restrictive. As for Lannan….YES; I always looked forward to watching him pitch, whether on TV for away games, or at the Park for the home games. I like Lannan very much.
sullyzz - February 16, 2012
Well, other sports have safety concerns.
Baseball, not so much.
rarumberger - February 16, 2012 via Android app
reply fail. AGAIN.
rarumberger - February 16, 2012 via Android app
True…..but other sports, the NFL in particular, are also very concerned about appearances; they will fine a player for almost anything.
sullyzz - February 16, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Federal Baseball to post a comment.