Rangers sign Harden

[TwinsBrewersWorldSeries]

I concur with those who are disappointed we are stuck with Wolf (ala Suppan 2.0) versus a 1 year $7.5m deal for Harden. If we had just signed Harden for 1/7.5, i would be thrilled! That said, i think the Brewers should make two more moves:

 

#1- Go ahead with the Hart/Maine swap

#2- Do whatever it takes to get Ben Sheets back here. He wants $12.0m... i'd do $6.0m base + incentives to get to 12.0. heck, make it a 2/24 $9m this season with a $15m option for next year/ $3m buyout. The preseason buzz for our team would be huge.

 

Injury issues aside.... Gallardo/Sheets/Wolf/Bush/Maine is lightyears ahead of our awful rotation from last year.

[Ennder]

140 IP is the upside for Harden, the more likely scenario is something like 100-120 IP. He isn't the same pitcher as earlier in his career so a 3.39 ERA isn't a very realistic expectation either. In Texas I bet his ERA is near 4 if not higher given his inability to throw either of his groundout pitches anymore.

[Invader3K]

People are talking like Melvin is done. He has said repeatedly he intends to obtain at least two starters. I think Mulder is a given, but it seems likely he will get at least one more guy. If he gets Sheets or someone like that, it will be roughly equivalent to this Harden signing that you all think is such a great deal. Personally I think Harden could be likely to miss more games than he pitches, but that's just my opinion.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Seriously, why do people have to continually say Wolf is Suppan 2.0? Statistically, they're not even close to similar. Suppan has never had a season close to as good as the season Wolf had last year. Mabye it's an outlier, I can buy that, but it's a precedent that he has the ability to be above average. Suppan was average to mediocre his entire career before we signed him.

[rluzinski]

Why is every other team getting an economic downturn discount but the Brewers? Harden has as much value as Wolf does in significantly less innings. They are roughly worth the same this year. WAR measures against a scrub (5.25 ERA) pitcher, so innings eater don't have some hidden value.

 

And even with a Doug Davis, the starting rotation is below average.

[jerichoholicninja]

On a one year deal Harden would give us 100 innings, maybe, this year. Then we need a pitcher next year. We have Wolf for three years which mean Doug doesn't have to go out and build a new rotation every offseason.

[PeaveyFury]

And even with a Doug Davis, the starting rotation is below average.

 

Really? I'd like to see evidence to prove that.

[Invader3K]

Harden has as much value as Wolf does in significantly less innings. They are roughly worth the same this year.

I really don't know what to make of this statement. I guess I just disagree with it outright.

[TooLiveBrew]

Unless I'm misreading Russ, he means that he expects Harden's production in 2010 (over fewer IP than Wolf) to be roughly equal to Wolf's production in 2010, because he believes Harden will turn in the better-quality innings.

[StearnsFTW]

Yeah, I'm super-glad Harden is off the market. He was the player I least wanted to see the Brewers sign. Completely unreliable. I can only imagine the kvetching that would've gone on with him after what Sheets caused on this board.

 

Yes, he could be spectacular. More likely, the Rangers owner should've lit 7.5 million dollars on fire just to see what it was like.

 

We'll probably be able to sign him next year for half that when he makes 12-15 starts in 2010.

[StearnsFTW]

Harden has as much value as Wolf does in significantly less innings. They are roughly worth the same this year.

I really don't know what to make of this statement. I guess I just disagree with it outright.

I don't understand either. Not necessarily disagreeing, I just don't get it. When Harden goes down, you have to replace him with Narveson or whomever. I imagine the replacement's era has to be factored into Harden's value (or lack thereof).

[Ennder]

WAR compares itself to a replacement level player. So if we just had a replacement level player all year he would have a 0 WAR. So if Harden puts in a 2 WAR in 100 IP and Wolf a 2 WAR in 200 IP they are even players even with the replacement level guy filling in 100 IP.

 

I just disagree with how much WAR Harden will produce. I think the Rangers will be lucky to get his 1.8 WAR from last year and 1.8 is the lower level of expectation for Wolf.

[danzig6767]

Unless I'm misreading Russ, he means that he expects Harden's production in 2010 (over fewer IP than Wolf) to be roughly equal to Wolf's production in 2010, because he believes Harden will turn in the better-quality innings.

I'm not a stats junkie, so how is bullpen wear and likely having to fill in innings with a poor starter to eat those innings Harden misses factor into all these stat abbreviations i don't understand?

[jjfanec]

What is with the love for Rich Harden?

I'm fond of the career 3.39 ERA and 1.24 WHIP. Spectacular pitcher.

 

The difference between a special player (Harden) at a team-friendly contract (1 year, $7.5 per) and a pedestrian player (Wolf) at 3 years, $9 per is such a monumental difference. It's like the deals happened in two totally different environments, yet they happened on the same day. I can't fathom it.

Paying a premium for 200 innings of merely average/good pitching instead of much, much less money for 140 innings of very good pitching makes no sense to me. We'd be far better off right now if we had Harden at 2 years, $14 million than we are with Wolf at 3 years, $30 million. It's heartbreaking.

 

 

Harden is not spectacular. That is the biggest overstatement I have seen on this board in awhile. He was great with the Cubs two years ago, but last year with his 4 ERA and Whip of 1.34 is most definitely not spectacular. The two years before that he barely pitched. I know he strikes guys out a lot but he does so at the cost of walking guys and pitching very few innings. Wolf is going to you 7 or 8 more starts and unless Harden can duplicate his stats from two years ago even though over the last four he has done that once.

 

Heartbreaking? Harden did not get 2 years at 14 million. They got him for 7.5 this year and an option for 11.5 million next year. Throwing out ideas like it was 2 for 14 million is just wrong. Harden is not the pitcher you have decided he is. His career numbers are mostly irrelevant because over the past 4 years he has had two injury shortened years, a great year (albeit injury shortened) and an good (albeit injury shortened) year.

[RyDogg66]

Definitely makes the Wolf deal look bad. One year commitment, only $7.5 million, and Harden is a special pitcher. Instead, we took on 3 years, $30 million of someone very unspectacular. Ouch.

I have a hard time putting much stock in this comment since you have been calling the Wolf deal bad even before Harden signed.

 

I am wondering to all of those who are crapping all over Wolf and praising the Rangers for this move. Which pitcher would you rather have at 3 years and 30 million? Wolf or Harden? An answer of neither isnt acceptable. Considering there is a chance you might get 40 starts total out of Harden in that span I am going to say Wolf. The reason reliable pitchers get longer contracts is because you are paying for the reliability + the talent upside. With guys like Harden you pay for upside and a prayer, which is why they will be lucky to ever get a deal longer than one year.

[JJHardy7]

I can't believe how some people are that upset in Harden vs. Wolf. There is a huge difference when you have to call up a career AAAA guy (not ripping on said player) to replace a pitcher like Harden/Sheets. As Brewers fans, we've seen that huge gap. Sheets was very special, but when he went down that not only dragged down our SP, but also the bullpen. If the Brewers wanted Harden, they would've gone after him. There's just too much risk there IMO for that to have been a legitimate idea. In my ideal world, it would've been awesome to sign Wolf and Harden (at a huge discount). If Harden gets $7.5 million a year, that makes the Wolf deal look somewhat market level IMO. I know the 3rd year worries me, but given the entire situation (i.e. Harden's injury concerns) I think both deals make sense. I agree with Ennder...Wolf was the right fit for the Brewers...not Harden.

[igor67]

Rich Harden is a slightly healthier Jeff D'amico. I'm not at all sold that 7.5 million is a great value for a guy who's such a low bet to give a lot of innings. Bedard for example you can atleast count on to make it through a good chunk of the season and break down late. With the current roster construction I can see investing in a lottery ticket for about 5 million. More than that doesn't seem like it makes a lot of sense. Wolf and Harden aren't prospects, so trying to base what they are going to do based on fastball speed doesn't make a whole lot of sense. We have actual major league data to look at and consider in context and not just cherry pick a prefered stat.

[Funketown]

What is with the love for Rich Harden?

I'm fond of the career 3.39 ERA and 1.24 WHIP. Spectacular pitcher.

 

The difference between a special player (Harden) at a team-friendly contract (1 year, $7.5 per) and a pedestrian player (Wolf) at 3 years, $9 per is such a monumental difference. It's like the deals happened in two totally different environments, yet they happened on the same day. I can't fathom it.

Paying a premium for 200 innings of merely average/good pitching instead of much, much less money for 140 innings of very good pitching makes no sense to me. We'd be far better off right now if we had Harden at 2 years, $14 million than we are with Wolf at 3 years, $30 million. It's heartbreaking.

 

 

I think you're a bit overoptimistic on the innings totals for Harden. Over the past four years, he's pitched just 361 innings. That's about 90 per year. His fastball has dropped in velocity from 94.4 MpH in 2005 to 92.0 MpH last year. His strikeout numbers are outstanding, but he was pretty eratic on the mound last year, and he is prone to the longball.

 

Harden could very well put up a 3 WAR season next year, but he could also put up a .4 WAR season. I think Harden and Wolf both project as somewhere around 2 WAR pitchers on average, but Wolf is significantly less risky, and likewise, more valuable. That said, I like the Harden signing for the Rangers. I just think it's a bit outlandish to decide that the Wolf signing was so terrible based on a high risk player getting 7.5 million on a one year deal plus option.

[TooLiveBrew]

We'll probably be able to sign him next year for half that when he makes 12-15 starts in 2010

One thing I've been wondering about, if Harden only pitches a short season in '10, is how realistic targeting him as a bullpen arm would be. He cut way down on using his slider back in 2007 with Oakland, presumably to reduce wear & tear on his arm/shoulder. He didn't throw the pitch at all in 2009, and has essentially been a FB/CH pitcher for three seasons running. Both his FB & CH appear to be good pitches, and I have little doubt Harden could be an elite bullpen arm. I'm sure he'll want to remain a SP, but if he can't pitch a full season in this coming campaign, he really won't have much argument that he should be considered a starter imo.

[rluzinski]

We have Wolf for three years which mean Doug doesn't have to go out and build a new rotation every offseason.

 

Instead, he'll have a starting pitcher that's projected to have something like a 4.7 ERA in 2012 for $11 mil. Now, there's lot's of uncertainty in even projecting his 2010 performance, so I won't pretend that 2012 projection doesn't have a huge uncertainty. But when you sign a guy to a long term deal, that's exactly what you have to do. Unless Melvin knows something about Wolf that suggests he won't get worse from age 33 to 36, above average production is not something he can count on.

 

Well, I can't prove anything, I can only provide you the data and methodology I used to come to that conclusion. I first started with the starting rotation's CHONE ERA projections:

 

Gallardo: 3.60

Wolf: 4.42

Bush: 4.64

Davis: 4.69

Parra: 4.75

 

For an NL team, there's about 960 starter innings per year (6 IP x 162 starts). It would be foolish to presume no injuries, so I'm giving each 5 starters 160 IP and the remaining 160 innings to a replacement level pitcher (Some AAA scrub with 5.5 ERA). Indeed, if you add up the CHONE projected IP for the 5 starting pitchers, you are left with 165 innings, so it works well enough. Averaging the 5 starters and one replacement level pitcher gives us a 4.6 ERA. The NL average starting pitcher ERA last year was 4.32. It wouldn't be a bad rotation (worlds better than last year's) but still below average.

I really don't know what to make of this statement (Harden as valuable as Wolf for 2010). I guess I just disagree with it outright.

 

Again, I started with CHONE projections:

 

Harden: 3.95 ERA, 132 IP

Wolf: 4.42 ERA, 163 IP

 

We want to know which performance is the more valuable one. We obviously can't just compare runs given up, since it would reward less innings, not more. We need a baseline. The lowest you really can go is the AAAA scrub reject replacement level starting pitcher. The assumption is that at that performance level, the supply outstrips demand, so you never have to settle for lower production. A full season of a replacement level starter is something like a 5.5 ERA and 195 IP (assuming 1/5th of the starts at 6 innings/start). He'll give up 119 earned runs.

 

So to measure earned runs above replacement, we simply see how many more runs a replacement level pitcher would have given up for the innings the starter pitched:

 

ERAR = (5.5 - ERA)*IP/9

 

The assumption is, if the pitcher in question isn't pitching, the replacement level pitcher is. So if Harden "only" averages 5-1/3 IP/GS, we assume the crappy long reliever picks up the additional 1 IP, or whatever. If a manger wants to instead put the load on the better part of his bullpen, that's his decision. To roughly convert to runs above replacement, you can just divide by .92 (something like 92% of runs are earned on average, if I remember right).

 

So, the lower the pitcher's ERA, the more valuable he is. And provided he's better than replacement level, the more IP, the more valuable. Anyway, this is what we get for the two pitchers in question:

 

Harden: 24.7 RAR

Wolf: 21.2 RAR

 

Now, I'm sure some are crying foul over Wolf's IP projection. "He's an innings eater" they'll scream (god, this reminds me of the Suppan signing). I don't know what goes into CHONE's IP projection but I assume age, previous IP and regression to the league mean are the primary variables. If you assume 600 IP for Wolf over the contract, I can almost guarantee you that you will be disappointed. But let's say 163 IP is too pessimistic. We have to set Wolf's IP to 190 innings before his 4.42 ERA is as valuable as Harden's 3.95 ERA is in 132. If you just think Harden's projection is wrong, that's fine. I won't say you are wrong.

Which pitcher would you rather have at 3 years and 30 million? Wolf or Harden? An answer of neither isnt acceptable.

 

What is the utility of even asking that hypothetical? I don't WANT either because BOTH are risks long term. Harden is more injury prone and Wolf is barely above average at age 33. I'll take the equal odds of Harden pitching 50 or 180 IP for a $7.5 mil commitment over comitting $30 mil to Wolf.

[JonnyLungs]

One thing I've been wondering about, if Harden only pitches a short season in '10, is how realistic targeting him as a bullpen arm would be.

Take everything you've talked about and the fact the Harden can't finish six innings on average in a start, and you've basically already got a reliever that teams continue to trot out as a starter.

 

I will also echo the question of whether WAR considers the issue of bullpen wear and tear when a starter consistently runs up over 100 pitches by the fifth and sixth inning and has to be taken out. Harden's numbers may look sexy when looked at with tunnel vision but when you put them into their proper context he seems like a very frustrating pitcher that is probably best suited for the bullpen

[Ennder]

I don't think the 132 IP projection for Harden is realistic at all though or the 163 for Wolf. They are both being regressed towards a mean in opposite directions. I would think a projection of something like 120 IP for Harden and 175 IP for Wolf would be way more realistic.

 

I'm also not sure I buy the 4.42 ERA for Wolf given the fact his xFIP and FIP have been better than that over the past 3 seasons. Looks like it is pulling way too much weight from the ERA in 2007, an ERA that peripherals didn't agree with.

 

Whatever you use I don't think there is a huge gap here in talent vs value and I think the fact the Brewer rotation needs a sure thing easily makes up that gap. We have Gallardo and then pray atm since all of the other starters have some sort of question mark to them, Harden is not the best fit.

[Ennder]

Harden makes $6.5MM next year, with $3.5MM in incentives based on innings pitched. The deal includes an $11MM mutual option for 2011 that includes a $1MM buyout in case either side wants to decline. So the deal, which is still pending a physical, guarantees Harden a minimum of $7.5MM

 

So this could easily cost them $11M if he plays most of the season and gets hurt late. If he plays a moderate number of innings it is probably more like $9M. If he gets early then they only get stuck $7.5M.

[rluzinski]

I don't think the 132 IP projection for Harden is realistic at all though or the 163 for Wolf. They are both being regressed towards a mean in opposite directions. I would think a projection of something like 120 IP for Harden and 175 IP for Wolf would be way more realistic.

 

Harden averaged 145 innings the last 2 years, so 132 doesn't look unreasonable to me. You think 12 less innings for Harden and 12 more for Wolf? That's such a small difference that I wouldn't be foolish enough to call you wrong. Really, there's a huge amount of uncertainty in playing time estimates anyway. If I use your IP, they are basically equal for 2010.

 

I'm also not sure I buy the 4.42 ERA for Wolf given the fact his xFIP and FIP have been better than that over the past 3 seasons. Looks like it is pulling way too much weight from the ERA in 2007, an ERA that peripherals didn't agree with.

 

At first glance, I had the same thought. I don't think CHONE is relying on ERA too much, though. I think it's the aging adjustment. A 5/3/2 weighted average of Wolf gives us:

 

184 IP

4.17 ERA

4.03 FIP

 

Even if you just start with his 3 year weighted average FIP, you need to adjust for age. In 163 innings, that could be 4 extra earned runs, which is an extra .21 ERA. In reality, it's really a combination of more earned runs and less IP, though. (As an aside, keep, in mind, that's a park neutral projection. Wolf is a flyball pitcher going to a HR park (1.05 HR factor)). <-- nested parenthesis are OK, right? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

Using your IP guesses and a 4.2 ERA for Wolf, he's worth about 20% more than Harden and getting paid about 20% more in 2010.

 

 

So this could easily cost them $11M if he plays most of the season and gets hurt late.

 

Like a 3.95 ERA in 180 IP? Sounds worth it to me. Rangers aren't making the playoffs anyway, right? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Tbadder]

Man oh man...I'd rather have Harden for 7.5 than Hawkins for 7.5 and an extra year.