When evaluating Zito, believe the real numbers
I don't pay all that much attention to quotes in the newspapers. I used to. I used to spend a goodly amount of my precious electronic space running down ridiculous things I read in the papers and magazines. But I got tired of doing that. So did you, probably.
Then the other day, I saw this one in the New York Times, Scott Boras talking about his most eligible bachelor/client -- "With
Barry Zito, I don't need any perception. Sometimes, I need help. Not on this one. It's rather obvious. He's a special player" -- and I took it as a recall to arms.
Boras doesn't need any help on this one, huh? So why did he say this, just a couple of weeks ago?
"He is, next to
Greg Maddux, the most durable pitcher to hit the marketplace in more than 30 years He's never missed a start his entire career. He is a winner and he is durable. In the last 25 or 30 years, only two pitchers have pitched 200 innings every year and had over 100 victories for six years."
That was in the San Francisco Chronicle on Dec. 5, reported by Henry Schulman. Sure, there's nothing untoward about stating the facts if they help your client. And Boras' assertions look reasonable enough. Is Zito the "most durable pitcher to hit the marketplace in more than 30 years?" Depends on how you define "most durable" and "marketplace." Is Zito a winner? Well, he's won more games than he's lost. Is he durable? However you define durable, Zito certainly qualifies, because it's true that he's never missed a start in his career.
What about that other claim, though? Let's be fair, and focus on just the last 25 years. How many pitchers have, over a six-season span, pitched
at least 200 innings in each season and won more than 100 games?
Two, as Boras said? Nope.
Three? Nope.
Four? Nope.
Without looking all that hard, I found five:
Randy Johnson did it once (that is, over one span of six seasons);
Roger Clemens,
Tom Glavine, and Jack Morris each did it twice, and Maddux did it nine times (consecutively, beginning in 1988).
Hey, anybody can make a mistake, right? Maybe when Boras said "two" he really meant to say "four or five," or maybe he was misquoted. But here's the thing:
Barry Zito has not done this. In his (only) six full seasons, Zito has pitched at least 200 innings in each, but he has not won more than 100 games; he's won 95 (he's got 102 career wins because he won seven in his short rookie season).
Boras doesn't need any help? I read this in USA Today, a bit more than a month ago:
Boras says Zito, 28, is destined to be the finest left-handed starter since Steve Carlton by the time he's 35. There's a fancy 74-page glossy book to prove it.
"You're talking about a very special guy who has never missed a start," Boras says. "His durability has been rewarded with 102 wins. He has (a Cy Young trophy) in his back pocket. He has three All-Stars. He beat ( Minnesota's
Johan) Santana, the best pitcher in baseball, in the postseason. "Barry could be one of the best left-handed pitchers of all time. Players like this are Maddux-esque."
Zito does have that Cy Young trophy. Jack McDowell has one, too. He did beat Johan Santana in the postseason. Also, Johnny Kucks once beat Don Newcombe in the postseason. Dave McNally beat Don Drysdale. John Candelaria beat Jim Palmer. Et cetera to infinity, plus one.
Is Zito likely to become the finest left-handed starter since Carlton? His competition includes Johnson (five Cy Young trophies, 280 wins and counting) and Tom Glavine (two Cy Young trophies, 290 wins and counting). It's one thing to suggest that Zito's going to wind up in the Hall of Fame -- unlikely, but certainly conceivable -- and quite another to say he's going to be even better than the currently active left-handers who we
know are going to be Hall of Famers (not to mention
Jamie Moyer,
Kenny Rogers, Santana,
Andy Pettitte and
Mark Buehrle).
And of course, comparing Zito to Maddux is even sillier. As good as Johnson and Glavine have been, Maddux has been better. Zito has one thing in common with Maddux, or perhaps two: He doesn't throw a million miles an hour, but he'll give you a million innings.
Comparing [Barry] Zito to [Greg] Maddux is even sillier. As good as [Randy] Johnson and [Tom] Glavine have been, Maddux has been better. Zito has one thing in common with Maddux, or perhaps two: He doesn't throw a million miles an hour, but he'll give you a million innings.
Even that, though … Zito's been wonderfully durable, but not uniquely. With 1,338 innings over the last six seasons, Zito's only third in the majors over that span, behind
Livan Hernandez and Buehrle (and four other pitchers have racked up at least 1,300 innings).
Boras says that Zito is a "special player," but what exactly makes him special? How good is Zito, really? It's obvious that he's not Maddux-esque, or Carlton-esque, or Glavine-esque. But is Zito even Oswalt-esque, or Halladay-esque? Buehrle-esque?
Before trying to put him in some sort of context, let's split Zito's six full seasons in half: 2001-2003 (Part 1), and 2004-2006 (Part 2, so far) …
Starts Innings BB SO HR ERA RSAAPart 1 105 675 246 533 61 3.17 92Part 2 103 662 269 485 81 4.05 34
Through the 2003 season, Zito
was a special pitcher (by the way, RSAA stands for Runs Saved Above Average, courtesy of the Complete Baseball Encyclopedia). Since 2003, though? Not so much. The walks and homers and ERA are up ( i.e. bad), the strikeouts and Runs Saved Above Average are down (ditto).
How does Zito compare to some of the other top young starters in the game? Considering only 2004 through 2006, here are some of our special pitchers:
Starts Innings ERA RSAASantana 101 693 2.75 137Oswalt 102 699 3.14 93B. Webb 101 672 3.40 87C'penter 93 645 3.10 85Halladay 72 495 3.24 80Zito 103 662 4.05 34
That is not an exhaustive list, by any means. Over the last three seasons, Zito ranks just 27th among starters in Runs Saved Above Average. With 34, he's behind not only those luminaries listed above, but also (among others) fellow left-handers Buehrle (58 RSAA), Pettitte (56),
Dontrelle Willis (48), Rogers (46), Glavine (40) and
C.C. Sabathia (36). We might be charitable, and bump Zito up a few spots because he's been pitching in the tougher league. Still pretty hard to argue that he's one of the 20 best starters in the majors (especially if we give Oakland's defense as much credit for his recent success as it probably deserves).
Why is Boras so desperately trying to create this perception of Zito as a truly special player? Because that's what agents do. I'll bet Boras knows
exactly how good Zito is. Or if he doesn't, he's got a bunch of bright people in his office who do. I'll bet that 74-page glossy book doesn't contain any out-and-out lies. Lying in print isn't good business. But I'll bet it doesn't mention that over the last three seasons Zito's been a good pitcher but not a great one. I'll bet it doesn't mention that he's not one of the dozen best pitchers in the majors, and probably not even better than Buehrle or Sabathia.
In today's inflated market, where
Gil Meche is paid $11 million per season to be humdrum, Zito is worth something like $15 million per season, if only because he's so reliable. But Zito's agent doesn't want $15 million. He wants $17 million or more, and he's going to get that only if he can convince some team that Zito's new six-year contract is going to cover the middle years of a Hall of Fame career.
Considering the financial profligacy that we've seen over the last 25 (or 30) years, does anybody want to bet that he can't?
