You may have read my recent article on Ichiro, where I use my new stat, Ultimate Value Index, to make sense of one of the most unique players the game has ever seen.
One thing that makes baseball great is the wide variance of career paths. Some players have their career years at age 23; others peak at 36. You just can't make assumptions about players getting better or worse.
One case of an early peak is Giants lefthander Barry Zito, whose three best years came right at the beginning of his career, culminating in his AL Cy Young Award in 2002 at age 24.
Since that year, Zito has mysteriously morphed into a average pitcher. He signed a 7-year, $126 million deal with the Giants prior to the 2007 season, and switching leagues only seemed to accelerate his decline.
Why has Zito gone downhill? Or has he gone downhill at all? Was he just lucky for three years?
If you're familiar with my writing, you are probably familiar with my new statistic, Ultimate Value Index (UVI). In this article, I discussed some basic facts about First-Order Pitching UVI and Adjusted Lines.
I figure that Adjusted Lines could provide some insight on if Zito has truly declined, or if he was just lucky from 2000-02, or just unlucky from 2003-present.
As with Ichiro, I am going into this article with no preconceived notions; I'm letting the numbers do the talking, and I'll make sense of them afterwards. I've always liked Zito and never had any issues with Ichiro, whether or not Ichiro is "great" or simply "good."
Barry Zito's Adjusted Lines (UVIs are all UVI1)
2000: 86.3 IP, 83 H, 1.48 WHIP, 4.41 ERA, .314 BABIP, .243 AVG, .334 OBP, .357 SLG, .691 OPS, .434 UVI
2001: 210.7 IP, 195 H, 1.31 WHIP, 4.18 ERA, .314 BABIP, .236 AVG, .313 OBP, .360 SLG, .673 OPS, .425 UVI
2002: 218.3 IP, 215 H, 1.34 WHIP, 4.40 ERA, .313 BABIP, .247 AVG, .316 OBP, .391 SLG, .707 OPS, .446 UVI
2003: 217 IP, 230 H, 1.47 WHIP, 4.56 ERA, .313 BABIP, .261 AVG, .332 OBP, .393 SLG, .725 OPS, .451 UVI
2004: 211.7 IP, 220 H, 1.42 WHIP, 4.76 ERA, .318 BABIP, .257 AVG, .328 OBP, .419 SLG, .747 OPS, .474 UVI
2005: 216.7 IP, 220 H, 1.43 WHIP, 4.71 ERA, .315 BABIP, .253 AVG, .331 OBP, .405 SLG, .736 OPS, .467 UVI
2006: 214.7 IP, 230 H, 1.53 WHIP, 5.03 ERA, .318 BABIP, .263 AVG, .347 OBP, .421 SLG, .768 OPS, .487 UVI
2007: 190 IP, 202 H, 1.50 WHIP, 4.87 ERA, .315 BABIP, .262 AVG, .336 OBP, .420 SLG, .756 OPS, .478 UVI
Career: 1589.3 IP, 1617 H, 1.43 WHIP, 4.63 ERA, .314 BABIP, .253 AVG, .329 OBP, .399 SLG, .728 OPS, .460 UVI
Before I go on, I'd like to remind you two things about the ERA: First, it's very crude, unlike everything else here, and second, it's actually RA, because it doesn't count defense.
So yes, Zito's ERAs should have been slightly better than that, but everything else is exactly where it should be. Also, remember that walks, strikeouts, homers allowed, HBPs, and groundball percentage remain the same.
So what does this tell us? First of all, you'll notice there is no big drop between 2002 and 2003. Also, 2002 was not Zito's best season. In fact 2001 turned out to be the best year of Zito's career to date, which is even more extraordinary.
The dropoff from 2002 to 2003, was in fact far less severe than the dropoff from 2001 to 2002, or from 2003 to 2004.
We can rank Zito's years like this:
2001
2000
2002
2003
2005
2004
2007
2006
It's interesting that Zito's worst year was his contract year. Baseball Prospectus has found that players historically perform better in contract years, so Zito bucked that trend as well.
One thing is true: Even after adjusting for luck, the first four years of Zito's career were the best. However, as the UVIs show, Zito was never really a tremendous pitcher. Even at his best in 2001, Zito pitched like a No. 2 starter.
The difference between 2001 and 2006, UVI-wise, is .062. That's significant, but it's just the difference between a No. 2 and a No. 4. Zito, even at his worst, was still a good player to have in the rotation.
Why exactly was he worse from 2004-07 than from 2000-03? Several reasons. 2004 and 2007 featured bad home run rates, and 2006 saw Zito's walk rate balloon.
Notice that 2005, the season where Zito kept both the walks and homers in check, he had a better year than any year since 2003. There, however, 13 HBPs didn't help his OBPA.
From 2000-03, Zito's Expected SLG was below .400 each year. Since, it's been above .400 each year. You can see that in 2003, his AVG and OBP against had already started to decline, but his low home run rate kept his overall value close to 2002 levels.
When the homers ballooned in 2004 and nothing else changed, his slugging percentage also increased, causing his performance to hit a new low. Since then, Zito hasn't really improved on anything enough to turn his career really around.
The popular notion that Zito is "getting worse" may have something to it, given that his '06 and '07 are worse than his '04 and '05, but the notion that he crumbled upon going to SF is incorrect, as he fixed his walk rate upon switching leagues, and dramatically cut his HBPs.
Facing weaker lineups in the NL, this should be expected, but Zito was actually better in 2007 than he was in 2006.
The fact remains, however, that Barry Zito is indeed just a No. 4 starter who's getting paid to be an ace. His career path, although not as exaggerated as one would think, does not lend hope that he will ever meet the expectations reflected by his contract.
comments (19) write a comment »
write a new comment
3 months ago
Interesting read. I always figured one of the reasons Zito sucked on the Giants is because when he was leaving the A's he left a very good defense (especially in 2006 when Swisher was playing first base).
Even Zito's un-adjusted stats are pretty mediocre. I mean a 1.4 WHIP in a contract year?? Jeez.
The fact that he's a number 4 starter that is being paid like an ace (and starting #1 in the rotation like an ace), shows how dumb Sabean is.
All that said, as an A's lover and Giants hater, I still feel kind of bad for Barry when he gets shellacked every time he steps on the bump.
from 3 months ago
Yeah, it's not his fault Sabean thought he was the next big thing.
3 months ago
From what I've read, he's often criticized as falling apart, and will probably be remembered as not being able to live up to promise, but as you've pointed out, his promise wasn't quite as great as it seemed as his crumble wasn't quite as great as it appeared. Interesting.
from 3 months ago
He had three mediocre years before the ridiculous contract; it's on the GM to see that and not foolishly think he'll suddenly find himself. Signing Barry Zito to the biggest pitcher contract in history (pre-Santana) doesn't mean that he's the best pitcher in the game. If anyone expected that he'd magically improve to meet the contract, they're being stupid. The contract says less about Zito than it does about the man who proposed it, and anyone who blames Zito for that isn't thinking clearly.
This is why GMs need to look at things like UVI: you don't throw money away like this.
3 months ago
does UVI take windup and something i'll call "ridiculousity of curveball" into effect? if you adjusted for these two factors, zito would probably be one of the best pitchers (UVI-wise) in the major leagues
from 3 months ago
Haha, curveball break aside, he's definitely hittable.
One of the things I've always found weird about Zito is that he has a career reverse platoon split, despite the great curve. I have a feeling that especially post-'03, the curve looks better than it really is. If it's soft, looping, and easy to pick up, major league hitters will hit it, even if it breaks 6 feet. And that's before taking Zito's bad control into account...
from 3 months ago
yeah i know he's hittable...i just like crazy curveballs. combine that with the little hitch in his windup, and he's fun to watch. especially when he's playing against milwaukee!
from 3 months ago
Oh yeah I'm a sucker for good curves too. You got some good ones in Milwaukee with Sheets, Gallardo, and my personal favorite pitcher, Seth McClung...you gotta love McClung...100 mph fastball and insane curve, and no idea where they're going.
I loved Zito when he was on the A's because of that curve. Like I said in the article, my like or dislike of a player isn't 100% correlated with how good they actually are. Wouldn't be any fun that way.
from 3 months ago
i like mcclung because of his first appearance as a brewer. if i remember right, they were losing pretty bad, and they were playing the reds or some division opponent like that. i don't remember the exact circumstances, but it was an obvious beaning situation. so ned yost brings mcclung on, he nails the guy with his fastball, and he gets ejected. basically, he was like the archetypal hockey goon, only playing baseball.
doug davis has a pretty nice curveball too, but he's since moved on to the diamondbacks. i think what sheets throws needs a different name...i mean, it curves, but he throws it in the 80-82 range. it's one of those "hammer" curves instead of the "good ol' uncle charlie" curves.
3 months ago
Plain and simple, Zito wasn't worth the money. Anyone can tell you that just by watching him. His fastball isn't much harder than Wakefield's these days. But that wasn't his fault, and maybe it wasn't really the Giants' either. He was the most "touted" pitcher in his free agent class, so the other teams going after him probably would have paid up like the Giants did. But they didn't... lucky them.
from 3 months ago
I'd be surprised if any other GM in the game would've given him quite that much money, but yes, he would have been overpaid. The point of this wasn't so much to say what he is now, but to find out if he truly peaked at 24 like that, and the answer is that he actually peaked at 23, but his decline isn't as much from the '02 level as you'd think. After all, the UVI difference between his Cy Young year and 2007 is .032, and the expected ERA difference is just .47, so it isn't like he was once a No. 1 and is now a No. 5. He was worth less than it appeared then and more than it seems right now.
Had I just wanted to say he wasn't worth the money, I sure wouldn't need to call in UVI to help me do that.
3 months ago
Oh ya, forgot about that UVI...My mistake :/
from 3 months ago
Forgot about what UVI?
3 months ago
Never mind. I've always played around with numbers too, but nothing that intense. One thing that kind of makes things stand out for me though is when you see a real number value (like a 1-100 type of thing). I just feel like that would make things stand out more than a percentage. So I put these little formulas together that add slugging, average, on base, strikeouts, walks, all that good stuff. But I only get through about 30 or 40 players and get incredibly bored.
from 3 months ago
1-100s are tough to do, because it's really tough to neatly fit people into a scale like that.
And hey, I pretty much define the scales for UVI in my first-order pitching UVI and second-order hitting UVI articles, so it's not like there isn't a pretty good scale in place.
But to spare you the time of reading that, think of hitting UVI's as from .350 to .700 (except Barry Bonds, but he's just crazy like that) and pitching UVI's from .600 to .350. .470ish is about average.
3 months ago
So you're an A's guy huh? I've never really gotten into the A's. Why? The only real reason, other than they didn't have Barry Bonds, I hate their announcers, and I love Kruk and Kuip for the Giants. Do you watch any SF ball? What do you think about this new kid Bowker, if you've seen him?
from 3 months ago
Yeah I've watched stuff on every team. Bowker looks like he's got some pop in his bat at least, but he doesn't strike me as a big-time slugger type, looking at his minor league numbers. He could be a late bloomer after his nice year at Connecticut in 2007 though; it's kind of hard to say. For every one of guys like this who turn into something, three turn into Brandon Sing (Look it up, haha). So I wouldn't bet on him being too good, but stranger things have happened. Given how out-of-line his '07 was with his previous numbers, it's tough to draw any conclusions on him until after this year. But I'll say this; he's sure better than Brian Bocock. Ugh.
Don't have a problem with our announcers myself; the only ones who I hate are the White Sox ones, and of course Miller and Morgan on ESPN.
3 months ago
Oh man, Jon Miller is the man. At least as a Giants announcer, anyway. I don't know about ESPN. Ya, I don't think Bocock will be a big slugger either, but he really looks like he could be a high-average guy who puts the ball in the gaps. And for his choppy swing, he seems to have very good power. Don't sell out on Bocock yet. He can't hit, but the kid's got a glove and a great arm.
from 3 months ago
Umm, look at what he did in High-A last year and then tell me he can hit. Bocock's upside is glove-oriented utility guy, and he won't reach it for two or three years; the fact that Sabean put him straight from High-A to MLB is insane after that year. He has no business being in MLB right now, esp. while Ivan Ochoa is in AAA.
I don't have anywhere near as many issues with Miller as I do with Morgan, so fine on that.
write a new comment