Darvish is a Cub!

[DanTown]

What's more likely:

1. Baseball players, most notably pitchers, are having negative evolution compared to 50 years ago
or
2. The game is drastically different and there are things that have obviously changed that do not allow any pitcher to throw anywhere close to pre 1980 levels?

 

[Omeletpants]

League slashline in 1969 (first year lowered mound) for the NL was .250/.319/.369 and a OPS+ of 93
Curt Flood was a slightly better than average hitter in the NL with a slash of ..285/.344/.366 and a OPS+ of 100
There were two players with a slugging percentage above .600
There were eight players with a slugging percentage between .500 and .599
There were 25 players with a slugging percentage between .400 and .499


League slashline in 2017 for the NL was .253/.325/.423 and a OPS+ of 94
Denard Span was an "average" hitter in the NL with a slash of .272/.329/.427 and a OPS+ of 100
There were two qualified hitters with slugging percentages above .600
There were 17 qualified hitters with slugging percentages between .500 and .599
There were 38 qualified hitters with slugging percentages between .400 and .499

The idea that pitchers in 1969 faced similar hitters is laughable. And it's not velocity that causes arms to fatigue, it's an over abundance of breaking pitches. Almost any pitcher will tell you that if they throw just heat that they can do that but they can't get hitters out in the majors without deception and breaking pitches. Because of the advent of video scouting, pitchers have to be way more consistent with their pitching mechanics and not "tip" via slowing down to throw breaking pitches. If pitchers could naturally throw breaking pitches in a manner that is maybe consistent but not possible to pick up to the human eye like they did for the first 100 years of baseball, then pitchers could still throw 300 innings and such. But there is no way that pitchers arms have gotten weaker but they've been asked to do far more.

Not buying it. I watch the games and see pitchers gassed after 70 pitches and cant get past 6 innings. By 75 pitches, managers are itching to pull that pitcher and the pitcher is anticipating the hook. So, it becomes a psychological thing where there is a barrier or limit to what they can pitch. In weightlifting, if all you bench is 100 lbs then that becomes your limit. With better travel, food, doctors, drugs, training the limit has become less? It's in their heads

 

[FrankieLyrical]

This is going to be a fun season. Let's make it 4 straight year to the playoffs :buttrock:

 

[Shawon0Meter]

Most of my co-workers that like baseball are Twins fans and have been stoked about signing Darvish for months. Suddenly today it was all about Tommy John surgery and his World Series performance :lmao:

 

[didshereallysaythat]

I heard someone say that the Cubs basically have 4 number 1 starters. I am not THAT confident but I do think the Cubs have one of the best rotations now.

 

[CSF77]

I heard someone say that the Cubs basically have 4 number 1 starters. I am not THAT confident but I do think the Cubs have one of the best rotations now.

It was 4 #2 starters. Darvish, Q and Lester have all been 1A-2 quality pitchers for a long time. Hendricks honestly is borderline TOR/MOR. He is closer to a 3 honestly and is over performing his talent level which is perfectly fine and he off sets any rotation with his stuff. Chatwood I really can't gauge yet honestly. I would need to see a full year out of Coors. He may end up sucking as he mechanics were screwed up by pitching at that park and may need time to fix his mechanics. Or he may just jump out of the gate and be a dark horse. Or he may just suck. We will never know until he is a established product out of that hell hole.

 

[beckdawg]

The interesting upshot of the Darvish deal rather than Arrieta is that the cubs will now get a post-2nd round pick when Arrieta eventually signs. It's likely not a huge deal but between that and the Davis pick they likely have ~$1.5 mil in additional slot money. As a point of reference here, last year the cubs had an additional 1st round pick(fowler) and had $7,454,900 in pool money. That extra pick for fowler was worth $2,184,300. Between that and the cubs finishing a bit lower in the standing this year(picked last because of WS) they likely will have a similar total pool. Right now they pick 24th which was about $300k more than the 27th pick they had this year. And obviously the picks on down the line are a few 10's of thousands more as well. That $7.5 mil was enough to boost the cubs to 18th in total money this past draft. So obviously they aren't going to have ridiculous amounts to spend in the draft but for a team that finished 3 straight years in the NLCS picking with 18th amount of draft pool is nice.

Also interesting is that Darvish has a opt out after 2 years. My guess is there's a decent chance we see him opt out. If that occurs the cubs well certainly put a QO on him and yet again reap the potential draft pool money. That in tandem with the way Darvish's escalators work is really intriguing from a contract nerd standpoint. From my understanding(limited so I could be wrong) he gets $2 mil more per year if he wins the cy young or $1 mil more for 2nd-5th. There's still a missing piece there because $126 + $12 is still $12 mil short of $152 and even if the wording is $2 mil + the $1 mil you're still $6 mil short. Regardless, there's 0 chance he ever gets $150 mil because if he wins the cy young in either of the next two years prior to the opt out he's going to opt out. And he'd likely also opt out if he finishes 2nd-5th.

So, the reality is I think that we're seeing a 2 year deal worth at least $42 mil but more likely $50-60 mil. Front loading the money to $25 or $30 mil would likely be a request Darvish makes. Obviously he wants as much money as possible before the opt out. And while typically that's not in favor the the team to do so, I'm not sure the cubs care. For one thing, they get to spread that $25-30 mil AAV for 2 years down to $21 AAV for luxury tax purposes. For two, they are really just buying time until some of their home grown pitching is ready anyways. And for three, the obvious assumption here is that your best years of Darvish would be the next two and then age sets in a la Lester. But for whatever reason if he doesn't opt out and you've already paid him $50-60 mil, you're left with a 4 year deal at some where between $66-$76 mil or $16.5-$19 mil in real money(as opposed to luxury tax calculation) you're paying him if you ignore potential escalators. He'd have to be pretty meh at that price. I mean that's basically the range they were paying Lackey.

 

[CubsFaninMN]

It was 4 #2 starters. Darvish, Q and Lester have all been 1A-2 quality pitchers for a long time. Hendricks honestly is borderline TOR/MOR. He is closer to a 3 honestly and is over performing his talent level which is perfectly fine and he off sets any rotation with his stuff. Chatwood I really can't gauge yet honestly. I would need to see a full year out of Coors. He may end up sucking as he mechanics were screwed up by pitching at that park and may need time to fix his mechanics. Or he may just jump out of the gate and be a dark horse. Or he may just suck. We will never know until he is a established product out of that hell hole.

I find it fascinating that the Cubs organization, and to a great extent its fanbase, looks at Hendricks as a #4 starter on this staff, whereas the national media, and the SABRE guys in particular, think he's the best starter on the staff.

Note that Hendricks was the *only* Cubs starter on the Shredder's top 10 starting pitchers on the MLB Network's Top Ten programs. That is based on a lot of analytics factors, especially various computations of WAR. No one else on this staff -- not Lester, not Quintana, not Darvish -- showed up on that list.

I'm not saying that Brian Kenny's spreadsheet program makes Kyle Hendricks the Cubs' number one starter. But it does show that we don't give him the props he gets from the national media.

 

[beckdawg]

It was 4 #2 starters. Darvish, Q and Lester have all been 1A-2 quality pitchers for a long time. Hendricks honestly is borderline TOR/MOR. He is closer to a 3 honestly and is over performing his talent level which is perfectly fine and he off sets any rotation with his stuff. Chatwood I really can't gauge yet honestly. I would need to see a full year out of Coors. He may end up sucking as he mechanics were screwed up by pitching at that park and may need time to fix his mechanics. Or he may just jump out of the gate and be a dark horse. Or he may just suck. We will never know until he is a established product out of that hell hole.

Not sure I agree with this. Darvish is a #1. He has plus-plus stuff. He literally lead the league in K rate since he joined the majors. You might argue his traditional stats don't back that up but take account the park he was playing in. Arlington has routinely been in the top 10 and usually top 5 in runs allowed since 2012. For example last year it was 21.5% higher than league average and was #2 behind only Coors. This is rather clear in Darvish's home/away splits. He has a 3.66 home ERA and 3.14 Away. Typically for a player that is reversed as players tend to play better at home but obviously it's not pitching friendly. Also, I've read some recent stuff suggesting the dodgers found something in Darvish's approach to sequencing and where he threw his pitches that is potentially exploitable to make him even better.

On Q, think calling him that middle-ish area between a 1 and a 2 is fair. He's not really dominant but he's durable and really good not great. Lester's hard to get a read on. His underlying numbers are almost identical to 2015. But he was torched by HR/FB. His career rate is 10.2%. In 2015 it was 9.9%. In 2017 it was 15.8%. A general thought could be his stuff declined and his hard hit rate went up. But it didn't. While true it was up from his 26.4% career hard hit rate, his 28.1% 2017 rate is well in line with 2015 and 2014 at 29.0% and 27.0% respectively and his soft contact rate between those 3 years was identical at 21.4%. So, that strikes me as him just being a bit unlucky. If that's the case think you could make the case he's better than Q based on his k rate but don't think i'd put him in the elite category either.

On hendricks I think you're still underselling him. I think you can favorably compare him and Q. Hendricks has 7.73/2.17 k/bb per 9 career rates with a career 2.94/3.43 ERA/FIP. Q is at 7.80/2.41 k/bb rates with a career 3.53/3.51. I think you could make the case that Q is better and I might even agree but in terms of numbers I don't really see much difference other than Q having a longer track record.

Simply put if i had to classify the guys I think Darvish is easily ace level. I'd argue Lester if 2017 was an aberration and he doesn't decline due to age is bot 5-10 of #1's. Q I'd argue is probably top 5 #2 or if you're generous one of the last few #1's. And I'd argue Hendricks is a top 10 in terms of #2's. Now I want to clarify that depending on how you classify ace/#1/#2 that may line up and there's probably not 30 #1's/#2's in baseball. Basic way I tend to look at pitchers is in terms of k-bb. Anything over 20% is generally ace level. Anything over 15% is at least #2 level. You can move around guys based on how the get there. For example Q and Hendricks I knock down a bit because they are more control than stuff. On the contrary, think you might bump someone like Lester up because of his stuff.

 

[CSF77]

Not sure I agree with this. Darvish is a #1. He has plus-plus stuff. He literally lead the league in K rate since he joined the majors. You might argue his traditional stats don't back that up but take account the park he was playing in. Arlington has routinely been in the top 10 and usually top 5 in runs allowed since 2012. For example last year it was 21.5% higher than league average and was #2 behind only Coors. This is rather clear in Darvish's home/away splits. He has a 3.66 home ERA and 3.14 Away. Typically for a player that is reversed as players tend to play better at home but obviously it's not pitching friendly. Also, I've read some recent stuff suggesting the dodgers found something in Darvish's approach to sequencing and where he threw his pitches that is potentially exploitable to make him even better.

On Q, think calling him that middle-ish area between a 1 and a 2 is fair. He's not really dominant but he's durable and really good not great. Lester's hard to get a read on. His underlying numbers are almost identical to 2015. But he was torched by HR/FB. His career rate is 10.2%. In 2015 it was 9.9%. In 2017 it was 15.8%. A general thought could be his stuff declined and his hard hit rate went up. But it didn't. While true it was up from his 26.4% career hard hit rate, his 28.1% 2017 rate is well in line with 2015 and 2014 at 29.0% and 27.0% respectively and his soft contact rate between those 3 years was identical at 21.4%. So, that strikes me as him just being a bit unlucky. If that's the case think you could make the case he's better than Q based on his k rate but don't think i'd put him in the elite category either.

On hendricks I think you're still underselling him. I think you can favorably compare him and Q. Hendricks has 7.73/2.17 k/bb per 9 career rates with a career 2.94/3.43 ERA/FIP. Q is at 7.80/2.41 k/bb rates with a career 3.53/3.51. I think you could make the case that Q is better and I might even agree but in terms of numbers I don't really see much difference other than Q having a longer track record.

Simply put if i had to classify the guys I think Darvish is easily ace level. I'd argue Lester if 2017 was an aberration and he doesn't decline due to age is bot 5-10 of #1's. Q I'd argue is probably top 5 #2 or if you're generous one of the last few #1's. And I'd argue Hendricks is a top 10 in terms of #2's. Now I want to clarify that depending on how you classify ace/#1/#2 that may line up and there's probably not 30 #1's/#2's in baseball. Basic way I tend to look at pitchers is in terms of k-bb. Anything over 20% is generally ace level. Anything over 15% is at least #2 level. You can move around guys based on how the get there. For example Q and Hendricks I knock down a bit because they are more control than stuff. On the contrary, think you might bump someone like Lester up because of his stuff.

Steamer projections:

Lester: 13-10 198 IP 3.91 ERA 3.5 WAR
Darvish: 13-8 173 IP 3.60 ERA 3.9 WAR
Quintana: 14-9 196 IP 3.51 ERA 4.2 WAR
Hendricks: 11-9 170 IP 4.05 ERA 2.7 WAR
Chatwood: 9-7 137 IP 4.08 ERA 1.9 WAR

So Steamer thinks that Q ends up the staff ace and it is a good argument. Also they have little love for Hendricks. I'm pretty sure that the league believes that talent balances out eventually and Hendricks falls back to his talent level. 2016 was a best case for him IMO honestly. Last year is a more realistic expectation minus the DL stint.

 

[beckdawg]

Steamer projections:

Lester: 13-10 198 IP 3.91 ERA 3.5 WAR
Darvish: 13-8 173 IP 3.60 ERA 3.9 WAR
Quintana: 14-9 196 IP 3.51 ERA 4.2 WAR
Hendricks: 11-9 170 IP 4.05 ERA 2.7 WAR
Chatwood: 9-7 137 IP 4.08 ERA 1.9 WAR

So Steamer thinks that Q ends up the staff ace and it is a good argument. Also they have little love for Hendricks. I'm pretty sure that the league believes that talent balances out eventually and Hendricks falls back to his talent level. 2016 was a best case for him IMO honestly. Last year is a more realistic expectation minus the DL stint.

Of course a 2.12 2016 ERA was best case. But he has a career 2.94 ERA and in the other years not being 2016 posted a 2.46 ERA over 80.1 innings, a 3.95 ERA over 180 innings in his first full season and last year over 139.2 innings posted a 3.03 ERA. So, projecting him at 4.05 ERA to me strikes as an absurdly conservative projection. Fact of the matter is that Hendricks is more than the sum of his parts. And for what it's worth, in the second half Hendricks pitched 78 innings of 2.19 ERA. If you just look at a month by month break down he went 4.18 in 28 innings in April, got back on track with 3.34 in 29.2 innings in May, hit the DL in june only pitching 4 innings of 9 ERA, missed most of july making 2 starts of 1.93 ERA and then in Aug and Sept was fantastic at 2.41 and 2.01 over 37.1 and 31.1 innings respectively.

Point here being that while he's never going to consistently put up a 2.12 ERA like in 2016, it wasn't a fluke. And more importantly look at what Hendricks has done on the big stage in the playoffs. He's clearly been a big game pitcher. He came up huge vs I believe Kershaw in game 6 in 2016 and out pitched Strasburg last year. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a #1 or an ace but he's been one of the 30 best pitchers since debuting in baseball.

 

[CSF77]

Of course a 2.12 2016 ERA was best case. But he has a career 2.94 ERA and in the other years not being 2016 posted a 2.46 ERA over 80.1 innings, a 3.95 ERA over 180 innings in his first full season and last year over 139.2 innings posted a 3.03 ERA. So, projecting him at 4.05 ERA to me strikes as an absurdly conservative projection. Fact of the matter is that Hendricks is more than the sum of his parts. And for what it's worth, in the second half Hendricks pitched 78 innings of 2.19 ERA. If you just look at a month by month break down he went 4.18 in 28 innings in April, got back on track with 3.34 in 29.2 innings in May, hit the DL in june only pitching 4 innings of 9 ERA, missed most of july making 2 starts of 1.93 ERA and then in Aug and Sept was fantastic at 2.41 and 2.01 over 37.1 and 31.1 innings respectively.

Point here being that while he's never going to consistently put up a 2.12 ERA like in 2016, it wasn't a fluke. And more importantly look at what Hendricks has done on the big stage in the playoffs. He's clearly been a big game pitcher. He came up huge vs I believe Kershaw in game 6 in 2016 and out pitched Strasburg last year. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a #1 or an ace but he's been one of the 30 best pitchers since debuting in baseball.

I never agreed with the 4.05 at all. I believe if he regresses it is a 3.50 ERA. But the issue with him is his velocity. If he drops 1-2 MPH it majorly affects him. Sitting at 87 MPH for him adversely affects him. That is most likely the major issue most projectors have with him. We saw it last year pre DL. He got wrecked. 1st half 4.09 ERA/ 2nd half: 2.19

We can argue this over and over but he losses a tick off his fastball his ERA blows up. Add to it Joe will pull him to this day especially if he loses a tick off his velocity later inning. Thus the 170 IP. prediction which is fair.

So to predict a 4.05 was a worse case IMO and honestly why I said lacking faith. I honestly think he is good for 3.00 ERA and that is fair. I don't see him breaking 4 WAR. 3.5 I can believe.

Q I believe pushes 5 WAR. I see him primed for a break out season honestly. What he did last year was brought up his SO/9 to 9.87. So something was working better than the past. His BB/9 increased also 2.91. Both were highs for him by a decent margin. Now if Hickey can get him to control his BB's and maximize his SO's (which honestly is his slider) he should make the next step.

Lester IMO has a few good years in the tank but he should end up declining.

Darvish is pretty much established right now. His win/L should improve with this team backing him but the raw numbers are pretty much established.

Chatwood honestly is a dark horse. I get it where no one is predicting much. 1.7 WAR is a safe pick. Who knows with him.

 

[TL1961]

Most of my co-workers that like baseball are Twins fans and have been stoked about signing Darvish for months. Suddenly today it was all about Tommy John surgery and his World Series performance :lmao:

Of the places where Jake can land, I pray it is Minnesota. I have no desire to see him in Milwaukee or DC.

 

[beckdawg]

I never agreed with the 4.05 at all. I believe if he regresses it is a 3.50 ERA. But the issue with him is his velocity. If he drops 1-2 MPH it majorly affects him. Sitting at 87 MPH for him adversely affects him. That is most likely the major issue most projectors have with him. We saw it last year pre DL. He got wrecked. 1st half 4.09 ERA/ 2nd half: 2.19.

Or it could be he was battling an injury for long enough that it was that which caused a lack of velocity. Regardless, I think you're looking for a reason to ding him. Your suggesting that "if he loses velocity"..... he lost velocity according to you last year and still finished with a 3 ERA. And ok if you want to argue that Hendricks at 32-33 might be a bit scary because of how he pitches fine. But what logical reason do we have to believe that at 28 he's going to lose velocity? Even the supposed case last year is explainable. He took a big bump in innings pitched because of a deep playoff run. They also held back their starters in ST to not wear them out after a long playoff season which could also account for his slow start in april. And lastly we know for a fact that he was dealing with some issue with his hand IIRC that eventually was enough of an issue they put him on the DL.

The weird aspect for me in this is how you'll take basically a bad april and use it as justification to ding Hendricks and then in the same post suggest Quintana will essentially have his best year ever after posting a 4.15 ERA in total and a 3.74 ERA in the second half. That's not to knock Quintana either because I think he'll be better in 2018 than he was in 2017 but I'm just pointing out the blind spot there. Hendricks after he returned from the DL was every bit the pitcher he was in 2016(2.13 ERA in 2016 and 2.19 ERA in second half of 2017). If you want to argue that's probably unsustainable and he's closer to 3 that's fine by me. Pitchers don't consistently throw near a 2 ERA even if you're Kershaw. But I see 0 reason to assume he'll be a half run worse than his career ERA.

In fact, I think part of the issue with regard to his first half was he simply didn't have his normal control and not that it was velocity. In his easily worst month of the season(April) he had a 3.86 bb/9. The only other month that was some what out of the ordinary for him was August at 3.38 but obviously that was him returning right after a decently long DL stint. In may he was at 1.82 and in Sept he was at 1.44. I excluded june and july as they only account for 13.1 innings but for what it's worth he walked 3 in those innings which would be 2.02 bb/9. So why's that matter so much? Well Hendricks is a career 2.17 bb/9 guy and in his worst month last year he was nearly double his walk rate. That seems a far more likely indicator to me of something being wrong. If you exclude April where clearly something was up his ERA drops to 2.74 last year as he gave up 13 of his 47 ER in april over 28 innings. And more specifically if you look at his actual starts it was really just the first 3 starts where he gave up 11 runs in 16 innings. Again that could just as easily be the way the prepared the cubs starts in spring training. If they didn't put as much time in as a pitcher typically would his control could get wrecked and it took a few starts into the season to get into a groove. And for what it's worth in those 3 starts his bb/9 was 3.94.

 

[CSF77]

Or it could be he was battling an injury for long enough that it was that which caused a lack of velocity. Regardless, I think you're looking for a reason to ding him. Your suggesting that "if he loses velocity"..... he lost velocity according to you last year and still finished with a 3 ERA. And ok if you want to argue that Hendricks at 32-33 might be a bit scary because of how he pitches fine. But what logical reason do we have to believe that at 28 he's going to lose velocity? Even the supposed case last year is explainable. He took a big bump in innings pitched because of a deep playoff run. They also held back their starters in ST to not wear them out after a long playoff season which could also account for his slow start in april. And lastly we know for a fact that he was dealing with some issue with his hand IIRC that eventually was enough of an issue they put him on the DL.

The weird aspect for me in this is how you'll take basically a bad april and use it as justification to ding Hendricks and then in the same post suggest Quintana will essentially have his best year ever after posting a 4.15 ERA in total and a 3.74 ERA in the second half. That's not to knock Quintana either because I think he'll be better in 2018 than he was in 2017 but I'm just pointing out the blind spot there. Hendricks after he returned from the DL was every bit the pitcher he was in 2016(2.13 ERA in 2016 and 2.19 ERA in second half of 2017). If you want to argue that's probably unsustainable and he's closer to 3 that's fine by me. Pitchers don't consistently throw near a 2 ERA even if you're Kershaw. But I see 0 reason to assume he'll be a half run worse than his career ERA.

In fact, I think part of the issue with regard to his first half was he simply didn't have his normal control and not that it was velocity. In his easily worst month of the season(April) he had a 3.86 bb/9. The only other month that was some what out of the ordinary for him was August at 3.38 but obviously that was him returning right after a decently long DL stint. In may he was at 1.82 and in Sept he was at 1.44. I excluded june and july as they only account for 13.1 innings but for what it's worth he walked 3 in those innings which would be 2.02 bb/9. So why's that matter so much? Well Hendricks is a career 2.17 bb/9 guy and in his worst month last year he was nearly double his walk rate. That seems a far more likely indicator to me of something being wrong. If you exclude April where clearly something was up his ERA drops to 2.74 last year as he gave up 13 of his 47 ER in april over 28 innings. And more specifically if you look at his actual starts it was really just the first 3 starts where he gave up 11 runs in 16 innings. Again that could just as easily be the way the prepared the cubs starts in spring training. If they didn't put as much time in as a pitcher typically would his control could get wrecked and it took a few starts into the season to get into a groove. And for what it's worth in those 3 starts his bb/9 was 3.94.

No his velocity returned post DL stint and his ERA reflected it. I was at his game in SD and he was hitting 8 5 MPH and the 2nd time through he got whacked around by a bottom feeder line up.

It was velocity with him and the injury was a blessing where he was able to properly recover for the 2nd half.

I believe that he is a 3.00 ERA guy over a season. If Joe has a deep pen where he can yank him it may go even lower due to not getting into to his red zone as much.

 

[TL1961]

A guy who does NOT rely on velocity scares me less at age 32-33 than guys who do. Ok, maybe not 33, but 35-36.

 

[CSF77]

I think the issue with him is simple. He throws around 89 MPH. He gets by with weak contact and the difference in velocity from his 2 seem and his change up. His curve is league avg at best so it is not a pitch that he can base his arsonel around.

So if his 2 seem is at 85 and his change is at 82 is there a real difference in the 2? But 89 and 82 there is a difference.

I love the guy. He has made himself into a quality SP with college ball velocity. It reflects his work ethic and attacking each hitters weaknesses. IMO he has the tools to become a great pitching coach when his velocity drops for good.

 

[CSF77]

A guy who does NOT rely on velocity scares me less at age 32-33 than guys who do. Ok, maybe not 33, but 35-36.

Scares me. Take Lackey. He still was hitting 88-92 last year and was still a quality #5 starter. His issue has been location and if his slider was working that day. He is a bull dog who will attack hitters even if he is not on that day. Unfortunately attacking with a B game arsonel is foolhearted.

Now a guy at 89 and drops to 85. You look at Maddux when he cane back. He was a 4 ish starter. And that is out of a master pitcher. Anyone less would have been forced to hang it up at that point.

Losing velocity matters. That is why Jake is not off the board. If he was still a 94 MPH starter do you think he is sitting still?

 

[CubsFaninMN]

I really don't think a guy who relies on control and change of speeds has to worry nearly as much about losing velo as a guy who only knows how to throw, not to pitch.

Yeah, when a guy like Chapman starts losing 3 to 5 mph off his fastball, it's time to hang them up. But all Hendricks needs to do is take another 2 to 3 mph off of his changeup, and he still has that same separation.

And as Beck pointed out, it wasn't the velo that was hurting him when he was battling through his hand issues last year, it was the control. Just like with Arrieta -- Jake lost his fine control, so he took 3 to 4 mph off his velo to try and get the control back. He was a really effective pitcher when he was able to find his control, even with 3 to 4 mph off his velo, but got knocked around when he lost it, and got into long counts, as well as running up his total pitch counts early and thus going only 4 or 5 innings. So, again, it wasn't the velo that bit him *or* Hendricks last year; it was the control.

As for Hendricks getting knocked around because his FB was topping out at 85 and not 87-89 -- are you really trying to tell me that major league hitters, who sit back and wait to just crush fastballs, can't crush 'em at 89 just as easily as at 85? Again, it was control, and being forced to come over the plate with less movement on 3-1 and 3-2 counts, than it was FB velocity, that was getting to Hendricks last year. His change-up was commensurately slower than his fastball right about then, too; it wasn't the speed separation that was hurting him.

To bring this back to Darvish, if velocity was all that was important, then why would a Hall of Famer like Jim Thome discuss Darvish's Eephus pitch, which floats in at about 55 mph, as a "jelly-knee" pitch? If you can spot up all of your pitches, you don't need to throw *any* of them past *anybody*.

 

[jooo83]

Of the places where Jake can land, I pray it is Minnesota. I have no desire to see him in Milwaukee or DC.

I would add St. Louis to the list of places I don't want Jake to sign.