Tanaka comparisons from Fangraphs...

[floplag]

Based on the recent discussions here i came across this today and thought some would find it interesting...

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/looking-for-comps-for-masahiro-tanaka/

 

to summarize it basically says that Tanaka would project out to be about the same as Garza or Santana in 2014 while costing perhaps twice as much... more or less the same thing that many here, myself included, have said and been ridiculed for

 

[tdawg87]

That's nice. The difference is Tanaka is 25 and Garza and Santana are in their 30's.

[gotbeer]

I'd be more concerned about this article for tanaka.

 

http://irfast.blogspot.com/2013/08/masahiro-tanaka-scouting-report.html

 

 

That's a lot of cookies that he leaves up in the zone.  Might work in Japan, but I'd be worried about it in the US.

[Blarg]

I guess you read into the article what you wanted to. His projections are a high to low and on the high side are true #1 pitchers while the low side is Edwin Jackson. Odds are you are not getting Shields, Price or Hamels but on the other hand if he drops to a Lester or Sabbathia it is still a win in terms of buying an arm.

 

Those were his comps for pitching style while he did mention Garza it was in relation to 3.5 WAR pitchers currently available and not necessarily that Tanaka is that guy.

[tdawg87]

I'd be more concerned about this article for tanaka.

 

http://irfast.blogspot.com/2013/08/masahiro-tanaka-scouting-report.html

 

 

That's a lot of cookies that he leaves up in the zone.  Might work in Japan, but I'd be worried about it in the US.

 

What in the world are you talking about?

 

What about pitches in the middle of the plate? Tanaka throws a pitch in the strike zone in the middle column (only looking at the three squares in the strike zone for this part) about 10.7 % of the time. This would be the second lowest in the Majors out of pitchers that have thrown at least 1000 pitches (Lucas Harrell). The surrounding group contains a bunch of pitchers that I think have inferior "stuff" than Tanaka (Weaver, Locke, Buerhrle, Ryu, Marquis, Zito, Axelrod, Dempster, Vargas, etc.). Tanaka keeps the ball out of the middle of the plate despite having what I would call some pretty good stuff.

[floplag]

the comparison were based on pitchers with similar stuff, and what they project out to.. age and anything else really doesnt affect that so you can run the "hes 25" out there all you want and tell me its not the same as other players with a similar WAR, but based on the stuff, those are his projections... and the other article linked also combine to tell me he isnt worth near what hes likely to get paid.
argue it all you want, thats fine, but this isnt just me saying it at this point so... take it for whatever itsa worth and you better pray im wrong, and they are wrong, if we bite on this one

[tdawg87]

the comparison were based on pitchers with similar stuff, and what they project out to.. age and anything else really doesnt affect that so you can run the "hes 25" out there all you want and tell me its not the same as other players with a similar WAR, but based on the stuff, those are his projections... and the other article linked also combine to tell me he isnt worth near what hes likely to get paid.

argue it all you want, thats fine, but this isnt just me saying it at this point so... take it for whatever itsa worth and you better pray im wrong, and they are wrong, if we bite on this one

 

Do you not understand the concept of years beyond 2014? Garza may put up a 3.5 WAR and have a similar year to Tanaka in 2014, but what about 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018? That's why age is important.

 

Seriously, we get it, you don't want the Angels to sign Tanaka. You are now reaching for anything to show that you are "right" when in fact what you posted (and what gotbeer posted) are actually positive scouting reports.

[ukyah]

we need talent on the mound, and he has it. the rest doesn't much matter to me. i don't expect them to get tanaka anyway. if they sign garza or tanaka it's going to be a marked improvement over last year. i'd prefer tanaka, in a vacuum. just make sure they get one.

Edited January 3, 2014 by ukyah

[wopphil]

Based on the recent discussions here i came across this today and thought some would find it interesting...

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/looking-for-comps-for-masahiro-tanaka/

 

to summarize it basically says that Tanaka would project out to be about the same as Garza or Santana in 2014 while costing perhaps twice as much... more or less the same thing that many here, myself included, have said and been ridiculed for

I too am concerned about the cost relative to performance.  I am guessing that for the annual cost of Tanaka, the team could instead sign Garza and Balfour (with far fewer years committed). 

[bloodbrother]

Do you not understand the concept of years beyond 2014? Garza may put up a 3.5 WAR and have a similar year to Tanaka in 2014, but what about 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018? That's why age is important.

 

Seriously, we get it, you don't want the Angels to sign Tanaka. You are now reaching for anything to show that you are "right" when in fact what you posted (and what gotbeer posted) are actually positive scouting reports.

 

Yep

[beatlesrule]

I was unaware that Tanaka and Garza would accept a 1 year deal.

Edited January 3, 2014 by beatlesrule

[Brent Maguire]

Even the "dissapointments" in the list aren't bad. I think Tanaka is really similar to Kuroda to be honest.

Good walk rate, good amount of ground balls and a decent enough strikeout rate to make for a solid #2 guy. Their arsenal is pretty similar as well as they both have good splitters and some other breaking balls that can be used as average-above average pitches.

[floplag]

Do you not understand the concept of years beyond 2014? Garza may put up a 3.5 WAR and have a similar year to Tanaka in 2014, but what about 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018? That's why age is important.

 

Seriously, we get it, you don't want the Angels to sign Tanaka. You are now reaching for anything to show that you are "right" when in fact what you posted (and what gotbeer posted) are actually positive scouting reports.

 

of course i do, and why do you assume the projections would be better at 30 than 25?  What is the warning signs are right and he isnt what you think he will be?

 

i didnt say they were not positive either... a 3.5 pitchers isnt crap. but it comes down to cost, performance for the investment, and payroll flexibility.

 

it isnt that i dont like him, i just dont think he is worth the rumors and such. 

[beatlesrule]

Is Ellsbury worth it?  Is Cano worth it?  See a trend here?

[Angel Oracle]

What % of pitches are 4 seamers in the lower part of the plate without much movement?

Those (especially near knee level) are the ones that can be hit a long ways, vs. the higher strike.

That is my main worry with Tanaka, as the other pitches will give various MLB batters fits.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Angel Oracle

[KingJustinian]

of course i do, and why do you assume the projections would be better at 30 than 25?  What is the warning signs are right and he isnt what you think he will be?

 

i didnt say they were not positive either... a 3.5 pitchers isnt crap. but it comes down to cost, performance for the investment, and payroll flexibility.

 

it isnt that i dont like him, i just dont think he is worth the rumors and such. 

 

It really comes down to how tight Arte's budget actually is. If he is flexible and wants the best pitcher, then make a serious run at him. If money is tight and might affect Trout, etc., then weigh other options (Garza, Maholm, etc.) and get the best deal on one. We don't know how big his budget actually is, as seen by who has been signed the last two years and who the Angels said they could afford. Since we don't know that none of us can really say who the best option is for the team.

[Brent Maguire]

Is Ellsbury worth it? Is Cano worth it? See a trend here?

Nope not really.

Teams are trying to get production up front to try to win and worry about the consequences at the end of the contract.

[eaterfan]

of course i do, and why do you assume the projections would be better at 30 than 25?  What is the warning signs are right and he isnt what you think he will be?

 

i didnt say they were not positive either... a 3.5 pitchers isnt crap. but it comes down to cost, performance for the investment, and payroll flexibility.

 

it isnt that i dont like him, i just dont think he is worth the rumors and such. 

 

It isn't just a WAR gain that is expected for players entering their prime, it's more about decline for players leaving their prime. Tanaka doesn't have to improve over the next 5 years to be better than Garza, Tanaka only has to decline less.

[Chimi]

I'm not too worried about Tanaka being able to pitch in the Majors.  I think a lot of the issues people bring up (pitch count, innings) will affect him much more in his early 30's than they will in his mid 20's.  Maybe it's something that will bother teams when he hits free agency after his first major league contract.

 

I think the bigger issue is the money he will get.  Teams are going to pay him like he's an ace and he's not that.  Do you want to put forth $20-22MM for a guy that might peak as a number two or three in a rotation?  When you look at the salaries next year of pitchers, the pitchers making that type of money are King Felix, Matt Cain, Justin Verlander, and Adam Wainwright.  I don't think he'll ever put up those type of numbers.

 

I like Tanaka, just not at his price.  I know the Angels desperately need pitching but I rather them use the money to sign Garza and another relief pitcher.

[floplag]

It isn't just a WAR gain that is expected for players entering their prime, it's more about decline for players leaving their prime. Tanaka doesn't have to improve over the next 5 years to be better than Garza, Tanaka only has to decline less.

either way im well aware of that as well... i simply dont think the margin between them is large enough to justify the cost over a longer period of time

 

considering some of his numbers are already in decline, his K rate most notably... the assertion that this isnt possible is also not true.

[tdawg87]

considering some of his numbers are already in decline, his K rate most notably... the assertion that this isnt possible is also not true.

 

His K rate "declined" from 2007 through 2010 before jumping up to a career high in 2011. Everything else has been very consistent.

[Docwaukee]

Wow.  This kid is really being put under a microscope.  You have to start asking yourself if he's capable of handling this situation.  Anaheim could actually be a good place for him. 

 

His delivery, mechanics, velocity, k rate, release point, secondary pitches, makeup, workload, level of competition, and every thing else can be picked apart till the cows come home but it won't make a damn bit of difference.

 

The bottom line is that this situation is unprecedented.  A 25 yo who is virtually a FA coming from a foreign league where he dominated that past few years. 

 

Generally, with most FA signings of greater than five years, there are two outcomes.  Either they are about worth the money, or they aren't.  There is rarely surplus value. 

 

Most of that value comes on the front end of a contract because of a players age and likelihood to decline. 

 

There seems to be an assumption with Tanaka that if he doesn't instantly succeed, then he's a bust.  That's where I think a lot of the mistakes in perception are being made.  Your investment in him is actually for the last 3-4 years of the contract instead of the first 3-4 years.  If you get a #3 right away, then great.  If you don't, it doesn't mean you can't make him better over time. 

[Ohtaniland]

Sign this guy...

 

[Angelsjunky]

I'm really at a loss about Tanaka, and I think I'm not alone in that. On one hand I'm thinking that if he's a 25-year old Garza then even if he's an overpay he's still a nice commodity to have. On the other, it seems crazy to play ~$25 million a year to a pitcher who MIGHT be Dan Haren but is more likely Matt Garza and could be worse.

 

Dan Haren at his very best is worth $20-25 million, but it just seems nuts to pay for the best-case scenario.

[Ohtaniland]

I'm really at a loss about Tanaka, and I think I'm not alone in that. On one hand I'm thinking that if he's a 25-year old Garza then even if he's an overpay he's still a nice commodity to have. On the other, it seems crazy to play ~$25 million a year to a pitcher who MIGHT be Dan Haren but is more likely Matt Garza and could be worse.

 

Dan Haren at his very best is worth $20-25 million, but it just seems nuts to pay for the best-case scenario.

 

On the flip side it sucks that Dipoto undervalued Darvish. He was a steal at 6 years for $108M total investment including the posting and contract. Then he underestimated what it would take to keep Greinke. Both big mistakes.