Sox sign Wacha

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,922
He’s got a way below average K rate but he’s not giving up many home runs - in his bad seasons, he’s always given up a lot of Johnson’s. He’s somehow only giving up a 322 slugging (compared to 503, 599, and 467 the last three years). He’s just not giving up fly balls this year. His HR/FB rate is just 6.7%, after being 12-15% the last few years. So it seems like he’s thriving by not giving up many fly balls and when he is, fewer are going over the fence, the latter of which is likely some good luck.
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
1,685
San Diego
Punchlines as of today:

Martin Perez - 23 GS, ERA 2.79, ERA+ 140. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/perezma02.shtml (Currently leads majors in 142 IP)
(1 year, $4M)


Carlos Rodon - 23 GS, ERA 2.95, ERA+ 138. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rodonca01.shtml
(2 years, $40M, player optout)

Michael Wacha - 14 GS, ERA 2.44, ERA+ 173. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/wachami01.shtml (77 IP).
(1 year, $7M)

Steven Matz - 10 GS, ERA 5.70, ERA+ 67. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/matzst01.shtml
(4 years, $44M)

Garret Richards - 2 GS, 29 in relief, ERA 5.53, ERA+ 71. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/richaga01.shtml
(1 year, $5.5M, + 1 yr team opt. 5.5M)

Matt Andrese - remains unsigned? https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/andrima01.shtml
Holy cow... I had no idea Perez was pitching that well. Where the hell did that come from?
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Why would they pay him $18M? I know we have a lot of money available, but Wacha at $18M would be a massive overpay. He's pitched well this year, but still missed a month and a half due to injury. Additionally, what spot in the rotation is he taking. Presumably you have Sale, Paxton, Pivetta and Whitlock at 1-4. We have Winckowski, Crawford, Seabold, and possibly Bello (mid-season?0 available for #5.
Pivetta is mediocre. Whitlock has 9 career starts in The Show. Sale and Paxton don’t have a recent track of health. So that’s your top 4, and I don’t think you’re underrating any of the guys you have listed as in the mix for the 5th spot.

I do think the Sox need to spend at least $18M next season on a starter who isn’t currently in the organization. But that’s going to be someone much better (and more reliable) than Wacha.

Wacha has been a pleasant surprise this season, but it’s probably best if he cashes in someplace else.
 

GB5

New Member
Aug 26, 2013
675
I think the benefit to the Sox of 1/18 is that they have the cost certainty for only one year. I think the odds are that he underperforms the 1/18, rather than he pitches so well that the 18 is a bargain, but either way is the Sox know if it goes bad it’s only one year.

If you were running the Sox and Wacha came in with three offers and said here they are:

1/18
2/27
3/30

Pick one,, which would be in the best interest for the Sox to take, my guess is the first one, but let’s say Wacha gives them a similar season to this year, if so they will be probably be kicking themselves for not having the under market deals that the last two would produce.
 

jwbasham84

New Member
Jul 26, 2022
132
South Bend, IN
Pivetta is mediocre. Whitlock has 9 career starts in The Show. Sale and Paxton don’t have a recent track of health. So that’s your top 4, and I don’t think you’re underrating any of the guys you have listed as in the mix for the 5th spot.

I do think the Sox need to spend at least $18M next season on a starter who isn’t currently in the organization. But that’s going to be someone much better (and more reliable) than Wacha.

Wacha has been a pleasant surprise this season, but it’s probably best if he cashes in someplace else.
I understand our rotation is suspect and we definitely need to add talent. My argument is that $18M for Wacha isn't adding the type of talent we should want or need for that level of financial commitment. I understand it's only a 1-year deal, but it seems to be like twice as much as we would need to spend. I'm fine with Wacha as a depth addition, but I am not fine paying him like a #2 or #3 starter. He's been great this year, but I'm not sold this is the "new" Michael Wacha.
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
466
I don't totally understand what expected ERA is.... but wasn't there a lot of concern about that with Wacha earlier in the season? There was some indications that he was waaaay over performing and his actual ERA was likely to start climbing. Pivetta's IIRC was actually looking legit though.... so who knows
That concern has not entirely gone away. From Wacha's Fangraphs page.
2022 ERA: 2.44 2022 xERA: 4.77 (FYI, BaseballSavant has his xERA as 4.43)
(FWIW, his FIP is 3.7 and xFIP is 4.09)
What is xERA? Also from Fangraphs: xERA uses exit velocity, launch angle, and sprint speed on “topped” or “weakly hit” balls to model what a player’s ERA would look like based on the underlying characteristics of the balls in play.
He's also running a .234 BABIP
So yes, there's a decent amount in the underlying metrics that suggest he's getting lucky. He's having sort of a weird season, in many ways. Compared to his previous 2 (ineffective) seasons, he's striking out fewer and walking more batters, which seems like an unlikely recipe for success. But he's giving up wayyyy fewer HR than those seasons: his HR/9 has gone from 2.38-->1.66-->0.81

How is he doing it? Taking a look at some of his other metrics on BaseballSavant...shows he's giving up fewer barrels than in the last couple of years, has somewhat increased his % of balls listed as "under" but nothing really stands out. I think Wacha continues to be who he has often been---a decent pitcher whose success is highly tied to how often his fly balls leave the yard. With the deadened baseball this year, he's picked an excellent time to be that sort of pitcher. He's almost certainly not as good as his ERA would indicate---maybe he's figured something out to help him reduce some of his hard FB contact, but some of it is almost certainly luck. But hey, that's the nature of baseball---the last couple of years he underperformed his metrics. In baseball there's a lot of disconnect between "process" (be it underlying batted ball stats for hitters/pitchers or the front offices strategy in building a team) vs. "results" (actual batted ball outcomes and...actual performance of players). I wouldn't want to extend him a contract that assumed his true talent level was a ~2.5 ERA but at the end of the day, the results he's gotten are the results he's gotten, same as for any player. My guess is that going forward he's about as likely to put up a ~3 ERA as ~5 but that shouldn't take away from the great season he has had.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,285
The idea of these reclamation projects isn't to overpay them once reclaimed. It's too bad they couldn't get a 2nd year team option on the contract, but still a good piece of business.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,299
deep inside Guido territory
Thanks for bumping this so I could re-read the excellent Radon string kicked off by DDA.

Also some random 2021 quotes. The consensus was overwhelmingly underwhelmed. We can blame Covid-gumpiness I suppose:


























AAAAAANNND. . .



You - Look at you.


Punchlines as of today:

Martin Perez - 23 GS, ERA 2.79, ERA+ 140. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/perezma02.shtml (Currently leads majors in 142 IP)
(1 year, $4M)

Carlos Rodon - 23 GS, ERA 2.95, ERA+ 138. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rodonca01.shtml
(2 years, $40M, player optout)

Michael Wacha - 14 GS, ERA 2.44, ERA+ 173. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/wachami01.shtml (77 IP).
(1 year, $7M)

Steven Matz - 10 GS, ERA 5.70, ERA+ 67. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/matzst01.shtml
(4 years, $44M)

Garret Richards - 2 GS, 29 in relief, ERA 5.53, ERA+ 71. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/richaga01.shtml
(1 year, $5.5M, + 1 yr team opt. 5.5M)

Matt Andrese - remains unsigned? https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/andrima01.shtml
My comment pretty much summed up the situation. At the time, it was a depth signing that could go one way or the other and it has gone pretty damn well. And I think I was pretty spot on about keeping Whitlock in the pen :)
 

BravesField

New Member
Oct 27, 2021
252
My thoughts were more on the medicals than the money, and only the Sox know the true condition of his shoulder today. I'm guessing if Chaim is actively pursuing him, he must think he's healthy enough for a 1, 2 or 3 year deal. And after what happened this year, I'm all in more as much rotation depth as possible.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
That concern has not entirely gone away. From Wacha's Fangraphs page.
2022 ERA: 2.44 2022 xERA: 4.77 (FYI, BaseballSavant has his xERA as 4.43)
(FWIW, his FIP is 3.7 and xFIP is 4.09)
What is xERA? Also from Fangraphs: xERA uses exit velocity, launch angle, and sprint speed on “topped” or “weakly hit” balls to model what a player’s ERA would look like based on the underlying characteristics of the balls in play.
He's also running a .234 BABIP
So yes, there's a decent amount in the underlying metrics that suggest he's getting lucky. He's having sort of a weird season, in many ways. Compared to his previous 2 (ineffective) seasons, he's striking out fewer and walking more batters, which seems like an unlikely recipe for success. But he's giving up wayyyy fewer HR than those seasons: his HR/9 has gone from 2.38-->1.66-->0.81

How is he doing it? Taking a look at some of his other metrics on BaseballSavant...shows he's giving up fewer barrels than in the last couple of years, has somewhat increased his % of balls listed as "under" but nothing really stands out. I think Wacha continues to be who he has often been---a decent pitcher whose success is highly tied to how often his fly balls leave the yard. With the deadened baseball this year, he's picked an excellent time to be that sort of pitcher. He's almost certainly not as good as his ERA would indicate---maybe he's figured something out to help him reduce some of his hard FB contact, but some of it is almost certainly luck. But hey, that's the nature of baseball---the last couple of years he underperformed his metrics. In baseball there's a lot of disconnect between "process" (be it underlying batted ball stats for hitters/pitchers or the front offices strategy in building a team) vs. "results" (actual batted ball outcomes and...actual performance of players). I wouldn't want to extend him a contract that assumed his true talent level was a ~2.5 ERA but at the end of the day, the results he's gotten are the results he's gotten, same as for any player. My guess is that going forward he's about as likely to put up a ~3 ERA as ~5 but that shouldn't take away from the great season he has had.
All of this is accurate. But I wonder if Wacha -- and the Sox -- are on to something by "beating" the expected metrics.

Wacha gets a lot of pop-ups, the 9th-highest rate among starters (edit: from 10th). He did last year with Tampa too, which is probably not a coincidence. If you see that ability as a skill (I think it is), then the low BABIP isn't lucky. Besides strikeouts, which cost a lot to acquire, infield fly balls are the least competitive batted ball event. It would make sense for the Sox to acquire or develop pitchers who get a lot of them, especially with our defensively suspect superstars on the left side of the infield.

His floor might not be as bad as 2019-20 would indicate either. Those were juiced ball years, producing the highest two HR/9 rates league wide in the history of baseball (1.40 and 1.34 HR/9, respectively). Besides all the other nightmares of 2020, he played with the Mets, a very bad defensive team with a very bad defensive catcher (Ramos).

The more I think about it, offering Wacha a QO worth 1/$18.8~ million might be an interesting gamble for us. I’m sure there are better values out there (Eflin, Stripling or Heaney), but are we certain we could ink them? It may make sense to pay a few million extra and secure Wacha (or get a pick). If we’re in contention and he’s the same guy, that’s great. If we’re not, or if we actually have too many healthy starters, we could flip him, possibly subsidized, for something interesting. If he turns into a pumpkin, no big.
 
Last edited:

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
466
All of this is accurate. But I wonder if Wacha -- and the Sox -- are on to something by "beating" the expected metrics.

Wacha gets a lot of pop-ups, the 10th highest rate among starters. He did last year with Tampa too, which is probably not a coincidence. If you see that ability as a skill (I think it is), then the low BABIP isn't lucky. Besides strikeouts, which cost a lot to acquire, infield fly balls are the least competitive batted ball event. It would make sense for the Sox to acquire or develop pitchers who get a lot of them, especially with our defensively suspect superstars on the left side of the infield.

His floor might not be as bad as 2019-20 would indicate either. Those were juiced ball years, producing the highest two HR/9 rates league wide in the history of baseball (1.40 and 1.34 HR/9, respectively). Besides all the other nightmares of 2020, he played with the Mets, a very bad defensive team with a very bad defensive catcher (Ramos).

The more I think about it, offering Wacha a QO worth 1/$18.8~ million might be an interesting gamble for us. I’m sure there are better values out there (Eflin, Stripling or Heaney), but are we certain we could ink them? It may make sense to pay a few million extra and secure Wacha (or get a pick). If we’re in contention and he’s the same guy, that’s great. If we’re not, or if we actually have too many healthy starters, we could flip him, possibly subsidized, for something interesting. If he turns into a pumpkin, no big.
His pop-up percentage IS really high, which I guess also corresponds to that tick-up in under-hit balls. But it's approaching 2x his mark from TB from last year (12.0 vs. 6.7). When I was looking at his underlying numbers I also checked to see if his FS had a lot of ride or anything---something to explain the bump in pop-ups and under-hit balls and...he does seem to have somewhat above average ride and he does a decent job locating it up in the zone. Still, I would be shocked if he ran a double digit pop-up rate next year, with the Sox or anyone else.
That being said, I DO think the Sox have probably been able to coax some improvement out of him beyond just batted ball luck. If I ran the team, I would invest heavily in pitching coaching/analytics to try to get a system in place to help guys, especially at the major league level, be the best versions of themselves (I realize that's a bold stance: wanting to have good pitching coaching). Whenever I read an interview though with a pitcher who has gone to a new organization---either via trade or FA---and gush about how the comprehensive analytics + coaching staff helped them unlock a new level, I get very green with envy and I think its something that can pay dividends on two fronts: 1. Having a better than average hit rate on reclamation projects and mid-tier pitchers and 2. Having an inside track on signing though reclamation/mid-tier guys. I've been really happy to see the results of Pivetta and Wacha this year, even when they have gone through less effective stretches, because nothing would make me happier than feeling like the Sox have developed a good system for maximizing pitchers. Well, there are things that would make me happier, but that's right up there at least.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
His pop-up percentage IS really high, which I guess also corresponds to that tick-up in under-hit balls. But it's approaching 2x his mark from TB from last year (12.0 vs. 6.7). When I was looking at his underlying numbers I also checked to see if his FS had a lot of ride or anything---something to explain the bump in pop-ups and under-hit balls and...he does seem to have somewhat above average ride and he does a decent job locating it up in the zone. Still, I would be shocked if he ran a double digit pop-up rate next year, with the Sox or anyone else.
We would it expect it to be way higher than in TB, because reportedly he changed his repertoire for his last few starts after a mostly-disastrous season and it was that final handful of starts that interested Boston.
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
466
We would it expect it to be way higher than in TB, because reportedly he changed his repertoire for his last few starts after a mostly-disastrous season and it was that final handful of starts that interested Boston.
Mmmm. That makes sense. Ok, here is a point in favor of it being real: I used Baseball Savant to make a pop-up% leaderboard and I set a minimum of 200 plate appearances to try to filter out some SSS noise. Wacha is number 7 on that list at 12%. Number 5? Garrett Whitlock. Kutter Crawford and Nick Pivetta also are in the top 25 (21 and 22, respectively). So maybe that's a real point of emphasis, which would be really cool, since pop-ups are a great (and less sexy way, so perhaps overlooked) way of getting easy outs.

Now, Wacha also has the second biggest gap between wOBA and xwOBA (minimum 200 PA) so there's still some luck involved (I think xwOBA would account for pop-up%). But don't get me wrong. I come to praise Wacha, not to bury him. He can be benefiting from luck AND also pitching better.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
His pop-up percentage IS really high, which I guess also corresponds to that tick-up in under-hit balls. But it's approaching 2x his mark from TB from last year (12.0 vs. 6.7). When I was looking at his underlying numbers I also checked to see if his FS had a lot of ride or anything---something to explain the bump in pop-ups and under-hit balls and...he does seem to have somewhat above average ride and he does a decent job locating it up in the zone. Still, I would be shocked if he ran a double digit pop-up rate next year, with the Sox or anyone else.
That being said, I DO think the Sox have probably been able to coax some improvement out of him beyond just batted ball luck. If I ran the team, I would invest heavily in pitching coaching/analytics to try to get a system in place to help guys, especially at the major league level, be the best versions of themselves (I realize that's a bold stance: wanting to have good pitching coaching). Whenever I read an interview though with a pitcher who has gone to a new organization---either via trade or FA---and gush about how the comprehensive analytics + coaching staff helped them unlock a new level, I get very green with envy and I think its something that can pay dividends on two fronts: 1. Having a better than average hit rate on reclamation projects and mid-tier pitchers and 2. Having an inside track on signing though reclamation/mid-tier guys. I've been really happy to see the results of Pivetta and Wacha this year, even when they have gone through less effective stretches, because nothing would make me happier than feeling like the Sox have developed a good system for maximizing pitchers. Well, there are things that would make me happier, but that's right up there at least.
Curious, where are you seeing his pop up rates at 12.0 and 6.7? FanGraphs has them at 14.6% (9th in MLB, min. 70 IP) this year and 12.3% last year in Tampa. I'm sure criteria vary between sites. Not seeing any IFFB rate listed on bRef, but I could be missing it (I find that site extremely difficult to navigate).

There's reason to believe the Sox rebuilt Pivetta to induce pop-ups too. His rate is 10th in MLB, right behind Wacha. His IFFB rates this year and last are notably higher than anything he did in Philadelphia.

The top five pop-up generating starting rotations are the Astros, Rays, Twins, Red Sox and Yankees. That should tell us something about how smart teams value it as part of pitching development.
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
466
Curious, where are you seeing his pop up rates at 12.0 and 6.7? FanGraphs has them at 14.6% (9th in MLB, min. 70 IP) this year and 12.3% last year in Tampa. I'm sure criteria vary between sites. Not seeing any IFFB rate listed on bRef, but I could be missing it (I find that site extremely difficult to navigate).

There's reason to believe the Sox rebuilt Pivetta to induce pop-ups too. His rate is 10th in MLB, right behind Wacha. His IFFB rates this year and last are notably higher than anything he did in Philadelphia.

The top five pop-up generating starting rotations are the Astros, Rays, Twins, Red Sox and Yankees. That should tell us something about how smart teams value it as part of pitching development.
I was using Baseball Savant, for no real reason other than they have a bunch of interesting information like pitch movement, some seam-shifted wake measurements, and easy to customize leaderboards. I'm assuming that their "PU%" number represents pop-ups, seeing as its grouped along with FB, GB and LD%. My guess would be that Fangraphs has a slightly broader set of criteria for pop-ups and Wacha maybe had a bunch of batted balls in 2021 that were in the shadow of the pop-up zone.

I think that to be a persistently contending team, you have to find a way of maximizing assets that are perceived as having limited value. The Yankees have managed to do a ton with developing prospects so that they always have tradeable assets without taking the top off their system. The Dodgers have also done well with player development and also had some impressive success with turning hitters like Justin Turner and Max Muncy into potent offensive forces. Sometimes that means rolling the dice some though, and I'm hopeful that what has happened this year has been Chaim trying to adopt a similar strategy of finding opportunities to maximize what are perceived as fungible guys and just...having a lot of bad rolls. RF and 1B have been really frustrating but I can...see how there may have been a plan there that just didn't work out. Maybe this will be an educational experience for the FO as well---I think this is the first year that there were pretty high expectations that things have backfired in what may seem to be obvious ways in retrospect.

I will say this: It's fair to be frustrated with this season and the overall strategy of both the FO and Henry. But I would rather have Boston's setup than most of the other teams in the league. And I feel like the current group is striving to be a Dodgers-esque force, which a lot of teams are not even bothering to try to do.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,736
Holy cow... I had no idea Perez was pitching that well. Where the hell did that come from?
The short answer is he had a career month and looked like the best starter in baseball in May. Since then he's been pretty good to middling.
 

Jason Bae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2021
624
NJ
He’s got a way below average K rate but he’s not giving up many home runs - in his bad seasons, he’s always given up a lot of Johnson’s. He’s somehow only giving up a 322 slugging (compared to 503, 599, and 467 the last three years). He’s just not giving up fly balls this year. His HR/FB rate is just 6.7%, after being 12-15% the last few years. So it seems like he’s thriving by not giving up many fly balls and when he is, fewer are going over the fence, the latter of which is likely some good luck.
He's also 8th among pitchers with 70+ innings in IFFB%.
 

Niastri

Member
SoSH Member
The environments in which the two pitched were incredibly different.

Martinez's ERA+ was 163 in 1998 (his second worst year with the Sox)
Wacha's ERA+ this year 160

Wacha's been very good, but comparing him to Martinez is a little ridiculous.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,370
Dopes, can we get a new title for this thread, please? Maybe the Sox will sign Wacha to a new deal, but it hasn't happened yet.