When Harrison is ALLOWED to carry his craft into the later innings
and even throwing a complete game(s), he will elevate his game to
where YOU think it is at. Right now, Harry is a good #3... no better.

"I agree RFan and I like Harrison."

I like Harrison, too. He's a 3.8 to 4.1 ERA pitcher in a hitter's park. That translates into 4 WAR. That's very good. He's just not 6-7 WAR good, which is essentially what ProfarMVP is claiming. If Harrison consistently posted 6-7 WAR, he'd be a HOFer. Matt Harrison isn't a HOFer.

"The only explanation that makes any sense is focus. When he gets in trouble maybe Matt Harrison pays more attention to what he is doing."

Harrison doesn't have a history of consistently lowering his BABIP with men in scoring position. As far as I'm aware, most pitchers can't do this. Until Harrison proves that he can consistently post a .260 BABIP with men in scoring position, I'll just go with the simple explanation, i.e., in 2012, over a small sample, Harrison experienced some BABIP luck with men on base.

"But look... in 2012 these were the pitchers with the highest LOB%: Hellickson, Price, Sale, Dickey, Zimmerman, Weaver, Cain, Harrison, Vargas and Lee."

Some pitchers can consistently strand runners at an above avg. rate. During his prime, Tom Glavine consistently posted strand rates b/w 76% and 80%. This wasn't luck. It was skill b/c he did it repeatedly. Matt Harrison, however, has no proven history of stranding runners at a 79% clip. Also, the reason that Harrison was able to do this in 2012 is that he had a very low BABIP with men in scoring position. Over small samples, BABIP can fluctuate greatly due to luck.

"What's interesting is that in 2011 Harrison put up scintillating results *without* that foxy (lucky?) strand rate."

Harrison had a normal strand rate in 2011, but his HR/FB rate was only 7%. In 2012, his HR/FB rate returned to normal, but his strand rate was exceptionally low. So Harrison got lucky in 2 different seasons but the source of his luck was different in each. In 2011, he had a lucky HR/FB rate that he didn't sustain in 2012. In 2012, he experienced strand rate luck.

RFan,

If Harrison gets lucky next year, three years in a row, what does that mean?

It seems like a pattern of luck, oh wait, if its a consistent pattern its not luck.

Micro analysis is only good for what it is good for. At a certain point it starts to sound stupid.

RFan,

If Harrison gets lucky next year, three years in a row, what does that mean?

It seems like a pattern of luck, oh wait, if its a consistent pattern its not luck.

Micro analysis is only good for what it is good for. At a certain point it starts to sound stupid.

Stupid? Nah. What's stupid is to blindly reject the analysis. Whether you like it or not, pitchers have a hell of a time sustaining the type of run Matt Harrison has had over the last 2 years. If we get to July or August, and Matt Harrison has again outperformed his peripherals (to the tune of a sub-3.4 ERA), then I will not be surprised if he gets some type of extension to pay out a few of his free agent seasons. I imagine this extension would be in the 4/36 or 3/33 range.

As RFan reminds us, luck dragons (LOB% and BABIP) can be fickle beasts. Jered Weaver is a pitcher who consistently outperforms his xFIP and SIERA, but he's also aided by a marine layer in Anaheim that suppresses fly balls. Matt Harrison is afforded no such thing in Arlington, but rather greatly relies on an elite infield defense.

Matt Harrison may prove to be a Weaver-esque pitcher, in that he will continue to keep runners from scoring, despite being a so-so strikeout pitcher. I still think he's a 4.0 ERA-type, which I will gladly take, but he's not someone I'm banking on to be like he was the last two years. And I'm not expecting him to be a member of the Rangers longterm.

"Micro analysis is only good for what it is good for. At a certain point it starts to sound stupid."

ZIPS agrees with me that Harrison is a 4.0 pitcher. I stand by my analysis. If Harrison could consistently maintain a 3.3 ERA while pitching in Arlington, he'd be a HOFer. He's not that caliber of a pitcher.

Ok Mr. R,

Will he get lucky next year?

Will that be three lucky years in a row?

Is three in a row luck?

I thought it was third time is the lucky charm?

Oh shit, no, for your, if Harrison "outperforms his peripherals" next year it will be the FOURTH time is the lucky charm. Why? Because you will be waiting for YET another year to be proven right with YET another lousy luck explanation three years running.

Luck is not three years in a row, and watch, watch, it would not surprise me if he "outperforms" again next year.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

What are you waiting for people?

Push this epic crap to...

FIVE HUNDRED

Is there a who in Whoville who can do it.

We need one more voice to push this over the top....

one more who who is willing to yell as whos have been known to do.

Where are you whos? Yell and yell for your lives or you will regret having not yelled as whos have been known to do.

Question:
How heavy is Harrison's $55 million dollar wad of cash?

Answer
Heavy enough to crush his critics! (some more)

Apparently the Ranger FO sees Matt Harrison differently than the unbelievers.

That would be very very heavy, but remember about half of it goes to local, state and federal governments.

So around 27 or 28 million, yeah, that's plenty heavy to crush your opponents, or even grind them into fine powder.

I still don't feel comfortable with him in playoff games though. I'm waiting for him to take it to the next level. There is nothing in the world I would love more than to feel like Harrison was going to be as good in a playoff game as he tends to be during the regular season.

Harrison will be fine in the playoffs. This man...he reads.

He frikkin READS!

His contract is probably the going rate for a MORP in free agency. I'm not sure what you guys are getting at. Good deal for both sides IMO.

The only catch, Txball...is this *wasn't* a free agent contract.

And Matt got considerably more than Holland, whom when his contract was inked--was viewed as possibly elite starter.

In the next day or so I'll compare this contract to the terms his critics (even those in this fine forum) suggested he should get.

Your analysis isnt needed. It's pretty cut and dry. The Rangers bought out his 2 arb years and 3 FA years. The AAV is $11 million. It's not quite as team friendly as one would like but it's a solid deal (unless you're absolutely against signing ANY pitcher to 5 years or longer).

If you're using Holland as a comp...thats silly. Harrison will be 32 when this deal is up if the option doesnt vest. The Rangers did well to lock him up to a higher end MORPish extension.

I was hoping this post would make a grand return. I like the deal a lot. Cheaper than an open market comp, with plenty of surplus value potential. Good for both sides. As for the taxes, Texas has no state and local tax, so his money is going to uncle Sam only, but under a significantly higher tax bracket than mine... Regardless, it won't be 50% like you mentioned, joe.

Harrison got better than Holland because he showed he can pitch better than Holland for two straight seasons with almost an average of 200 innings....

I didn't like the deal initially, but I've since come around. If $5 million the the loose benchmark for the price of one win, then Harrison needs to produce 2.2 fWAR/year to justify the terms of the contract. He can tack on a healthy amount of surplus value to that, though I'm still skeptical he'll ever have another season as good as either of his previous two.

What I like most is the breakdown: $5 million in 2013, $8 million in 2014, and $13 million in '15, '16 and '17 -- where the TV money will be in circulation. Also by that time, the price of WAR will probably be $6 million or more.

I believe this is easily a win-win. You get a guy who has nearly 400 innings of very good performance these past 2 yrs at well-below-market terms. He cost more than Holland because he has performed much more consistently than Derek.

But he's cheaper and more consistent than CJ, and much cheaper and less risky than Greinke. Matt gets himself a very nice guaranteed paycheck for the next 5 yrs. If he doesn't earn the last 3 yrs of pay, the Rangers will be making good new money from the Fox deal and can afford to make up the shortfall in other ways.

Both sides win, and I for one am very happy with this deal. There is plenty of room to gain some surplus value from this deal. Plus, to win 90-95 games, you need to have some fWAR-producing talent across your rotation, whether that comes from a rookie's near-minimum salary, or a veteran's $55M over 5 yrs.

Difficult to argue with the contract the Rangers gave. Also difficult to imagine Matt Harrison producing another 3.39 or 3.29 season.

Damn. And my name was supposed to read Pickles.

Its about what I thought the breakdown would be. Under 10 mil per year for his arbitration years and over for his FA years. I thought the under/over was 10 mill AAV for the life of the contract depending on how many FA years they bought out. If it was even (2 arb years 2 FA years), then right at 10 mill AAV. If it was more FA years than arb years, it would be more. A big difference with Hollands deal was they bought out 4 arb years and 1 FA year (with options for 2 more). Simply for that reason, Harry's contract had to be worth more.

Also, I think you have to consider the going rate for (#2 or 3 MORP) FA starters right now. CJ got 5/77.5 and Anibal Sanchez got 5/80. Personally, I think Harry's better than those 2 guys. If you can buy 3 years of Harry's FA at 13 mil each, its a good deal IMO when considering the market.

Good little note here on fangraphs: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/texas-extends-matt-harrison/

Rangerbourne,

That is amazing! Are there really no state and local taxes in Texas? How is it that the roads get built? How do the schools get payed for? What about the cops and the fire fighters. Wow, I never knew they work for free!?

I didn't say income tax. When you factor in the many taxes rich people pay, whether they be state, local, or federal taxes, they tend to end up pocketing about half of their income. That is probably a bit less in Texas but not that much less. A lot of it depends on spending habits and property ownership as most of the taxes in TX come from sales and property taxation. I don't know if you have noticed but we pay a higher sales tax than a lot of other places as well as a higher property tax. That makes up for the absence of an income tax, and rich people pay more taxes because they buy more stuff and have bigger houses.

Joe,
I'm an account and certainly know what you're syaing. I misunderstood and thought you were talking about a state and local income tax. You are most certaily right that sales tax and prop tax are significantly higher. The difference is that won't come directly off the top of his check, but is more dependant on his personal spending patterns and ownerships. It very well could consume 50%, but if he is frugal or has humble holdings, it could be much less. his federal income tax will be rather large though, looking like 39.6% this year.

Rangerbourne,

and that 40 percent doesn't even include the 6 percent he pays for SS and Medicare.

People really don't realize how tax burdened rich people are in this country. For example, the only way Matt is gong to avoid paying 40 percent of his income above 400 thousand dollars is if he gives massive chunks away to charity. Lets say he were to take 5 million dollars out of his 11 million AAV and give it to charity. That means he would not pay federal income taxes on that 5 million. And if you look at it in a certain way you could say, since he would only pay the 40 percent on the remaining 6 million, that he payed about 2.4 million in federal income taxes avoiding paying taxes on the 5 million he deducted because he gave it to charity. So people would say that he payed 2.4 million to Uncle Sam, only about 20 percent of his 11 million dollar salary. This is why you would see, in spite of a rich person's colossal income, that they supposedly only pay a much smaller percent of their income in federal income taxes. BUT THAT IS BECAUSE THEY GAVE AWAY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS and thus did not have to pay taxes on it. Furthermore, that is money that did not go into their pocket. So when you see that a guy like Mitt Romney payed only 13 percent in federal income tax it is not what it seems like.

Rich people should give big chunks of money to charity because if they don't a massive percentage of their money is going to go to the government anyways. And charities provide human services at a far more efficient rate than the government does. So screw the government and give all your money to charity, avoid the taxes by deducting up to 50 percent of your income. You are going to pay a massive chunk of it to the government anyways so its better to give it to charity.

Anyways, people just don't understand how this shit works. For example, people think rich people are saving so much money by deducting their charitable donations to save on taxes, but that is because they gave away massive chunks to charities in the first place, money that they will never see in their bank account. If they were to pay taxes on the money that they gave to charity that would be a travesty, a travesty that Obama would legislate if he could because he hates the fact that nonprofits provide human services at a far more efficient rate than his hollowed government does. He was trying to reduce deduction limits to cut into nonprofit income, saying that nonprofits have to make sacrifices to reduce the deficit, a deficit that he is determined to maintain by his ridiculous spending. The reality is that he foolishly believes in the power of the pathetic government to change society for the good and is jealous of the non profits for taking his money and spending it in a more efficient way, especially because they provide human services in a far more efficient way. The bottom line is that he doesn't give a shit about human services, all he cares about is increasing the power of the pathetic government and his own power as well.