The Real Tommy Hunter
Tommy Hunter hungrily eyes a baseball during pre-ALCS practice on Thursday, October 14th.There's an old, albeit broadly applicable saying out there that goes something like "first impressions are the most important impressions." While this axiom may indeed ring true in many of life's passing social situations, it strikes me that it doesn't extend to the baseball realm quite so well. Since the conclusion of the World Series, I've stumbled upon more than a few comments endorsing -- if not outright pushing -- the thought that Tommy Hunter isn't well-suited to pitch in the playoffs, and that the Rangers should be looking to cash in on his traditionalist-impressing 2010 campaign (13-4, 3.73 ERA) by "selling high" right now while the selling is possibly still good.
Hunter's a good example of a young player who built up substantial political capital in his first successful swim through the league in 2009, and then watched that built-up capital dwindle as the more saber-savvy observers began to take notice of the widening chasm between his actual runs allowed and underlying peripherals. The calendar flipped from August to September, and the concern manifested in the form of progressively tougher-to-watch starts. Then October rolled around, and Hunter failed to last longer than four innings in any of his three playoff starts. First impressions may be powerful, but it's this enduring memory of Hunter being swatted around fand chased early from the most important games in franchise history that now holds the greatest amount of sway over public sentiment.
What may be less readily graspable is the fact that Hunter still constitutes an asset for Texas even if he continues pitching in the 4.90-5.00 FIP performance range, which was where he finished last regular season when everything was said and done, and which is roughly equatable to being a standard No. 5-level pitcher. Sure, you remain on the lookout for something better if the opportunity presents itself, but having an above-replacement innings-eater available to plug into the back end of your rotation -- one who's set to continue banking the league minimum through 2012 -- is actually closer to a solution than an urgent problem demanding immediate correction. I think some people have a tendency to forget just how valuable that pre-arbitration designation really is.
And the simple notion of trading Hunter presents a whole new set of questions, including this pointed little gem: To what end would you actually be trading him? "Selling high" on the basis of his sparkling regular-season ERA and win-loss record presupposes that there's a team prone to significantly overvaluing Hunter on the basis of those same numbers, and I just don't see this as a great bet; certainly, there are some front offices that are further away crossing from the sabermetric finish line than others (Houston in particular springs to mind), but this is the age of advanced statistical analysis and all interested parties would rightly utilize that information to ensure that any offers submitted did remain in the general vicinity of "fair" trade value for Hunter. To put it another way, I don't buy the premise that you'd be able to procure a materially greater trade haul than what you'd expect to receive in a perfectly efficient market.
No "haul" would be anything great and wondrous, either. Hunter doesn't recoup any blue-chip prospects in a standalone deal, and given the Rangers' current position in their multi-year plan and present needs, you likely wouldn't want to see him dealt for prospects anyway. In a pure starter-for-starter exchange (which also makes little sense), he fetches a marginally higher-upside but higher-risk arm. Blech. It may be that you can package him with other assets in a larger-scale deal for a superior starting pitcher, and this is probably the only scenario where dealing him can work, because dealing him instead for positional help leaves the Rangers' starting pitching depth going into spring training unsettlingly thin -- and that caveat still applies even if they manage to re-sign Cliff Lee.
As a pitcher whose margin for error is still very thin on the whole, Hunter is going to elicit words of both praise and frustration in 2011. That's an inevitability. There's a pretty decent chance that I'll write an aggravated post about his strikeout rates again at some point next year, and that his actual run-prevention numbers will far more closely correspond with the underlying peripherals, and that some people will be shocked and dismayed when the ERA inflation takes place. Hell, a certain local columnist might crack another unfounded joke about Hunter eating himself out of baseball. The only thing I can hope is that people remember this post and the overarching big picture when that all goes down.
Analysis, The Off-Season
Reader Comments (28)
Tommy Hunter - Fabulous draft and development success, terrific asset as a cheap back of the rotation starter.
Fans should just never expect a team to be able to "sell high". Other front offices can go to fangraphs and look up FIP and K rates, too.
Hunter is only 24 and has plenty of Up-Side. Don't discount the potential of spending the Off Season by the old Hot Stove ruminating on past performances to improve ones creative juices. He just needs to learn more about pitching and parlay that with his natural ability. He has proven that he has what it takes to get batters out in MLB. They figured him out later and now he has to add a wrinkle or refine his present skill set. The Rangers have a ton of young arms so don't go throwing the 280 Lb baby out with the bath water.
I agree with most of what was said here, however I think the idea of Hunter-plus-a-prospect-for-a-Catcher makes a lot of sense and I disagree that this leaves your rotation shorthanded. Particularly if you bring back Lee or get Greinke, and doubly so if the hope is for Feliz to start. If you have Lee, Lewis, Wilson, Feliz, Holland, there's no room for Hunter, and that's before we look at Omar Beltre and Michael Kirman, both of whom could be strong candidates to earn a rotation job this year. Throw in Matt Harrison and there seems to be plenty of depth. And I wouldn't be opposed to making an incentive-laden gam ble on Brandon Webb.
People always underestimate just how difficult it is to pitch effectively in the major leagues. It's probably the single most difficult thing to do in all of sports (the only things that are close being NFL quarterbacking and, of course, hitting a baseball solidly and consistently). That's why even guys as good as Cliff Lee get totally rung up once in a while. Good point, Joey. A solid and experienced No. 5 (or long relief guy, for that matter) is necessary to get you to the playoffs. And Hunter may still have a little more upside than No. 5.
Heh, another post about regression and appreciation.
I agree, the only way a Hunter trade makes sense is in a package deal for better starting pitching, which may or may not end up being a futile deal. Tummy Hunter.
Not to mention his dowsing of Craig Sager, that increases his value in my book - albeit just a little bit.
I agree with Tom B. If you watched him very closely all year and the playoffs, you see a startlying similar set of stuff to Lee's. 88-93 FB, he can cut and 2-seam it, big downer 12-6/11-5 CB in the 74-78 range, and a decent change. While it was painfully obvious in the playoffs that he struggled to throw high quality strikes, he did throw enough strikes(and enough quality strikes) during the reg season to be an asset. I'm certainly not predicting a cy young in 2012 or 2013, but if he cleans his arm path up(his elbow gets way behind he body just after his hands break) and improves his ability to repeat his delivery, I think we have real asset.
How about Hunter plus Kirkman for Houston's Castro? Since the Astro's don't pay attention to stats...
Hunter is only 24 and has plenty of Up-Side. [...] He just needs to learn more about pitching and parlay that with his natural ability.
But what are we talking about in terms of "upside," here? I agree to the extent that I think he can be a 4.40-4.50 FIP guy on an annual basis if enough things break right, but at this point he's either going to need to improve his stuff in order to miss more bats (and though this could happen gradually, I'm not counting on it), or improve his command. His absolute upside is probably that of a No. 3 starter in a first-division rotation, and his far more likely upside is that of a No. 4 starter, and what he is right now is a No. 5 starter.
And that being the case, I don't know that he's somebody I would identify as a very strong upside candidate with lots of room to improve.
I think Hunter could become a terrific pitcher if he lost 30 to 40 pounds and got in shape.
Weight doesn't matter that much for AL pitchers see CC, and David Wells. His arm isn't fat.
He's 22-10 over the last two seasons. As the old saying goes, every losing pitchers gravestone says "...but he had great stuff...." I could care less about pretty sabermetrics. I'll take the guy who just wins games.
Losing weight would still help Tommy Hunter.
It would give him more stamina and keep his FB a Mph or two higher later in the game.
His big issue is that he need to improve his control. I'd still rather have him than Kevin Millwood
Someone needs to write a script for Opera and Firefox that automatically changes all, "LOL HE GETS WINS HE GOOD PITCHER XD THATS ALL THAT MATTERS LOL" into "herp derp kawerp berp"
The opposite argument is that for all the great numbers that Hall of Fame careers like Tony Gwynn, Ernie Banks et al, produced; they do not have the pinnacle of the sport: winning a championship.
Winning is the entire point of playing, so you have to consider a pitcher that gives you a chance of winning games to be valuable. Can he be upgraded, yeah sure. But if you consider him to be a 4th or 5th starter like Joey says, then he compares damn favorable to what other staffs run out on every 5th day as 4 and 5 starters. There are very few games I can recall that he just ruined our chances of winning, and even fewer that I remember us having to exhaust our bullpen to eat up the innings on his starts.
I agree with most of what was said here, however I think the idea of Hunter-plus-a-prospect-for-a-Catcher makes a lot of sense and I disagree that this leaves your rotation shorthanded. Particularly if you bring back Lee or get Greinke, and doubly so if the hope is for Feliz to start. If you have Lee, Lewis, Wilson, Feliz, Holland, there's no room for Hunter, and that's before we look at Omar Beltre and Michael Kirman, both of whom could be strong candidates to earn a rotation job this year. Throw in Matt Harrison and there seems to be plenty of depth. And I wouldn't be opposed to making an incentive-laden gam ble on Brandon Webb.
If they re-sign Lee, I think there's a <10% chance that they follow through on the Feliz move. I also see Kirkman and Beltre as guys who would benefit from a bit more Triple-A seasoning and hopefully not end up pressed into ML rotation service. Harrison may or may not be capable of pitching at replacement level in the rotation, but I'm really not itching to find out.
The problem is that every year we seem to step back before the season and say "yeah, this looks like sufficient rotation depth," and then it turns out not to be enough. We thought the Rangers rolled nine- or 10-deep with viable rotation candidates at the outset of 2010 spring training, and things still worked out in such a way that the Rangers were one more injury/underperformer away from having Omar Beltre as their No. 4 starter. I want to believe Texas grabs a Lee (outlook: not great) or Greinke (outlook: slightly better) type, but if they didn't do so and ended up dealing Hunter in, say, a deal for a catcher, then I would not be looking forward to Wilson/Lewis/Holland/Feliz/Kirkman as my Opening Day rotation.
You're not going back to the World Series with that rotation. You may not even win the AL West with that rotation. And the reason why in both cases is rooted in concerns over depth more so than talent/upside. This is why I'm inclined to hang onto Hunter, or to only move him a deal that furnishes a legitimate ML-ready pitcher.
I agree with Tom B. If you watched him very closely all year and the playoffs, you see a startlying similar set of stuff to Lee's.
Oh, my.
He's 22-10 over the last two seasons. As the old saying goes, every losing pitchers gravestone says "...but he had great stuff...." I could care less about pretty sabermetrics. I'll take the guy who just wins games.
Pitchers don't win games. Teams do.
I keep reading where if we make a move for Zack Greinke that they will want a major league ready starter as part of a package deal and I keep seeing Derek Holland's name penciled in that spot.......why not Hunter's name? Even if that would mean one additional player to be packaged in a proposition to KC, throw in Feldman as he could revitalize himself in KC? Holland stands to have more upside for the future in Texas than Hunter and I am sure that KC knows and evaluates all this also. But why give up Holland without offering something else even if it cost one or even two additional players of one stature or another?
Even if that would mean one additional player to be packaged in a proposition to KC, throw in Feldman as he could revitalize himself in KC?
The only chance of Hunter/Feldman enticing DM more so than Holland in a multi-player package is probably if the Rangers eat 70-80 percent of Feldman's remaining contract, which is $11.5 million. Even then, you're looking at a quantity over quality argument. Pairing Hunter with a middle-tier pitching prospect or an upper-tier relief prospect with some real upside (Wilmer Font keeps springing to mind here for some reason) probably does a whole lot more to bring that component of a deal into congruence value-wise with Holland.
highest win % in baseball. take your sabrenath and shove it up your recrum. just saying
sabremath-sorry!
Your troll post would have been funnier if you had just gone all the way and spelled it 'redrum.'
".......why not Hunter's name? Even if that would mean one additional player to be packaged in a proposition to KC, throw in Feldman as he could revitalize himself in KC? Holland stands to have more upside for the future in Texas than Hunter..."
CraigM, here's why not: Because quantity does not substitute for quality when making a trade, especially when you are seeking to acquire an elite player.
With respect to the upside arguments -- what's wrong with realistic no. 4 and possibly no. 5 starter in a good (read: world series contender) rotation? I just read about the anniversary of cutting Jamie Moyer. I think about all the other pitchers the organization let go who went on to have good careers other places, and I see a kid who seems to have a preternaturally good grasp of the mental side of pitching at a very young age. Aren't those the kinds of guys who are more likely to become the Jamie Moyers or even Doug Davises, the ones who will learn and improve their bag of tricks as they go? And as you say, we've got him practically for free for a couple of more years. Not chopped liver.
I meant 'possibly no. 3 (!) starter' above.
I want him to stick around if for no other reason than making jokes about his corpulence is so much fun.