Better Know a Cub – Edwin Jackson

In Better Know a Cub by myles82 Comments

Edwin Jackson used to be the #4 prospect in baseball.

Getting his first taste of the bigs in  2003 (as a 19-year old, no less), Jackson had a huge reputation to live up to early on in his career. For a long, long time, he never lived up to it.

2004 20 LAD NL 2 1 .667 7.30 8 5 1 0 0 0 24.2 31 20 20 7 11 1 16 0 0 0 113 57 1.703 11.3 2.6 4.0 5.8 1.45  
2005 21 LAD NL 2 2 .500 6.28 7 6 0 0 0 0 28.2 31 22 20 2 17 0 13 1 1 2 134 66 1.674 9.7 0.6 5.3 4.1 0.76  
2006 22 TBD AL 0 0   5.45 23 1 7 0 0 0 36.1 42 27 22 2 25 0 27 1 1 3 174 85 1.844 10.4 0.5 6.2 6.7 1.08  
2007 23 TBD AL 5 15 .250 5.76 32 31 0 1 1 0 161.0 195 116 103 19 88 3 128 4 1 7 755 79 1.758 10.9 1.1 4.9 7.2 1.45  
2008 24 TBR AL 14 11 .560 4.42 32 31 0 0 0 0 183.1 199 91 90 23 77 1 108 2 1 7 792 100 1.505 9.8 1.1 3.8 5.3 1.40

This is an auspicious start to a career, to be sure. It's important to keep in mind a few things, though:

a) 24.2, 28.2, and 36.1 are essentially meaningless sample sizes.

b) The average 22-year old pitching prospect is getting ready to finish AA.

The thing that really pops out to me is the hellacious WHIP, here. You can't pitch in the bigs with a whip over 1.4; it just isn't going to happen.

Jackson would be traded as a 22-year old, a 24-year old, a 25-year old, a 26-year old, and as a 27-year old TWICE. That's insanity.

As Jackson aged, he looked more and more like a journeyman 5th starter. It wasn't until 2010 until he really started to break through; I'll show you why I think that is.

Pitch Selection

Jackson has 3 primary offerings. His main pitch is a 93-94 mph fastball that he throws 60% of the time. As you'd expect from a guy with a primary-pitch fastball, it hovers around -.6 runs per 100, which is obviously below average but relatively fine for a pitch you're throwing in the worst counts. Edwin also throws an 86 mph slidepiece (30%) that has consistently been a plus pitch over his career. After that, Jackson throws an awful changeup at 86 mph; he also throws maybe 2 curveballs a game.

Stuff

Jackson's success of late has been almost entirely predicated on his ability to throw the first pitch for a strike. Until 2010, Jackson's average for F-Strike% was 54%; from 2010 onwards, it is 59%. You may think that's no huge difference; it is. The correlation between throwing your first pitch for a strike and throwing your last pitch for one is pretty high. Really, no peripheral of Jackson's has changed besides K/9 (a modest downturn in BB/9, also attributed to getting the first pitch over for a strike), as far a LD%, HR/FB%, LOB%, yet his performance has been a lot better.

I don't know enough about Jackson to hazard a guess as to why he's throwing more first pitch strikes, but whoever told him to should get a free meal from the Scott Boras.

Summary

Edwin signed a 4/52 contract with the Cubs. As dmick89 pointed out, the Cubs are paying right around the market price. It's important to realize that no every signing is going to be a steal. Teams with financial advantages need to use those advantages, and the Cubs just did. Even if the Cubs don't compete until 2015, they'll still need pitchers that season, and Jackson will be one (even if he's the #4 or #5 on a good team). He doesn't have a NTC, so we can get under the contract for prospects or relief if necessary, and he's as good a bet (for a pitcher) to earn his contract as anyone. Next year's FA class is dogshit, and they'll likely get worse. This is a good signing for a good pitcher.

Share this Post

Comments

  9. BWoodrum

    I don’t know enough about Jackson to hazard a guess as to why he’s throwing more first pitch strikes, but whoever told him to should get a free meal from the Scott Boras.

    A few things:

    1. Jackson’s problem — and I have watched him since his Devil Ray days — has always been control. In his early years, he was merely a converted outfielder with a wicked fastball. He had no idea where it was going. Odds are, he’s just maturing as a pitcher and that is what is helping his F-strike rate.

    B. He fired Scott Boras mid season last year. I think he (probably rightly) blamed Boras for waiting on the market too long and ultimately forcing a pillow contract.

    4. Jackson’s fastball velocity dropped almost 1 mph in 2012. That is troubling. But — as you mention — he set a career high in K-rate (21.3%) and he also got a butt-ton of groundballs (comparative to his career). All told, he looks like a workhorse with possibly No. 2 or No. 3 pitcher potential.

    I really like Jackson. He fought through a lot of adversity with the Devil Rays, going 0-6 to start the 2007 season, and he has been sort of undervalued throughout the league because of his historical control problems. I’m looking forward to rooting for him in Cubby blue for the next four years!

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  12. dmick89

    Rice Cube wrote:

    Has Aisley ceded the “Getting to Know” column to Myles? Either way, good read, I enjoyed the Aisley format too but this was nice.

    I think what each does is different enough that it doesn’t prevent 424 from doing his. I hope he does his too.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  13. Aisle424

    dmick89 wrote:

    I think what each does is different enough that it doesn’t prevent 424 from doing his. I hope he does his too.

    Yes. Myles’ version is informative and mine is decidedly not. My toes do not feel stepped on.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  15. Author
    Myles

    BWoodrum wrote:

    I don’t know enough about Jackson to hazard a guess as to why he’s throwing more first pitch strikes, but whoever told him to should get a free meal from the Scott Boras.

    A few things:
    1. Jackson’s problem — and I have watched him since his Devil Ray days — has always been control. In his early years, he was merely a converted outfielder with a wicked fastball. He had no idea where it was going. Odds are, he’s just maturing as a pitcher and that is what is helping his F-strike rate.
    B. He fired Scott Boras mid season last year. I think he (probably rightly) blamed Boras for waiting on the market too long and ultimately forcing a pillow contract.
    4. Jackson’s fastball velocity dropped almost 1 mph in 2012. That is troubling. But — as you mention — he set a career high in K-rate (21.3%) and he also got a butt-ton of groundballs (comparative to his career). All told, he looks like a workhorse with possibly No. 2 or No. 3 pitcher potential.
    I really like Jackson. He fought through a lot of adversity with the Devil Rays, going 0-6 to start the 2007 season, and he has been sort of undervalued throughout the league because of his historical control problems. I’m looking forward to rooting for him in Cubby blue for the next four years!

    I didn’t know he fired Scott Boras. Good for him!

    Also, the drop in speed is a little troubling, but I’m also looking more towards the difference between his fastball and his secondary (slider) mph. Since the slider actually fell about 2 mph, I’m not overly worried (though it does start to introduce fatigue concerns? I don’t know for sure, that’s uncharted territory for me).

    My favorite part of your post, bar none, is the fact you went from 1. to B. to 4. though.

    Good info, though. Plenty there I didn’t know.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  17. Berselius

    @ Rice Cube:

    That’s Dickey’s knuckleball. That’s only gravity curvature you’re seeing, there’s just more of it since knuckleballs are so slow. Though FWIW Dickey throws the pitch a lot harder than past knuckleball pitchers.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  24. SVB

    Hey Myles. Nice post. But here’s a question, the difference between 54 percent and 59% first pitch strike rate for Jackson is only about 40 batters over the course of the year. So that’s like 1.25 batters for game. Does this make a difference, really?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  25. JonKneeV

    How lazy of you guys to use the same picture for the last three posts. And by lazy, I mean discredited. ChicagoBearJew would never go for that.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  32. BWoodrum

    SVB wrote:

    Hey Myles. Nice post. But here’s a question, the difference between 54 percent and 59% first pitch strike rate for Jackson is only about 40 batters over the course of the year. So that’s like 1.25 batters for game. Does this make a difference, really?

    Okay. I went ahead and did the math on this.

    From a couple of different run values I saw, the difference between an 0-1 count and a 1-0 count is 0.077 runs. If Edwin Jackson threw a first pitch strike — and only a first pitch strike would be the change here — to and additional 5% of the 861 hitters he faced, he would have allowed 3.3 fewer runs on the season.

    That means his 3.79 ERA through 199.2 IP would drop to 3.65 ERA, assuming the extra outs did not result in more innings (which it aught to). It also raises his 2011 RA9 Wins to 3.6 from 3.3.

    But more importantly, a first pitch strike implies greater overall control. It increases the likelihood of a second-pitch strike, or at least a second-pitch swing. I think there’s enough reason to be exciting about a 5% uptick in that stat — assuming it continues in 2013. (No guarantee there.)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  35. Author
    Myles

    SVB wrote:

    Hey Myles. Nice post. But here’s a question, the difference between 54 percent and 59% first pitch strike rate for Jackson is only about 40 batters over the course of the year. So that’s like 1.25 batters for game. Does this make a difference, really?

    Bradlee pretty much alluded to it, but I’ll give my take on why it’s important:

    a) F-Strike% is an outcome. For that outcome to change, something has likely changed in his process, which likely affects every at-bat.

    b) 1.25 batters might not seem like a lot, but if you give up a hit to an additional 1.25 batters a game, you’d assuredly notice (note, of course, that the gap is between 0-1 counts and 1-0 counts is traditionally around .200 OPS). Also, that 1 at-bat a game results in approximately a 40% reduced chance of that batter reaching base, which allows Jackson to be more aggressive to the next hitter, which leads to more 0-1 counts, which leads to less base runners…

    c) PA that start 1-0 take more pitches than 0-1 PA. This leads to less fatigue, longer outings, less information for the opposing team…

    The point I’m trying to get at is that every PA is affected, even if the effect is small. That small affect adds up to a lot over a game/season, though.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  36. GW

    BWoodrum wrote:

    From a couple of different run values I saw, the difference between an 0-1 count and a 1-0 count is 0.077 runs. If Edwin Jackson threw a first pitch strike — and only a first pitch strike would be the change here — to and additional 5% of the 861 hitters he faced, he would have allowed 3.3 fewer runs on the season.

    That means his 3.79 ERA through 199.2 IP would drop to 3.65 ERA, assuming the extra outs did not result in more innings (which it aught to). It also raises his 2011 RA9 Wins to 3.6 from 3.3.

    This isn’t right. Pitches put into play also count as strikes.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  38. Rice Cube

    @ GW:
    Yeah, I think so, but I think what WaLi was referring to was Concepticon’s contract which was signed as a quasi-MLB deal, so it would’ve been conceivable that the language prevented an outright to the minors without permission after a DFA (in which he becomes a free agent after full release and the Cubs pay everything). Apparently that was not the case since the Cubs actually got away with it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  39. GW

    Imagine a pitcher with a 100% first pitch strike percentage. Would that be a good thing? Almost certainly not. Hitters could be much more aggressive when stepping to the plate, not having to be as concerned with the decision of whether to swing or not.

    EJax’s increase in Fst% is probably a good thing. I mean, we can see that it has coincided with better results. And it’s a good thing to the extent that it indicates his control has improved, assuming that his stuff hasn’t changed. What is the relationship between improved Fst% and improved control? I don’t know, get Pizza Cutter and a good scout in a room and let them figure it out. Regardless, I assume BB% is a better measure for this purpose.

    It’s easy for sabermetricians to be seduced into thinking that more granular data will necessarily lead to more powerful analysis, but without at least a conceptual framework of game theory, this is often folly.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  41. dmick89

    @ GW:
    That’s my opinion too. If all pitches after the first were thrown at the same ball/strike ratio then the analysis that Brad did would be more interesting (if he considered first pitch balls put into play as you mentioned). Otherwise, what we have with Jackson is a guy whose control improved and as a result, threw more 1st pitch strikes. Good thing as you say, but the improved command (as Brad initially said) is the key.

    Regarding comments about a velocity loss, isn’t that what we’d expect at his age? I’m pretty sure I remember an article on THT awhile back that showed a velocity drop of roughly 1 mph per year beginning in the late 20s is typical. I’d much more concerned if his velocity had dropped by 3.5 mph or that he was inconsistent game to game (I”m guessing he was not).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  45. dmick89

    @ Mobile WaLi:
    If his walk rate drops he can be damn good. Big if, but when it happens he’s one of the better pitchers in the game. $12 million over 2 years isn’t too much to spend for the kind of upside he offers. I was hoping the Cubs would target him after the season ended.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  50. josh

    viewing this page on my new Kindle fire. Uselessness. Quite stylish. That’s all I can contribute, since I don’t know shot about pitchers.

    EDIT: What the hell? I guess it adds words if you’re not careful.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  58. dmick89

    @ GW:
    Wonder if it’s 2/12 plus $2 million signing bonus or something. Still 2/14, but hard to screw up the reporting of a contract that small. At least it seems that way to me.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  72. Author
    Myles

    dmick89 wrote:

    I was thinking 3/45 for Swisher so using Tango’s little tool that would mean exactly 4/56.

    The market for Soriano just opened up a little, with Ross and Swisher both signing. I think Soriano just gets more and more valuable on the trade market…

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  73. dmick89

    @ Myles:
    I think there are a few teams interested, but not at the Cubs asking price. They are reportedly asking for highly ranked prospects (plural). They’re willing to kick in all but $5 million per year over the next 2 seasons, but I just don’t see any team biting on that price. I don’t think they can get one top prospect, let alone more than that.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  74. Author
    Myles

    dmick89 wrote:

    @ Myles:
    I think there are a few teams interested, but not at the Cubs asking price. They are reportedly asking for highly ranked prospects (plural). They’re willing to kick in all but $5 million per year over the next 2 seasons, but I just don’t see any team biting on that price. I don’t think they can get one top prospect, let alone more than that.

    I kind of think that the Cubs are just establishing a narrative of “top prospects are we’ll keep Soriano” so they can eventually “settle” for a 5-10 team guy without either team feeling to bad or great about it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  75. Suburban kid

    @ Myles:
    I’ve been wondering all day what you mean by “a 5-10 team guy”. Is it:

    a) A guy who has played for 5-10 teams
    2) A prospect who is ranked 5-10 in a team’s system
    D) A “5-10 guy” who has ten years in the league and five on one team, who somehow agrees to be in a trade to the Cubs for Soriano.

    Logically I’m guessing 2, but “5-10 team guy” sounds too much like a veteran.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  77. Chet Masterson

    dmick89 wrote:

    @ Myles:
    I think there are a few teams interested, but not at the Cubs asking price. They are reportedly asking for highly ranked prospects (plural). They’re willing to kick in all but $5 million per year over the next 2 seasons, but I just don’t see any team biting on that price. I don’t think they can get one top prospect, let alone more than that.

    I’ve seen you key in on that plural part multiple times now. I read the same quote you did (I think it originates here). When I read that quote it just reads like a turn of phrase the writer chose to use. I took it to say that Theo is asking for a top prospect for each team he’s dealing with.

    Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think Theo is retarded enough to get on the phone and say the bidding for Soriano starts at 2 top prospects (of course, this also puts us within the writer’s opinion of ‘top’ prospects).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  79. Author
    Myles

    Suburban kid wrote:

    @ Myles:
    I’ve been wondering all day what you mean by “a 5-10 team guy”. Is it:
    a) A guy who has played for 5-10 teams
    2) A prospect who is ranked 5-10 in a team’s system
    D) A “5-10 guy” who has ten years in the league and five on one team, who somehow agrees to be in a trade to the Cubs for Soriano.
    Logically I’m guessing 2, but “5-10 team guy” sounds too much like a veteran.

    I meant #2, yeah. Sorry about that.

    Alternatively, a guy that went 5-10 last year.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Comment