Jorge De La Rosa a fit in Baltimore?

[2131andBeyond]

This is from an article from Troy Renck of the Denver Post:

Multiple teams have aggressively pursued De La Rosa, including the Pirates, Nationals and Orioles. The Rangers and Yankees could also enter the mix depending on what transpires with ace Cliff Lee, which could slow the process.

Last season with the Rockies, De La Rosa was 8-7 with a 4.22 ERA in 121.2 IP (20 starts), along with a K:BB of 113:55.

[DougDE]

That era would be at least 5 in the AL East and he only managed to pitch 120 innings. I'll take a pass

[Don]

He is not a fit in the AL East and his makeup may or may not work. I am surprised the Yankees were on his list. I guess it really shows the drop off in talent after Cliff Lee.

[Lucky Jim]

I'm curious why folks think he's not a fit for the AL East. Nice up-tick in GB rate last year (50+%), purportedly due to an improving change-up. He's got TOR stuff (he's a lefty who sits around 93 but can touch 95-96), w/ some command issues. Depending on what they're asking for, I'd be very tempted. His xFIP his last two years (in Colorado, remember) has been sub-3.80. Last year he was actually a little better at home than away, while the year before he had the expected extreme home/away splits (5.20 ERA v. 3.30 ERA H/A) - key here is determining whether the difference is due to the change-induced GB% improvement or whether it's just an anomaly.

Lefties, who sit in the near-to-mid 90s, w/ 50+% GB rates and 8+ K/9 are rare. In 120 innings last year, he was still worth nearly two wins. I'd gamble on a two year contract, maybe three, depending on $$$. Word is the A's are offering 5 years. I don't go that long on him (and, truly, it seems foolish for the As to).

[hsbaseballcoach]

Jim - I agree that Jorge is worth an offer, but I differ in the sense that I would offer more years and $$ than the A's. The fact is that the O's are going to have to over spend to attract 2nd tier free agents so the top tier free agents that are available next year will want to come to Baltimore. The guy can pitch, has plus velo, and is getting better at keeping the ball on the ground. He is an upgrade over what they have - I am not high on Bergesen or Tillman (Tillman certainly having a higher ceiling and I would hold on to if possible). Forgive me for not going into stat details - I tend to focus on what I see - stats do not show the full picture. Certainly no disrespect intended - I just evaluate from a different perspective.

[DougDE]

I think he's not a fit because I've seen the "NL guy with 4 plus era come to the AL East" movie before and Im not interested in buyin another ticket to that flop. I think it's better then 2 to 1 odds that his era would be over 5 and he wouldnt top 9 wins next year if he was on the O's and I cant see how that would help lure free agents next year. Offering 5 years WOULD be foolish, none the less offering more

[Lucky Jim]

No disrespect felt. I think analyzing from a single perspective is generally a mistake. We all suffer from incomplete information and bounded rationality, and every approach suffers limitations along that line. Stats, traditional scouting, biomechanics. Everything should be thrown at these questions.

You'll note, though, that much of my statistical analysis is less about traditional statistics, and more about describing - in the absence of a ton of first-hand viewing experience - the type of pitcher he is. And that type - at least last year - is a high-K, high-GB pitcher. Very rare. And very valuable. There are issues of command, and questions about the sustainability of last years trends, but the point is: live arm, good movement, misses bats and gets grounders. Those are the kinds of pitchers who succeed anywhere, AL East or not.

As to the second post: any approach that takes into account only his ERA and claims failure in the NL East is severely limited, however. First, it casts aside the fact that he is still young. Second, it doesn't take into account the fact that he played in Coors Field, which had a 118 hitting/park factor last year and is at 115 over the last few years. It matters. Probably more than pitching in the AL East.

[DougDE]

He's not all that young, no free agent that isn't a non tender is. He's listed at 29 so he may be pitching at 30 next year. Few athletes get better when they move into their 30's, Cliff Lee one exception. Coors Field is not vastly different then OPACY yet the lineups of the Rays, Yanks, Red Sox, and Jays certainly are different then the NL West lineups. I respectfully think that ignoring how many runs a guy routinely lets score and looking at fringe stats is the limited view. Runs, or lack thereof for a pitcher, is what wins ballgames, not all that other stuff. We're not evaluating a 21 y.o. in Double A here

[Lucky Jim]

You're absolutely right - I was thinking he was 26, and was clearly wrong (*must* have been thinking about someone else). So, yeah, his command may not develop any more.

Baltimore's three-year hitting/park factor is 102, so the difference is quite large.

As for my "limited" view, you misunderstand the stats. Which is fine as far as it goes. But "letting in runs" is always a combination of controllable things and uncontrollable things. That's why separating the two, and controlling for the uncontrollable (xFIP) is important for perspective. I didn't disregard any statistics. I just looked beyond them. You don't pay De La Rosa as if he were a 2.50 ERA pitcher (i.e., disregard ERA completely). On the other hand, if he's likely to get paid like a 4.50 guy, but could very well be a 4.00 guy, that's a substantial discount, and one worth pursuing.

Clearly, looking beyond the single statistic you rely on isn't a more limited approach than glancing at ERA and assuming you've got a handle on things. I mean, that's clear to me, at least.

[DougDE]

Didnt "glance" at era, looked at his whole career. Last year was the lowest and he only pitched 120 innings. When he pitched for KC it was 5.2

[Lucky Jim]

Yep. He was bad with the Royals. And better the last three years.

Looking at only ERA is "glancing." It's fine that it's enough for you to come to a conclusion. I'd be seriously upset if that was all that the decision-makers looked at, though.