A Plea to Randy: Please Cry, Wolf

by Eric Stephen on Feb 6, 2009 4:24 PM PST in News Comment 29 comments

The Dodgers have reportedly agreed to terms with left-hander Randy Wolf on a one-year deal worth about $5.5 million plus incentives. That seems like a reasonable deal for the Dodgers, especially if Wolf is healthy.

[UPDATE: The deal is now official, at $5 million plus incentives.]

Wolf surprised a lot of people by taking his 4.74 ERA as a Padre, moving from one of the best pitching parks in MLB (Petco Park) to the more hitting-friendly confines of Minute Maid Park, and producing a 3.57 ERA as an Astro. However, his expected Fielding Independent Pitching (x-FIP, courtesy of The Hardball Times) was 4.49 in both San Diego and Houston, suggesting the difference in performance had more to do with luck and/or the defense behind Wolf than anything else.

Wolf is projected to produce a FIP anywhere from 4.29 to 4.55 (thanks to Fangraphs), a certainly serviceable 3rd or 4th starter for the Dodgers. If Wolf is healthy (his 33 starts in 2008 was more than the previous two years combined), he could really benefit the Dodgers by outproducing those projections.

The key of course is if Wolf is healthy. We've been down this road before with Wolf, who came to the Dodgers in 2007. After 11 starts, Wolf was a pleasant surprise, having produced these numbers:

IP	per GS	W-L	BB/9	K/9	HR/9	ERA	Opponents
66.0	6.00	6-3	2.59	9.68	0.82	3.41	.236/.305/.368

Then, Wolf started to struggle. Over the next 5 weeks, he didn't pitch nearly as well.

IP	per GS	W-L	BB/9	K/9	HR/9	ERA	Opponents
36.2	5.24	3-3	4.91	5.65	0.98	7.12	.336/.402/.523

After his July 3 outing -- giving up 6 runs in 3 innings to the Braves -- news of Wolf's shoulder pain started to surface. From Dylan Hernandez of the LA Times:

Randy Wolf thought he could pitch through the pain that has been in his throwing shoulder for the last month.

He was wrong.

Wolf lasted only three innings in the Dodgers’ eventual 7-6 victory over the Atlanta Braves at Dodger Stadium on Tuesday night, after which it was decided that he would undergo an MRI on Thursday and skip his final start before the All-Star break.

“I’ve never had discomfort in my shoulder,” Wolf said. “It’s not something that I’m used to.”

The pain, the byproduct of what is believed to be bursitis, interrupted Wolf’s sleep Monday night. Asked why he went ahead to make his start, Wolf replied, “I thought it would loosen up.”

But it didn’t, which was in part why Wolf gave up six runs and walked four in his shortest outing of the season.

Emphasis mine. Wolf pitched with pain for a month when he probably shouldn't have, and it cost him his season, and certainly cost the Dodgers as well, as their lack of pitching down the stretch contributed greatly to their downfall.

Two years later, I'd like to think both Wolf and the Dodgers are wiser. If Wolf is healthy, great! He would then be quite an asset to the club. But if he's hurt, I just hope he doesn't try to hide the pain and pitch through it. The club deserves to know if he's hurt or not. I hope it doesn't come to this, but I'm hoping there is open communication between Wolf and the Dodgers' coaches and trainers. Both Wolf and the Dodgers will be better because of it.

0 recs | Comment 29 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Cry Wolf

From the Baseball HQ Forecaster:

Dazzling Sept (2.23 ERA) driven by Ctl (1.9) he’ll be unable to sustain. The big picture is the more accurate one: serviceable SP with a checkered injury past, and now a 90 IP spike. Still owns upside, but also owns big risk.

Frank never seems to mind Ned spending his money on replaceable players.

by meercatjohn on Feb 6, 2009 6:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Where is the Clipper/Memphis Chat?

by meercatjohn on Feb 6, 2009 6:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Hey :)

There is already a Clippers blog (Clips Nation) on SB Nation.

No Laker blog = live game chats here.

I’ll probably do another one for the Finals pre-match Sunday.

by Eric Stephen on Feb 6, 2009 7:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

No Laker Blog on SBNation??? Wow

ClipperSteve kicks our butt in hits. Plus he writes very well. But he’s wrong an awful lot.

by meercatjohn on Feb 7, 2009 1:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

BTW, I'm an idiot

ToyCannon, it took me at least a day to figure out you were jpg over at DT. :)

by Eric Stephen on Feb 6, 2009 7:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

re:

At least when you click on jpg you get true blue instead of Eric Stephen’s typepad profile page:)

by meercatjohn on Feb 7, 2009 1:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I am dumb

How do you get it to redirect to a certain page and not to that stupid typepad profile?

by kensai on Feb 7, 2009 1:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It finally works now

I tried multiple times to change my Typepad account to reflect the website, and it finally works.

by Eric Stephen on Feb 7, 2009 8:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think its a decent signing

5.5M is less than his fair market value. I wish there was an option for 2010 though. It would be nice to have in case Wolf stays healthy.

by Brendan Scolari on Feb 6, 2009 10:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

re:

What’s the point, if you just want someone to throw 180 ordinary inning you can find them in your own backyard. To end up paying 5.5 – 8.0 million for that honor is just flushing McCourts money down the toilet at a time where every dollar seems to count. Expect a plus 4.50 ERA with a ghastly WHIP. It doesn’t hurt because they choose to spend 5.5 – 8 Million on Wolf for the same production that Stults could have provided unless it keeps us from signing someone now or later. I was all for improving the pitching staff but I don’t see how this accomplishes that goal.

I used to like to watch Wolf hit but I don’t think he can even do that now. His 2nd half surge at Houston was a direct result of outstanding control, something he’s never had before and is doubtful that he just learned that skill. This is only one year but the last time we gave out this kind of money based on a Sept performance was Carlos Perez in 1998. That didn’t end very well.

by meercatjohn on Feb 7, 2009 1:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't understand

You know this as much as anyone, you can’t go into the season with only 5 starters. We know Bills, Kershaw, and Kuroda are locks, but the rest was some combo of:

Stults
Troncoso (never started before)
Vargas
Estes
Schmidt (will he ever pitch again?)

With J-Mac in the bullpen, Stults is pretty much the most reliable remaining starter which would kill the depth when someone inevitably goes down.

If Wolf is healthy, he will be better than Garland. If he’s not healthy, we won’t have paid him nearly as much as Garland got. Wolf is a better strikeout pitcher than both Garland and Looper. If Wolf ends up earning all $8 million, the Dodgers will have made a fine investment.

by Eric Stephen on Feb 7, 2009 8:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

This is no different then bringing in a Tomko except for some reason Wolf has cache and costs alot of money. The idea that just because he hits his 200 IP threshold means he gives us 200 good innings seems bizarre. Baseball is littered with very bad pitchers who have thrown over 190 innings. Just since 1969

http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/eNsB

The Wolf possibilities are:
1. 170-180 innings of good work 4.00 – 4.30 ERA with a WHIP around 1.30
2. Injured
3. 170-190 innings of 4.50-4.75 ERA with a WHIP around 1.45

I don’t see how those scenarios add up to a minimum of 5 Million in todays market when his best comp Odalis Perez just signed for peanuts. As you have pointed out Wolf is just Odalis and no one would be calling this a solid move if we gave Odalis 5-8 Million. Every projection I’ve seen actually has Odalis and Wolf as equals. Did Wolf have other choices? Why give him so much money? Why do I care about McCourts money, because of Santana that is why. Hey it is Franks money and if he wants to give it away fine but if he is has no problem throwing money at below average pitchers then maybe he ought to settle with his above average right fielder before feelings are hurt. If he increases his budget back to last years level then this is a silly rant but if he’s penny pinching and spending 5 – 8 million on Wolf, then I don’t get it.

No matter what they say in January, McDonald could easily change their minds in spring training and become part of the picture.

I dreamed we signed Pedro and Fernando last night. I was quite happy about it. The boards were a buzz.

by meercatjohn on Feb 7, 2009 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I foresee another bet

I guess I’m clinging to the hope that Wolf can be healthy and he will pitch like his first 2 months of 2007. I know it’s not likely, but a man can dream.

I would like to know how the Blake deal really went down. I don’t believe it’s as linear as Santana for $2 million. More likely it was Meloan and another prospect for Blake, with the Dodgers paying $2 million. This is not to say I agreed with the trade (I didn’t), but I would like to know who the alternative prospect would have been .

by Eric Stephen on Feb 7, 2009 11:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

No doubt the better the prospect the more the Indians took on the salary. Still it was Casey Blake, Meloan should have been enough with us paying whatever was left. I still think that if we hadn’t traded Santana he’d have been the chip we needed to add Peavy to the rotation without touching anyone on last years major league roster except for Hu.

No bet this year, I like Wolf and will root for him. We will have to find something else we disagree on. Like letting Saito walk and signing a clown like Mota instead.

by meercatjohn on Feb 7, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No bet on Saito either

I would have offered him arbitration, or at least gave him the contract he got with Boston.

by Eric Stephen on Feb 7, 2009 12:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Okay

but then who would you sign? You can’t honestly expect us to go in with a rotation like:

Billz
Kuroda
Kershaw
McDonald
Stults

Imagine if Kuroda or Billz got hurt, that rotation would be ghastly. You need some innings eaters. Its not like we gave him a Kyle Lohse 4/40 contract (how much does that suck for the Cards now BTW) it was 1/5.5. Thats pretty freaking cheap and under his market value. I’ll link to this article at fangraphs that agrees with me:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/wolfs-deal-with-la/#comments

I don’t think your realize how cheap this deal is. The only way he doesn’t earn the money is if he gets hurt early on. 5.5M is fair for just over a 1 win player. Even Kershaw was worth 1.5 wins (6.6M) with 107.2 IP at a 4.26 ERA last year. Wolf should easily be worth his contract and then some. I think its a nice signing to keep us from running up McDonald’s innings and let our rotation have some depth at least.

by Brendan Scolari on Feb 7, 2009 12:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

From the Odalis article on Fangraphs

One of the comments said he named his fantasy team “Debbie Does Odalis.” :)

by Eric Stephen on Feb 7, 2009 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Lol

Odalis would have been good too, especially considering how cheap he was, but I don’t think that immediately invalidates the Wolf signing. The projections do favor Wolf.

Wolf-
James: 4.29 ERA in 195 IP
CHONE: 4.72 ERA in 122 IP
Marcels: 4.50 ERA in 165 IP

Perez-
James: 4.51 ERA in 171 IP
CHONE: 4.84 ERA in 134 IP
Marcels: 4.95 ERA in 151 IP

Not a gigantic difference, and maybe not worth almost 5M more (although it could be) but every extra win helps. And Wolf’s contract is still favorable compared to a lot of others (see Garland, Lohse, Oliver Perez).

by Brendan Scolari on Feb 7, 2009 1:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

We all have our favorite projections. Those who do this for a living at baseball HQ
Odalis: 160 51 110 4.28 1.41
Wolf: 174 66 145 4.66 1.43

by meercatjohn on Feb 7, 2009 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

Odalis is cheap, Wolf is not. Production is the same. One has prior baggage the other pitched in pain and screwed the team in 2007. Which was worse? You don’t think Wolf will do the same thing he did in 2007 if it happens again. He is on a one year deal, he has IP incentives built into his contract. He will pitch until they take the ball away from his clawed hand.

by meercatjohn on Feb 7, 2009 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

5M is cheap

Thats probably less than 5% of the payroll. And how did he screw the team? He was worth 7M and got paid 8M. Which just furthers my point that you don’t have to pitch very well to be worth 5M. If he pitches exactly as he did in ’07 we will have gotten a bargain.

He will probably try to pitch through pain (though I think this point is overblown, almost all pitchers do) and may have not been the absolute best option but there were still a lot of worse alternatives as I listed. I don’t think we need to be so critical, this is a solid move if maybe not the optimal one.

by Brendan Scolari on Feb 7, 2009 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

You are right but I like to display two points of view. If Eric is going to take the popular view then I’m forced to take the other view. He’s replaced Andrew as the numbers guy, I’m not a WARP guy in the slightest unless it agrees with a point of view I want to make. What I see are 180 below average innings for a lot of money.

by meercatjohn on Feb 7, 2009 5:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Okay

I’m not trying to stifle opposing viewpoints or anything, I just don’t see much to complain about signing Wolf. Feel free to use the numbers however you like. ;-)

by Brendan Scolari on Feb 7, 2009 5:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

re;

You mentioned fangraphs but maybe you can explain for me the questions being asked by Levski where he compares the analysis done on the Garland deal and the analysis done on the Wolf deal.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/wolfs-deal-with-la

by meercatjohn on Feb 8, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I can't believe it

since Levski is usually just a douche on BBTF who stirs things up, but his points have some validity to them here.

I agree with Xeifrank in that the Wolf analysis on Fangraphs was solid but the Garland had too much hyperbole.

by Eric Stephen on Feb 8, 2009 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure

the Garland analysis was way over the top. I think the signing was fine, but just like Randy Wolf probably not the optimal choice. I’m not sure why but for some reason Dave Cameron likes massive exaggerations.

by Brendan Scolari on Feb 8, 2009 9:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Anyone see this?

From the Joe Sheehan chat at BP:

"Joe-thanks for the chat. Are the Dodgers better off signing Dunn, Hudson and Wolf vs. Manny and Wolf?

Joe Sheehan: Why are they signing Randy Wolf? Why, in fact, do I have so many references to Randy Wolf in my queue? He’s a flyball pitcher without the stuff to pull that off, a 6.24 ERA waiting to happen.

The Dodgers have jammed up their roster in a way that makes it hard for them to sign players. Too many roster spots and too much money being wasted on Juan Pierre and Casey Blake and Jason Schmidt."

That seems pretty harsh. Not sure what the hell he’s talking about in the first part. He’s already pulled it off Joe, and seriously, who picks a 6.24 ERA (okay, nitpicky, but why not just 6.00)?

The second part only one out of the three he lists really fits what he’s talking about, that being Pierre. The Blake signing was fine by most accounts and he’s certainly flexible enough position-wise to not block anybody and Schmidt’s contract obviously hurts, but with him being on the DL indefinitely, i don’t think that qualifies as “jammining up the roster”. Now maybe if we didn’t have Schmidt we could have gotten CC or Tex, or maybe the Yankees outbid us anyway. We’ll still probably get Manny so I’m not sure what his rant is about. Wierd.

by Brendan Scolari on Feb 7, 2009 12:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Odd

Even if he repeats his 2008, he’s worth around 7.5-8.5 million technically. There’s some upside, sure, but there’s a lot more downside.

So if he does his job, he probably makes more than Looper and 0.75 million less than Garland? And by doing his job, I mean just staying healthy, god knows if he will even pitch well. If he doesn’t do his job, and gets torched by injuries again, he still makes 5 million.

Hmm…doesn’t seem to make sense to me.

Fair market value is around 5-8 depending on how much playing time you give him in the projections. And that market value is inflated by terrible GMs like Ned and Bavasi or whatever. So getting exactly market value is probably below average value by most reasonable standards of competency. Just strikes me as odd that they would need to pay so much in a down market.

Yeah, sure, it could work out. My problem is the same as always. Ned takes a lot of gambles on situations where the odds are not in his favor. Not surprisingly, he loses those gambles more than he wins.

by kensai on Feb 7, 2009 1:09 AM PST reply actions 0 recs