Anyone else a little worried about Jim Johnson?

[Frobby]

The truth is this doesn't really happen to the very best closers. No one, that I know of, has questioned if Johnson is a good closer or not. But there was a thread a couple weeks ago asking if we should trade Johnson--my take was that, yes, his value is probably the highest it will ever get, so from a philosophical standpoint it makes a lot of sense even if it's not practical--and a lot of people responded with something to the effect of "no, he's too good". That's the real question here: is he too good?

If you want to say this doesn't matter, that's fine. But for me there's a difference between a closer with a 1.15 ERA and one with a 2.60 ERA. There might even be a difference of about 2-4 wins there (not by WAR standards, mind you). I don't think it's wise to just write that off with such a simple response as "he's a relief pitcher, this happens."

I'm repeating myself here, but if Johnson is not as good as he was in the first half it does matter.

I have mixed feelings on this whole subject. First of all, I did not expect JJ to maintain an ERA below 1.50 all season. I think his current ERA is more reflective of his talent level, and it is still very good. That said, if anything, his ERA now understates how dominant he has been this year. He has a .548 OPSA and that is flat out dominant.

As to how much it would hurt the team to trade Johnson, this is not simply a question of whether there would be much drop-off between Johnson and Strop. It is a question of how much drop-off there would be between Johnson and whoever is going to be added to the bullpen after Johnson is traded. And that's probably a pretty big drop-off. It certainly increases the pressure on the rest of the bullpen. As to Strop, his tendency to hand out free passes would make for a lot more nervous outings that we get with JJ.

In the end, I do not think JJ is untouchable, but I'd want a lot for him -- more than the O's got for Sherrill or Uehara, for example.

[TheBee]

My final thoughts on Johnson. If you look at the guys in the O's bullpen that have served the role as typical major league closer types in the past, you are looking at guys like Gregg and Lindstrom. Their skillset is basically a 91-95 mph fastball and slider combination. Think of how replaceable that is...think of how many guys (dozens) we could list that can do that and figure to be cheaply acquired. Hence, the anger many of us felt at signing Gregg to this contract. If they were our closers, even if they had been very successful so far this season, if we were out of the wildcard race, I'd be taking offers left and right. Now, think of how different Johnson really is. How many 95 mph sinkerballers are there out there? How long would that list be? I'm not saying I would make him untouchable if we sink like a stone. I'm just trying to explain why I view his not being a typical major league closer as a good thing. He is not dependent on the effectiveness of a second offering to get the job done consistently.

[Flash- bd]

The problem is that you're zeroing in on way too small of a sample size. You're saying that he's not a great closer because he's allowed 11 ER this year compared to the best closers which have allowed, on average, 6 ER? Well...about a week ago, he had allowed 3 ER on the year, which would make him better than those guys. For all we know...those guys could have a bad week like Johnson had. If you want to make an argument based on peripherals, fine, but the argument you're trying to make here focuses way too much on 2 appearances.

I think I've made it clear in this thread I'm not arguing anything but rather asking questions, like: we know JJ is really good, but is he elite? and Are there more to JJs last two outings than a simple blip on the radar?

I even made a point of saying at the end of my last post:

Again, this really has nothing to do with the initial discussion, but you guys are questioning my claims, I'm just backing them up.

Which responds to you other claim that "You're saying he's not a great closer because he's allowed 11 ER this year compared to the best closers which have allowed on average, 6 ER?"

1) never said he wasn't a great closer 2) never made an argument of the sort, simply "backing up" my claims-- sc0tt and mark_beckens called me out on my statement: "The truth is this doesn't really happen to the very best closers," and I backed it up. 3) In the earlier discussion I said a couple times that these two performances will mean literally nothing if they're not the start of a trend...

Let's keep this simple and not go off into other arguments right away. How is a good outing not convincing? He easily saved a 2-1 game, and your stated concern was that he may be in a tailspin - at the beginning of a negative trend. 1) You are trying too hard to make a point. Jim Johnson has saved 27 of 29 and anyone with eyes knows that last night's performance was textbook Jim Johnson. He gave up a single, the Twins played for one run (which is often a sign of respect), he didn't spiral out of control, he got two easy grounders after the failed bunt to end the game. No runner was in scoring position. He is not in a downward spiral. He proved, yet again, that he can effectively save our leads. Now, on a side note. I actually agree that relief pitching, in general, is very inconsistent...especially from year to year. If our closer was either Broxton or Rodney, who you brought up, I actually would be much more apt to be looking to trade them if we fell back in the wildcard race. Broxton's blown twice as many saves as Johnson in less attempts, and Rodney had 17 saves while blowing 11 in 2010 and 2011. Each relies on a second pitch to be effective - 30% sliders and changeups respectively. They are typical closers, and I don't mean that as a compliment. Johnson, is a pretty unique case. 2) The last sinkerball closer everybody points to was Derek Lowe. However, his sinker's velocity was in the high 80's while Johnson's is mid 90's. This is the beginning of another argument, one I've made before. Regardless, your worries that Johnson was beginning a period of ineffectiveness should've been eased by last night's performance in a 1 run game.

1) Read above. Again, if you read carefully I'm not really trying to make any point at all, I simply wanted to have a more detailed discussion of Jim Johnson especially re: his pitch selection and FB command.

2) This, actually, is more along the lines of the kind of discussion I was looking for. I too believe that Johnson can be unique as a closer, but it would involve him using more of his repertoire and reliably striking out batters as opposed to relying on weak contact (and almost exclusively on his sinker). Relying on contact has it's flaws, and part of the implicit idea I was hoping to get across by pointing out how little the very elite closers actually give up each year is how fine the margins are between "elite" and "good". To be in the former category you either have to be pretty damn lucky or you have to have a special skill-set that reliably produces dominant results. I'm not saying Johnson doesn't have that, I'm questioning whether he puts it properly to use and yes, I am questioning if he can be elite simply as a guy that goes up there and throws 80% sinkers, given his control of that sinker. If he had pinpoint control with his sinker 80% would be fine, but I think it's pretty clear he doesn't, which is why I'd like to see him use his secondary pitches to leverage his stuff a bit better.

I have mixed feelings on this whole subject. First of all, I did not expect JJ to maintain an ERA below 1.50 all season. I think his current ERA is more reflective of his talent level, and it is still very good. That said, if anything, his ERA now understates how dominant he has been this year. He has a .548 OPSA and that is flat out dominant.

As to how much it would hurt the team to trade Johnson, this is not simply a question of whether there would be much drop-off between Johnson and Strop. It is a question of how much drop-off there would be between Johnson and whoever is going to be added to the bullpen after Johnson is traded. And that's probably a pretty big drop-off. It certainly increases the pressure on the rest of the bullpen. As to Strop, his tendency to hand out free passes would make for a lot more nervous outings that we get with JJ.

In the end, I do not think JJ is untouchable, but I'd want a lot for him -- more than the O's got for Sherrill or Uehara, for example.

Agree with all of this, especially the conclusion. I would want much more than what we got for Sherrill or Uehara.

Going back to his outing last night, I say it's not convincing because he threw 6 pitches. Yes, Frobby, I think you're right to state that the Plouffe hit was not well-hit, but it was elevated, and the direct result is a base-hit. If that ball is about 5 inches lower it's probably a routine chopper or some little pop-up to an infielder. As I said, the next batter gave him an out and the next two batters were guys who are simply overmatched by JJ's sinker. I'm not worried about JJ's ability to retire bad hitters--they can't really cope with his sinker, plain and simple. It becomes a different story against solid hitters, though, who will take Johnson's offerings that are out of the zone and sit on a sinker high and in the zone that can be hit with some authority.

[TheBee]

I think I've made it clear in this thread I'm not arguing anything but rather asking questions, like: we know JJ is really good, but is he elite? and Are there more to JJs last two outings than a simple blip on the radar?

I even made a point of saying at the end of my last post:

Which responds to you other claim that "You're saying he's not a great closer because he's allowed 11 ER this year compared to the best closers which have allowed on average, 6 ER?"

1) never said he wasn't a great closer 2) never made an argument of the sort, simply "backing up" my claims-- sc0tt and mark_beckens called me out on my statement: "The truth is this doesn't really happen to the very best closers," and I backed it up. 3) In the earlier discussion I said a couple times that these two performances will mean literally nothing if they're not the start of a trend...

1) Read above. Again, if you read carefully I'm not really trying to make any point at all, I simply wanted to have a more detailed discussion of Jim Johnson especially re: his pitch selection and FB command.

2) This, actually, is more along the lines of the kind of discussion I was looking for. I too believe that Johnson can be unique as a closer, but it would involve him using more of his repertoire and reliably striking out batters as opposed to relying on weak contact (and almost exclusively on his sinker). Relying on contact has it's flaws, and part of the implicit idea I was hoping to get across by pointing out how little the very elite closers actually give up each year is how fine the margins are between "elite" and "good". To be in the former category you either have to be pretty damn lucky or you have to have a special skill-set that reliably produces dominant results. I'm not saying Johnson doesn't have that, I'm questioning whether he puts it properly to use and yes, I am questioning if he can be elite simply as a guy that goes up there and throws 80% sinkers, given his control of that sinker. If he had pinpoint control with his sinker 80% would be fine, but I think it's pretty clear he doesn't, which is why I'd like to see him use his secondary pitches to leverage his stuff a bit better.

Agree with all of this, especially the conclusion. I would want much more than what we got for Sherrill or Uehara.

Going back to his outing last night, I say it's not convincing because he threw 6 pitches. Yes, Frobby, I think you're right to state that the Plouffe hit was not well-hit, but it was elevated, and the direct result is a base-hit. If that ball is about 5 inches lower it's probably a routine chopper or some little pop-up to an infielder. As I said, the next batter gave him an out and the next two batters were guys who are simply overmatched by JJ's sinker. I'm not worried about JJ's ability to retire bad hitters--they can't really cope with his sinker, plain and simple. It becomes a different story against solid hitters, though, who will take Johnson's offerings that are out of the zone and sit on a sinker high and in the zone that can be hit with some authority.

You question his "control" of that sinker, but in neither of Johnson's two blown saves did he walk a batter. As a matter of fact, he has only walked more than one hitter in an inning appearance this season (40 games) two times? His w/9 is basically identical to last season's (2.08 and 2.04). He does consistently get hitters to both swing and hit ground balls (65% .214 batting average). Again, it's a great and unique skillset.

[Flash- bd]

You question his "control" of that sinker, but in neither of Johnson's two blown saves did he walk a batter. As a matter of fact, he has only walked more than one hitter in an inning appearance this season (40 games) two times? His w/9 is basically identical to last season's (2.08 and 2.04). He does consistently get hitters to swing and hit ground balls (65% 214 average). Again, it's a great skillset.

There seems some kind of disconnect between what I'm saying and what you're arguing(didn't I just say he has a great skill-set?); of course he does consistently get hitters to swing and hit ground balls--if he didn't he wouldn't have a 2.56 ERA! (his K rate quite clearly doesn't account for that kind of ERA) You're not telling me anything new or really addressing the argument at all with the walk rate, as that's never been raised as a concern, and as we saw with Arrieta this year (and as we've seen with countless other examples) it's possible to have a low walk rate but still lack control in the zone. Again, the question is not is Jim Johnson a good closer? but rather Is Jim Johnson truly elite?--I have offered some reasons to doubt that the answer to the latter question is yes. If it's no, I think it makes some sense to deal Johnson because his market value is probably that of an elite closer.

[Frobby]

There seems some kind of disconnect between what I'm saying and what you're arguing(didn't I just say he has a great skill-set?); of course he does consistently get hitters to swing and hit ground balls--if he didn't he wouldn't have a 2.56 ERA! (his K rate quite clearly doesn't account for that kind of ERA) You're not telling me anything new or really addressing the argument at all with the walk rate, as that's never been raised as a concern, and as we saw with Arrieta this year (and as we've seen with countless other examples) it's possible to have a low walk rate but still lack control in the zone. Again, the question is not is Jim Johnson a good closer? but rather Is Jim Johnson truly elite?--I have offered some reasons to doubt that the answer to the latter question is yes. If it's no, I think it makes some sense to deal Johnson because his market value is probably that of an elite closer.

Who do you consider to be a truly "elite" closer?

And while I am on the subject, has anyone noticed that the Yankees have hardly missed Mariano Rivera at all? Soriano has 24 saves vs. 1 blown save and a 1.46 ERA, and the Yankees are running away with the division. So, even elite closers are not necessarily indispensable.

[Flash- bd]

Who do you consider to be a truly "elite" closer?

And while I am on the subject, has anyone noticed that the Yankees have hardly missed Mariano Rivera at all? Soriano has 24 saves vs. 1 blown save and a 1.46 ERA, and the Yankees are running away with the division. So, even elite closers are not necessarily indispensable.

Top 5 in any given year (top 5 is arbitrary, of course, so let's say something like ERA <2.25, very few BSs)--basically the guys I cited earlier in the thread (especially, obviously, repeat performers like Kimbrel, Hanrahan who show the ability to be dominant across seasons).

I think I've made it very clear in this thread I'm decidedly undecided on whether JJ is elite or not. But my feeling is that if he isn't then you trade him, because, again, I think you probably get an "elite closer" return for him.

EDIT: I also think you're Soriano point is a valuable one. My argument wouldn't be: okay, JJ is an elite closer, so he's untouchable/irreplacable, OR: JJ isn't an elite closer, so we should trade him. My argument would be something more value-based: if JJ isn't as elite as the league thinks he is, let's trade him and capitalize on that value.

[TheBee]

There seems some kind of disconnect between what I'm saying and what you're arguing(didn't I just say he has a great skill-set?); of course he does consistently get hitters to swing and hit ground balls--if he didn't he wouldn't have a 2.56 ERA! (his K rate quite clearly doesn't account for that kind of ERA) You're not telling me anything new or really addressing the argument at all with the walk rate, as that's never been raised as a concern, and as we saw with Arrieta this year (and as we've seen with countless other examples) it's possible to have a low walk rate but still lack control in the zone. Again, the question is not is Jim Johnson a good closer? but rather Is Jim Johnson truly elite?--I have offered some reasons to doubt that the answer to the latter question is yes. If it's no, I think it makes some sense to deal Johnson because his market value is probably that of an elite closer.

You're right. We have a disconnect. You questioned his "control". I pointed out he isn't walking people, so he isn't throwing balls. The other "control" issue is as you call it "lack of control in the zone." Well, he's making people hit 65% groundballs (61% last year) with a .214 average. How is he not consistently demonstrating "control"? I don't understand you. He's a sinkerballer making people hit groundballs. How does he demonstrate this "lack of control in the zone"?

[Flash- bd]

You're right. We have a disconnect. You questioned his "control". I pointed out he isn't walking people, so he isn't throwing balls. The other "control" issue is as you call it "lack of control in the zone." Well, he's making people hit 65% groundballs (61% last year) with a .214 average. How is he not consistently demonstrating "control"? I don't understand you. He's a sinkerballer making people hit groundballs. How does he demonstrate this "lack of control in the zone"?

The question--since apparently I must repeat myself again and again--is Jim Johnson really elite or just good-really good as a closer? My assertion was that he's going to need to have pretty pinpoint control with his sinker--if he's throwing it 80% of the time--if he is to be really elite on that pitch alone (ie, 1.50-2.25 ERA). This is the disconnect. I keep repeating myself, and you keep out pointing why Jim Johnson is good. I keep telling you I know that, and trying to point things to a bit more interesting discussion but at this point I'm well past trying.

[TheBee]

The question--since apparently I must repeat myself again and again--is Jim Johnson really elite or just good-really good as a closer? My assertion was that he's going to need to have pretty pinpoint control with his sinker--if he's throwing it 80% of the time--if he is to be really elite on that pitch alone (ie, 1.50-2.25 ERA). This is the disconnect. I keep repeating myself, and you keep out pointing why Jim Johnson is good. I keep telling you I know that, and trying to point things to a bit more interesting discussion but at this point I'm well past trying.

Don't you dare come off to me as if I'm an idiot! I've done nothing to deserve that on this site. You directly claimed above that he "clearly" does not have pinpoint (that word is hyperbolic for any pitcher) control of his sinker. I clearly showed you statistically that over the last two years he isn't walking people and is a sinkerballer getting 61 to 65% groundballs and this year has them hitting 214. How the hell else is a sinkerballer supposed to demonstrate control in the zone? I asked you to give me proof that he lacks consistent control of his sinker. Where is it? Maybe you shouldn't repeat yourself again and again and say something to back up your assertion that Jim Johnson has control issues. Show me with a statistic of some sort that demonstrates he isn't throwing his sinker where he wants it, and I'll admit you're right. Spare me the attitude.

[Flash- bd]

Don't you dare come off to me as if I'm an idiot! I've done nothing to deserve that on this site. You directly claimed above that he "clearly" does not have pinpoint (that word is hyperbolic for any pitcher) control of his sinker. I clearly showed you statistically that over the last two years he isn't walking people and is a sinkerballer getting 61 to 65% groundballs and this year has them hitting 214. How the hell else is a sinkerballer supposed to demonstrate control in the zone? I asked you to give me proof that he lacks consistent control of his sinker. Where is it? Maybe you shouldn't repeat yourself again and again and say something to back up your assertion that Jim Johnson has control issues. Show me with a statistic of some sort that demonstrates he isn't throwing his sinker where he wants it, and I'll admit you're right. Spare me the attitude.

Relax. You started with the attitude, and no one's trying to come off to you as if you're an idiot, this is just argument, don't take it personally. I don't go out of my way to condescend but I don't make an effort to mince my words so to not hurt people's feelings either.

Read the OP of this thread. It was meant to be an observation-based take on Johnson backed up with some statistics. I really doubt anyone who's been watching Johnson all year would tell you he's always throwing it where he wants it; to me it seems pretty clear he doesn't have pinpoint control with his sinker, but if you want to call that hyperbolic, go ahead.

As for a statistic that shows Johnson is not controlling his sinker in the zone--or not controlling his sinker in ways that wouldn't reflect in his walk rate--there's a bunch of statistics that suggest this, which I alluded to in the OP, and I took to be known since they've been discussed on here but here goes:

LD%: 16.5, up from 14.5 last year

HR/FB: 13.6%, up from 7.6% last year

tERA: 4.04

F-strike (this speaks a lot to underlying control issues not showing up in walk rate): 54.8%, down from 64.5% last year

SwStr (this speaks more to what I've pointed out about him not mixing up his pitches very well, IMO): 5.8%

EDIT: either way, if you want to argue that Johnson is "elite" statistics are definitely not the way to go. Advanced metrics are very un-flattering toward him this year. I was actually arguing on your terms for the sake of a more interesting argument, but here's the stats since you asked for them. http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3656&position=P if you want more.

[JDubs]

Serenity now!

[TheBee]

Relax. You started with the attitude, and no one's trying to come off to you as if you're an idiot, this is just argument, don't take it personally. I don't go out of my way to condescend but I don't make an effort to mince my words so to not hurt people's feelings either.

Read the OP of this thread. It was meant to be an observation-based take on Johnson backed up with some statistics. I really doubt anyone who's been watching Johnson all year would tell you he's always throwing it where he wants it; to me it seems pretty clear he doesn't have pinpoint control with his sinker, but if you want to call that hyperbolic, go ahead.

As for a statistic that shows Johnson is not controlling his sinker in the zone--or not controlling his sinker in ways that wouldn't reflect in his walk rate--there's a bunch of statistics that suggest this, which I alluded to in the OP, and I took to be known since they've been discussed on here but here goes:

LD%: 16.5, up from 14.5 last year

HR/FB: 13.6%, up from 7.6% last year

tERA: 4.04

F-strike (this speaks a lot to underlying control issues not showing up in walk rate): 54.8%, down from 64.5% last year

SwStr (this speaks more to what I've pointed out about him not mixing up his pitches very well, IMO): 5.8%

EDIT: either way, if you want to argue that Johnson is "elite" statistics are definitely not the way to go. Advanced metrics are very un-flattering toward him this year. I was actually arguing on your terms for the sake of a more interesting argument, but here's the stats since you asked for them. http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3656&position=P if you want more.

Ok. No attitude intended. I will admit that I when I am evaluating a successful sinkerball closer I'm going to be mainly basing it on whether he is throwing strikes and not walking people, getting a high percentage of groundballs, and not blowing saves. He is doing all those things very well. Hell, Brandon McCarthy got written up in ESPN the Mag for producing a GB% 20% less than Johnson's. The LD%, though slightly up is still well below the 20% league average, isn't that right? His homerun rate is up, but his actual flyball rate is down and his groundball rate is up. And we are talking about allowing a total of 3 homers in 40 appearances, right? So, sarcasm not included, I guess I'm not schooled on advanced metrics enough to be as worried as you are. What I'm seeing is a sinkerballer doing exactly what I've always believed a premier sinkerballer would aspire to.

[Frobby]

Well, there is his second save in as many days, and an easy inning at that. Both one-run saves, too.

[Mondo Trasho]

I think the problem is that he hasn't been used enough. One appearance a week isn't going to keep you in game shape.

In general though, closers are kinda overrated. They're nice to have when you have a good one but never worth overpaying for.