Thesis of the story: Zito's self-awareness from reading the Scott Boras' marketing binder destroyed Zito's ability to stay in the moment and, consequently, his ability to pitch. Much more likely explanation: (1) For the three years before signing with the Giants, Zito was a very good -- but far from great -- pitcher (ERA+ of 102, 113 and 116); (2) Zito pitched a lot of innings from age 23 - 28, averaging around 222 IP/year; and (3) Zito lost his confidence when he realized that he was not in the same class as Lincecum, Cain, etc.

Zito never should have written that book.

Boras then had those numbers printed out on crisp white paper and tucked inside blue binders. Each of them was stamped with silver foil: BARRY ZITO, FREE AGENT PRESENTATION. That binder eventually won Boras and Zito a seven-year, $126 million contract from the San Francisco Giants,

I've always thought that Boras' presentation binders were done more to blow smoke up his clients' asses than actually get more money for them- from what I read the one he did for Damon really got some GMs amused....

What I found interesting about the article is that the author seems to indicate on one hand that Boras' computer projections were flawed because that is the nature of projections - but on the other he notes that Boras' presentations generally rely upon data mining...

Zito had been a very good pitcher through 2006, but he had not been an ELITE pitcher since about 2003- his age 28 BBREF comps were all good pitchers- but only 1 aged really well (Glavine) 4 were pretty decent and the rest pitched post 29, oh about like Zito has. The deal was not doomed to fail, but the actual results should not have been unexpected- it was the outcome you should expect about 40-50% of the time. He hasn't been terrible (at least not until this year) just not very good.

If Zito only remained what he had been — no better, no worse — Boras had projected that he would have more starts than Eppa Rixey, more innings pitched than Lefty Grove, more strikeouts than Warren Spahn. He would have more everything than his beloved Sandy Koufax, given his injury-shortened career.

And what are the odds of that? 1 in 20? 1 in 100? 1 in a 1000?

He lost his stuff. A's Zito was 88-90 with a tremendous curveball. Giants Zito is 84-86 with a curveball that usually bounces off home plate, replaced by an average cutter. Meh.

He lost his stuff. A's Zito was 88-90 with a tremendous curveball. Giants Zito is 84-86 with a curveball that usually bounces off home plate, replaced by an average cutter. Meh.

Well his stuff didn't just fall out his open fly. An extreme loss of focus or confidence could result in losing stuff. Accumulated wear is probably a better explanation, though.

Just to pile on, from ages 26-28 Zito accumulated 10.2 WAR,. which is 109th for all pitchers from 1947-2011.
The reason I'm going on and on is that at the time there were two local radio jocks obsessed with Zito, who had for years cooked up absurd trade ideas and who solemnly declared that it was a huge mistake when the Mutts "let" the Giants sign him.

When Hampton signed his absurd deal with Colorado, his WAR for the preceding 3 years had been 14.3
When Brown signed his $100mm deal, his WAR for the preceding 3 years had been 22.3.

Zito was a good pitcher, not a great one, and the Giants simply grossly overpaid.

This article was one of the reads I've had in a while. Thanks for finding this. I wonder if, once released from "burden" of the monster contract, Zito will become a crafty lefty junkballer and finish up his career very well.

He never should have had his stuffed animals taken away.

Zito never should have written that book.

Slow clap.

That binder eventually won Boras and Zito a seven-year, $126 million contract from the San Francisco Giants, then the largest ever for a pitcher.

It must have been the binder. After all, the Giants' front office is known for being won over by recondite statistical analyses.

This is pretty similar to the Pat Jordan piece about Zito from 2008.

Someone had a breakdown of his mechanics (I belive ChadBradfordWannabe, but I have no idea where I saw it so who knows), the gist of which (again, if I'm remembering correctly) was that Zito's motion was almost all arm, and that therefore he was a very good bet to not age well. I put much more credence in something like that as explanation than a loss of focus or confidence. I will be curious to see if he can manage some manner of junkballer rejuvenation at some point, but for now I think the likely culprit for his decline is physiological.

I'd say it's a blend of several things:

-The confidence issue can't be dismissed. Zito's demeanor on the mound changed drastically from OAK to SF. The easy aplomb he displayed in OAK is gone. At times in SF he's looked downright scared.

-Yes, his stuff does appear lost, as Flynn says. He was never Aroldis Chapman but his velocity is noticably weaker. Is that due to physical breakdown? Obviously we don't know but it's not out of the question.

-One thing to remember as well is that Zito got a ton of pop-up outs in OAK's vast foul territory. He doesn't have that luxury in SF.

Zito must have been psychic, too. If he had a portrait of Carlos Santana in his bedroom back in the early 2000s, then he must have predicted Santana's eventual future in the majors when the latter was a preteen. (Har, har.)

Also, "I was actually kind of aroused [upon first seeing the presentation]"? That's, um, an odd choice of words.

Zito hit a perfect storm when he signed the Giants contract. The Bonds scandal had really hit the fan and apparently Peter McGowan really pressured Sabean to sign Zito, although it's probably on Sabean that he paid about $50 million and two years more than anyone was offering.

The synopsis sounds like the kind of armchair psychology Bill Simmons would lap up.

The synopsis sounds like the kind of armchair psychology Bill Simmons would lap up.

It does, though if you read interviews with Zito from his Oakland days it doesn't seem quite as far-fetched. He would go on and on about people like Ernest Holmes and how "positive visualization" was the most important factor to his success. So it's not too hard to see how a couple of bad years could trigger a complete psychological meltdown and lack of belief in himself.

That's a very gracefully written load of crap.

He lost his stuff. A's Zito was 88-90 with a tremendous curveball. Giants Zito is 84-86 with a curveball that usually bounces off home plate, replaced by an average cutter. Meh.

Zito was around 84-86 his last few years in Oakland, too. The fall of Zito from really good pitcher to above average pitcher occurred when the league realized he couldn't throw his curveball for strikes. Before he would throw the curve, then follow it up with a high fastball, and everyone would swing at it for fear it was another curve. In 2002 that seems like all he did, over and over and over, he would get these incredibly awkward swings on high fastballs. Then hitters realized that since he couldn't control it, even if it was a curve it was probably going to be a ball, and if it was a fastball it was definitely going to be a ball, so they stopped swinging at everything high entirely. Add the velocity loss and suddenly he was getting by on smoke and mirrors. He always had bad FIPs - with the Giants, for whatever reason, his ERA finally caught up to them.

re: FIP and ERA, could the foul territory difference explain that?

(Sorry if that's a dumb question, I'm not aware of how FIP is calculated)

Too bad for Zito and the Giants that he can't make all his starts against the Rockies. He carves them up.

How did the Giants go from the team that signed Zito to the team that developed Cain, Lincecum, Sanchez, and Bumgarner?

Well his stuff didn't just fall out his open fly.

I dunno, how is Alyssa Milano pitching?

If some geriatric newspaper hack wrote a column saying that Zito was doomed by his big contract, which made him lose focus and confidence, everyone here would roast him. This is that article, just written more stylishly.

If some geriatric newspaper hack wrote a column saying that Zito was doomed by his big contract, which made him lose focus and confidence, everyone here would roast him. This is that article, just written more stylishly.

This. This was a terrible ####### article. Terrible.

I couldn't finish the article.

There was no there there (Oakland joke!). I kept expecting Chris Jones to explain WHY Zito's confidence dried up with a lengthier explanation using the contract as a jumping point, and he didn't. At all.

Zito was around 84-86 his last few years in Oakland, too. The fall of Zito from really good pitcher to above average pitcher occurred when the league realized he
couldn't throw his curveball for strikes. Before he would throw the curve, then follow it up with a high fastball, and everyone would swing at it for fear it was another curve.

I disagree. He got hitters to chase on the curveball, yes, but he also threw it for strikes fairly frequently. I remember Game 2 of the 2003 ALDS, and he got three called strike threes. He also got six swinging strikes, but they weren't curveballs in the dirt. They were strikes or just below the knees. It's not that hitters laid off his curveball, it's that his curveball absolutely became a worse pitch. He has a good hook about once a year now, and it's by no means the 11-5 monster he had in his years with the A's.

He lost his stuff. A's Zito was 88-90 with a tremendous curveball. Giants Zito is 84-86 with a curveball that usually bounces off home plate, replaced by an average cutter. Meh.

The dropoff was gradual. He didn't drop 4 MPH as soon as he switched leagues. Fangraphs has velocity data back to 2002.

2002 87.1
2003 86.9
2004 86.9
2005 87.3
2006 85.8
2007 84.5
2008 84.9
2009 86.5
2010 85.7
2011 84.0

Also interesting that his FIP and xFIP from his last 4 years with the A's is not much different than his first 4 years with the Giants.

According to fangraphs, he went from 25% curveballs, 14% changeups in 2005 and before to 20% curveballs, 20% changeups in 2006 and after. At about that time, the curveball went from being a run better than average per 100 pitches to .25 runs worse than average (this jumps around a lot year for year, though).