Lannan has averaged 179 IP a year for four years, to the tune of 103 ERA+. Last year was 184 IP at 104 ERA+. Through it all, he's had a K:BB ratio of 1:39:1, which is eye-crossingly low in this strike-out prone era.

Is there an active pitcher out there with a greater sustained delta between their peripherals and their actual performance? He's sustained this knife game for 750 IP, which is a pretty substantial sample size to be cheating xFIP death. I'm actually astonished he's getting demoted to AAA to start the year, considering that he's been a solid innings eater for four years running. I realize that the Nats are a much improved club this year, but Lannan is (at least from an ERA perspective) an above-average starting pitcher entering his prime. What's the deal?

What's the deal?

I guess FIP. You'd never have seen this happen ten years ago. He might have had his arb years bought out instead.

Well he's also 38-51 so I wouldn't necessarily finger FIP either. Groundball low-K guys tend to have a minor ERA advantage that actually has nothing to do with wins on the scoreboard, they just give up more unearned runs.

Is he regarded as a good fielder of his position?

Well he's also 38-51 so I wouldn't necessarily finger FIP either.

38-51 would have mattered 20 years ago. I'm not sure about 10 . . . maybe, certainly.

Voros,

Good point -- almost 12% of the runs Lannan has allowed were unearned, which seems high. I'm not sure what a median unearned run ratio is, but I'd guess it's somewhere between 8-10%. Between that and the fact that Lannan's stuff has always seemed uninspiring, I probably shouldn't be as surprised as I am.

38-51 would have mattered 20 years ago. I'm not sure about 10 . . . maybe, certainly.

That wasn't really the point. It's that his record is bad, maybe in part because his RA is actually quite high, and it's the ERA+ that's doing the deceiving.

That wasn't really the point. It's that his record is bad, maybe in part because his RA is actually quite high, and it's the ERA+ that's doing the deceiving.

Ah, yes. That makes sense.

It's that his record is bad, maybe in part because his RA is actually quite high, and it's the ERA+ that's doing the deceiving.

I wouldn't call his RA quite high, just higher than his ERA+ would suggest.

I think his W-L record, as is often the case, is primarily the result of him being on crappy teams.

He's a decent back-of-the-rotation starter. That doesn't necessarily make him one of Washington's Top 5.

That wasn't really the point. It's that his record is bad, maybe in part because his RA is actually quite high, and it's the ERA+ that's doing the deceiving.

Actually that kind of was the point. I'm not as certain as others that Won/Loss record has ceased being a used stat in some baseball front offices. Don't know if the Nationals are one of them. Granted there's no one left who looks at it _mainly_ but I'm guessing there's at least a couple who still give it more weight than they probably should.

Also Lannan doesn't really fit the profile of a guy the scouts really love so he's probably got that working against him too.

I think it isn't the smartest thing to do. Even if you think he's headed for a crash, the way to sustain whatever trade value he has is not to send him to the minors. This looks simply to be a case of Detwiler being out of options and Lannan not, so Lannan goes down. I'm not sure I prefer one over the other (I'd probably Lannan at this point but not by much). I certainly prefer the first four over either though I think Jackson is over-priced and not leagues better than Lannan or Detwiler.

What is it about John Lannan and Brandon Inge that makes management afraid to say, "We have somebody better. That's how it works"?

Is there an active pitcher out there with a greater sustained delta between their peripherals and their actual performance? He's sustained this knife game for 750 IP, which is a pretty substantial sample size to be cheating xFIP death.

Like a lot of pitchers who tend to beat their xFIP numbers, Lannan gets a ton of DP balls. That's more of a problem with xFIP than it is a problem with John Lannan.

KC should pick up the phone.

When Bruce Chen and Luke Hochevar are your candidates for opening day starter, you could really use a 180 IP, 95 ERA+ guy.

I was at Lannan's major league debut, when he broke Chase Utley's wrist with a pitch. I've hated him ever since.

Like a lot of pitchers who tend to beat their xFIP numbers, Lannan gets a ton of DP balls.

So he's a Tommy John class pitcher? You've got the ground balls and the low K rate, but more walks and a few more homers. If Lannan could learn to control the running game consistently, he could be Kirk Rueter.

He's already every bit as good as Kirk Rueter, isn't he? I don't think Rueter ever had a four-year stretch as good as Lannan's last four years.

Actually that kind of was the point.

Oops. Sorry.

I was at Lannan's major league debut, when he broke Chase Utley's wrist with a pitch. I've hated him ever since.

Everyone has their upside.

KC should pick up the phone.

When Bruce Chen and Luke Hochevar are your candidates for opening day starter, you could really use a 180 IP, 95 ERA+ guy.

The Royals problem, is they have five #5 pitchers in their rotation. Adding another #5 pitcher doesn't help.

[13]Which is precisely why we love him so.

edit: Diet Tab to Sam? Please don't stab me!

The Royals problem, is they have five #5 pitchers in their rotation. Adding another #5 pitcher doesn't help.

Sure it does. Given pitcher attrition rates, if you start with 5 #5s, you'll end up pitching your #7 and #8 by August.

Lannan's probably more like a #4 anyway.

He's already every bit as good as Kirk Rueter, isn't he? I don't think Rueter ever had a four-year stretch as good as Lannan's last four years.

Yeah, that's true. I guess I could buy into Rueter because I could see what he was doing when I watched him pitch, but with Lannan he's allowing a 750 OPS and not doing all that much that looks interesting or special, and racking up competent run prevention numbers. I'm still skeptical of Lannan, and I don't think I'd project him to be better than Rueter for another four years.

EDIT: I see Chris, who has surely watched Lannan more than I have, does see something different there. Who knows. I like it when players find new and different ways to win, I'm just still skeptical that Lannan is one of them.

I'm sure one of the pitch fx guys could look into it -- i'm far too lazy -- but the perception I have from watching him is that more than any other crap-tossing lefty, he's not afraid to come inside on right-handed batters, especially with breaking stuff. You get some lefties with a little juice who might try a cutter in, but for most in the 88-92 range, it's away, away, away. If they do throw a breaker to a righty, it's outside. It really seems like he wasn't afraid to come inside with slop, which meant that when he threw that change-up (which dives down and away from righties), they would make especially weak contact.

So in that way, the combo and sequencing of his pitches added up to a whole lot more than the sum of their parts.

I'm pretty sure (again, too lazy to check) he's had a pretty negligible platoon split for his career... evidence that that sequencing is working? And if so, then his above-average performance against righties (because of the softer contact he induces) explains another chunk of this SaberStat versus real-world performance.

Sure it does. Given pitcher attrition rates, if you start with 5 #5s, you'll end up pitching your #7 and #8 by August.

They have four #5's in Omaha too - Vin Mazzaro, Sean O'Sullivan, Mike Montgomery, and Nathan Adcock, one on the DL (Felipe Paulino) and one in the bullpen (Everett Teaford).

Go peddle your suck somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.

Go peddle your suck somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.

Hey, I've got no dog in this fight.

I'm less disturbed by the decision to send down Lannan than I am by the manner in which the news was conveyed. It seems very odd and rather impolitic to tell a veteran mainstay of your rotation that he's headed to Syracuse in the 3rd inning of the final exhibition game (when you've already come north from ST).

When he was re-signed, Lannan was the putative #3 in the Nationals rotation (behind Strasburg & Zimmermann). Since then, the team's acquired Gio Gonzalez & Edwin Jackson, plus Detwiler had a really good spring. I'd have put Detwiler in as the long man, but otherwise, Lannan just ended up being #6 in a 5-man rotation. I would think there's quite a few teams that he'd be one of the top 5 -- especially after a few weeks.

Sure it does. Given pitcher attrition rates, if you start with 5 #5s, you'll end up pitching your #7 and #8 by August.

Which is also a good reason for the Nats to hold on to him.

Which is also a good reason for the Nats to hold on to him.

Yeah, I just figured that since they're sending him down rather than Detweiler down or to the pen, they're probably done with him. Otherwise, why not start him as #5, and avoid ruffling feathers? It doesn't really matter, both the #5 and #6 always get 25+ GS.

The decision was less about wanting to start Ross Detwiler than about protecting other bullpen arms. Detwiler (out of options) was making the team regardless. Meanwhile, there was a bit of a battle between Craig "Dreamy Eyes" Stammen and Ryan Mattheus for the last slot in the pen. Neither has options. So rather than risking one of those, the team sent the one guy they could out.

So they didn't pick Detwiler over Lannan. They picked Craig Stammen over John Lannan.

I have this feeling Lannan is going to be a Twin someday.

They picked Craig Stammen over John Lannan.

As a side issue, Stammen and Lannan are apparently very close friends. Which we can only hope means a long-running feud, followed by a battle/reconciliation a la Karate Kid II.

Is there an active pitcher out there with a greater sustained delta between their peripherals and their actual performance?

For some reason I've never really noticed Lannan before, and I'm looking at his numbers and... I don't get it.

You can be good with a low K rate if you don't walk anyone and don't give up homers.
He walks a few more batters than average
his HR rate, given his home park, is actually pretty average.
his BABIP is... average
There are 123 pitchers with 400+ IP from 2008-2011, here are the 12 with the greatest positive discrepancy between their ERA+ and OPS+s (I use OPS+ against to figure out expected ERA+)

Batters hit for an OPS+ of 106 against Lannan, which should come out to an ERA+ of 94, instead he was 8.4% better than that.

here are the bottom 12:


Not only is Hochevar bad, he's also unlucky :-( That is a bad combination.

Even so, 180IP at an ERA+ of 94 has some value- it's certainly better than what you'd expect a random AAA guy to do.

How does Lannan do it? His situational stats are wholly unremarkable, he gets a few more DPs than average- but not really enough to skew things so much... He looks like a below average pitcher whose been lucky and has had slightly above average results

I'm less disturbed by the decision to send down Lannan than I am by the manner in which the news was conveyed.

Two days ago the Braves told Yohan Flande that he had made his first major league roster as a LH reliever out of the pen.
Yesterday, they signed Chad Durbin and kicked Flande in the balls.

Because gods know, you can't pass up a shot at pairing Livian Hernandez AND Chad Durbin out of your pen.

"He looks like a below average pitcher whose been lucky and has had slightly above average results"

I hate describing things we don't know as "luck." It really is a BS catch-all. When the A's were trotting out Rich Becker, Matt Stairs and Ben Grieve in the outfield because they didn't know how to measure defense and felt they could ignore it, was good defense "luck?".

There's a reason he succeeds. Sure, he could just be an extreme, multiple season fluke. But there's something about the way he pitches that leads to better results. I've thrown my theory up above... but rather than waving it away as luck, why not look for it. Maybe we don't yet have the tools to see it yet, but there's a reason.

It's all the FEAR factor. Batters are afraid their hands will get broken like Chase Utley's.

Lannan's splits

vs RHB 274/345/407 752
vs LHB 261/327/424 751

His only + pitch is his changeup, which dives low and away from righties. So it makes sense that he'd have decent effectiveness against them, particularly compared to LHB. As I said above, I think it's his willingness to come inside with soft stuff that intensifies the impact of his changeup.

Basically, if you're a righty, they may be able to key on the pitch not being a fastball quick. Then they have to make that determination: is this thing coming inside, or is this going to fade low and away. By keeping the hitter off balance (yes, perhaps he's afraid of having his hand busted!), he protects from the batter being able to lean out and slap the changeup up the middle or to the opposite field. That uncertainty means they're hitting off balance more than they would if you just isolated his so-so change-up.

At least it's a theory...

"Luck" is a theory, too. As long as it's presented as a possibility, rather than a conclusion, I don't have a problem with it.

Kent Bottenfield had three pretty good years before the pixie dust wore off, for instance. Lannan's got a better track record than most pitchers with his component numbers, and as I said, I'd really like to believe that he can keep doing what he's done. Baseball's more fun when guys find new and different ways to win, and it's always possible that various statistical measures could fail to diagnose what's causing events on the field. I just think, having watched Lannan a few times, that I think there's a good chance he's not special, and he's going to get lit up pretty bad by major league hitters in the future.

I understand what you're saying with Bottenfield, but that's not really a good comparison. If I remember, he bounced around a while before stumbling into basically 1.5 good seasons under Dave Duncan before reverting to what he was before.

Lannan came up and has performed for 4 full seasons (with parts of a 5th) at roughly the same level. Their track records are completely different. He had a blip in 2010, but it's likely he had a bit of an injury/soreness that season. But basically, he's consistently and repeatedly beat the odds. One year, it's a fluke. Two years, perhaps. But three and four? There's a reason he's an outlier.

There's a reason he succeeds. Sure, he could just be an extreme, multiple season fluke. But there's something about the way he pitches that leads to better results. I've thrown my theory up above...

At least it's a theory...

It's a theory that could explain why righties don't hit him any better than lefties do- it doesn't explain why he give sup less runs than his OPS+ against would indicate.
For instance looking at the split stats of someone like Nova last year (with RISP batters hit just .215/.287/.285 against him) (or Glavine for his career- with men on he gave up quite a few more walks- but yielded far fewer XBH) you can see why someone is giving up many fewer (or more) runs than his peripherals or component stats. Nova we just have one year to look at, could be a fluke, Glavine we can confidently say was not lucky- he did in fact pitch differently with men on- in away that minimized scoring.

Lannan's splits are baffling because there is essentially nothing there- considering EVERYTHING, how guys hit against him, how they hit with men on, how he gets DPs- factor in ALL that, 3267 PAs against- and yet he's off quite a bit.

There are 54 left-handed starters with 300IP since 2007.

Lannan was 18th in pickoffs, and 34th in SB%. +1 over that period in stolen base runs saved. Doesn't look like controlling the running game is it.

Lannan came up and has performed for 4 full seasons (with parts of a 5th) at roughly the same level. Their track records are completely different. He had a blip in 2010, but it's likely he had a bit of an injury/soreness that season. But basically, he's consistently and repeatedly beat the odds. One year, it's a fluke. Two years, perhaps. But three and four? There's a reason he's an outlier.

and actually there is a flaw in my post 32, I used ERA+ and not RA+
2007-2012, Lannan has given up about 10-12 more UNEARNED runs than you'd expect relative to his earned runs
His RA+ is 99/100 a little lower than his 103 ERA+

Which of course was brought up before by Voros
In any event, ERP (a linear weights type run estimator) says he should have given up 385 runs, he's actually given up 378, that's not a biggie.

essentially his ERA+ is better than his peripherals/component stats because:

1: His ERA+ is deceptive, he gives up a lot of unearned runs
2: He's a little better than his K/BB/IP because he avoids HRs to some extent
3: He's a little better than his FIP/DIPS ERA - not because of BABIP- but because he does get a few more DPs than the next guy- 35 extra actually
4: In 751 IP he's given up 12 sac flies- "average" would be 26
5: He's thrown 15 wild pitches, average would be 28
6: He's given up one less balk than average
7: He's given up 10 extra SB- and 4 extra CS (that's basically neutral)
8: He's given up 2 extra SHs (which is 2 extra bases- but 2 extra outs as well)

So in looking at stuff that doesn't get into OPS+, in 4 years he's gotten 27 extra outs (DPs, CS, SH less SF)
and given up 55 less bases...

Those "little" things can usually be disregarded, but in Lannan's case they seems to almost all be running in his favor- and that starts to add up- likely about 4-5 extra points of ERA+ in his case.

Ever consider that Lannan sucks at baseball?

he does get a few more DPs than the next guy

So his 2nd baseman is good? How does he compare to other Nationals pitchers?

So his 2nd baseman is good? How does he compare to other Nationals pitchers?

Those GDP/SF/SF/SB/CS figures I used were in comparison to other National's pitchers (BTW 2007-2012 the Nationals have literally given up exactly as many runs as projected by ERP)

Ever consider that Lannan sucks at baseball

actually, no, 700+ MAJOR LEAGUE innings pitched, has not embarrassed himself. He's GRAET at baseball, even NEIFI was GOOD at baseball (just too many other players were better)

in comparison to other Nationals pitchers

Maybe there is a lefty / righty split with the lefties outperforming the righties?

I know this has probably been explained numerous times elsewhere, but I really thought I understood this rule, and now apparently I don't.

How can John Lannan, who was drafted in 2005, and spent parts of 5 seasons in the majors (so, on the 40 man roster for 5 years), including at least four seasons where he was on the 25-man roster, still have "options" left in 2012?

The basic version: You have 3 seasons (sometimes 4) where you're on the 40-man roster, in which you can be kicked off the 25-man.

Given his age, he probably wasn't added to the 40-man 'til he made his major league debut. And he's basically stuck since then. I think he was only sent to the minors for a brief time in 2010, using an option. At most, he's used 2 of his 3 options.

There are special rules for service time... After 5 years of MLB service, a player can refuse the option. And after 3 calendar years, a player has to clear the special optional assignment waivers (as Lannan most likely did) -- though there appears to be a gentleman's agreement for nobody to ever claim anyone on that, lest mass chaos happen.

I think I saw that Jason Marquis was optioned today. As he has over 5 years, he'd have the ability to refuse the assignment.

Marquis probably asked to be optioned. As far as I know, he's still not with the team.

Okay, thanks. I hadn't realized that a player doesn't use an option year if he spends the entire year in the majors, but does if he spends the entire year in the minors.

As Lannan was called up in late 2007, and only has a few games in the minors in 2010 since then, it is likely that he has only used up one option. It seems odd that Lannan is being punished for not bouncing from majors to minors for years like Detwiler was.

Okay, thanks. I hadn't realized that a player doesn't use an option year if he spends the entire year in the majors, but does if he spends the entire year in the minors.

As Lannan was called up in late 2007, and only has a few games in the minors in 2010 since then, it is likely that he has only used up one option. It seems odd that Lannan is being punished for not bouncing from majors to minors for years like Detwiler was.

Yes, it is odd. It seems like every year of service should burn an option.

Okay, thanks. I hadn't realized that a player doesn't use an option year if he spends the entire year in the majors, but does if he spends the entire year in the minors.

The option gets used to send a player to the minors. If a player is on the 40-man roster, he has to be "optioned" to the minors in spring. So technically you don't spend "the entire year in the minors" - in spring training, you're on the major league roster, and you need to be optioned down.

Yeah. It's just that usually the "option" means that there are at least two choices -- you can choose "Option 1" or "Option 2." But either one is an "Option." The way way they have it set up now, getting sent to the minor is an Option, but staying in the majors isn't -- so there is only one Option, which isn't really what Option means.