• Rickt: I am the biggest Cal Jr fan around but one of my good friends played minor l...

Tom GlavineToday, AJC columnist Furman Bisher welcomes Tom Glavine home with a big wet kiss on the buttocks. Furman is amazed — more than that, he’s flummoxed — by the selfless Tom Glavine, who agreed this week to pitch for less in Atlanta:

What he did was something I’ve never heard any baseball player do before. He said he wasn’t sure he was worth what the New York Mets were offering.

His projected salary, I should say. It was there. All he had to do was take it, a $13 million option to pitch another season on Long Island.

So in the end it was take a $5 million cut in pay to live and pitch where his home and heart are.

What Bisher doesn’t seem to understand is that, while Glavine is pitching for less, he’s not pitching for that much less. The Mets gave him a $3 million buyout. He signed an $8 million deal with Atlanta. So he’s pitching for $11 million in 2008, $2 million less than he would have earned with New York. Not $5 million less.

Glavine, for his part, says the reason he was willing to take less money is because, well, I’ll let him tell you:

“I wasn’t sure I was worth 13 million,” Glavine said. “I’m not a No. 1 starter any more. I didn’t have the feeling that I could go out and pitch like a $13 million guy anymore.”

See, making $13 million made Glavine uncomfortable. That’s a lot of pressure. $11 million is much less of a burden.

Bisher thinks Glavine’s admission is the greatest thing he’s ever heard. Seriously, he’s giddy.

This is utter violation of the athlete’s code. You don’t get such honesty in this day and age of the agent and his pawn.

Bisher goes on to say that Glavine is going to be lights out in Atlanta and that the reason he sucked down the stretch in New York was, well, it was all mental. He was home sick.

I put nothing into Glavine’s rocky wind-up in New York: three blown starts, including one tormented one. His mind was at work on other matters. He knew he was pitching his way out of a Mets uniform, and his head was getting mixed signals.

Now all the disturbing doubts are gone, and here is a man with a freedom of mind. He’s home again. He drives to Turner Field to an old familiar parking space. Walks into home, not the visitors clubhouse, greets old pals and familiar faces. That should add years to his happiness and his ERA.

First of all, I’ve got news for you, Bish. Matt Diaz has Glavine’s parking space now and he told me the other day that he’s not giving it up for nobody. He said if Glavine wants his space back, he’s going to have to take it.

And “years to his happiness and ERA?” Well, I guess we’ll never know since Glavine only signed a one-year deal, right Bish?

Yes, the contract is only for one year. With Glavine’s well-ordered lifestyle, his deep faith, and the ease with which he delivers his 82-mph fastball, change of pace and slider, his trim body should be good for two or three more seasons.

Well, it’s hard to argue with that logic. Glavine does look pretty smooth throwing those 82-mph fastballs. But if you think that’s impressive, Bish, you should see just how casually I loft my 68-mph cheese. You want deep faith? I was a freaking alter boy! And if you’re looking for a guy who’s willing to accept a contract for less than $13 million a year, hey, I’m your man. I’ll pitch for $5 million right now! Sign me up!

16 Responses to “Tom Glavine: not a $13 million pitcher”

  1. Paul Moro says:

    I’ll hold off on the Schilling-HOF debate.

    But I’ll say this much – on a one-year deal, Curt Schilling is very much worth it. His Ks may be lacking. He still gives up too many homeruns, especially at Fenway. But he can still pitch. There are far worse things the Red Sox can do than give Schilling another year at a similar salary.

  2. Sarah Green says:

    His K’s have gone down, but he’s kept his walk rate low. And giving up solo homers is often the mark of a pitcher who throws a lot of strikes. Pedro did it too, when he was with the Red Sox. It doesn’t bother me. Plus, I’d like to see what the guy could do now that he’s had a full year to adjust to this “finesse” stuff. If October was a preview, I’ll take it.

    In Schill’s favor for HOF consideration: over 3,000 strikeouts and 14th on that list, all time; 213 wins to get him over that particular threshold; and his K/BB rate is the best all-time. Add his October resume and I think he has a more than decent shot.

  3. Paul Moro says:

    When I said that he can still pitch, the walks (or lack thereof) were basically what I was talking about. But walks usually don’t tell you about whether or not pitchers are slipping. They can be warning signs for poor mechanics or injuries, but age usually doesn’t have much to do with that, unless they just lose confidence in their skills and start trying to nibble.

    What can indicate age are things like slugging pct against and line drive %. If they’re making harder contact, then it’s worrisome. For the last 3 years, he’s been walking a tightrope in that department. But it hasn’t affected him as much as I would have expected.

    Again, I think that the Sox should offer him a one-year deal. But one red flag that I’m sure they realize: in 2007, there was a pretty big disparity in how Schilling performed with runners on base and with the bases clear. Opponents slugged almost .500 against him with no one on. When he had runners on, they slugged .363. I haven’t seen any evidence that this is a repeatable skill from year to year. I expect that gap to narrow quite a bit in 2008. This could mean that the SLG with runners on could come closer to .500 or that SLG with bases clear could come closer to .363. If it’s the former, the ERA will jump a good bit. If it’s the latter, obviously, he’ll be fine.

    And I will continue to keep my mouth shut on his HOF credentials for the time being. I am not getting thrown into this debate. You scare me.

  4. Sarah Green says:

    I frighten many people, Paul. Especially males. I think Schilling’s low walk rate is worth noting, since he has such a ridiculously low walk rate. I also think it’s commendable this year in light of his transition to a guy who pitches with deception and guile. The stakes for him keeping his command of the strike zone are higher now that he can no longer blow it by anyone. As for the difference between his performance with runners on and without, I think you would have to go back and look at previous years to see how he had done earlier. I know Curt is a clutch pitcher from watching him lo these many years; for all I know, he does perform better and take fewer risks with men on base.

  5. Nick Kapur says:

    Actually, Paul, while I haven’t looked at the numbers, I suspect you might find that great pitchers often yield higher slugging percentages with the bases empty. Pedro had an absolutely uncanny ability to only give up solo home runs, but I suspect it was not just a fluke. I think smart pitchers pitch to contact when there is nobody on and let their defense make plays, saving up their best stuff for when they really need it in a jam.

  6. Nick Kapur says:

    Also, I am absolutely not afraid to dive into the Curt Schilling Hall of Fame debate. To me, he is a first ballot Hall of Famer. I don’t know if he will actually get in on the first ballot or not, but by the end of his career he is going to have well over 200 wins, and we can no longer say that pitchers need 300 to get in (not that we ever did). Plus, he has two of the most memorable World Series pitching performances ever (2001 and 2004), along with pitching very well in two other World Series.

    Leading three different teams to four World Series plus 200 wins plus one of the most dominant pitchers of his generation = Curt Schilling is already a Hall of Famer, even if he retires tomorrow.

  7. Nick Kapur says:

    As an added note, Schilling is well over the benchmark for an “average Hall of Famer” in Black Ink, Gray Ink, and Hall of Fame Monitor, and he is just a shade under in Hall of Fame Standards, but should soon be over…

  8. Paul Moro says:

    All right, here are those SLG% splits for Schilling and Pedro with runners on and bases clear. I can only do a quick check since 2002 because that’s all ESPN.com keeps track.

    Schilling (ON/NONE):
    2007: .363/.499
    2006: .452/.462
    2005: .509/.505
    2004: .381/.391
    2003: .367/.353
    2002: .438/.326

    Pedro (ON/NONE)
    2007: .389/.387
    2006: .465/.340
    2005: .344/.329
    2004: .370/.419
    2003: .287/.330
    2002: .302/.312

    These splits are usually a lot closer together than Schilling’s 2007. The argument wasn’t that Schilling’s SLG% Against in 2008 will DEFINITELY be clsoer to the .499 than the .363. I’m just saying that I don’t think that the disparity is something that translates year after year. So I expect those splits to be closer together in 2008, which MAY mean that he’ll allow a higher SLG% with men on base than he did this year. It was kind of like “Can the real Curt Schilling please stand up”.

  9. Sarah Green says:

    That’s interesting Paul—it actually looks like Pedro’s days of only giving up solo shots ended when he left Boston. (Thus far, everything that happens just validates Boston’s decision to let him go; plus they got Buchholz with the pick! Booya!) But I wonder, if looking at Schilling’s numbers, we could go so far as to call it a mild trend—to say he’s gotten better at getting out of jams as he gets older/wiser/a changeup. No?

  10. If that’s the case, Sarah, then Schilling wised up a lot between ’06 and ’07. There;s almost no difference between Schilling’s splits in 2006. Looking at his numbers from last year, opponents had 796 ABs against him. The .452 SLG% over that span would mean 360 total bases given up. The .462 SLG% over that same time would be 368 TBs. It’s really not a big difference and totally within the realm of random fluctuation.

    And I’d be really curious to see Pedro’s pre 2002 splits to see if it really is a trend or just a coincidence. I have no idea where to find the info, though. Anyone know?

    Either way, even in his better days, the splits were much closer together than Schilling’s in 2007.

  11. Sarah Green says:

    No, I have no idea where to find that stuff. I mean, you could try baseball-reference.com or maaaybe hardballtimes.com, but I still like ESPN.com’s stats the best because, even if they don’t have all the stats I would want (VORP, mainly) they are so well-organized and easy to sort. BP might have it but I find their interface very unintuitive.

    Do you not think that Schilling’s adding a changeup to his repetoire this year might have had some impact? I mean, he made a conscious choice to supplant strikeouts with contact outs. That has to show up somewhere in his numbers.

  12. I don’t think any pitcher ever chooses to supplant strikeouts with contact outs. He’s forced to because he can’t strike anyone out any more.

    And any counter-argument I can pose depends a lot on how you feel about “Batting-Average-on-Balls-in-Play”. If you’re like me and rely a good deal on BABiP to rationalize things, then I can say things like strikeouts are much more preferable to “pitching to contact”. If it’s true that, on average, batters get hits roughly 30% of the time they make contact (depending on how hard they hit the ball), then why wouldn’t you choose to let them hit it? Strikeouts help limit the damage caused by this 30% “rule”, which is why it’s an important ability to have.

    As for the changeup thing, I honestly don’t know. My first inclination would be to see his Line Drive % and his Ground ball/ Fly ball ratio to see if hitters are making different kinds of contact against him.

    So I looked at the numbers and it’s pretty inconclusive. His LD% in 2007 was at 19% (meaning that 19% of the time that hitters made contact against him, they hit the ball hard), which is pretty similar to his 2006 19.7% and 2004′s 19.8% (I’m not counting 2005 because that season was a career anomaly – he was a mess).

    He is allowing flyballs a bit more than he used to, but not by much. He had a .91 GB/FB ratio this year, compared to .96 in 2006 and 1.04 in 2004. Which doesn’t necessarily mean much. It may be worth mentioning that there’s been a steady decline in the # of groundballs he allows since 1998. But this hasn’t hurt him that much yet.

  13. Sarah Green says:

    No, I know he was forced to switch strategies by cruel Father Time, rather than any kind of preference. No power pitcher likes to admit he can’t blow it by hitters anymore. But instead of just pathetically hanging on to the past (which would have been disastrous), he decided to add a new pitch to his arsenal and find a way to make it work. He can still get a strikeout when he *needs* one, but most of the time these days, he has to let his defense do their jobs if he wants to keep his pitch count down.

  14. You may be right about Schilling being able to “dial it up” when he wants to. I haven’t seen the guy pitch enough this year to have earned the right to an opinion on that. So I’ll concede this at the moment. Let’s remember to review this conversation next year.

    But I did recently read a study that claimed there was essentially no difference between a strikeout and contact pitcher in how deep he can go in a game. It has more to do with how many walks they give up. You can read it here.

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-kazmir-conundrum/contact.

    Basically, the argument here is that yes, it takes more pitches to strike a guy out than to get him to put the ball in play. But this is all balanced out when you consider that each K is an out while each ball in play is not. And that going for Ks doesn’t necessarily mean your walks are going up too.

    But I think I’ve gotten WAAAY off topic here. Sorry.

  15. Ernie Mazza says:

    I am so glad he’s gone.He is not worth much money at all. He was only mediocre While in NY.Glavine may have been very good at one time, but the Mets saw very few good outings from him in 5 years. Now someone else can take over his spot and hopefully do better, and for less money.

  16. Sarah Green says:

    You were an altar boy?? HOT. And you can tell your girlfriend I said so.

Leave a Reply

    Recent Comments

    • Rickt: I am the biggest Cal Jr fan around but one of my good friends played minor league baseball in the Orioles...
    • HADAJUN: I wish for play in Japan. The death is regrettable.
    • David the okajima: was wondering if I related too this guy?
    • HaroldHecuba: Mike Mussina is EASTERN EUROPEAN, not Italian.
    • handsomerandyblackladdiebrad1953: Plus,Jackson’s Polo Grounds-heightened batting stats,when park-adjusted,make...

Marketplace

    Subscribe via email

    Enter your email address:

    Archives

What's Popular

Featured posts

220px-Bbwaa_logo_web

December 5, 2011

Will anybody get elected to the Hall of Fame this year?

Last week, we asked you to vote for who you would like to see enshrined in baseball’s Hall of Fame. The verdict? If it were up to UmpBump readers, nobody would make it in. The leading vote getter (so far) is Jeff Bagwell, who has 60% support. Of course, in the real voting, players need […]

January 5, 2011

Annual UmpBump Hall of Fame Balloting: 2011 Edition

In what has become an annual tradition, we here at UmpBump cast our ballots for the Hall of Fame on the eve of the announcements of the voting for the real Hall of Fame. Voters can vote for anyone ever who has been retired from baseball for at least five years and is not already […]

According to the internet, "The Little Napoleon" John McGraw was the greatest manager of all time.

October 19, 2010

Crowdsourcing the Greats: The Top 10 Managers of All Time

Now that we’ve looked at every position on the diamond, as well as relief pitchers, we are nearing the end of our “Crowdsourcing the Greats” series. But before we finish, let’s turn one more time to the internet hoi polloi for answers on who the greatest baseball manager of all time was. As usual, we […]