Ricky Nolasco vs Josh Johnson

[rotodog]

Josh Johnson vs Ricky Nolasco

Todd, a couple days ago you had responded to a readers question regarding Ricky Nolasco and Josh Johnson. You seemed to prefer Nolasco by leaps and bounds over Josh Johnson and in a perfect world, I probably would. My problem with Nolasco is that he increased his innings tremendously and could be an injury or burnout risk.

In 2006 Ricky threw 140 innings of MLB ball
2007 injury riddled season he threw 55 innings at different levels
2008 he tossed 212.1 Major league innings


Now I do agree he was stellar for the most part, but there is another chink in his armour aside of the Huge IP increase. This came to me after reading your latest Essay (which was great BTW) and the Correlation with HR/G ratio. His HR/G ratio was a staggering 1.19 in 2008 and in his Healthy 2006 Major league campaign he had a 1.29 Hr/G in 140 Innings…

In your latest piece , you do suggest that rates over 1 are playing with fire and rates over 1.20 are like adding gas to that fire (my words, not yours).

In defense of Josh Johnson let’s compare Ricky 08 and Josh 08.

Josh Starts 14 87 IP
K/9 7.94 BB/9 2.78 k/bb 2.85 HR/9 .72 WHIP 1.35 FIP ERA 3.37 GB/FB 1.54

Ricky 212 IP
K/9 7.88 bb/9 1.78 k/bb 4.43 HR/9 1.19 WHIP 1.10 FIP ERA 3.77 GB/FB .92

They are actually pretty close. K rates identical with a slight edge on Josh. Ricky owns exactly one less walk per game than Josh . Josh owns him in HR/9 . Ricky has a better WHIP , but FIP ERA likes Josh's Groundball tendencies much better than Ricky… Josh induces more grounders and his .322 BABIP supports that some of those grounders go for hits…

When we look at the HR/9 rates (o8 numbers are in line with previous seasons for each) and the groundball tendencies of Josh, we essentially have 1 walk per 9 innings trumping the groundball tendencies and great HR/9 rates of Josh.

ADP took 200+ drafts run last week and Ricky ADP is 125 ahead of pichers like Matt Cain and Javier Vazquez…. Josh Johnson ADP is 2 rounds later at 147……

So I ask, Considering that Ricky is possibly a burnout or injury risk, Is Ricky that much better that Josh Johnson? Anyones thoughts are welcome

[msugray]

You seemed to prefer Nolasco by leaps and bounds over Josh Johnson and in a perfect world, I probably would.

Todd's reply: "If both are healthy, Nolasco beats Johnson by a decent margin."
In Feb. 15th projections, Ricky Nolasco $13 in Mixed15; Josh Johnson $12 Mixed15. It's a little preference but not leaps and bounds.


My problem with Nolasco is that he increased his innings tremendously and could be an injury or burnout risk.

In 2006 Ricky threw 140 innings of MLB ball
2007 injury riddled season he threw 55 innings at different levels
2008 he tossed 212.1 Major league innings

I could be mistaken but I think most workload increase used to assess risk is applied mainly to pitchers below the age of 25 as they are developing. Nolasco has crossed this threshold. Josh Johnson has not. Also, IP data is somewhat cherry picked. Nolasco: 2003 IP: 149, 2004 IP: 148, 2005 IP: 161.7, 2006 IP: 140 (majors), 2007 IP: 55 (majors/minors), 2008 IP: 212.3. That looks like a reasonably nice progression in workload outside of the injury in 2007. I don't see significantly more risk than any other pitcher.

Let's look at Josh Johnson's IP data. 2002 IP: 15, 2003 IP: 82, 2004 IP: 114, 2005 IP: 152, 2006 IP: 157, 2007 IP: 37.4, 2008 IP: 116.7

Josh would have to increase his workload 80 IP to approach 200 IP in 2009. It's a number he's never shown the capability of reaching. At a minimum, Nolasco has shown he can go there even if he never does again.

That said, I prefer Josh Johnson for some of the reasons you mention in the numerical analysis. I think there's more upside if he can limit some of the BB.

[Todd Zola]

FWIW, that is Gary's handy work.

[rotodog]

I am not sure if I prefer one over the other, but it was meant to spark conversation . I guess i did take some creative license with a couple of my words, but I was under the impression that he was valued much higher...

Now I do agree asking Josh Johnson to pitch 200+ is asking a lot, but 180- 200 IP I could see ... I am also not staing that Ricky is not good or that he wont stay healthy, but the risk is there and at what price do we want to pay for risk..

If Ricky was being left behind on draft day, I would be singing his praises...but I get the feeling the market is overpaying the hype a little bit...

I know a few others will have a take on this...

[rotodog]

FWIW, that is Gary's handy work.

Sorry Todd..... I just want to point out that I think Ricky is getting a little overvalued and wanted to hear the community response....

[msugray]

FWIW, that is Gary's handy work.

Have you thought of Podcasting the discussions that the staff has about player projections?

No there's some Platinum content!

Would be interesting.

[Todd Zola]

Since the piece is so good, and we don't include an author line (maybe we should?), I just wanted everyone to know Gary wrote it is all.

Sometimes even the best of us slip in and out of numbers versus scouting mode. By the numbers, injury risk aside, a case can be made for either side, which unto itself suggests the difference is closer than I made it out to be.

Nolasco's glitch is FB/GB, leading to a higher HR/9 than we would like.
Johnson's is BB/9.

So if neither improves, what will that mean? Nolasco has a decent K-rate and is stingy with the walks and plays home games in a park fairly difficult to hit HR so some of that HR/9 danger is mitigated. Johnson also has a decent K-rate and is more of a ground ball pitcher, but not an extreme one. Personally, while an argument can be made for Johnson's profile, I prefer Nolasco's, assuming he can keep up the insanely improved BB/9.

Chances are they both won't stay the same. And truthfully, the most likely scenarios are Johnson improving his BB/9 being further removed from TJS and Nolasco having his regress a tad, as the jump was so marked thus it will be difficult to sustain. This pretty much puts them on a par.

The wild card is whether Nolasco will do what guys like Lester, Danks and Volquez were able to do, induce more grounders therefore reducing the homers. Based on his ability to incorporate a splitter last season, I guess I see this eventually occuring as he further hones his repertoire.

So in summary, my Nolasco call was more speculative, based more on subjectivity than a pure numbers analysis. By the numbers, it looks to be a wash, which means if they are both considered health risks, Johnson is a better bang for the buck.

FWIW, I listed Johnson as a "pitcher pick" in the blog.