Tanaka signs with Yankees

[BlueJays]

BREAKING: Tanaka to #Yankees, seven years, $155M, opt-out after fourth year.

— Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) January 22, 2014

Pretty huge contract for a guy that's never thrown a MLB pitch. Definitely have to wonder how much he would have received without Darvish giving teams more confidence in projecting Japanese pitchers.


Obviously I'm a little biased since I drafted the guy, but I do think he'll perform well over here with the right pitching coach, and Rothschild has to be one of the better regarded pitching coaches around.

Of course I have concerns over the work load that Tanaka has taken on so early in his career, but having such a low WHIP over all those innings at least tells me he rarely labored through innings, and I've heard reports that he'll throw low 90's with the ability to crank it up to high 90's when he needed to, so my hope also is that the pitches he's thrown haven't strained him too much.

We'll just have to see how he does with an American baseball. I heard he uses a MLB baseball when he throws side sessions, so he's used to it, but I've also heard his cutter flattens out with that ball and his sinker seems to have more bite.

Anyway, I doubt he'll be Darvish, because it's pretty hard to expect anybody to be that good, but I think solid #2 is certainly a reasonable expectation.

[Mets]

Shows just how desperate the Yanks are. That's stupid money for a guy who has never thrown a ball in the US before. For every Darvish, there's a Dice-K (I know Tanaka's report is better than Dice-K's).

[Royals]

Shows just how desperate the Yanks are. That's stupid money for a guy who has never thrown a ball in the US before. For every Darvish, there's a Dice-K (I know Tanaka's report is better than Dice-K's).

Bingo, though I'm less convinced on Tanaka than I was on Dice-K. His fastball is too straight. In Japan you can pitch off your forkball (as Tanaka has done), in the US that's not as effective. And who knows how the change in ball and mound will effect him. I didn't think Tanaka was a good gamble before, now that he's a Yankee, I'm doubly glad I didn't take him.

[Guardians]

Love the opt out clause after 4 years. Either the Yankees will lose him (or have to overpay) because of his success or they'll be stuck with a contract they hate. Win-win for fans of every team but the Yankees.

[BlueJays]

Shows just how desperate the Yanks are. That's stupid money for a guy who has never thrown a ball in the US before. For every Darvish, there's a Dice-K (I know Tanaka's report is better than Dice-K's).

Bingo, though I'm less convinced on Tanaka than I was on Dice-K. His fastball is too straight. In Japan you can pitch off your forkball (as Tanaka has done), in the US that's not as effective. And who knows how the change in ball and mound will effect him. I didn't think Tanaka was a good gamble before, now that he's a Yankee, I'm doubly glad I didn't take him.

4 seemers never show up well on TV, but they often do have a lot of movement

Here's an article about the minimal amount of Pitchf/x data available for him (on a MLB mound with a MLB ball, granted it's only 20 pitches and it's from 2009):

Tanaka's PITCHf/x Numbers
Pitch MPH, No., Horizontal, Mvt, Vertical Mvt
CH 86.8, 4, -5.73, 5.76
CU 79.3, 4, 4.37, -3.80
FF 93.7, 9, -3.59, 13.07
SL 87.2, 3, 3.98, 0.73


So the question everyone is asking is, how do these numbers compare to other starting pitchers? According to the Baseball Prospectus Leaderboards, there are some real big names with similar stuff. In 2013, no starter touched that amount of vertical movement on their four-seam fastball. Clayton Kershaw gets the closest with 12.18 inches of "rising action," but the lefty only had 0.93 inches of horizontal movement, where Tanaka showed nearly 4 inches in the WBC. The slider, which is regarded as Tanaka's best out pitch, is probably closest to Zack Greinke's in terms of velocity and movement. In 2013, Grenke averaged 85.5 mph on the pitch, 3.87 inches of horizontal break, and 0.66 inches of vertical break. Finally, the changeup/splitter matches best with Yu Darvish, who averaged 88.8 mph on the pitch, with -6.03 inches of horizontal movement and 4.09 inches of vertical movement.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/ ... iro-tanaka

[Royals]

We'll find out soon enough. I wouldn't bet the #1 draft pick on 9 pitches versus scouts saying his FB tends to flatten out.

[Tigers]

We'll find out soon enough. I wouldn't bet the #1 draft pick on 9 pitches versus scouts saying his FB tends to flatten out.

Maels "Fuckin" Rodriguez!!!!!


I couldn't resist.

It will be interesting to see how Tanaka does in NY. Similar to see if Gray can master Coors Field. You went the safe route this time Bren.

[BlueJays]

We'll find out soon enough. I wouldn't bet the #1 draft pick on 9 pitches versus scouts saying his FB tends to flatten out.

Don't think I would have either, and really I was pretty much set on Appel up until a few days before the draft and didn't make my decision until the day of my pick.

If it weren't for being so close to possibly competing, I probably wouldn't have taken Tanaka, but I think he has a decent shot as being a solid #2.

[Guardians]

We'll find out soon enough. I wouldn't bet the #1 draft pick on 9 pitches versus scouts saying his FB tends to flatten out.

Don't think I would have either, and really I was pretty much set on Appel up until a few days before the draft and didn't make my decision until the day of my pick.

If it weren't for being so close to possibly competing, I probably wouldn't have taken Tanaka, but I think he has a decent shot as being a solid #2.

Thanks for taking the Yankee and leaving me with the stud.

[Royals]

Of Appel, Gray and Tanaka, I'd have taken Tanaka, then Appel, then Gray. I think Gray has the most talent by far, but... Coors. Will he be the one to tame it? I'm gonna go out on a pretty sturdy limb and say no. If I had taken him, I would have been betting on a trade. I like Appel a lot, but his ceiling is lower than the other two, though a safer bet than Gray. I think it's highly unlikely Tanaka ends up any worse than a #3, my real concern is arm wear/injury. He's been throwing a lot of innings as a young guy.
Meanwhile, all that is balanced against Bryant, with hitters being (generally) safer bets to develop and his huge power and all around hitting ability, I felt like he was the best choice at #1. He's no Mike Trout, but he's no Maels Fucking Rodriguez either.

[Tigers]

Of Appel, Gray and Tanaka, I'd have taken Tanaka, then Appel, then Gray. I think Gray has the most talent by far, but... Coors. Will he be the one to tame it? I'm gonna go out on a pretty sturdy limb and say no. If I had taken him, I would have been betting on a trade. I like Appel a lot, but his ceiling is lower than the other two, though a safer bet than Gray. I think it's highly unlikely Tanaka ends up any worse than a #3, my real concern is arm wear/injury. He's been throwing a lot of innings as a young guy.
Meanwhile, all that is balanced against Bryant, with hitters being (generally) safer bets to develop and his huge power and all around hitting ability, I felt like he was the best choice at #1. He's no Mike Trout, but he's no Maels Fucking Rodriguez either.

On Coors Field, while it scares the hell out of me, I would have to say that Jimenez did a heck of a job taming Coors Field from 2008 through 2010 before his wildness got the better of him.

Ubaldo Jimenez
Year/WAR/FIP-
2008/3.9/82
2009/5.6/72
2010/6.5/69

For comparison, Kershaw was pretty awesome last year and had WAR of 6.5 and FIP- of 66. I would think that Jimenez's 2010 compares well to that.

With Gray, I'd say he's got every bit as good of "stuff" as Jimenez had at his peak, along with plus control, which is something nobody will ever mistake Jimenez for having.

I think Gray does have a shot to put up dominant numbers in Coors Field and the nice part is he won't be the first one to do it. So I don't think it is quite as big a stretch to expect him to. Though Coors Field still scares the hell outta me when it comes to pitchers.

Even with the Coors Field factor, there was no way I was taking Appel over Gray.

[BlueJays]

With the humidor being used now in Coors, it doesn't scare me as much as it used to. It's still the most hitter friendly environment out there, but at least players aren't putting up video game numbers there any more.

[Royals]

With the humidor being used now in Coors, it doesn't scare me as much as it used to. It's still the most hitter friendly environment out there, but at least players aren't putting up video game numbers there any more.

It's not as ridiculous as it once was, but it's been a few years and nobody pitches well there. The humidor can't account for the thinner air, just the drier air.
I HATE when players get drafted in any sport and demand a trade to somewhere else, but if I were a pitcher and was drafted by Coors, I'd push for a trade as soon as possible. (If I was drafted by the Yankees on the other hand, I just wouldn't sign.)

[BlueJays]

Coors is a pretty interesting enigma. On one hand, we know batted balls can travel farther due to less drag through the air, but on the other, we know the outfield walls are pretty far back to reduce the amount of home runs hit. However, we also know the air effects result in less break in pitches, and we also know the bigger outfield results in hitters getting an extra bag or two on balls hit to the wall. Then there's also the humidor which could have a couple effects. One is that the ball weighs more with the humidity, so perhaps it doesn't travel as far as it used to, and maybe the ball is less "bouncy" off the bat. But perhaps the effect more has to do with pitchers being able to grip the ball better than they used to?

Here's park effects from 2013:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

It shows that Coors was the friendliest for scoring runs, however it also shows Coors was #8 for home runs, #1 for hits, #5 for 2b's, #3 for 3b's, #18 for BB's (I was thinking they might be higher up the list due to pitchers having less command when they aren't used to the atmospheric conditions).

So that seems to indicate to me that less break in pitches is the biggest effect. We already know big park = less HR's which also means they should score fairly high for extra base hits, but being #1 in hits means pitches are more hittable there.

Then I figure, we have this fancy PitchF/X technology, shouldn't we be able to measure the effects now? Well, Baseball Prospectus did it:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/artic ... leid=20069
Conclusion: a typical curveball will have 1 inch less of horizontal movement and 1.5 inches of vertical movement


Then again, everybody is aware of how much it sucks to pitch in Coors, so if you can have success there, you can be in for a big pay day.

[Royals]

Coors is a pretty interesting enigma. On one hand, we know batted balls can travel farther due to less drag through the air, but on the other, we know the outfield walls are pretty far back to reduce the amount of home runs hit. However, we also know the air effects result in less break in pitches, and we also know the bigger outfield results in hitters getting an extra bag or two on balls hit to the wall. Then there's also the humidor which could have a couple effects. One is that the ball weighs more with the humidity, so perhaps it doesn't travel as far as it used to, and maybe the ball is less "bouncy" off the bat. But perhaps the effect more has to do with pitchers being able to grip the ball better than they used to?

Here's park effects from 2013:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

It shows that Coors was the friendliest for scoring runs, however it also shows Coors was #8 for home runs, #1 for hits, #5 for 2b's, #3 for 3b's, #18 for BB's (I was thinking they might be higher up the list due to pitchers having less command when they aren't used to the atmospheric conditions).

So that seems to indicate to me that less break in pitches is the biggest effect. We already know big park = less HR's which also means they should score fairly high for extra base hits, but being #1 in hits means pitches are more hittable there.

Then I figure, we have this fancy PitchF/X technology, shouldn't we be able to measure the effects now? Well, Baseball Prospectus did it:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/artic ... leid=20069
Conclusion: a typical curveball will have 1 inch less of horizontal movement and 1.5 inches of vertical movement


Then again, everybody is aware of how much it sucks to pitch in Coors, so if you can have success there, you can be in for a big pay day.

All very true. I would be concerned, as a pitcher, that pitching there on a regular basis would begin to effect my mechanics and mindset,which could lead to a higher incidence of injury. That's pure conjecture though. As much as pitching at Coors would suck every day, I think going back and forth between Coors and more normal stadia would mess with things even more.