Charlie Haeger?

by Landfill on Dec 5, 2006 10:55 AM CST Comment 24 comments

Here's an interesting quote from ESPN knuckleball afficianado Rob Neyer:

Speaking of the American League Central, it's been said more than a few times that White Sox GM Kenny Williams, flush with starting pitchers, might have more leverage this week than any other general manager. I would agree with that particularly if Williams and his colleagues have some realistic notion of Charlie Haeger's value. I've been promoting this guy since last spring, and I'm going to keep promoting him until he gets the chance he obviously deserves. Nutshell: Haeger looks to me like the best young knuckleball pitcher any of us have seen. He's 23 years old. Over the last two seasons, his ERAs ranging from Class A to MLB: 3.20, 3.78, 3.07 and 3.44. If he threw 90 miles an hour rather than 70, he would be considered one of the dozen or so best pitching prospects in the game. Did I mention that he's 23? And that most knuckleballers don't gain control of their key pitch until their middle or late 20s? If I were Kenny Williams, I would trade one of the guys who throws 90 -- because they have more trade value than the guy who throws 70 -- and give Haeger a slot in the rotation next spring. If I were not Kenny Williams, I would sidle up to him in Florida and try to find out exactly what he thinks about Charlie Haeger.

Now, Neyer is a knuckleball guy and Haeger is one of his pet causes, but I happen to agree with him on this one. The fact is, Heager's performance has been pretty darn good (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/H/Charles-Haeger.shtml). Yes, his walk totals are higher than you'd like, but his ERA is quite nice, his K rate is solid and the HR totals are Jolie-class gorgeous. By the numbers, he deserves a shot.

Moreover, don't underestimate his youth. I think Neyer is correct that knuckleballers develop late. By way of comparison, Tim Wakefield, didn't even make it to A ball until he was 23 and didn't scratch the majors until he was 26. He's now 41 and about to throw another year of useful innings for Boston. Granted, Wakefield's perfomance was a little different than Haeger's. Wakefield didn't walk as many guys as Charlie has but he gave up alot more homeruns. Personally, I'd take the guy who can consistently get groundballs, especially in the Cell, but the point is that Haeger has proven himself an effective pitcher years ahead of Wakefield (or Phil Neikro or Charlie Hough, for that matter).

Depsite all this, there seems to be limited enthusiasm for Haeger in the organization, in the media and among the cognoscenti like ourselves. Is this because of some persuasive scouting evaluation that down-grades him? Is there something I'm missing? Maybe it's because of the poor first impression he made during that spot-start at the Cell last Spring (even though he pitched quite well in limited innings out of the bullpen for us in September)? Or perhaps this comes down to the prejudice against soft-tossers? If its the later, that's a shame. I don't want Haeger to go the way of Chad Bradford as a guy whose unorthodox style led to us getting fleeced of a quality pitcher by some sharp organization that can look past convention. (If Haeger's name turns up as a throw-in with some trade to Oakland or Boston, be concerned.)

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing if Haeger can contribute out of the pen next year. Most people tend to throw him into the 6th-man in the pen type of conversations and suggest that we need someone else. I disagree. Let's give Charlie a fair shot to contribute as a reliever and, if he pitches the way I think he can, let's ticket him for the rotation in 2008.

Thoughts?

SouthSideSox is a community driven site. As such, users are able to express their thoughts and opinions in a FanPost, such as this one, which represents the views of this particular fan, but not necessarily the entire community or SouthSideSox editors.

0 recs | Comment 24 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

A couple of thoughts...

I don't want Haeger to go the way of Chad Bradford as a guy whose unorthodox style led to us getting fleeced of a quality pitcher

The Sox got Olivo in that deal, didn't they? I know Bradford's had the better career, but Olivo was an athletic catcher with a good arm that is going to be in the big leagues for a while. And he had a very good year last season. Anyway -- despite what's in the pages of Moneyball, I don't think the Sox got feeced in that deal.

I agree, I don't want Haeger to be throw-in. It's important to have some guy in AAA or the pen that can come in for an injured starter and not be terrible (e.g. Miner in DET last season). That's hard to find, because anyone that has proven they can start will already be doing it and getting paid. I'd be happy to have Haeger stay in AAA as insurance.

The problem is that knuckleballers are just so inconsistent. I don't think I'd want Haeger to be regular in the rotation. And I don't like the idea of him as a reliever. You just can't have someone come in with runners on base that gives up walks like Haeger does. I think another reason that people maybe pessimistic about Haeger in particular is that his 2nd half numbers last year were not great IIRC.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 5, 2006 11:09 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

A couple of replies

You are correct that Bradford was traded for Olivo but I stand by the statement that we were fleeced. Bradford was a major-league ready reliever who has had (and likely will continue to have) a very nice career. Olivo was an athletic 22 year old catcher who had barely made it to AA and who had (and still has) serious offensive weaknesses. I'm surprised he's had the career he has had but I'd much rather have Bradford.

As far as inconsistency, I know that argument is thrown around alot, but what does it really mean? Of course, watching walks is agonizing and I scream as much as anyone when a reliever comes into the game and can't throw strikes. But is that really relevent to the question of whether Haeger is a good pitcher? Seems to me there are two questions that have to be answered to decide whether Haeger (or any other pitcher) is unacceptably "inconsistent."

First, what is your standard for inconsistency? I assume you are saying that knuckleballers have greater volatility in their results than conventional pitchers. Maybe that's true, but do you have any evidence for the proposition? For purposes of this discussion, "inconsistency" can't be the same as "bad results" because if all we are talking about is that knuckleballers have some crappy outings, those outings are incorporated into their overall performance record and we can evaluate them by their totals just like any other pitcher. Its easy to say that a conventional thrower with an ERA of 3.50 is better than a knuckleballer with an ERA of 4.50 without having to invoke consistency. The "inconsistency" allegation must mean that, for example, if we have two pitchers with ERAs of 4.00 but one is a conventional thrower and the other is a knuckleballer, the soft-tosser will have greater variance around his average than the conventional guy. Maybe that's true, but I'd like to see some data.

Second, if you can demonstrate that knuckleballers are less consistent than pitchers of comperable records, does that really mean they contribute less to winning games? To expand on my simplistic hypothetical two pitchers with 4.00 ERAs, assume both pitchers throw 5 complete game starts. The conventional guy allows exactly 4 runs in each game (4, 4, 4, 4, 4). The knuckle-baller allows 1, 1, 1, 1 and 16. (Yes, I know the numbers are extreme and that anyone would be pulled before allowing 16 runs, but bear with me as I try to make a point.) It is by no means obvious to me that metronome consistency of the conventional guy would lead to more wins than the inconsistent knuckle guy. This basic observation holds true even if the inconsistency is less extreme than in my silly hypothetical.

As far as Haeger's performance last year, I don't have easy access to his minor league splits, but his collective record in Charlotte was very good and he pitched great for the Sox in September (1.28 ERA) albeit in only 14 innings. Unless there is some reason to put alot to weight on a particular month or two last Summer, it seems to me the fairest way to evaluate his performance is to look at the entire season's record.

by Landfill on Dec 5, 2006 1:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think WHIP would be more appropriate

as inherited runners scored, do not show up in a pitcher's ERA. I think Hitlesswonder is saying that his propensity for walks would stop him from being an effective reliever, because a walk is the last thing you need when you already have runners on base.

-Jeeves Chi-Sox Blog

by jeeves on Dec 5, 2006 2:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks...

...that is what I was trying to say.

As for "inconsistency" and knuckleballers, I'll be honest and admit I have no data. So everything I say from here on out is basically worthless, but...my impression is that knuckleballers can dominate one game and get slapped hard the next depending on the how the ball is dancing for them. The result might be a decent ERA for that 2 game stretch, but the team had no chance to win one of those games (e.g. a shutout followed by an 8 run blowout, whereas a pitcher with the same 4.00 ERA that put up 4 run games each time might be more valuable). I admit I might be completely offbase here, both with the inconsistency of knuckleballers and whether volatile pitcher is less valuable the a steady one. It would be an interesting mathematical exercise to figure that out.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 5, 2006 3:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

As you say . . .

an interesting exercise. Just to pick up your example, it is not clear to me that consistent pitcher is more valuable. The pitcher who alternates shut-outs with blow outs is almost guaranteed to be over .500. Every time he throws a shut-out, his team wins. If he happens to get one or two games where his team scores big runs on the day his knuckler isn't dancing, he'll get a few cheap wins and be better than break-even. The consistent pitcher will not be able to "win games by himself" but will be more dependant on his run support. Give him good run support and he'll be over .500. Give him bad run support and he'll be under.

How all this would play out in the real world, I have no idea. I have this vague idea that, if knucklers really are prone to wide variation and the manager can properly assess the days when the butterfly just isn't dancing, the pitcher would be more valuable because you could get him out of the game before it got out-of-hand. But that's just wild guess and I have no idea if it is true.

by Landfill on Dec 5, 2006 3:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe, but . . .

Is there reason to believe that a reliever who walks guys with men on is particularly bad? Look, anyone who comes into the game with men on base is in a tough spot. Any result other than an out is likely to lead to runs and that is bad. We can all agree that relievers who don't get outs are sub-optimal. But why single out walks? Why not say "guys who give up homeruns are particularly ill-suited to be relievers because giving up a homer with men on is the worst thing you can do" (even worse than a walk)? Is it obvious that a hypothetical pitcher (lets call him "McCarthy") who doesn't allow many walks but gives up lots of longballs is a better relief prospect than a different young pitcher (lets call him "Haeger") who gives up more walks but is more likely to get ground balls and keep the ball in the park?

I haven't thought about this deeply, so maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me that what you want in any situation (bases full, start of the inning, whatever) is the best pitcher you can manage and the best way to assess that is by looking at the total performance record. By that way of thinking, walks are no worse for a reliever than they are for a starter.

by Landfill on Dec 5, 2006 3:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you walk a guy with men on base

it's likely you've just put a guy in scoring position. and with a knuckler, you have the added problem of passed balls/wild pitches.

i'm not exactly sure what you're arguing here, but i prefer relievers who have control. walks indicate a pitcher who doesn't have control. relievers usually have far less margin for error than starters because they often come in with runners inherited. i don't think anyone will argue that total performance is not important but a big part of the total performance of a reliever is inherited runners scoring. a guy with a higher WHIP likely has more runners scoring.

by larry on Dec 5, 2006 3:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I like control too but . . .

I am not yet persuaded by your argument. Yes, of course snuffing inherited runners is an important part of assessing a reliever. What you and Jeeves and Hitless are arguing, I think, is that walks are particularly bad with runners on. Maybe that's true but why do you think so? My point is that anything other than an out is bad with runners on and there is no reason to single out walks. Homeruns and line-drives into the alley are also really bad with runners on. Is there any evidence that pitchers with high walk rates are worse at dealing with inherited runners than comparable pitchers who have lower walk rates but who give up more homeruns or hits?

Am I making myself clear? We can all agree that its better to have a lower WHIP, just like it is better to have a higher K rate, lower HR/9 and a better ERA. Those are all a given. The question is whether a higher WHIP (resulting from a higher walk rate) leads to disproportionately more inherited runners scoring. If it does, than you are correct that a knuckleballer with a high walk rate makes for a bad reliever. But if having a high walk rate is no worse than having, for example, a high HR/9 then the prejudice against knuckleball relievers is justified. But I haven't yet seen any evidence to support the claim.

by Landfill on Dec 5, 2006 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Some quotes...

After thinking about it some more, I really wouldn't have a problem with the Sox giving Haeger a shot in the rotation in 2008. If he could putting up an ERA under 5 for the league minimum in a 5th starter role, he would be a very valuable commodity. I still am not keen on him relieving...

As for Olivo versus Bradford, I think you have to factor in positional scarcity. It's a lot easier to find a middle reliever than a catcher. I think Oakland got the better of the deal, but "fleece" seems a little strong to me.

Finally, I think the Sox do hold Haeger in some esteem:

Haeger has impressed the Chicago brain trust, and with McCarthy expected to get a rotation spot in 2007, Haeger could take the vacated role. ''He's the type of guy that a lot of people would love because I've seen enough right now to know that if he throws it over, he's going to get people out. That's intriguing to me because I like the different look," said White Sox pitching coach Don Cooper. Put Haeger on your 2007 watch list.
Source: Chicago Sun-Times, Sep. 4, 2006

by hitlesswonder on Dec 5, 2006 3:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

let's see

we flipped olivo into freddy garcia. they flipped bradford into jay payton. obviously it isn't that simply, but we certainly didn't get fleeced in the initial deal.

by larry on Dec 5, 2006 3:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Olivo for Garcia

Ah, if only we had known that it was just Olivo for Garcia, it would have spared me much angst. I thought Jeremy Reed was Tony Gwynn with Paul Blair's glove. Instead, he's Midre Cummings. Plus, Michael Morse turned out to be a flaming jerk and a doper besides.

by Landfill on Dec 5, 2006 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"Fleecing"

You make a fair point. I hated the deal when it was made - as I recall, it was one of those Winter deals where we had to get rid of Bradford because everyone knew we weren't going to make space on the 40-man roster for him, so we had to dump him for a PTBNL, who turned out to be Olivo. I can't remember what drek was floating on the 40 man at the time (McKay Christensen, maybe?) but it seemed so obviously a bad choice at the time and I've been bitter ever since.

I'll stand by my contention that Bradford was dumped for less than value because the Sox did not appreciate how good he was, viewing him as a gimmick rather than a good pitcher who got outs. I'll stand by the assertions both that Olivo was unlikely to have legitimate ML career and that the career he has had is less valuable than Bradford's. And I still believe we were fleeced. But I respect your position and concede that my view may well be idiosyncratically extreme.

by Landfill on Dec 5, 2006 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Could the sox haved viewed Bradford...

As a good pitcher who got outs, but was unlikely to keep doing so due to injury or major league hitters?

by Stealfirstbase on Dec 5, 2006 8:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Perfect bullpen guy and spot starter

I think this is the perfect guy for a long relief spot in the bullpen. Many, as hitless have argued he would be worrisome in high lev situations. Maybe thats true but so what. Don't use him there. With the above avg Sox offense there is plenty of value in a pitcher who can hold the line in a 6-2 or 7-3 game in the 4th or 5th inning we're behind for a comeback.

There is also hugh value for a potential 200+ innings guy who will have limited arm trouble and prob never have glitzy underlying stats that would cost a boatload of money.

by Tdogg on Dec 5, 2006 11:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I agree.....mostly

If I were the Sox I would hold onto Haeger.

Because these guys do develop later, I would keep him in Charlotte for atleast one more year as a starter.

You can't trade him because you won't get much for him.

There's no risk with him because he's unlikely develop arm trouble or get any worse than he is now.

Nothing to get excited about - YET. If he has a real good year in Charlotte, the Sox can bring him up late this year or late next year.

Start or relieve -they can take their time deciding on him.

by White Sox Randy on Dec 5, 2006 11:47 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

ERA is a pretty terrible guide for Haeger

His RA are anywhere from .5-1 more thanks to all of the "unearned" runs he allows.

He needs more time, but, yes, Haeger is a pretty damn valuable piece to have. This is why he was rated so highly by myself and every who participated in the community prospect list.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 5, 2006 1:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Pick a metric, any metric

VORP? Support neutral wins? DERA? PRAA? I'm fine with whatever measure you like. The gist of this conversation is whether Haeger (and other knucklers, I guess) is ill-suited to relief work compared to guys who are equal to him in your chosen metric but who acheive it with a lower walk portfolio. He may well be, but I have yet to find any evidence for the proposition so I wonder if its one of the pieces of conventional wisdom that people repeat but can't support.

by Landfill on Dec 5, 2006 4:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously?

Haeger does not seem valuable to me. A minor league K/9 under 6 is anything but solid. His total runs are 27% higher than his earned runs (crazy) due to his most devastating problem, control. For a pitcher whos main role on our team would be relief work, control is pretty vital for success, especially for a young player.

Also, you cannot look at his stats in the same context you would for a MLB pitcher. The average team OPS in the IL league for 2006 was .715. The average team OPS in the AL for 2006 was over 60 points higher at .766 (.781 for the Central).

Taking his misleading ERA into effect with his minor league metrics, Haeger doesn't look much different than Sean Tracey.

by 3E8 on Dec 5, 2006 7:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm Pro

Haeger. IMO anyone who has command of the knuckle ball at age 23 almost deserves the word prodigy attached to their name. As Rob Neyer points out Charlie is light years ahead of most that pick up the pitch, and as Landfill has pointed out that deserves a decent amount of consideration. I understand the concern for him walking people but honestly i don't think he will see any high leverage situations in our BP.

The white sox pen has been the least used pen in MLB for the past 2 years and were amassing alot of power arms all that have a history of injury. Having Chuck in the pen to protect them and McCarthy/Vazquez is a very good thing; the only question is has Ozzie learned how to manage his starters and pen? lets hope so.

by beautox on Dec 5, 2006 8:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

The coolest thing about Haeger...

is obviously that he's a knuckleballer. The only other guy in the majors to be considered a true MLB talent knuckleballer is Wakefield. It's just Wakefield and Haeger. Boston had another knuckleballing prospect in Charlie Zink but he has busted big time. I guess I just think it's cool to have a guy who throws that crazy dancing pitch and I hope he gets a rotation shot in the near future with the Sox. Some people say it's smoke and mirrors but when Haeger was getting it over the plate, he was unhittable. Obviously, it's all about his control.

by SSH2005 on Dec 5, 2006 8:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

perhaps indicative of Haeger's future success

How many knuckleballers have there been? I guess I don't have an actual number, but I'd guess it's a fair amount, especially because they succeed in the MLB.

How many have succeeded at any length of time?

Jared Fernandez was respectable for about 100 IP, and was trash after that.
Steve Sparks was solid, but put up 2 years in a row of an ERA under 5 just once in his career.
And then obviously Wakefield who's been around forever.

They provide durability, which is a great trait to feature, but beyond that, they provide very little as relievers.

Color me stupid if you will, but I figure it would be better to go with Heath Phillips in the long relief/spot start role next year over Haeger if that is what it really comes down to (though I really am beginning to doubt that). Phillips, at the very least, gives you a 3rd lefty in the pen.

by wite on Dec 6, 2006 2:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There Are Lots More

Historically, knuckleballers have been rare but never quite extinct. Phil and Joe Niekro, of course, were both excellent. The Sox' own Wilbur Wood and Hoyt Wilhelm had great careers. Jim Bouton was another good one. More recently, Tom Candiotti was a fine pitcher for years and Charlie Hough also had a long and valuable career (becoming, among other things, the answer to the trivia question "Who threw the first pitch in Florida Marlins history"). It seems that if a knucklballer gets established, he can hang around forever because the pitch requires so little physical exertion.

by Landfill on Dec 6, 2006 9:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs