Barry Zito Enigma, Solved!

by limecat on May 2, 2006 12:36 PM PDT

One of the repeating issues with A's fans has been, since 2003, "What's wrong with Barry Zito?" We've patiently waited for him to get his ERA below 3, and be the kind of pitcher who can put up 20 wins in a season. Well fellow A's fans, I think I've solved the problem of Barry Zito.

The answer is that he's not that great of a pitcher.

Yes I know in 2002 he had a brilliant season. But that season was an anomoly. He pitched above his level, and now he's regressed to the mean.

Consider Mark Ellis: here's a man who batted .319 with 15 home runs last year. Had he done this in his first or second season, and then returned to the Mark Ellis of old everyone would be asking what's wrong with Ellis. Swisher hit 10 homers in April, yet if he only hits four or five a month for the rest of the season, no one is going to ask what's wrong with Swisher.

So, ladies and gentlemen, I say that there is nothing wrong with Zito. He's a solid pitcher, but not a great pitcher. He had one season where everything came together just right. We can't expect him to repeat this, so I say we stop worrying about it.

Tweet Comment 3 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

To be accurate

He was that good for his abbreviated time in 2000; even better for the 2nd half of 2001; and nearly as good in 2003.

So the story is not so simple as you make it. The Zito of 2004-06 has dropped off.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on May 2, 2006 2:52 PM PDT reply actions

I don't think it's a drop-off....

I think the hitters have learned to stay away from his curve, make him work, and then force him to come in with the ball. Plus, the umpires are not as forgiving as they used to be. They are making him hit his spots, reputation or not. He doesn't have much else (not a large repertoire of pitches), so he's stuck. He is good, and sometimes very good, but he's not Super Z---at least not anymore.

"Greatness is achieved one day at a time"---Huston Street

by Buck18 on May 3, 2006 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions

It depends on the opposing team

If they're an aggressive, small-ball, swinging-is-life club, like the Angels or White Sox, he does very well.

If they're a patient club, that can lay off the curve that's rarely actually a strike, he gets demolished.

Now, having typed that, let me check, since I can....

Teams with the top OBP: (All stats 2005) (Small sample size warnings apply)

Boston (.357): 5.73 ERA
NYY(.355): 7.59 ERA
Cleveland (.344): 4.42 ERA
Toronto (.331): Huh, DNP.

Low OBP:
Seattle (.317): 2.63 ERA
KC (.320): 2.57 ERA
Detroit (.321): 3.46 ERA
White Sox (.322): 2.91 ERA
LAA(.325): 2.68 ERA

Now, you'd expect higher OBP teams to do better, but this is a larger split than I'd expect. So, this theory passes the 10-minute-research test. :-) It's kind of an unfortunate theory, since it predicts postseason problems, except when pitching'n'defense opponents like the White Sox and Angels show up.

Dan Haren's ERAs vs. the same teams don't have a pattern anything like this, so maybe I'm on to something. Shh, don't tell Mike Scioscia!

by kirbyk on May 3, 2006 3:53 PM PDT reply actions