"Big Underrated" James

by Tommy Rancel on Dec 25, 2008 11:00 AM EST

Perception is big in baseball. Perception can win you awards which later on can turn into a big pay day. In the case of pitchers, “wins” can really sway a person’s perception in a positive or negative way. We all know that a pitchers win total is in no way a true measure of his value, but to the majority of baseball fans and media…wins is still king.

Right here in the Bay Area we’ve seen that case with Edwin Jackson. 14 wins, YES! The guy has turned the corner, he is a stud, 14 WINS!!!!!! Luckily, we are smarter than that . Andrew Friedman is smarter than that and he sent Edwin “14 Wins” Jackson to Detroit at his peak value. But to most people Edwin Jackson and his 14 wins is just as valuable fellow 14 game winner James Shields. I mean come on, baseball is all about wins and losses and they had the same amount of wins.

A lot of people criticized Shields this post season because of the moniker “Big Game James.” What has James Shields done? How is he “Big Game James?” The guy has only 32 career wins. He is a good pitcher, but not that good. Turn on ESPN or go read a few other national media outlets and the perception is Scott Kazmir is the ace of the staff and Shields is a nice Robin to his Batman.

But what if Shields would’ve been a 20 game winner? Keep the peripherals the same and just give him a 20-8 record instead of 14-8 and what would his perception be? Probably a Cy Young winner.

Let’s go to the chart

	Pitcher A	Shields 08
ERA	3.48	3.56
K/9	6.35	6.7
BB/9	1.74	1.67
K/BB	3.65	4.00
HR/9	1.05	1.00
WHIP	1.16	1.15
FIP	3.75	3.82
tRA*	4.42	4.09

Shields is your winner. He beats pitcher A in every category besides ERA and FIP and even then both are less than .10 difference. So what is the big difference? Why did pitcher A win a Cy Young in that same season? Wins, of course. Pitcher A is 21 game winner, Bartolo Colon in 2005. Now we know there is no way he should’ve won the award over Johan Santana, but he did and he will forever be known as a former Cy Young winner.

Like Colon, James Shields didn’t deserve a Cy Young award in 2008, but the fact that he wasn’t even considered or didn’t even get one vote is pretty unbelievable. Just three years ago those same peripherals that Shields had were good enough if not better to win the award in the voters eyes. Shields was the best pitcher on the best team in the American League all season and stands a chance to do the same next season and nobody really noticed. We all know about James Shields, my hope is the rest of the baseball world will also before it’s too late.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Awesome post

Shields is a ace. However, I can’t blame people if they don’t notice that next season since I think we will have 4 ace type pitchers. Sonny will be the best 5 ever. Gotta love the D!

Evan Longoria and David Price - the fight for my heart

by joeybw on Dec 25, 2008 11:08 AM EST reply actions

Almost 5 WAR according to tRA. Sounds like an ace to me!

Brad Ziegler had a scoreless inning streak. Brad Ziegler had not met BJ Upton.

by P Brady on Dec 25, 2008 11:44 AM EST reply actions

Yeah Shieldsy is everything you could want out of a top of the rotation guy

I think his passion keeps the ego’s in check as well, which is an intangible that, Scotty “wait, what” Kazmir doesn’t have yet. No criticism because everyone competes in their own way, but Jamie’s approach would have me more fired up. It’s a good problem to have fa sho.

Anyway, as I was lying in the puddle, I think I may have found a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up that much.

~George Costanza~

by Sandy Kazmir on Dec 25, 2008 11:52 AM EST reply actions

I remember...

Three years ago, watching Shields pitch at the end of the year, thinking, “this guy is going to be something special.” But he didn’t get the wins because of the bullpen, so pundits were saying he might not even make the team out of spring training the following year.

B Rad the Ray Fan
www.we-use-more-than-one-stat-here.com

by BWoodrum on Dec 25, 2008 11:53 AM EST reply actions

Wjen he can keep his pitch count

to where he can go 7+ IP, the wins will come

by Raymondo on Dec 25, 2008 1:00 PM EST reply actions

He...Always does that?

Brad Ziegler had a scoreless inning streak. Brad Ziegler had not met BJ Upton.

by P Brady on Dec 25, 2008 1:55 PM EST up reply actions

If always equals 11

that’s how many starts he retired a batter beyond the 7th inning

And he led them in going feep into games

by Raymondo on Dec 25, 2008 2:52 PM EST up reply actions

33% of the time going 7+ is really good.

Brad Ziegler had a scoreless inning streak. Brad Ziegler had not met BJ Upton.

by P Brady on Dec 25, 2008 3:24 PM EST up reply actions

Yes

There are few horses in the game, and Shields is one of them. Guys like Halladay and Sabathia are superior pitchers to be sure, but still, there’ s something to be said for a guy like Shields that can constantly go late into games, rest the bullpen, and give the team a chance to win nearly every time he steps on to the mound.

Although Price will probably change that, he’s still the best pitcher this organization has ever produced, which is somewhat ironic considering 95% of baseball had never heard of the guy prior to 2006. He’s really turned into a gem.

Hello.

by killa3312 on Dec 25, 2008 5:03 PM EST up reply actions

just nitpicking...

not really sure the org “produced” price.

Space.

It's a problem we face.

So we never go anywhere.

We just stay in one place.

by hazel on Dec 26, 2008 11:42 AM EST up reply actions

From a technical standpoint

Sure, he wasn’t really “produced” by the Rays in the way someone like a James Shields was, considering he was a dominant and polished pitcher coming out of Vanderbilt, but the Rays are still the only major league organization he’s ever played for and he came through their farm system, so he’s a product of the Rays.

This is just nitpicking, though :-)

Hello.

by killa3312 on Dec 26, 2008 3:40 PM EST up reply actions

This is the most amazing nitpick you've ever put forth.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 26, 2008 12:30 PM EST up reply actions

Despite how good he was, or could have been...

…can you really give someone a “Big Game” nickname when they haven’t played in a “big game”?

Can I start getting people to call me Father of the Year when I don’t have any kids?

by ReasonableDoubt on Dec 25, 2008 8:01 PM EST reply actions

I think the nickname,

which I have read was given him while he was in the minors, reflects the esteem with which his teammates held him and the sense that he was a special player.

by bobr on Dec 25, 2008 10:02 PM EST reply actions

i love james shields, he has to be the cheapest ace out there as well

everything Rays,Marlins,Twins and Reds
who needs k-rod for 37 million when you can have d-rod for 50k?
twins sign ty wigginton ASAP!!!!

by RaysOfHope on Dec 25, 2008 10:29 PM EST reply actions

His contract is hard to compare.

You either have guys past their arbitration years (Halladay) or haven’t reached them yet (Lincecum) which puts Shields somewhere in between.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 25, 2008 11:03 PM EST up reply actions

ya and over the next 6 years he is going to be locked in for alot cheaper than he is worth

everything Rays,Marlins,Twins and Reds
who needs k-rod for 37 million when you can have d-rod for 50k?
twins sign ty wigginton ASAP!!!!

by RaysOfHope on Dec 27, 2008 1:29 AM EST up reply actions

Using Bill James "Cy Young predictor" formula, I believe Shields finished in the top 10.

Of course, that didn’t occur in real life, but even the most basic of measurements said he was really, really good.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 25, 2008 11:02 PM EST reply actions

he's not underrated by anyone here, nor by the national broadcasters, as i remember them kept calling him "big-game james" on national TV every five minutes.

by walkoffwalk on Dec 26, 2008 11:36 AM EST reply actions

"Slow and steady" James

That’s the moniker I would use. He’s not flashy, and he doesn’t strike a lot of guys out. So, he’ll never be that prototypical “Ace,” but he is the stopper you like to see in that position. You know that he’s gonna go out there and give you six or seven innings of solid work, save the bullpen, and give the team a chance to win.

I will maintain that Kaz is the best pitcher on the staff (coming off a down year), but James is the perfect guy to have behind Kaz. If Kaz rebounds like he’s supposed to we’ll have the FB-SL lefty w/ nasty stuff followed by the righty with the best FB-CH combo this side of Santana.

by rglass44 on Dec 26, 2008 12:04 PM EST reply actions

He also averaged 6.5 IP/GS

by rglass44 on Dec 26, 2008 12:05 PM EST up reply actions

I agree with the general acclimation of Shields.

I wouldn’t so much quarrel with the notion that he doesn’t strike out a lot of guys so much as modify the statement.

For his career in the majors, Shields has averaged 7.3 Ks per 9 innings. That ratio was down in 2008 to 6.7. (It was 7.7 in 2007.) Either way, while not in the class of Clemens/Johnson K/9, I would still call it a goodly number. For comparison sake, three acknowledged aces have the following career marks: Halladay (6.4), Lackey (7.2) and Sabathia (7.6, although it was almost 9 in 2008). I think anything around 7/9 makes someone not an elite but a decent strikeout pitcher.

by bobr on Dec 26, 2008 1:27 PM EST up reply actions

Shields got the name a long time ago

And in my opinion did it justice with CG 1 and 2 hit shutout regular season shutout wins over the Angels and Red Sox. And he pitched well in the playoffs. So I dont really see how the name doesnt fit…

by BJ the Bossman on Dec 26, 2008 2:16 PM EST reply actions

sorry for the extra shutout there

by BJ the Bossman on Dec 26, 2008 2:17 PM EST up reply actions

Posnanski wrote what I considered

one of his weaker posts that criticized the nickname. In fact, while he seems to like the Rays and apparently picked the Rays before the 2008 season as a team likely to surprise by doing very well, he wrote 3 posts on his blog about the Rays that demonstrated a lamentable lack of information about them and an uncharacteristic narrow minded view of matters.

by bobr on Dec 26, 2008 3:20 PM EST reply actions