Papelbon versus Madson - Twitterverse-Style

@craigcalcaterra said:

Four years and $50 million for Papelbon? Seriously, Philly? http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/11/four-years-and-50-million-for-papelbon-seriously-philly/ via @HardballTalk

Calcaterra’s article started this way:

There were many, many potential closers on the market this morning. None had signed yet. None made the sort of money Jonathan Papelbon did last year, have the mileage on their arms that he does and most of them aren’t his age.  Yet, somehow, Ruben Amaro decided that Papelbon needed a four-year, $50 million deal.

You OK with that, Philly fans?  You OK with Papelbon getting one more year and $13 -million more than Brad Lidge got on his last deal?

@Dr.Roto said:

Hot Stove info: Phillies on verge of signing Jonathan Papelbon. Horrible move here if true as Madson is a much better pitcher.

I responded:

Disagree completely. Better track record overall; 200 less innings for Paps; same age. You need to justify that comment with stats.

Dr. Roto’s response:

Couldn't disagree more. The Red Sox are happy to be done with Papelbon and are hot in the Madson chase.

I could go on and on with the Twitter quotes about Jonathan Papelbon, most of them lacking any statistical justification whatsoever, but I think you get the gist of it: either we start comparing apples and oranges (in the case of Madson and Lidge), or we use an anecdotal blurb from Heidi Watney to support the conclusion that Madson is a better pitcher.

Before we get to the Madson/Papelbon comparison, I think we need to play a game of “Mythbusters.”

Myth 1.  There were many, many closers on the market.

Myth 2.  These closers are not Papelbon’s age.

Well, Myth 1 is not really a myth.  There were many, many closers on the market.  In fact, I will list them for you, by age (oldest first, since Myth 2 really is a myth): Joe Nathan, Francisco Cordero, Brad Lidge, Ryan Madson, Jonathan Papelbon, Francisco Rodriguez, Matt Capps and Jonathan Broxton.  You could also argue that Takashi Saito, Jason Isringhausen, Octavio Dotel, and Vicente Padilla are possible candidates to close as well.

The myth is really the depth of this closer free agent market.  Most of these closer come with significant injury histories, significant production drop-off issues or both.  Papelbon and Madson are likely the two most reliable of these closers, though I expect F-Rod would quibble with me a bit on the issue.  While I agree with Mr. Calcaterra that none of those closers make the type of money Papelbon will be paid, none of them are Jonathan Papelbon either.

Myth 3.   None of the above closers have the mileage that Papelbon does.

If I did not look this up, I would not have believed it myself.  Here is a chart of innings for each of the relievers above:

Nathan	729.2
Cordero	785.1
Lidge	594.0
Madson	630
Papelbon	429.1
Rodriguez	648.2
Capps	410
Broxton	392

If Broxton pitched a full season this year, and if Capps had not missed most of 2008, both would have more innings than Papelbon.  So, essentially, Papelbon has the least number of innings on his arm of any of the free agent closers.  Mileage is a complete and utter untruth from Mr. Calcaterra.

Myth 4.  This signing is akin to the Brad Lidge signing.

Brad Lidge signed a 3 year, $37.5 million contract with the Phillies on July 6, 2008.  At that stage in his career, Lidge had a 9.3 WAR.  Papelbon, in similar innings, has posted a 15.1 WAR.  Here are your apples and oranges, ladies and gentlemen.  Lidge was already beginning to show some signs of issues of wear and was relying heavily on his slider, with a fastball that was already losing steam.  Do not be misled into thinking that this is a fair comparison.

Myth 5.  Madson is a better pitcher than Papelbon.

Brought to you directly from Dr. Roto, his angst over the Papelbon signing for him boils down to his simple statement.  Well, before I buy into this statement, I will need to take a look at some actual statistics.

Year	Name	IP	SV	ERA	FIP	WHIP	K/9	BB/9
2004	Madson	76.1	1	1.65	3.02	1.05	6.48	2.12
2005	Papelbon	18	0	3.00	3.69	1.39	9.5	3.5
2005	Madson	87	0	4.14	3.92	1.25	8.17	2.59
2006	Papelbon	68.1	35	0.92	2.14	0.78	9.88	1.71
2006	Madson	44	2	4.50	3.92	1.48	7.77	2.66
2007	Papelbon	58.1	37	1.85	2.45	0.77	12.96	2.31
2007	Madson	56	1	3.05	4.20	1.27	6.91	3.7
2008	Papelbon	69.1	41	2.34	2.01	0.95	10	1.04
2008	Madson	82.2	1	3.05	3.33	1.23	7.29	2.5
2009	Papelbon	68	38	1.85	3.05	1.15	10.06	3.18
2009	Madson	77.1	10	3.26	3.23	1.23	9.08	2.56
2010	Madson	53	5	2.55	2.61	1.04	10.87	2.21
2010	Papelbon	67	37	3.90	3.51	1.27	10.21	3.76
2011	Madson	60.2	32	2.37	2.25	1.15	9.2	2.37
2011	Papelbon	64.1	31	2.94	1.53	0.93	12.17	1.4

And career summary (this is generated from Fangraphs, and it looks like the custom innings calculation is a bit off…the totals were right, however, so I went in and changed the innings pitched to match their career listings):

Name	IP	SV	ERA	FIP	WHIP	K/9	BB/9
Papelbon	429.1	219	2.33	2.51	1.00	10.76	2.29
Madson	630	52	3.05	3.31	1.20	8.15	2.56

Based on these numbers, I can reach a couple of conclusions.  One, Jonathan Papelbon is three months younger than Ryan Madson (a statistical non-factor), and also younger than Joe Nathan, Francisco Cordero and Brad Lidge (and only very slightly older than Francisco Rodriguez, Matt Capps and the oft-injured Jonathan Broxton).  Two, Jonathan Papelbon has thrown less innings than each of these closers except Matt Capps and Jonathan Broxton, and, had those two pitchers not been injured, they would have more innings than Papelbon as well.  Three, based on the career statistics, and also looking at fastball speed, etc., Jonathan Papelbon appears to be the better pitcher overall.  Are they different pitchers?  Absolutely.  Madson relies on the change-up, while Papelbon is fastball-dependent.

Now, the most important question, and one for which we will not have an answer for some time: should the Phillies have devoted resources to Papelbon and this contract?  The answer is many-layered.  If the Phillies were going to give Ryan Madson 5 years (with the option) and $57 million, and are giving Papelbon 5 years and $60 million, well, I think I would rather pay Papelbon based on track record.  If the Phillies could have signed a closer on the cheap, but he did not work out (keep in mind that the Phillies intended to use Jose Contreras, who got hurt, this year, and the only team that seems to be able to catch lightning in a bottle with a cheap reliever converted to closer is Tampa Bay), then we would second-guess the decision if it cost the Phillies a chance at another title.  If, however, it impedes the Phillies ability fill another hole and/or impedes flexibility at the trade deadline, well, then, this deal could look bad in the short-term, never mind the long-term.

Here is the rub, though – we need to look at the Phillies through a different lens now.  This team is not the Yankees.  On the other hand, it is no longer the self-declared “small market team” from a decade ago.  It is playing like, and buying like, a perennial contender.  Will these contracts catch up with the Phillies?  Probably.  Does it mean they are “bad” contracts?  No.  As usual, only hindsight will answer that particular question.