Zito and Schmidt

I really never thought I would even have to consider writing this post. But there it is, in dead black pixels, staring at me from my computer screen. The Giants are pursueing Barry Zito.

It is far too early to start picturing Zito at Mays Field, no matter who the Giants end up adding to the rotation (and they will add at least one new face), he will be compared to Jason Schmidt. And really, we have to have outrage prepared and well researched by the time any deal is announced.

First stop, stats courtesy of the invaluable Harball Times:

Jason Schmidt

Year	Tm	Lg	PRC	RA	FIP	ERA+				LD%	GB%	IF/F	K/G	BB/G
2004	SF	NL	125	3.36	2.78	135				16.5%	44.6%	14.1%	10.7	3.3
2005	SF	NL	63	4.71	3.77	95				21.3%	38.3%	19.3%	8.4	4.3
2006	SF	NL	103	3.97	3.93	127				19.3%	37.4%	9.0%	7.8	3.5

Barry Zito

Year	Tm	Lg	PRC	RA	FIP	ERA+				LD%	GB%	IF/F	K/G	BB/G
2004	OAK	AL	89	4.90	4.57	100				18.8%	37.0%	16.4%	6.9	3.4
2005	OAK	AL	99	4.18	4.37	110				20.8%	41.8%	19.3%	6.9	3.6
2006	OAK	AL	105	4.03	4.94	118				16.5%	38.2%	13.3%	6.2	4.0

The big thing to notice is the K rates. Schmidt has been in a steady decline but was still better than Zito last year. This is keeping with both players' careers. Schmidt's career averge is about a whole strikeout better than Zito.

Zito has been staying pretty steady over the last few years. He was over 7 K/9 his first three seasons, but hasn't got over that mark since, falling into a consistent 6.9 career average.

But what troubles me is the walk rate. Zito has done up each of the last three years, over which time his K/BB dropped from 2.01 to 1.53. And besides 2003 to 2004 it's dropped every year since 2001.

Schmidt's K/BB fell from 2003 to 2005, going from 4.52 to 1.94. He had a slight recorrection last year at 2.25, right at his career mark.

It's hard to say Zito is in a decline at 28, though the walk rates aren't encouraging. Schmidt had a great return to form last year, but at 33 he is obviously more likely to decline over the length of a four year deal than Zito is (though his deal is likely to be six years). Zito is also more consistent, mainly due to Schmidt's injury problems the last few years. If I had to pick one for the next for years without money involved it would be Zito all the way as the younger and less injury prone option.

But is above-average consistency worth $100 million over six years? Zito is not a Johan Santana, Roger Clemens type-ace. He has incredibly bad games quite often, with five games giving up at least six runs last year alone.

I see Zito more like the 115 ERA+ pitcher he's been the last two years than the 169 ERA+ pitcher he was when he when the Cy Young in 2002. And though his curveball is one of the best in baseball, he doesn't always seem to know how to use it. Sometimes it reminds me of Shawn Estes in his decline, though Estes at his best was barely what Zito is now. Still, the 'Why isn't it working?' face is the same. I see him more as a reliable No. 2.

I really don't know if I would feel comfortable with the Giants investing so much in someone like Zito, especially since it will mean the end of Barry Bonds. As much as I hate it, he is the best hitter still on the market and if the Giants can sign him to a one year deal has the possibility of being a decent value.

If a Lowry signing means Noah Lowry is gone to Seattle or Boston in a deal for a power hitter the water becomes murkier. Here's thw two scenarios, deal amounts and lengths and estimated performance.

Secenario 1: Lowry, $14/4 (105 ERA+) and Bonds $18/1 (140 OPS+)
Secenario 2: Zito, $100/6 (117 ERA +) and Sexson, $28/2 (124 OPS+)

The Bonds estimate is if he continues to decline and Sexson is if he stays steady.

In Scenario 1 the Giants commit around $22 million a year and Scenario 2 around $31 million. Would that extra $10 million buy the Giants enough wins to stay competitive? I don't think so, but the upside seems higher if Zito can return to a semi-dominant form and the Giants find a way to replace the production lost in the drop off of Bonds to Sexson. How they do that with less money will be difficult, but may I suggest starting at third base?