John Donovan of si.com published an article yesterday about the 2008 prospects of San Francisco pitcher Barry Zito, who is in his second year with the Giants after having signed a then-record seven-year/$126 million contract. Zito’s first year as a Giant was a complete bust: he posted career-worst numbers in ERA (4.53) and innings pitched (196 – his first full season under 200) while also finishing with his first losing record (11-13). Obviously this is not what the Giants expected out of Zito when they signed him to that record deal. The heart of this situation, however, is not what the Giants expected out of Barry Zito, it is why they expected so much out of Barry Zito. There was plenty of evidence available for the Giants front office to realize that Barry Zito was never worth the $126 million for which he signed after the 2006 season.
The continued overrating of Barry Zito has been – at least to me – as perplexing as the myth of the "liberally biased" media. In his article, Mr. Donovan wrote that Zito hasn’t had a "Zito-like" season since 2002, when he went 23-5 with a 2.75 ERA, 182 strikeouts, a 1.13 WHIP in 229 innings pitched. If these statistics constitute a "Zito-like" year, then what are we to make of his statistics from every other season? Upon further investigation, it is easy to see that his 2002 numbers were as un-Zito-like as his wretched 2007 numbers. Let’s look at his ERA, for example: that 2002 season saw him record his lowest single-season ERA, 2.75, which is 0.92 below his career ERA (3.67). His horrible 2007 ERA, on the other hand, was 4.53 – 0.86 above his career year – a smaller deviation from his career ERA than his 2002 ERA was. This fact raises an obvious question: if his 2002 ERA deviates further from his career ERA than his 2007 ERA does, how is 2002 more of a "Zito-like" season than 2007? His WHIP (walks & hits allowed per inning pitched) follows a similar track. Zito’s career WHIP is 1.262; in 2002 his WHIP was 1.134 (or 0.128 below his career average) while his 2007 WHIP was 1.347 (or 0.085 above his career average). Again, the larger deviation occurred in the "Zito-like" season of 2002. Does Mr. Donovan not have access to these same statistics? That is the only reason I can see for his blatant neglect of reality.
So what exactly is a "Zito-like" season? Apparently it looks something like this: 15-10, 3.67 ERA, 85 BB, 164 K, 1.26 WHIP and 219 IP. Of course, his lifetime statistics were slightly better before the Giants gave him that fat contract, though the fact remains that Zito was never an elite pitcher. His outstanding 2002 season put him on the verge of becoming an elite pitcher, but one outstanding season does not an elite pitcher make. In other words, his 2002 season offered a glimpse of Zito’s best up until that point; it was never the norm by which to calculate future production or value unto itself, especially when taking into account the four more or less mediocre years that followed. Throw in Zito’s early penchant for extreme peaks and valleys that continued throughout his career (for example, Zito began the 2001 season 6-7 with a 5.07 ERA before reading "Science of Mind" founder Ernest Holmes’ Creative Mind and then finding success – not exactly the surest sign of trouble, but then again, definitely not the surest sign of stability, either), and there were plenty of reasons for the Giants to doubt that Zito would switch leagues and magically become the dominant pitcher from that 2002 season all over again. Hence, the question remains: what did compel members of the Giants front office to bestow an $18 million per year contract upon a pitcher with only one truly spectacular season under his belt?
Zito’s aforementioned – and yet to be fulfilled – potential is the most obvious answer, of course. The other answer is the reputation Zito acquired through the media as an elite pitcher following that 2002 season – a reputation sportswriters continued to perpetuate long after it had become obvious that he simply was not fulfilling the lofty expectations created by that spectacular season. The creation of the Barry Zito myth began in that 2002 season when he went on a ridiculous second-half surge: 12-2 with a 1.92 ERA, to be exact. This incredible second half performance gave the short memories of the baseball media something to obsess over – and completely ignore the fact that not only had Pedro Martinez of Boston posted superior numbers all season long, but that he went on a similar second-half surge of his own: 9-2 with a 1.61 ERA (in four fewer starts due to injury). This is how each player finished the season:
· BZ: 23-5, 35 GS, 229.3 IP, 2.75 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 78 BB, 182 K, 24 HR, .218 OBA
· PM: 20-4, 30 GS, 199.3 IP, 2.26 ERA, 0.92 WHIP, 40 BB, 239 K, 13 HR, .198 OBA
While Zito trumps Pedro in durability, Pedro dominates Zito in every single performance category (important note: I have never considered won-loss record a "performance" category, especially since 1987, the year Nolan Ryan led the entire Major Leagues in ERA and strikeouts and finished with an 8-16 record for a lousy Houston Astros team; that said, even with fewer wins Pedro still finished with a higher winning percentage than Zito, .833 to .821). With across-the-board superiority, Pedro Martinez was the obvious choice to win the American League Cy Young Award in 2002. Unfortunately, once the brain-dead mainstream media begins a love affair with somebody – especially when he’s young, attractive and white – there’s no terminating it unless he’s found with a dead woman or a live boy in his bed. And since Barry Zito was by all means a likeable, quirky guy in 2002, he naturally walked away with the Cy Young Award that should have gone to the more aloof, more enigmatic, more dominant – in short, more deserving – Pedro Martinez.
Thus Barry Zito’s reputation was born. He followed that fantastic 2002 season with a very good – not great, just very good – 2003: 14-12, 3.30 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, 88 BB, 146 K, 19 HR. Still, Zito was considered an elite pitcher, and perhaps rightfully so; despite his near break-even record, Zito was quite effective, so it was reasonable to expect him to follow that season with a better one in 2004. Instead, he hit rock-bottom: 11-11, 4.48 ERA, 1.39 WHIP, 81 BB, 169 K, 28 HR. Had Zito come back from his disastrous 2004 campaign with seasons resembling his 2002 campaign, then it would have been reasonable to consider him an elite pitcher – and perhaps consider his 2002 season "Zito-like." Instead, Zito came back in 2005 and 2006 with seasons that more or less resembled hybrids of his 2003 and 2004 seasons: 30-23, 3.85 ERA, 1.30 WHIP. These simply are not the statistics of a dominating, elite major league pitcher.
The baseball press, however, was still madly in love with Barry Zito all the while. In 2005 Sports Illustrated published Zito’s behind-the-scenes photographs of spring training; the San Francisco Chronicle published several photographs and an article detailing Zito’s trip to Arlington Cemetery; then there were the infinite number of bits about Zito and Alyssa Milano during their 2004-2005 relationship (wherein it is safe to assume many of them referred to Zito as the Oakland Athletics’ "ace" even though counterparts Mark Mulder and Tim Hudson were putting up similar to superior numbers). Every baseball publication since his 2004 debacle has asked whether or not Barry Zito will "return to form" this season. Even during his horrendous 2007 season Zito was featured in a three-page Esquire magazine spread. Obviously the media simply cannot get enough of Barry Zito – or his unfulfilled potential. There was an obvious trend to the coverage of Barry Zito in the press, however: most pieces have focused on his quirky personality, diverse off-the-field interests and sometimes tabloid-fodder personal life while making mostly passing mention of his baseball accomplishments. And it’s not that Zito was never deserving of such mention; among other things, he donates a great amount of time and money to his Strikeouts for Troops foundation, which gives aid to military veterans’ hospitals across the country (somebody’s gotta do it ’cause we know George W. Bush ain’t). Nonetheless, it is easy to see that most of the ample publicity of Barry Zito was earned by his off-the-field charisma and good looks rather than his on-the-field accomplishments. This notoriety has kept his name – and more importantly his potential – out there for everyone, including baseball general managers, to salivate over.
And now comes John Donovan’s "It’s make-or-break time for pricey Barry Zito" article, in which he declares that Zito "hasn’t had a Zito-like since 2002, when he went 23-5 with a 2.75 ERA for the A’s." Donovan at least has the common sense to follow that ridiculous statement with the more appropriate line, "A lot of people are starting to wonder what Zito-like truly is, whether it’s ’02 and the years before that, or ’03 up to now." Conveniently for you, I’ve provided the answer to that question. There is, of course, one huge fact Mr. Donovan overlooks in this second sentence: there were no "years" (plural) before his magnificent 2002 season; there was only one "year" (singular) before his magnificent 2002 season. In his rookie season of 2000 Zito pitched very well – with numbers more closely resembling the Cy Young year of 2002 than any other season – but he pitched in only fourteen games. As any baseball player or fan could tell you, fourteen games in a rookie season is not much when it comes to determining the future success of a major league ballplayer. Donovan later asks some questions: "Where does Barry Zito, who soon will turn 30, go from here? Back to the elite pitcher he once was? Or into the scrap heap of free-agent busts?" Again, one of these questions assumes that, except for one season, Barry Zito was ever an "elite pitcher" when what more accurately describes him is "elite potential." After the disaster of ’04 and the return to above-average respectability – not elite respectability (see Roger Clemens, Roy Halladay, Roy Oswalt, Jake Peavy and Johan Santana) – the following two seasons, there was enough evidence for every major league general manager to know better than to throw $126 million at Barry Zito.
The continued overrating of Barry Zito has been – at least to me – as perplexing as the myth of the "liberally biased" media. In his article, Mr. Donovan wrote that Zito hasn’t had a "Zito-like" season since 2002, when he went 23-5 with a 2.75 ERA, 182 strikeouts, a 1.13 WHIP in 229 innings pitched. If these statistics constitute a "Zito-like" year, then what are we to make of his statistics from every other season? Upon further investigation, it is easy to see that his 2002 numbers were as un-Zito-like as his wretched 2007 numbers. Let’s look at his ERA, for example: that 2002 season saw him record his lowest single-season ERA, 2.75, which is 0.92 below his career ERA (3.67). His horrible 2007 ERA, on the other hand, was 4.53 – 0.86 above his career year – a smaller deviation from his career ERA than his 2002 ERA was. This fact raises an obvious question: if his 2002 ERA deviates further from his career ERA than his 2007 ERA does, how is 2002 more of a "Zito-like" season than 2007? His WHIP (walks & hits allowed per inning pitched) follows a similar track. Zito’s career WHIP is 1.262; in 2002 his WHIP was 1.134 (or 0.128 below his career average) while his 2007 WHIP was 1.347 (or 0.085 above his career average). Again, the larger deviation occurred in the "Zito-like" season of 2002. Does Mr. Donovan not have access to these same statistics? That is the only reason I can see for his blatant neglect of reality.
So what exactly is a "Zito-like" season? Apparently it looks something like this: 15-10, 3.67 ERA, 85 BB, 164 K, 1.26 WHIP and 219 IP. Of course, his lifetime statistics were slightly better before the Giants gave him that fat contract, though the fact remains that Zito was never an elite pitcher. His outstanding 2002 season put him on the verge of becoming an elite pitcher, but one outstanding season does not an elite pitcher make. In other words, his 2002 season offered a glimpse of Zito’s best up until that point; it was never the norm by which to calculate future production or value unto itself, especially when taking into account the four more or less mediocre years that followed. Throw in Zito’s early penchant for extreme peaks and valleys that continued throughout his career (for example, Zito began the 2001 season 6-7 with a 5.07 ERA before reading "Science of Mind" founder Ernest Holmes’ Creative Mind and then finding success – not exactly the surest sign of trouble, but then again, definitely not the surest sign of stability, either), and there were plenty of reasons for the Giants to doubt that Zito would switch leagues and magically become the dominant pitcher from that 2002 season all over again. Hence, the question remains: what did compel members of the Giants front office to bestow an $18 million per year contract upon a pitcher with only one truly spectacular season under his belt?
Zito’s aforementioned – and yet to be fulfilled – potential is the most obvious answer, of course. The other answer is the reputation Zito acquired through the media as an elite pitcher following that 2002 season – a reputation sportswriters continued to perpetuate long after it had become obvious that he simply was not fulfilling the lofty expectations created by that spectacular season. The creation of the Barry Zito myth began in that 2002 season when he went on a ridiculous second-half surge: 12-2 with a 1.92 ERA, to be exact. This incredible second half performance gave the short memories of the baseball media something to obsess over – and completely ignore the fact that not only had Pedro Martinez of Boston posted superior numbers all season long, but that he went on a similar second-half surge of his own: 9-2 with a 1.61 ERA (in four fewer starts due to injury). This is how each player finished the season:
· BZ: 23-5, 35 GS, 229.3 IP, 2.75 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 78 BB, 182 K, 24 HR, .218 OBA
· PM: 20-4, 30 GS, 199.3 IP, 2.26 ERA, 0.92 WHIP, 40 BB, 239 K, 13 HR, .198 OBA
While Zito trumps Pedro in durability, Pedro dominates Zito in every single performance category (important note: I have never considered won-loss record a "performance" category, especially since 1987, the year Nolan Ryan led the entire Major Leagues in ERA and strikeouts and finished with an 8-16 record for a lousy Houston Astros team; that said, even with fewer wins Pedro still finished with a higher winning percentage than Zito, .833 to .821). With across-the-board superiority, Pedro Martinez was the obvious choice to win the American League Cy Young Award in 2002. Unfortunately, once the brain-dead mainstream media begins a love affair with somebody – especially when he’s young, attractive and white – there’s no terminating it unless he’s found with a dead woman or a live boy in his bed. And since Barry Zito was by all means a likeable, quirky guy in 2002, he naturally walked away with the Cy Young Award that should have gone to the more aloof, more enigmatic, more dominant – in short, more deserving – Pedro Martinez.
Thus Barry Zito’s reputation was born. He followed that fantastic 2002 season with a very good – not great, just very good – 2003: 14-12, 3.30 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, 88 BB, 146 K, 19 HR. Still, Zito was considered an elite pitcher, and perhaps rightfully so; despite his near break-even record, Zito was quite effective, so it was reasonable to expect him to follow that season with a better one in 2004. Instead, he hit rock-bottom: 11-11, 4.48 ERA, 1.39 WHIP, 81 BB, 169 K, 28 HR. Had Zito come back from his disastrous 2004 campaign with seasons resembling his 2002 campaign, then it would have been reasonable to consider him an elite pitcher – and perhaps consider his 2002 season "Zito-like." Instead, Zito came back in 2005 and 2006 with seasons that more or less resembled hybrids of his 2003 and 2004 seasons: 30-23, 3.85 ERA, 1.30 WHIP. These simply are not the statistics of a dominating, elite major league pitcher.
The baseball press, however, was still madly in love with Barry Zito all the while. In 2005 Sports Illustrated published Zito’s behind-the-scenes photographs of spring training; the San Francisco Chronicle published several photographs and an article detailing Zito’s trip to Arlington Cemetery; then there were the infinite number of bits about Zito and Alyssa Milano during their 2004-2005 relationship (wherein it is safe to assume many of them referred to Zito as the Oakland Athletics’ "ace" even though counterparts Mark Mulder and Tim Hudson were putting up similar to superior numbers). Every baseball publication since his 2004 debacle has asked whether or not Barry Zito will "return to form" this season. Even during his horrendous 2007 season Zito was featured in a three-page Esquire magazine spread. Obviously the media simply cannot get enough of Barry Zito – or his unfulfilled potential. There was an obvious trend to the coverage of Barry Zito in the press, however: most pieces have focused on his quirky personality, diverse off-the-field interests and sometimes tabloid-fodder personal life while making mostly passing mention of his baseball accomplishments. And it’s not that Zito was never deserving of such mention; among other things, he donates a great amount of time and money to his Strikeouts for Troops foundation, which gives aid to military veterans’ hospitals across the country (somebody’s gotta do it ’cause we know George W. Bush ain’t). Nonetheless, it is easy to see that most of the ample publicity of Barry Zito was earned by his off-the-field charisma and good looks rather than his on-the-field accomplishments. This notoriety has kept his name – and more importantly his potential – out there for everyone, including baseball general managers, to salivate over.
And now comes John Donovan’s "It’s make-or-break time for pricey Barry Zito" article, in which he declares that Zito "hasn’t had a Zito-like since 2002, when he went 23-5 with a 2.75 ERA for the A’s." Donovan at least has the common sense to follow that ridiculous statement with the more appropriate line, "A lot of people are starting to wonder what Zito-like truly is, whether it’s ’02 and the years before that, or ’03 up to now." Conveniently for you, I’ve provided the answer to that question. There is, of course, one huge fact Mr. Donovan overlooks in this second sentence: there were no "years" (plural) before his magnificent 2002 season; there was only one "year" (singular) before his magnificent 2002 season. In his rookie season of 2000 Zito pitched very well – with numbers more closely resembling the Cy Young year of 2002 than any other season – but he pitched in only fourteen games. As any baseball player or fan could tell you, fourteen games in a rookie season is not much when it comes to determining the future success of a major league ballplayer. Donovan later asks some questions: "Where does Barry Zito, who soon will turn 30, go from here? Back to the elite pitcher he once was? Or into the scrap heap of free-agent busts?" Again, one of these questions assumes that, except for one season, Barry Zito was ever an "elite pitcher" when what more accurately describes him is "elite potential." After the disaster of ’04 and the return to above-average respectability – not elite respectability (see Roger Clemens, Roy Halladay, Roy Oswalt, Jake Peavy and Johan Santana) – the following two seasons, there was enough evidence for every major league general manager to know better than to throw $126 million at Barry Zito.
Unfortunately for the San Francisco Giants, they have only themselves to blame for buying into the inexplicable and unrelenting hype that has surrounded Barry Zito for the five years since his one and only season as an elite major league pitcher.
