A Look at Paul Maholm

by Naveen Nallappa on Jan 12, 2012 2:31 AM CST

Paul Maholm is the latest in a long list of acquisitions made by TheoJed. Maholm, now 29, was selected by the Pirates with the 8th overall pick in the 2003 draft.

Since 2006 - his first full big league season - Maholm has averaged 183.7 IP per season, which ranks 22nd of all pitchers that pitched between 2006 and 2011. While he has displayed great durability in the past, his 2011 season was cut short as a result of a shoulder strain. Fortunately, it doesn't seem like it was much as he was cleared for workouts on October 24th. Maholm's ability to stay on the field will be a breath of fresh air for a Cubs team that had a variety of injuries plague it's rotation last year.

Let's take a look at what Maholm has produced in the past, and what he could produce moving forward.

Over the course of the past six years, (not including the 41.1 innings that he pitched in 2005), Maholm has posted a wide range of pitching lines. His line has been as bad as a 4.76 ERA/4.81 FIP/4.59 xFIP, (his first season), and as good as a 3.66 ERA/3.78 FIP/4.03 xFIP, (his 2011 season). Below is a chart with Maholm's career numbers.

In general, Maholm has been improving - aside from 2010, Maholm's FIP has been decreasing year-by-year. Unfortunately, some of this decrease may be a result of his below average HR/FB rates over the past few years. If you take a look at his xFIP, (the same as FIP excepts it uses the league average HR/FB rate instead of the pitcher's HR/FB rate), you'll see much more varied results.

That said, let's look at something Maholm is clearly good at: inducing ground balls. Since being called up to the majors, Maholm has shown a knack for getting ground balls. Below are his ground ball rates by season:

At his best, Maholm induced ground balls at a rate that would put him in the 90th percentile amongst all pitchers. While his ground ball rate has been trending slightly down for the past couple of years, it is still well above average, and ranked close to the 80th percentile amongst all pitchers in 2011.

On the other hand, I do have a couple of concerns with some of Maholm's peripherals. His SwStr% has fallen every year since his career high of 8.4% in 2008; it stood at 5.7% in 2011, (well below the 8.6% league average). Given his declining SwStr%, Maholm's Contact% has increased since 2008, rising to a career-high 86.9%, (well above the 80.7% league average). Furthermore, Maholm has had a history of high HR/FB rates. He posted three straight seasons with a HR/FB rate above 12.0%. Fortunately, in the three years since 2008, Maholm's HR/FB rates have hovered around 7.5%, (well below league average, which was 9.5% in 2010). While some of this may have been a result of luck, Maholm did change his pitch selection after 2008. He cut back on throwing his fastball in 2009 - throwing it 8.1% less than he did in 2008 - and instead chose to throw his CB% (15.9% in 2008 | 17.7% in 2009) and CH% (10.1% in 2008 | 16.2% in 2009) more frequently in 2009. This change in pitch selection as an explanation for the decreased HR/FB rates is somewhat reassuring.

Maholm's ability to induce ground balls is his most valuable skill. If he can continue to keep his GB% high, Maholm can continue to be a league average starter, (his career FIP- of 100 is the definition of league average).

At $4.75 million for one year with a club option for $6.5 million in 2013, Maholm comes at a bargain. He has averaged 2.1 WAR per year over his career, and 2.5 WAR per year over the past four years. At 2.5 WAR, Maholm has, on average, been worth anywhere between $10 and $12 million dollars a year. Maholm could conceivably be worth his entire contract, (assuming the club option is picked up) in one year.

While Maholm isn't necessarily the young pitcher that you'd expect a team to build around, signing Maholm opens up a few different possibilities:

1. Maholm could fill a spot in the rotation left by a Garza trade.

2. Maholm could fill a void left by Garza or Dempster in 2013.

3. Maholm could be traded this July, or next off-season, and net a prospect or two.*

4. Maholm could become a long-term fixture at the back-end of the rotation.

Maholm's another asset in the cupboard, and at the cost that he comes at, is another shrewd move by TheoJed that opens up a bunch of possibilities.

* It might not be in our best interest to consider trading a bunch of the free agents that we have signed, (this matters more with a pitcher like Maholm or a player like DeJesus as opposed to someone like Sonnanstine or Corpas), for the following reason: if we sign people to major league contracts with the intention of flipping them at the deadline, or in the middle of their deal, free agents may be wary of signing with us in the future and may end up choosing a different team to sign with because they're scared that they'll just be another asset that we leverage in a trade. I'm not sure how important this effect is - it might be the case that certain players don't mind being traded - but I think it's something worth mentioning.

HR/FB: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/hrs/

xFIP: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/xfip/

FIP-: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/era-fip-xfip/

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

Tweet Comment 55 comments | 7 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: Pittsburgh Pirates, Chicago Cubs

Comments

I love reading your write-ups!

Please keep them coming!!

就是今年！

by CubFanInChina on Jan 12, 2012 4:07 AM CST reply actions

LOVE your work Naveen.

Brother your breakdowns are worthy of Jonah Hill. Hope you have the time to continue them!

"God, I always said I would never bother you about baseball, but if you could make this pain in my shoulder stop for ten minutes, I would really appreciate it."
Billy Chapel

by cubfever7 on Jan 12, 2012 10:18 AM CST up reply actions

The concerning issue with Maholm is that a lot of his pitches end up in the field,

and with our shoddy defense (at least last year), that’s troubling. We have like what, one infielder (Castro) that we are certain of will be starting in 2012? The other three are pretty much up in the air, no?

"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks

by dtpollitt on Jan 12, 2012 5:54 AM CST reply actions

What's more, Castro makes errors.

Lots of them. I guess I don’t know the breakdown between throwing errors and fielding errors, but either way it doesn’t look pretty for a pitcher who induces a lot of contact and puts the ball in play.

by varrys on Jan 12, 2012 6:48 AM CST up reply actions

Well with Maholm a lefty

it is nice to have improved defense at 3rd. Now if the new regime can get defensive improvement from Castro, he could have some good years.

It should be noted that Maholm had Cedeno and Alvarez on the left side in Pittsburgh last season and he still had a good year numbers-wise.

John Grabow - Who will pay you $4.8 million in 2012?

by rlpete on Jan 12, 2012 8:46 AM CST up reply actions

Stewart is a massive defensive improvement at 3rd

And by all accounts, Rizzo is a plus defender at first once he comes up. That gives us above average defense at 3 of the 4 infield positions and a defender in Castro that has all the potential in the world. If he improves this year, we could actually be looking at a very strong defensive infield.

by bdlugz on Jan 12, 2012 10:34 AM CST up reply actions

Barney is fine at 2B - his issue is offensive limitations

by ClarkFan on Jan 13, 2012 11:50 AM CST up reply actions

Here's a breakdown of Pittsburgh's defense vs. our defense in 2011.

I focused on the infield because of Maholm’s high GB%. Here are the UZRs^ by position by team:

1B: Cubs 0.9 UZR | Pirates -7.5 UZR
2B: Cubs 6.1 UZR | Pirates -3.4 UZR
SS: Cubs -7.7 UZR | Pirates -0.4 UZR
3B: Cubs -15.2 UZR | Pirates 7.7 UZR

The Cubs infield totalled -15.9 UZR, while the Pirates infield totalled -3.6 UZR. While Maholm’s ERA would have likely suffered if he was on the 2011 Cubs, his FIP (fielding-independent pitching) would have remained about the same, (additional hits/errors could have led to longer innings, which would have likely led to more walks, less innings pitched, and a higher FIP; however, in theory, FIP is supposed to be fielding-independent).

Moving forward, here is an outlook on the 2012 Cubs infield defense:

1B: LaHair 1.5 UZR
2B: Barney 6.1 UZR
SS: Castro -7.7 UZR
3B: Stewart 0.2 UZR

Based on last year’s UZRs, (for Barney and Castro), and career average UZRs, (for LaHair at 1B and Stewart at 3B), the potential 2012 Cubs infield would post a 0.1 UZR, which would be significantly better than the 2011 Cubs, and slightly better than the 2011 Pirates.

Despite Maholm’s increased Contact%, the Cubs improved infield defense should help turn those additional balls in play into outs, (well at least at a better rate than they would have last year).

^ While UZR isn’t flawless, it’s one of the better defensive metrics out there.

by Naveen Nallappa on Jan 12, 2012 3:54 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Not to mention that improvements by young players defensively is a good possibility.

Hell, even if they remain static, I’d say an increase of over 16 UZR in a single offseason is incredible.

by bdlugz on Jan 12, 2012 3:58 PM CST up reply actions

Castro will improve,

he did last year, and he will again, the question is how much will he improve.

by jpeters407 on Jan 12, 2012 4:46 PM CST up reply actions

And Stewart for Ramirez brings up that UZR in a hurry

by ClarkFan on Jan 13, 2012 11:51 AM CST up reply actions

How do we even know he is a lock in the rotation?

If Garza is gone sure. Who do you see as the 5 in the rotation?

We'll miss you Big Boy. #10 is going into the Hall of Fame!!

by mrcubsfan on Jan 12, 2012 8:28 AM CST reply actions

Barring injury

Maholm is in the rotation. Only Hendry signs left-handed middle relievers to expensive contracts.

John Grabow - Who will pay you $4.8 million in 2012?

by rlpete on Jan 12, 2012 8:40 AM CST up reply actions

As of now, the people that I believe would be guaranteed a spot in the starting staff are

Garza, Dempster, and Malholm. That leaves 2 spots between: Wood, Volstad, Wells, Shark (I think he’ll be stretched out in order to spot start if needed, but will certainly remain in the bullpen), Sonnastine, and any other NRIs I’m forgetting.

I’m quite confident those two spots will go to two of: Wood, Volstad, or Wells, and really have no idea right now which to expect. It will be an interesting spring training for sure.

by bdlugz on Jan 12, 2012 10:38 AM CST up reply actions

I agree with bdlugz.

I see our pitchers lining up in the following order: Garza, Dempster, Maholm, Wells, Volstad, and Wood, with Wood being the odd man out. Volstad has more major league experience, and is a little older, which in my opinion, make him the likely #5 starter. At the same time, I think it would be a shame if Wood had to start out in Triple-A – I’m not sure if any more minor league innings would aid his development, (he’s had 201 innings in AAA since 2009).

But, as bdlugz mentioned, a lot could hinge upon Spring Training.

by Naveen Nallappa on Jan 12, 2012 2:13 PM CST up reply actions

I prefer Wood over Volstad

Wood may be an extreme fly ball pitcher, but he has show the ability to limit home runs in a hitters park.

by Mitchener on Jan 12, 2012 7:05 PM CST up reply actions

from what

I’ve read wells is ok going to the pen, so would it be Garz Demps Maholm Wood,Volstad? I think spring training is wide open for #4 and #5. should be fun

by RIP Slim on Jan 13, 2012 1:40 AM CST via Android app up reply actions

I assumed wells to pen also.

Maybe I assumed Wood and Volstad are rotation guys only, or more so than is Wells, for now at least.

"Hey Hey, Holy mackerel, no doubt about it,!"

by scottsdalecubs on Jan 13, 2012 11:58 PM CST up reply actions

Wood probably has more upside that Volstad

by ClarkFan on Jan 13, 2012 11:53 AM CST up reply actions

I think you could argue either way.

by Dcr18 on Jan 13, 2012 8:01 PM CST up reply actions

Nice writeup.

I’ve always liked Maholm. I’d be fine if he remains a back-end starter for a few years. He could be one of those lefty type guys that hangs around for awhile eating innings and putting up good but not exceptional seasons.

John Grabow - Who will pay you $4.8 million in 2012?

by rlpete on Jan 12, 2012 8:43 AM CST reply actions

Certainly worth considering.

* It might not be in our best interest to consider trading a bunch of the free agents that we have singed, (this matters more with a pitcher like Maholm or a player like DeJesus as opposed to someone like Sonnanstine or Corpas), for the following reason: if we sign people to major league contracts with the intention of flipping them at the deadline, or in the middle of their deal, free agents may be wary of signing with us in the future and may end up choosing a different team to sign with because they’re scared that they’ll just be another asset that we leverage in a trade. I’m not sure how important this effect is – it might be the case that certain players don’t mind being traded – but I think it’s something worth mentioning.

And this is something we’ll have to think about as we all get used to a time and place where FAs don’t always (yes, I’m obviously exaggerating for effect) get NTCs from the Cubs.

"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."

by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST

by fsuapollo on Jan 12, 2012 8:57 AM CST reply actions

If Garza stays, the rotation should be decent.

by Rick B on Jan 12, 2012 9:04 AM CST reply actions

And, of course, stays healthy.

That’s always a major factor, as we saw last year.

"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."

by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST

by fsuapollo on Jan 12, 2012 10:15 AM CST up reply actions

I feel 100% better about our depth than I did last year.

Casey Coleman is realistically our #8/9 starter right now instead of #6 from last year. That’s an impressive turnaround on some smart money signings and trades.

by bdlugz on Jan 12, 2012 10:40 AM CST up reply actions

Oh, for sure.

But there’s a reason you accumulate all that depth.

For instance last year, I just thought Hendry took a little too much grief for the lack of SP depth heading into ST.

He had Wellemeyer and Looper as NRIs. They both left.

Silva’s attitude and appetite forced his release. (Fairly predictable, but still.)

Jay Jackson got hurt in ST.

So while it would be absurd to rely on all of those guys… I’m not sure we can blame Hendry for ALL FOUR of them disappearing as options so quickly. Then when the injuries to Wells and Cashner came right out of the gate, we were sunk.

Now, it obviously IS fair to blame Hendry for relying on old / fat depth rather than having more than two young guys at AAA (Coleman and Jackson) who could hypothetically step in. But I don’t think Hendry was negligent on SP depth at the end of February heading into ST. He did plenty wrong… and didn’t react well, or quickly, as that depth quickly faded away. But the original blueprint wasn’t awful.

Also obvious… Theo / Jed’s plan is much, much better. But if none of the NRI’s work out, Garza is dealt, Coleman doesn’t develop, and two of the Cubs other rotation members go down in the first week of the season… we’ll have a SP problem again, almost assuredly.

"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."

by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST

by fsuapollo on Jan 12, 2012 10:59 AM CST up reply actions

I don't disagree

And my comment wasn’t meant to be a rip on what Hendry had done last year. I also agree he has taken more than his fair share for a terrible situation last year. With that said, I think having guys in AAA like Coleman and one of Wood/Volstad that have major league experience is extremely important. No one saw Jay Jackson falling off a cliff last year, but relying on a guy who has never pitched in the bigs is always risky.

If the same situation as last year occurs and we trade Garza and lose Wells/Volstad, we’d be looking at Dempster, Malholm, Wood, Coleman, Sonnastine? Obviously, that rotation looks horrible, but I still feel better about it than what we were looking at last year.

by bdlugz on Jan 12, 2012 3:50 PM CST up reply actions

What I wonder about WAR

is whether a team can actually afford to pay full value for it, win, and be under the luxury tax limit. WAR derives from analysis of players’ actual production and what players actually get paid, if I’m not mistaken. Makes sense. But does a competing team HAVE to find several players who can contribute more than they’re paid, or could a team simply pay market value and win by selecting the right players?

Anyone aware of any articles or studies on the web about that? I can google later, but I’m off to work now and thought somebody might know.

by cubzfan on Jan 12, 2012 9:13 AM CST reply actions

This is a really interesting question... and sounds like a great project for Naveen.

But I’ll take a bit of a stab at it with very little research to start to give us a very rough jumping off point.

WAR is, of course, based on wins above replacement. I thought I remembered reading that if you fielded a full team that combined for WAR, that team would be expected to win 50 games (that number probably isn’t exact… so call it a rough estimate… might be a little high or a little low).

Assuming you pay major league minimum for that roster, your payroll would be ~$10.6M ($425,000 × 25).

In essence I think the primary calculation would be the cost of those extra ~40 wins needed to get to 90 and be a contender. If each WAR is valued at ~ $5M.

Then if you were paying exact value, you’d be adding $200M in payroll to the original… for a payroll of $210.6M.

So I believe the answer, which shouldn’t surprise us given that good teams always have some young "cheap players making an impact, yes… you do have to find several players who can provide WAR for less than the value cost.

Again… that’s all my rough estimating… perhaps Naveen or someone else knows of something a little more formal.

"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."

by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST

by fsuapollo on Jan 12, 2012 10:29 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs

You're correct, it's somewhere in the 195-205 million range if you calculate WAR at 4.8 million per win.

This is an awesome illustration for those wondering why we don’t just go out and spend big money on free agents right now. Because the entire idea of winning on a smart payroll is finding those league minimum and arb 1, 2 and 3 guys that are putting up a WAR values that are 5x, 10x, etc above their salary. By spending 23 million on Prince, a player that has averaged under 5 WAR over the past 3 seasons, you’re basically paying market value for his production, which for a team in the position of the Cubs is fruitless.

If we can have Rizzo become a 3WAR player in 3 years (which is entirely feasible), we’d be paying around $500k for around 15 million in production. Those are the shrewd moves that make a team competitive every single year, and that’s what Theo and Jed are working towards, IMO.

by bdlugz on Jan 12, 2012 10:44 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs

This is another reason that I was so angry

with Hendry for bringing up Castro 3 weeks too early and sacrificing one of the cost controlled seasons by turning him into a “super 2.” I don’t think that it will make a difference now as I think that Super 2 has gone away with the new CBA (can anyone confirm that for me?) but at the time, you were sacrificing a full year of cost control on Castro and the accompanying multiple of WAR value for 3 extra weeks of production in his rookie season.

Foolish.

"Manny Trillo is coming in to pinch run. You know, for a lot of teams, you would pinch run FOR Manny Trillo." - Harry Caray

by Archie on Jan 12, 2012 12:56 PM CST up reply actions

It's only one year of cost control.

I’m guessing that Theo & Co. will try to sign Castro to a long term extension, buying out his arb years, before this year is over.

Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation

by Al Yellon on Jan 12, 2012 1:47 PM CST up reply actions

The point is that it was a PRE-arb year

I agree that his arb years will likely be bought out. However, the Cubs would have had one additional year of PRE-arb cost control putting the big contract back a year.

"Manny Trillo is coming in to pinch run. You know, for a lot of teams, you would pinch run FOR Manny Trillo." - Harry Caray

by Archie on Jan 12, 2012 3:04 PM CST up reply actions

Super 2 was actually expanded to include, I believe, 23% of all players called up instead of 17%.

The difference is, you don’t lose an arb year that becomes a FA year, they just receive slightly more in years 3-6 instead of years 4-6. Overall, it’s pretty negligible to a major market team, but the point does still stand.

by bdlugz on Jan 12, 2012 3:53 PM CST up reply actions

Desparate = foolish - the short form description for Hendry in 2010

by ClarkFan on Jan 13, 2012 11:58 AM CST up reply actions

fsuapollo, bdlugz, and dcf hit it right on the dot.

At $4.5 million per WAR, (this figure changes every year, I’ve used the 2011 figure here), a team would have to spend $189 million to field a 90-win team ($4.5 million * 42 WAR). Replacement level is set at around a .300 win% mark, so a team of replacement level players would win 48 games. Add 42 WAR, and you get your 90-win playoff-caliber team.

So, yes, a team must find at least a few players who can contribute at a level higher than what they’re paid to contribute. And, as bdlugz mentioned, one of the most effective ways to do this is by drafting and developing talent, (e.g. Rizzo).

cubszfan – here’s an article that might interest you: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-six. It talks about how WAR is converted into dollar values.

by Naveen Nallappa on Jan 12, 2012 2:45 PM CST up reply actions

Also, there's an indirect benefit of paying less than market value for certain players.

If you have a few players on your team who outperform their contract, then that frees up money for you to spend on premium free agents. In other words, a team can afford to sign some players to market-value, (or slightly above market-value) contracts as long as they have other players who are signed to below market-value contracts.

by Naveen Nallappa on Jan 12, 2012 2:55 PM CST up reply actions

Or the inverse of that

For every Soriano contract, you negate one or two other cost controlled players on your roster.

"Manny Trillo is coming in to pinch run. You know, for a lot of teams, you would pinch run FOR Manny Trillo." - Harry Caray

by Archie on Jan 12, 2012 3:27 PM CST up reply actions

Very true, but that's a pretty extreme case.

by Naveen Nallappa on Jan 12, 2012 3:57 PM CST up reply actions

Actually most big-$ teams have one Soriano-type contract on the roster

Maybe not the staggering number of years, but in $/value.

by ClarkFan on Jan 13, 2012 12:00 PM CST up reply actions

i believe $/WAR calculations

are based purely off of free agency. I might be wrong on this, but i think the basis is to evaluate FA signings as opposed to arbitration decisions, etc.

Because its based purely on FA, it’s why the numbers get unreasonable (budget wise) when you extrapolate out. It’s unreasonable to expect ANY team (even the yankees) to be comprised exclusively of FA talent

follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com

by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 12, 2012 11:41 AM CST up reply actions

Not even the Yankees can play full $ for WAR

You would end up with a $200M payroll for a 90-win team.

by ClarkFan on Jan 13, 2012 11:56 AM CST up reply actions

Isn't that what they have?

The sun is up. They sky is blue. It's beautiful, and so are you. Dear Prudence, won't you come out to play? ~Lennon & McCartney

by SouthWabashSoul on Jan 16, 2012 12:13 PM CST up reply actions

yah yankees have been above 200 million

So the Yankees can basically buy a playoff team. As long as they FA’s live up their contract.

by Mitchener on Jan 17, 2012 11:09 AM CST up reply actions

Even the Yanks have some bargains

Like Cano (so far) and Granderson to offset the dead weight (Burnett, Jeter, maybe A-Rod).

by ClarkFan on Jan 17, 2012 2:25 PM CST up reply actions

Thank you, fsuapollo, bdlugz, and DCF for those great answers

It was nice to start my lunch break by getting the information I wanted!

by cubzfan on Jan 12, 2012 12:07 PM CST reply actions

I agree

Not to add nothing to the conversation, but it is a tough act to follow some of the great write ups here.

I also concur with making sure the FA’s want to sign here. As bad as Hendry was at some stuff, he was very good at cultivating relationships with his people and gave FA’s a reason to come here. (Usually because of NTC’s and extra years, but who’s counting…)

by shoebox76 on Jan 12, 2012 12:25 PM CST reply actions