Leverage measures how the manager chose to use pitcher. Jenks was used in important innings, Farnsworth less so. I don't think I would give that much weight in projecting what they are likely to do going forward. More important is the age question, and the question of whether or not Farnsworth has made some real adjustments.

There is little (if any) evidence to suggest that it is more difficult to perform in a high leverage situation than a low leverage situation.

The fact that Jenks was being used in higher leverage situations doesn't really help predict his future performance in any situation nearly as much as using his actual performance. Similarly for Farnsworth, it isn't his fault he was on a bad team. He's pitching to the same hitters Jenks was and getting the same results.

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/bobby_jenks_v_kyle_farnsworth/

BPro LI is notoriously bad.

First comment touches on my point: both of these guys are going to be 7th/8th inning setup men. Cameron proves their track record is similar in terms of output, and heck, even pitch types and styles. Is this just a way to get Jenks in the door to compete with Bard in 2012 for the closer role? Otherwise, this is a siginificant overpay for Jenks.

One quick point, which Sully and I quickly talked about on Twitter yesterday; the argument for clutch as a skill worth paying for is a very slippery slope.

For instance, let's take Farnsworth's Clutch score (as calculated by FanGraphs). Patrick's right that he's been absolutely awful in high leverage situations the last two years, but he was actually better in high leverage situations the four years prior, and his career Clutch rating is just a tick below average (due entirely to the last two years).

The reason I limited the statistical comparison to 2009 and 2010 was because that's when Farnsworth altered his pitching repertoire and added the cutter, so there is some evidence that he's become a somewhat better pitcher than his career numbers suggest. However, I don't see the reasoning for limiting the Clutch sampling to just those same two years.

There's no reason to believe that adding a cutter makes you worse in high leverage situations, at least none that I can tell. If we're going to argue for Clutch as a skill, then we need as large of a sample as possible. Reducing our window to just 100 innings renders the numbers essentially meaningless, since we're already hunting for something that is shown to generally not have any predictive value.

I don't think leverage has any direct effect on their respective performances; However:

1. Farnsworth has been homerun-lucky over that time- his HR/9 doesn't squre with a flyball pitcher.

2. Jenks has been extremly unlucky in homeruns, behind only Brandon League in HR/FB over that span.

3. Farnsworth has been platooned to some degree, facing mostly righties; while Jenks has not.

"There is little (if any) evidence to suggest that it is more difficult to perform in a high leverage situation than a low leverage situation."

Historically and over the entire game of baseball, that's true. But some individual pitchers struggle in hi-lev situations, while others thrive in them and struggle when the leverage is lower. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Kyle Farnsworth is a pitcher who statistics and observation agree fails to perform well in high-leverage situations.

I still think Cameron's biggest mistake is in dismissing the earlier performances of each pitcher and assuming that both will pitch, going forward, in a way that reflects the past two years.

I would stake my life savings that that won't be the case.

One common theme on sabermetric websites is that pressure has no bearing on performance (i.e. clutch performers). However, GMs and managers seem to value those who have demonstrated clutch performances (yes for Jenks versus no for Farnsworth) and pay and play players accordingly (more $ for Jenks vs less $ for Farnsworth).

This is one of the areas that sabermetricians and "old school" writers derisively attack each other. However, this probably means that the truth lies somewhere in-between.

Mark, re #1, Farnsworth has been a groundball pitcher since he added the sinker and changeup and increased his cutter usage dramatically starting in 2009.

PaulSF, sabermetricians who are skeptical of whether we can identify players with more or less clutch skill do not disagree that there are clutch performances. The question is whether clutch performance in the past is any predictor of clutch performance in the future.

Also, you mention statistics and observation, but you don't mention what observation you're talking about, unless it's simply observing the same performance that the statistics already reflect.

Mike, Farnsworth has a 43% groundball rate since 2009 and only a 41% last year. both numbers solidly below average.

Mark, I probably should have said he became "more of a groundball pitcher". He went from 38% groundballs in his prior career to 44% in 2009-2010 (per Retrosheet/MLBAM). League average is 44%, so he's right at average now.

Since he changed his repertoire so much from 2008 to 2009, I think it's fair to investigate his performance since then and see if the reduction in HR/9 is due to his new approach. I haven't seen anyone do that yet, but I certainly wouldn't reject out of hand the idea that the increase in GB% caused the drop in HR/9. We'd also need to look at whether his new pitches affected the ability of batters to pull the ball off of him.

"But some individual pitchers struggle in hi-lev situations, while others thrive in them and struggle when the leverage is lower. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Kyle Farnsworth is a pitcher who statistics and observation agree fails to perform well in high-leverage situations."

If every pitcher was exactly identical, when you looked back in the past you'd expect to see a bell shaped curve if graphing "clutch" performance with some players much better and some much worse than the mean. Going into the future, however, you know they are all identical. The ones that were more clutch aren't any more likely to do better in the future than the ones that were less clutch in the past.

So yes, the smaller the sample size you look at for a given player (i.e. relief pitchers for 1 or 2 seasons here or there) the more likely you are to find a deviation from the mean that is the result of randomness and not talent.

Not really the point, but I only remember mocking Farnsworth to the tune of Mariano Rivera's chosen entrance music:

Enter Kyle
Good bye smile!
His pitch lands
Far beyond the grandstands

Jenks would be the clear choice, regardless of the leverage analysis, if he dedicates himself to getting back in shape. The move to Boston should provide the motivation needed. They are loaded for a title run in 2011. A setup role will take some pressure off Jenks.