OOTP Case Study & Free Agent profile: SP Gary Lammond

[cheekimonk]

SP Gary Lammond
Age: 29
Throws: Right
Pro Service: 10 years, 184 days
ML Service: 5 years, 73 days

In perusing the Free Agent market this offseason I came across Lammond and I thought he would be an interesting topic of discussion. Why? Take a look at his base ratings: 8 Stuff, 13 Movement, 19 Control...seems like your pretty standard "not going to strike people out but not going to walk them either and let's hope his movement is enough to miss the sweet spots" pitcher. 18 Stamina (it better be when Stuff is only 8) and 50% groundballs...which is exactly what you want out of a guy like this (in fact, it needs to be more towards 60%). Just 3 mediocre pitches: fastball, curveball, and change, but a pitcher like Lammond can really throw whatever he wants as long as it moves. Velocity I didn't even look at with the sub-standard stuff. Holds runners and plays defense at elite levels, too.

All of that was enough to make me at least look at his career numbers: 60-74, 4.48 ERA, 1.38 WHIP. "Meh" bordering on "bleh"...even looking at K/BB disappointed me with a career number of 2.27. No matter how few hitters you strike out, with 19 Control that number's got to be nearer to 2.75...even 3.00. So why is he an interesting topic for me? It's something that seems to be way overblown in OOTP and I can't figure out if it makes the game more fun or more frustrating. Lammond got in 2 solid years at Chicago's AAA franchise before being brought up to the ML at the end of the 1997 season when he was 24...a decent age. His personality absolutely checks out for a guy with a long, successful career with "High" across the board outside of "Normal" Intelligence and "Very Low" Leadership. In two years as a starter for the Black Sox he turns in this:

1998: 12-9, 4.56 ERA, 1.47 WHIP, 4.44 K/9, 2.28 BB/9, 1.95 K/BB
1999: 10-17, 5.00 ERA, 1.50 WHIP, 4.74 K/9, 2.31 BB/9, 2.06 K/BB

Obviously frustrated, the Chicago GM ships him all the way back to AA to start 2000. In 2 starts there he logs a 1.06 ERA and 0.71 WHIP, before chewing up AAA for a 1.37 ERA and 0.92 WHIP in 2 starts. This is obviously a kid with no business in the minors...that's just nasty. So he gets promoted back up:

2000: 5-11, 4.72 ERA, 1.33 WHIP, 1.53 BB/9, 3.75 K/9, 2.44 K/BB
2001: 9-13, 4.87 ERA, 1.45 WHIP, 2.67 BB/9, 4.19 K/9, 1.57 K/BB
2002: 1-6, 3 SVs, 5.79 ERA, 1.44 WHIP, 1.97 BB/9, 4.97 K/9, 2.53 K/BB (in 2002, Chicago switched him to the bullpen...he only had 6 starts in 44 appearances)

In July this past season he's done. Chicago has tried everything possible for this guy...I honestly don't see anything they did wrong. Obviously he doesn't belong in AAA, but he can't cut it in the majors either. I mean, his ratings aren't superb, but they are not THAT bad. On 7/22 he gets placed on waivers and Omaha snatches him up (with the Chicago GM probably thinking "thank, god!"). He packs his bags and in 20 games in Omaha (3 starts) he pulls this out of his ass:

2002 (OMA): 4-1, 1 SV, 2.50 ERA, 1.24 WHIP, 24 K, 6 BB, 43 HA in 39 2/3 innings

What. The. Fudge?!? How in the hell does that happen? I can't imagine what went through Tim's mind as Omaha road (partly) this gimp's arm to the Wild Card and the JL Championship Series. Ok, Omaha's a better team than Chicago. A much better team. But THAT much better? And that quickly? No way...just no way. Defense? His BABIP in Chicago this year was .310. In Omaha it was .316.

So, somebody make sense of this for me. Park effects? He has "High" Desire for Wins, but it has THAT much effect? This guy honestly makes me want to toss my spreadsheets and offseason strategy in the garbarge.

[Al-Hoot]

yes it is to me a fascinating case study

I ask: what was his morale in Chicago and what was his morale in Omaha?

and does a player's morale make that much of a difference?

If not morale, can this change be partially because of team played for and its record?

Or is the ballpark a better pitcher's ballpark (I assume as big a difference in performance canot be attributed to this factor).


I have had players who are angry (mostly because they are not seeing as much playing time as they want) tell me that they are not sure that they can give me 100%. So that's why in my limited experience I cannot add much to the discussion except to examine morale. I expect there could be a big difference in performance in someone's whose morale is "angry" versus "very good" or "great."

[Greeney03]

Interesting. I was gonna sign Lammond for another year, but I thought he was too inconsistent. Although, he finished strong towards the end. The reason I didn't extend his contract is because he was unhappy with this role. I did put him as a starter for a month or so, but his morale did not change.

[blake]

Yeah they seem to get a short boost when they get on a winning team. But it usually doesn't last unless the talent is there.

[jiminyhopkins]

His ratings are like JF Kellogg's at the end of his career. Kellogg had some good stretches, but was mostly mediocre. With such substandard stuff, his numbers have probably more to do with the quality of opponents he is facing than anything else.

[LambeauLeap]

Pruschnok?

[cheekimonk]

Pruschnok?

Bite your tongue, sir! Lammond isn't even capable of dreaming of the kind of efficiency demonstrated by Williamson Prushnok over his career.

I wasn't really amazed at Lammond's boost, just the size of it. I mean, he goes to Omaha and in 40 innings pitches over 3 runs better in ERA?