Wednesday afternoon, Jonathan Sanchez got the nod against the Pirates and lasted 4-1/3 innings, walking four while striking out six. Of his 84 pitches, only 45 were strikes. It's a candidate for the most Jonathan Sanchez start of all time. Other candidates include Sanchez's start before this one, Sanchez's start before that one, and many of Sanchez's starts before that one. For a guy who's always been labeled as inconsistent, Sanchez has actually been fairly consistent.
The Issue With Jonathan Sanchez, And Players Just Like Him
Jonathan Sanchez possesses oodles of talent, as demonstrated by his ability to miss bats. He also isn’t actually good. Players like Sanchez present quite the quandary.
Getty Images
The problem with Sanchez now is the same as it’s always been: he’s inefficient, and he walks too many hitters as a result. He’s never had problems missing bats. For his career, Sanchez has averaged better than a strikeout an inning. But that only serves to make his lack of development all the more maddening. Think how good he could be! Just think how good he could be if he harnessed his stuff!
Aware of Sanchez's potential, the Giants have hung on to him all along, through all of his struggles, hoping that he would figure things out and reach the next level. Just last season, he even rewarded them with a shiny low ERA. But that ERA was a mirage. His strikeouts were the same as before. His walks were the same as before. His home runs were the same as before. He hadn't figured things out, yet.
And he still hasn’t, as evidenced by his 102 strikeouts and 65 walks in 2011. Jonathan Sanchez is 28 years old, and he still seems like he’s that one or two adjustments away from turning into Jonathan Motherf***ing Sanchez, destroyer of worlds.
So the big question with Sanchez, and with other, similarly frustrating talents around the league, is: how long do you hope? How long is a frustrating assortment of tools regarded as a potential impact player before it dawns on everybody that he’s probably not going to be more than a frustrating assortment of tools?
I don’t have the answer, myself. I don’t think anybody does. That’s a part of what makes these guys so frustrating in the first place. You never know when the light bulb might appear. You never know if they’re capable of seeing the light bulb.
With Sanchez, it’s not like there are any encouraging trends. Let’s look at his strike rate, for example. What follows is Jonathan Sanchez’s year-to-year rate of throwing strikes:
2008: 62%
2009: 62%
2010: 62%
2011: 60%
Nothing. No progression at all. No sign that Sanchez is about to work out the kinks. But, what if he’s about to work out the kinks?
The player I always think of in situations like these is Matt Thornton. Thornton was a first-round pick by the Mariners in 1998. He was a lefty who could get the ball into the high-90s. There was only one problem: he couldn't really control what he threw. Some walk rates:
2004: 6.8 BB/9 (triple-A)
2004: 6.9 BB/9 (Majors)
2005: 6.6 BB/9 (Majors)
Awful. And then, following a trade:
2006: 3.5 BB/9 (Majors)
Thornton figured things out at 29 years old and became one of the premier lefty relievers in the game. He’s still getting the job done now, and he’s shown no sign of going back to what he was.
So how long do you hope? How long do you hope as a frustrating player’s current employer? How desirable is that player to other potential employers? How are a player’s tools weighted against his results, and how does that weighting change over time? Does it ever really change that much, as long as the tools remain intact?
I have no idea. I suspect it’s all treated on a case-by-case basis. You probably can’t apply any hard-and-fast rules, except for one: players like Sanchez are goddamn annoying.
See More:
