Michael Freire - See You Later, Jake, and Welcome Justin

Jogging Jake Turning Sharply South

"Oh good, another Jake article" I am sure some of you are saying right now after the past few days of media driven overload.  I get it and I almost didn't put this article together since most everything that needs to be said has likely been covered at some point (our very own Tom Brennan did an excellent job of covering the subject recently).  

It is an emotional topic for most of the fanbase and it has some similarities to how Noah Syndergaard left the team last winter (leaving without even giving the team a chance to match or exceed the standing offer).

But, instead of getting all fired up, I wanted to take a more measured/statistical approach about Jake's departure, as well as his replacement's arrival.

First of all, I think Jake deserves some thanks for his contributions to our favorite team's performance over the past nine seasons.  Granted, his "stats" never seemed to quite line up with his given title of the game's best pitcher, but he was still pretty dominant.

209 Games Started - 1,326 IP - 82 Wins and 57 Losses - 2.52 ERA - 0.998 WHIP - 10.9 K/9IP

That statistical line is a testament to what Jake can do when he is on the mound, especially his WHIP which is insanely low.  But the last sentence also introduces the other part of what you get with Jake as your "ace" and that is variable availability.  If you break down the listed statistical line and come up with an average per his nine seasons, you get the following;

23.33 Games Started - 147 IP - 9.1 Wins and 6.3 Losses (with the "rate stats" the same)

Not as impressive, in my opinion, since he falls quite a bit short of what you would expect a dominant starter to provide (especially the games started where you would expect something closer to 30 per season). If you use that figure (30 starts = a season's worth), Jake really produced 6.96 seasons of statistics over his nine years under contract (roughly 77.5 percent). 

In other words, Jake was not available almost a quarter of the time and that figure would look much worse if we focused on the last few years of his time here.

***He also earned $117.6 million dollars during his time in New York which is a decent amount, especially if you consider most players make a majority of their money in the middle and back end of their careers, so he wasn't exactly underpaid.

In short, he was good to great in his time with the Mets, but he was also not as reliable as you would have liked and that is not likely to get better as he reaches the back half of his 30's (the key reason he is no longer a Met).

So, what about Justin Verlander?

In addition to being quite a bit older then Jake (roughly five years his senior), he has also produced quite a bit more statistically during his 18 year career (twice as long);

482 Games Started - 3,163 IP - 244 Wins and 133 Losses - 3.24 ERA - 1.12 WHIP - 9.1 K/9IP

A couple things to keep in mind include the fact that Justin pitched his entire career in the American League (they had the DH the entire time, as opposed to the National League' recent adoption of the same) and he also missed an entire season due to injury.  

I will use 18 seasons for statistical purposes since it better captures his availability and we used the same method for Jake.

Justin can also be described as dominant when he is on the mound and he has been doing it a bit longer then Jake and in a much harder league.  So, what do his stats look like when we generate an average season over his 18 years?

26.77 Games Started - 176 IP - 13.6 Wins and 7.4 Losses (with the "rate stats" the same)

Pretty remarkable averages for that long of a period and a testament to his durability, despite missing a full season, as stated earlier.  But, he still didn't average the 30 starts per year that we dinged Jake for, right?  (If you use 17 seasons for just this segment, Justin has averaged 28.4 games started per season he actually pitched)

Using our "30 games equals a season" metric, Justin has pitched 16.06 seasons out of a possible 18 seasons during his career, which is 89.3 percent (a bit higher then Jake's 77.5 percent).  Despite having more "mileage" on his arm and a few more years in MLB, Verlander has been nearly Jake's equal statistically and much more durable.

Where does that leave us, then? 

Both pitchers have had very good careers and any team would love to have either of them in their rotation. But, life isn't that easy and you have to consider the costs to obtain that level of performance and the risks moving forward.

Jake reportedly turned down a 3 year, 120 million dollar offer from the Mets and signed a 5 year, 185 million dollar deal with Texas. Good for Jake, but that is a major difference and a lot more risk, in my opinion. Justin accepted a 2 year, 86.6 million dollar deal from the Mets with an optional third year for 35 million dollars (ironically, if the option is triggered, it would work out to a 3 year, 121.6 million dollar deal).  

Nothing is guaranteed, but usually, the best indicator of future success is what has happened in the past. Clearly, the Mets see things similarly and felt more comfortable with the two (or three) years of Justin Verlander, as opposed to five years of Jacob DeGrom.  Using their averages, Justin will likely produce 55 or so starts in his two years, while Jake could take most of his five year deal to do the same.

Time will ultimately tell, but if you take the emotion out of the decision you can't blame the logic employed by the Mets.