Is John Danks For Real?

Kenny Williams seems to have developed a knack at acquiring young guys with great potential that other teams have given up on (Jenks, Quentin). If it weren't for his sexual affinity for being sodomized by Billy Beane and signing old people to long contracts, the Sox would have a quality young team in the works. However, you have to wonder how much of some player's production is luck and how much is talent.

In particular, let's look at '08 Sox ace John Danks. Is John Danks a true-phenom like Carlos Quentin, who posted +.225 ISOs at every level except with the D-backs in 2007 due to an early season labrum injury, or a lucky guy like Gavin Floyd, the flyball pitcher at the cell who posted a 3.84 ERA and 4.77 FIP?

John Danks took a huge step forward in 2008. After posting FIPs of 3.94, 4.67 and 5.54 between AA, AAA and his first major league season (respectively), Danks posted a 3.44 FIP in 195 IP. His 3.32 ERA, 3.00 BABIP and 2.8 K/BB seem to indicate that the season wasn't luck. However, despite Dank's earned success in 2008, there are some looming question for 2009.

First and foremost, is Danks' HR/9 rate, which had never been below 1.4 at any level prior to last season, where he posted a .7 HR/9. In the offense friendly Cell, you have to wonder how much of Danks' HR/9 improvement from 2008 can translate over to 2009. Do we expect him to continue at a rate 1/2 his career norms or do we expect some regression? The law of averages (and logic) says to me that even if Danks doesn't entirely revert back to his 1.4 HR/9 days (let's say Danks' success in the HR dept had to do with a GB% that rose by 8% due to the introduction of a Cutter and less use of a fastball, which would continue in 2009) that some regression towards the mean is still in order. If John Danks were to exactly repeat his numbers from 2008 in 2009, but have a 1.0 HR/9 rate, his FIP would rise to 4.05. Thus, we should expect some regression in the ERA (and WHIP, maybe even Ws) department in 2009, even if Danks' improvements are for real.

We make this 2009 FIP increase with the assumption that all else from 2008 remains constant. How much of it should we expect to remain constant, however? Let's say the K/9 and BB/9 are for real. Danks has always posted good control (>2), so this is reasonable assumption. However, my concern is in the injury (and thus IP) department. John Danks, soon to be 24, pitched 55 innings (not including the playoffs) above his previous season total (139) and 55 more innings than his career high (140 IP, 2006). As Baseball Prospectus has shown, pitchers are most brittle before the age of 24 and after the age of 35. Tom Verducci observed that pitchers under the age of 25 who increase their seasonal workload by more than 25-30 innings in a single season are the most susceptible to injury the following year.

From a fantasy prospective, all signs point to John Danks being overvalued in 2009. Between the low HR/9 rate at the cell and the potential for injury, Danks is just not worth the risk. Much of his upside was reached in 2008 and it's not worth paying a premium for his services when you expect some regression and looming health concerns. If Danks comes your way, I'd pass (or at the very most aggressively package him in a lucrative trade before the season starts). With an ADP of 157, you're better off with Max Scherzer (higher upside, similar innings potential if you factor in injury concern), Erik Bedard (you might as well pick the better K/ERA guy with injury problems) or Kevin Slowey (stay away from him Sexy Rexy, he's mine). Hell, why not just wait a few rounds and grab the extremely comparable (similar FIP, similar control, similar HR rate), but less injury prone, Gil Meche (ADP 207)?

And that's my professional opinion as a fantasy baseball player, not a Cubs fan.