The ninth pick of the 2005 draft, Mike Pelfrey shook off a brutal start to begin paying dividends for both the Mets and fantasy players last year. He finished with 13 wins and a 3.72 ERA along with a 1.36 WHIP and 110 strikeouts. Those numbers combined to make Pelfrey a top-60 starting pitcher in fantasy in 2008.

Those numbers are decent but to decipher Pelfrey’s potential value in 2009, it is worthwhile to look at his numbers both before and after he turned the corner. In the first nine starts of the year, Pelfrey was 2-6 with a 5.33 ERA and a 1.776 WHIP. In his final 23 games, Pelfrey was 11-5 with a 3.20 ERA and a 1.226 WHIP.

Now, those first nine starts of 2008 count and it would be foolish to write them off completely. But at the same time when projecting Pelfrey’s 2009 stats, it is equally silly to ignore the improvement he made over his final 23 games. He was so bad the first two months of the season that it dragged down his overall numbers.

If Pelfrey’s true talent level is a pitcher with a 3.20 ERA and a 1.226 WHIP then he moves up to the equal of pitchers like Ted Lilly or Jon Lester in the 20-25 range for starting pitchers.

Now we should look at his peripherals. Pelfrey had a .302 BABIP and his 3.96 FIP was slightly over his 3.72 ERA. A sinkerball pitcher, Pelfrey does an excellent job keeping the ball in the park, as his 0.54 HR/9 shows. He really turned the corner last year with his command. He finished with a 2.87 BB/9, which was nearly two full walks lower than his 2007 mark.

When valuing Pelfrey for 2009, ask if he can keep his HR rate that low. I believe with that power sinker he can. Then, can he keep the walk rate that low? Ordinarily, I would say no. But when we look at what he did over his final 23 games, his BB/9 mark was 2.37 over that span. That gives me greater confidence that he can maintain his 2008 seasonal rate of just under three.

So, the final thing to ponder is what will his K/9 look like. For all of 2008 it was 4.93, which is less than good. It was slightly better over his final 23 games – 5.16 – but nothing really to write home about, either. Pelfrey can survive without a high strikeout rate, but as fantasy players we want the big strikeout guys and it’s an important factor in ranking him appropriately.

Pelfrey had good-to-great strikeout rates in the minors. He averaged 6.81 SO/9 in 14 games at Triple-A in 2007 and had double-digit rates in 2006. And we’ve seen with Chien-Ming Wang that a sinkerballer can add strikeouts as they mature. I think a SO/9 rate of 6.00 is within reach for Pelfrey in 2009.

It’s not out of the question for Pelfrey to be a 15-game winner with a 3.50 ERA and a 1.275 WHIP. If he can maintain a 6.00 SO/9 rate, that would give him 133 strikeouts in 200 innings. And that makes him a top-25 starting pitcher.

Precious little went right for the Colorado Rockies in 2008. On the heels of a campaign in which the club improbably won 20 of 21 games to finish out the regular season and advanced to the World Series, the Rockies suffered multiple injuries and came crashing back to earth, posting a 74-88 Pythagorean record.

One bright spot in an otherwise bleak season was the continued development of right-hander Ubaldo Jimenez. Signed out of the Dominican Republic as a non-drafted free agent in 2001, Jimenez has long adorned prospect lists on the basis of pure stuff; mid-to-upper 90’s heat and occasionally nasty breaking pitches have a way of catching the attention of scouts. While Jimenez showed a propensity to miss bats in the minors (8.81 K/9), he also displayed less-than-stellar control by issuing 4.47 free passes per nine innings.

Ubaldo got a brief cup of coffee with Colorado in 2006 before making it to the big leagues for good in July of 2007, when he was inserted into the starting rotation. Given his performances at AAA Colorado Springs, however, there were reasons to doubt his readiness:

2006: 78.1 IP, 5.06 ERA, 7.35 K/9, 4.94 BB/9
2007: 103 IP, 5.85 ERA, 7.78 K/9, 5.42 BB/9

Granted, Colorado Springs is a tough pitching environment (inflating offensive production between 6-9% from 2005-2007, per Baseball Prospectus 2008), but walking well over 5 batters per nine innings is certainly not the hallmark of a finished product.

Despite the ugly numbers in the high minors, Jimenez actually handled himself quite well. While his control was still rough around the edges (4.06 BB/9) he K’d 7.46/9 while showcasing a fastball that popped the catcher’s mitt at an average speed of 95.8 MPH. In 82 innings of work, Jimenez posted a 4.74 FIP ERA. Considering his home environment and his lukewarm performances at AAA, that qualified as a successful debut.

In his first full year in the rotation in 2008, Ubaldo made 34 starts, lowering his FIP ERA to a tidy 3.83. He struck out a few more batters (7.79 K/9), though he also regressed a bit with his control (4.67 BB/9). Interestingly, Jimenez became much more of a groundball pitcher this past season:

2007: 1.26 GB/FB, 46.4 GB%
2008: 1.94 GB/FB, 54.4 GB%

Perhaps trading some speed for movement, Jimenez threw his fastball a little bit slower (94.9 MPH) in 2008. If Ubaldo can keep up this worm-killing trend in the future, it would bode very well for his career prospects. Clearly, Coors Field is not a venue where one wants to put the ball in the air with any frequency. With fewer balls leaving the infield, Jimenez slashed his HR/9 rate from 1.1 in ’07 to 0.5 in ’08. That number will likely regress somewhat next season (his HR/FB% was a very low 6.9%), but fewer flyballs should mean fewer cheap home runs at Coors.

Ubaldo Jimenez (25 in January) remains somewhat raw, but his combination of solid strikeout rates and groundball tendencies make him an intriguing starter. Armed with mid-90’s heat, an 86 MPH power slider, a 75 MPH curve and an 86 MPH changeup, Jimenez has the repertoire to make hitters’ lives difficult in the NL West. He will likely always walk his fair share of hitters, but if Jimenez can miss bats and keep his infield defense busy, he could develop into a fantasy stalwart.

The Pirates defense was terrible in 2008.

Nate McLouth had no range in center. Jason Bay and Xavier Nady weren’t much better in the corners. Freddy Sanchez was terrible at second base. The list goes on.

Why do you, the astute fantasy baseball player, care about the Pirates defense? Because it contributed to poor pitching performances. And if the defense improves – which it should – you may be able to find some sleepers on the Pirates pitching staff.

There is reason to believe that the Pirates defense will be better in 09 than it was in 08. First of all, Bay and Nady have since departed. At some point in 09, it’s likely that McLouth will be moved to a corner, and Andrew McCutchen – who is reported to be an above-average defender – will replace him in center field. Furthermore, Andy LaRoche is entrenched at third base, where he should be at least average. While Sanchez remains at second and shortstop is a question mark, the Pirates defense should be much better than it was last year, even if they’re not leading the league in DER.

This has ramifications for all Pirates pitchers, but two in particular:

Ian Snell had the second-highest BABIP of any starting pitcher in baseball, at .358. Even allowing for the fact that Snell may be more hittable than your average pitcher, a .358 BABIP is ridiculously high, and will likely regress to the mean next year. Even though Snell had a 5.42 ERA this season, he coupled that with a 4.57 FIP, suggesting a fair amount of bad luck. With some regression to the mean – and an improved defense behind him – Snell should see a lot more balls in play become outs next year. Snell may not be an ace, but he could be a decent fantasy pitcher, especially in deeper leagues.

Along similar lines, Zach Duke posted a .327 BABIP this year – ninth highest of all pitchers. Duke is also rather hittable, but it’s no coincidence that the two of the Pirates starting pitchers were in the top-10 in BABIP: their defense really was that bad. Even if Duke regresses, he’s still nothing more than a waiver-wire pickup or a late pick in an NL-only league; even so, Duke is likely to be undervalued, and should be watched in deep leagues.

Quick: match these 2008 pitching stats with the players who authored them:

Pitcher A: 173.2 IP, 3.60 FIP ERA, 8.6 K/9, 3.06 BB/9, 1.70 WPA, 27 years old
Pitcher B: 202.1 IP, 3.56 FIP ERA, 8.14 K/9, 2.49 BB/9, 1.74 WPA, 25 years old

As you can see, these two fellows are nearly dead even in terms of Fielding Independent ERA, with Pitcher A holding a slight edge in K’s and Pitcher B exhibiting sharper control. Both players enjoyed very strong campaigns, but the perception of the two is markedly different. Player A is considered a bondfide ace, and has been the subject of much trade debate. Player B, meanwhile, might not even be recognized by the average fan as the best starting pitcher on his own team.

So, who are these guys? Player A is quasi-ace Jake Peavy. Player B is none other than Royals righty Zack Greinke. If we want to dig a little bit deeper into their respective 2008 seasons, the numbers actually slant a little further toward Greinke’s favor. Using Statcorner’s tRA statistic (which is park and defense neutral, thus negating Peavy’s Petco Park advantage), we find that Peavy turned in a 4.02 tRA (4.77 NL average) and a 116 tRA+ (100 is average), while Greinke managed a 3.74 tRA (4.87 AL average) and a 123 tRA+. In other words, Greinke outperformed the man for whom teams are lining up to surrender their farm systems.

None of this is to criticize Peavy (though his trade value might be slightly less than it seems at first glance). This exercise simply points out just how good Zack Greinke has become. He has essentially transformed from more of a finesse pitcher to a power arm capable of ripping through the best lineups in the DH league.

Greinke’s first two years in the big leagues were solid (his 5.80 ERA in ’05 was the result of a fluky .343 BABIP), but his K rates were not those of a fledging ace:

2004: 6.21 K/9, 1.61 BB/9, 4.64 XFIP
2005: 5.61 K/9, 2.61 BB/9, 4.94 XFIP

(for those of you wondering, XFIP is a fielding independent stat that “normalizes” home run rates. HR/fly ball rates tend to fluctuate, so this takes out some of the “noise” from the pitcher’s line and just examines strikeouts, walks, and uses an average home/flyball rate.)

Following a 2006 season in which Greinke dealt with some personal issues (spending the great majority of the season at AA), he re-emerged in 2007 as a vastly different type of pitcher. While his average fastball velocity was a mild 89.8 MPH in 2005, he threw his heat an average of 94 MPH in 2007. He threw his cheese slightly softer in ’08 (93.3 MPH), but that’s still one hefty increase in speed. And, as we can see from Josh Kalk’s pitch F/X blog, Greinke’s fastball is anything but “true”: it has above-average vertical movement and plenty of tailing action in on the hands of a right-handed batter. With that increased speed, Greinke’s pedestrian K rate climbed to 7.82 in 2007 before hitting a career-high 8.14 this past season.

Of course, we’d be remiss if we didn’t mention Greinke’s dastardly secondary pitches as well. When he’s not firing darts with his fastball, he can utilize a hard 85 MPH slider or a soft 74 MPH curveball to buckle hitters’ knees. Still not impressed? He can also break out an 82 MPH changeup with fading and dropping action.

By utilizing John Walsh’s work from The Hardball Times and Josh Kalk’s pitch data, we can compare Greinke’s vertical and horizontal movement on his pitches to that of the average pitcher:

(X is horizontal movement. A negative X number means that the pitch is moving in toward a right-handed hitter, while a positive X means that the pitch is moving away from a righty hitter (in to a lefty). Z is vertical movement- the lower the Z number, the more the pitch “drops” in the strike zone.)

Fastball
Greinke: -5.29X, 10.61Z
Average: -6.2X, 8.9Z

Slider
Greinke: 4.28X, 0.63Z
Average: 0.7X, 3.7Z

Curveball
Greinke: 7.42X, -3.29Z
Average: 5.2X, -3.3Z

Changeup
Greinke: -8.52X, 4.95Z
Average: -7.4X, 6.0Z

Greinke has a four-pitch mix, and literally all four could be considered plus offerings considering their above-average movement. His curveball and slider both generate a ridiculous amount of horizontal break, while his changeup drops over 5 inches more than his fastball while also tailing away an additional 3.2 inches. And, as if he didn’t have enough going for him, Zack upped his groundball rate from a very low 32.1% in 2007 to 42.7% in 2008. Fewer fly balls means fewer opportunities for the home run bug to bite him.

While other starting pitchers may come with a higher degree of name recognition, few are better than Zack Greinke. Given his youth, power arsenal and positive statistical trends, there’s no reason not to pick this guy early on draft day.

14 wins, a 4.42 ERA and 108 strikeouts. Not bad for a late-round flier, right?

Indeed, Edwin Jackson may have been the best fifth starter in baseball this year, and was a big reason why the Tampa Bay Rays won 97 games. However, much of Jackson’s success this year is unsustainable, and you should be very wary of him in 2009.

Let’s start simply: in 183 innings, Jackson posted a K/BB ratio of 108/77. If you’re going to strike out 5.3 batters per nine innings, you’d better do something else well – namely, you’d better limit your walks and/or get a lot of ground balls.

Unfortunately, Jackson doesn’t limit his walks, and doesn’t get a tremendous amount of grounders, either (he actually allowed slightly more fly balls than grounders this year). So what does he do well? Jackson was exceptional in “clutch” situations this year.

In fact, according to our handy “clutch” stat here at Fangraphs, Edwin Jackson was the third-most “clutch” pitcher in baseball. Of course, the better a pitcher is, the more likely is to be clutch – a good pitcher is more likely to retire a hitter in any situation than a bad pitcher.

Therefore, it’s of little surprise to see John Lackey, Cliff Lee, Tim Lincecum, and Jon Lester among the top 11 “clutchiest” pitchers in baseball this year. However, Edwin Jackson’s clutchiness is a big surprise: Jackson was far better in important situations than he was overall.

In fact, Jackson allowed an .830 OPS against him with no one on base, but a .752 OPS with runners on. With runners in scoring position and two outs, he allowed a .682 OPS. With men on first and second, opposing batters got a hit only five times in 40 at bats. They were 4-for-17 with runner at third, and hit only .262 with runners in scoring position, as opposed to .281 overall.

Perhaps it’s possible that Jackson simply focuses better in important situations, allowing him to pitch better with runners on base. I am skeptical of this proposition in general, but I allow that it’s possible. If this were the case, we’d expect Edwin to exhibit similar splits in 2007 (when, incidentally, his K/BB ratio was a very-similar 128/88).

In 2007, his OPS against with none on was .847; whereas his OPS with runners on was 821. However, with runners in scoring position, his OPS against was .857. Batters hit .305 with runners in scoring position, as compared to .299 overall.

In short, Edwin Jackson displayed no ability to pitch well in the clutch in 2007. And he showed very little, if any, actual improvement in his overall game from 2007 to 2008. Rather, his “improvement” is tied directly to his splits with runners on base, leading him to give up far fewer runs than he “should” have. Unless you think that this is actual improvement in his “clutch” pitching – which is extremely rare and not backed up by the numbers – look for Jackson’s ERA to rise, perhaps significantly, in 2009.

Very rarely do teams consummate a prospect-for-prospect swap. It seems as though GMs favor the “devil you know” over the “devil you don’t” approach, preferring to keep the young players whom they have invested time, energy and money developing.

However, the Chicago White Sox and the Texas Rangers made just such a deal in December of 2006. In a pitching prospect challenge trade, the Rangers sent former 1st rounder John Danks to the South Side as part of a deal that shipped Brandon McCarthy to Arlington. While the move was viewed as relatively even at the time, Danks has emerged as an ace-quality starter, while McCarthy has battled finger and shoulder maladies. After an inconsistent rookie season, Danks made tremendous strides in 2008:

2007: -1.62 WPA/LI, 5.50 ERA
2008: 2.99 WPA/LI, 3.32 ERA

Danks lowered his ERA by well over 2 runs this past season. Will that dramatic improvement hold? In a word, yes.

Danks upped his K rate slightly, from 7.06 in ’07 to 7.34 in ’08. He also slashed his walk rate significantly, from 3.5 BB/9 to 2.63 BB/9. However, the biggest difference in Danks’ numbers came in the home run department:

2007: 1.81 HR/9, 13.8 HR/FB, 34.8 GB%
2008: 0.69 HR/9, 7.4 HR/FB, 42.8 GB%

An extreme flyball pitcher in ’07, Danks generated grounders at a much higher clip in 2008. Consequently, his home run rate dropped from untenably high to comfortably below average. He may give some of that gain back next season (his HR/FB rate was pretty low; it tends to stick around 11% for pitchers) but he should be able to limit the longball damage and avoid another 2007 fireworks spectacle, given his more even GB/FB distribution. Given the homer-happy tendencies of U.S. Cellular Field, this is no small consideration.

With a few more strikeouts, as well as significantly less walks and homers, Danks cut his FIP ERA from 5.54 in 2007 all the way down to 3.44 in 2008. To what can we attribute this dramatic turnaround? A look at Danks’ pitch data reveals the addition of a new weapon:

(FB=fastball, SL=Slider, CT=Cutter, CB=Curveball, CH=Changeup XX= unidentified. The first number is the % that the pitch was thrown, the number in parentheses is the velocity)

2007: FB 61%(89.5), SL 0.6%(81), CB 17.4%(76.9), CH 21%(81.7), XX 2.7%
2008: FB 52.2%(91.3), SL 4.7%(83.9), CT 16.4%(87.1), CB 6.4%(77) CH 20.3%(82.8), XX 4.7%

In addition to gaining nearly 2 MPH on his fastball, Danks added a cutter to his repertoire. A look at Josh Kalk’s pitch F/X data reveals why this offering is so important to Danks’ development: the cutter gives him a pitch to work away from lefties and in on the hands of right-handers. Essentially, the offering opens up a whole new quadrant of the strike zone previously unavailable to him.

Danks is no flash in the pan. Every statistical and scouting measure available points to his breakout 2008 campaign as legitimate. Don’t hesitate to invest heavily in this southpaw: he’s here to stay among the elite arms in the American League.

Yesterday, Peter talked about a Marlins starter headed toward acedom (if he’s not there already) in Ricky Nolasco. Today, I’m going to examine a Florida hurler who is headed in the exact opposite direction: left-hander Scott Olsen.

A few years back, Olsen looked like an organizational pillar. In his first full year in the big leagues (2006), he struck out 8.27 batters per nine innings. Sure, he needed some refinement (3.74 BB/9), but young lefties equipped with a hopping 91 MPH fastball, a good slider and a promising changeup do not grow on trees. Olsen posted a 4.33 FIP ERA as a 22 year-old, with seemingly plenty of room for growth.

Whatever the reason might be, Olsen’s 2007 campaign surely did not turn out the way that many people expected. He was hammered for a 5.81 ERA, and while that was partially the result of an abnormally high .350 BABIP, his controllable skills were not much better. Olsen’s FIP ERA soared to 5.33 in ’07, a full run higher than his breakout rookie campaign. After punching out over 8 batters per nine innings in 2006, Olsen’s K rate fell to 6.78 and his walk rate soared to 4.33 per nine innings. After having thrown his fastball 62.4 percent in 2006, he threw the heat over 70 percent of the time in ’07 while neglecting his changeup (he threw it 19.2% in ’06, but just 8.5% in ’07). His fastball also showed a slight dip in velocity, from 90.9 MPH to 90.1 MPH.

In 2008, Olsen went back to throwing his changeup more often, but the results were not much better. Sure, his 4.20 ERA seems like a dramatic improvement over his 5.81 showing the previous year, but that “improvement” is built upon a house of cards. Olsen was the beneficiary of a very low .266 BABIP, and his FIP ERA was still an ugly 5.02. His strikeout rate fell precipitously (again), all the way down to 5.04 whiffs per nine innings. He did exhibit better control (3.08 BB/9), but it wasn’t enough to offset the dramatic downturn in his K rate. The most startling aspect of Olsen’s 2008 campaign was his total lack of velocity: his fastball averaged just 87.8 MPH, with his slider and change also coming in slower.

Since his stellar rookie season, Olsen has lost 3 MPH off of his fastball. With that loss of zip, Olsen’s strikeout rate has fallen off of a cliff, as he’s gone from a pitcher capable of dominating lineups to a guy who struck out fewer batters per nine innings than Jarrod Washburn and Darrell Rasner. Be it a physical problem or something coaching related (he’s had a few run-ins with teammates and was suspended in 2007), the current version of Olsen is not nearly the fledging ace that we saw during the 2006 season. The ERA sure looks better, but his improvement in 2008 was illusory. Until Olsen proves that he’s capable of missing bats once again, he’s someone that you want to avoid investing in.

I’ll admit it: I have a mancrush on Ricky Nolasco.

How many people realize just how good he was this year? Or, more importantly, how good he’s likely to be next year? Chances are, most of the people in your fantasy league are either unaware of Nolasco, or don’t fully appreciate how good he is.

This year, Nolasco finished with a 3.52 ERA and 186 strikeouts in 212 innings pitched. That’s a very good season, but his overall numbers don’t reflect just how well Nolasco pitched for most of the season.

Going in to his start on June 15 against the Rays, Nolasco sported a 4.63 ERA, and had a 43/26 strikeout/walk ratio in 72 innings. However, on that fateful night in Tropicana Field, something changed. Perhaps it was a minor adjustment that paid major dividends, or the result of something Nolasco had been working on for years; either way, Nolasco was never the same after.

On June 15, Nolasco allowed two earned runs allowed in eight and two thirds innings, with one walk and 12 strikeouts. It was only the third time he had walked less than two batters (the second time was his previous start), and the first time he had struck out more than seven in a start.

After his start against the Rays, Nolasco had 19 more starts. He walked one or fewer batters in all but one of those starts. And he struck out seven or more batters in 10 of those starts. In fact, including his June 15 start, Nolasco finished the season by pitching 140 innings with a 2.95 ERA, striking out 143 and walking 16.

Think about that: 143 strikeouts and 16 walks.

For comparison, CC Sabathia pitched 130 innings with the Milwaukee Brewers this year, and had a K/BB ratio of 128/25. From June 15 on, Nolasco had a higher strikeout rate and a lower walk rate than Sabathia did in his time with the Brewers.

Of course, Nolasco may not be in the same class as CC Sabathia. Nolasco’s one weakness is that he is somewhat homer prone: he gave up 28 long balls this season, including 15 in his amazing 140-inning stretch to end the season. However, that is not an absurdly high total, and it is artificially enhanced by a rather high amount of balls in the air that became homers.

Nolasco allowed a homer on 10.6% of the fly balls hit against him. League average for a starter is somewhere around 11%. Furthermore, Nolasco plays in a spacious ballpark, suggesting that he should allow even fewer homers than average. Therefore, we can reasonably expect his homer rate to regress next year.

Nolasco had a 2.95 over his 140-inning stretch of dominance despite having a homer rate higher than it should have been.

Even if we assume that Nolasco can’t possibly be as dominant as he was from June 15 until the end of this season, we have every reason to expect that Ricky Nolasco is going to be one of the best pitchers in fantasy baseball next season. And he has the potential to be one of the biggest steals of draft day.

By traditional standards of measuring a pitcher’s effectiveness, Red Sox righty Daisuke Matsuzaka had a stellar 2008 season. With an 18-3 record and a shiny 2.90 ERA, one would be led to believe that he was one of the very best starters in the majors. When one digs a little deeper, however, there are plenty of trends that point to regression for Matsuzaka in 2009. Here are a few of the factors working against Dice-K:

BABIP: Matsuzaka got plenty lucky on balls put in play in 2008, with a .267 BABIP. BABIP for a pitcher tends to hover around .300, and in fact Dice-K posted a .306 BABIP in his first state-side campaign in 2007. Even if we allow for Matsuzaka to post a slightly lower-than-average BABIP because of the quality of Boston’s defense (the Red Sox posted the 5th-best Defensive Efficiency in baseball), he’s still due for regression to the mean.

Walk rate: As any Red Sox fan can attest, Matsuzaka has a maddening tendency to nibble at the corners. Dice K’s walk rate went from a mediocre 3.52/9 in 2007 to a bloated 5.05/9 in 2008. Among starters with at least 100 innings pitched, only Tom Gorzelanny, Fausto Carmona and Barry Zito walked more batters per nine innings. For the record, none of those three guys had an ERA under 5.15.

Home run rate : Matsuzaka’s home run rate fell from 1.10/9 in 2007 to 0.64/9 in 2008. However, there are no real trends to support that drop, as Dice-K generated about the same number of groundballs (about 38 percent), flyballs (43 percent) and line-drives (18 percent) in both seasons. The only difference was a dip in his home run/fly ball rate, from 10% in 2007 to 6.1% in 2008. HR/FB rates tend to normalize around 11 percent for pitchers, so Matsuzaka is due for regression to the mean here as well. As a flyball pitcher, Dice-K is pretty unlikely to give up just 12 long balls ever again.

Left on base%: Dice-K stranded 80.6% of baserunners in 2008, well above the league average and his 2007 showing (73.9%). If that number comes back to earth, so will his ERA.

All of these auspicious numbers led to a large dichotomy between Matsuzaka’s actual ERA (2.90) and his Fielding Independent ERA (4.03). That’s the third-largest difference among starters tossing at least 100 frames (Armando Galarraga is first, Justin Duchscherer is second).

None of this is to say that Daisuke Matsuzaka is a lousy pitcher. He ranked among the top 20 starters in strikeout rate and, as his Fangraphs page attests, Matsuzaka has a cornucopia of pitches at his disposal. However, if you’re expecting another sub-3 ERA from Dice-K, you’re going to be sorely disappointed. Don’t let those W-L numbers fool you: Matsuzaka is good, but not that good.