Kawakami vs Kuroda

» 18 November 2008 » In mlb prospects »

When I see Kenshin Kawakami mentioned in an American blog or media report, it’s usually this context:

The Sox also have interest in Kenshin Kawakami, a 33-year-old righty for the Chunichi Dragons who went 9-5 with a 2.30 ERA last season. Kawakami is a Hiroki Kuroda-type pitcher with a cut fastball and good curveball who could man the No. 4 or 5 spot in the Sox rotation.

I normally interpret the comparison to Hiroki Kuroda as “not as good as Daisuke Matsuzaka, but better than Kei Igawa“. In addition to that, they’re both right-handed, about the same age, and have long track records of success in Japan’s Central League.

There are a couple of differences:

1. Kuroda is a fastball/slider/splitter pitcher, while Kawakami is mostly a fastball/cutter/curveball guy. Kuroda can reach the mid-90’s on his heater, while Kawakami sits in the low-90’s and relies a little more on movement and off-speed stuff.

2. Kawakami has spent his career with a usually competitive Chunichi Dragons team, while Kuroda spent his career with the perennial also-ran Hiroshima Carp. Kawakami has had a consistently outstanding infield defense behind him for his NPB career, while I don’t think the same can be said of the Carp defense. Kawakami has also pitched in more big games.

3. Kuroda pitched his home games in Japan at the tiny Hiroshima Municipal Stadium, while Kawakami enjoyed the much larger dimensions of the Nagoya Dome.

With the above three points noted, I’d say that Kawakami is a slightly worse MLB prospect than Kuroda was last year, but let’s test that assumption with some performance data. This will be a simplistic analysis, but hopefully it will provide a better insight into Kawakami as a prospect.

Using stats from the excellent Data League site (Japanese, works best in Internet Explorer), I put together some simple comparisons to try to isolate the differences between the two pitchers. I looked at the period between 1998-2007, tossing out Kuroda’s 1997 because Kawakami hadn’t started his career yet and 2008 because the two pitchers were in different leagues.

ERA Trends

Kuroda’s DIPSera was pretty consistent his last few years in Japan, but his actual ERA varied widely, which is probably the result of an inconsistent defense. Kawakami, on the other hand, has put up consistent DIPSera and ERA numbers.

K/BB Trending

This one surprised me. Kawakami matched Kuroda on strikeout rate consistently in Japan, and bested him in ’06 and ’07. Both pitchers have done a good job improving on their control as they gained experience.

If anything, this and the previous chart point out that Kuroda was coming off a relatively poor season by his standards in ’07. Kawakami, on the other hand will be coming off a much better 2008 season statistically, though he did miss time due to minor injuries and the Olympics.

It’s easy to favor Kuroda as a pitcher because of his stuff (I do), but Kawakami has been a consistent performer over the last eight years. Should Kawakami pursue a career in MLB (and I think he will), his performance will obviously depend on where he winds up. But if he can continue to keep the ball down in the zone and miss bats with his breaking stuff, I see no reason why he can’t be an effective mid-rotation starter.

Tags: ,

Trackback URL

  1. Patrick
    simon
    18/11/2008 at 11:26 am Permalink

    Considering all the factors that you mentioned, I agree with your analysis. My main concern would be Kawakami’s slower fastball compared to Kuroda. Otherwise, these two pitchers have completely different arsenals from Igawa so I think that comparison is unnecessary, just as it is on this post. I expect a $10m/year type deal for Kawakami, not sure for how long but MLB is always in need of useful arms.

    Uehara, now I think is another story. He hasn’t shown the fitness to even handle the once a week turn in the NPB rotation, so expecting him to start every 5 days in the majors seems unrealistic unless something drastic changes. But Uehara’s on the wrong side of 30.

  2. Patrick
    Patrick
    18/11/2008 at 11:39 am Permalink

    I think Uehara has a higher upside than Kawakami if he can stay healthy, but Kawakami is a safer bet.

    The thing about Igawa is that his control was never as good as any of these guys, and when his changeup was off he was hittable in Japan.

  3. Patrick
    Gerry
    18/11/2008 at 11:51 pm Permalink

    As a Red Sox fan, I worry about the hole in the starting rotation that needs to be filled. Whether it will be filled by Burnett, Lowe, Penny, Masterson/Buchholz or Kawakami will depend on many variables . . . two of them are price and length of contract. Another is that Kenshin Kawakami is an unknown quantity (i.e. HR balls, liveliness of fast balls, etc.). I imagine any team would balk at $10M (more than Penny, Beckett, Matsuzaka and other top, MLB proven talents.) $10M is about 40% of the Rays entire payroll.

    I am hoping he joins Daisuke Matsuzaka and Hideki Okajima on the Red Sox (assuming they get along), and wins 15 games. On the other hand, the Sox must choose just ONE of Burnett, Lowe, Penny, Kawakami, or their own Buchholz/Masterson options. This means cost, length of contract, and downsides will be carefully considered vs. upsides. I think it’s up to Kawakami.

  4. Patrick
    simon
    19/11/2008 at 1:06 am Permalink

    Well, the going rate for a mid-rotation (or is it pretty much any free agent) starters is about $10M/year, and Kuroda received a 3 year $35M contract from the Dodgers, so I expect something in the similar neighbourhood.

  5. Patrick
    Patrick
    19/11/2008 at 1:28 am Permalink

    Kuroda reportedly had a better offer from Kansas City as well. I can see Kawakami getting something like 3 years, $30M, particularly if the Red Sox are involved. Remember that Boston gave Matt Clement 3 year, $27M, and that was a number of years ago.

  6. Patrick
    westbaystars
    19/11/2008 at 9:10 pm Permalink

    As power in the Majors is one of the fields where differences really start to show, HR/9 innings is also important. As pointed out, Kuroda pitched in one of the smallest parks in Japan while Kawakami has had the spacious (and high fenced) Nagoya Dome to play in. Yet both HR/9 are very comparable: 0.93 for Kawakami and 0.96 for Kuroda. Taking parks into account, I’d say that Kuroda is better at keeping the ball in the park, but still, only slightly.

    The biggest difference I see looking over the two players’ stats is in complete games. They’ve both thrown a similar number of shutouts (which in and of itself is a big plus for Kuroda), but Kuroda was called on much more often to throw complete games than Kawakami was, as Chunichi has had the bullpen to carry the game (Hiroshima’s closer Nagakawa has always made me nervous while Chunichi’s Iwase is generally lights out). However, over the same time period as your comparisons, Kawakami threw 6.43 innings per game while Kuroda threw just 6.31 innings per game. With 42 more complete games from 1998-2007, Kuroda must have been knocked out of a lot more games early on than Kawakami. That suggests to me that Kawakami has been more steady throughout the seasons.

    The intangible that stats don’t talk about regarding Kawakami is that he’s a smart pitcher. He may not have the velocity of others, but he has the control necessary to put the ball where he knows he’ll get results. Knowing batter weaknesses on the 5 other Central League teams is a big plus for Kawakami. He did do well in inter-league play this year, so he may fare well against unknown opposition. (Notice that Kawakami’s had winning seasons since Tanishige joined the Dragons in 2002? The catcher may also play a big role in setting up the pitches – and he just hits the target.)

  7. Patrick
    Patrick
    20/11/2008 at 6:33 pm Permalink

    “The biggest difference I see looking over the two players’ stats is in complete games. They’ve both thrown a similar number of shutouts (which in and of itself is a big plus for Kuroda), but Kuroda was called on much more often to throw complete games than Kawakami was, as Chunichi has had the bullpen to carry the game (Hiroshima’s closer Nagakawa has always made me nervous while Chunichi’s Iwase is generally lights out). However, over the same time period as your comparisons, Kawakami threw 6.43 innings per game while Kuroda threw just 6.31 innings per game. With 42 more complete games from 1998-2007, Kuroda must have been knocked out of a lot more games early on than Kawakami. That suggests to me that Kawakami has been more steady throughout the seasons.”

    Nice catch. Fangraphs made a similar observation about Kuroda’s Dodgers performance as well.

Trackbacks

  1. Kawakami to Atlanta » NPB Tracker 10/01/2009 at 11:22 pm

    [...] he had behind him. And the answer is, yeah, anyone would. That said, his k and bb rates have…