Ben Lindbergh is a staff writer for The Ringer, a former editor in chief of Baseball Prospectus, and a frequent collaborator of Sam Miller’s. Hiring Sam was the best move he made at BP.

Sam Miller is amazing because he’s produced classic pieces in so many styles. Longform features; funny GIFs and screencaps; sabermetric stat dives; soulful observations about human nature, life, and death, masquerading as articles about baseball; actual sketches based on bad puns. Very few writers are as good at one of those things. Sam is as good as anyone at all of them. Reading his work makes other writers feel like hitters who just struck out looking because Rich Hill decided to drop down sidearm. He’s talented enough not to need another look, but because he can, he’ll break it out anyway. (Sam, if you haven’t heard, really likes Rich Hill.)

But there’s one style of Sam that the market rejected: Ervin Santana Sam. In September 2012, Sam wrote a Pebble Hunting piece called “The Mysterious Resurgence of Ervin Santana,” which combined quotes and stats in an attempt to assess how the once-successful Santana was salvaging a lost season, and whether it would last. (It has: Since the piece was published, Santana has been basically as good as he was in 2011, throwing 707 innings with a 3.62 ERA (91 ERA–), a 3.82 FIP (97 FIP–), and upwards of $54 million made.)

No one read it. Really. The navel-gazing blog post 20-year-old you wrote on the personal site you think no one knows about has more views. I could go stand on a street corner for five minutes, read aloud from the article, and almost instantly triple its cumulative audience. It was Platform 9 ¾, and we were all Muggles.

Sam is aware of the fact that Santana didn’t draw. Here are some excerpts from our Gchat/email history, ranging from 2012–14.

Sam: begged and got 50 more views for my piece. Only 80 more to pass Ervin Santana's arm slot

Sam: Hughes passed Ervin Santana!

Sam: three times as many people listened to that as read about Ervin Santana's arm slot 🙁

Sam: bad intentional balls got an outside shot at knocking off Ervin Santana

Sam: My piece today has a shot at taking down Ervin Santana.

Sam: It passed Ervin Santana

Sam: gonna crush Santana

Sam: baseball rap not gonna beat Ervin Santana

Sam: Hank Aaron piece on pace to challenge Ervin Santana piece
though I just tweeted it, so probably will get 20 views and screw up the pace

And then, in February 2015, I got an email notification: Someone had commented on Santana, twice! Maybe the piece was somehow receiving a four-year-late first wind, basking in the acclaim and attention the world had denied it when it was originally released?

Nope. It was just Sam, testing a change to the commenting system.

“Stop trying to get this article more views,” I sent Sam in response. Sam answered, “Like how I picked the one article I knew nobody would read?”

I genuinely don’t know what would make Sam happiest here. For everyone to click on a four-year-old article and make its traffic, in retrospect, seem respectable? For everyone to ignore it again? The thing is that at some point, Santana went from being an embarrassment to being a baseline—a bar that Sam could always count on clearing. Even if a given story didn’t break through the way he had hoped, it would still pass Santana, which was a sort of success. So I think I’ve hit on a happy medium. I’ll reprint the piece below; you, I hope, will read it, which is what Sam wanted you to do in 2012. (Where were you then?!) If we all band together before BP disables its outgoing editor’s access to click counts, we can inflate this post’s total and allow Sam to savor those sweet, sweet uniques.

But I won’t link to the original article, and I hope you’ll all agree not to Google it or find it through the site search. Instead, let’s allow it to stand as an unseen internet monument, the truest tribute to a noble baseball writer. As John Wooden once said, “the true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching.” Sam, it turns out, does decent articles about Ervin Santana. I wish we could all say the same.

On July 30, Mike Scioscia told Ervin Santana that, no matter what happened, Santana was not going to pitch more than five innings in that day’s game. Santana had been struggling. Santana had been one of the worst pitchers in baseball. Santana’s ERA was 6.00. So the Angels wanted to reset him with one short outing, an outing in which Santana wouldn’t have to worry about pacing himself and wouldn’t have to hold his mechanics together for quite as long. It’s a trick Scioscia had tried before, most recently with Scott Kazmir, and it’s a trick that you probably don’t hear talked about very often, because Scott Kazmir.

Santana made it through those five innings. They weren’t his best five innings, but he survived them and managed to lower his ERA a tick. Since then, Santana has made seven full starts, and he has arguably been the Angels’ most effective starter in that stretch: a 3.30 ERA, and not a single game score below 50. So, did it work?


First, some context for his struggles. The Angels had, by July 30, put the blame on Santana’s arm slot, and particularly his arm slot on the slider. Scioscia:

“It's plagued him probably at times over his career where his arm slot will get away from him a little bit, particularly with throwing a couple different looks on his fastball and his slider.”

Has be been dropping his arm?

“No, it's getting too far on top, where he starts to push the ball and show a little inconsistency with his release point. He’s working hard on getting back to his natural arm slot and getting ready to repeat it. Sometimes he gets a little too far on top with his slider.”

Is the problem just that it affects his command?

“First thing is it telegraphs your pitches; if you're throwing each of your pitches out of a different arm slot, which has been the case that we're seeing—you want that consistency . You want everything out of the same look. If he does get that same look and you're high, then your slider is gonna have more depth and not as much velocity and your fastball's probably going to be a little straighter without that late life. Some guys throw out of that slot because that's their natural slot; that's the way they pitch. Ervin's slot is really a high three-quarter slot that he's been trying to find, not as much over the top, and at times he does get too far over the top.”

(Quotes are direct; questions are paraphrased recreations.)


Next, his performance. He has a 3.30 ERA. Done!


Oh, okay.

The good news for Santana is that he’s getting far more strikes now.

2011: 64.1 percent
2012 (pre-July 30): 61.6 percent
2012 (post-July 30): 66.0

That’s, obviously, a huge difference. Good Madison Bumgarner is at 66 percent this year. Bad Tim Lincecum is at 61 percent this year. And Santana has, at least in the rawest of measures, gone from pitching like bad Lincecum to good Bumgarner.


2011: 66.0 percent strikes
2012 (pre-July 30): 67.5 percent
2012 (post-July 30): 72.5 percent

Oh. Well, maybe the sliders weren’t the main problem. Regardless, improvement, with an improved whiff rate, and many fewer sliders put in play.

Strikes are part of a pitcher’s performance. Balls being hit hard are the other part. Santana’s turnaround has come with a .177 BABIP in those seven starts, and the way you read that says something about you. It could mean that he’s been incredibly lucky, and that’s all there is to it. It could mean that he’s no longer being hit hard.

Or, because it almost always is this, it could be something in between. Santana has allowed 10 home runs in those seven starts, so at least 10 batters have still hit him awfully hard.


As for the arm slot: get ready to be disappointed by this piece. Looking at the sliders he threw on July 21, his bad last start before the July 30 five-innings experiment, his average release point on sliders was 6.11 feet above the ground. Jumping ahead to September 7th, his excellent most recent start (also at Angel Stadium), his release point was 6.06 feet above the ground. So he got his arm slot a very little bit lower, by about a half inch. But in an excellent August start (also at Angel Stadium), his release point on sliders was 6.15 feet above the ground, a very little bit higher. These small fluctuations just aren’t real meaningful, for our purposes.

Is he more consistent within starts now? No. In the bad start, his sliders deviated from the mean by an average of about one inch. In the good starts, the release point deviated by 1.2 inches. So his slider release point hasn’t change, and it hasn’t gotten more consistent. None of which is to say that the issue wasn't his arm slot on the slider, and that he hasn't fixed the problem. But if it's the case, it's subtler than we can detect with charts and graphs.

Though, for what it’s worth, his slider velocity really does drop as the arm slot gets higher.


A couple weeks before the five-inning experiment, Mike Scioscia said this about Santana:

"We don’t have a crystal ball, but I think we’re confident that Ervin Santana is going to pitch better than he did in the first half. You got that crystal ball hanging around, lemme see and I’ll take a quick look for you. That’s a big help."

It was safe to expect Santana to pitch better because he never pitches as badly as he was pitching. It was also safe to expect him to pitch better because he always seems to be a fix away from a good month. In 2011, Ervin Santana took a 4.08 ERA into July. He then went through an eight-start stretch in which he struck out five batters for every walk, had a 1.41 ERA, threw a no-hitter, etc.

But even that success was fleeting, and in the final eight starts of the season, he walked nearly as many as he struck out. He always seems to be a small flaw away from a bad month. For now, his arm slot, or whatever, is slotted right. And, for now, whatever is important for Dan Haren is slotted wrong. There’s that old joke about the campers and the bear. “I don’t have to outrun the bear, I only have to outrun you.” In the race for the fourth spot in a potential playoff rotation, Dan Haren is still probably winning. But, unexpectedly, Santana is making it close, and the Angels must be holding their breath hoping Santana keeps doing his part to keep it that way.

Thank you for reading

This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.

Subscribe now
You need to be logged in to comment. Login or Subscribe
It'll be so nice when your re-post of a Sam Miller article quadruples the page views of his original.

I made it until the end of the italicized text, I figure I didn't miss anything important after that.
This article...which I tried in vain to so much of how I understand, appreciate, and, at times, loathe Sam Miller as a journalist.

The circling of thought after thought. Trying to catch on to the claims, falling, but re-establishing. It's a modern interpretation of Faulkner.

I think it was the Wednesday version of Effectively Wild. No, it was Tuesday's episode.

Ben and Sam bantering about the successes/failures of MLB teams out of contention.

Here's Sam trying in vain to make a point about a failing team (I don't remember which team), but not quite convincing himself of his own point. This is typical of the show, and one of the main reasons I love the podcast so much.

Ben, in the background, making small utterances that all of us would make in the midst of a hearing a conversation spiraling out of control. First Ben attempts to gain a foothold in the conversation, then fails, next he provides a barely audible sigh, and allows Sam finish because he knows Sam must finish because if he isn't allowed, the show will lose its momentum...and I find this so ironic that getting lost in his mind, Sam provides the show its momentum.

I love it because it's the same conversation any person with smart, reflective friends has on occasion. It's beautiful. It's frustrating. It's affirming. It's why I pay $40 a year for the subscription to BP. It's why I listen to Effectively Wild. It's why I hang out with smart people.
Shegure grfg
You're breaking up.
Hey. This wasn't that bad.