I’m a little surprised people here are more sanguine about Kyle Finnegan than I thought they might be, or than I am for that matter. His card is decidedly meh for a reliever, and downright underwater for a closer on a contender.
He’s 33, so no wonder his fastball is down a tick from the last couple years, but even if you accept an understanding of that, the fact is it’s still down that tick. His K rate is well below average and down from previous years. His walk rate is slightly above league average. His HR rate is way down, but that’s because his HR/FB rate, considered to be mostly luck-based, is half his career average, which explains way his xFIP- is sharply up even as his FIP- dropped.
Flip side, Fangraphs pitchingbot has his stuff and command as both slightly above average for both his main pitches, and his fWAR is 0.6 even though his RA9-WAR is a flat zero, mainly due to the bad luck of not stranding enough runners. And he is pretty tough on lefties for a starboard pitcher.
I get that people are looking at this acquisition in terms of the cost of prospect capital, but that’s really not the true cost of picking him and anointing him closer, is it? Isn’t the true cost the absence of better pitchers we will not have acquired that would be a better fit for that spot? I’m not one of the guys here who wanted to liquidate the top of our system in exchange for the top fire-breather on the market, but I did think getting a no-doubt closer was going to be on the shopping list. Maybe the prices being quoted Scott were just too high for him to consider.
As far as I can tell, Vest and Holton are still the two go-to guys at the back of the pen, with Finnegan probably now third on the chart.