IF you subtract just 4 starts....

[Gene Honda Civic]

http://www.southsidesox.com/story/2006/1/16/17240/1567

 

You've heard it before. "If you take away a few starts, [insert platitude here.]" I guess new Philly GM Pat Gillick was guilty of this trap this weekend when commenting on Ryan Franklin. Craig Burley over at Hardball Times was inspired enough to take a look at a few random players to see what happened to their lines if you removed just their worst 4 starts. Not surprisingly, it made many pitchers look much better than they are.

 

I decided to do the same thing with the White Sox starters. Rather than concentrating on the Sox pitchers' lines after the bad starts were taken out, I was more interested in what was the deciding factor that made them have the bad starts (i.e poor control, too many HRs, etc.).

 

Read More...

[SSH2005]

I obviously didn't put in the excellent statistical analysis, but I mentioned this when we first acquired Vazquez. He seems to either have great outings or he gets shellacked. If Vazquez could find some consistently with the help of Cooper, he could be the stud he was with the Expos.

[RME JICO]

Wow, Vazquez had some horrible outings. In the 4 games that were subtracted he had some glaring numbers:

 

31 ER in those 4 games (13 IP)

23 runs occurred in 4 innings (1 big inning per game 5, 5, 6, 7)

 

He also started the year really bad (0-2, 13 IP, 23 hits, 17 ER, 2 HR, 4 BB, 17 K) in his first 3 games. So hopefully he can start out strong this year.

[Balta1701]

He also started the year really bad (0-2, 13 IP, 23 hits, 17 ER, 2 HR, 4 BB, 17 K) in his first 3 games.  So hopefully he can start out strong this year.

Yankee Hangover?

[RME JICO]

Yankee Hangover?

Possibly, but check this out. I took the theory a little deeper and only subtracted his worst 4 innings (not games).

 

I used his 4 worst innings of 5, 5, 6, and 7, and came up with 211.2 IP, 83 ER for an ERA of 3.53.

 

So from 4.42 to 3.53, a 0.89 drop in ERA for only 4 innings! So if he can avoid 4 bad innings out of his 215 IP he can be pretty effective.

 

 

Garland (4 bad innings - 6, 5, 5, 3) subtract those and he has a 2.78 ERA. 217 IP and only 67 ER.

Edited January 17, 2006 by RME JICO

[aboz56]

Good stuff, thanks for the linkage.

[TLAK]

Vazquez' inconsistancy is not a recent phenomenon. Expecting Cooper to straighten him is like expecting him to change the stripes on a tiger, after 8 seasons I think you is what you is. Below I expanded a chart I made earlier to calc his era on a daily basis, and included his whole career. He has always been prone to being shellacked and giving his team a very poor chance to win about 10 times a year.

 

 

This is the record of the pitcher that Kenny Williams feels is worth $11,000,000 per year, plus give up El Duque, Vizcaino and Young for the privilege. - Perhaps I'm being too hard, if you subtract his worst 76 starts he might make the Hall of Fame, provided he pitches the 30 years it will take him to get to 300 wins.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D_ERA	Total	1998 Vazquez	1999 Vazquez	2000 Vazquez	2001 Vazquez	2002 Vazquez	2003 Vazquez	2004 Vazquez	2005 Vazquez
0	30 ( 23-0)		3 (2-0)	3 (2-0)	10 (9-0)	1 (0-0)	8 (6-0)	2 (1-0)	3 (3-0)
0+-3	71 ( 38-11)	4 (1-1)	5 (2-0)	9 (4-1)	8 (6-1)	15 (9-2)	9 (4-2)	8 (6-1)	13 (6-3)
3+-6	80 ( 21-32)	15 (3-7)	7 (3-1)	14 (4-5)	4 (0-4)	10 (0-6)	10 (3-4)	13 (6-2)	7 (2-3)
6+-10	51 ( 7-27)	10 (1-4)	8 (2-4)	4 (1-1)	7 (1-3)	5 (1-2)	7 (0-6)	5 (1-3)	5 (0-4)
10+	25 ( 0-23)	4 (0-3)	3 (0-3)	3 (0-2)	3 (0-3)	3 (0-3)		4 (0-4)	5 (0-5)
Quality	101 ( 61-11)	4 (1-1)	8 (4-0)	12 (6-1)	18 (15-1)	16 (9-2)	17 (10-2)	10 (7-1)	16 (9-3)
Meh	80 ( 21-32)	15 (3-7)	7 (3-1)	14 (4-5)	4 (0-4)	10 (0-6)	10 (3-4)	13 (6-2)	7 (2-3)
Horrible	76 ( 7-50)	14 (1-7)	11 (2-7)	7 (1-3)	10 (1-6)	8 (1-5)	7 (0-6)	9 (1-7)	10 (0-9)

[chitownsportsfan]

I'm afraid I don't get the chart, could you explain it please?

[TLAK]

I'm afraid I don't get the chart, could you explain it please?

I took each appearance and calculated his ERA for that day only, then I just counted how many days for each group shown and show his W/L for the games in each group.

 

For example, last opening day he went 1-1/3 innings vs the grub and gave up 7 earned for a D_ERA of 37.80. So I put this in the 10+ group. At the bottom I totaled them, calling 3 or less quality, 3 to 6 meh and > 6 horrible.

[RME JICO]

I took each appearance and calculated his ERA for that day only, then I just counted how many days for each group shown and show his W/L for the games in each group. 

 

For example, last opening day he went 1-1/3 innings vs the grub and gave up 7 earned for a D_ERA of 37.80.  So I put this in the 10+ group.  At the bottom I totaled them, calling 3 or less quality, 3 to 6 meh and > 6 horrible.

Of those horrible outings, how many innings were bad? I took out his 4 worst innings of 2005 and his ERA almost dropped a point. You have him listed with 10 horrible starts from 2005. Out of those how many innings of 3 or more runs did he give up?

[Colorado Sox Fan]

Talk about over analysis.

[TLAK]

Of those horrible outings, how many innings were bad?  I took out his 4 worst innings of 2005 and his ERA almost dropped a point.  You have him listed with 10 horrible starts from 2005.  Out of those how many innings of 3 or more runs did he give up?

 

Date- D_ERA- IP- ER

8/31/2005- 11.81- 5 1/3- 7

6/4/2005- 18.00- 4- 8

4/4/2005- 37.80- 1 2/3- 7

8/14/2005- 40.50- 2- 9

 

Does this help?

[Colorado Sox Fan]

Talk about over analysis.

[Texsox]

Talk about over analysis.

 

Talk about a Masters in Baseball Education! Hang around here long enough and read carefully, separate the wheat from the chaff, the b.s. from the fertilizer, and you will know more about baseball than a fern bar full of Cub fans.

[TLAK]

Talk about over analysis.

Just trying to figure out how a guy with 'Electric Stuff' can be 89-93 life time. And his stuff can be electric, I saw him make the White Sox look like children in '04 and he looked pretty good against them last year.

 

But I also saw him get blown off the mound against other teams, including the hated grubs. You may recall the Yankees even took him out of the playoff rotation because they couldn't trust him. I just don't like this trade.

[southsideirish71]

Just trying to figure out how a guy with 'Electric Stuff' can be 89-93 life time.  And his stuff can be electric, I saw him make the White Sox look like children in '04 and he looked pretty good against them last year. 

 

But I also saw him get blown off the mound against other teams, including the hated grubs.  You may recall the Yankees even took him out of the playoff rotation because they couldn't trust him.  I just don't like this trade.

 

 

Well you must hate Contreras then. Because before the 2nd half of last year. He looked just as mortal as Vasquez is. Contreras looked just as bad as a Yankee, and he looked just as bad in the playoffs with them.

 

How about this, outside of everyones masterful knowledge of statistics and all, lets trust the man who put together last years baseball team. KW seemed to know what he is doing then. I dont think that all of a sudden he lost his marbles in one year.

 

We gave up a prospect that is supposed to be Mike Cameron part II, a 45 year old pitcher, and a reliever that mad everyone cringe when he went out to the mound.

 

BTW remember the analysis of how bad Garcia was away from Safeco and how bad the sox got ripped giving up the CF of the future in Reed, the next Pudge Rodriguez, and Mike Morse. How did that work out for us.

'

Edited January 17, 2006 by southsideirish71

[TLAK]

Well you must hate Contreras then.  Because before the 2nd half of last year.  He looked just as mortal as Vasquez is.  Contreras looked just as bad as a Yankee, and he looked just as bad in the playoffs with them. 

 

How about this, outside of everyones masterful knowledge of statistics and all, lets trust the man who put together last years baseball team.  KW seemed to know what he is doing then.  I dont think that all of a sudden he lost his marbles in one year. 

 

We gave up a prospect that is supposed to be Mike Cameron part II, a 45 year old pitcher, and a reliever that mad everyone cringe when he went out to the mound. 

 

BTW remember the analysis of how bad Garcia was away from Safeco and how bad the sox got ripped giving up the CF of the future in Reed, the next Pudge Rodriguez, and Mike Morse. How did that work out for us. 

'

 

Conteras is 35-18 lifetime (he was 13-7 with the Yanks) considerably better than Vazquez ever was. He was traded for Estaban Loiza who was having trouble with Ozzie, it was a case of trading 'problem' for 'problem' as both of their managers were mad at them, a far cry from the value he gave to the DiamondBacks. El Duque and Vizcaino both made large contributions to the championship, don't underrate them. I buy your concern out Hernandez's age but Vizciano will likely stay a good pitcher for years to come, and I note is above .500 in his career. The jury is out on Chris Young but he is highly rated by the scouts, who knows?

 

Funny you mention Cameron because that is one trade that really did work for everybody.

[KevHead0881]

Conteras is 35-18 lifetime (he was 13-7 with the Yanks) considerably better than Vazquez ever was. He was traded for Estaban Loiza who was having trouble with Ozzie, it was a case of trading 'problem' for 'problem' as both of their managers were mad at them, a far cry from the value he gave to the DiamondBacks.  El Duque and Vizcaino both made large contributions to the championship, don't underrate them.  I buy your concern out Hernandez's age but Vizciano will likely stay a good pitcher for years to come, and I note is above .500 in his career. The jury is out on Chris Young but he is highly rated by the scouts, who knows? 

 

Funny you mention Cameron because that is one trade that really did work for everybody.

 

If all Chris Young turns out to be is another Mike Cameron, then I'll be completely content with this trade. If you ask me, Cameron has been pretty overrated his entire career.

[SSH2005]

Just trying to figure out how a guy with 'Electric Stuff' can be 89-93 life time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ummm, maybe because 191 of Vazquez's career 256 starts were for the lowly Expos?

[RME JICO]

Date- D_ERA- IP- ER

8/31/2005- 11.81- 5 1/3- 7

6/4/2005- 18.00- 4- 8

4/4/2005- 37.80- 1 2/3- 7

8/14/2005- 40.50- 2- 9

 

Does this help?

I was talking about single bad innings. If you remove his 4 worst innings of the year, his ERA drops almost a point.

 

You are right though, he has been very inconsistent or volatile if you will. He is great and horrible, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Erkel and Mike Tyson. He has a higher upside than most pitchers, so there has to be some talent there. Maybe he just hasn't landed in the right spot, or maybe he is completely overrated. We will find out in the WBC against the Haitians.

[witesoxfan]

If all Chris Young turns out to be is another Mike Cameron, then I'll be completely content with this trade.  If you ask me, Cameron has been pretty overrated his entire career.

 

Funny, I've always thought the exact opposite.

 

Gold glove defensively in CF, great power, great eye, very solid speed on the basepaths...I just find it hard to find someone that does all of that overrated. He doesn't hit for average, and he strikes out a ton...but if you have him in CF, you are feeling very confident as a pitcher.

 

I just do not understand why Torii Hunter gets manlove up the ass around here and everywhere in general, and Mike Cameron gets relatively unnoticed. They're very similar players all-around, with the exceptions of average and plate discipline, where Hunter's a better hitter with not much of an eye at the plate, and Cameron is a worse hitter with a better eye.

[TLAK]

Ummm, maybe because 191 of Vazquez's career 256 starts were for the lowly Expos? 

He was horrible in 50 of his losses, giving up runs at more than a 6 ERA clip. Thats not giving your team much of a chance to win no matter who they are. If he could avoid terrible innings and learn to survive even when he doesn't have good stuff, perhaps he could turn it around. Maybe we should be comparing him to the old Garland instead of Contreras. Garland figured it out and last year avoided the disaster inning, he gave his team a chance to win even when he didn't have his best. Vazquez has had 8 seasons to figure it out and the recent numbers don't indicate that he has.

[SSH2005]

Funny, I've always thought the exact opposite.

 

Gold glove defensively in CF, great power, great eye, very solid speed on the basepaths...I just find it hard to find someone that does all of that overrated.  He doesn't hit for average, and he strikes out a ton...but if you have him in CF, you are feeling very confident as a pitcher.

 

I just do not understand why Torii Hunter gets manlove up the ass around here and everywhere in general, and Mike Cameron gets relatively unnoticed.  They're very similar players all-around, with the exceptions of average and plate discipline, where Hunter's a better hitter with not much of an eye at the plate, and Cameron is a worse hitter with a better eye.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cameron is also a much better basestealer than Hunter. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Hunter makes a ton of "flashy" defensive plays like Jim Edmonds.

 

He was horrible in 50 of his losses, giving up runs at more than a 6 ERA clip.  Thats not giving your team much of a chance to win no matter who they are.  If he could avoid terrible innings and learn to survive even when he doesn't have good stuff, perhaps he could turn it around.  Maybe we should be comparing him to the old Garland instead of Contreras.  Garland figured it out and last year avoided the disaster inning, he gave his team a chance to win even when he didn't have his best.  Vazquez has had 8 seasons to figure it out and the recent numbers don't indicate that he has.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Vazquez has had four good seasons in his career. So far, Garland has had only one really good season. I think you are overrating Garland and underrating Vazquez. Vazquez needs to show that he can put up his 2000-2003 numbers again and Garland needs to show that 2005 wasn't a fluke. They are both question marks for 2006 in my opinion.

Edited January 17, 2006 by SSH2005

[vandy125]

He was horrible in 50 of his losses, giving up runs at more than a 6 ERA clip.  Thats not giving your team much of a chance to win no matter who they are.  If he could avoid terrible innings and learn to survive even when he doesn't have good stuff, perhaps he could turn it around.  Maybe we should be comparing him to the old Garland instead of Contreras.  Garland figured it out and last year avoided the disaster inning, he gave his team a chance to win even when he didn't have his best.  Vazquez has had 8 seasons to figure it out and the recent numbers don't indicate that he has.

 

Since defense was brought up in this thread, I wonder if that has anything to do with some of the horrible innings that he has had. Doesn't a bad defense just make bad innings worse when a pitcher is out there? When a pitcher is on with Vasquez's stuff, no one can touch him. When he is "meh", how does a defense affect that? What were the defenses like behind him in Montreal and New York?

[Balta1701]

I just do not understand why Torii Hunter gets manlove up the ass around here and everywhere in general, and Mike Cameron gets relatively unnoticed.  They're very similar players all-around, with the exceptions of average and plate discipline, where Hunter's a better hitter with not much of an eye at the plate, and Cameron is a worse hitter with a better eye.

Well, with Cameron in NY and in the NL the last few years, and now in SD, and Hunter playing in Minny, Hunter faces the Sox 19 times per year, and we might see Cameron for a 3 game set every few years if he stays in one place. Plus, Hunter has probably leveled more White Sox Catchers than Cameron.

 

Anywho...I can't complain about Cameron...I believe his trade brought us Konerko.