For Sabermetric people out there, re: Vazquez

[Gregory Pratt]

Last year, I remember reading from a ton of people that Clifford was the luckiest pitcher in all of baseball, when you analyzed it.

 

How unlucky has Javier been this year? From what I've seen, his bad innings are typically initiated by a poor defensive play either in Center by Mack, left by Pods, or shortstop/second if Cintron is playing. I think that one part of Javier's problem has been bad luck with the defense behind him, and the other part has been his lack of focus after errors.

 

In fact, I was thinking about it earlier, and remembered that someone called Javy a Latin Buehrle. I think that might have some merit to it, when it comes to errors and defensive misplays, at least.

[southsideirish71]

Last year, I remember reading from a ton of people that Clifford was the luckiest pitcher in all of baseball, when you analyzed it.

 

How unlucky has Javier been this year? From what I've seen, his bad innings are typically initiated by a poor defensive play either in Center by Mack, left by Pods, or shortstop/second if Cintron is playing. I think that one part of Javier's problem has been bad luck with the defense behind him, and the other part has been his lack of focus after errors.

 

In fact, I was thinking about it earlier, and remembered that someone called Javy a Latin Buehrle. I think that might have some merit to it, when it comes to errors and defensive misplays, at least.

 

 

The only thing that is unlucky about Vazquez is that we are unlucky to have someone with such talent and the backbone of a 5 year old. Good pitchers man up, and try to get the guy out, they pick up their team. Vazquez folds like a cheap tent the minute something doesnt go his way. There is a reason this guy has been on 4 teams in just as many years.

[BigSqwert]

And it's so completely obvious when it's going to happen. You can see his emotions on his sleeve after a bad defensive play or cheap hit. He's like the anti-Zambrano.

[NorthSideSox72]

Last year, I remember reading from a ton of people that Clifford was the luckiest pitcher in all of baseball, when you analyzed it.

 

How unlucky has Javier been this year? From what I've seen, his bad innings are typically initiated by a poor defensive play either in Center by Mack, left by Pods, or shortstop/second if Cintron is playing. I think that one part of Javier's problem has been bad luck with the defense behind him, and the other part has been his lack of focus after errors.

 

In fact, I was thinking about it earlier, and remembered that someone called Javy a Latin Buehrle. I think that might have some merit to it, when it comes to errors and defensive misplays, at least.

The grand slam last night was on a slider that never slid. Same with both of Ivan's hits. Nothing lucky there - just plain old bad pitches.

[Milkman delivers]

The only thing that is unlucky about Vazquez is that we are unlucky to have someone with such talent and the backbone of a 5 year old. Good pitchers man up, and try to get the guy out, they pick up their team. Vazquez folds like a cheap tent the minute something doesnt go his way. There is a reason this guy has been on 4 teams in just as many years.

 

And hopefully somehow at the end of the year, it'll be 5 teams in 5 years. I'd love to get rid of him and Garcia.

[valponick]

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=52329

 

This is the thread you are talking about. It was basically proven that Vazquez had been just as good or even a bit better than Buehrle up to their respective last starts. Neither of them have been unlucky, just inefficient. Both have been downright bad (in terms of their abilities) this year.

[Jake]

The grand slam last night was on a slider that never slid. Same with both of Ivan's hits. Nothing lucky there - just plain old bad pitches.

 

Yeah, I haven't noticed a supreme lack of backbone, I've just seen a lot of bad pitches thrown. Seems like a lot of his problems hang from his shoulder.

[Milkman delivers]

Yeah, I haven't noticed a supreme lack of backbone, I've just seen a lot of bad pitches thrown. Seems like a lot of his problems hang from his shoulder.

 

The lack of backbone comes from the fact that he's scared of the bat. He tries to be too perfect with his pitches. He'll start off a hitter with a bunch of pitches that just miss the zone because he's trying to avoid contact, then he's in a hole and has to work out of it. And then when he actually gets ahead of a hitter, he throws the wrong pitch again. He's just f***ed either way.

[Jake]

The lack of backbone comes from the fact that he's scared of the bat. He tries to be too perfect with his pitches. He'll start off a hitter with a bunch of pitches that just miss the zone because he's trying to avoid contact, then he's in a hole and has to work out of it. And then when he actually gets ahead of a hitter, he throws the wrong pitch again. He's just f***ed either way.

 

That could be the case, and he has decent stuff, but I don't see the stuff that was supposed to be better than Contreras's and all the things I heard about him this offseason. He has all the stuff to be a very good pitcher, but I definitely don't think the guy has great stuff. At least not anymore. It seems like almost every breaking pitch he throws this year (esp. his curveball) haven't been breaking. His slider was finally working well last night and he did great, but all his good pitches disappeared in the 6th.

[Dick Allen]

Hawk and DJ were pretty much letting Vazquez have it for his pitching style last night, and that was while he was cruising. Shockingly to me, they have slammed Vazquez and Garcia in the past several days, and I'm glad the sugarcoating is OVA. I'm to the point where I can't stand seeing him on the mound. The White Sox generally score a lot of runs when he's pitching however.

[Milkman delivers]

Hawk and DJ were pretty much letting Vazquez have it for his pitching style last night, and that was while he was cruising. Shockingly to me, they have slammed Vazquez and Garcia in the past several days, and I'm glad the sugarcoating is OVA. I'm to the point where I can't stand seeing him on the mound. The White Sox generally score a lot of runs when he's pitching however.

 

A lot of times I do yard work or take care of the pool while we're on defense and Vazquez is pitching. I really cannot stand to watch him.

[elrockinMT]

I watched the game on ESPN last night and Vazquez sure looked good for 5 innings. As soon as runners got on base his arm angle changed and he started hanging pitches and leaving them over the plate. The Tigers got a couple of lucky hits, but even the ESPN broadcasters were commenting about how he was an entirely different looking pitcher under the stress of baserunners being on.

[jackie hayes]

Lol, it would be hard to have a thread with less sabrmetric analysis. So funny how these threads go.

[JoeBatterz]

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=52329

 

This is the thread you are talking about. It was basically proven that Vazquez had been just as good or even a bit better than Buehrle up to their respective last starts. Neither of them have been unlucky, just inefficient. Both have been downright bad (in terms of their abilities) this year.

 

Valponick,

 

Thanks for this Thread link. I was wondering where the actually sabermetrics were for this discussion.

[infohawk]

Last year, I remember reading from a ton of people that Clifford was the luckiest pitcher in all of baseball, when you analyzed it.

 

How unlucky has Javier been this year? From what I've seen, his bad innings are typically initiated by a poor defensive play either in Center by Mack, left by Pods, or shortstop/second if Cintron is playing. I think that one part of Javier's problem has been bad luck with the defense behind him, and the other part has been his lack of focus after errors.

 

In fact, I was thinking about it earlier, and remembered that someone called Javy a Latin Buehrle. I think that might have some merit to it, when it comes to errors and defensive misplays, at least.

I have a fairly strong interest in sabremetrics, although I'm not entirely a devotee to the religion. I do think it is a very useful tool when evaluating talent and team composition. One thing I noticed about not only Javy but also some of our other starters is that their BABIP (used to determine a pitcher's relative "luck" on balls hit into play) are higher than the league average. The theory is that when a batter hits a ball into play that is not a homerun (which is blamed on the pitcher), neither the batter nor pitcher can control what happens. An eighth of an inch can be the difference between a two-run single or an infield pop-up. The league average BABIP is .290, in other words, this is the typical batting average against a pitcher for all balls hit into play other than homers. Here are our starters BABIPs:

 

Buerhle .296

Contreras .270

Garland .303

Garcia .295

Vazquez .321

 

Only Contreras has a BABIP below the league average of .290. Garland's is high (but I believe has been declining, perhaps accounting for his improvement) and Vazquez's is really high. The thinking is that a pitcher's BABIP will move toward the .290 point of equilibrium throughout a season. The sabremetric guys always argue that the peripheral numbers are a true indicator of how well a pitcher is pitching -- particularly strikeouts, walks and homers. If those numbers are pretty good, than a pitcher with a high BABIP is a strong candidate for improvement going forward. Likewise, a pitcher with an unusually low BABIP is a strong candidate for regression (with or without good peripheral stats).

 

FYI -- here are the Tiger's BABIP numbers:

 

Robertson .287

Verlander .259

Rogers .273

Bonderman .293

 

In summation, we have more guys with room for improvement and the Tiger's have more guys with room for regression. This doesn't guarantee that it will happen, but it is likely.

 

Another interesting little stat. Take a look at Bobby Jenks BABIP:

 

Jenks .307

 

It's high, but his peripherals are so good that the opposing hitters just don't hit that many balls into play against him.

 

Here's the rest of the Sox bullpen:

 

Thornton .256 (Good peripherals)

Cotts .243 (Good peripherals)

McCarthy .255 (Good peripherals)

and...

Politte .349 (Yikes! And terrible peripherals with 30 innings pitched with just as many strikeouts as walks at 15 each) In other words, lots of free passes not negated by strikeouts and lots of hits.

 

Overall, the bullpen is doing pretty well and the starters have been a bit unlucky, which wasn't the case last year. One thing I have noticed is that the starters have been giving up the long ball a bit too much, particularly Garland and Garcia. Interestingly, Vazquez has really good peripheral stats and is tied with Contreras for the least homers given up by the starters at 11. This could suggest that he is partially the victim of bad luck (although I'd like to see him ditch that curveball). When you think about luck, think about that ducksnort that was hit into shallow center during the sixth inning and, in the same inning, the seeing-eye single by Maggs that would have been a double-play ball had it been a few more feet to the right or left. The Grand Slam was all on Vazquez, though.

Edited July 20, 2006 by infohawk

[jackie hayes]

I have a fairly strong interest in sabremetrics, although I'm not entirely a devotee to the religion. I do think it is a very useful tool when evaluating talent and team composition. One thing I noticed about not only Javy but also some of our other starters is that their BABIP (used to determine a pitcher's relative "luck" on balls hit into play) are higher than the league average. The theory is that when a batter hits a ball into play that is not a homerun (which is blamed on the pitcher), neither the batter nor pitcher can control what happens. An eighth of an inch can be the difference between a two-run single or an infield pop-up. The league average BABIP is .290, in other words, this is the typical batting average against a pitcher for all balls hit into play other than homers. Here are our starters BABIPs:

 

Buerhle .296

Contreras .270

Garland .303

Garcia .295

Vazquez .321

 

Only Contreras has a BABIP below the league average of .290. Garland's is high (but I believe has been declining, perhaps accounting for his improvement) and Vazquez's is really high. The thinking is that a pitcher's BABIP will move toward the .290 point of equilibrium throughout a season. The sabremetric guys always argue that the peripheral numbers are a true indicator of how well a pitcher is pitching -- particularly strikeouts, walks and homers. If those numbers are pretty good, than a pitcher with a high BABIP is a strong candidate for improvement going forward. Likewise, a pitcher with an unusually low BABIP is a strong candidate for regression (with or without good peripheral stats).

 

FYI -- here are the Tiger's BABIP numbers:

 

Robertson .287

Verlander .259

Rogers .273

Bonderman .293

 

In summation, we have more guys with room for improvement and the Tiger's have more guys with room for regression. This doesn't guarantee that it will happen, but it is likely.

 

Another interesting little stat. Take a look at Bobby Jenks BABIP:

 

Jenks .307

 

It's high, but his peripherals are so good that the opposing hitters just don't hit that many balls into play against him.

 

Here's the rest of the Sox bullpen:

 

Thornton .256 (Good peripherals)

Cotts .243 (Good peripherals)

McCarthy .255 (Good peripherals)

and...

Politte .349 (Yikes! And terrible peripherals with 30 innings pitched with just as many strikeouts as walks at 15 each) In other words, lots of free passes not negated by strikeouts and lots of hits.

 

Overall, the bullpen is doing pretty well and the starters have been a bit unlucky, which wasn't the case last year. One thing I have noticed is that the starters have been giving up the long ball a bit too much, particularly Garland and Garcia. Interestingly, Vazquez has really good peripheral stats and is tied with Contreras for the least homers given up by the starters at 11. This could suggest that he is partially the victim of bad luck (although I'd like to see him ditch that curveball). When you think about luck, think about that ducksnort that was hit into shallow center during the sixth inning and, in the same inning, the seeing-eye single by Maggs that would have been a double-play ball had it been a few more feet to the right or left. The Grand Slam was all on Vazquez, though.

Just a little above or below .290 does not mean much. Among the starters, I think Vazquez and Verlander (each 30 points off the mean) are the only notable ones -- not big surprises, imo.

 

But it's odd to say "the bullpen is doing pretty well and the starters have been a bit unlucky". If you believe in babip regression-to-the-mean, the bullpen isn't doing well, they're getting lucky. It's either luck or performance, it can't be whichever one makes our players look better. If our starters are unlucky, then our pen is damn lucky. (And the k rate doesn't affect babip, so it wouldn't change that conclusion.)

[infohawk]

Just a little above or below .290 does not mean much. Among the starters, I think Vazquez and Verlander (each 30 points off the mean) are the only notable ones -- not big surprises, imo.

 

But it's odd to say "the bullpen is doing pretty well and the starters have been a bit unlucky". If you believe in babip regression-to-the-mean, the bullpen isn't doing well, they're getting lucky. It's either luck or performance, it can't be whichever one makes our players look better. If our starters are unlucky, then our pen is damn lucky. (And the k rate doesn't affect babip, so it wouldn't change that conclusion.)

I say the bullpen is doing well because their peripherals are good and they aren't giving up lots of hits, luck or no luck. It's just a fact. If the bullpen were to regress by giving up lots of hits despite good peripherals, I would have to say that they weren't doing well despite the fact that they might still be pitching well. It's ultimately about aligning performance with results. The only point of my post is that the struggling starters haven't become "bad" as much as they have perhaps been a little unlucky and that our oft-criticized pen is getting pretty good results from their performances.

Edited July 20, 2006 by infohawk

[jackie hayes]

I say the bullpen is doing well because their peripherals are good and they aren't giving up lots of hits, luck or no luck. It's just a fact. If the bullpen were to regress by giving up lots of hits despite good peripherals, I would have to say that they weren't doing well despite the fact that they might still be pitching well. It's ultimately about aligning performance with results. The only point of my post is that the struggling starters haven't become "bad" as much as they have perhaps been a little unlucky and that our oft-criticized pen is getting pretty good results from their performances.

On the peripherals (by which I take it you mean k rates? that's the only thing I noticed mentioned explicitly), okay. But the babip numbers you quote suggests that the relievers have been getting very lucky, too.

 

Except for Javy, there's not much bad luck in the rotation's babip numbers. A .295 babip is just barely above the league average, the difference is too small to lead to these results. They have been most definitely been pitching badly.

Edited July 20, 2006 by jackie hayes