Houston not the only team after Garland

[daa84]

if we use last years stats as a predictor for next years, and all the money being equal.....im fairly confident stat heads would take vazquez if they could have any pitcher of ours for next year and i think scouts would prolly either take contreras of vazquez.......so alot of you can hate on vazquez and call him a "head case" but the fact of the matter is that vazquez had the highest K rate on the staff, a very good BB rate, the 2nd lowest HR rate (only a slightly higher H than contreras) of any of our starters and was healthier than jose....all of those facts would suggest that vazquez's ERA was fairly inflated last year and that he was honestly rather unlucky, and would seem to indicate that hes our best bet for a solid season next year....i know that sabermetric stuff doesnt really fly around here and people will insist that the 7 wins and .33 diff. between his ERA and garlands is because hes mentally weak, but that is your opinion...ill stick with the numbers which tell me that if vazquez keeps his HR rate down like he did last year as opposed to 05, that hell be a pretty damn good pitcher next year

 

 

 

edit: after thinkin about my post i decided to check out vazquez's DIPS #s...which puts him at as the #10 in the AL for DIPS adjusted ERA.....and thats not counting park factor which heavily works against him

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitchi...d=a&pos=all

 

for those of you who dont know what DIPS is and didnt read money ball....

DIPS ERA A pitcher's ERA, independent of the defense behind him. This formula, based on essays by Voros McCracken, assumes that all pitchers have consistent BIPA (See below), and adjusts accordingly. The DIPS ratios on ESPN use the DIPS 2.0 formula, are not park-adjusted, and do not adjust for knuckleball pitchers.

 

BIPA Balls In Play Average. Batting Average Against, not including home runs or strikeouts.

Edited December 11, 2006 by daa84

[Capn12]

I think through all of this, its been pretty clear from the Front Office that Contreras isn't going anywhere, no matter how old the guy is. They have him wrapped up for a few years, and he is an innings eater. So we need to brace ourselves for, IMO, trading Garland or BUehrle, depending on what the offers are.

[scenario]

One of my favorite databases is baseballmusings.com. Here's an analysis I did there that helped me understand the value GMs see in Vazquez.

 

It's pretty simple. I just did a K/9 search for all mlb pitchers who have pitched over 1000 innings since spring 2000. The results? Here are the top 20. The first set of numbers is strikeouts per nine innings; the second set of numbers is BB/9 (walks per nine innings). Javy's high strikeouts and low walks put him in pretty elite company.

 

# Player Name K9 BB9

1 Randy Johnson 10.76 2.30

2 Pedro Martinez 10.24 2.04

3 Johan Santana 9.47 2.58

4 Curt Schilling 9.16 1.48

5 Jason Schmidt 8.82 3.42

6 Roger Clemens 8.55 2.97

7 Javier Vazquez 8.00 2.21

8 Kelvim Escobar 8.00 3.58

9 Matt Clement 7.90 4.11

10 Hideo Nomo 7.87 4.24

11 Mike Mussina 7.80 1.86

12 Ben Sheets 7.79 1.89

13 Roy Oswalt 7.61 1.97

14 Chan Ho Park 7.42 4.18

15 Randy Wolf 7.31 3.16

16 C.C. Sabathia 7.20 3.30

17 Al Leiter 7.12 3.94

18 Bartolo Colon 7.09 2.95

19 Andy Pettitte 7.06 2.45

20 Chris Carpenter 7.01 2.57

 

Here's the link below:

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/Com...&MinPA=1000

 

BTW - Freddy is 28th on this list; Buehrle is 54th; Garland is 58th.

Edited December 11, 2006 by scenario

[Balta1701]

I think through all of this, its been pretty clear from the Front Office that Contreras isn't going anywhere, no matter how old the guy is. They have him wrapped up for a few years, and he is an innings eater. So we need to brace ourselves for, IMO, trading Garland or BUehrle, depending on what the offers are.

Jose Contreras also has a full no-trade clause for 2007, the first year of his new Contract.

 

One of my favorite databases is baseballmusings.com. Here's an analysis I did there that helped me understand the value GMs see in Vazquez.

 

It's pretty simple. I just did a K/9 search for all mlb pitchers who have pitched over 1000 innings since spring 2000. The results? Here are the top 20. The first set of numbers is strikeouts per nine innings; the second set of numbers is BB/9 (walks per nine innings).

Seriously, that's about as weird of a dataset as you could possibly get. First of all, you exclude anyone who hasn't pitched an average of about 160 innings per season, or anyone who made their debut since then. Secondly, you managed to pick a dataset that allowed Vazquez's best years to show up in it but cut out the first years of his career (while capturing the first years for people such as Johan).

 

Hell, any data set that makes Hideo Nomo actually look good...the utility of it is somewhat limited.

[scenario]

Jose Contreras also has a full no-trade clause for 2007, the first year of his new Contract.

Seriously, that's about as weird of a dataset as you could possibly get. First of all, you exclude anyone who hasn't pitched an average of about 160 innings per season, or anyone who made their debut since then. Secondly, you managed to pick a dataset that allowed Vazquez's best years to show up in it but cut out the first years of his career (while capturing the first years for people such as Johan).

 

Hell, any data set that makes Hideo Nomo actually look good...the utility of it is somewhat limited.

Weird? Why? It's basically a list of pitchers who have thrown 200 innings for each of the last 5 years. If it will make you happy, I'll adjust the numbers so that will be clearer. Give me a minute and I'll switch it.

[SinkingShip06]

Yes, I remember that very well...but all Brandon McCarthy has to do is keep the White Sox in the game as the fifth starter. He doesn't have to strike out 200. He doesn't have to have an ERA below 3.00. He just has to pitch 6+ innings with an ERA in the mid-4's and he will win 10-12 games next year.

 

But I always hope for more and think he can do it.

 

i'm not talking about McCarthy. I'm talking about if Garland gets traded (the topic of this thread). McCarthy would be our 4th starter and we'd have a merry-go-round situation for our 5th starter again unless we got really lucky

[scenario]

Here's the new version. It goes from April 2001 to current rather than 2000 to current. Dumps Hideo Nomo and Chan Ho Park as a result. Happier?

 

[Milkman delivers]

Everything is always black and white to you; ever stop to think maybe everything isn't as simple as you make it out to be?

 

Not in this situation. Vazquez is not a winner. He's nothing more than mediocre at best.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Not in this situation. Vazquez is not a winner. He's nothing more than mediocre at best.

 

Personally, I've never seen anybody like Vazquez. His stuff is sick. I mean really, really, sick. You can't help but drool over him sometimes. The guy will no-hit teams for 4 or 5 innings and make them look stupid while doing it. But, for some reason, he falls apart. Every single damn time. If he can ever figure his s*** out, he'll be a top 5 Cy-young canidate every year. Unfortunately, people have been saying this for about 5 years now. So I'll have to agree with Milk. Javy is supremely talented. But he's not a winning pitcher.

Edited December 11, 2006 by Jordan4life_2006

[scenario]

Not in this situation. Vazquez is not a winner. He's nothing more than mediocre at best.

And your basing that on... what?

 

Got some facts to go with that opinion?

 

See stats in the table above. Don't just pick out wins/losses since we both know that for the majority of his career Javy pitched for crap teams, so the W/L record alone doesn't mean squat.

Edited December 11, 2006 by scenario

[witesoxfan]

Here's the new version. It goes from April 2001 to current rather than 2000 to current. Dumps Hideo Nomo and Chan Ho Park as a result. Happier?

 

I'm just not sure what it is you are trying to get at though. If the order they are in is trying to describe value or quality, then I'm gonna have to go ahead and pretty much wholeheartedly not only disagree, but suggest it's completely wrong. RJ isn't anywhere near that level anymore, and Tim Wakefield is not one of the top 20 pitchers in baseball.

 

I doubt that's what it is though, but I'm just confused.

 

That's also a span of 6 years...pitchers change pretty quickly. A smaller timeframe...say 3-4 years...would be much better to look at, though K/BB, which is really what you're getting at, is only one indicator of success. GO/AO, HR/9, WHIP, OPSa...you kinda need a lot to evaluate, even beyond ERA. Hell, throw QS's and QS% in there too.

 

Javy's got great stuff, and great peripherals, but neither means he's necessarily going to be a good pitcher.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I'm just not sure what it is you are trying to get at though. If the order they are in is trying to describe value or quality, then I'm gonna have to go ahead and pretty much wholeheartedly not only disagree, but suggest it's completely wrong. RJ isn't anywhere near that level anymore, and Tim Wakefield is not one of the top 20 pitchers in baseball.

 

I doubt that's what it is though, but I'm just confused.

 

That's also a span of 6 years...pitchers change pretty quickly. A smaller timeframe...say 3-4 years...would be much better to look at, though K/BB, which is really what you're getting at, is only one indicator of success. GO/AO, HR/9, WHIP, OPSa...you kinda need a lot to evaluate, even beyond ERA. Hell, throw QS's and QS% in there too.

 

Javy's got great stuff, and great peripherals, but neither means he's necessarily going to be a good pitcher.

 

Wite, help me out, what the hell does that mean? lol. I hear this all the time and still can't figure out what it means.

[scenario]

I'm just not sure what it is you are trying to get at though. If the order they are in is trying to describe value or quality, then I'm gonna have to go ahead and pretty much wholeheartedly not only disagree, but suggest it's completely wrong. RJ isn't anywhere near that level anymore, and Tim Wakefield is not one of the top 20 pitchers in baseball.

 

I doubt that's what it is though, but I'm just confused.

 

That's also a span of 6 years...pitchers change pretty quickly. A smaller timeframe...say 3-4 years...would be much better to look at, though K/BB, which is really what you're getting at, is only one indicator of success. GO/AO, HR/9, WHIP, OPSa...you kinda need a lot to evaluate, even beyond ERA. Hell, throw QS's and QS% in there too.

 

Javy's got great stuff, and great peripherals, but neither means he's necessarily going to be a good pitcher.

It's pretty simple! For the last 5 years, those are pitchers that have pitched 200+ innings per year. They are ranked by strikeouts per nine innings. People can draw their own conclusions about what it says from there.

 

It doesn't say that Tim Wakefield is one of the top 20 pitchers in baseball. It simply says he's a guy who averaged 200 innings per year and did a good job of striking people out compared to other starters. Simple.

 

Bottom line: the pitchers at the top of the list are all good and durable pitchers. Javy is on that list. So anyone who says he's just a mediocre pitcher is either uninformed or WRONG. Simple.

Edited December 11, 2006 by scenario

[witesoxfan]

Wite, help me out, what the hell does that mean? lol. I hear this all the time and still can't figure out what it means.

 

By definition, it basically means numbers outside those you don't look at directly. Worded funnily, but it basically tells the truth.

 

In the case of pitchers, pretty much every stat but runs allowed. GO/AO, BAA, WHIP, BB/9, K/9, K/BB, HR/9

In the case of hitters, you're looking at AVG, PA/BB, SLG, OBP, OPS, XBHs, IsoSLG(isolated slugging...SLG - AVG), IsoOBP(same concept), and the ilk.

 

Vaz had good peripheral numbers last year, whereas Chien-Ming Wang had pretty mediocre peripheral numbers; thus, Vazquez is likely to allow fewer runs than Wang is next year.

Uribe had a mediocre year last year, but his IsoSLG of .206 suggests he was more apt to hit XBHs when he got hits than Lyle Overbay, who had an IsoSLG of .196. Thus, Uribe's more likely to drive in runs at a better rate than Overbay is when he gets hits.

 

That should help.

 

 

 

It's pretty simple! For the last 5 years, those are pitchers that have pitched 200+ innings per year. They are ranked by strikeouts per nine innings. People can draw their own conclusions about what it says from there.

 

It doesn't say that Tim Wakefield is one of the top 20 pitchers in baseball. It simply says he's a guy who averaged 200 innings per year and did a good job of striking people out compared to other starters. Simple.

 

Bottom line: the pitchers at the top of the list are all good and durable pitchers. Javy is on that list. So anyone who says he's just a mediocre pitcher is either uninformed or WRONG. Simple.

 

His career ERA+ of 104 suggests he's pretty mediocre, and his ERA+'s of 92, 99, and 96 the past 3 years suggests that he's slightly worse than mediocre.

 

I'd say he's a mediocre pitcher that has great peripheral numbers, with the potential to be a pretty damn good pitcher next year.

[CWSGuy406]

Wite, help me out, what the hell does that mean? lol. I hear this all the time and still can't figure out what it means.

 

Peripherals... the stats aren't ERA and W/L%. I've never gotten a real 'definition', but I've always associated peripheral as being numbers like K/9, BB/9, K/BB, HR/9.

 

Vazquez is a true enomoly of a pitcher. He always rates well in DiPS ERA, FiP (Fielding Indepent), and even in projection systems like PECOTA and ZiPS. That's usually due to his awesome control and great strikeout numbers at the end of the year. He's the anti-Mark Buehrle, who always rated poorly in those non-ERA 'stats' that I just mentioned, yet -- up until last season -- always beat his projections and DiPS by a (usually) significant margin.

 

At this point, I would maybe even like to see Kenny try and restructure Vazquez's deal to lock him up, say, three years, $40 million, structured something like (approximations here) $12.5 in 2007, $13.5 in 2008, and $14 in 2009. Why? Well, at worst, he's proven to be a league average innings eater. But I'd be willing to gamble on him having an above average type season once in the next three years. He shouldn't lose too much of his 'stuff' over the life of the contract, as we'd be inking his age 30-33 seasons. A contract like that would more or less buy out his 2008 arbitration year and take a small gamble that Vazquez could, for one season, put everything together like he did back in Montreal.

[RME JICO]

The one thing about Vazquez's stats that doesn't show up is how he implodes in the 5th and 6th inning on almost every start. When he is on, he is a very dominant pitcher, which is normally the first 75 pitches, but after that his performance drops off significantly, then picks up again.

 

Here are his numbers by pitch count for opponents BA and HR allowed.

 

1-15 - .245, 0 HR

16-30 - .185, 4 HR

31-45 - .225, 1 HR

46-60 - .248, 2 HR

61-75 - .287, 2 HR

76-90 - .361, 10 HR

91-105 - .241, 4 HR

 

Besides for pitches 76-90, he is a dominant pitcher. He gave up 9 HRs in the first 75 pitches of a game, and he gave up 10 in the next 15 pitches. If somehow he could solve that issue, he would be a keeper.

[DBAHO]

The one thing about Vazquez's stats that doesn't show up is how he implodes in the 5th and 6th inning on almost every start. When he is on, he is a very dominant pitcher, which is normally the first 75 pitches, but after that his performance drops off significantly, then picks up again.

 

Here are his numbers by pitch count for opponents BA and HR allowed.

 

1-15 - .245, 0 HR

16-30 - .185, 4 HR

31-45 - .225, 1 HR

46-60 - .248, 2 HR

61-75 - .287, 2 HR

76-90 - .361, 10 HR

91-105 - .241, 4 HR

 

Besides for pitches 76-90, he is a dominant pitcher. He gave up 9 HRs in the first 75 pitches of a game, and he gave up 10 in the next 15 pitches. If somehow he could solve that issue, he would be a keeper.

I know this was a MAJOR problem for Vaz at about the June - July period, and this is when I think most Sox fans started to hate the guy and wanted him shipped out of town.

 

But in August he had an 3.41 ERA and in September a 3.82 ERA, which yes are small sample sizes, but it gives me hope that he started to "get it" in terms of what he needs to do to be successful.

 

I mean in those 2 months, he only gave up more than 4ER once in 11 starts. If he can show that type of consistency for more than a couple of months next season, he'll be a VERY good pitcher for us, I have no doubts about that.

 

I mean 50 K's in 5 September starts, the Sox don't really have a strikeout guy who can really dominate like that (unless Contreras is actually K'ing people when he's hot).

[Dick Allen]

And your basing that on... what?

 

Got some facts to go with that opinion?

 

See stats in the table above. Don't just pick out wins/losses since we both know that for the majority of his career Javy pitched for crap teams, so the W/L record alone doesn't mean squat.

You're basing everything with Vazquez on strikeouts. You say W-L aren't important, but strikeouts are? Didn't the Cubs pitching staff lead the NL in Ks for several years, and they didn't do anything? His career ERA is nothing to be proud of. His 2006 season was basically his career in a nutshell. A below .500 record (I know you say there is no importance in W-L record, but he was below .500 for a team that won 90 games) a bloated ERA and some strikeouts to get people excited about next year. Waiting for Vazquez to put together a Cy Young-type season is as foolish as waiting for Mark Prior and/or Kerry Wood to give you 30+ starts.

Edited December 11, 2006 by Dick Allen

[Hangar18]

This was HUGE TOPIC on the baseball show yesterday on 670. It was leaked out late last week

that the SOX almost had a deal to trade Garland, but it was confirmed on the show that the SOX were THISCLOSE to dealing him for prospects with the Astros, but the Astros backed out at the last second.

The only thing I could think, which is was that sinking feeling I got after the Phil Rogers article last week.

The SOX may truly be on a "rebuilding" plan in regards to their pitching staff, with no extensions being handed out altogether. "chatter" in the MLB suggests the SOX would very much like to deal him right now .................. Im not very happy about this recent turn-of-events

[NorthSideSox72]

This was HUGE TOPIC on the baseball show yesterday on 670. It was leaked out late last week

that the SOX almost had a deal to trade Garland, but it was confirmed on the show that the SOX were THISCLOSE to dealing him for prospects with the Astros, but the Astros backed out at the last second.

The only thing I could think, which is was that sinking feeling I got after the Phil Rogers article last week.

The SOX may truly be on a "rebuilding" plan in regards to their pitching staff, with no extensions being handed out altogether. "chatter" in the MLB suggests the SOX would very much like to deal him right now .................. Im not very happy about this recent turn-of-events

ru·mor /ˈrumər/ [roo-mer]

–noun

1. a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts: a rumor of war.

2. gossip; hearsay: Don't listen to rumor.

3. Archaic. a continuous, confused noise; clamor; din.

–verb (used with object)

4. to circulate, report, or assert by a rumor: It is rumored that the king is dead.

 

So far, we've dealt Garcia and Cotts, and gotten back good returns. Plus we've re-signed or extended MacDougal, Gload and Ozuna. What about those deals suggests rebuilding to you?

 

Let's wait on the panic button, k?

[Hangar18]

ru·mor /ˈrumər/ [roo-mer]

 

 

So far, we've dealt Garcia and Cotts, and gotten back good returns. Plus we've re-signed or extended MacDougal, Gload and Ozuna. What about those deals suggests rebuilding to you?

 

Let's wait on the panic button, k?

 

 

suggests I'd rather keep our YOUNG pitching (aka Jon Garland) and sign to another extension.

[southsideirish71]

This was HUGE TOPIC on the baseball show yesterday on 670. It was leaked out late last week

that the SOX almost had a deal to trade Garland, but it was confirmed on the show that the SOX were THISCLOSE to dealing him for prospects with the Astros, but the Astros backed out at the last second.

The only thing I could think, which is was that sinking feeling I got after the Phil Rogers article last week.

The SOX may truly be on a "rebuilding" plan in regards to their pitching staff, with no extensions being handed out altogether. "chatter" in the MLB suggests the SOX would very much like to deal him right now .................. Im not very happy about this recent turn-of-events

 

 

I find it ironic that a person who has dedicated many a closed thread on conspiracy theories linked to a certain newspaper quotes a columnist from that newspaper.

 

I dont understand the issue that everyone has with this. We could A pay our pitchers 60-70 mill as a unit. Or we could do an in place rebuild where we rotate a guy into the rotation every year and have a nice long run like the Braves.

[NorthSideSox72]

suggests I'd rather keep our YOUNG pitching (aka Jon Garland) and sign to another extension.

And that is BAD to you?!

[Hangar18]

I dont understand the issue that everyone has with this. We could A pay our pitchers 60-70 mill as a unit. Or we could do an in place rebuild where we rotate a guy into the rotation every year and have a nice long run like the Braves.

 

 

your like the 10th person I've heard say this, lets be like the braves, and we can win the division 10 years straight by rotating our pitching staff. Except remember that they pretty much kept theyre big3 together the whole time. Garland is YOUNG and relatively inexpensive right now, theres no reason to trade him at this point ..........

[southsideirish71]

your like the 10th person I've heard say this, lets be like the braves, and we can win the division 10 years straight by rotating our pitching staff. Except remember that they pretty much kept theyre big3 together the whole time. Garland is YOUNG and relatively inexpensive right now, theres no reason to trade him at this point ..........

 

 

So you advocate going to FA with our guys and getting draft picks and if you say pay them a kings ransom then sure whatever. Or do you want to trade them when they are in their walk year, and when their value is at their lowest. If you want an impact prospect, someone that can be a 1-2-3 then you need to either deal Vaz or Garland, Garland having the most value. What I get a kick out of, is that people have selective memory. They believe that our starting 5 is the bestest starting five in the history of baseball. We have a good starting 5 that all had great year(2005) at the same time. However when you break down the numbers, not too many of them are untradeable.

Edited December 11, 2006 by southsideirish71