Garland thread continues in Diamond Club

[DBAHO]

I wasn't arguing that Garland is worth more than Perez... or even the same amount.

 

Perez had a WHIP of 1.40 and an ERA+ of 100 last season. That's better than what Garland did, but to call Garland "terrible" and Perez "good" - based on essentially one season - is silly. Perez being "average" and Garland being "mediocre" is a lot more accurate.

Oh my bad sorry, I thought you were.

 

Well I was basing it on two seasons, obviously Garland has the more proven track record, but I can see why people may think he's going downhill.

 

Your last sentence is spot on though.

[WCSox]

There's not a chance. I just wonder what kind of offers he's getting. I would doubt he's even getting $8 million a year offers

 

If that's true, and he can be had for like $6M per, then I hope the Sox try to sign him.

 

Last year definitely hurt Jon's market value, but $6 mil a year for someone with Jon's track record, age, and lack of an injury history seems way low.

 

I suspect that much of this talk about the economy driving down prices is a concerted effort on the behalf of the owners to drive down their payrolls. And they might actually walk the walk once in a while by telling over-priced vets with diminished skills (Griffey, Pedro, etc.) to take a hike. But when it comes to players who can still play, they're still shelling out top dollar. The Yankees just spent like madmen. The Red Sox just gave Youkilis $40 million while he was still under team control (smart move, but still a $40 million commitment in a bad economy). And then the Braves (not the same market as NY and BOS) just gave 35-year-old Derek Lowe $60 million. Despite what owners and GMs are saying, their actions suggest that if you're relatively young and skilled, you're still going to get paid reasonably well.

Edited January 16, 2009 by WCSox

[Ozzie Ball]

He's coming off of a below-average year. He also has several solid years, youth, and a ring on his side. Oliver Perez has had some absolutely terrible seasons (especially for the NL), so I'm not seeing your logic here.

"Below average"? Garland ranked 113th among starters in tRA last season at 5.74, that is terrible, he's had several very mediocre seasons where he's been around a 2-2.5 WAR player and one decent year when he was a 3.5 WAR player. Admittedly me saying Perez is "good" was a little kind, but if I was to risk $10m+/year on one of the two it would be Perez because of the upside but personally I wouldn't touch either of them.

[WCSox]

"Below average"? Garland ranked 113th among starters in tRA last season at 5.74, that is terrible, he's had several very mediocre seasons where he's been around a 2-2.5 WAR player and one decent year when he was a 3.5 WAR player. Admittedly me saying Perez is "good" was a little kind, but if I was to risk $10m+/year on one of the two it would be Perez because of the upside but personally I wouldn't touch either of them.

 

Despite what your stat cherry-picking suggests, Garland doesn't "suck." In fact, he's had a significantly better career than Perez (whose 100 ERA+ last season was pretty average). But I agree that Perez will likely (and rightfully) garner a larger contract, due to his youth, better stuff, and better numbers over the past two seasons.

 

[103 mph screwball]

It's not that he sucks, it's that there is say, 100 million dollars worth of players to be signed and clubs may only want to spend another 50 mil. Besides this supply and demand effect, players also have to find a team with money that needs someone at their position. If the Yankees don't want a player this off season, then that player might have to adjust his salary expectations or sit out and wait for a Yankee to get injured. On top of this poor free agent market, Garland has shoulder knot questions, is coming off a down year, and took himself off the playoff roster. I wish him nothing but the best, but if he gets anywhere what he is looking for, he'd better jump on it and be thankful.

[Ozzie Ball]

Despite what your stat cherry-picking suggests, Garland doesn't "suck." In fact, he's had a significantly better career than Perez (whose 100 ERA+ last season was pretty average). But I agree that Perez will likely (and rightfully) garner a larger contract, due to his youth, better stuff, and better numbers over the past two seasons.

Cherry-picking stats? I used tRA, probably the best stat currently available for evaluating a pitchers ability (along with tRA* and tRA+) as well as WAR, you use the awful ERA+ stat, really, if you can't see how flawed that metric is then it's impossible for me to have a discussion with you about pitchers and a pitchers ability.

[WCSox]

Cherry-picking stats? I used tRA,

 

Over one season. Try again.

 

probably the best stat currently available for evaluating a pitchers ability (along with tRA* and tRA+) as well as WAR, you use the awful ERA+ stat, really, if you can't see how flawed that metric is then it's impossible for me to have a discussion with you about pitchers and a pitchers ability.

 

Your posts are heavy on hyperbole and lacking in common sense. Too bad sabermetrics can't help you with that.

 

[Dick Allen]

Cherry-picking stats? I used tRA, probably the best stat currently available for evaluating a pitchers ability (along with tRA* and tRA+) as well as WAR, you use the awful ERA+ stat, really, if you can't see how flawed that metric is then it's impossible for me to have a discussion with you about pitchers and a pitchers ability.

How did Mark Buerhle stack up after 2006? I'm not saying Garland is the equivalent of Buerhle. Garland had a bad second half. He's still a better than average starter. If Javy Vazquez is worth $11.5 million a year, Garland is going to be a bargain for the team he pitches for in 2009.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Dick Allen

[Texsox]

Cherry-picking stats? I used tRA, probably the best stat currently available for evaluating a pitchers ability (along with tRA* and tRA+) as well as WAR, you use the awful ERA+ stat, really, if you can't see how flawed that metric is then it's impossible for me to have a discussion with you about pitchers and a pitchers ability.

 

You know just sayin' basically you are telling someone, use my stats (which prove me right) or it's impossible to have a discussion. Kind of stacking the deck before playing the hand.

[Ozzie Ball]

How did Mark Buerhle stack up after 2006? I'm not saying Garland is the equivalent of Buerhle. Garland had a bad second half. He's still a better than average starter. If Javy Vazquez is worth $11.5 million a year, Garland is going to be a bargain for the team he pitches for in 2009.

Vazquez is worth a whole lot more than $11.5m a year, he's really a terrific pitcher, here are his last three seasons by tRA and WAR:

 

2006:

tRA- 3.57 (lgtRA- 5.11)

WAR- 6.0

 

2007:

tRA- 3.56 (lgtRA- 4.99)

WAR- 5.9

 

2008:

tRA- 3.51 (lgtRA- 4.87)

WAR- 5.8

 

Currently one win on the open market is worth I believe around $4.8m, now don't quote me on that, but I think that is the mark (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong), so by that value Vazquez has been worth $28.8m, $28.32m and $27.84m over the last three years respectively. Garland on the other hand, here are his tRA and WAR totals over the last three seasons:

 

2006:

tRA- 4.58 (lgtRA- 5.11)

WAR- 3.5

 

2007:

tRA- 5.50 (lgtRA- 4.99)

WAR- 1.1

 

2008:

tRA- 5.74 (lgtRA- 4.87)

WAR- 0.4

 

And going by the same value as before he was worth $16.8m, $5.28m and $1.92m over the last three years. Also you mentioned Buehrle so I thought I'd chuck him in here:

 

2006:

tRA- 5.22 (lgtRA- 5.11)

WAR- 2

 

2007:

tRA- 4.57 (lgtRA- 4.99)

WAR- 3.1

 

2008:

tRA- 4.03 (lgtRA- 4.87)

WAR- 4.5

 

Which would have made him worth $9.6m, $14.88m and $21.6m. Now because WCSox and I were discussing Oliver Perez I'll throw him in too:

 

2006:

tRA- 5.40 (lgtRA- 5.11)

WAR- 0.3 (In very limited PT it must be noted)

 

2007:

tRA- 4.19 (lgtRA- 4.99)

WAR- 3.6

 

2008:

tRA- 4.98 (lgtRA- 4.87)

WAR- 1.7

 

Making him worth $1.44m, $17.28m and $8.16m over the three years.

 

So over those three years Vazquez was worth $84.94m and he was paid $35.5m (a net underpay of $49.44m), Garland was worth $24m and he was paid $29m (a net overpay of $5m), Buehrle was worth $46.08m and he was paid $31.25m (a net underpay of $14.83m) and finally Oliver Perez was worth a combined $26.88m and was paid $10.725m (net underpay of $16.155m).

(Contract values all from Cot's).

 

You know just sayin' basically you are telling someone, use my stats (which prove me right) or it's impossible to have a discussion. Kind of stacking the deck before playing the hand.

I was more trying to make the point that if he can't realise the obvious flaws in the ERA and ERA+ statistics then it is going to be difficult to have a discussion with him because, fundamentally, he just doesn't know the game well enough, although reading back I realise it does sound like I'm saying "use my metric or you're an idiot".

 

Over one season. Try again.

Amended.

 

Your posts are heavy on hyperbole and lacking in common sense. Too bad sabermetrics can't help you with that.

It really is.

[Baines3]

Garland would be worth bringing back.

[bmags]

Vazquez is really a TERRIFIC pitcher, oh?

[Dick Allen]

Vazquez is worth a whole lot more than $11.5m a year, he's really a terrific pitcher, here are his last three seasons by tRA and WAR:

 

2006:

tRA- 3.57 (lgtRA- 5.11)

WAR- 6.0

 

2007:

tRA- 3.56 (lgtRA- 4.99)

WAR- 5.9

 

2008:

tRA- 3.51 (lgtRA- 4.87)

WAR- 5.8

 

Currently one win on the open market is worth I believe around $4.8m, now don't quote me on that, but I think that is the mark (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong), so by that value Vazquez has been worth $28.8m, $28.32m and $27.84m over the last three years respectively. Garland on the other hand, here are his tRA and WAR totals over the last three seasons:

 

2006:

tRA- 4.58 (lgtRA- 5.11)

WAR- 3.5

 

2007:

tRA- 5.50 (lgtRA- 4.99)

WAR- 1.1

 

2008:

tRA- 5.74 (lgtRA- 4.87)

WAR- 0.4

 

And going by the same value as before he was worth $16.8m, $5.28m and $1.92m over the last three years. Also you mentioned Buehrle so I thought I'd chuck him in here:

 

2006:

tRA- 5.22 (lgtRA- 5.11)

WAR- 2

 

2007:

tRA- 4.57 (lgtRA- 4.99)

WAR- 3.1

 

2008:

tRA- 4.03 (lgtRA- 4.87)

WAR- 4.5

 

Which would have made him worth $9.6m, $14.88m and $21.6m. Now because WCSox and I were discussing Oliver Perez I'll throw him in too:

 

2006:

tRA- 5.40 (lgtRA- 5.11)

WAR- 0.3 (In very limited PT it must be noted)

 

2007:

tRA- 4.19 (lgtRA- 4.99)

WAR- 3.6

 

2008:

tRA- 4.98 (lgtRA- 4.87)

WAR- 1.7

 

Making him worth $1.44m, $17.28m and $8.16m over the three years.

 

So over those three years Vazquez was worth $84.94m and he was paid $35.5m (a net underpay of $49.44m), Garland was worth $24m and he was paid $29m (a net overpay of $5m), Buehrle was worth $46.08m and he was paid $31.25m (a net underpay of $14.83m) and finally Oliver Perez was worth a combined $26.88m and was paid $10.725m (net underpay of $16.155m).

(Contract values all from Cot's).

 

 

I was more trying to make the point that if he can't realise the obvious flaws in the ERA and ERA+ statistics then it is going to be difficult to have a discussion with him because, fundamentally, he just doesn't know the game well enough, although reading back I realise it does sound like I'm saying "use my metric or you're an idiot".

 

 

Amended.

 

 

It really is.

 

You mention someone doesn't "know the game well enough", and you cite some crazy stats that have a pitcher who was :

 

11-12 4.84 ERA for a team that won 90 games

15-8 3.74 ERA for a team that lost 90 games

12-16 4.67 ERA for a team that won a division

 

worth almost $30 million a year for those 3 years. In other words, if he was paid what your crazy stats think he should be paid, Javy Vazquez basically should be the highest paid player in baseball history on the basis of a 38-36 record with a 4.40 ERA. You even have his 2006 performance worth more than his 2007 performance. I figure I have a little bit of knowledge when it comes to baseball, and just by looking at stats and the games, I would think Javy was much better in 2007 than he was in 2006.

 

Jon Garland on the other hand was

 

18-7 4.51 ERA

10-13 4.23 ERA

14-8 4.90 ERA

 

According to your fine stats and "knowledge of the game" Garland's 42-28 record and 4.54 ERA over the same time (during the 3 seasons Garland pitched 11 total fewer innings than Vazquez and gave up 4 more earned runs) those numbers are "worth" $20 million a year less than Vazquez. An average of 3 2/3 innings a year and 1.3 runs a year, is worth $20 million . In fact, pitching on the same team in 2006, Garland's 18-7 4.51 vs. Vazquez 11-12 4.84 is worth $12 million less. LOL. Nice stats. According to you 14-8 4.90 ERA worth 1.92 million if its Jon Garland, 12-16 4.67 ERA worth 27.84 million if you're Javy Vazquez. I don't think there are many that understand that game.

 

Scott Boras has his eye on you. If he ever takes over for Trump on "The Apprentice", you would have to be a favorite.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Dick Allen

[Texsox]

You mention someone doesn't "know the game well enough", and you cite some crazy stats that have a pitcher who was :

 

11-12 4.84 ERA for a team that won 90 games

15-8 3.74 ERA for a team that lost 90 games

12-16 4.67 ERA for a team that won a division

 

worth almost $30 million a year for those 3 years. In other words, if he was paid what your crazy stats think he should be paid, Javy Vazquez basically should be the highest paid player in baseball history on the basis of a 38-36 record with a 4.40 ERA. You even have his 2006 performance worth more than his 2007 performance. I figure I have a little bit of knowledge when it comes to baseball, and just by looking at stats and the games, I would think Javy was much better in 2007 than he was in 2006.

 

Jon Garland on the other hand was

 

18-7 4.51 ERA

10-13 4.23 ERA

14-8 4.90 ERA

 

According to your fine stats and "knowledge of the game" Garland's 42-28 record and 4.54 ERA over the same time (during the 3 seasons Garland pitched 11 total fewer innings than Vazquez and gave up 4 more earned runs) those numbers are "worth" $20 million less than Vazquez. An average of 3 2/3 innings a year and 1.3 runs a year, is worth $20 million. In fact, pitching on the same team in 2006, Garland's 18-7 4.51 vs. Vazquez 11-12 4.84 is worth $12 million less. LOL. Nice stats.

 

Scott Boras has his eye on you. If he ever takes over for Trump on "The Apprentice", you would have to be a favorite.

Dick, quit watching games and get back to your computer, you will never understand baseball by watching

[caulfield12]

You mention someone doesn't "know the game well enough", and you cite some crazy stats that have a pitcher who was :

 

11-12 4.84 ERA for a team that won 90 games

15-8 3.74 ERA for a team that lost 90 games

12-16 4.67 ERA for a team that won a division

 

worth almost $30 million a year for those 3 years. In other words, if he was paid what your crazy stats think he should be paid, Javy Vazquez basically should be the highest paid player in baseball history on the basis of a 38-36 record with a 4.40 ERA. You even have his 2006 performance worth more than his 2007 performance. I figure I have a little bit of knowledge when it comes to baseball, and just by looking at stats and the games, I would think Javy was much better in 2007 than he was in 2006.

 

Jon Garland on the other hand was

 

18-7 4.51 ERA

10-13 4.23 ERA

14-8 4.90 ERA

 

According to your fine stats and "knowledge of the game" Garland's 42-28 record and 4.54 ERA over the same time (during the 3 seasons Garland pitched 11 total fewer innings than Vazquez and gave up 4 more earned runs) those numbers are "worth" $20 million a year less than Vazquez. An average of 3 2/3 innings a year and 1.3 runs a year, is worth $20 million . In fact, pitching on the same team in 2006, Garland's 18-7 4.51 vs. Vazquez 11-12 4.84 is worth $12 million less. LOL. Nice stats. According to you 14-8 4.90 ERA worth 1.92 million if its Jon Garland, 12-16 4.67 ERA worth 27.84 million if you're Javy Vazquez. I don't think there are many that understand that game.

 

Scott Boras has his eye on you. If he ever takes over for Trump on "The Apprentice", you would have to be a favorite.

 

 

That has to be from either Vazquez's agent, or the person inside the Atlanta FO who will go down in flames along with Frank Wren if Vazquez flames out and Flowers and Lillibridge both become starters or All-Stars...and in 2011/12, Rodriguez and Gilmore.

[Jimmywins1]

Currently one win on the open market is worth I believe around $4.8m, now don't quote me on that, but I think that is the mark (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong), so by that value Vazquez has been worth $28.8m, $28.32m and $27.84m over the last three years respectively. Garland on the other hand, here are his tRA and WAR totals over the last three seasons:

 

Anything that values a pitcher by their win total is terribly flawed.

If the Padres are absolutely terrible this year and Jake Peavy only wins 8 games, does that make Javier Vazquez a better pitcher/worth more than him?

Edited January 17, 2009 by Jimmywins1

[GoodAsGould]

Anything that values a pitcher by their win total is terribly flawed.

If the Padres are absolutely terrible this year and Jake Peavy only wins 8 games, does that make Javier Vazquez a better pitcher/worth more than him?

 

No but at the same point people that completely discredit the W stat are in the wrong too. Some pitchers just are gamers and do just enough to win games, whether its giving up 4 runs or 1 depending what the team needs.

[Ozzie Ball]

You mention someone doesn't "know the game well enough", and you cite some crazy stats that have a pitcher who was :

 

11-12 4.84 ERA for a team that won 90 games

15-8 3.74 ERA for a team that lost 90 games

12-16 4.67 ERA for a team that won a division

 

worth almost $30 million a year for those 3 years. In other words, if he was paid what your crazy stats think he should be paid, Javy Vazquez basically should be the highest paid player in baseball history on the basis of a 38-36 record with a 4.40 ERA. You even have his 2006 performance worth more than his 2007 performance. I figure I have a little bit of knowledge when it comes to baseball, and just by looking at stats and the games, I would think Javy was much better in 2007 than he was in 2006.

 

Jon Garland on the other hand was

 

18-7 4.51 ERA

10-13 4.23 ERA

14-8 4.90 ERA

 

According to your fine stats and "knowledge of the game" Garland's 42-28 record and 4.54 ERA over the same time (during the 3 seasons Garland pitched 11 total fewer innings than Vazquez and gave up 4 more earned runs) those numbers are "worth" $20 million a year less than Vazquez. An average of 3 2/3 innings a year and 1.3 runs a year, is worth $20 million . In fact, pitching on the same team in 2006, Garland's 18-7 4.51 vs. Vazquez 11-12 4.84 is worth $12 million less. LOL. Nice stats. According to you 14-8 4.90 ERA worth 1.92 million if its Jon Garland, 12-16 4.67 ERA worth 27.84 million if you're Javy Vazquez. I don't think there are many that understand that game.

 

Scott Boras has his eye on you. If he ever takes over for Trump on "The Apprentice", you would have to be a favorite.

Firstly, I didn't say I have a great knowledge of the game, I just know enough to realise the obvious flaws in ERA, please read this fantastic piece from USS Mariners Dave Cameron on pitcher evaluation, he's able to sum it all up far better than I would be able to. Secondly tRA is not "my crazy stat", it's a metric designed by people much smarter than I and it only takes into account factors that we know a pitcher can control, so things like defense and home ballpark factors are eliminated and it tells us exactly how good a pitcher is. So what that tells us is that if everything were equal, Vazquez, on pure ability, would be around a 6 win player, which on the open market is worth nearly $30m a year.

 

Anything that values a pitcher by their win total is terribly flawed.

If the Padres are absolutely terrible this year and Jake Peavy only wins 8 games, does that make Javier Vazquez a better pitcher/worth more than him?

I was using WAR (Wins Above Replacement player) as my source for the win totals not the pitchers W/L records.

[knightni]

I was using WAR (Wins Above Replacement player) as my source for the win totals not the pitchers W/L records.

 

WAR, yeah!

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing.

Say it again y'all...

WAR, good God, y'all.

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing. Listen to me...

 

 

[BearSox]

Please tell me I'm not the only who doesn't know WTF WAR and tRA, and all that other crap is.

 

I've been following and watching baseball my whole life, and I never heard of those stats.

Edited January 17, 2009 by BearSox

[Ozzie Ball]

Please tell me I'm not the only who doesn't know WTF WAR and tRA, and all that other crap is.

 

I've been following and watching baseball my whole life, and I never heard of those stats.

tRA is a fairly new metric, I think WAR has been around for a little longer. I can link you to some good sites if you want to learn about them, I would just post the links here but I don't get the feeling that anyone's particularly receptive towards the fact that there may be other ways of evaluating players and so I'd rather not waste my time.

 

Just let me know.

[WCSox]

Vazquez is worth a whole lot more than $11.5m a year, he's really a terrific pitcher,

 

And those of us who've actually watched him pitch know that his lack of testicular fortitude renders him worthless in pressure situations.

 

Firstly, I didn't say I have a great knowledge of the game.

 

Well, at least you're being honest now.

 

I was more trying to make the point that if he can't realise the obvious flaws in the ERA and ERA+ statistics

 

I never claimed that ERA+ was some sort of flawless stat, so I'm not sure where this silly straw man argument is coming from. I tend to prefer WHIP, which I cited yesterday and you conveniently ignored.

 

then it is going to be difficult to have a discussion with him because, fundamentally, he just doesn't know the game well enough,

 

Your characterization of Javy Vazquez is a "terrific" pitcher and Jon Garland as a "terrible" one clearly shows that you're the clueless one. And your special combination of ignorance and arrogance is making you look really silly here.

 

[BearSox]

tRA is a fairly new metric, I think WAR has been around for a little longer. I can link you to some good sites if you want to learn about them, I would just post the links here but I don't get the feeling that anyone's particularly receptive towards the fact that there may be other ways of evaluating players and so I'd rather not waste my time.

 

Just let me know.

I'll have to decline you're offer. I'll stick to ERA, W-L, WHIP, and a few other stats, and also basically just watching a player with my own two eyes. Stats are mainly useful if you've never really seen a player before, IMO. But there is no metric greater then just being able to watch a player and evaluate them from there. Stats don't show what type of stuff or smarts a pitcher has. Stats don't show what type of swing and approach players have. etc.

[sircaffey]

Any metric that puts Javy ahead of Johan Santana, should be rethought. Johan had a tRA of 3.75 compared to Javy's 3.51 last season. In fact, Johan had a worse tRA in 2007 as well. I guess the Mets should have spent $200 million on Javy. This "statistic" is garbage.

[Dick Allen]

tRA is a fairly new metric, I think WAR has been around for a little longer. I can link you to some good sites if you want to learn about them, I would just post the links here but I don't get the feeling that anyone's particularly receptive towards the fact that there may be other ways of evaluating players and so I'd rather not waste my time.

 

Just let me know.

Any way to evaluate Javy Vazquez's 3 year stint as a White Sox is worth $85 million, or $28.3 million a year for a guy who 2 out of the 3 years had gave up more runs than league average and was below .500 on a team that was quite a bit above .500, is more than a little flawed.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Dick Allen