Garland thread continues in Diamond Club

[santo=dorf]

 

i read up a little on this bulls*** stat and it seems to be the same rehash of what a pitcher cannot control from his defense thus with should get a big boner over K/9

 

I still don't understand how the same people who emphasize K/9 are the same people who say it doesn't matter if Howard, Dunn, or Jack Cust strike out 190 times a year because it's just another out.

 

 

[bmags]

i read up a little on this bulls*** stat and it seems to be the same rehash of what a pitcher cannot control from his defense thus with should get a big boner over K/9

 

I still don't understand how the same people who emphasize K/9 are the same people who say it doesn't matter if Howard, Dunn, or Jack Cust strike out 190 times a year because it's just another out.

 

haha, great point.

[Ozzie Ball]

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.

Again, tRA eliminates the factors that a pitcher cannot control, so in other words Javy has been screwed over by defense and his home ballpark. This past season for example, Javy is a fly ball pitcher with Quentin, Swish/Griffey and Dye roaming his outfield and we're expecting him to have huge success? His BABIP was .316, the highest it's been over any of the last 6 years, he was set up to fail this year and I think it's unfair to criticise him for that.

 

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.

Or maybe it's public perception that's garbage.

[Dick Allen]

Again, tRA eliminates the factors that a pitcher cannot control, so in other words Javy has been screwed over by defense and his home ballpark. This past season for example, Javy is a fly ball pitcher with Quentin, Swish/Griffey and Dye roaming his outfield and we're expecting him to have huge success? His BABIP was .316, the highest it's been over any of the last 6 years, he was set up to fail this year and I think it's unfair to criticise him for that.

 

 

Or maybe it's public perception that's garbage.

Why are other pitchers who outperform Javy with the same defense "worth" significantly less?

 

 

Garland and Javy had the same defense, pitched in the same park in 2006. Garland had a better ERA, won more games, lost fewer games and your stat says Javy wasn't only worth more than him, but $12 million more. He even gives up more homers than Garland. Walks more than Garland. Apparently the outfielders not being able to jump 75 feet in the air is screwing him as well.Don't you find a flaw with that? No matter what team Javy has pitched with, and he's pitched for 4 of them now, he just keeps getting screwed by his defense. I think your stat basically puts a premium on a strikeout saying all the other stuff the pitcher can't control.

 

 

Edited January 18, 2009 by Dick Allen

[Ozzie Ball]

Why are other pitchers who outperform Javy with the same defense "worth" significantly less?

 

 

Garland and Javy had the same defense, pitched in the same park in 2006. Garland had a better ERA, won more games, lost fewer games and your stat says Javy wasn't only worth more than him, but $12 million more. He even gives up more homers than Garland. Walks more than Garland. Apparently the outfielders not being able to jump 75 feet in the air is screwing him as well.Don't you find a flaw with that? No matter what team Javy has pitched with, and he's pitched for 4 of them now, he just keeps getting screwed by his defense. I think your stat basically puts a premium on a strikeout saying all the other stuff the pitcher can't control.

Well obviously the strikeout is going to be valued more highly than any other event because a strikeout leads to an out at a higher percentage than any other event, but it doesn't solely value the K. Here's the full methodology behind the stat.

[santo=dorf]

Or maybe it's public perception that's garbage.

Well perhaps we should all just pull an Oedipus Rex by pulling our eyes out and f***ing our mothers.

 

To think, all this time I thought Johan was one of the top pitchers in the league yet Javy is apparently worth more money than him.

 

Can you give me an honest answer to this question? Do you care how often a batter strikes out?

[knightni]

Well perhaps we should all just pull an Oedipus Rex by pulling our eyes out and f***ing our mothers.

 

[whitesoxbrian]

Javier Vazquez is a pitcher who would win the Cy Young if he was playing in Washington. In Chicago, it's different. When he had to win a big game, he couldn't. Period. The guy isn't a terrific pitcher, but a terrible one. End of story.

 

TRA, WAR, whatever the f***- just stop. He sucks.

[greg775]

Why? Oli Perez is good, Garland is terrible and therefore I don't see any reason why the two would be payed equally.

 

 

Garland is not terrible. People tend to rate the players they see everyday way lower than ones they never see like f***ing Oliver Perez. I wish we could get Jon back. I realize it aint happening though.

[caulfield12]

I disagree somewhat on that one...watching players like Buehrle, DeRosa, Uribe, Iguchi...on a consistent basis, you have a lot MORE of an appreciation for them than you ever would just looking at box scores or stats.

[whtsoxfan]

Kenny Williams had indicated after signing Colon that whatever the Sox do will have to be Payroll neutral. Signing Garland would add to payroll. Jenks has filed for arbritration, this will add to payroll. If Dye is traded for prospects then signing Garland could work. But where to we get Dye's production?

[caulfield12]

We would have to trade two Jenks(es)....because he will only make around $5 million or so in arbitration, Garland is looking for at least double that.

 

Garland won't be coming here, I'm fairly certain of that. Garcia, maybe.

[Dick Allen]

Garland is not terrible. People tend to rate the players they see everyday way lower than ones they never see like f***ing Oliver Perez. I wish we could get Jon back. I realize it aint happening though.

Garland is what he is. You're right he's not terrible and the Angels were at least at one time, willing to pay him 8 figures for 2009. What I don't understand is Garland is getting ripped for his 2008 ERA 4.90, WHIP which was poor at 1.51 and his weak K rate 4.1,yet, Jeff Marquez would make a fine #4 starter, ignoring his AAA ERA 4.69, WHIP 1.45 and K rate 3.4. Marquez, a lot here say, is a quality pitcher. They base it all on KW's comments on a conference call after he dumps salary obviously thinking KW would actually say he had a long way to go to be a major league pitcher, and on a 4 year old scouting report. I was never a big Garland lover, but he will basically give you the exact same thing Vazquez does without the strikeouts, and he generally wins a couple more games. He's definitely "worth" $7-8 million a year.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Dick Allen

[Melissa1334]

Kenny Williams had indicated after signing Colon that whatever the Sox do will have to be Payroll neutral. Signing Garland would add to payroll. Jenks has filed for arbritration, this will add to payroll. If Dye is traded for prospects then signing Garland could work. But where to we get Dye's production?

ok, i still dont understand that one. maybe i missed the explanation, but how is it that we are at our limit or where we need to be, or slighty overbudget, all things ive heard from kw and the sox? how is that considering we dropped credes uribes vazquezs halls and swishers contracts? and jrs i guess. so whats our payroll at right now 2?

[witesoxfan]

There seems to be quite a bit of resentment for a person looking at other ways of evaluating players. I don't understand that to be quite honest. Is it really that hard to just sit and look at other statistics and try to understand them and interpret them a bit, rather than just immediately saying "they're garbage"? It's a bit hypocritical to say "you have to use my stats and no one else's" and then not look at both sides of the equation - that goes for both parties in this instance.

 

There are definite flaws to both sides. To me, ERA and WHIP indicate how good a pitcher has been throughout his career, while a statistic like FIP can give you an indication of how good a player could be or what you can likely expect from the pitcher throughout his career. To say that Javy Vazquez has been good the past 3 years is wrong, but you can clearly see with his talent and through his numbers - both scouting and statistics - that he has the ability to be a very good pitcher, but that he just isn't. It's also not that hard to say that Jon Garland was bad last year and that he's pretty much a league average pitcher (which, in case people have forgotten, is a synonym of mediocre).

 

It's also well understood that Garland wants $10 or $13 million a year, but he's not going to get it. I'll predict that he gets a 1 year, $5-7 mill "prove-it" type deal so that way he can go back on the market next year.

[Kyyle23]

Javier Vazquez is a pitcher who would win the Cy Young if he was playing in Washington. In Chicago, it's different. When he had to win a big game, he couldn't. Period. The guy isn't a terrific pitcher, but a terrible one. End of story.

 

TRA, WAR, whatever the f***- just stop. He sucks.

 

 

Thats just not true. javy has been on bad teams and still has had problems, he wasnt all that special in Arizona in 2005, and they went 77-85

[Jordan4life_2007]

Thats just not true. javy has been on bad teams and still has had problems, he wasnt all that special in Arizona in 2005, and they went 77-85

 

Think his point was when Javy has a very good year, more times than not, it's going to be when the team overall sucks. And the facts back that up. Personally, I don't care if Javy goes 20-5 in '09. I never wanted him here to begin with (I rolled with it. We were coming off a championship. Kenny could've traded for anybody and I wouldn't have complained). Javy did flat nothing in three years here besides costing us a potential stud CF for the next decade (Kenny obviously made the trade. Still pisses me off), and hurting our draft position in 2007 by, of course, dominating when were were 20 games out of it.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Jordan4life

[Kyyle23]

Think his point was when Javy has a very good year, more times than not, it's going to be when the team overall sucks. And the facts back that up. Personally, I don't care if Javy goes 20-5 in '09. I never wanted him here to begin with (I rolled with it. We were coming off a championship. Kenny could've traded for anybody and I wouldn't have complained). Javy did flat nothing in three years here besides costing us a potential stud CF for the next decade (Kenny obviously made the trade. Still pisses me off), and hurting our draft position in 2007 by, of course, dominating when were were 20 games out of it.

 

And even then, if you look at Javys years in Montreal it is very much the same. Up and down, year to year. The guy defines the term "Consistently Inconsistent"

 

Just look at his year to year results

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vazquja01.shtml

 

And I understand that he was on some truly bad Montreal teams, but i still dont buy the "He would have won a cy young on washington" reasoning

[BaseballNick]

ok, i still dont understand that one. maybe i missed the explanation, but how is it that we are at our limit or where we need to be, or slighty overbudget, all things ive heard from kw and the sox? how is that considering we dropped credes uribes vazquezs halls and swishers contracts? and jrs i guess. so whats our payroll at right now 2?

 

 

The Sox are expecting less in terms of attendance because of the weak economy. Kenny stated that attendance projections factor into the payroll number for the upcoming season, so it's logical to expect a cut. Also, don't forget that some players are due raises for 2009.

[lostfan]

Think his point was when Javy has a very good year, more times than not, it's going to be when the team overall sucks. And the facts back that up. Personally, I don't care if Javy goes 20-5 in '09. I never wanted him here to begin with (I rolled with it. We were coming off a championship. Kenny could've traded for anybody and I wouldn't have complained). Javy did flat nothing in three years here besides costing us a potential stud CF for the next decade (Kenny obviously made the trade. Still pisses me off), and hurting our draft position in 2007 by, of course, dominating when were were 20 games out of it.

Chris Young's offensive stats look a lot more like Corey Patterson's than those of a "stud CF" to me. Everyone still talks about him so much like he's such a special player, but come talk to me when he puts up an OPS+ of 100 or more, his batting average is over .250 (he's never hit for a high average at any level btw, I don't think he's even broken .280), or his OBP doesn't look like a bottom of the order type hitter. I guess then I can be upset about what a great loss he is.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Chris Young's offensive stats look a lot more like Corey Patterson's than those of a "stud CF" to me. Everyone still talks about him so much like he's such a special player, but come talk to me when he puts up an OPS+ of 100 or more, his batting average is over .250 (he's never hit for a high average at any level btw, I don't think he's even broken .280), or his OBP doesn't look like a bottom of the order type hitter. I guess then I can be upset about what a great loss he is.

 

I did say potential. And he's already had more impact for Arizona (one of their top 2-3 players when they won the division in 2007), than Javy had for the Sox (none). I will admit he did regress a little last year (still had 42 doubles and 22 HRs). But at 25, combined with his obvious tools, his upside is limitless. I won't play the role of ultimate chicken little. Because I was cool (not thrilled, but cool) with the trade when it happened. Never thought Brian Anderson would flop like he has. But the trade will always irk me.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Jordan4life

[caulfield12]

I've made this argument before (that I was annoyed with Vazquez trade), but unless he changes his career path dramatically, he's (Young) always going to have his share of limitations.

 

He still has a chance to be a better overall player in his career than Mike Cameron, but there are quite a few parallels, besides the fact they both came up through the White Sox as "toolsy," high profile prospects.

 

We all know what he needs to improve upon. Strikeouts/contact. OBP. His arm is never going to be a "plus" weapon. Batting average. So I don't think you could say he has "limitless" potential at this point. Maybe you could also compare him to another player that never quite became the superstar he was supposed to be, Eric Davis. Although I don't think Young quite matches either Davis' raw power or his overall speed either.

 

Maybe our anger about this trade is not as much anymore about Young's potential (and it can still backfire with that long-term deal he might have prematurely signed from the DBacks' perspective) but with the lack of cojonoes that Vazquez showed in 2008 AND the fact that we've never found a permanent CF...as KW had always believed it was going to be Anderson, and that simply hasn't worked out (no new Anderson thread here please!)

Edited January 20, 2009 by caulfield12

[ptatc]

Chris Young's offensive stats look a lot more like Corey Patterson's than those of a "stud CF" to me. Everyone still talks about him so much like he's such a special player, but come talk to me when he puts up an OPS+ of 100 or more, his batting average is over .250 (he's never hit for a high average at any level btw, I don't think he's even broken .280), or his OBP doesn't look like a bottom of the order type hitter. I guess then I can be upset about what a great loss he is.

 

At the time of the trade, I said he would be nothing more than Mike Cameron. Which is a good player but nothing special. Very good defensive CF with good power but will always be limited to the high strikeouts.

 

[TheBigHurt]

At the time of the trade, I said he would be nothing more than Mike Cameron. Which is a good player but nothing special. Very good defensive CF with good power but will always be limited to the high strikeouts.

 

Which sounds better than a lot of what we have now.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I've made this argument before (that I was annoyed with Vazquez trade), but unless he changes his career path dramatically, he's (Young) always going to have his share of limitations.

 

He still has a chance to be a better overall player in his career than Mike Cameron, but there are quite a few parallels, besides the fact they both came up through the White Sox as "toolsy," high profile prospects.

 

We all know what he needs to improve upon. Strikeouts/contact. OBP. His arm is never going to be a "plus" weapon. Batting average. So I don't think you could say he has "limitless" potential at this point. Maybe you could also compare him to another player that never quite became the superstar he was supposed to be, Eric Davis. Although I don't think Young quite matches either Davis' raw power or his overall speed either.

 

Maybe our anger about this trade is not as much anymore about Young's potential (and it can still backfire with that long-term deal he might have prematurely signed from the DBacks' perspective) but with the lack of cojonoes that Vazquez showed in 2008 AND the fact that we've never found a permanent CF...as KW had always believed it was going to be Anderson, and that simply hasn't worked out (no new Anderson thread here please!)

 

He's 25 and has barely two years of service time in the bigs. His cons are well known. There's plenty of time for him to (even if he never becomes good) improve in areas where he can be considered below average. Even if he doesn't improve, he's 10 times better than anything we've trotted out there the last three years.

 

 

At the time of the trade, I said he would be nothing more than Mike Cameron. Which is a good playerbut nothing special. Very good defensive CF with good power but will always be limited to the high strikeouts.

 

LOL. You say that like it's nothing. Does a CF have to be a combination of prime Willie Mays and Ken Griffey Jr. to impress people around here? The guy is young, athletic, has plus power/speed/defense (many believe Young should've won a GG last year). And most importantly room to grow. I'd gladly live with the K's and low OBP considering all the other things he provides. In the last three years, we've trotted out Brian Anderson, Rob Mackowiak, Darin Erstad, Jerry Owens, Luis Terrero, Nick Swisher, and a 7-8 years past his prime Griffey Jr. to CF. And we've got people harpin' on Young's K rates in a futile attempt to make the trade not look as bad? Amazing.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Jordan4life