Yanks on Danks

[witesoxfan]

I've been citing quality starts regarding Danks. Isn't he kicking butt in quality starts? It's not like he's been Axelrod-esque or Carroll-esque in terms of stuff, either. The guy takes the mound and you can be assured a quality start (f*** I've jinxed his next start with this, though).

 

Looking at quality starts for a starting pitcher is like looking singularily at home runs or batting average for a hitter. Yes, it will tell part of the story, but the rest of the story says he hasn't done a hell of a lot.

 

He has 15 quality starts in 21 games started. To me, that says he's essentially pitched poorly enough to lose 6 games, and who knows what he's done in the other 15 - maybe pitched just well enough to lose. The Sox pitching staff is not going to get considerably worse if they trade John Danks.

[GreatScott82]

Looking at quality starts for a starting pitcher is like looking singularily at home runs or batting average for a hitter. Yes, it will tell part of the story, but the rest of the story says he hasn't done a hell of a lot.

 

He has 15 quality starts in 21 games started. To me, that says he's essentially pitched poorly enough to lose 6 games, and who knows what he's done in the other 15 - maybe pitched just well enough to lose. The Sox pitching staff is not going to get considerably worse if they trade John Danks.

I agree. The time to deal him is now.

[harfman77]

Looking at quality starts for a starting pitcher is like looking singularily at home runs or batting average for a hitter. Yes, it will tell part of the story, but the rest of the story says he hasn't done a hell of a lot.

 

He has 15 quality starts in 21 games started. To me, that says he's essentially pitched poorly enough to lose 6 games, and who knows what he's done in the other 15 - maybe pitched just well enough to lose. The Sox pitching staff is not going to get considerably worse if they trade John Danks.

 

Who knows what he did? He gave up 3 or less runs in 6+ innings of work, which is good enough to win quite a few games. Couple the QS numbers with his ERA and you can see that he has been largely effective in 75% of his outings and a dumpster fire in the other 25%.

[caulfield12]

There's a reason we're proud of the fact that the White Sox had the most quality starts over a period covering much of the time Cooper has been here.

 

Sure, worst-case scenario it's a 4.50 ERA for the game, but usually not. It's saying more often than not, a team with a good offense/bullpen has a chance to win the majority of his starts.

 

Worth the money we're paying him? Probably not. Can we recover from trading him? Surely, just as easily as the Astros if they trade their top 3 (and Danks is really a 4th starter now, or a 3 on a bottom 1/3rd of the league team).

[Donny Lucy's Avocado Farm]

There's a reason we're proud of the fact that the White Sox had the most quality starts over a period covering much of the time Cooper has been here.

 

Sure, worst-case scenario it's a 4.50 ERA for the game, but usually not. It's saying more often than not, a team with a good offense/bullpen has a chance to win the majority of his starts.

 

Worth the money we're paying him? Probably not. Can we recover from trading him? Surely, just as easily as the Astros if they trade their top 3 (and Danks is really a 4th starter now, or a 3 on a bottom 1/3rd of the league team).

 

 

A lot of GMs and managers would rather have 5 guys who are predictable than 5 guys who might put up zeros... or might go 2 innings and give up 7 runs.

 

Its a lot easier to plan/build and offense and bullpen when you know exactly what your rotation is going to give you.

[witesoxfan]

Who knows what he did? He gave up 3 or less runs in 6+ innings of work, which is good enough to win quite a few games. Couple the QS numbers with his ERA and you can see that he has been largely effective in 75% of his outings and a dumpster fire in the other 25%.

 

He's got a mediocre strike out rate, a mediocre walk rate, he gives up a lot of home runs, he doesn't throw as hard, he's been incredibly mediocre to bad overall as a pitcher this year, and he's due another $30 mill or so. As a back end of the rotation starter for the Sox, I have no problem with John Danks, but I'm trying to temper expectations for what the return will be.

 

BTW, the quality start statistic is ridiculous. If a guy goes 6 innings and gives up 3 ER, how is that really any different than a guy going 7 or 8 and giving up 4 ER?

[Chisoxfn]

Looking at quality starts for a starting pitcher is like looking singularily at home runs or batting average for a hitter. Yes, it will tell part of the story, but the rest of the story says he hasn't done a hell of a lot.

 

He has 15 quality starts in 21 games started. To me, that says he's essentially pitched poorly enough to lose 6 games, and who knows what he's done in the other 15 - maybe pitched just well enough to lose. The Sox pitching staff is not going to get considerably worse if they trade John Danks.

Thats a little weak because you know in general, when you throw a quality start that you have put your team in a position to win the game. Typically teams that league the lead in quality starts and rank near the top also rank near the top of the standings, so there is a pretty good correlation and you know exactly what it means, that he gave up 3 or less in 6 or more. The bigger question is has he pitched a little lucky, etc, and that is probably the case. You also see deteriorating stuff, etc.

[LittleHurt05]

A lot of GMs and managers would rather have 5 guys who are predictable than 5 guys who might put up zeros... or might go 2 innings and give up 7 runs.

 

Its a lot easier to plan/build and offense and bullpen when you know exactly what your rotation is going to give you.

 

Which is why Edwin Jackson is now on his 8th different team.

[ptatc]

He's got a mediocre strike out rate, a mediocre walk rate, he gives up a lot of home runs, he doesn't throw as hard, he's been incredibly mediocre to bad overall as a pitcher this year, and he's due another $30 mill or so. As a back end of the rotation starter for the Sox, I have no problem with John Danks, but I'm trying to temper expectations for what the return will be.

 

BTW, the quality start statistic is ridiculous. If a guy goes 6 innings and gives up 3 ER, how is that really any different than a guy going 7 or 8 and giving up 4 ER?

The problem is you can look at all the predictive stats you want or look at what he's really done. His ancillary stats aren't great but he's been able to prduce at a pretty good level.

 

The stat isn't ridiculous as very few pitchers average 8 innings a game anymore. The 7 or 8 and 4 runs is no different but most pitchers don't go that deep into games because they aren't expected to.

[witesoxfan]

Thats a little weak because you know in general, when you throw a quality start that you have put your team in a position to win the game. Typically teams that league the lead in quality starts and rank near the top also rank near the top of the standings, so there is a pretty good correlation and you know exactly what it means, that he gave up 3 or less in 6 or more. The bigger question is has he pitched a little lucky, etc, and that is probably the case. You also see deteriorating stuff, etc.

 

You can't look at quality starts and count on future success though, and that's basically it. Yeah, he's thrown a few quality starts, but you are admitting that he's gotten a bit lucky and that number is probably inflated somewhat. I also think the idea of the quality start is outdated too, or that it should be amended (6 IP and 3 ER is a silly guideline).

 

Frankly, the teams that lead the league in quality starts don't target pitches because they put up quality starts, they target them because they are good pitchers and, because they are good pitchers, they put up quality starts. I don't see anybody talking about Sale putting up quality starts, only that he's an awesome pitcher.

[shysocks]

He's got a mediocre strike out rate, a mediocre walk rate, he gives up a lot of home runs, he doesn't throw as hard, he's been incredibly mediocre to bad overall as a pitcher this year, and he's due another $30 mill or so. As a back end of the rotation starter for the Sox, I have no problem with John Danks, but I'm trying to temper expectations for what the return will be.

Agree totally, and this is exactly why the prospect of trading him isn't that exciting.

[witesoxfan]

The problem is you can look at all the predictive stats you want or look at what he's really done. His ancillary stats aren't great but he's been able to prduce at a pretty good level.

 

The stat isn't ridiculous as very few pitchers average 8 innings a game anymore. The 7 or 8 and 4 runs is no different but most pitchers don't go that deep into games because they aren't expected to.

 

How many quality starts do you think John Danks will have the rest of the year? Are you going to look at the number of quality starts he's had to predict how many quality starts he'll have the rest of the year?

[Dick Allen]

Throw out his 4 worst starts, Danks' ERA is 2.98 the other 17. I think that is putting your team in position to win.

 

Some get way too caught up in all the advanced stats. Of the 3, Javy Vazquez, Gavin Floyd and Mark Buehrle, if you had to win a game, who would you want on the mound? Who would you want on your team? I am guessing the guy with the worst career peripherals.

 

Mark Buerhle career SIERRA 4.40

John Danks, so horrible, one of the worst pitchers in baseball 2014 SIERRA 4.51.

 

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Advanced metrics favor hard throwers, no matter how many runs they allow. If Danks threw 5 miles an hour harder and had the same results, the peripheral people who can't tell if a player is effective without consulting Fangraphs, wouldn't tell you how horrible he is.

 

Danks isn't what he was. But so far this year, 80-85% of the time he has been really good. And remember when he shutout the Yankees through 8 innings? Some people who are calling him terrible were calling Robin an idiot for yanking this terrible pitcher. Beli blew the game with 2 outs in the 9th.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

A lot of GMs and managers would rather have 5 guys who are predictable than 5 guys who might put up zeros... or might go 2 innings and give up 7 runs.

 

Its a lot easier to plan/build and offense and bullpen when you know exactly what your rotation is going to give you.

 

 

This is a really good point. Having a stable starting staff, while not as good as a great one, is better than having an unpredictable one. If you know you are getting 7 inning and 3 runs out of Danks almost every time out, it allows you to have the pen set up for his start, and the starts around his much better than if you think there is a good chance you will burn the pen when he is out there. Frying your pen is cumulative and tends to spill over to subsequent games down the schedule.

[Feeky Magee]

Throw out his 4 worst starts, Danks' ERA is 2.98 the other 17. I think that is putting your team in position to win.

 

Some get way too caught up in all the advanced stats. Of the 3, Javy Vazquez, Gavin Floyd and Mark Buehrle, if you had to win a game, who would you want on the mound? Who would you want on your team? I am guessing the guy with the worst career peripherals.

 

Mark Buerhle career SIERRA 4.40

John Danks, so horrible, one of the worst pitchers in baseball 2014 SIERRA 4.51.

 

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Advanced metrics favor hard throwers, no matter how many runs they allow. If Danks threw 5 miles an hour harder and had the same results, the peripheral people who can't tell if a player is effective without consulting Fangraphs, wouldn't tell you how horrible he is.

 

Danks isn't what he was. But so far this year, 80-85% of the time he has been really good. And remember when he shutout the Yankees through 8 innings? Some people who are calling him terrible were calling Robin an idiot for yanking this terrible pitcher. Beli blew the game with 2 outs in the 9th.

As I posted in the Tommy Milone thread, people need to stop using Buehrle as an argument against peripherals. He is freakishly able to out-pitch his peripherals because he's one of the best defensive pitchers ever and he completely shuts down the running game.

[Dick Allen]

As I posted in the Tommy Milone thread, people need to stop using Buehrle as an argument against peripherals. He is freakishly able to out-pitch his peripherals because he's one of the best defensive pitchers ever and he completely shuts down the running game.

Danks does the same.

 

Javy Vazquez and Gavin Floyd didn't pitch up to their peripherals year after year after year. There are many examples where the peripherals didn't match the performance. People see 88 or 89 on the television screen and say Danks sucks. If it said 92 or 93 and the exact same things happened in the game, they would say something totally different.

 

I've heard all these advanced stats are far better predictors of future performance, however, the people here how seem to exclusively use them and come up with their own projections over the past few years are no more accurate than anyone else.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2014 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

Danks does the same.

 

Javy Vazquez and Gavin Floyd didn't pitch up to their peripherals. How do you explain that?

 

Command. Danks is not a bad pitcher, and I'm on record as saying that he pitches better than his peripherals, but the signs point to him being a 4.00 ERA pitcher. That's not a bad thing, but he's not worth a lot, and using quality starts when his overall stats indicate something else is crazy talk.

 

BTW, taking out Danks 4 worst starts is removing almost 20% of his games started. I'm sure if you take out 20% of almost anyone's worst performances and they'll have really good numbers too.

[2nd_city_saint787]

If a pitcher has a sub 3 era for 80% of the time and is bad 20% of the time.....Why is it that the 80% is lucky?

[witesoxfan]

If a pitcher has a sub 3 era for 80% of the time and is bad 20% of the time.....Why is it that the 80% is lucky?

 

Why is the 20% unlucky?

 

Let's phrase this a different way - if you are unsure as to why the 80% is "lucky" (words that have never been typed by me), then why isn't he a sub 3 ERA pitcher 100% of the time?

[Dick Allen]

Why is the 20% unlucky?

 

Let's phrase this a different way - if you are unsure as to why the 80% is "lucky" (words that have never been typed by me), then why isn't he a sub 3 ERA pitcher 100% of the time?

And if he sucks and is one of the worst starters in baseball (which is the case based on peripherals and Dave Cameron said so it must be true) then why is it only 20% of the time he truly sucks? He's actually lucky 80%? That seems unlikely.

 

Frankly, I think if something happens 80% of the time vs. 20%, the truth is closer to the 80%.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Dick Allen

[2nd_city_saint787]

Why is the 20% unlucky?

 

I'm not saying it's unlucky. It's baseball, everyone is gonna get roughed up from time to time....I'm just saying, it's about 2/3rds of the way into the season and in 80% of his games he's been solid.

 

Advanced stats has really taken a lot of fun out of baseball...and this message board.

 

[Feeky Magee]

Danks does the same.

 

Javy Vazquez and Gavin Floyd didn't pitch up to their peripherals year after year after year. There are many examples where the peripherals didn't match the performance. People see 88 or 89 on the television screen and say Danks sucks. If it said 92 or 93 and the exact same things happened in the game, they would say something totally different.

 

I've heard all these advanced stats are far better predictors of future performance, however, the people here how seem to exclusively use them and come up with their own projections over the past few years are no more accurate than anyone else.

Danks does not do the same.

 

Career stolen bases allowed:

Danks: 84 in 1240.2 IP (1 every 14.2 IP)

Buehrle: 58 in 3018 IP (1 every 52 IP)

 

Total defensive runs saved (DRS):

Danks: 20 in 1240.2 IP (1 every 62 IP)

Buerhle 85 in 3018 IP (1 every 35.2 IP)

 

That explains why Danks's career numbers match up almost exactly to his peripherals, and why Buehrle's do not:

 

Danks career:

ERA: 4.22

FIP: 4.33

xFIP: 4.21

SIERA: 4.23

 

Buehrle career:

ERA: 3.81

FIP: 4.12

xFIP: 4.21

SIERA: 4.40

[witesoxfan]

And if he sucks and is one of the worst starters in baseball (which is the case based on peripherals and Dave Cameron said so it must be true) then why is it only 20% of the time he truly sucks? He's actually lucky 80%? That seems unlikely.

 

Frankly, I think if something happens 80% of the time vs. 20%, the truth is closer to the 80%.

 

Again, I'm not using the word lucky to describe John Danks. I'm pointing out his peripherals and suggesting that he's not suddenly going to be a 3.00 ERA pitcher. He's an adequate back of the rotation starter. I don't believe him to be one of the worst starters in baseball.

 

Frankly, all I've said that is quality starts is a poor statistic to use because it only tells part of the story. You have to look at the big picture. Do you disagree?

 

I'm not saying it's unlucky. It's baseball, everyone is gonna get roughed up from time to time....I'm just saying, it's about 2/3rds of the way into the season and in 80% of his games he's been solid.

 

Advanced stats has really taken a lot of fun out of baseball...and this message board.

 

I don't disagree. All I've said is that John Danks is not a very valuable commodity and that his statistics indicate that he's going to remain about where he is ERA wise. He's not a great pitcher but he's an adequate back of the rotation starter.

 

I also happen to think that advanced stats make baseball incredibly interesting.

[GreenSox]

He should have value to a team chasing a wild card - he'll give a team a good start 3 times out of 4.

Sox will have to eat some salary to move him. No surprise there.

He's a back end starter - Sox can find one fairly cheap in the off-season, so I hope the Sox move him.

[2nd_city_saint787]

Again, I'm not using the word lucky to describe John Danks. I'm pointing out his peripherals and suggesting that he's not suddenly going to be a 3.00 ERA pitcher. He's an adequate back of the rotation starter. I don't believe him to be one of the worst starters in baseball.

 

Frankly, all I've said that is quality starts is a poor statistic to use because it only tells part of the story. You have to look at the big picture. Do you disagree?

 

 

 

I don't disagree. All I've said is that John Danks is not a very valuable commodity and that his statistics indicate that he's going to remain about where he is ERA wise. He's not a great pitcher but he's an adequate back of the rotation starter.

 

I also happen to think that advanced stats make baseball incredibly interesting.

 

I guess I'm just cherry picking the times where they go against a player I root for, which is probably silly, but still. If there were no advanced stats and you told me only 19 pitchers in all of baseball had more quality starts than John Danks I'd be a happy man about having that guy as a 3rd starter. But now we have some people calling him one of the worst starters in baseball.