Yanks on Danks

[witesoxfan]

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.

 

Only 19 players have more home runs in the AL than Adam Dunn. What does that tell you? Because all it tells me is that Dunn has hit a lot of home runs.

 

If you tell me that Danks has 15 quality starts in 21 games started, all it tells me is that he's had 15 outings where he went at least 6 innings and allowed 3 or fewer earned runs. That's a 4.50 ERA. That's not particularly impressive, but it's OK. I still want to know more and more, and as you look into it, you see what he is.

 

As a back of the rotation starter, I appreciate what John Danks does for the White Sox. I don't believe he can't improve, but I'm not expecting it. I'm also not expecting a big return for him if/when he is traded.

[Feeky Magee]

Also, as regards the whole 80% quality start thing, it's not like Danks has this magic ability to constrict all his badness into a few isolated starts and be great the rest of the time.

 

2013 he had a 4.75 ERA with 12 quality starts in 22 starts (55%)

 

2012 he had a 5.70 ERA with 4 quality starts in 9 starts (44%)

 

2011 he had a 4.33 ERA with 15 quality starts in 27 starts (55%)

 

2010 he had a 3.72 ERA with 23 quality starts in 32 starts (72%)

 

2009 he had a 3.77 ERA with 21 quality starts in 32 starts (66%)

 

2008 he had a 3.32 ERA with 24 quality starts in 33 starts (73%)

 

2007 he had a 5.50 ERA with 8 quality starts in 26 starts (31%)

 

So before this year, in 84 starts in years where his ERA was 4.33 or higher, he had 39 quality starts (46%)

 

In 97 starts in years where his ERA was 3.77 or lower, he had 68 quality starts (70%)

 

In 2014 he has a 4.40 ERA with 14 quality starts in 21 starts. That's 66% (not 80%) and it's also inflated, because it includes 3 starts where he gave up the bare minimum 3ER in 6.0 IP, i.e. a 4.50 ERA. In fact, we see this repeated looking at his history. Of his 53 quality starts in years where his ERA was 4.33 or higher, 10 of them (19%) were 6.0 IP and 3 runs. Of his 68 quality starts in years where his ERA was 3.77 or lower, just 3 of them (4%) were 6.0 IP and 3 runs.

 

tl;dr: Danks's quality start numbers this year are atypical to his career tendency to have way more quality starts in years where he's just generally better, and are also inflated by counting starts where his ERA is 4.50.

[Dick Allen]

Also, as regards the whole 80% quality start thing, it's not like Danks has this magic ability to constrict all his badness into a few isolated starts and be great the rest of the time.

 

2013 he had a 4.75 ERA with 12 quality starts in 22 starts (55%)

 

2012 he had a 5.70 ERA with 4 quality starts in 9 starts (44%)

 

2011 he had a 4.33 ERA with 15 quality starts in 27 starts (55%)

 

2010 he had a 3.72 ERA with 23 quality starts in 32 starts (72%)

 

2009 he had a 3.77 ERA with 21 quality starts in 32 starts (66%)

 

2008 he had a 3.32 ERA with 24 quality starts in 33 starts (73%)

 

2007 he had a 5.50 ERA with 8 quality starts in 26 starts (31%)

 

So before this year, in 84 starts in years where his ERA was 4.33 or higher, he had 39 quality starts (46%)

 

In 97 starts in years where his ERA was 3.77 or lower, he had 68 quality starts (70%)

 

In 2014 he has a 4.40 ERA with 14 quality starts in 21 starts. That's 66% (not 80%) and it's also inflated, because it includes 3 starts where he gave up the bare minimum 3ER in 6.0 IP, i.e. a 4.50 ERA. In fact, we see this repeated looking at his history. Of his 53 quality starts in years where his ERA was 4.33 or higher, 10 of them (19%) were 6.0 IP and 3 runs. Of his 68 quality starts in years where his ERA was 3.77 or lower, just 3 of them (4%) were 6.0 IP and 3 runs.

 

tl;dr: Danks's quality start numbers this year are atypical to his career tendency to have way more quality starts in years where he's just generally better, and are also inflated by counting starts where his ERA is 4.50.

For a guy who complains when he thinks pitching moves are being based on ERA, you sure do mention ERA a lot. What I mentioned is take the 4 starts out of 21 where Danks got pummeled and gave up 7 or 8 runs. His other 17 starts , which include a couple of non quality starts produces an ERA of 2.89. His 4 worst games he allowed 28 runs in 19 innings. His other 112 innings, 36 ER. You can give me xFip SIERRA all that crap. What matters in the end is runs, and Danks usually does OK with that. When they hand out the trophy at the end of the year, you can't use a challenge and have them look at the xFIP replay.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Dick Allen

[LittleHurt05]

For a guy who complains when he thinks pitching moves are being based on ERA, you sure do mention ERA a lot. What I mentioned is take the 4 starts out of 21 where Danks got pummeled and gave up 7 or 8 runs. His other 17 starts , which include a couple of non quality starts produces an ERA of 2.89. His 4 worst games he allowed 28 runs in 19 innings. His other 112 innings, 36 ER. You can give me xFip SIERRA all that crap. What matters in the end is runs, and Danks usually does OK with that. When they hand out the trophy at the end of the year, you can't use a challenge and have them look at the xFIP replay.

 

If you take out 20% of Tyler Flowers at-bats all where he made an out, you are looking at a .300 hitter.

[LDF]

 

all this may be for naught, according to mlb trade rumors, there may be a problem with danks

and his salary......

 

damn, we could really use a ready for the majors catcher.

[shysocks]

For a guy who complains when he thinks pitching moves are being based on ERA, you sure do mention ERA a lot. What I mentioned is take the 4 starts out of 21 where Danks got pummeled and gave up 7 or 8 runs. His other 17 starts , which include a couple of non quality starts produces an ERA of 2.89. His 4 worst games he allowed 28 runs in 19 innings. His other 112 innings, 36 ER. You can give me xFip SIERRA all that crap. What matters in the end is runs, and Danks usually does OK with that. When they hand out the trophy at the end of the year, you can't use a challenge and have them look at the xFIP replay.

As others have pointed out, if you magically remove 20% of any pitcher's worst starts, they will look very good.

[witesoxfan]

For a guy who complains when he thinks pitching moves are being based on ERA, you sure do mention ERA a lot. What I mentioned is take the 4 starts out of 21 where Danks got pummeled and gave up 7 or 8 runs. His other 17 starts , which include a couple of non quality starts produces an ERA of 2.89. His 4 worst games he allowed 28 runs in 19 innings. His other 112 innings, 36 ER. You can give me xFip SIERRA all that crap. What matters in the end is runs, and Danks usually does OK with that. When they hand out the trophy at the end of the year, you can't use a challenge and have them look at the xFIP replay.

 

I understand that, but it's still 19% of his total games pitched this year. You can't just cherry pick those out as if they didn't happen.

 

If you take out 19% of Adam Dunn's worst plate appearances, you're removing 68 plate appearances. If, out of those 68 plate appearances, we take out 10 singles and 58 outs - a line of .150/.150/.150 - Dunn's line transforms into a thing of beauty - .254/.414/.522/.936. Do you believe Dunn is closer to a .254/.414/.522/.936 type of player, or the .229/.363/.435/.798 player we've grown accustomed to?

[Feeky Magee]

Also, as regards the whole 80% quality start thing, it's not like Danks has this magic ability to constrict all his badness into a few isolated starts and be great the rest of the time.

 

2013 he had a 4.75 ERA with 12 quality starts in 22 starts (55%)

 

2012 he had a 5.70 ERA with 4 quality starts in 9 starts (44%)

 

2011 he had a 4.33 ERA with 15 quality starts in 27 starts (55%)

 

2010 he had a 3.72 ERA with 23 quality starts in 32 starts (72%)

 

2009 he had a 3.77 ERA with 21 quality starts in 32 starts (66%)

 

2008 he had a 3.32 ERA with 24 quality starts in 33 starts (73%)

 

2007 he had a 5.50 ERA with 8 quality starts in 26 starts (31%)

 

So before this year, in 84 starts in years where his ERA was 4.33 or higher, he had 39 quality starts (46%)

 

In 97 starts in years where his ERA was 3.77 or lower, he had 68 quality starts (70%)

 

In 2014 he has a 4.40 ERA with 14 quality starts in 21 starts. That's 66% (not 80%) and it's also inflated, because it includes 3 starts where he gave up the bare minimum 3ER in 6.0 IP, i.e. a 4.50 ERA. In fact, we see this repeated looking at his history. Of his 53 quality starts in years where his ERA was 4.33 or higher, 10 of them (19%) were 6.0 IP and 3 runs. Of his 68 quality starts in years where his ERA was 3.77 or lower, just 3 of them (4%) were 6.0 IP and 3 runs.

 

tl;dr: Danks's quality start numbers this year are atypical to his career tendency to have way more quality starts in years where he's just generally better, and are also inflated by counting starts where his ERA is 4.50.

Following on from this, if the stat for quality starts was 5.0-6.2 IP and 2 ER or less or 7.0-8.2 IP and 3 ER or less or 9.0 IP and 4 ER, (i.e. an official start with an ERA less than 4), Danks's quality starts numbers would look like this:

 

2014 (4.40 ERA): 52%

2013 (4.75 ERA): 36%

2012 (5.70 ERA): 33%

2011 (4.33 ERA): 52%

2010 (3.72 ERA): 72%

2009 (3.77 ERA): 60%

2008 (3.32 ERA): 64%

2007 (5.50 ERA): 31%

 

So under a fairer definition of a quality start, Danks's ratio of quality starts actually matches up perfectly to the last time he had a similar ERA and doesn't come near his ratio of quality starts in years which he was actually good.

[Feeky Magee]

For a guy who complains when he thinks pitching moves are being based on ERA, you sure do mention ERA a lot. What I mentioned is take the 4 starts out of 21 where Danks got pummeled and gave up 7 or 8 runs. His other 17 starts , which include a couple of non quality starts produces an ERA of 2.89. His 4 worst games he allowed 28 runs in 19 innings. His other 112 innings, 36 ER. You can give me xFip SIERRA all that crap. What matters in the end is runs, and Danks usually does OK with that. When they hand out the trophy at the end of the year, you can't use a challenge and have them look at the xFIP replay.

I've pointed out earlier that Danks's career ERA matches up well to his peripherals so it makes perfect sense to use it there. My problem with pitching moves based on ERA is within a season when a pitcher like Cleto has a low ERA but awful peripherals. And as others have pointed out, you can't just take a fifth of player performance away and say "look how good he is now!". And as I've pointed out, using a fairer definition of a quality start, Danks hasn't really limited his badness to a couple of performances all that dramatically.

[Dick Allen]

I understand that, but it's still 19% of his total games pitched this year. You can't just cherry pick those out as if they didn't happen.

 

If you take out 19% of Adam Dunn's worst plate appearances, you're removing 68 plate appearances. If, out of those 68 plate appearances, we take out 10 singles and 58 outs - a line of .150/.150/.150 - Dunn's line transforms into a thing of beauty - .254/.414/.522/.936. Do you believe Dunn is closer to a .254/.414/.522/.936 type of player, or the .229/.363/.435/.798 player we've grown accustomed to?

That isn't the same. I'm not taking 19% of the worst AB in which Danks was pitching. I'm pretty sure if I did that, his ERA would be 0.00. If Adam Dunn has a good game 80% of the time, no one would ever want to get rid of him. Q is a good pitcher. Throw out his worst 4 starts ER-wise and his ERA is 2.28. Danks isn't Q. No one said he is. I haven't even said he's worth a top prospect. I even commented if the Sox wanted JR Murphy, they would have to sweeten the pot. All I am saying is Danks is not the bum advanced stats makes him out to be. The games he pitches 4 innings and gives up 8 runs are going to be losses if he pitches 4 and gives up 6. He is 6 earned runs away from an ERA below 4.00. For the most part, IMO, he has pitched better than his numbers, and if he threw 93 even, with the exact same results, people would have a totally different opinion of his performance.

 

Sometimes the results are what counts.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Dick Allen

[LittleHurt05]

If you discount Ubaldo Jimenez's worst 4 starts, his ERA is 3.19.

 

If you discount Jeremy Guthrie's worst 4 starts, his ERA is 3.38.

 

There are some really good starters in the AL!

[shysocks]

That isn't the same. I'm not taking 19% of the worst AB in which Danks was pitching. If Adam Dunn has a good game 80% of the time, no one would ever want to get rid of him. Q is a good pitcher. Throw out his worst 4 starts ER-wise and his ERA is 2.28. Danks isn't Q. No one said he is. I haven't even said he's worth a top prospect. I even commented if the Sox wanted JR Murphy, they would have to sweeten the pot. All I am saying is Danks is not the bum advanced stats makes him out to be. The games he pitches 4 innings and gives up 8 runs are going to be losses if he pitches 4 and gives up 6. He is 6 earned runs away from an ERA below 4.00. For the most part, IMO, he has pitched better than his numbers, and if he threw 93 even, with the exact same results, people would have a totally different opinion of his performance.

 

Sometimes the results are what counts.

Danks' 4 stinkers:

5-02: 5 IP, 8 ER, Sox lose 12-5

5-18: 4.2 IP, 7 ER, Sox lose 8-2

6-22: 5 IP, 6 ER, Sox lose 6-5

7-20: 4.1 IP, 7 ER, Sox lose 11-7

 

The Sox likely win at least one of those games if John Danks is merely bad instead of terrible. That does matter - every run potentially matters. One extra win every 21 games is 7-8 wins for a season.

 

I'm not saying he has to be great every time out. I'm not even sure what anyone's saying or which side of the argument everyone's on at this point. All I know is that he's pretty comfortably a back-of-rotation pitcher now, and his salary dampens his trade value a lot.

[oldsox]

I understand that, but it's still 19% of his total games pitched this year. You can't just cherry pick those out as if they didn't happen.

 

If you take out 19% of Adam Dunn's worst plate appearances, you're removing 68 plate appearances. If, out of those 68 plate appearances, we take out 10 singles and 58 outs - a line of .150/.150/.150 - Dunn's line transforms into a thing of beauty - .254/.414/.522/.936. Do you believe Dunn is closer to a .254/.414/.522/.936 type of player, or the .229/.363/.435/.798 player we've grown accustomed to?

How long did it take you to do the math?

[witesoxfan]

How long did it take you to do the math?

 

5 minutes, if that. It may not be exact but it paints the picture.

[Feeky Magee]

How long did it take you to do the math?

Probably shorter than it took me to do mine. In my defence, it's raining.

[Dick Allen]

5 minutes, if that. It may not be exact but it paints the picture.

It doesn't paint the picture. It's a different measurement.

[SCCWS]

 

I am amazed the Red Sox would "rent" Lester but where there is smoke there is fire. I would have to guess Lester would be a more attractive add than Danks---- all things considered. I would think the Red Sox would not want Lester going to AL East though.

[Feeky Magee]

It doesn't paint the picture. It's a different measurement.

What do you think about the difference in the quality starts stats when you tweak the definition of quality starts?

[witesoxfan]

It doesn't paint the picture. It's a different measurement.

 

It paints the picture just fine. If you take out 20% of a player's worst numbers, they are typically going to look pretty good. It wouldn't have mattered if I'd done games or plate appearances or games started by a pitcher. You can't just say "if you take out these 4 starts" because those make up a substantial portion of this season's numbers.

[Dick Allen]

What do you think about the difference in the quality starts stats when you tweak the definition of quality starts?

Danks pitched 7 innings last time out and gave up 4 runs, but actually pitched well. Sometimes QS is a QS, sometimes it's not and vice versa. To tweek it and say it matches what "should" happen to me is just coincidence. We don't know what "should" happen. If we did, there would be no reason to play the game. I have always loved stats. I used to play Stratomatic and one of my favorite parts was doing the stats. (Now it's done on a computer for you). But I am starting to agree with the poster who said the advanced stats are taking the joy out of it. If a guy has a good game, some stat that has nothing to do with hits or outs or strikes or balls or errors or pitches or runs will say, no that's a bad performance, and then you can have the Jeff Samardjiza performance last year where he was yanked after giving up 9 runs in 4 innings, but had a lot of K's so his xFIP that game was 3.70 or something like that , and no, he didn't pitch bad. Look how hard he threw and how many strikeouts he had. Forget everything else. A soft tosser like Danks, it's the opposite. Forget all the outs he got and the lack of runs. He didn't strike nearly enough out. He was only throwing 89. That's not a good performance.

 

The fact is Danks is on pace for close to 200 innings pitched and most of the time pitches a pretty solid game. If the peripherals say he's one of the league's worst pitchers, the peripherals are wrong. He's no ace, but he's no bum.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Dick Allen

[Feeky Magee]

Danks pitched 7 innings last time out and gave up 4 runs, but actually pitched well. Sometimes QS is a QS, sometimes it's not and vice versa. To tweek it and say it matches what "should" happen to me is just coincidence. We don't know what "should" happen. If we did, there would be no reason to play the game. I have always loved stats. I used to play Stratomatic and one of my favorite parts was doing the stats. (Now it's done on a computer for you). But I am starting to agree with the poster who said the advanced stats are taking the joy out of it. If a guy has a good game, some stat that has nothing to do with hits or outs or strikes or balls or errors or pitches or runs will say, no that's a bad performance, and then you can have the Jeff Samardjiza performance last year where he was yanked after giving up 7 runs in 4 innings, but had a lot of K's so his xFIP that game was 3.70 or something like that , and no, he didn't pitch bad. Look how hard he threw and how many strikeouts he had. Forget everything else. A soft tosser like Danks, it's the opposite. Forget all the outs he got and the lack of runs. He didn't strike nearly enough out. He was only throwing 89. That's not a good performance.

 

The fact is Danks is on pace for close to 200 innings pitched and most of the time pitches a pretty solid game. If the peripherals say he's one of the league's worst pitchers, the peripherals are wrong. He's no ace, but he's no bum.

This whole thing started by people stating Danks had a lot of quality starts this year. I pointed out that if you tweaked quality starts to mean an official start with less than 4 ERA (which is I think a fairer definition than the current one which allows 4.50 ERA starts to mean a quality start), his rate this year wasn't very good at all, and didn't compare to his years when he was actually pitching well. I'm not sure what that has to do with peripherals. In any case, the point of peripherals is more about being predictive than to say what has happened. If Samardjiza kept making that amount of strikeouts, he wasn't going to let that amount of runs score. Lo and behold, that happened. And by the way, even by straight ERA, Danks ranks 78th of 92 qualified starters in the league.

[witesoxfan]

The fact is Danks is on pace for close to 200 innings pitched and most of the time pitches a pretty solid game. If the peripherals say he's one of the league's worst pitchers, the peripherals are wrong. He's no ace, but he's no bum.

 

I have absolutely no problem with these statements right here. He is definitely a glue guy on a staff. Guys like John Danks - who go out, keep the team in the game, and eat innings - are incredibly valuable to a pitching staff, but it's mostly intrinsic value. You aren't going to get a nice package of prospects for him, but if you do trade him, you could certainly get a couple of decent players for him.

 

Frankly, whatever they do with Danks I'm fine with.

[Eminor3rd]

Danks pitched 7 innings last time out and gave up 4 runs, but actually pitched well. Sometimes QS is a QS, sometimes it's not and vice versa. To tweek it and say it matches what "should" happen to me is just coincidence. We don't know what "should" happen. If we did, there would be no reason to play the game. I have always loved stats. I used to play Stratomatic and one of my favorite parts was doing the stats. (Now it's done on a computer for you). But I am starting to agree with the poster who said the advanced stats are taking the joy out of it. If a guy has a good game, some stat that has nothing to do with hits or outs or strikes or balls or errors or pitches or runs will say, no that's a bad performance, and then you can have the Jeff Samardjiza performance last year where he was yanked after giving up 9 runs in 4 innings, but had a lot of K's so his xFIP that game was 3.70 or something like that , and no, he didn't pitch bad. Look how hard he threw and how many strikeouts he had. Forget everything else. A soft tosser like Danks, it's the opposite. Forget all the outs he got and the lack of runs. He didn't strike nearly enough out. He was only throwing 89. That's not a good performance.

 

The fact is Danks is on pace for close to 200 innings pitched and most of the time pitches a pretty solid game. If the peripherals say he's one of the league's worst pitchers, the peripherals are wrong. He's no ace, but he's no bum.

 

Dude I LOVE it when our guys get lucky and win. It's edge-of-the-seat baseball. I don't give a s*** if they earn it or not.

 

But then when we start talking about what we actually HAVE for the future, reality sets in. I'd rather know what to expect than to be disappointed that Phil Humber didn't turn out to be legit.

 

EDIT: He's not one of the league's worst starters, he's just not anything special and he's paid like he's special. The key to trade value is surplus value, and guys that are overpaid don't have any.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[Baron]

Talked to Dan Hayes on Twitter. He said he hears that some of the Danks talk is manufactured.

[BlackSox13]

Talked to Dan Hayes on Twitter. He said he hears that some of the Danks talk is manufactured.

Likely by the White Sox?