PDA

View Full Version : Has EVERYONE else given up on Javy?


WhiteSoxFan84
11-07-2008, 12:15 AM
So he had a horrible 2008, but Javier Vazquez is not worthless especially with his current deal. The guy has no-hit stuff and would make a very solid 4th or 5th starter. Trading him away for some of the names I've heard (namely Julio Lugo) is such a joke IMO. I'd much rather see a rotation of Buehrle/Floyd/Danks/Vaz/Count or Richard or whoever and a middle infield of Alexei/Getz or Nix rather than a rotation of Buehrle/Floyd/Danks/Count/Richard and a middle infield of Lugo and Alexei.

And I'm tired of seeing Kenny William dealing veterans for older veterans that leave us in a year or two (Garland for OC) or prospects for veterans (Masset/Richar for Griffey). If he deals Javy, get us some young talent in return.

Am I alone in either of these two ways of thinking?

jshanahanjr
11-07-2008, 12:21 AM
Javy has great value to any team over a 162 game season. You have to get something very good in return.

btrain929
11-07-2008, 12:24 AM
So he had a horrible 2008, but Javier Vazquez is not worthless especially with his current deal. The guy has no-hit stuff and would make a very solid 4th or 5th starter. Trading him away for some of the names I've heard (namely Julio Lugo) is such a joke IMO. I'd much rather see a rotation of Buehrle/Floyd/Danks/Vaz/Count or Richard or whoever and a middle infield of Alexei/Getz or Nix rather than a rotation of Buehrle/Floyd/Danks/Count/Richard and a middle infield of Lugo and Alexei.

And I'm tired of seeing Kenny William dealing veterans for older veterans that leave us in a year or two (Garland for OC) or prospects for veterans (Masset/Richar for Griffey). If he deals Javy, get us some young talent in return.

Am I alone in either of these two ways of thinking?

I agree with everything you said until the bolded part. We had a little bit of depth at SP, and KW wanted to see what he had with Danks and Floyd, making Garland expendable. The reason that deal made sense was because it saved us money (Cabrera was making less than Garland, plus LAA threw in money), and Cabrera will net us 2 draft picks while Garland was only going to net us 1. Plus SS was one of our huge weak spots on the team going into the year. I don't know how you couldn't love that deal.

Masset and Richar had no place and no spots in the near future on our team. PK and Swish were sucking it up, so KW wanted to add some depth to give Ozzie another option to go to. CIN wanted to take a chance on Masset and Richar, so we made the deal. It's not like Masset and Richar were big time prospects that could really net us some great return if dealt in another trade. So, again, no problem with that trade.

I personally don't think Javy will be traded. I don't see us trading him, having Richard in the rotation, and then us going after a FA SP. That's a big hassle, when we can just keep Javy, unless a deal blows KW's mind and he can use the saved money from Javy's contract to pursue another player.

chisoxfanatic
11-07-2008, 12:27 AM
I have no problem with Javy still being on our pitching staff as long as he's our #5 starter.

whitesox901
11-07-2008, 12:29 AM
I have no problem with Javy still being on our pitching staff as long as he's our #5 starter.

Couldnt agree more

WhiteSox5187
11-07-2008, 01:23 AM
I have no problem with Javy still being on our pitching staff as long as he's our #5 starter.
I think he would be a very good number four starter, but he is not exactly the sort of guy that is going to carry us (or any team) down the stretch.

EuroSox35
11-07-2008, 01:25 AM
I'm less worried about him being here then I am about him being our #4 starter. I'd rather have a higher priority on replacing Contreras. I hope we learned form the 02 type years from just trying a callup as our #5. Danks and Floyd are young are were studs last year, but they did have a year under their belt, and how hard will it be to find that kind of lightning again?

gr8mexico
11-07-2008, 01:54 AM
I have no problem with Javy still being on our pitching staff as long as he's our #5 starter.
I agree but the problem will be that Javy wont see himself as a #5 starter. He got payed to be a #2 or #3 type pitcher and for some reason he doesn't live up to it.

kittle42
11-07-2008, 01:57 AM
payed

Yikes.

In any event, I don't think he should be moved, but he also should not be considered anything more than a No. 4, and an unreliable one at that.

Frankfan4life
11-07-2008, 02:04 AM
Sometimes a player has an off year and really struggles. I believe that Javy has the potential to have some very good seasons and I would have no problem keeping him in the rotation.

chisoxfanatic
11-07-2008, 02:40 AM
I agree but the problem will be that Javy wont see himself as a #5 starter. He got payed to be a #2 or #3 type pitcher and for some reason he doesn't live up to it.
If he doesn't want to be a 5th starter, he has to show that he's capable of being more than a 5th starter. I never felt confident once this whole season when he took the mound.

CWSpalehoseCWS
11-07-2008, 02:51 AM
I believe I'm one of the few people here that would rather keep Vazquez on the team for next year. He's a servicable 4th starter that we are going to need especially because of Contreras' injury. Richard was great out of the pen and I for one would rather see him late in a game than Logan or Ramirez. If there's someone to trade, let's get rid of Dye. He always puts up the stats, but it always seems like he can't get it done in clutch situations. He has more value too, IMO. Either way, after what Kenny pulled off last year with Quentin and Ramirez, I'll back his decisions. I just hope he goes out and gets a vet to take Javy's place. I don't want to see a rookie rotation. Floyd is sure to fall off somewhat as is Danks.

LITTLE NELL
11-07-2008, 05:57 AM
No doubt he has the stuff to be real good pitcher but he is either a head case or just does not have the fire in the belly to be a consistant winner. I would give him one more year starting him out as our 5th starter hoping we pick up a #4 starter.

dickallen15
11-07-2008, 08:27 AM
Javy was the 5th starter in 2006, and he sucked. I think KW and Ozzie are coming to the conclusion justifying paying a guy what they pay Javy to be a below .500 pitcher on a good team, with an ERA higher than league average, is hard to do. Granted he gives you innings, but even that good part of him was to fading at the end of 2008. If some other team is mesmorized as much as some Sox fans by his strikeout figures and willing to ignore the results, trading him is a great way to loosen up some money for players who can win. 2008 isn't the first, or even the second time Javy dissappointed.

Rocky Soprano
11-07-2008, 09:19 AM
I want him to stay as our #5.

doublem23
11-07-2008, 09:28 AM
I have no problem with Javy still being on our pitching staff as long as he's our #5 starter.

I really don't understand this kind of thinking, over the course of a 162-game season the opening day rotation means very little. The #5 guy pitches maybe 2-3 games less than the #1 guy. It doesn't matter where a guy is slotted in your depth chart, if he's a starter then he's going to get some innings.

veeter
11-07-2008, 10:13 AM
I have no problem with Javy still being on our pitching staff as long as he's our #5 starter.Right on.

KenBerryGrab
11-07-2008, 10:14 AM
The problem with dealing him now is his value is down.
You wouldn't get back near what he's worth.

jabrch
11-07-2008, 10:24 AM
Am I alone in either of these two ways of thinking?

You are not.

Javy is a decent pitcher. If we would be giving him up for nothing, I'd rather keep Javy. There are very few guys who can go out there every 5th day and throw 7 innings consistently, over the course of many seasons. Javy is one of them. Some years his ERA has been better, others worse, but I'd much rather have Javy in our rotation than give him away for nothing.

chisoxfanatic
11-07-2008, 10:26 AM
I really don't understand this kind of thinking, over the course of a 162-game season the opening day rotation means very little. The #5 guy pitches maybe 2-3 games less than the #1 guy. It doesn't matter where a guy is slotted in your depth chart, if he's a starter then he's going to get some innings.
Yea, but the #5 starter is less likely to be "facing off" with another team's ace or #2. He is most likely to face another team's #4 or #5. I know that a pitcher directly faces hitters; but, it couldn't help to increase the possibility of him getting some more run support.

doublem23
11-07-2008, 10:29 AM
Yea, but the #5 starter is less likely to be "facing off" with another team's ace or #2. He is most likely to face another team's #4 or #5. I know that a pitcher directly faces hitters; but, it couldn't help to increase the possibility of him getting some more run support.

Not at all. Scheduling differences, injuries, rain outs, etc. all throw off every team's rotation. I'd say after the first week or so, on any given day you're just as likely to face a team's best starter as you are to face their worst.

Rotation numbers don't mean anything until the play-offs.

WhiteSoxFan84
11-07-2008, 10:29 AM
I really don't understand this kind of thinking, over the course of a 162-game season the opening day rotation means very little. The #5 guy pitches maybe 2-3 games less than the #1 guy. It doesn't matter where a guy is slotted in your depth chart, if he's a starter then he's going to get some innings.

That's not the reason that we want him at 4 or 5. The reasoning is what the meaning of each slot is going into the season.
1 - your ace, the go-to guy when your team is slumping.
2 - the backup ace, very reliable, very good. Just doesn't have the pressure of being the # 1. Perfect for young, up and coming pitchers.
3 - very reliable, chance to throw like an ace but not expected to.
4 - a solid contributor, innings eater, with the stuff to pitch a game in the playoffs.
5 - a pitcher around.500 who can also log some innings. Not much is expected, just stay healthy, keep us in ballgames (4.50-4.75 ERA), and get into and hopefully out of the 6th inning with a reasonable performance more times than not.


Javy can do what's expected from a #5 a lot better than anyone else we have. Yes, he makes $11mill per but that's because he has the stuff to be as high as a 3 or even a 2. Will he show that stuff and do it all year long next year? I hope so.


And for those saying we'd trade Javy to get rid of his contract, WRONG, we'd trade his "bad" contract for some other bad contract. If we save anything it won't nearly be enough to equate to the money it'll take to bring in another solid SP.

If we do trade him, I'd like us to be in hot pursuit of Ben Sheets. I just think he'd fit in perfectly behind Burls and infront of Danks in the rotation. Then Gavin would go behind Danks and right before our new #5 (Contreras, Richard, whoever - as long as their decent).

doublem23
11-07-2008, 10:33 AM
That's not the reason that we want him at 4 or 5. The reasoning is what the meaning of each slot is going into the season.
1 - your ace, the go-to guy when your team is slumping.
2 - the backup ace, very reliable, very good. Just doesn't have the pressure of being the # 1. Perfect for young, up and coming pitchers.
3 - very reliable, chance to throw like an ace but not expected to.
4 - a solid contributor, innings eater, with the stuff to pitch a game in the playoffs.
5 - a pitcher around.500 who can also log some innings. Not much is expected, just stay healthy, keep us in ballgames (4.50-4.75 ERA), and get into and hopefully out of the 6th inning with a reasonable performance more times than not.

This is a riduclous, mythological way to slot pitchers. I want 5 guys who will go out, eat a decent amount of innings and give the Sox the chanc to win most of their starts. I don't care about this silly numbering nonsense, the starting rotation is not your batting order that needs a defined order to work effectively.

Right now, Javier Vazquez is the 4th best starter on the White Sox, with no real 5th starter behind him. That means if you deal him away, you need to find two starter to fill the hole you've created at the back of your rotation. Not exactly the easiest task.

LoveYourSuit
11-07-2008, 10:37 AM
If he doesn't want to be a 5th starter, he has to show that he's capable of being more than a 5th starter. I never felt confident once this whole season when he took the mound.


April and May the guy was real good. The wheels fell off afte that.

I think the importance of a guy like Javy got bigger the minute Contreras tore his foot off. You need innings eaters right now or sit back and enjoy watching this bullpen implode once again for another season.

jabrch
11-07-2008, 10:38 AM
#5, #4, #3...who cares?

Here's the question...

MB, Danks, Floyd and ? and ?

If not Javy, who gets 200+ IP for us? I'm fine with Javy, I'm fine without him. If Coop, OG and KW believe Clayton can go out there and take the ball every 5th day, and throw something like 180+ IP, that answers one of those ?. But there's still another spot. I don't care what # we call that spot, but who is in it?

We know what we get from Javy. 200-220 IP with an ERA likely between 4 - 4.5, but with a chance of being +/- another quarter run. I'll take that - if we have no other options. I surely wouldn''t give up Javy for nothing - or worse yet for someone else's garbage.

NLaloosh
11-07-2008, 10:41 AM
I'm ok with keeping Vazquez but I think Kenny will trade him.

And, I think if he's patient and waits until after the top 5 pitchers are moved that he can get a nice return for him.

LoveYourSuit
11-07-2008, 10:46 AM
I'm ok with keeping Vazquez but I think Kenny will trade him.

And, I think if he's patient and waits until after the top 5 pitchers are moved that he can get a nice return for him.

I don't think there is "nice return" market for a guy like Javy. Big salary and not an ACE. Teams out there will be looking at this as a salary dump from Kenny's part and at best will perhaps exchange a bad contract for what they consider a bad contract on our part.

No market means you keep the guy and suck up the salary. We can still use his 200 innings.

WhiteSoxFan84
11-07-2008, 10:46 AM
This is a riduclous, mythological way to slot pitchers. I want 5 guys who will go out, eat a decent amount of innings and give the Sox the chanc to win most of their starts. I don't care about this silly numbering nonsense, the starting rotation is not your batting order that needs a defined order to work effectively.

Right now, Javier Vazquez is the 4th best starter on the White Sox, with no real 5th starter behind him. That means if you deal him away, you need to find two starter to fill the hole you've created at the back of your rotation. Not exactly the easiest task.


How is it mythological? You think GMs, managers, and pitching coaches just go into every season with 5 starters and say "Allllrighty, let's have'em go at it and we'll figure out what we have in August. Draw names out of a hat to figure who starts 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc"?

No, logical GMs look at what they have and how good it is. That's how you figure out whether a position player is good enough to start 140+ games a year or if he's better suited being a utility/backup.
Although late into a season roles do change - i.e. if Burls struggles and is being outperformed heavily by anybody else in the rotation then he loses his "ace" outlook -, organizations do look at their inventory and slot it into fields (i.e. an ace, a future ace/mid-rotation guy currently, back end of the rotation guy, etc).

chisox616
11-07-2008, 10:56 AM
I've been hearing that the Mets are interested in him but honestly... Who would we get in return? Someone from that atrocious bullpen?

chisoxmike
11-07-2008, 11:02 AM
Just give me five guys who get outs and can give the team a chance to win while he's on the mound, and I'm fine with that. Personally, I don't think Vazquez does that.

Rotation numbers don't mean ****.

I do believe teams should have a "ace" starter in the roation. Mark Buehrle is that man for us.

areilly
11-07-2008, 11:10 AM
Just so everyone's clear, 2009 will be JV's twelfth season in the majors. He's beyond the point of "potential."

munchman33
11-07-2008, 11:12 AM
If we can get a #4 without increasing payroll, I have no qualms with keeping Javy at #5. But we need improvement at #4, and I don't see us acquiring someone to fit that role without dumping Javy's salary.

munchman33
11-07-2008, 11:13 AM
Just so everyone's clear, 2009 will be JV's twelfth season in the majors. He's beyond the point of "potential."

Thank you.

spiffie
11-07-2008, 11:21 AM
You are not.

Javy is a decent pitcher. If we would be giving him up for nothing, I'd rather keep Javy. There are very few guys who can go out there every 5th day and throw 7 innings consistently, over the course of many seasons. Javy is one of them. Some years his ERA has been better, others worse, but I'd much rather have Javy in our rotation than give him away for nothing.
Just FYI, Vazquez threw 7 innings 14 out of 33 times last year. That isn't terrible, but I wouldn't call that consistent. He averaged about six and a third last year. (208.33 innings in 33 starts)

ChiSoxFan81
11-07-2008, 11:22 AM
Just so everyone's clear, 2009 will be JV's twelfth season in the majors. He's beyond the point of "potential."

LOL. Seriously. His career record is almost spot on the .500 mark. He has good "stuff", but anyone who thinks that he is some ace that can break out and win 18-20 games for us now is dreaming. On the same token, he's not likely to go 8-14. He will eat innings, preserving your bullpen, and win about half his starts. Not too bad for a back-of-the-rotation guy. I just wish that Ozzie and Coop would have a little quicker hook for him when he gets into trouble in the 5th-6th inning so they don't let him give up that one big inning that always seems to cost him. If they can get him out before he implodes the 3rd time through the order, he could be well over .500.

chisoxmike
11-07-2008, 11:23 AM
LOL. Seriously. His career record is almost spot on the .500 mark. He has good "stuff", but anyone who thinks that he is some ace that can break out and win 18-20 games for us now is dreaming.

The problem is that people expected that from Vazquez. He's always been average. Always will be.

mzh
11-07-2008, 11:24 AM
My opinions on Javy Vazquez:

The way I see it, we either have two options. Option 1 is that we trade Javy soon while he still has any market value left. However, I do no like this option until Kenny can pick up another decent pitcher like Jon Garland or (dare I say it) Ryan Dempster. If we deal him before then, we will be stuck with a three-man rotation (given that Contreras is done) + a Clayton Richard/Lance Broadway/Aaron Poreda training camp dogfight.

Option 2 is that we simply wait and see. We keep Javy through training camp and the beginning of the season, and (though he might turn in to a Rex Grossman type player with the fans, i.e. someone the fans will dislike no matter what at this point.), given that he is having a decent year and the sox are in the playoff picture, trade him at the deadline in a deal likened to what the Cubs did for Rich Harden before he (Javy) can do any more damage in pressure situtations.

Freddy Garcia once called himself a "big-game pitcher". Javy Vazquez is just the opposite, and we can't afford to let him mess up badly again towards the seasons end.

spiffie
11-07-2008, 11:26 AM
LOL. Seriously. His career record is almost spot on the .500 mark. He has good "stuff", but anyone who thinks that he is some ace that can break out and win 18-20 games for us now is dreaming. On the same token, he's not likely to go 8-14.
He did go 12-16 last year. It's not really that much of a difference.

PaleHoser
11-07-2008, 11:26 AM
I have no problem with Vazquez as #5 starter. My problem is that he's not being paid like a #5 starter. He can stay providing he gives half his salary to someone who can compete and win when it's crunch time.

areilly
11-07-2008, 11:28 AM
The problem is that people expected that from Vazquez. He's always been average. Always will be.

Good point. I think those gaudy strikeouts blind people (myself included) to the true sum of his abilities.

mzh
11-07-2008, 11:34 AM
I have no problem with Vazquez as #5 starter. My problem is that he's not being paid like a #5 starter. He can stay providing he gives half his salary to someone who can compete and win when it's crunch time.
I think you bring up a very good point. Javy is being paid a lot of money, but at the moment, I think Javy only has value as a number 4 starter at best. What he needs to understand is that he is not an ace, and he does not need to win every time and start sweating raindrops every time he gives up a run. After the 08 season, I think that Vazquez's job for '09 (provided he's still here) is not to pitch games that we need 7 innings of 1 or two run baseball. Those are the games you give to Mark Beuhrle or John Danks (15+ innings of 3 run baseball vs. Minnesota & Tampa). All Javy needs to do is come out after those games and win the ones that we don't necessarily need to win, but games that would make us more secure.

FarmerAndy
11-07-2008, 11:44 AM
I don't mind having Javy at the back of the rotation. I also don't mind trading him if we can get GOOD return on him that fills needs. But the idea that he has no value or that he is costing us too much is ridiculous.

Javy has value. And in the terms of today's market, he is not overpaid. Look around baseball, serviceable starters cost money.

Gil Meche will make $11 million next year, and $12 per year in '10 and '11. He's had a couple of pretty good years there with the Royals, but he's a career 4.36 ERA. Not bad, not great.

Vincente Padilla hasn't had an ERA under 4.00 since 2003, he will make $12 million per year over the next 2 seasons.

JAKE WESTBROOK WILL MAKE $10 MILLION NEXT YEAR!!!!

How about Kevin Millwood? Past couple of years he's had an ERA over 5.00 and a record under .500. He'll make $11 million in '09 and $12 million in '10.

Okay, enough comparisons. Point is, Javy isn't breaking the bank. He makes about as much money as a pitcher of his caliber will make. (And he's definately more serviceable than at least a couple of those guys mentioned above.) When all of the big names are gone, there will be teams out there that will need to shore up their roatations, and they will be more than interested in a guy like Javy.

He's not some salary dump that we need to trade for a bag of balls or some washed up veteran position player. If you can get some real return on him, then do it. If not, he's fine where he is.

jabrch
11-07-2008, 11:45 AM
I have no problem with Vazquez as #5 starter. My problem is that he's not being paid like a #5 starter. He can stay providing he gives half his salary to someone who can compete and win when it's crunch time.

Is that true?

Find me all the #5 starters who have averaged over 200 IP over an 5+ years. Now figure out what they make? I'd imagine their average salary is pretty much Javy's - since I don't think you will find many #5 starters who throw 200 IP every season.

BigP50
11-07-2008, 11:46 AM
Honestly, I have never really liked Javy but after his sucking towards the end of the season that was it for me

ChiSoxFan81
11-07-2008, 11:52 AM
He did go 12-16 last year. It's not really that much of a difference.

Not really, but that was a product of him being horrible his last few starts. He'll be in the vicinity of .500, especially if Ozzie can pull him in those starts when he struggles in the 5th-6th. I think that everyone is forgetting that he has value to the team because they are choosing to focus on his last few starts of last season. Trust me, he frustrated me more than anyone, and I booed him off the field his last start against Cleveland. But I still realize it's not worth giving him up for nothing.

mzh
11-07-2008, 11:54 AM
When all of the big names are gone, there will be teams out there that will need to shore up their roatations, and they will be more than interested in a guy like Javy.


That is probably the bright spot in finding value for Javier Vazquez. Javy is a mediocre, .500 career pitcher who has talent, but boy does it take alot to get that talent out of the foxhole. I think what Kenny saw in the 2006 offseason was a guy who had a lot of talent that just needed to be extracted forcefully. Perhaps some other GM will see the same thing that Kenny saw in him, and be fool enough to give up talent because he thinks he can make something out of Javy other than the average pitcher that he is.

munchman33
11-07-2008, 12:20 PM
I don't mind having Javy at the back of the rotation. I also don't mind trading him if we can get GOOD return on him that fills needs. But the idea that he has no value or that he is costing us too much is ridiculous.

Javy has value. And in the terms of today's market, he is not overpaid. Look around baseball, serviceable starters cost money.

Gil Meche will make $11 million next year, and $12 per year in '10 and '11. He's had a couple of pretty good years there with the Royals, but he's a career 4.36 ERA. Not bad, not great.

Vincente Padilla hasn't had an ERA under 4.00 since 2003, he will make $12 million per year over the next 2 seasons.

JAKE WESTBROOK WILL MAKE $10 MILLION NEXT YEAR!!!!

How about Kevin Millwood? Past couple of years he's had an ERA over 5.00 and a record under .500. He'll make $11 million in '09 and $12 million in '10.

Okay, enough comparisons. Point is, Javy isn't breaking the bank. He makes about as much money as a pitcher of his caliber will make. (And he's definately more serviceable than at least a couple of those guys mentioned above.) When all of the big names are gone, there will be teams out there that will need to shore up their roatations, and they will be more than interested in a guy like Javy.

He's not some salary dump that we need to trade for a bag of balls or some washed up veteran position player. If you can get some real return on him, then do it. If not, he's fine where he is.

This kind of an argument makes no sense. There are far more pitchers better than Javy making less than he is than there are worse pitchers making more. And it isn't even close. You can't take extreme cases and make them the norm.

mzh
11-07-2008, 12:25 PM
I booed him off the field his last start against Cleveland. But I still realize it's not worth giving him up for nothing.

I was at that game against cleveland, where he struck out 5 or 6 in 5 innings of 1 run 1 hit ball, but then he got in trouble and gave up 5 runs in the sixth before Ozzie pulled him for Clayton Richard. Richard was excellent late in the season being a fireman for bad starts and going 4 or 5 innings. I think Ozzie might get 2% of the blame because it seems that he may have been too hesitant to yank the leash and bring in the relievers like Carrasco and Richard who bailed us out in the second half when the bullpen collapsed.

Will D.J. Carrasco still be around next year? Was he even on the playoff roster?

FarmerAndy
11-07-2008, 12:29 PM
That is probably the bright spot in finding value for Javier Vazquez. Javy is a mediocre, .500 career pitcher who has talent, but boy does it take alot to get that talent out of the foxhole. I think what Kenny saw in the 2006 offseason was a guy who had a lot of talent that just needed to be extracted forcefully. Perhaps some other GM will see the same thing that Kenny saw in him, and be fool enough to give up talent because he thinks he can make something out of Javy other than the average pitcher that he is.


Why does a GM need to think he'll get more out of Javy than the average pitcher he is??? My whole point was that AVERAGE PITCHERS HAVE VALUE. There are 30 teams, each with 5 rotation spots. That's 150 starters, and they ain't all aces. Many of them aren't even that serviceable. A guy like Javy, as the average pitcher he is now, has value. He'd be a #4 or #3 on a lot of staffs. If he's my #5, I am more than happy with my roatation.

munchman33
11-07-2008, 12:36 PM
Why does a GM need to think he'll get more out of Javy than the average pitcher he is??? My whole point was that AVERAGE PITCHERS HAVE VALUE. There are 30 teams, each with 5 rotation spots. That's 150 starters, and they ain't all aces. Many of them aren't even that serviceable. A guy like Javy, as the average pitcher he is now, has value. He'd be a #4 or #3 on a lot of staffs. If he's my #5, I am more than happy with my roatation.

The problem isn't that Javy's average. The problem is that on a contender Javy is below average.

mzh
11-07-2008, 12:39 PM
Why does a GM need to think he'll get more out of Javy than the average pitcher he is??? My whole point was that AVERAGE PITCHERS HAVE VALUE. There are 30 teams, each with 5 rotation spots. That's 150 starters, and they ain't all aces. Many of them aren't even that serviceable. A guy like Javy, as the average pitcher he is now, has value. He'd be a #4 or #3 on a lot of staffs. If he's my #5, I am more than happy with my roatation.

My point exactly. Javy is a mediocre pitcher, and definitely a #3 starter in a lot of places. That is why this is a good thing. He is an average pitcher, but a lot of GM's (including KW if you ask me) saw him a a pitcher with more talent than his .500 record showed. Javy was our best started in '07, so Oz moved him up in the rotation, and he sucked. Javy had a decent year in 07, and it made a lot of people think that he was better than he is. All of this means that GM's are more likely to give up talent for Javy, which is why I sure as heck want to see him traded by the end of 09. We fell for the mirage in 07, and unless he moves soon, it's not going to happen again, and KW needs to take advantage of it.

Jerome
11-07-2008, 12:42 PM
So he had a horrible 2008, but Javier Vazquez is not worthless especially with his current deal. The guy has no-hit stuff and would make a very solid 4th or 5th starter. Trading him away for some of the names I've heard (namely Julio Lugo) is such a joke IMO. I'd much rather see a rotation of Buehrle/Floyd/Danks/Vaz/Count or Richard or whoever and a middle infield of Alexei/Getz or Nix rather than a rotation of Buehrle/Floyd/Danks/Count/Richard and a middle infield of Lugo and Alexei.

And I'm tired of seeing Kenny William dealing veterans for older veterans that leave us in a year or two (Garland for OC) or prospects for veterans (Masset/Richar for Griffey). If he deals Javy, get us some young talent in return.

Am I alone in either of these two ways of thinking?

I think he should stay as the 4th starter, hopefully the emergance of Richard or another acquisition makes him the 5th.

(and you should change your signature - i was given a warning for featuring a presidential candidate in my sig a while back - just throwing that out there)

FarmerAndy
11-07-2008, 12:54 PM
This kind of an argument makes no sense. There are far more pitchers better than Javy making less than he is than there are worse pitchers making more. And it isn't even close. You can't take extreme cases and make them the norm.

You can find a lot of better pitchers who make less..... they are young and haven't reached their big payday yet.

A veteran who on average is .500 and gives you 200+ innings will cost you in the ballpark of $10 million.

Get good return for him that fills a need. If you can't accomplish that, then keep as your #5. Is that really so unreasonable???

mzh
11-07-2008, 12:58 PM
Get good return for him that fills a need. If you can't accomplish that, then keep as your #5. Is that really so unreasonable???

When you see these other young pitchers performing under pressure when their team needs them (i.e. Phil Hughes vs. Sox in August), and then you see Javy Vazquez struggling to get out of the first inning in September, I think it's very unreasonable. That money could be well used elsewhere.

FarmerAndy
11-07-2008, 01:05 PM
My point exactly. Javy is a mediocre pitcher, and definitely a #3 starter in a lot of places. That is why this is a good thing. He is an average pitcher, but a lot of GM's (including KW if you ask me) saw him a a pitcher with more talent than his .500 record showed. Javy was our best started in '07, so Oz moved him up in the rotation, and he sucked. Javy had a decent year in 07, and it made a lot of people think that he was better than he is. All of this means that GM's are more likely to give up talent for Javy, which is why I sure as heck want to see him traded by the end of 09. We fell for the mirage in 07, and unless he moves soon, it's not going to happen again, and KW needs to take advantage of it.

I understand what you're saying, and agree with most of it. But it seems that a lot of people think we need to get rid of him just to get rid of him. My point is this - if you can get good return that fills a need, and I hope they can, then pull the trigger. But he has value, don't just give him away for some washed up veteran position player or some crap like that.

At what we are paying him, if he gives you 200+ innings and 10 wins, then we got what we paid for. That makes way more sense than trading him away for some mediocre position player in return. But hopefully he is more valuable to another team who can offer parts that we need.

mzh
11-07-2008, 01:11 PM
I understand what you're saying, and agree with most of it. But it seems that a lot of people think we need to get rid of him just to get rid of him. My point is this - if you can get good return that fills a need, and I hope they can, then pull the trigger. But he has value, don't just give him away for some washed up veteran position player or some crap like that.

At what we are paying him, if he gives you 200+ innings and 10 wins, then we got what we paid for. That makes way more sense than trading him away for some mediocre position player in return. But hopefully he is more valuable to another team who can offer parts that we need.

Now I think we are on the same page. But I think if we are going to pay Javy to win 10 games, we would have to expect him to lose less than 10 and then have Clayton Richard win 10+, which I think is slightly unreasonable. I think that Oz needs to get to Javy that he is being paid to win games, and if he cannot win more than a rookie while he is being paid 12 Million Dollars, he should not be on this team. If this was a rookie Doc Gooden we're talking about, that's different, but Clayton Richard is definitely no Dwight Gooden.

FarmerAndy
11-07-2008, 01:17 PM
When you see these other young pitchers performing under pressure when their team needs them (i.e. Phil Hughes vs. Sox in August), and then you see Javy Vazquez struggling to get out of the first inning in September, I think it's very unreasonable. That money could be well used elsewhere.

Tell me where you are going to use the money. You can't go buy these young talented pitchers, they come up from the farm and they aren't cheap for long.

More than likely Javy can give you 10 wins and 200+ innings next year. There are teams who will see value and that and want him. Yes, he sucked in up in September. But a players market value isn't based off of a few games. Too much fan emotion here. He's not a guy you give away for nothing.

mzh
11-07-2008, 01:19 PM
Tell me where you are going to use the money.
Use the money to help entice Chone Figgins or Brian Roberts in Chicago. Those holes in the lineup are bigger than the 5th man in the rotation; I've got some level of confidence that Richard and Broadway are ready to be MLB Pitchers, and Aaron Poreda is moving right along.

munchman33
11-07-2008, 01:21 PM
You can find a lot of better pitchers who make less..... they are young and haven't reached their big payday yet.

A veteran who on average is .500 and gives you 200+ innings will cost you in the ballpark of $10 million.

Get good return for him that fills a need. If you can't accomplish that, then keep as your #5. Is that really so unreasonable???

And when you have a budget and need flexibility, making trades for those guys and trading away guys like Javy are both very attractive options.

khan
11-07-2008, 01:23 PM
This kind of an argument makes no sense. There are far more pitchers better than Javy making less than he is than there are worse pitchers making more. And it isn't even close. You can't take extreme cases and make them the norm.
Again:

Wait a few weeks into the free agency period, and this will dramatically change. There will be many more bad contracts thrown about by desperate GMs. And once Spring Training starts, Vazquez's contract will be pretty much in line for what he provides to a team.

And, as FarmerAndy said, most, if not ALL of the cheaper SPs that are better than Vazquez are youngsters. Most, if not ALL of the SPs that are more expensive/worse than Vazquez are veterans. To give up Vazquez would require a SP in return. But its difficult to get MLB-vetted SP talent at a comparable price for comparable performance.

khan
11-07-2008, 01:24 PM
And when you have a budget and need flexibility, making trades for those guys and trading away guys like Javy are both very attractive options.

OK. Exactly who do you suggest KW go get? Bear in mind that the SOX would need 2 SPs if you trade away Javy. And what do you suggest KW give up to acquire "those guys?"

I'll hang up and listen for my answer.

jabrch
11-07-2008, 01:28 PM
Use the money to help entice Chone Figgins or Brian Roberts in Chicago.

Neither need $ to entice them, as neither are FA.

munchman33
11-07-2008, 01:29 PM
OK. Exactly who do you suggest KW go get? Bear in mind that the SOX would need 2 SPs if you trade away Javy. And what do you suggest KW give up to acquire "those guys?"

I'll hang up and listen for my answer.

#5 is getting filled in house. We don't need 2 SP's, because even if we keep Vasquez we're not acquiring another starter. Richard/Broadway/Poreda/Contreras will all fight for the #5 spot.

There's a ton of guys Kenny could trade for. Justin Duchscherer comes to mind as a guy Kenny would probably try to target.

Craig Grebeck
11-07-2008, 01:34 PM
#5 is getting filled in house. We don't need 2 SP's, because even if we keep Vasquez we're not acquiring another starter. Richard/Broadway/Poreda/Contreras will all fight for the #5 spot.

There's a ton of guys Kenny could trade for. Justin Duchscherer comes to mind as a guy Kenny would probably try to target.
Contreras isn't healthy, Broadway is terrible, and Poreda could use some more time to develop his secondary stuff. So you're going with Richard more than likely.

I'd rather just keep Vazquez than acquire Duchscherer.

munchman33
11-07-2008, 01:38 PM
Contreras isn't healthy, Broadway is terrible, and Poreda could use some more time to develop his secondary stuff. So you're going with Richard more than likely.

I'd rather just keep Vazquez than acquire Duchscherer.

Why? Duchscherer was Cy Young good last year. He had a 2.54 ERA. Javy had an ERA more than 2 points higher. Is the reason that you prefer losing?

I do expect Richard to be the 5th starter for most of the year next year, yes. But you never know. Maybe Contreras gets healthy for stretches. Maybe Poreda is good?

mzh
11-07-2008, 01:40 PM
Contreras isn't healthy, Broadway is terrible, and Poreda could use some more time to develop his secondary stuff. So you're going with Richard more than likely.

I'd rather just keep Vazquez than acquire Duchscherer.

#1: How can you say Broadway is terrible after one major league start.
#2: How can you choose Javier Vazquez over J. Duke? Duchscherer will be in more all-star games than 2008, mark my words.

Craig Grebeck
11-07-2008, 01:41 PM
Why? Duchscherer was Cy Young good last year. He had a 2.54 ERA. Javy had an ERA more than 2 points higher. Is the reason that you prefer losing?

I do expect Richard to be the 5th starter for most of the year next year, yes. But you never know. Maybe Contreras gets healthy for stretches. Maybe Poreda is good?
I believe Poreda will be good, but I don't believe it's wise to buy high on a converted reliever who could only muster 140 innings last season. He's not a starting pitcher, he's a swingman with limited stamina.

Craig Grebeck
11-07-2008, 01:42 PM
#1: How can you say Broadway is terrible after one major league start.
#2: How can you choose Javier Vazquez over J. Duke? Duchscherer will be in more all-star games than 2008, mark my words.
What the ****? Broadway has shown at every level that he is not very good. He doesn't miss bats, he doesn't induce ground balls, and he has poor command and control.

Secondly, Duchscherer is thirty years old and started 22 games this season. He's not a starter by trade and that was pretty well proven this season. He was extremely lucky in terms of BABIP, and he lacks the stamina to pitch in 30 games in 2008. I like him, but I wouldn't give up any significant talent to land him. He's a lottery ticket.

munchman33
11-07-2008, 01:44 PM
I believe Poreda will be good, but I don't believe it's wise to buy high on a converted reliever who could only muster 140 innings last season. He's not a starting pitcher, he's a swingman with limited stamina.

Haha...he threw 140 innings because he only made 22 starts. He averaged about the same number of innings per start as Javy did.

btrain929
11-07-2008, 01:45 PM
#1: How can you say Broadway is terrible after one major league start.
#2: How can you choose Javier Vazquez over J. Duke? Duchscherer will be in more all-star games than 2008, mark my words.

Actually, Broadway has had 2 starts, and a decent amount of bullpen appearances. The conclusion is still: he's bad. A FB that barely makes it out of the mid 80's, a changeup that is only about 4-5 MPH different, and no good offspeed pitches.

Bad.

Craig Grebeck
11-07-2008, 01:46 PM
Haha...he threw 140 innings because he only made 22 starts. He averaged about the same number of innings per start as Javy did.
Because he got injured; that was the implication. He's been a reliever throughout his time in MLB, and I don't really feel like falling into Beane's trap giving up a ton of talent in hopes he repeats last season.

munchman33
11-07-2008, 01:46 PM
What the ****? Broadway has shown at every level that he is not very good. He doesn't miss bats, he doesn't induce ground balls, and he has poor command and control.

Secondly, Duchscherer is thirty years old and started 22 games this season. He's not a starter by trade and that was pretty well proven this season. He was extremely lucky in terms of BABIP, and he lacks the stamina to pitch in 30 games in 2008. I like him, but I wouldn't give up any significant talent to land him. He's a lottery ticket.

So BABIP shows that not only did Nick Swisher (who was one of the worst statistical players last year) have a good year, but also shows Justin Duchscherer (who was one of the best statistical players last year) had a bad year.

I love when you use BABIP.

mzh
11-07-2008, 01:47 PM
What the ****? Broadway has shown at every level that he is not very good. He doesn't miss bats, he doesn't induce ground balls, and he has poor command and control.

Secondly, Duchscherer is thirty years old and started 22 games this season. He's not a starter by trade and that was pretty well proven this season. He was extremely lucky in terms of BABIP, and he lacks the stamina to pitch in 30 games in 2008. I like him, but I wouldn't give up any significant talent to land him. He's a lottery ticket.

Significant Talent? What will the world have come to when people think that Justin Duchacherer is not talented?

munchman33
11-07-2008, 01:47 PM
Because he got injured; that was the implication. He's been a reliever throughout his time in MLB, and I don't really feel like falling into Beane's trap giving up a ton of talent in hopes he repeats last season.

As oppose to Javy, who we hope gets injuried when the big starts come around.

I'd take my chances with Justin, thanks.

Craig Grebeck
11-07-2008, 01:50 PM
So BABIP shows that not only did Nick Swisher (who was one of the worst statistical players last year) have a good year, but also shows Justin Duchscherer (who was one of the best statistical players last year) had a bad year.

I love when you use BABIP.
You're a trainwreck. Yes, it shows that Nick was unlucky. Yes, it shows that Justin was lucky. Is it hard to grasp that a great deal of statistical performance relies on luck?

Significant Talent? What will the world have come to when people think that Justin Duchacherer is not talented?
He's a talented middle reliever who the A's tried to start this season.
As oppose to Javy, who we hope gets injuried when the big starts come around.

I'd take my chances with Justin, thanks.
Go for it. Buy high/sell low! It's the Munch way!

mzh
11-07-2008, 01:54 PM
He's a talented middle reliever who the A's tried to start this season.
!
He was an all-star starter. The A's tried to start him, and it worked out pretty well.

Craig Grebeck
11-07-2008, 01:58 PM
He was an all-star starter. The A's tried to start him, and it worked out pretty well.
Until he got hurt. I don't really want to take a chance on a guy who barely threw in 2007 and then threw a career high in innings in 2008.

munchman33
11-07-2008, 02:03 PM
You're a trainwreck. Yes, it shows that Nick was unlucky. Yes, it shows that Justin was lucky. Is it hard to grasp that a great deal of statistical performance relies on luck?

Go for it. Buy high/sell low! It's the Munch way!

I don't buy it. Being unlucky can lead to a bad season. But Nick didn't just have a bad season. He was epic bad, and looked bad. When he got hits, a lot of times it seemed like he was getting lucky. And Javy...I've brought out the proof numerous times already. It isn't luck that he can't perform when the pressure's on. I'd say consistently, but it's more often than that implies. It's always.

Don't give me the buy high/sell low crap. We're trying to win now, not three years from now. Give me the players who will perform now. We're gonna have enough project players at key positions on the team at either 2B/3B and fifth starter. We need sure things. Or at least closer to sure things than those two.

Craig Grebeck
11-07-2008, 02:05 PM
I don't buy it. Being unlucky can lead to a bad season. But Nick didn't just have a bad season. He was epic bad, and looked bad. When he got hits, a lot of times it seemed like he was getting lucky. And Javy...I've brought out the proof numerous times already. It isn't luck that he can't perform when the pressure's on. I'd say consistently, but it's more often than that implies. It's always.

Don't give me the buy high/sell low crap. We're trying to win now, not three years from now. Give me the players who will perform now. We're gonna have enough project players at key positions on the team at either 2B/3B and fifth starter. We need sure things. Or at least closer to sure things than those two.
My point is, if we're targeting guys who will help us win now, why the hell are we going after Justin Duchscherer? A guy like him has to be a plan C or D, never plan A.

btrain929
11-07-2008, 02:05 PM
He was an all-star starter. The A's tried to start him, and it worked out pretty well.

So was Crede.......let's give him an extension.

khan
11-07-2008, 02:34 PM
Richard
Not very good, at least not yet.

Broadway
AAAA at best.

Poreda
1 pitch pitcher who will require a year or two to learn something beyond his admittedly-good fastball.

Contreras
Old, injured, and probably retired.

There's a ton of guys Kenny could trade for.
Again:

WHO could KW get, and exactly WHAT would he have to give up?


Justin Duchscherer comes to mind as a guy Kenny would probably try to target.
And exactly WHAT do you suppose KW would give up for a guy who, as Grebeck said, is not really a SP?

ode to veeck
11-07-2008, 02:58 PM
I have no problem with Javy still being on our pitching staff as long as he's our #5 starter.

yep and someone needs to work with him mentally cause he's got the stuff and always has (like garland before jon got the mental stuff going ozzie's 1st year)

Sox4ever77
11-07-2008, 04:37 PM
I have no problem with Javy still being on our pitching staff as long as he's our #5 starter.

The only problem is that Javy is being paid as though he's a #1 or #2 starter. His salary could be better spent elsewhere.

Madscout
11-07-2008, 04:55 PM
The only problem is that Javy is being paid as though he's a #1 or #2 starter. His salary could be better spent elsewhere.
The question is not what he is being paid, but what you are going to have to pay someone to get the same or better production. I think it has been proven that you can't find a better option for the price.

I think moving Javy down to 4 or 5 is fine, and it will probably help him. He isn't the same pitcher as '06, but he is not good for big games. We will get great production out of him at 4 or 5.

doublem23
11-07-2008, 05:22 PM
The only problem is that Javy is being paid as though he's a #1 or #2 starter. His salary could be better spent elsewhere.

Starting pitching just doesn't grow on trees.

kittle42
11-07-2008, 05:28 PM
The only problem is that Javy is being paid as though he's a #1 or #2 starter. His salary could be better spent elsewhere.

No he isn't.

FedEx227
11-07-2008, 06:25 PM
No he isn't.

He really isn't. He's getting paid like a strikeout-heavy #4 starter.

turners56
11-07-2008, 06:57 PM
I don't buy it. Being unlucky can lead to a bad season. But Nick didn't just have a bad season. He was epic bad, and looked bad. When he got hits, a lot of times it seemed like he was getting lucky. And Javy...I've brought out the proof numerous times already. It isn't luck that he can't perform when the pressure's on. I'd say consistently, but it's more often than that implies. It's always.

Don't give me the buy high/sell low crap. We're trying to win now, not three years from now. Give me the players who will perform now. We're gonna have enough project players at key positions on the team at either 2B/3B and fifth starter. We need sure things. Or at least closer to sure things than those two.

His BABIP was horrid. If anything, he was unlucky.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/4599_1BOF_season_full_7_20080930.png

Sox4ever77
11-08-2008, 11:45 AM
No he isn't.


If $15 million isn't what a #1 or #2 starter is getting, what is? Johan is getting $22 million and he's the highest paid starting pitcher in baseball.

WhiteSoxFan84
11-08-2008, 12:24 PM
I just heard the awesome news about Contreras being out until at least July and him being owed $10 mill next year. So we have 35.5MM guranteed to our starters (Buehrle's 14 + Javy's 11.5 + Jose's 10.0) and add to that whatever Danks and Floyd end up getting (>.5 last year each). If our payroll gets anywhere near where it was last year (121.2MM), then that 35.5MM + 1.5MM (we'll estimate Danks and Floyd get that combined) equates to 30.5% of the teams payroll.

What portion of a teams payroll is the norm as far as the starting rotation is concerned? Just over 30% seems low to me especially when we don't have any huge contracts (none of the top 15 highest average annual salaries).

munchman33
11-08-2008, 01:26 PM
His BABIP was horrid. If anything, he was unlucky.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/4599_1BOF_season_full_7_20080930.png

:rolling:

munchman33
11-08-2008, 01:31 PM
Not very good, at least not yet.


AAAA at best.


1 pitch pitcher who will require a year or two to learn something beyond his admittedly-good fastball.


Old, injured, and probably retired.


Again:

WHO could KW get, and exactly WHAT would he have to give up?



And exactly WHAT do you suppose KW would give up for a guy who, as Grebeck said, is not really a SP?

Khan,

He lasted just as long in starts as Javy did. He just got injured. It happens.

There are so many options out there. There are free agents, like Sheets, Penny, Lowe, and Burnett. And there's no one but a select few young starters that are untouchable on teams. If we don't have the prospects, no reason we couldn't get them. We could trade an outfielder for pieces. Or a reliever. And then make other signings. There's a ton of options. There's no reason we have to be stuck with Vazquez at #4.

If you don't like those options at #5, it really doesn't matter. Kenny wants to find out what we have.

Craig Grebeck
11-08-2008, 02:27 PM
Seriously Munch, why do you scoff at BABIP?

KyWhiSoxFan
11-08-2008, 02:33 PM
To the original question ... Yes, I've given up on him. I would like to see him gone. I don't think it is in the best interests of the team to pay a 5th starter $11.5-million a year. He's 32 and he's not going to get any better.

He may do okay in the NL with weaker lineups. Heck, he may be able to be a .500 pitcher in that league.

munchman33
11-08-2008, 05:36 PM
Seriously Munch, why do you scoff at BABIP?

Becomes it's wrong.

Three reasons:

1. Because it accounts for contact, not type of contact. Nick Swisher might have set the major league record for being sawed off this year.

2. Because it removes home runs and strikeouts from the equation. Yeah, that's a good idea when analyzing a guy like Nick Swisher. If Nick's swinging, it's because he's trying to hit a home run. And he either does it, gets jammed, or strikes out. And despite the outcome, BABIP makes him look good for it.

3. It doesn't account for ground ball pitchers who can have higher BABIP's yet are successful because they induce double plays. It also makes no effort to account for pitcher's with bad control that walk tons of guys.

Craig Grebeck
11-08-2008, 05:42 PM
Becomes it's wrong.

Three reasons:

1. Because it accounts for contact, not type of contact. Nick Swisher might have set the major league record for being sawed off this year.

2. Because it removes home runs and strikeouts from the equation. Yeah, that's a good idea when analyzing a guy like Nick Swisher. If Nick's swinging, it's because he's trying to hit a home run. And he either does it, gets jammed, or strikes out. And despite the outcome, BABIP makes him look good for it.

3. It doesn't account for ground ball pitchers who can have higher BABIP's yet are successful because they induce double plays.
As expected, you are so completely off base. You look at BABIP in context, not alone. You analyze someone's BABIP alongside their batted ball rates. With a high line drive rate, one expects the hitter to have a higher BABIP. With a high flyball rate, lower BABIP.

I don't really understand your second point, probably because you are assuming that Nick Swisher is always trying to hit home runs.

On your third point, again, it's context.

BABIP is mainly useful because you try to see if someone was abnormally lucky or unlucky. When a player has a season so far outside the trend (see: Nick Swisher, 2008), you look at a few things, namely: K%, BB%, BABIP, batted ball rates, etc.

BadBobbyJenks
11-08-2008, 05:57 PM
Don't give me the buy high/sell low crap. We're trying to win now, not three years from now. Give me the players who will perform now. We're gonna have enough project players at key positions on the team at either 2B/3B and fifth starter. We need sure things. Or at least closer to sure things than those two.

Well this explains why you killed KW for giving away Gio and DLS for Swisher trying to win now.

turners56
11-08-2008, 05:59 PM
As expected, you are so completely off base. You look at BABIP in context, not alone. You analyze someone's BABIP alongside their batted ball rates. With a high line drive rate, one expects the hitter to have a higher BABIP. With a high flyball rate, lower BABIP.

I don't really understand your second point, probably because you are assuming that Nick Swisher is always trying to hit home runs.

On your third point, again, it's context.

BABIP is mainly useful because you try to see if someone was abnormally lucky or unlucky. When a player has a season so far outside the trend (see: Nick Swisher, 2008), you look at a few things, namely: K%, BB%, BABIP, batted ball rates, etc.

And truth be told, he was very unlucky. I remember numerous times where he would hit a ball as hard as he could, but it would be right at the first baseman or just inches foul down the line. He stopped swinging completely in September because he lost his confidence. But when he had it, he hit the ball with authority.

munchman33
11-08-2008, 06:03 PM
As expected, you are so completely off base. You look at BABIP in context, not alone. You analyze someone's BABIP alongside their batted ball rates. With a high line drive rate, one expects the hitter to have a higher BABIP. With a high flyball rate, lower BABIP.

I don't really understand your second point, probably because you are assuming that Nick Swisher is always trying to hit home runs.

On your third point, again, it's context.

BABIP is mainly useful because you try to see if someone was abnormally lucky or unlucky. When a player has a season so far outside the trend (see: Nick Swisher, 2008), you look at a few things, namely: K%, BB%, BABIP, batted ball rates, etc.

You're delusional.

Are you saying type of contact doesn't matter? Because you're wrong in that assessment. BABIP doesn't account for it, and it's highly flawed because of it.

Are you saying walks don't matter when talking about a pitcher? Or DP balls? Because you're wrong in that assessment. BABIP doesn't account for them, and it's highly flawed because of it.

The only place BABIP makes sense is a vacuum where those things don't occur. I'm not pulling these arguments out of my ass. These arguments about BABIP have been made countless times before, and it's the main reason the statistic is frowned upon by anyone except sabermetric first morons.

munchman33
11-08-2008, 06:06 PM
Well this explains why you killed KW for giving away Gio and DLS for Swisher trying to win now.

I didn't think Nick Swisher was very good, no. And I didn't believe we got fair value. To trade that package, we should have gotten back a superstar.

turners56
11-08-2008, 06:26 PM
I didn't think Nick Swisher was very good, no. And I didn't believe we got fair value. To trade that package, we should have gotten back a superstar.

Good one...

Craig Grebeck
11-08-2008, 06:35 PM
You're delusional.

Are you saying type of contact doesn't matter? Because you're wrong in that assessment. BABIP doesn't account for it, and it's highly flawed because of it.

Are you saying walks don't matter when talking about a pitcher? Or DP balls? Because you're wrong in that assessment. BABIP doesn't account for them, and it's highly flawed because of it.

The only place BABIP makes sense is a vacuum where those things don't occur. I'm not pulling these arguments out of my ass. These arguments about BABIP have been made countless times before, and it's the main reason the statistic is frowned upon by anyone except sabermetric first morons.
I have no idea how you gleaned that information from what I was saying. No, type of contact does matter. The point is, you use BABIP to analyze someone's luck, not skill level. You analyze it alongside batted ball rates (or type of contact).

munchman33
11-08-2008, 06:42 PM
I have no idea how you gleaned that information from what I was saying. No, type of contact does matter. The point is, you use BABIP to analyze someone's luck, not skill level. You analyze it alongside batted ball rates (or type of contact).

So when you're just quoting BABIP alone, you're misusing the statistic?

I just want to get it straight. BABIP - analysis of type of contact = incomplete analysis.

I'll agree with that. Which is why when you say someone's unlucky or lucky based on BABIP, everyone gets up in arms. You're using half of the relevant data.

Craig Grebeck
11-08-2008, 06:44 PM
So when you're just quoting BABIP alone, you're misusing the statistic?

I just want to get it straight. BABIP - analysis of type of contact = incomplete analysis.

I'll agree with that. Which is why when you say someone's unlucky or lucky based on BABIP, everyone gets up in arms. You're using half of the relevant data.
Bull****. When I say Nick's BABIP was unlucky, I put it alongside his LD/GB/FB rates.

munchman33
11-08-2008, 06:51 PM
Bull****. When I say Nick's BABIP was unlucky, I put it alongside his LD/GB/FB rates.

I haven't seen that. Tell you what, give me the number of times he was jammed this year...popups, soft liners, ground ball outs, etc. If that does't account for the majority of his non-strikeout outs, you might be on to something. But I have a feeling the numbers won't show that.

Craig Grebeck
11-08-2008, 06:58 PM
I haven't seen that. Tell you what, give me the number of times he was jammed this year...popups, soft liners, ground ball outs, etc. If that does't account for the majority of his non-strikeout outs, you might be on to something. But I have a feeling the numbers won't show that.
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/4599_1BOF_season_mini_9_20080930.png
He hit more line drives than the last two seasons, yet...
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/4599_1BOF_season_mini_7_20080930.png
...he hit for a lower average, largely because of a lower BABIP.

munchman33
11-08-2008, 07:38 PM
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/4599_1BOF_season_mini_9_20080930.png
He hit more line drives than the last two seasons, yet...
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/4599_1BOF_season_mini_7_20080930.png
...he hit for a lower average, largely because of a lower BABIP.

This is not what I asked for and you know it. An increase in his line drives easily could be attributed to the vast increase in soft jamshot liners he hit this year.

If you're going to use BABIP correctly and make a pretty unlikely claim like Nick wasn't bad this year and just unlucky, you're going to have to come up with more. What's being hit? And not just "ground ball" and "line drive," but the nature of those hits. How hard they're hit....are they the result of solid contact or being jammed? I cannot stress how important that is. Especially in Nick's case, where the counter claim is supported by base statistics.

Craig Grebeck
11-08-2008, 07:41 PM
This is not what I asked for and you know it. An increase in his line drives easily could be attributed to the vast increase in soft jamshot liners he hit this year.

If you're going to use BABIP correctly and make a pretty unlikely claim like Nick wasn't bad this year and just unlucky, you're going to have to come up with more. What's being hit? And not just "ground ball" and "line drive," but the nature of those hits. How hard they're hit....are they the result of solid contact or being jammed? I cannot stress how important that is. Especially in Nick's case, where the counter claim is supported by base statistics.
I provided the evidence. Do what you want with it.

Edit: And the argument wasn't that Nick Swisher was good, or not bad, the argument is that his stats are skewed by bad luck. The statistics, on a basic level, show a subpar year, but BABIP shows what could be an aberration and a reason for us not to sell low on him.

munchman33
11-08-2008, 09:01 PM
I provided the evidence. Do what you want with it.

Edit: And the argument wasn't that Nick Swisher was good, or not bad, the argument is that his stats are skewed by bad luck. The statistics, on a basic level, show a subpar year, but BABIP shows what could be an aberration and a reason for us not to sell low on him.

Your argument is incomplete. That's my point. Unless you can show me that the data you provided isn't a result of badly hit balls, which is significanly more likely, everything you've given us is completely meaningless. Nick might have been unlucky last year. But nothing you've shown us proves that. Until you provide all the data, all you've shown is that Nick might have been unlucky last year, if the data wasn't caused by poorly hit balls. That's a really big if you're neglecting. And that might hardly proves anything.

Craig Grebeck
11-08-2008, 09:12 PM
Your argument is incomplete. That's my point. Unless you can show me that the data you provided isn't a result of badly hit balls, which is significanly more likely, everything you've given us is completely meaningless. Nick might have been unlucky last year. But nothing you've shown us proves that. Until you provide all the data, all you've shown is that Nick might have been unlucky last year, if the data wasn't caused by poorly hit balls. That's a really big if you're neglecting. And that might hardly proves anything.
I have no idea what you mean. You're running in circles here; line drives are line drives. They keep these statistics for a reason. You can see he suffered a huge drop in BABIP without lessening his LD rate.

Brian26
11-08-2008, 09:32 PM
Where's the statistic that shows how many times in the last two months of the season he looked like a fool at the plate while watching a called third strike with runners in scoring position?

Are those strikeouts "unlucky" too?

chaotic8512
11-08-2008, 10:42 PM
I didn't bother looking back at the previous pages, so I don't know how we got to this point, but let me point something out:

Nick Swisher ≠ Javier Vazquez.

I haven't given up on him yet, but if the opportunity were to come up where we could end up acquiring two starters via FA or trade by giving him up, I would listen. My belief of what his ceiling could be has declined steadily since we acquired him, despite his rare ability to be dominating and occasional ability to be effective. Having an occasionally effective strikeout pitcher can only take you so far. As a #4 or #5 starter, it would be fine, I guess... and I am guessing there aren't going to be any better options for us out there.

4 points
11-09-2008, 06:31 AM
So he had a horrible 2008, but Javier Vazquez is not worthless especially with his current deal. The guy has no-hit stuff and would make a very solid 4th or 5th starter. Trading him away for some of the names I've heard (namely Julio Lugo) is such a joke IMO. I'd much rather see a rotation of Buehrle/Floyd/Danks/Vaz/Count or Richard or whoever and a middle infield of Alexei/Getz or Nix rather than a rotation of Buehrle/Floyd/Danks/Count/Richard and a middle infield of Lugo and Alexei.

And I'm tired of seeing Kenny William dealing veterans for older veterans that leave us in a year or two (Garland for OC) or prospects for veterans (Masset/Richar for Griffey). If he deals Javy, get us some young talent in return.

Am I alone in either of these two ways of thinking?

To answer your question, only the smart ones.:dtroll:

dickallen15
11-09-2008, 08:12 AM
I provided the evidence. Do what you want with it.

Edit: And the argument wasn't that Nick Swisher was good, or not bad, the argument is that his stats are skewed by bad luck. The statistics, on a basic level, show a subpar year, but BABIP shows what could be an aberration and a reason for us not to sell low on him.

Using those same "bad luck" stats, Konerko's were even more unlucky. What constitutes a "line drive" ? Is a broken bat (something he did quite often) looper to the second baseman a line drive and therefore considered unlucky? Except for June, Nick Swisher was brutal in 2008 especially on the road where he hit with no power and didn't even hit .200. It wasn't unlucky. It was just a horrible performance. Maybe he just really isn't very good. He is only a .244 career hitter.

Frontman
11-09-2008, 08:19 AM
I haven't given up on him per se; but I think he's a 5th starter now. So, when the annual "Who is our Ace on this staff?" poll goes up next season; I certainly will not even give him consideration.

voodoochile
11-09-2008, 10:00 AM
His BABIP was horrid. If anything, he was unlucky.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/4599_1BOF_season_full_7_20080930.png

Okay, this is where I have questions about new stats like BABIP. Swish has consistently been below average in this department. Obviously some guys are going to have below average BABIP and some are going to have higher than average BABIP.

Roughly speaking, Swish hits 22 points lower than league average on BABIP (based on rough estimates of his seasonal points of .280, .270,.290, .300 and .250). That means last year is approximately within one standard deviation of his "average" season. That doesn't make it a statistical outlier, just a bad season, but one that is well within say a 75% distributional range of average. That is assuming this is a normal distribution (if it isn't, it really isn't worth much).

Now if you really want to explain something explain WHY some guys have higher than average BABIP and some guys have lower than BABIP and then stack the data for the next 2 decades and get something to work with...

Sorry for the hijack, Like I said, I find BABIP interesting as a potential newer stat.

Craig Grebeck
11-09-2008, 10:14 AM
Okay, this is where I have questions about new stats like BABIP. Swish has consistently been below average in this department. Obviously some guys are going to have below average BABIP and some are going to have higher than average BABIP.

Roughly speaking, Swish hits 22 points lower than league average on BABIP (based on rough estimates of his seasonal points of .280, .270,.290, .300 and .250). That means last year is approximately within one standard deviation of his "average" season. That doesn't make it a statistical outlier, just a bad season, but one that is well within say a 75% distributional range of average. That is assuming this is a normal distribution (if it isn't, it really isn't worth much).

Now if you really want to explain something explain WHY some guys have higher than average BABIP and some guys have lower than BABIP and then stack the data for the next 2 decades and get something to work with...

Sorry for the hijack, Like I said, I find BABIP interesting as a potential newer stat.
Basically, you expect someone to have a higher BABIP based on their LD rate. .300 is a "normal" BABIP, without looking at a strange batted ball rate. Nick's batted ball rates were the same as last season, and the one before, yet he had a much lower BABIP.

munchman33
11-09-2008, 02:31 PM
I have no idea what you mean. You're running in circles here; line drives are line drives. They keep these statistics for a reason. You can see he suffered a huge drop in BABIP without lessening his LD rate.

The "line drive" numbers you are quoting make no distinction between flares and hard it baseballs. And there's a world of difference between the two.

Flight #24
11-09-2008, 05:53 PM
FWLIW, and without reading the whole thread, Joe Sheehan of BP in a recent chat said emphatically that Javy is a #3 pitcher. The only import of that to me is that those here at WSI are likely to be undervaluing him. As even a weak #3, he's on a great contract at ~2/$23 so he'd have some value, esp to an NL team.

Javy+Swish for Beltran?

spiffie
11-09-2008, 07:10 PM
FWLIW, and without reading the whole thread, Joe Sheehan of BP in a recent chat said emphatically that Javy is a #3 pitcher. The only import of that to me is that those here at WSI are likely to be undervaluing him. As even a weak #3, he's on a great contract at ~2/$23 so he'd have some value, esp to an NL team.

Javy+Swish for Beltran?
The opinion of anyone at BP isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

Tragg
11-09-2008, 08:00 PM
FWLIW, and without reading the whole thread, Joe Sheehan of BP in a recent chat said emphatically that Javy is a #3 pitcher. The only import of that to me is that those here at WSI are likely to be undervaluing him. As even a weak #3, he's on a great contract at ~2/$23 so he'd have some value, esp to an NL team.

Javy+Swish for Beltran?

We only have 4 starters as it is. He's got good "peripherals" as some put it.
If we want to trade Javy, just give it time...a good deal will come our way. No need to rush.

khan
11-10-2008, 11:57 AM
He lasted just as long in starts as Javy did. He just got injured. It happens.

I'm guessing that when you post "he," you mean Duchscherer(sp?). And you're wrong. Duchscherer(sp?) has never gone >200 IP, nor has he gone 30 starts at the big league level. Vazquez has several times.

There are so many options out there. There are free agents, like Sheets,
He'll get >$12M/year, and will promptly get injured.

Penny,
He'll get >$12M/year, and has not gotten it done in the AL. He was so magnificent in the AAAA NL that he lost his starter's job for a time in 2008.

Lowe,
Like Penny, he'll get >$12M/year. Lowe is 35 years old, and sucked when he was in the big boy AL.

and Burnett.
He'll get ~$15M to $20M/year.

None of these pitchers are in the SOX's budget, unfortunately. I don't like Lowe or Penny; Burnett/Sheets, if they were signed to the SOX, would instantaneously be the highest-paid player in the team, or close to it.

And there's no one but a select few young starters that are untouchable on teams. If we don't have the prospects, no reason we couldn't get them. We could trade an outfielder for pieces.
Who?

Or a reliever.
Who?

And then make other signings.
Again: Who?

We all know you don't like Vazquez. You simply haven't made the case in terms of an alternative option. At least, no option that is realistic/viable for this team.

Moving Vazquez is fine, IF you can find a SP at a reasonable cost to replace him. Bear in mind, that KW wants more speed, and there are extant holes in the team at 3B, 2B, CF, a SP to replace the injured Contreras, a lefty out of the pen, and a reliable long reliever as well. If the team wants to compete AND fill these holes, solutions have to be found for them. It is insufficient to state that you want to trade Vazquez because you just don't like him. The purpose of the exercise is to make the entire team better.

SoxFan88
11-10-2008, 12:24 PM
I'm guessing that when you post "he," you mean Duchscherer(sp?). And you're wrong. Duchscherer(sp?) has never gone >200 IP, nor has he gone 30 starts at the big league level. Vazquez has several times.


He'll get >$12M/year, and will promptly get injured.


He'll get >$12M/year, and has not gotten it done in the AL. He was so magnificent in the AAAA NL that he lost his starter's job for a time in 2008.


Like Penny, he'll get >$12M/year. Lowe is 35 years old, and sucked when he was in the big boy AL.


He'll get ~$15M to $20M/year.

None of these pitchers are in the SOX's budget, unfortunately. I don't like Lowe or Penny; Burnett/Sheets, if they were signed to the SOX, would instantaneously be the highest-paid player in the team, or close to it.


Who?


Who?


Again: Who?

We all know you don't like Vazquez. You simply haven't made the case in terms of an alternative option. At least, no option that is realistic/viable for this team.

Moving Vazquez is fine, IF you can find a SP at a reasonable cost to replace him. Bear in mind, that KW wants more speed, and there are extant holes in the team at 3B, 2B, CF, a SP to replace the injured Contreras, a lefty out of the pen, and a reliable long reliever as well. If the team wants to compete AND fill these holes, solutions have to be found for them. It is insufficient to state that you want to trade Vazquez because you just don't like him. The purpose of the exercise is to make the entire team better.

I understand the free agent market for pitchers is full of injury risks, so why not trade for one? A package of Dye, Swish, & Broadway could bring in a solid young SP and then the Sox could trade Vazquez for a young OF (who can bat leadoff) and some prospects.

khan
11-10-2008, 12:28 PM
I understand the free agent market for pitchers is full of injury risks, so why not trade for one?
Why add another injury risk, when the team already has $10M in "dead" money to Contreras? When the team would then have only 3 MLB-vetted SPs? When it is equally possible that Danks/Floyd can be 1-year wonders just as easily as they can further their development as major leaguers?

For my part, Contreras' injury clearly illustrated the need for having 6 SP-capable pitchers; Our team had but 5 such players this season. Part of the rotation's struggles occurred when the rotation had to be shortened to 4 pitchers, IMO...

A package of Dye, Swish, & Broadway could bring in a solid young SP and then the Sox could trade Vazquez for a young OF (who can bat leadoff) and some prospects.
Hey, I'm all for that. But exactly WHO? Who would go for an aging soon-to-be-DH-only player, a guy without a position coming off his worst season, and a AAAA SP?

SoxFan88
11-10-2008, 12:40 PM
Hey, I'm all for that. But exactly WHO? Who would go for an aging soon-to-be-DH-only player, a guy without a position coming off his worst season, and a AAAA SP?




San Fran wants to go young but are so desperate for a bat that I think they would offer Cain (though now he appears to be off the trading block).

khan
11-10-2008, 12:57 PM
San Fran wants to go young but are so desperate for a bat that I think they would offer Cain (though now he appears to be off the trading block).

Hey, that's great. Of course, Dye's no spring chicken....

Who do we have down in Charlotte that could get us Cain? I thought so...

SoxFan88
11-10-2008, 01:03 PM
Hey, that's great. Of course, Dye's no spring chicken....

Who do we have down in Charlotte that could get us Cain? I thought so...

Poreda

munchman33
11-10-2008, 01:43 PM
Haha...he threw 140 innings because he only made 22 starts. He averaged about the same number of innings per start as Javy did.

I'm guessing that when you post "he," you mean Duchscherer(sp?). And you're wrong. Duchscherer(sp?) has never gone >200 IP, nor has he gone 30 starts at the big league level. Vazquez has several times.


http://www.barbsbooks.com/images/FlipReadingComp.jpg



You keep asking for names of targets. Like that would be something easy to compile. There are so many options. It would be easier to list the guys we can't make a move for.

Your opinions on good pitchers based on their league is a little over the top. You point to a very small portion of Lowe's American League career as if he wasn't completely dominant at times.

Your opinions on cost are funny. Not all those guys are getting $12+ million. And even if they did, they'd be more worth their salary than Javy is. If it's Javy at $12 million or Sheets/Burnett/Lowe at somewhere near $15 million the choice is obviously not Javy.

khan
11-10-2008, 01:56 PM
You keep asking for names of targets. Like that would be something easy to compile. There are so many options. It would be easier to list the guys we can't make a move for.
Indeed. And you point to Duchscherer, who as I posted, has yet to complete 200 IP in a season. He has yet to start 30 games in a season. Given that he's already 30 years old, I'd suggest that Grebeck is/was right: That Duchscherer isn't a starting pitcher.

If you're the GM of a team, and you're willing to take a chance on such a player to be in your starting rotation, your team is probably not very good.

You point to a very small portion of Lowe's American League career as if he wasn't completely dominant at times.
"Dominant at times" was a way to describe Vazquez early in 2008, too. "Dominant at times" and "35 years old" is typically a bad combination. Particularly when the last time he played in the big boy AL, Derek Lowe sucked.

Not all those guys are getting $12+ million.
Again: If Vazquez, Carlos Silva, Kevin Millwood, and many other SPs are getting close to $12M, so will all of the SPs you suggested. The only possible exception is Penny, who had an injury-filled 2008. [BTW, if the dodgers didn't pick up a very reasonable ~$9.5M option, there must be a reason for them to do so...]

If it's Javy at $12 million or Sheets/Burnett/Lowe at somewhere near $15 million the choice is obviously not Javy.
Sure. IF the team had unlimited resources to work with, financially-speaking. Alas, with ~$99M tied up into 13 players, and the budget being ~$114M or so, there simply won't be a $15M signing this year, in all likelihood. Especially when there are holes at CF, 2B, 3B, a SP to replace Contreras, a 2nd lefty in the 'pen, and a long reliever. Neither Sheets nor Burnett nor Lowe will be here in 2009.

chisox616
11-11-2008, 01:30 PM
When it comes to baseball for me, Sox are obviously #1...but there is that #2 spot reserved for the Cardinals, as I've been a resident of St. Louis for 7 years. My girlfriend is a huge Cardinals fan, too.

I've heard some talk about Vasquez for Ankiel. Anyone else hear this? I'm not 100% for this trade, but I'd laugh if it actually happened. Ankiel is my girlfriend's favorite player on the Cardinals and it'd be pretty hilarious to see him go to my favorite team...almost cruel in a way. Especially since she saw Vasquez "perform" in person with me at Kauffman on July 9...what a nail biter, 7-6, it was SUCH a relief to see him off the mound.