PDA

View Full Version : Andy Pettitte


nug0hs
12-27-2008, 11:54 AM
According to the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/12252008/sports/yankees/pettitte_return_less_likely_after_teixei_145766.ht m) , it doesnt seem that Pettitte will accept the 1 year 10 million offer from the Yankees to return next year. Is he something worth pursuing? He is an innings eater (threw over 200 last year) and would be a good mentor for our kids in the rotation. I think its time to start assuming that Contreras is done for good, and our luck of signing ex-Yankees has been pretty high (See: Hernandez, Orlando and Contreras, Jose) -- Andy is a career 6-8 vs. Cleveland, 10-9 vs. Detroit, 8-5 vs. Minnesota, and 12-3 vs. KC. Those numbers arent very bad, and we sure do need another starting pitcher...

cards press box
12-27-2008, 12:04 PM
And with his excellent pickoff move to 1B, Pettitte would keep the running game of Minnesota, Tampa Bay and other running clubs in check. I previously started a post discussing whether Pettitte is a good fit for the White Sox. I think he is.

If the Yankees are not going to re-sign Pettitte, his market value will approach what it should be -- 1 to 2 years at somewhere around 8 to 9 million per year. That makes economic sense for the Sox, as it gives the Sox some time to develop minor league hurlers like Marquez and Poreda.

How is this for the Sox rotation:

Danks
Buerhle
Floyd
Pettitte
Richard

Not too shabby.

cbrownson13
12-27-2008, 12:19 PM
Unfortunately, there aren't any indications that Pettitte wants to play anywhere besides New York or Houston.

KyWhiSoxFan
12-27-2008, 12:28 PM
The Sox already have 3 lefties--Buehrle, Danks, and Richard--slated for the rotation. Obviously, Petitte would replace Richard, but at this point is it really worth $10-million to get a pitcher who would likely be a .500 pitcher with a 4-plus ERA? He'd be marginally better than Vazquez (though a whole lot less frustrating).

Plus, I don't see any value Petitte could bring to the equation in helping the younger pitchers more than Buehrle does. In fact, Buehrle has been a great mentor for Danks. Let Buehrle do the same for Richard.

CashMan
12-27-2008, 12:34 PM
And with his excellent pickoff move to 1B, Pettitte would keep the running game of Minnesota, Tampa Bay and other running clubs in check. I previously started a post discussing whether Pettitte is a good fit for the White Sox. I think he is.

If the Yankees are not going to re-sign Pettitte, his market value will approach what it should be -- 1 to 2 years at somewhere around 8 to 9 million per year. That makes economic sense for the Sox, as it gives the Sox some time to develop minor league hurlers like Marquez and Poreda.

How is this for the Sox rotation:

Danks
Buerhle
Floyd
Pettitte
Richard

Not too shabby.



Hmmm.....So, he won't accept $10mill a year from the Yanks, but the Sox will sign him for $8-9mill. Makes sense.

cards press box
12-27-2008, 01:58 PM
Hmmm.....So, he won't accept $10mill a year from the Yanks, but the Sox will sign him for $8-9mill. Makes sense.

I'll tell you what makes sense -- Pettitte overplayed his hand with New York. Yes, the Yanks did offer him 1 year at $10 million but they are about to withdraw that offer. Unless the Dodgers, Astros or Rangers have also made him an offer (and there are no reports that any of them did), that leaves Pettitte with no current offers.

The market is what it is. Once the Yanks pull their offer for Pettitte, the market will find its proper level which, I reckon, is about 1 to 2 years at between 8 and 9 million per year. Pettitte does not appear ready to retire. Consequently, I presume he'll sign a short term contract somewhere, and the Sox are one location that makes sense.

WhiteSox5187
12-27-2008, 02:06 PM
That would give us a rotation of three lefties (four if Richard is the fifth starter). I'm not so sure I want that. Also, if he is rejecting a one year ten million dollar contract from the Yankees, I don't think he will be in our price range. But if he were to fall to our price range, I wouldn't mind getting him. You can never have too much pitching!

cards press box
12-27-2008, 02:44 PM
That would give us a rotation of three lefties (four if Richard is the fifth starter). I'm not so sure I want that. Also, if he is rejecting a one year ten million dollar contract from the Yankees, I don't think he will be in our price range. But if he were to fall to our price range, I wouldn't mind getting him. You can never have too much pitching!

Pettitte would give the Sox four lefties but that's O.K. The most important thing is the quality of the pitcher -- I'd rather have another quality lefty than a mediocre righty for balance.

Moreover, these four lefties have terrific pickoff moves. Pettitte and Buerhle probably have the best pickoff moves in MLB. Richard has an excellent move to first and Danks has a good one, too. Some Sox pitchers couldn't hold runners on last year and this rotation would keep running games in check.

Finally, look at the Sox' competition in the AL Central. Grady Sizemore, Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Curtis Granderson, David DeJesus, Mark Teahan, Denard Span, Shin-Soo Choo and Travis Hafner all hit from the left side. Victor Martinez and Carlos Guillen are switch hitters. Having four lefty starters to challenge these hitters might well be a positive.

Zisk77
12-27-2008, 04:01 PM
The problem is that Petitte isn't very good anymore (and i really liked the guy). He got lit up a lot last year. We are probably better off with seeing what Marquez, Richard, Poreda, etc can do for us. Hell, if we are going to spend that type of coin on a pitcher Garland makes more sense.

whitesox901
12-27-2008, 07:18 PM
I would have no objections to Pettitte in the Sox Rotation

CashMan
12-27-2008, 08:21 PM
The problem is that Petitte isn't very good anymore (and i really liked the guy). He got lit up a lot last year. We are probably better off with seeing what Marquez, Richard, Poreda, etc can do for us. Hell, if we are going to spend that type of coin on a pitcher Garland makes more sense.


Garland sucked last year.

Slats
12-27-2008, 08:41 PM
Can Andy pitch without his HGH?

CashMan
12-27-2008, 08:46 PM
Can Andy pitch without his HGH?


I am pretty sure he can, wasn't it steroids he admitted to?

LoveYourSuit
12-27-2008, 09:15 PM
That would give us a rotation of three lefties (four if Richard is the fifth starter). I'm not so sure I want that. Also, if he is rejecting a one year ten million dollar contract from the Yankees, I don't think he will be in our price range. But if he were to fall to our price range, I wouldn't mind getting him. You can never have too much pitching!


I think a good portion of best hitters in our division are all LH hitters. Having 3 LH starters might be a good thing next season.

35th and Shields
12-28-2008, 03:45 PM
That would give us a rotation of three lefties (four if Richard is the fifth starter). I'm not so sure I want that. Also, if he is rejecting a one year ten million dollar contract from the Yankees, I don't think he will be in our price range. But if he were to fall to our price range, I wouldn't mind getting him. You can never have too much pitching!

What's the problem with having three or four lefties in the rotation as opposed to three or four right handers?

Zisk77
12-28-2008, 06:23 PM
Garland sucked last year.

And yet he was still better then Pettite, and a lot younger, and far more likely to bounce back.

CashMan
12-28-2008, 07:16 PM
And yet he was still better then Pettite, and a lot younger, and far more likely to bounce back.


Remind me what Garlands ERA was compared to Andy's was. Didn't the Angels sit him for the playoffs?

cards press box
12-28-2008, 11:45 PM
Remind me what Garlands ERA was compared to Andy's was. Didn't the Angels sit him for the playoffs?

Garland played on a better team than Pettitte in 2008. Here are their stats.

Garland (14-8), 196 2/3 innings pitched, 237 hits, 59 BB, 90 K, 4.90 ERA

Pettitte (14-14), 204 innings pitched, 233 hits, 55 BB, 158 K, 4.54 ERA

Neither had great seasons but Pettitte had the better season of the two. Pettitte's ERA was almost 1/2 a run lower, Pettitte had the far superior K/BB ratio and gave up fewer hits in more innings pitched. The 2008 L.A. Angels did place Garland on their playoff roster but he did not pitch in the Boston series.

WhiteSoxFan84
12-29-2008, 03:16 AM
I think some Sox fans may reject this idea mainly because they'll get pissed if they have to continuously spell Buehrle and Pettitte for a whole season :redneck

munchman33
12-29-2008, 11:23 AM
Adding Pettite means we'd likely have four lefties in the rotation. That's probably not what Kenny is thinking.

Zisk77
12-29-2008, 11:34 AM
Garland played on a better team than Pettitte in 2008. Here are their stats.

Garland (14-8), 196 2/3 innings pitched, 237 hits, 59 BB, 90 K, 4.90 ERA

Pettitte (14-14), 204 innings pitched, 233 hits, 55 BB, 158 K, 4.54 ERA

Neither had great seasons but Pettitte had the better season of the two. Pettitte's ERA was almost 1/2 a run lower, Pettitte had the far superior K/BB ratio and gave up fewer hits in more innings pitched. The 2008 L.A. Angels did place Garland on their playoff roster but he did not pitch in the Boston series.


Petitte had a better year because his ERA was better? I thought wins and losses were important, my bad :scratch:. And still the second part of my point remains true. Garland is younger and more likely to bounce back. Also, garland to our knowledge never took PED's.

CashMan
12-29-2008, 11:46 AM
Petitte had a better year because his ERA was better? I thought wins and losses were important, my bad :scratch:. And still the second part of my point remains true. Garland is younger and more likely to bounce back. Also, garland to our knowledge never took PED's.


Let me ask you this, would you rather have a pitcher who has an ERA of 5 and is 20-2 or a pitcher who has an ERA of 2.5 and is 10-1?

WhiteSoxFan84
12-29-2008, 12:01 PM
Petitte had a better year because his ERA was better? I thought wins and losses were important, my bad :scratch:. And still the second part of my point remains true. Garland is younger and more likely to bounce back. Also, garland to our knowledge never took PED's.

Wins and losses mean more to you than ERA? Eh.
By those standards...
Bronson Arroyo (15-11, 4.77) had a better season than Derek Lowe (14-11, 3.24) last season.
Jon Garland (14-8, 4.90) had a better season than Ben Sheets (13-9, 3.09).
Vincente Padilla (14-8, 4.74) had a better season than John Danks (12-9, 3.32).

I slightly disagree.

btrain929
12-29-2008, 12:41 PM
Petitte had a better year because his ERA was better? I thought wins and losses were important, my bad :scratch:. And still the second part of my point remains true. Garland is younger and more likely to bounce back. Also, garland to our knowledge never took PED's.

Wins and losses mean more to you than ERA? Eh.
By those standards...
Bronson Arroyo (15-11, 4.77) had a better season than Derek Lowe (14-11, 3.24) last season.
Jon Garland (14-8, 4.90) had a better season than Ben Sheets (13-9, 3.09).
Vincente Padilla (14-8, 4.74) had a better season than John Danks (12-9, 3.32).

I slightly disagree.

http://topicpulse.com/docs/internet_slang_list/pwnd.jpg

Thome25
12-29-2008, 01:57 PM
The OP forgot the "?" at the end of Pettitte's name in the thread title. Let's review:

Would I like to have Pettitte on the Sox? Hell yes.

Do we need another starter to fill out our rotation? Yes.

Will we acquire a veteran starter for the 2009 season? Probably not.....pigs will fly, hell will freeze over, and the Cubs will win the WS before that happens. Heck, if Brad Penny went for a measly 5 million dollar 1-year deal then that should say something......the Sox aren't in the market for a veteran starter because Penny was right in the Sox price range.

In case anyone has missed it, the Sox are going younger in 2009 at 3B, 2B, CF, and the #4 and #5 spots in the rotation.....that's probably not going to change. It looks like KW is sticking to his guns this time.

Jim Shorts
12-29-2008, 02:01 PM
The OP forgot the "?" at the end of Pettitte's name in the thread title. Let's review:

Would I like to have Pettitte on the Sox? Hell yes.

Do we need another starter to fill out our rotation? Yes.

Will we acquire a veteran starter for the 2009 season? Probably not.....pigs will fly, hell will freeze over, and the Cubs will win the WS before that happens.

In case anyone has missed it, the Sox are going younger in 2009 at 3B, 2B, CF, and the #4 and #5 spots in the rotation.....that's probably not going to change. It looks like KW is sticking to his guns this time.

Dude, It's december 29th, I'm still giving KW some time.

I so hope you're wrong.

Thome25
12-29-2008, 02:04 PM
Dude, It's december 29th, I'm still giving KW some time.

I so hope you're wrong.

I didn't want my post to come of like I was complaining. I hope I'm wrong too. But, chances are this is the way things are going to be. We as Sox fans need to be prepared to deal with that.

Jim Shorts
12-29-2008, 02:09 PM
Yeah, but it's still early.

Now, when it's early February then I'll start prepping for that scenario.

btrain929
12-29-2008, 03:12 PM
Yeah, but it's still early.

Now, when it's early February then I'll start prepping for that scenario.

We're about halfway thru the offseason, so I wouldn't say it's early. We have about 1 more month if we want to make any more additions, as I don't see us adding anybody of significance in February/after Soxfest.

white sox bill
12-29-2008, 03:13 PM
In case anyone has missed it, the Sox are going younger in 2009 at 3B, 2B, CF, and the #4 and #5 spots in the rotation.....that's probably not going to change. It looks like KW is sticking to his guns this time.

Those ? marks in position players up the middle worry me. As does the back end of out rotation, actually all but MB is bit worrisome. Mark will be fine, and I think Danks appears to be panning out well, as for Floyd, lets hope the ol sophomore jinx doesn't come around (I know stat wise he really is past that 2nd yr), and as number 4 or 5?????

Not to sound like Chicken Little here, but 3 of 5 starters have potential of underperforming. That being said, KW will make another move to shore that starting rotation up.

2906
12-29-2008, 03:29 PM
We're about halfway thru the offseason, so I wouldn't say it's early. We have about 1 more month if we want to make any more additions, as I don't see us adding anybody of significance in February/after Soxfest.

Not that I disagree with you but I think the market will play out later than usual this year. There are still a whole bunch of free agents out there and it appears teams are waiting things out and angling for bargains.

Personally I expect quite a few players who expected lucrative multi year deals ultimately getting one year contracts, and the fringe guys getting minor league invites to spring training vs. a guaranteed contract.

Last year there were a few veterans who never got contracts, at the price they wanted anyway (Lofton comes to mind for one). My guess is we'll see more of that this year with guys signing later than ever.

You really have to wonder, for example, where Orlando Cabrera ends up. Looks like the market dried up for him quickly, not to mention giving up a draft choice.

jcw218
12-29-2008, 04:29 PM
Would I like to have Pettitte on the Sox? Hell yes.

As would I.

Do we need another starter to fill out our rotation? Yes.

Will we acquire a veteran starter for the 2009 season? Probably not.....pigs will fly, hell will freeze over, and the Cubs will win the WS before that happens. Heck, if Brad Penny went for a measly 5 million dollar 1-year deal then that should say something......the Sox aren't in the market for a veteran starter because Penny was right in the Sox price range.

That remains to be seen. IMO, it was a mistake to deal Javy without someone to replace the production who doesn't have the attitude that I don't care. While Penny may have went for a 1 year 5 mil deal, there are health concerns about his shoulder. Don't forget that the Sox are still paying Contreras 10 mil for the 2009 season and he might not pitch at all.

Zisk77
12-29-2008, 11:54 PM
Wins and losses mean more to you than ERA? Eh.
By those standards...
Bronson Arroyo (15-11, 4.77) had a better season than Derek Lowe (14-11, 3.24) last season.
Jon Garland (14-8, 4.90) had a better season than Ben Sheets (13-9, 3.09).
Vincente Padilla (14-8, 4.74) had a better season than John Danks (12-9, 3.32).

I slightly disagree.


No, I would say WINS mean more to me than ERA. When you take the mound how often did your team win regardless if you got the win or not. We won a lot more games in which Danks pitched than Jon got credit for so I would think he was much better than Padilla.

The problem with this board (and I'm not saying with you specifically) is that put so much credence in statistics to conclude wether a player was good or bad rather than just watching them play and making a decision.

I'll give you a prime example. Many here believe Jon Garland Pitched badly in 2007. The cite his near 5 ERA. Those same people were down on Danks for a 6-13 record and poor ERA. IMHO Jon pitched well in 2007 his ERA was something like 2.15 going into Late June. Then he had the misfortune of pitching against the twins in the first game of a DH on a day when he didn't have anything. He gave up 6 earned runs in the first (none should have been earned as our shoody defense stabbed Jon in the back but the plays were ruled hits instead of errors). But since our BP was a shambles and it was the first game of DH Jon took one for the team and game up 13 EARNED RUNS! a couple weeks later the yankees shelled him for 8, but once again Ozzie had to leave him in because of our BP woes. take those two starts away and i think Jon's ERA would have been around 3 for the year. How many wins did he lose because or bullpen lost the lead? Likewise we couldn't score any runs for Danks in the first month and ahalf for Danks. He actually pitched wekll for us until he hit the rookie wall in late July in 2007

Really, one pitcher has a 4.90 era and one a 4.53. what really the difference between the two. C'mon its negligible. Thats having the scorekeeper not ruling an error a hit or vice versa or a pitcher having to take one for the team.

btrain929
12-29-2008, 11:59 PM
Not that I disagree with you but I think the market will play out later than usual this year. There are still a whole bunch of free agents out there and it appears teams are waiting things out and angling for bargains.

Personally I expect quite a few players who expected lucrative multi year deals ultimately getting one year contracts, and the fringe guys getting minor league invites to spring training vs. a guaranteed contract.

Last year there were a few veterans who never got contracts, at the price they wanted anyway (Lofton comes to mind for one). My guess is we'll see more of that this year with guys signing later than ever.

You really have to wonder, for example, where Orlando Cabrera ends up. Looks like the market dried up for him quickly, not to mention giving up a draft choice.

Yeah, I agree with all that. But we are hardly big players in the FA market anyways, so even if their demands/expectations come down, I still don't see us landing any (Penny, for example). Maybe we'll sign an arm for the bullpen or a Mark Mulder to push the youngens, but I'd be very surprised if we landed a Sheets or Abreu or Lowe or someone of that nature.

khan
12-30-2008, 10:01 AM
No, I would say WINS mean more to me than ERA. When you take the mound how often did your team win regardless if you got the win or not.
You're kinda contradicting yourself here.

The problem with this board (and I'm not saying with you specifically) is that put so much credence in statistics to conclude wether a player was good or bad rather than just watching them play and making a decision.
OK.

I'll give you a prime example. Many here believe Jon Garland Pitched badly in 2007. The cite his near 5 ERA. Those same people were down on Danks for a 6-13 record and poor ERA. IMHO Jon pitched well in 2007 his ERA was something like 2.15 going into Late June. Then he had the misfortune of pitching against the twins in the first game of a DH on a day when he didn't have anything.
And now you speak with a forked tongue yet again.

I recognize your supposed disdain for "statistics," yet you go on to explain your position using statistics. For good or bad, stats enable us to describe and categorize a player's ability to some degree. Some stats are useful, while others do nothing for us.

Having said that: W-L record <<<<<<<ERA<<<<<<<<<WHIP or OBP against with respect to properly judging a pitcher's efficacy.

So many things can affect wins/losses: The pitcher's offense, the bullpen, whether or not Jerry Manuel lets a young pitcher go more than a few innings, etc...

The same is true with ERA: Whether or not a player "should have" made a play can turn a so-called "earned" run into a so-called "unearned" run. If a SP leaves with men on base, then Boone Logan [all of 1 year away from rookie ball] can come in, crap his pants, and give up runs that are so-called "earned" runs for the SP. The SP's "E"RA suffers, while the rushed-to-the-bigs Boone Logan's "E"RA can escape unscathed.

But with WHIP or OBP against, it is merely a matter of how many runners the pitcher allowed. It is almost all in the pitcher's hands.

Use the right stats in the right situations, and you can better measure/categorize a player's ability. Using the wrong ones does nothing for you.

Moses_Scurry
12-30-2008, 10:59 AM
Let me ask you this, would you rather have a pitcher who has an ERA of 5 and is 20-2 or a pitcher who has an ERA of 2.5 and is 10-1?

I agree with the whole "wins and losses are a team stat" and everything, but I would take the 20-2 pitcher, and it's not even close. Without knowing any other info, it would at least give the Sox team 10 more wins.

whitesox901
12-30-2008, 11:07 AM
Let me ask you this, would you rather have a pitcher who has an ERA of 5 and is 20-2 or a pitcher who has an ERA of 2.5 and is 10-1?

I'd take the Lower ERA pitcher, I cant believe people would even pick the guy with a 5 ERA

Zisk77
12-30-2008, 03:45 PM
You're kinda contradicting yourself here.


OK.


And now you speak with a forked tongue yet again.

I recognize your supposed disdain for "statistics," yet you go on to explain your position using statistics. For good or bad, stats enable us to describe and categorize a player's ability to some degree. Some stats are useful, while others do nothing for us.

Having said that: W-L record <<<<<<<ERA<<<<<<<<<WHIP or OBP against with respect to properly judging a pitcher's efficacy.

So many things can affect wins/losses: The pitcher's offense, the bullpen, whether or not Jerry Manuel lets a young pitcher go more than a few innings, etc...

The same is true with ERA: Whether or not a player "should have" made a play can turn a so-called "earned" run into a so-called "unearned" run. If a SP leaves with men on base, then Boone Logan [all of 1 year away from rookie ball] can come in, crap his pants, and give up runs that are so-called "earned" runs for the SP. The SP's "E"RA suffers, while the rushed-to-the-bigs Boone Logan's "E"RA can escape unscathed.

But with WHIP or OBP against, it is merely a matter of how many runners the pitcher allowed. It is almost all in the pitcher's hands.

Use the right stats in the right situations, and you can better measure/categorize a player's ability. Using the wrong ones does nothing for you.



I don't disdain stats, I disdain people thinking they are the end all to be all especially when they don't know how to use them correctly. Somebody cited that Pettites K's/walk ratio was better than Garland's in their argument that Andy was better than Jon. Well thats a meaningless stat for that purpose. Garland is a sinker ball pitcher that pitches to contact. He doesn't strike people out so of course his K to walk ratio is low. Pettite relies out burying the cutter into rh hitters and fooling them with changes and curves and is a K out pitcher so his K to walk ratio should be higher.

I read another post where someone was comparing two differnt pitchers and using WHIP as an indicator on who was better. One guy was a power pitcher (I think it was Burnett) that had a lower WHIP than the sinkerball pitcher. Well yeah Burnett is going to k a bunch of hitter and his whip should be lower. A sinkerball is going to get a lot of ground balls and some are going to find holes. But he still is going to get ground balls with the extra base runners so one should take in a pitchers GIDP's with his whip if they wanted to be fair in the comparison.

So basically anyone can find stats that support his argument and ignore the ones that don't fit his agenda.

khan
12-30-2008, 04:09 PM
I don't disdain stats, I disdain people thinking they are the end all to be all especially when they don't know how to use them correctly.
And yet, you've failed to explain exactly HOW wins are a better metric for pitchers than ERA, WHIP, or OBP against.

Somebody cited that Pettites K's/walk ratio was better than Garland's in their argument that Andy was better than Jon. Well thats a meaningless stat for that purpose. Garland is a sinker ball pitcher that pitches to contact. He doesn't strike people out so of course his K to walk ratio is low. Pettite relies out burying the cutter into rh hitters and fooling them with changes and curves and is a K out pitcher so his K to walk ratio should be higher.
Not necessarily. Any pitcher, regardless of how he prefers to get batters out that has poor control will have a mediocre K:BB ratio. At the same time, a pitcher who has an average amount of Ks but has excellent control can have a GREAT K:BB ratio.

Examples? Nolan Ryan, a decidedly strong strikeout pitcher had 5,714 career Ks to 2,795 BB, for a surprisingly average ratio of 2.044 K:BB

For Greg Maddux, who only had >200Ks in 1 out of 24 seasons, his ratio was 3,371Ks to 999BBs, for a sparkling 3.37 ratio.

I read another post where someone was comparing two differnt pitchers and using WHIP as an indicator on who was better. One guy was a power pitcher (I think it was Burnett) that had a lower WHIP than the sinkerball pitcher. Well yeah Burnett is going to k a bunch of hitter and his whip should be lower. A sinkerball is going to get a lot of ground balls and some are going to find holes. But he still is going to get ground balls with the extra base runners so one should take in a pitchers GIDP's with his whip if they wanted to be fair in the comparison.
Actually, "W+H/IP" takes into account how many outs a pitcher can induce. So GIDPs are already factored in to a degree. But no, a strikeout pitcher doesn't necessarily enjoy a better W+H/IP than a sinkerballer.

So basically anyone can find stats that support his argument and ignore the ones that don't fit his agenda.
I agree. But you haven't explained why Wins are a useful statistic in terms of measuring a pitcher's abilities at all. And in this post, you haven't really made any sort of case as to why statistics aren't useful to describe pitchers.

Zisk77
12-30-2008, 10:02 PM
And yet, you've failed to explain exactly HOW wins are a better metric for pitchers than ERA, WHIP, or OBP against.


Not necessarily. Any pitcher, regardless of how he prefers to get batters out that has poor control will have a mediocre K:BB ratio. At the same time, a pitcher who has an average amount of Ks but has excellent control can have a GREAT K:BB ratio.

Examples? Nolan Ryan, a decidedly strong strikeout pitcher had 5,714 career Ks to 2,795 BB, for a surprisingly average ratio of 2.044 K:BB

For Greg Maddux, who only had >200Ks in 1 out of 24 seasons, his ratio was 3,371Ks to 999BBs, for a sparkling 3.37 ratio.


Actually, "W+H/IP" takes into account how many outs a pitcher can induce. So GIDPs are already factored in to a degree. But no, a strikeout pitcher doesn't necessarily enjoy a better W+H/IP than a sinkerballer.


I agree. But you haven't explained why Wins are a useful statistic in terms of measuring a pitcher's abilities at all. And in this post, you haven't really made any sort of case as to why statistics aren't useful to describe pitchers.


I just meant the only stat I really care about is wins and loses and not the pitcher's wins and loses. I realize i wasn't clear on that, sorry. How many wins does the sox get and how many loses. Danks can keep getting ND as long as we win 75% of his starts.

Get points in the way you also intrepreted the above stats, but that kinda proves my point in that stats can easily be skewd, misrunderstand or irrelevent. I rather have seen the player play and make up my own mind if he is good or not. Fair enough?

Answer me this honestly. Many have contended that Garland was aweful last year. Theycite his 12-7 record and his 4.90 era amongst other things. I only saw Jon pitch once last year against us and he was thouroughly underwhelming to say the least. How many of you have actually seen Jon throw numerous games last year? Honestly.

I actually saw pettite throw a bunch of games last year (plus ESPN constantly breaks every yankee down in minute detail all year long) and he was bad last year. Primarily with his command. he wild in the strike zone and he got lit up.

All this arguing aside we aren't getting pettite and we arn't likely to get Garland either.

Madscout
12-30-2008, 10:24 PM
No, I would say WINS mean more to me than ERA. When you take the mound how often did your team win regardless if you got the win or not. We won a lot more games in which Danks pitched than Jon got credit for so I would think he was much better than Padilla.

The problem with this board (and I'm not saying with you specifically) is that put so much credence in statistics to conclude wether a player was good or bad rather than just watching them play and making a decision.

I'll give you a prime example. Many here believe Jon Garland Pitched badly in 2007. The cite his near 5 ERA. Those same people were down on Danks for a 6-13 record and poor ERA. IMHO Jon pitched well in 2007 his ERA was something like 2.15 going into Late June. Then he had the misfortune of pitching against the twins in the first game of a DH on a day when he didn't have anything. He gave up 6 earned runs in the first (none should have been earned as our shoody defense stabbed Jon in the back but the plays were ruled hits instead of errors). But since our BP was a shambles and it was the first game of DH Jon took one for the team and game up 13 EARNED RUNS! a couple weeks later the yankees shelled him for 8, but once again Ozzie had to leave him in because of our BP woes. take those two starts away and i think Jon's ERA would have been around 3 for the year. How many wins did he lose because or bullpen lost the lead? Likewise we couldn't score any runs for Danks in the first month and ahalf for Danks. He actually pitched wekll for us until he hit the rookie wall in late July in 2007

Really, one pitcher has a 4.90 era and one a 4.53. what really the difference between the two. C'mon its negligible. Thats having the scorekeeper not ruling an error a hit or vice versa or a pitcher having to take one for the team.
I don't agree with all of the points, but I was sold on Danks the day he went toe to toe with Santana and was in the whole time up until the mistake to Morneau. He got pissed at himself and continued to retire Twins. The Sox lost a something like 3-1, and he pitched some 6 or 7 or so innings.
His problem will be taking himself too seriously on the mound and trying to force the ball, because he wants to not only to win, but pitch well, hit his spots, and he almost wills the ball to them, and thus he forces it or aims. But he is smart, and has had good training so he knows what to correct and when to correct it.