PDA

View Full Version : Javy-6th inning melt down on ESPN


SoxGirl4Life
08-16-2009, 11:17 PM
Just gave up a three run bomb to Ryan Howard.

Seems like old times..

JB98
08-16-2009, 11:21 PM
Heh heh...I've got that game on, too. The Braves are five games back of Philly. This is a key game for them. And Javy screws the pooch in the sixth. Been there, done that.

jabrch
08-16-2009, 11:22 PM
Are you serious?

"melt down" because he gave up a HR to Ryan Howard? Because he's given up 4 runs in 6 innings to Philly? ****...

Noneck
08-16-2009, 11:26 PM
Well, I sure would love to see him on the bump here tues or weds.

GoGoCrede
08-16-2009, 11:33 PM
I just tuned in. I don't like those Braves uniforms.

I wouldn't say 4 runs is a complete meltdown. I'm curious to see how he does in the remainder of the game.

GoGoCrede
08-16-2009, 11:36 PM
Oh, and can someone please teach these announcers how to pronounce 'Diaz' correctly?

kcsportscaster
08-16-2009, 11:55 PM
Oh, and can someone please teach these announcers how to pronounce 'Diaz' correctly?

They are pronouncing Diaz correctly because that is the way Braves outfielder Matt Diaz pronounces his name. BTW, Vasquez has pitched better this season except for the one mistake to Howard tonight. His confidence factor has to be helped by Bobby Cox's and pitching coach Roger McDowell's approach, particularly Cox, who when he does have to point out something to one of his players that he doesn't like, he usually keeps it in house.

gobears1987
08-17-2009, 12:08 AM
Well the Braves have found themselves in a playoff race now. It was to be expected that he would meltdown as soon as he was put in a game that actually mattered.

jabrch
08-17-2009, 12:24 AM
Well the Braves have found themselves in a playoff race now. It was to be expected that he would meltdown as soon as he was put in a game that actually mattered.

Can you please explain how 4 runs in 7 IP is a meltdown?

gobears1987
08-17-2009, 12:27 AM
Can you please explain how 4 runs in 7 IP is a meltdown?
He had a lead. He made it through the order twice. He had to go through the order a third time and blew up. It is typical Javy Vazquez. He gave up the big inning after having a lead because he sucks every time he has to face a line-up three times.

Javy got all of his wins against the Royals and other crap teams. He could never beat a good team, and he could never win when the Sox were in a playoff race. He was the definition of a choker.

jabrch
08-17-2009, 12:31 AM
He had a lead. He made it through the order twice. He had to go through the order a third time and blew up. It is typical Javy Vazquez. He gave up the big inning after having a lead because he sucks every time he has to face a line-up three times.

Javy got all of his wins against the Royals and other crap teams. He could never beat a good team, and he could never win when the Sox were in a playoff race. He was the definition of a choker.

Ryan Howard hit a HR against him. That's not "blowing up", that's not choking and it isn't sucking either. It's fine to create a strawman - but some facts to support it would be nice.

gobears1987
08-17-2009, 12:34 AM
Ryan Howard hit a HR against him. That's not "blowing up", that's not choking and it isn't sucking either. It's fine to create a strawman - but some facts to support it would be nice.
He is a choker. Here's a question for you. How many games did he win down the stretch last year in August and September? We were bailed out by Buehrle, Floyd, and Danks winning those last three games because Javy pissed his pants in every game that mattered. Javy then of course ****ed us in Game 1 of the ALDS.

That loser then had the nerve to say he didn't care what happened because he would be on his beach anyways in a week. **** Javy.

There are only three ex-Sox players I really despise. Javy is one of them, and that is for good reason.

It's Time
08-17-2009, 12:39 AM
So he gives up a 3 run dong to one of the most feared hitters in the game and this is a meltdown? :scratch:. Makes sense

LoveYourSuit
08-17-2009, 12:41 AM
Meltdown? :scratch:


Meanwhile, the guy continues to put up a very fine season in ATL.


When Dotel leaves town next year, these two guys will go down as the biggest hated White Sox pitchers in history with out a cause. Sox fans have treated these two guys very unfairly.

My candidate for the next guy will be Tony Pena.

gobears1987
08-17-2009, 12:41 AM
So he gives up a 3 run dong to one of the most feared hitters in the game and this is a meltdown? :scratch:. Makes sense
Meltdown may be a bit harsh of a word. I'll concede that point. However, Javy is still a loser when the games count. I would love to see him go to Detroit on a waiver deal. I'd LOVE to see him pitch for the Tigers down the stretch as that is a guaranteed loss every 5th day for the Tigers.

JB98
08-17-2009, 12:41 AM
When Javy was with the Sox, he gave up home runs to Nick Punto. Now, he's giving up home runs to Ryan Howard. Perhaps he has improved.

jabrch
08-17-2009, 12:41 AM
He is a choker. Here's a question for you. How many games did he win down the stretch last year in August and September? We were bailed out by Buehrle, Floyd, and Danks winning those last three games because Javy pissed his pants in every game that mattered. Javy then of course ****ed us in Game 1 of the ALDS.

That loser then had the nerve to say he didn't care what happened because he would be on his beach anyways in a week. **** Javy.

There are only three ex-Sox players I really despise. Javy is one of them, and that is for good reason.

I'll do this - but then I want you to explain to me how allowing a HR to Ryan Howard or 4 runs in 7 IP to the Phillies is choking.

In August and September of last year, Javy had 7 starts allowing 3 or fewer runs. He allowed 37 runs in those two months, over 12 starts. In 9 of those games, the Sox scored 4 runs or fewer. The Sox went 5-7 over that stretch. Now who do you blame? The pitcher who allowed 3 runs per game? Sorry Go - I am not buying it.

gobears1987
08-17-2009, 12:48 AM
In the final part of the race when the heat was really on and the Sox needed wins, this is what Javy did.

SEP 18 @ NY: L 3.2IP 6ER
SEP 23 @ MIN: L 4 IP 5ER
SEP 27 CLE: L 4.1IP 7ER

Those games were must wins and he choked. We are damn lucky that Javy didn't cost us the playoffs because he damn near did. He then managed to put us in a nice hole once the playoffs started. I would've rather had Buehrle on short rest than Javy. With a 3 man rotation, maybe things would've been better. Either way, Javy Vazquez was in the 2008 ALDS what Damaso Marte tried to be in 2005 ALDS

jabrch
08-17-2009, 12:49 AM
In the final part of the race when the heat was really on and the Sox needed wins, this is what Javy did.

SEP 18 @ NY: L 3.2IP 6ER
SEP 23 @ MIN: L 4 IP 5ER
SEP 27 CLE: L 4.1IP 7ER

Those games were must wins and he choked. We are damn lucky that Javy didn't cost us the playoffs because he damn near did.

I'll use 2 months, 12 starts to evaluate him more than 3 starts.

LoveYourSuit
08-17-2009, 12:49 AM
He is a choker. Here's a question for you. How many games did he win down the stretch last year in August and September? We were bailed out by Buehrle, Floyd, and Danks winning those last three games because Javy pissed his pants in every game that mattered. Javy then of course ****ed us in Game 1 of the ALDS.

That loser then had the nerve to say he didn't care what happened because he would be on his beach anyways in a week. **** Javy.

There are only three ex-Sox players I really despise. Javy is one of them, and that is for good reason.


Seriously :rolleyes:

If Javy makes up the top 3 on your list of most hated Sox players, I just don't know what to say. Maybe you haven't been watching Sox baseball long enough.

Albert Belle, Royce Clayton, Jamie Navarro, Nick Swisher, Mike Jackson, Billy Koch ... Just to name a few from the New Comiskey era.

The teams in the late 80s sucked so highly it's not even worth mentioning those entire rosters.

gobears1987
08-17-2009, 12:51 AM
Seriously :rolleyes:

If Javy makes up the top 3 on your list of most hated Sox players, I just don't know what to say. Maybe you haven't been watching Sox baseball long enough.

Albert Belle, Royce Clayton, Jamie Navarro, Nick Swisher, Mike Jackson, Billy Koch ... Just to name a few from the New Comiskey era.

The teams in the late 80s sucked so highly it's not even worth mentioning those entire rosters.
You got Swisher and the other is Cabrera. There have been others I've hated before (Magglio). However, time heals all wounds.

Players like Koch sucked, but I never hated him. Koch never had attitude problems and would take the blame when he sucked. Javy just had an attitude that he didn't give a **** when the team was in a tight playoff race. That is how you end up on my **** list. If I were older and had remembered Navarro better, I would've placed Javy right next to him.

Redus Redux
08-17-2009, 12:52 AM
damned are those pitchers that try and strike everyone out on every pitch

gobears1987
08-17-2009, 12:57 AM
I'll use 2 months, 12 starts to evaluate him more than 3 starts.
Those 3 starts were when the pressure was really on. It is evidence that supports the hypothesis that when you increase variable P on Javy, the number of L's increase.

P = Pressure (variable)
Javy = Javy Vazquez (constant)
L = number of losses

That gives us this equation.
P(Javy)=L

Plug in numbers to this equation and have fun...







(It's really late if I'm posting this...)

LoveYourSuit
08-17-2009, 12:58 AM
In the final part of the race when the heat was really on and the Sox needed wins, this is what Javy did.

SEP 18 @ NY: L 3.2IP 6ER
SEP 23 @ MIN: L 4 IP 5ER
SEP 27 CLE: L 4.1IP 7ER

Those games were must wins and he choked. We are damn lucky that Javy didn't cost us the playoffs because he damn near did. He then managed to put us in a nice hole once the playoffs started. I would've rather had Buehrle on short rest than Javy. With a 3 man rotation, maybe things would've been better. Either way, Javy Vazquez was in the 2008 ALDS what Damaso Marte tried to be in 2005 ALDS


You know what your "golden boy" Mark Buehrle did in September 2006 when we were fighting with Detroit and Minnesota for a play off spot?

1-2 with a 6.67 ERA and a .387 BA against in 28 innings.

Is that a "choke job" too?

My opinion, 2006 hurt more because that team was pretty damn good enough to re-peat as WS champs.

Noneck
08-17-2009, 01:00 AM
Javy just had an attitude that he didn't give a **** when the team was in a tight playoff race. That is how you end up on my **** list.

I guess you have the right to dislike anyone you want but tell me more about this "give a **** attitude" he had. I am curious if you have some inside information.

jabrch
08-17-2009, 01:00 AM
Those 3 starts were when the pressure was really on. It is evidence that supports the hypothesis that when you increase variable P on Javy, the number of L's increase.

P = Pressure (variable)
Javy = Javy Vazquez (constant)
L = number of losses

That gives us this equation.
P(Javy)=L

Plug in numbers to this equation and have fun...







(It's really late if I'm posting this...)

As N gets closer to 0, the reliability of your conclusions gets lower. When N = 3. Your conclusions are worth nearly nothing.

LoveYourSuit
08-17-2009, 01:01 AM
You got Swisher and the other is Cabrera. There have been others I've hated before (Magglio). However, time heals all wounds.

Players like Koch sucked, but I never hated him. Koch never had attitude problems and would take the blame when he sucked. Javy just had an attitude that he didn't give a **** when the team was in a tight playoff race. That is how you end up on my **** list. If I were older and had remembered Navarro better, I would've placed Javy right next to him.


All I can say about Javy and I will appreciate this is the fact that he took the damn ball for every start he was here. 200+ innings every year and never bitched about nagging injuries.

Results were not the greatest, but the guy took the ball.

gobears1987
08-17-2009, 01:02 AM
You know what your "golden boy" Mark Buehrle did in September 2006 when we were fighting with Detroit and Minnesota for a play off spot?

1-2 with a 6.67 ERA and a .387 BA against in 28 innings.

Is that a "choke job" too?

My opinion, 2006 hurt more because that team was pretty damn good enough to re-peat as WS champs.
Let's ignore the offensive meltdown that occurred with the entire team in 2006.

Oh and look at Javy in 2006. His last W came on August 11th. He would start 10 more games and the Sox would lose all 10 of them. Six of those would be charged to him as losses.

The only season where Javy did well was in 2007. It's no coincidence that it was a season with little pressure as the Sox were out of it in the middle of May.

I'll take my golden boy Mark Buehrle over your pants pisser Javy any day.

gobears1987
08-17-2009, 01:03 AM
I guess you have the right to dislike anyone you want but tell me more about this "give a **** attitude" he had. I am curious if you have some inside information.
He made comments in September after a loss that "he didn't care because he was going to be on his beach in a week." That is the not giving a **** attitude. I was never a fan of Javy, but it was those comments that really made me despise him and want him off of my team.

jabrch
08-17-2009, 01:04 AM
Let's ignore the offensive meltdown that occurred with the entire team in 2006.

But let's not ignore the offensive meltdown in 08?

Javy gave up 3 runs per game for the final 2 months of the year. He got 4 or fewer runs of support in 9 of those 12.

So ignore offense when it fits your argument?

That's hypocritical.

gobears1987
08-17-2009, 01:07 AM
But let's not ignore the offensive meltdown in 08?

Javy gave up 3 runs per game for the final 2 months of the year. He got 4 or fewer runs of support in 9 of those 12.

So ignore offense when it fits your argument?

That's hypocritical.
Here is the difference between these two pitchers. Mark Buehrle has seen success in pressure situations (he actually won a game in September, something Javy didn't do as he went 0-4 the same year Mark went 1-2). Buehrle has done well in the postseason. Javy has done nothing but crap his pants.

Those final three games were very important and winning just one of them would've averted game 163 and not required our team to do something that had never been done in 100+ years of baseball history in order to make the postseason. The deepest Javy went into a game was 4.1 innings in that stretch. That is terrible. Once the pressure was on, Javy folded like a lawn chair. It's a shame Jose suffered his injury as I think he would've been much better down the stretch than Javy was.

GoGoCrede
08-17-2009, 01:07 AM
He made comments in September after a loss that "he didn't care because he was going to be on his beach in a week." That is the not giving a **** attitude. I was never a fan of Javy, but it was those comments that really made me despise him and want him off of my team.

I see where you're coming from - we all want a guy who's passionate for his team. But IMO his comments were misconstrued. I think what he meant was that no matter what happened that season, win or lose, he still had his family and his home in Puerto Rico. It sounds to me like his family comes first, and I really can't hate him for that at all. He just worded it badly.

That was my interpretation of things. Your mileage may vary.

october23sp
08-17-2009, 01:08 AM
He made comments in September after a loss that "he didn't care because he was going to be on his beach in a week." That is the not giving a **** attitude. I was never a fan of Javy, but it was those comments that really made me despise him and want him off of my team.

It was being on a beach at the end of his career. But he said it really didn't matter how well he did.

LoveYourSuit
08-17-2009, 01:11 AM
Let's ignore the offensive meltdown that occurred with the entire team in 2006.

Oh and look at Javy in 2006. His last W came on August 11th. He would start 10 more games and the Sox would lose all 10 of them. Six of those would be charged to him as losses.

The only season where Javy did well was in 2007. It's no coincidence that it was a season with little pressure as the Sox were out of it in the middle of May.

I'll take my golden boy Mark Buehrle over your pants pisser Javy any day.


Yeah, Javy in September 2006 0-3 with a 3.82 ERA and .99 WHIP to go along with a .197 BAA.

Yeah, but the ****er did not win any games and went 0-3 for the month therefore he sucked. But only Buehrle could use Bullpen meltdowns and sucky offense as an excuse. Javy should have thrown perfect games to get those Wins :rolleyes:

gobears1987
08-17-2009, 01:13 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3602173

I posted this one in the other thread, but Ozzie Guillen seemed to agree with me and made these comments in the middle of the race when Javy was still on the team. Ozzie agrees with me and that is more than good enough for me.


EDIT: It does say at the end of his career, but in the end his attitude is very nonchalant towards helping his team out and that's a huge negative in many aspects. I wouldn't want that attitude in my clubhouse.

LoveYourSuit
08-17-2009, 01:14 AM
I see where you're coming from - we all want a guy who's passionate for his team. But IMO his comments were misconstrued. I think what he meant was that no matter what happened that season, win or lose, he still had his family and his home in Puerto Rico. It sounds to me like his family comes first, and I really can't hate him for that at all. He just worded it badly.

That was my interpretation of things. Your mileage may vary.


Wow, what an odd concept:

Family over Work/Game.

But he doesn't have the passion or the fire, so **** him.

LoveYourSuit
08-17-2009, 01:28 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3602173

I posted this one in the other thread, but Ozzie Guillen seemed to agree with me and made these comments in the middle of the race when Javy was still on the team. Ozzie agrees with me and that is more than good enough for me.


EDIT: It does say at the end of his career, but in the end his attitude is very nonchalant towards helping his team out and that's a huge negative in many aspects. I wouldn't want that attitude in my clubhouse.

Come on now.

You are 100% full of **** now.

This stand of hating Javy the way you do is based on this article (according to how many times you have mentioned Javy's so called "I don't care attitude). Ozzie did not "agree with you" but it was you who agreed with Ozzie just based on this article you read.

If you want to hate Javy, go ahead and hate him based on the fact that he did not perform to the highest level when we needed him most. That is it. But stop quesitoning his "passion, work ethic, attitude, whatever" based on an article which even you admit you read wrong and mis-understood it.

Noneck
08-17-2009, 01:29 AM
Wow, what an odd concept:

Family over Work/Game.



Actually I believe it was he still had his family after the game/work. Kind of a normal and nice thing to have, I believe.

GoGoCrede
08-17-2009, 01:33 AM
Actually I believe it was he still had his family after the game/work. Kind of a normal and nice thing to have, I believe.

I agree. Fans had been giving him a rough time at that point in the season, but he seemed to know he always had his family and was grateful for it. Not every player lives for the game.

DSpivack
08-17-2009, 01:37 AM
Come on now.

You are 100% full of **** now.

This stand of hating Javy the way you do is based on this article (according to how many times you have mentioned Javy's so called "I don't care attitude). Ozzie did not "agree with you" but it was you who agreed with Ozzie just based on this article you read.

If you want to hate Javy, go ahead and hate him based on the fact that he did not perform to the highest level when we needed him most. That is it. But stop quesitoning his "passion, work ethic, attitude, whatever" based on an article which even you admit you read wrong and mis-understood it.

Well, he's always been known as a guy who's had the stuff to be a great pitcher, and that appeal has drawn him to teams--first the Yankees, then the DBacks, White Sox and now Braves. And he's never been able to live up to that potential. Why? I don't know, but if Guillen thinks that's the reason, then that's his opinion.

LoveYourSuit
08-17-2009, 01:39 AM
I agree. Fans had been giving him a rough time at that point in the season, but he seemed to know he always had his family and was grateful for it. Not every player lives for the game, as much as we'd like them to.


And I would hope that every player wearing a ML uniform today puts his family first ahead of the game. I can't sit here and be a moranic selfish ass fan to be upset at a guy who appreciates his family over the game.

And Sox fans did ride him very rough out of town.

One of my low points and most embarrassing moments as a Sox fan was when at game 1 of the ALDS the fans booed the guy as if he was an enemy. Very classless.

WhiteSox5187
08-17-2009, 03:44 AM
While giving up four runs in seven innings isn't bad, if this were done by say, Buerhle or Danks or Floyd or Jose we'd all be saying he pissed his pants because he had a lead and then blew it. Really at the end of the day Javy is not a big game pitcher. The numbers just support that. His best years were with Montreal a team that was perpetually out of the running, but once the heat was on Javy would melt. His only good year here was when we were a ninety loss team. He will always be a good pitcher on a bad team, and at best a mediocre pitcher on a good team. He has the stuff to be a great pitcher on a great team, but doesn't have the mental make up. What really pissed me off about him (and what I think punched his ticket out of Chicago) was when Ozzie tried to light a fire under him and then all but admitted to doing this Javy's response was "at the end of the day I'll still have my house in Puerto Rico." I can tolerate failure, but I can't tolerate that attitude and I think there were a lot of Sox fans who agreed with me on this. When Buerhle got shelled in '06 he all but said "i just flat out suck and am costing the team and it pisses me off," he owned up to it. Javy just didn't seem like he cared.

jabrch
08-17-2009, 11:11 AM
While giving up four runs in seven innings isn't bad, if this were done by say, Buerhle or Danks or Floyd or Jose we'd all be saying he pissed his pants because he had a lead and then blew it.

"We all" would not. A bunch of ****ing morons who have no ****ing clue about baseball might. And many of those **** for brains surely do reside here. But don't lump most people who know anything about baseball in with a bunch of complete freaking idiots.

4 runs in 7 innings against the Phillies, capped with a Ryan Howard 3 run HR is not "pissing his pants". That's so completely stupid it is beyond realistic. Yeah - lots of idiots might say that. But they'd be wrong.

VeeckAsInWreck
08-17-2009, 12:08 PM
Oh, and can someone please teach these announcers how to pronounce 'Diaz' correctly?

I hate the way that sounds too. "Dye-Az"????

Matt needs to embrace his Latino roots.

fram40
08-17-2009, 01:31 PM
4 runs in 7 innings against the Phillies, capped with a Ryan Howard 3 run HR is not "pissing his pants". That's so completely stupid it is beyond realistic. Yeah - lots of idiots might say that. But they'd be wrong.

maybe 4 runs in 7 innings isn't such a bad outing. yes, it looks good in the box score

But every Sox fan watching last night KNEW the choke job was coming in the 6th inning. Every single Sox fan knew the home run was coming from Ryan Howard and every single Sox fan KNEW that Javy would give up the lead immediately in the bottom of the 3rd inning after Wise hit the three run homer. I'd seen that crap for three years

There is a lot more to this game than raw stats

TommyJohn
08-17-2009, 01:35 PM
And I would hope that every player wearing a ML uniform today puts his family first ahead of the game. I can't sit here and be a moranic selfish ass fan to be upset at a guy who appreciates his family over the game.

And Sox fans did ride him very rough out of town.

One of my low points and most embarrassing moments as a Sox fan was when at game 1 of the ALDS the fans booed the guy as if he was an enemy. Very classless.
They booed him in Tampa?

jabrch
08-17-2009, 01:46 PM
maybe 4 runs in 7 innings isn't such a bad outing. yes, it looks good in the box score

No - it looks good on a baseball field also when you hold one of the best teams in the NL down to 4 runs in 7 and 3 of them on a HR to one of the best power hitters in their league.

But every Sox fan watching last night KNEW the choke job was coming in the 6th inning. Every single Sox fan knew the home run was coming from Ryan Howard and every single Sox fan KNEW that Javy would give up the lead immediately in the bottom of the 3rd inning after Wise hit the three run homer. I'd seen that crap for three years

Please don't lump me in with the rest of the morons. I have a hard time believing that too many people agree that EVERYONE saw this coming. I know I didn't. I saw Javy continuing to do what he did all season - and that is pitch well.

First of all - this was not a chokejob. So all those who saw it coming were wrong. 4 runs in 7 IP, with a 3 R HR by Ryan Howard is not a Chokejob. That's ignorant.

The guy has a 3.00 ERA on the season. Obviously he is doing something right. If you really think every time he is going to do have a bad 6th inning, then you will be very wrong, very often. I assume you would have thought the same thing in his last start, against the Dodgers, where he allowed 1 run in 8 IP. And in the start before that, 2 R in 7. And the one before that, 3 in 7. And the 9 starts prior to that where he gave up 13 runs combined in 62 IP (ERA of 1.89)

If you were so sure he would give up 3 runs in the 6th yesterday, it is only reasonable to assume you have been equally confident of that all year so far. In his 25 starts, how many times has he allowed more than 4 runs? THREE

There is a lot more to this game than raw stats

That is true. Context of all statistics is very important. So let's extrapolate out 3 bad starts in September, a bad playoff outing, and a bunch of feelings to conclude a guy "chokes".

LoveYourSuit
08-17-2009, 01:48 PM
They booed him in Tampa?


Don't be a smart ass.

I meant game one at home here. Which was game 3 of the series.

Iwritecode
08-17-2009, 02:11 PM
Don't be a smart ass.

I meant game one at home here. Which was game 3 of the series.

Javy didn't pitch in game 3. :scratch:

fram40
08-17-2009, 02:32 PM
First of all - this was not a chokejob. So all those who saw it coming were wrong. 4 runs in 7 IP, with a 3 R HR by Ryan Howard is not a Chokejob. That's ignorant.

Timing is everything. A three-run home run to lose a game can be construed as choking - even if it is the only three runs he gave up the entire outing. The first big game of the year (the Dodger game is not a big game; the rubber game of the series against your divisional leader is a big game) and Javy fulfilled his expectations. Fairly or not, most expected him to collapse.

You have mentioned his last two months in 2008 repeatedly and minimize others who mention his last three starts. But it is not just three starts - it is the last three starts of the season and the team needed him to step up and he didn't. Isn't that the definition of choking? From where I sit - it is. Maybe it is unfair - but that's life. Especially for a professional athlete. Or maybe not so unfair when your ERA is 13.50 in the three biggest games of the season.

Someone mentioned Buehrle in this thread - mentioned how badly he did down the stretch in 2006 and asked if that was choking. Perhaps it was - but at least Buehrle had 2005 where he stepped up. Big Time.

I never thought much of Jon Garland - until Game 3 ALCS when he stepped up big time. BIG TIME. Because of that one game I will always remember Jon as a big game pitcher. He also out-pitched Oswalt in WS Game 3.

Which I why I mentioned that there is more to this game than stats. A big game pitcher out-pitches his opponent and Javy did not do that last night.

It will be interesting to see how Javy pitches these next 6 weeks. He has another opportunity to step up. Perhaps he can shed his "choker" label. But I won't be betting on it, that's for sure.

fram40
08-17-2009, 02:32 PM
Javy didn't pitch in game 3. :scratch:

but he was booed in pre-game intros

munchman33
08-17-2009, 02:37 PM
No - it looks good on a baseball field also when you hold one of the best teams in the NL down to 4 runs in 7 and 3 of them on a HR to one of the best power hitters in their league.



Please don't lump me in with the rest of the morons. I have a hard time believing that too many people agree that EVERYONE saw this coming. I know I didn't. I saw Javy continuing to do what he did all season - and that is pitch well.

First of all - this was not a chokejob. So all those who saw it coming were wrong. 4 runs in 7 IP, with a 3 R HR by Ryan Howard is not a Chokejob. That's ignorant.

The guy has a 3.00 ERA on the season. Obviously he is doing something right. If you really think every time he is going to do have a bad 6th inning, then you will be very wrong, very often. I assume you would have thought the same thing in his last start, against the Dodgers, where he allowed 1 run in 8 IP. And in the start before that, 2 R in 7. And the one before that, 3 in 7. And the 9 starts prior to that where he gave up 13 runs combined in 62 IP (ERA of 1.89)

If you were so sure he would give up 3 runs in the 6th yesterday, it is only reasonable to assume you have been equally confident of that all year so far. In his 25 starts, how many times has he allowed more than 4 runs? THREE




Jabrch I'm starting to think you don't realize why everyone hated Javy. It's because he'd break down mentally late in games at the end of the season if they mattered. Yesterday was par for the course.

jabrch
08-17-2009, 02:40 PM
You have mentioned his last two months in 2008 repeatedly and minimize others who mention his last three starts. But it is not just three starts - it is the last three starts of the season and the team needed him to step up and he didn't. Isn't that the definition of choking? From where I sit - it is. Maybe it is unfair - but that's life. Especially for a professional athlete. Or maybe not so unfair when your ERA is 13.50 in the three biggest games of the season.


And you see no problem with using this sample size to draw conclusions?

Iwritecode
08-17-2009, 02:44 PM
And you see no problem with using this sample size to draw conclusions?

When the question is "how well does he do in games late in the year when the pressure is on?" you're not going to get a real big sample-size.

The man did pitch in Montreal for half his career.

munchman33
08-17-2009, 02:48 PM
When the question is "how well does he do in games late in the year when the pressure is on?" you're not going to get a real big sample-size.

The man did pitch in Montreal for half his career.

And fell apart late in the year the only season they competed to boot.

jabrch
08-17-2009, 02:51 PM
When the question is "how well does he do in games late in the year when the pressure is on?" you're not going to get a real big sample-size.

The man did pitch in Montreal for half his career.

Then your question assumes something that the answer doesn't prove.

You want to talk about his last 3 games. What did he do in 2006? He COMBINED to give up 1 run. That's right... ONE RUN in his last 3 games. Last 6 that year - He gave up a total of 7 runs. I just don't believe your sample size of 3 games in one year proves anything.

Iwritecode
08-17-2009, 02:56 PM
Then your question assumes something that the answer doesn't prove.

You want to talk about his last 3 games. What did he do in 2006? He COMBINED to give up 1 run. That's right... ONE RUN in his last 3 games. Last 6 that year - He gave up a total of 7 runs. I just don't believe your sample size of 3 games in one year proves anything.

There's a huge difference pitching for a team fighting to stay in first place in the final week of the season compared to pitching for a team in 3rd place with no chance of getting to the playoffs.

If we really want to see how he does in pressure situations, check out his post-season stats. They are horrible. But since he's only pitched in 3 post-season games, you'll probably tell me that's too small a sample size too.

kittle42
08-17-2009, 03:04 PM
I would take Javy on my pitching staff any day of the week. A win against the Royals in April counts just as much as one against the Twins in September. I know no one ever thinks of it that way, but it does.

Javy is a 200+ inning, 4.00-4.50 ERA type guy in the AL. Staffs need those kind of pitchers.

fram40
08-17-2009, 03:12 PM
And you see no problem with using this sample size to draw conclusions?


Not when we are looking for a guy who steps up in the big games. There are not that many big games and few chances to shine. But those athletes who do it (e.g., Reggie and Jeter) reap all the plaudits. Those that don't (A-roid and Javy) get labeled as chokers. And the bigger the stage, the more likely it is to happen. Like I said - maybe it's not fair but that is how it is.

I liked Javy. He was a decent pitcher. 200 innings every year. But he was paid like an ace and he failed to perform like an ace when the team needed him. Maybe we should not call him a "choker" That is a cruel term for an athlete.

You focus on the last two months of the season. Most of us are focused on the last three starts and one playoff game. Where he failed.

I guess it all depends on where the line is drawn.

LoveYourSuit
08-17-2009, 03:14 PM
I would take Javy on my pitching staff any day of the week. A win against the Royals in April counts just as much as one against the Twins in September. I know no one ever thinks of it that way, but it does.

Javy is a 200+ inning, 4.00-4.50 ERA type guy in the AL. Staffs need those kind of pitchers.


Kittle, you are nuts. The guy has no passion for the game and rather go back to his beach and family and could care less if the Sox won or lost. :rolleyes:

It's the same crock of **** we would hear about Cool Kat Garland. "He shows no fire."

fram40
08-17-2009, 03:15 PM
I would take Javy on my pitching staff any day of the week. A win against the Royals in April counts just as much as one against the Twins in September. I know no one ever thinks of it that way, but it does.

Javy is a 200+ inning, 4.00-4.50 ERA type guy in the AL. Staffs need those kind of pitchers.

But the problem is that is paid like an ace. And payroll matters to the Sox

thedudeabides
08-17-2009, 03:16 PM
Then your question assumes something that the answer doesn't prove.

You want to talk about his last 3 games. What did he do in 2006? He COMBINED to give up 1 run. That's right... ONE RUN in his last 3 games. Last 6 that year - He gave up a total of 7 runs. I just don't believe your sample size of 3 games in one year proves anything.

I've been trying to get out of this argument, but you are wrong here. I'm not sure where you got your info. Here are his last three starts from 2006:

9/21 2006 vs. Mariners 7.1 innings, 5runs, 12 k, 7h, 1bb
9/26 2006 vs. Indians 7 innings, 6runs, 12 k, 6 hits, 2bb
10/1 2006 vs. Twins 4.2 innings, 4runs, 7 k, 8 hits, 0bb

Baseball-Almanac (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/pitchinglogs.php?p=vazquja01&y=2006)

All three were losses. And not very impressive. In the two years he was with the Sox and they were in contention, he pitched very poorly in his last few games of the season. That's why people were putting the label on him. It was also very similar with the Yankees in 2004, and all of his playoff starts have been bad.

Playoff Starts (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/Playoffs/V/Javier-Vazquez.shtml)

I realize all of this is in small sample sizes, but that's how people are judged in sports, in pressure situations.

WhiteSox5187
08-17-2009, 03:16 PM
And you see no problem with using this sample size to draw conclusions?

You're right, three games in 2008 is too small of a sample size. So let's take a look at his stats on teams that have been contending in the latter months of the season:

'02 Expos (a team that shockingly finished second):
W L ERA G GS IP H R ER WHIP
August 0 6 6.61 6 6 31.1 49 26 23 1.819

Sept/Oct 2 1. 2.92 5 5 37.0 35 12 12 1.027
Not a very good August, by September they were out of contention.

'04 Yankees
August 1 2. 7.43 4 4 23.0 26 19 19 1.435
Sept/Oct 1 2 6.29 6 6 34.1 37 24 24 1.544

Not exactly very clutch heading down the stretch.

'06 White Sox

June 2 1 7.50 5 5 30.0 45 25 25 1.767
July 1 2 6.82 6 5 30.1 38 25 25 1.549
August 2 2. 3.41 6 6 37.0 34 16 14 1.270
Sept/Oct 0 4 4.28 6 6 40.0 33 21 19 1.075

Actually he had a good August and a decent September but when the collapse began in June and July he was at the forefront of it.

'08 White Sox

June 2 2 7.48 5 5 27.2 38 24 23 1.916
July 0 3 5.65 4 4 28.2 30 18 18 1.256
August 3 3 3.24 6 6 41.2 37 17 15 1.128
Sept/Oct 2 4. 6.25 6 6 31.2 31 23 22 1.389

Again a good August but was nowhere to be found in June or July and absolutely awful down the stretch in September.

Face it, he is not exactly clutch.

jabrch
08-17-2009, 03:36 PM
I've been trying to get out of this argument, but you are wrong here. I'm not sure where you got your info. Here are his last three starts from 2006:

9/21 2006 vs. Mariners 7.1 innings, 5runs, 12 k, 7h, 1bb
9/26 2006 vs. Indians 7 innings, 6runs, 12 k, 6 hits, 2bb
10/1 2006 vs. Twins 4.2 innings, 4runs, 7 k, 8 hits, 0bb

Baseball-Almanac (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/pitchinglogs.php?p=vazquja01&y=2006)

All three were losses. And not very impressive. In the two years he was with the Sox and they were in contention, he pitched very poorly in his last few games of the season. That's why people were putting the label on him. It was also very similar with the Yankees in 2004, and all of his playoff starts have been bad.

Playoff Starts (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/Playoffs/V/Javier-Vazquez.shtml)

I realize all of this is in small sample sizes, but that's how people are judged in sports, in pressure situations.

Sorry - had my run support mixed up with runs scored there. He gave up 19 ER in his last 6 starts and got 7 ER of support. That's what I meant to say.

RadioheadRocks
08-17-2009, 04:40 PM
With all the arguments going on here, it seems like many of you forgot something that I totally picked up on in the headline of the thread... 6th inning meltdown. Remember all those starts he had for us where he pitched well, only to chuck it all in inning #6???

WhiteSox5187
08-17-2009, 04:51 PM
I would take Javy on my pitching staff any day of the week. A win against the Royals in April counts just as much as one against the Twins in September. I know no one ever thinks of it that way, but it does.

Javy is a 200+ inning, 4.00-4.50 ERA type guy in the AL. Staffs need those kind of pitchers.

He was making more than $11 million a year, you need to put up better numbers for that kind of money in this market.

asindc
08-17-2009, 04:55 PM
Giving up a 3-run homer to one of the best HR hitters in baseball is not a meltdown. I still don't think he was worth keeping, though.

SI1020
08-17-2009, 05:00 PM
Can you please explain how 4 runs in 7 IP is a meltdown? That's not a good outing in a big game. Standards have been lowered I guess for some. You obviously are a big fan of Javy, which I have no quarrel with. I just don't understand why you can't see that he just is not a big game pitcher. He's doing much better in the NL, which suits him better, but you still can't give him the ball when it really matters and feel good about it.

Dick Allen
08-17-2009, 05:02 PM
Jabrch and Love Your Suit, come on. While last night's game may not necessarily qualify as a "meltdown", we saw the man pitch here for three years, and it was the same MO every year: pitches fine (usually) with nothing on the line, pitches horribly in important games. Statistics are not needed in this case, we all saw it and discussed it here frequently. He had the stuff of a #1 starter, but never reached that level other than in Montreal, where there was rarely any pressure, pitching in an empty stadium. While I wish him nothing but the best in Atlanta, I certainly don't miss him.

TornLabrum
08-17-2009, 05:20 PM
Not when we are looking for a guy who steps up in the big games. There are not that many big games and few chances to shine. But those athletes who do it (e.g., Reggie and Jeter) reap all the plaudits. Those that don't (A-roid and Javy) get labeled as chokers. And the bigger the stage, the more likely it is to happen. Like I said - maybe it's not fair but that is how it is.

I liked Javy. He was a decent pitcher. 200 innings every year. But he was paid like an ace and he failed to perform like an ace when the team needed him. Maybe we should not call him a "choker" That is a cruel term for an athlete.

You focus on the last two months of the season. Most of us are focused on the last three starts and one playoff game. Where he failed.

I guess it all depends on where the line is drawn.

Maybe we should blame the people who paid him like a 1/2 starter in the first place. It would be their mistake to have overestimated his abilities.

jabrch
08-17-2009, 05:34 PM
You obviously are a big fan of Javy, which I have no quarrel with.

Not really - I just object to the terminology used that makes it all black and white, great and crappy, etc.

I just don't understand why you can't see that he just is not a big game pitcher. He's doing much better in the NL, which suits him better, but you still can't give him the ball when it really matters and feel good about it.

I will always feel good about giving the ball to the guy with the 3.00 ERA. I don't understand how you can feel bad about it based on a very limited sample size.

jabrch
08-17-2009, 05:41 PM
Jabrch and Love Your Suit, come on. While last night's game may not necessarily qualify as a "meltdown", we saw the man pitch here for three years, and it was the same MO every year: pitches fine (usually) with nothing on the line, pitches horribly in important games.

How are you defining important games? Why are you excluding a lot that he did pitch well in? Why are you not factoring in run support?

Last year, in his last 12 starts, all of which were important, he gave up 3 or fewer runs 7 times. I don't understand why that's not a valid statement, while it is a valid statement to exclude 9 of those 12 starts and only look at his last 3.

Again - I had no problem with the trade. He had to go because we couldn't move Jose, and we were not going to move the other guys. Williams decided the payroll flexibility was worth it. The return - is TBD. Like all trades - lets see what it turns into before closing the book on it. At the end of the day, we will see. But either way, it doesn't mean there is any reason to illogically judge Vazquez based on a small sample size of his starts instead of evaluate him based on a great set of data which is available. I don't believe in the whole "choker" thing. It doesn't make sense to me.

WhiteSox5187
08-17-2009, 06:14 PM
How are you defining important games? Why are you excluding a lot that he did pitch well in? Why are you not factoring in run support?

Last year, in his last 12 starts, all of which were important, he gave up 3 or fewer runs 7 times. I don't understand why that's not a valid statement, while it is a valid statement to exclude 9 of those 12 starts and only look at his last 3.

Again - I had no problem with the trade. He had to go because we couldn't move Jose, and we were not going to move the other guys. Williams decided the payroll flexibility was worth it. The return - is TBD. Like all trades - lets see what it turns into before closing the book on it. At the end of the day, we will see. But either way, it doesn't mean there is any reason to illogically judge Vazquez based on a small sample size of his starts instead of evaluate him based on a great set of data which is available. I don't believe in the whole "choker" thing. It doesn't make sense to me.

Well, he was just AWFUL last year in September and October of last year and he was bad in June and July. In 2006 he was awful in June and July which if I recall correctly the collapse began. In 2004 he was awful in August, September and October for the Yankees. Again, if you make the assumption that most of the starts from late July to September are considered "big" or "clutch" then Javy has consistently put up bad numbers on good teams in those situations.

doublem23
08-17-2009, 11:27 PM
This is a stupid argument. Anyone willing to argue Javy's worth in April or Javy's garbage in September may as well just say up is down or vice versa. You're just not living in reality.

SI1020
08-17-2009, 11:52 PM
I will always feel good about giving the ball to the guy with the 3.00 ERA. I don't understand how you can feel bad about it based on a very limited sample size. Really big games are few and far between. The sample size will always be small. Javy will get some more chances if the Braves stay reasonably close. We'll see how he does.

soxinem1
08-18-2009, 12:31 AM
Just gave up a three run bomb to Ryan Howard.

Seems like old times..

I'm no Javy fan, but giving up a HR to Ryan Howard has been done by many pitchers better than him. He also threw seven innings.

He does, however, seem to give them up when he needs it least.

And since ATL is actually competing for a playoff spot, let's see how he does under pressure.

Whitesoxfan23
08-22-2009, 08:20 AM
Javy had another bad outing tonight. Uh oh.. He's doing it again.. This was a big game too, because it was against the Marlins.

Frater Perdurabo
08-22-2009, 08:28 AM
Right now I would be satisfied with a few more White Sox players who would show up and perform well against crappy teams. The Sox have lost way too many games against the A's, Royals, Indians and Orioles this year.

doublem23
08-22-2009, 09:36 AM
Right now I would be satisfied with a few more White Sox players who would show up and perform well against crappy teams. The Sox have lost way too many games against the A's, Royals, Indians and Orioles this year.

Yeah, but these games are starting to get big, so he'd be no help.

UChicagoHP
08-22-2009, 11:29 AM
Like I said, I'd love to have him from April to July, but he shouldn't be anywhere near a playoff rotation. Some people just can't handle a lot of stress...

harwar
08-22-2009, 01:06 PM
This was a big game too, because it was against the Marlins.
Yea, against the team that you are tied for second place with AND the team that is ahead of you in wild card race AND the Rockies lost, so they could have gained on them .. yea big loss .. i don't miss Javy at all .. he sure would be great out of the pen though .. oh well

TornLabrum
08-22-2009, 02:29 PM
Two chokes this year? I'm not buying it. Small sample size.

Frater Perdurabo
08-22-2009, 03:48 PM
Yeah, but these games are starting to get big, so he'd be no help.

Hey, I realize that if Vazquez was still on the team, the Sox would not have gotten Peavy and probably not Rios, either. But Vazquez, for all his flaws, might have won a few more winnable games against beatable opponents, and thus the Sox might be in first place right now.

Craig Grebeck
08-28-2009, 12:29 AM
Javy out-dueled Clayton today, hard.

wsgdf
08-28-2009, 04:39 PM
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that those three bad Vazquez starts in September where three consecutive starts on three days rest. At least that's how I remember it because I hated it the decision at the time.

Buehrle has had a history of pitching well on three day's rest, but most pitchers don't.

EDIT: Just checked - 2 of the three were on 3 days, the middle start was on 4.

fram40
09-02-2009, 10:44 PM
Yet another 6th inning meltdown for Javy tonight vs Marlins 5.1 innings 5 ERs, 7 Ks, 120 pitches. All 3 runs in the 6th inning charged to Javy were scored after he was taken out with one out and bases loaded - walk, single, hbp, Javy taken out - bases clearing double by first batter.

His season ERA now 3.18

gobears1987
09-03-2009, 08:33 AM
:garcia:

There is a reason that I am "Big Game Freddy" and he is "Small Game Javy."

Speaking of Freddy, it's a damn shame the offense has faltered because he should've picked up Ws in his last two starts as he pitched well enough in Boston and Minny to pick up Ws.

MISoxfan
09-06-2009, 02:14 AM
Javy had a 3.41 ERA in August '06 and a 4.28 in September '06.
He had 4 quality starts in September and lost them all.

He had a 3.24 ERA in August '08 and a 6.25 in September '08.

He had 1 poor month out of 4 in crunch time in the two years we needed him. He would have sure looked nice in our uniform this year. We'd probably be in first place right now too. He'd then have 1 bad start and everyone would **** all over him.

MISoxfan
09-06-2009, 02:15 AM
He was 3-2 with a 3.03 ERA in August of this year and I won't be surprised if he finishes September with an ERA under 4.

Craig Grebeck
09-20-2009, 08:51 AM
Javy continues to fold like a lawnchair in the heat of a pennant race, as he hurled seven shutout innings last night against the defending WS champions. That was coming off a 94 pitch shutout against the Cardinals. His worst month was May, during which his ERA was 3.76.

Don't get me wrong, I love Tyler. I also love pitching.

WSox597
09-20-2009, 09:04 AM
It looks like he's having a good year for the Braves.

He is what he is, a .500 pitcher over his career.

With this year he's having, he's right at 141-138 for his career. He still has plenty of time to lose a couple of high pressure games in September.

An awful lot of money for a .500 pitcher. There are times he's looked like a world beater, but most times he doesn't.

I agree, though, if he had that record with the Sox this year it would have made a difference.

If.

Craig Grebeck
09-20-2009, 11:17 AM
It looks like he's having a good year for the Braves.

He is what he is, a .500 pitcher over his career.

With this year he's having, he's right at 141-138 for his career. He still has plenty of time to lose a couple of high pressure games in September.

An awful lot of money for a .500 pitcher. There are times he's looked like a world beater, but most times he doesn't.

I agree, though, if he had that record with the Sox this year it would have made a difference.

If.
And if you use wins as an indicator of a pitcher's value, it is a futile argument.

voodoochile
09-20-2009, 11:31 AM
And if you use wins as an indicator of a pitcher's value, it is a futile argument.

I can understand someone arguing that a given year's win total isn't a good indicator of a pitcher's value, but I'd think career win totals would be statistically relevant especially when you get close to a sample size of 300. I'd expect factors like run support to even out over a decade of starts.

Yes there are going to be individualized cases where a pitcher starts their whole or most of their career for a bad team (Nolan Ryan comes to mind) and thus the numbers would get skewed. Obviously a pitcher who started for the Yankees in the 20's or 50's would see the opposite trend because they would have inflated win totals due to the potency of the offense behind them.

Vazquez has played for many different teams though, some with good offenses and some with bad ones. I'd think his numbers would actually be representative of his abilities from a statistical perspective.

Certainly seems worthy of looking at from a statistical standpoint that's for sure.

WhiteSox5187
09-20-2009, 02:44 PM
Javy continues to fold like a lawnchair in the heat of a pennant race, as he hurled seven shutout innings last night against the defending WS champions. That was coming off a 94 pitch shutout against the Cardinals. His worst month was May, during which his ERA was 3.76.

Don't get me wrong, I love Tyler. I also love pitching.

Javy has had a good year, but he had a good year in 2007 too and I'd hardly say the Braves are in the heat of a pennant race as they are 7.5 back in the East and 4.5 back in the Wild Card with three teams to jump over.

Javy is a very nice fantasy pitcher, but with his contract and his proven track record with contending teams, he is not the sort of guy you build a rotation around.

Craig Grebeck
09-20-2009, 03:32 PM
Javy has had a good year, but he had a good year in 2007 too and I'd hardly say the Braves are in the heat of a pennant race as they are 7.5 back in the East and 4.5 back in the Wild Card with three teams to jump over.

Javy is a very nice fantasy pitcher, but with his contract and his proven track record with contending teams, he is not the sort of guy you build a rotation around.
Whatever. I'll take him. I read all winter about how losing him was addition by subtraction.

WSox597
09-20-2009, 06:05 PM
And if you use wins as an indicator of a pitcher's value, it is a futile argument.

What indicator should one use for a pitcher? When the standard is 20 win seasons, and 300 win careers, what else matters?

Enlighten us, please. And please don't give me some made up gobbledy-gook acronym nobody has ever heard of, like the much beloved VORP.

Craig Grebeck
09-20-2009, 09:32 PM
What indicator should one use for a pitcher? When the standard is 20 win seasons, and 300 win careers, what else matters?

Enlighten us, please. And please don't give me some made up gobbledy-gook acronym nobody has ever heard of, like the much beloved VORP.
In terms of statistics I look at for a pitcher's proficiency, wins comes in just about dead last. K, BB, WHIP, etc.

WSox597
09-20-2009, 09:48 PM
In terms of statistics I look at for a pitcher's proficiency, wins comes in just about dead last. K, BB, WHIP, etc.

Interesting. Why is that? Vasquez always strikes a lot of batters out, doesn't walk that many, but is still a .500 pitcher lifetime. I'm sure there are many others with similar careers.

I'm just curious, no flame intended here. I've always believed that games won was the most important statistic.

Iwritecode
09-20-2009, 10:11 PM
Interesting. Why is that? Vasquez always strikes a lot of batters out, doesn't walk that many, but is still a .500 pitcher lifetime. I'm sure there are many others with similar careers.

I'm just curious, no flame intended here. I've always believed that games won was the most important statistic.

Because wins are a stat that pitchers have very little control over. Put a good pitcher on a bad team and he could finish the season with a lot of 1-0, 2-1 loses. Even though he pitches his butt off, he'll probably lose a lot of games simply because his offense fails to help him out.

Other stats like Ks, BBs, or WHIP a pitcher has almost direct control of.

DumpJerry
09-20-2009, 10:15 PM
Because wins are a stat that pitchers have very little control over. Put a good pitcher on a bad team and he could finish the season with a lot of 1-0, 2-1 loses. Even though he pitches his butt off, he'll probably lose a lot of games simply because his offense fails to help him out.

Other stats like Ks, BBs, or WHIP a pitcher has almost direct control of.
:garcia:
Took the words right out of my mouth.

WhiteSoxOnly
09-21-2009, 12:01 AM
Whatever. I'll take him. I read all winter about how losing him was addition by subtraction.

Remember how last year played out with him ? no way he was
coming back after that.Simple really.

voodoochile
09-21-2009, 12:18 AM
Because wins are a stat that pitchers have very little control over. Put a good pitcher on a bad team and he could finish the season with a lot of 1-0, 2-1 loses. Even though he pitches his butt off, he'll probably lose a lot of games simply because his offense fails to help him out.

Other stats like Ks, BBs, or WHIP a pitcher has almost direct control of.

I understand this, but as I said earlier, I think after 360+ starts and nearly 300 career decisions, some of the external causes start to even out. I think it's poor stats to devalue wins to nearly worthless with that kind of sample size.

The fact is, Javy's inconsistent. He's probably at best a #4 if you want to be safe and really he's a good #5. That's not worth the money the Sox were paying him. He's not a top of the rotation starter because those guys are more consistent. In two of the seasons with the Sox Javy posted ERA's over 4.5.

Again, like I said, I think there are exceptions when a guy spends the majority of his career with either a great team or a bad team, but in Javy's case that's not really true. Yes, his first 5 years were in Montreal which wasn't great to say the least most of the time he was there, but the next 6 years have been spread out over 4 locations. One of those years was with the Sox of 2006 when Javy posted a 4.86 ERA but still managed to go 11-12 because the Sox scored 868 runs that year.

Still, I'd love to see someone do some statistical analysis on starting pitchers who travel around a bit and find out if their W/L record means more than some stat's folks like to claim. I'd actually be surprised if it wasn't relevant in terms of analysis.

jabrch
09-21-2009, 12:27 AM
Other stats like Ks, BBs, or WHIP a pitcher has almost direct control of.

The problem is that each of those is an input metric into the outputs that matter.

ERA is still, in my eyes, the best way to evaluate a pitcher. Now if you couple ERA with IP or IP/Start, that's about enough for me.

Wins are still important - since that's what you try and do. They aren't everything. You can't use a single metric to measure any player in any sport - so if you JUST use wins you miss the entire point of the game. But at the same time, no single input metric like BB, K, etc. tells you much either.

In my personal opinion, you can not evaluate pitchers intelligently with statistics alone anyhow.

jabrch
09-21-2009, 12:33 AM
Remember how last year played out with him ? no way he was
coming back after that.Simple really.

That doesn't make it right. And that certainly shouldn't validate that bull**** horsecrap that Javy can't pitch when it matters. Javy will complete his 12th season (of 13) with 30+ starts, his 11th (of 13) with 198+ IP, his 7th with 190+ Ks, his 3rd straight 200IP/200K season, a sub 3.00 ERA, and a WHIP just over 1.

I have no problem with the Vazquez trade. I'm optimistic on Flowers' future with the club. But I am not ok with the trade for the crappy reason that Javy can't pitch under pressure. That's just horsepoopy.

Craig Grebeck
09-21-2009, 05:43 AM
Interesting. Why is that? Vasquez always strikes a lot of batters out, doesn't walk that many, but is still a .500 pitcher lifetime. I'm sure there are many others with similar careers.

I'm just curious, no flame intended here. I've always believed that games won was the most important statistic.
It just isn't important. Pitchers are often at the mercy of their offense/defense. There are just far better ways of evaluating pitching.
Remember how last year played out with him ? no way he was
coming back after that.Simple really.
Perhaps if our manager hadn't run him out of town, Javy could have come back. I'd have welcomed it. Simple really.

I understand this, but as I said earlier, I think after 360+ starts and nearly 300 career decisions, some of the external causes start to even out. I think it's poor stats to devalue wins to nearly worthless with that kind of sample size.

The fact is, Javy's inconsistent. He's probably at best a #4 if you want to be safe and really he's a good #5. That's not worth the money the Sox were paying him. He's not a top of the rotation starter because those guys are more consistent. In two of the seasons with the Sox Javy posted ERA's over 4.5.

Again, like I said, I think there are exceptions when a guy spends the majority of his career with either a great team or a bad team, but in Javy's case that's not really true. Yes, his first 5 years were in Montreal which wasn't great to say the least most of the time he was there, but the next 6 years have been spread out over 4 locations. One of those years was with the Sox of 2006 when Javy posted a 4.86 ERA but still managed to go 11-12 because the Sox scored 868 runs that year.

Still, I'd love to see someone do some statistical analysis on starting pitchers who travel around a bit and find out if their W/L record means more than some stat's folks like to claim. I'd actually be surprised if it wasn't relevant in terms of analysis.
It isn't relevant to any analysis of an MLB pitcher. It's archaic and really has no place in the discussion of a pitcher's worth. Is Javy inconsistent year to year? Yes. Is he a damn good pitcher who is pretty much guaranteed to give you 200 innings? Yes. A rubber arm who will have a great season every 1-3 seasons mixed in with pretty solid/average ones is certainly worth what the Sox were paying him.

People do realize what Jose Contreras gets paid/has been getting paid, right?

The problem is that each of those is an input metric into the outputs that matter.

ERA is still, in my eyes, the best way to evaluate a pitcher. Now if you couple ERA with IP or IP/Start, that's about enough for me.

Wins are still important - since that's what you try and do. They aren't everything. You can't use a single metric to measure any player in any sport - so if you JUST use wins you miss the entire point of the game. But at the same time, no single input metric like BB, K, etc. tells you much either.

In my personal opinion, you can not evaluate pitchers intelligently with statistics alone anyhow.
ERA is a pile of **** as well. It's variation year to year and dependence on defense makes it pretty much obsolete in this day and age. You have to look at the entire spectrum: K/BB rates, contact rates, BABIP, efficiency of pitches, etc. Of course you have to watch a pitcher -- no one is disputing that (and I'm not sure why it was even mentioned) -- but a fair amount of information on a pitcher can be gleaned from what is in the statistical record.

That doesn't make it right. And that certainly shouldn't validate that bull**** horsecrap that Javy can't pitch when it matters. Javy will complete his 12th season (of 13) with 30+ starts, his 11th (of 13) with 198+ IP, his 7th with 190+ Ks, his 3rd straight 200IP/200K season, a sub 3.00 ERA, and a WHIP just over 1.

I have no problem with the Vazquez trade. I'm optimistic on Flowers' future with the club. But I am not ok with the trade for the crappy reason that Javy can't pitch under pressure. That's just horsepoopy.
I am absolutely optimistic about Tyler, and I trust Kenny and Hahn to use him right these next 2-3 seasons (i.e. a full year in Charlotte in 2010). I like Gilmore as well, along with the other prospects acquired, but I still believe Javy would have made this team far, far better.

doublem23
09-21-2009, 08:46 AM
People do realize what Jose Contreras gets paid/has been getting paid, right?

Javier Vazquez was never the best pitcher in the league for any extended amount of time and does not have the same ice water killer instinct Jose had when he was at his best. There is no comparison between the two, Javy will put up nice little stats and make for interesting discussions between guys who refuse to believe there is anything more to baseball than just stats, but he is a ***** who will bomb out as soon as anything rides on the line.

Craig Grebeck
09-21-2009, 09:14 AM
Javier Vazquez was never the best pitcher in the league for any extended amount of time and does not have the same ice water killer instinct Jose had when he was at his best.Define extended amount of time. Because Vazquez is having a far better season than Jose has ever had. Also this "ice water killer instinct" stuff would be neat and all if it wasn't so easily refutable.
There is no comparison between the two, Javy will put up nice little stats and make for interesting discussions between guys who refuse to believe there is anything more to baseball than just stats, but he is a ***** who will bomb out as soon as anything rides on the line.
I for one consider major league baseball games as "on the line" and I think Javy is doing a pretty good job in that regard. But if you want to rest your case on four starts (three of which were on short rest) from September/October 2008, be my guest.

voodoochile
09-21-2009, 09:36 AM
CG,
Have you actually seen statistical analysis of Wins of pitchers with 360+ career starts as an evaluation tool or are you just going with the stats trend without actually analyzing it because it looks good on the surface? Just curious.

Since when did I say Contreras was worth the money he was paid either? Two wrongs don't necessarily make one of them right. Also Contreras suffered a major injury which skews his stats horribly and as Doub pointed out had long stretches where he was one of the top pitchers in the game by all metrics.

I was trying to see if there was actually any study done on career wins as an evaluation tool. I am genuinely interested, not merely trolling the stat guy.

WSox597
09-21-2009, 10:46 AM
I have to bring up Cy Young, he won over 500 games in his career. There is an award named after him for the best pitcher in each league, as you know.

He had 2800 strikouts, too, not over 3000 like others over the years.

He had 20 wins or more 15 times, with 5 of those 30 or more. That's a lot of wins.

Just grist for the mill. The man was 511-316, and that's also the most losses in MLB history.

I guess you could make a case for either way, but I always preferred wins/losses as a barometer of a pitcher's worth.

Marqhead
09-21-2009, 11:03 AM
I have to bring up Cy Young, he won over 500 games in his career. There is an award named after him for the best pitcher in each league, as you know.

He had 2800 strikouts, too, not over 3000 like others over the years.

He had 20 wins or more 15 times, with 5 of those 30 or more. That's a lot of wins.

Just grist for the mill. The man was 511-316, and that's also the most losses in MLB history.

I guess you could make a case for either way, but I always preferred wins/losses as a barometer of a pitcher's worth.

Cy Young pitched from 1890 to 1911. That really has almost zero relevance to today's game. Sorry.

Johnny Mostil
09-21-2009, 11:25 AM
I for one consider major league baseball games as "on the line" and I think Javy is doing a pretty good job in that regard. But if you want to rest your case on four starts (three of which were on short rest) from September/October 2008, be my guest.

A little dated, but what about this (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MIN/MIN200410090.shtml) LDS game? Vazquez starts, gives up 5 ER in 5 IP (but Yanks bail him out by scoring 4 in the 8th and 1 in the 11th to win).

Or maybe this (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BOS/BOS200410160.shtml) game? Vazquez gives up 4 ER in 4 1/3 IP. Yeah, he won, but it probably helped that the Yanks scored 19.

Or maybe this (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYA/NYA200410200.shtml) game? Vazquez comes into the game with the bases loaded in the second inning against Damon then, on the very first pitch (not a 2-0 count as originally written--don't know how I confused that), serves up the grand slam that pretty much iced the series for the Red Sox. He goes on to give up 3 ER in 2 IP.

That's his entire postseason record not with the White Sox.

Not trying to be snarky, friend. I probably agree with you more than others here on the value of sabermetrics, and I otherwise disdain talk of "guts" and such among players at this level. But let's just say for now I'm still a bit skeptical about Javy in "big" games . . .

Oblong
09-21-2009, 12:25 PM
Not arguing about Vazguez specifically, more about W-L for pitchers.


Or maybe this (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BOS/BOS200410160.shtml) game? Vazquez gives up 4 ER in 4 1/3 IP. Yeah, he won, but it probably helped that the Yanks scored 19.


No pitcher should be given a W in a 19-8 game. Both blew it.

I also think the whole "pitcher of record" thing can be dubious. A starter can come in, give up 6 runs in 6 innings, be ahead 7-6. Then in the 7th inning the other team loads the bases with nobody out, a bullpen guy comes in and gets 3 outs with no damage. He pitches the 8th unscathed, then the "closer" comes in with nobody on base and gets them 1-2-3. The bad starter gets the "W", the closer gets the "S", and the guy who deserves the praise gets nothing.

doublem23
09-21-2009, 12:30 PM
I for one consider major league baseball games as "on the line" and I think Javy is doing a pretty good job in that regard. But if you want to rest your case on four starts (three of which were on short rest) from September/October 2008, be my guest.

I'll agree with the principle that games in April mean the same thing as they do in September, but you're absolutely not living in reality if you think they have the same "feel" to them. Vazquez feels pressure and crumbles under it, there is just nothing that can be presented to me to make me feel otherwise. If you want to argue for Vazquez and his value from April to August, that's fine, but if you're in the hunt and you hand the ball to him from September on, you may as well just forfeit and be done with it. He. Sucks.

Johnny Mostil
09-21-2009, 12:44 PM
Not arguing about Vazguez specifically, more about W-L for pitchers.


No pitcher should be given a W in a 19-8 game. Both blew it.

I also think the whole "pitcher of record" thing can be dubious. A starter can come in, give up 6 runs in 6 innings, be ahead 7-6. Then in the 7th inning the other team loads the bases with nobody out, a bullpen guy comes in and gets 3 outs with no damage. He pitches the 8th unscathed, then the "closer" comes in with nobody on base and gets them 1-2-3. The bad starter gets the "W", the closer gets the "S", and the guy who deserves the praise gets nothing.

Yep. Which I suppose supports Grebeck's point about Ws being a meaningless stat. And, of course, there's this (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BOS/BOS200510070.shtml) game, for which El Duque got . . . a hold? Well, maybe it was the most critical "hold" in White Sox history . . .

voodoochile
09-21-2009, 12:54 PM
Not arguing about Vazguez specifically, more about W-L for pitchers.


No pitcher should be given a W in a 19-8 game. Both blew it.

I also think the whole "pitcher of record" thing can be dubious. A starter can come in, give up 6 runs in 6 innings, be ahead 7-6. Then in the 7th inning the other team loads the bases with nobody out, a bullpen guy comes in and gets 3 outs with no damage. He pitches the 8th unscathed, then the "closer" comes in with nobody on base and gets them 1-2-3. The bad starter gets the "W", the closer gets the "S", and the guy who deserves the praise gets nothing.

Actually that's why they invented the Hold stat. The guy who put out the fire would get a hold. It's specifically designed for arbitration cases actually.

Craig Grebeck
09-21-2009, 04:07 PM
I'll agree with the principle that games in April mean the same thing as they do in September, but you're absolutely not living in reality if you think they have the same "feel" to them. Vazquez feels pressure and crumbles under it, there is just nothing that can be presented to me to make me feel otherwise. If you want to argue for Vazquez and his value from April to August, that's fine, but if you're in the hunt and you hand the ball to him from September on, you may as well just forfeit and be done with it. He. Sucks.
Do 2006 and 2009 just not count? Isn't it boring to just accept the narrative that ****ty sportswriters like Joe Cowley construct for you?

Javy has no balls! And nothing I see otherwise can ever convince me!

oeo
09-21-2009, 04:15 PM
I can't believe people are still arguing about this. Javy Vazquez means no Jake Peavy. We were not going to win a World Series with Javy, and I question how much he would have even improved our record. We have one of the best rotations in the league, that's not our problem.

jabrch
09-21-2009, 04:48 PM
We were not going to win a World Series with Javy, and I question how much he would have even improved our record.

Seriously?

Vs our 5th starter this year? Wow...

voodoochile
09-21-2009, 04:55 PM
Do 2006 and 2009 just not count? Isn't it boring to just accept the narrative that ****ty sportswriters like Joe Cowley construct for you?

Javy has no balls! And nothing I see otherwise can ever convince me!

2006? He posted an ERA of nearly 5 that year. It actually completely destroys your argument even if he managed to post some decent starts down the stretch. For most of the season when it mattered, he sucked.

oeo
09-21-2009, 05:25 PM
Seriously?

Vs our 5th starter this year? Wow...

You think Javy Vazquez is the difference between a mediocre team and a good one? Maybe we're leading the division, but we're still not a good enough team to do damage in the playoffs. All things considered, we've seen much worse from our 5th starters in the past. If we're near the top in starting pitching in the AL with our bottom of the rotation, we had less problems than a lot of teams. Our problems stem from our offense and defense...in the second half, add the bullpen. The starting rotation has really been the least of our problems.

Once again, I'll take Jake Peavy and like it, thank you very much. Javy Vazquez isn't a difference maker, Jake Peavy is. Javy Vazquez as a Sox means Jake Peavy is still a Padre.

jabrch
09-21-2009, 05:42 PM
You think Javy Vazquez is the difference between a mediocre team and a good one?

I think the difference between Javy and our 5th starter is HUGE.


Maybe we're leading the division, but we're still not a good enough team to do damage in the playoffs.

Any team that wins a division is good enough to do damage in the playoffs.


Once again, I'll take Jake Peavy and like it, thank you very much. Javy Vazquez isn't a difference maker, Jake Peavy is. Javy Vazquez as a Sox means Jake Peavy is still a Padre.

I'm optimistic for what Peavy can do. But at the same time, he has yet to do anything. Javy had an awesome year this year. That shouldn't be denied.

Craig Grebeck
09-21-2009, 05:52 PM
2006? He posted an ERA of nearly 5 that year. It actually completely destroys your argument even if he managed to post some decent starts down the stretch. For most of the season when it mattered, he sucked.
No, not really. The quoted poster said:

If you want to argue for Vazquez and his value from April to August, that's fine, but if you're in the hunt and you hand the ball to him from September on, you may as well just forfeit and be done with it. He. Sucks.And I cited 2006, in which Javy's best month was August and he put up a 4.28 ERA in September. We were most definitely in the hunt and he performed well for us.

He did the same for almost all of 2008 until he started three times on short rest. That is a much better reason for a pitcher struggling than a simple, concrete, impossible-to-cite-evidence-for statement of: he sucks under pressure!

Also, doesn't it work both ways? Can't we appreciate how downright good Javy was almost all of 2008?

I can't believe people are still arguing about this. Javy Vazquez means no Jake Peavy. We were not going to win a World Series with Javy, and I question how much he would have even improved our record. We have one of the best rotations in the league, that's not our problem.Can we let Peavy succeed for us before we anoint him? I'd be very pleased to have Javy and still have the useful pieces we gave up for Jake, or a proficient offensive player acquired with those pieces. Agree to disgree.

You think Javy Vazquez is the difference between a mediocre team and a good one? Maybe we're leading the division, but we're still not a good enough team to do damage in the playoffs. All things considered, we've seen much worse from our 5th starters in the past. If we're near the top in starting pitching in the AL with our bottom of the rotation, we had less problems than a lot of teams. Our problems stem from our offense and defense...in the second half, add the bullpen. The starting rotation has really been the least of our problems.

Once again, I'll take Jake Peavy and like it, thank you very much. Javy Vazquez isn't a difference maker, Jake Peavy is. Javy Vazquez as a Sox means Jake Peavy is still a Padre.Define "difference maker", please. I fail to see how a pitcher with 200+ innings and an ERA below 3 doesn't make a difference. But then again, here I am trying to use statistics when we all know Javy is last in the league in BALLS! Am I right guys or AM I RIGHT??

I'm optimistic for what Peavy can do. But at the same time, he has yet to do anything. Javy had an awesome year this year. That shouldn't be denied.But the Braves were never in it! (Even though they actually were, and have been this month.) He sucks in contention!

Small and meaningless sample sizes for the win.

oeo
09-21-2009, 05:52 PM
I think the difference between Javy and our 5th starter is HUGE.

If we were getting the ace Javy has been this year, then yes. What in your right mind gives you the idea that he would be doing the same thing here? If Javy were still here, I would expect another mediocre season. Which would have been fine, and we might be leading the division. But **** it. We got Jake Peavy, and our rotation next year is a World Series contender.

I'm optimistic for what Peavy can do. But at the same time, he has yet to do anything. Javy had an awesome year this year. That shouldn't be denied.

Should it be denied? No. However, there's no evidence that says he would be doing it here. Peavy makes us a much better team in the future, there's no denying that. Just take a look at career stats.

Craig Grebeck
09-21-2009, 05:56 PM
If we were getting the ace Javy has been this year, then yes. What in your right mind gives you the idea that he would be doing the same thing here? If Javy were still here, I would expect another mediocre season. Which would have been fine, and we might be leading the division. But **** it. We got Jake Peavy, and our rotation next year is a World Series contender.



Should it be denied? No. However, there's no evidence that says he would be doing it here. Peavy makes us a much better team in the future, there's no denying that. Just take a look at career stats.
There's a giant difference between Jake as a Padre in the NL West (pitching half his games in Petco) and Jake in the AL Central pitching half his games in a bandbox. Assuming that he will remain that good is naive if not foolish. There will be regression.

munchman33
09-21-2009, 05:57 PM
Should it be denied? No. However, there's no evidence that says he would be doing it here. Peavy makes us a much better team in the future, there's no denying that. Just take a look at career stats.

Forget it, those two are just gonna talk you in circles and dismiss his history. "But he's been awesome on the fringe of contention this year, of course he'd be great for us!"

I tell you what, if Javy had the year he had this year on our team, I wouldn't be watching many games. Because we'd have been out of it by mid-July.

Craig Grebeck
09-21-2009, 06:02 PM
Forget it, those two are just gonna talk you in circles and dismiss his history. "But he's been awesome on the fringe of contention this year, of course he'd be great for us!"

I tell you what, if Javy had the year he had this year on our team, I wouldn't be watching many games. Because we'd have been out of it by mid-July.
Just like the Braves! Wait, that's nowhere near right. Whatever. I'll roll with it anyway.

Munch, I would stay far, far away from this argument if I was you. You said Paul Byrd was a "way" better option than Javy this offseason.

I don't want to talk anyone in circles with hard evidence or facts. Let's talk about his manhood instead, while also misinterpreting something he said about Puerto Rico one time.

oeo
09-21-2009, 06:02 PM
Can we let Peavy succeed for us before we anoint him?

Can we stop assuming that Javy would have the year he's having now when he's never done it in his ****ing career? He's having what you call a career year. There is no guarantee, in fact there is no evidence, that he would be doing the same in Chicago.

I'd be very pleased to have Javy and still have the useful pieces we gave up for Jake, or a proficient offensive player acquired with those pieces. Agree to disgree.

Well, I think we got a bargain on Peavy. I really don't think we gave up all that much for a Cy Young just two years ago. Poreda, if he can harness his secondary stuff, may bite us, and Carter has a pretty high ceiling, but is still a ways away. We didn't give up any sure-fire talent. We gave up a couple of high ceiling projects and two mediocre middle relievers. I don't think we can get a Peavy type player with that combination of players.

Define "difference maker", please. I fail to see how a pitcher with 200+ innings and an ERA below 3 doesn't make a difference. But then again, here I am trying to use statistics when we all know Javy is last in the league in BALLS! Am I right guys or AM I RIGHT??

IF he does that here, then of course he's a difference maker. You have no way of proving that. The way last year ended with Ozzie calling him out, Javy getting booed off the field night after night, Javy blowing an early lead in the ALDS, etc., I don't think he has that season here. Not to mention, he's never pitched that well EVER, or even close to it in the AL.

Craig Grebeck
09-21-2009, 06:10 PM
Can we stop assuming that Javy would have the year he's having now when he's never done it in his ****ing career? He's having what you call a career year. There is no guarantee, in fact there is no evidence, that he would be doing the same in Chicago.

I'm not assuming that he'd do the exact same thing (sub 3 ERA and all), but I don't think he'd be as bad as posters make him out to be -- which is basically Jamie Navarro. I think with our piss poor outfield defense pre-Rios, Javy would probably have an ERA around four (which is what I expect from Jake) while throwing about 200 innings. He's fluctuated year to year with good peripherals, but I think that's certainly a reasonable expectation.

You also have no evidence he wouldn't do this in Chicago. It goes both ways.


Well, I think we got a bargain on Peavy. I really don't think we gave up all that much for a Cy Young just two years ago. Poreda, if he can harness his secondary stuff, may bite us, and Carter has a pretty high ceiling, but is still a ways away. We didn't give up any sure fire talent.

I don't think we gave up a lot in terms of talent, but we definitely murdered our minor league pitching depth. I hope it pays off.

Also, two years is a long time for a pitcher. And with his contract, I only hope we are as successful keeping him healthy as we have been with every other starter of late.

IF he does that here, then of course he's a difference maker. You have no way of proving that. The way last year ended with Ozzie calling him out, Javy getting booed off the field night after night, Javy blowing an early lead in the ALDS, etc., I don't think he has that season here. Not to mention, he's never pitched that well in the American League.
Don't even get me started on Ozzie doing that. Way to ruin his trade value there, skip. Show some temperance once in awhile.

voodoochile
09-21-2009, 06:12 PM
Just like the Braves! Wait, that's nowhere near right. Whatever. I'll roll with it anyway.

Munch, I would stay far, far away from this argument if I was you. You said Paul Byrd was a "way" better option than Javy this offseason.

I don't want to talk anyone in circles with hard evidence or facts. Let's talk about his manhood instead, while also misinterpreting something he said about Puerto Rico one time.

I really got into this conversation because I wanted to talk about the dismissal of career wins of a 10+ year starter as a relevant statistic. I still would like to see some kind of analysis to prove it doesn't matter, but so far all I've gotten is denials.

Beyond all of that though, I have a few general questions for you.

Do you believe there are good players who have good career numbers who at the same time regularly choke in high pressure situations?

If not do you accept the concept of choking at all or do you think it's purely a case of out of control perception by fans who are upset by memories of that player failing during crucial moments?

If the answer is yes, you believe there are good players who fail under pressure, at what point do we accept that a given player is indeed one of those chokers?

If the answer is no, do you believe that there are no humans who fold under intense pressure/scrutiny at all? If there are, wouldn't it stand to argue that some of them play professional sports and even have successful careers so long as the pressure isn't on them?

I'm just curious, because so far you seem to deny it happens at all and I don't know if that is strictly about Javy or it's your perception about life in general.

kjhanson
09-21-2009, 06:13 PM
I think the difference between Javy and our 5th starter is HUGE.


If Javier Vazquez is still on the team, Jose Contreras and his 5-13 record don't go anywhere. So for the sake of argument, you have to consider the starts by Clayton, Bartolo and Freddy are the ones Vazquez would have had.

Combined, those three are/were 9-12 with a 4.36 ERA in their 33 starts. Coming into this season, Vazquez was 2 games under .500 lifetime with a 4.32 ERA. So Kenny basically said that he can replace the production of Vazquez, while saving a bit of money (later to be used on a former Cy Young Winner). Lo and Behold, he was correct. Our fifth starters have essentially mirrored the production that Javier has produced throughout his career. Even without the foresight of the Peavy deal, the trade makes absolute sense. Spend Less + Get the org's best C Prospect in a long time & no significant drop-off in on-field production.

The only way that trade isn't made is if Kenny tells himself Javier is going 14-9 with a sub 3.00 ERA (forget that it's in the NL) in 2009.

The difference between our 5th starters and Javier haven't been the problem this year. Letting Contreras get 18 decisions, Poor Fielding, a Fading Bullpen and the fewest Extra Base Hits in the A.L. are the reasons we're in 3rd place.

Craig Grebeck
09-21-2009, 06:16 PM
I really got into this conversation because I wanted to talk about the dismissal of career wins of a 10+ year starter as a relevant statistic. I still would like to see some kind of analysis to prove it doesn't matter, but so far all I've gotten is denials.

Beyond all of that though, I have a few general questions for you.

Do you believe there are good players who have good career numbers who at the same time regularly choke in high pressure situations?

If not do you accept the concept of choking at all or do you think it's purely a case of out of control perception by fans who are upset by memories of that player failing during crucial moments?

If the answer is yes, you believe there are good players who fail under pressure, at what point do we accept that a given player is indeed one of those chokers?

If the answer is no, do you believe that there are no humans who fold under intense pressure/scrutiny at all? If there are, wouldn't it stand to argue that some of them play professional sports and even have successful careers so long as the pressure isn't on them?

I'm just curious, because so far you seem to deny it happens at all and I don't know if that is strictly about Javy or it's your perception about life in general.
I believe, above all else, in studying anything, baseball included, using objective evidence. I believe there are instances in which "clutch" matters, but I also believe there are far, far better indicators for success and failure. For example, I find it far more likely that Javy struggled in September simply because he was throwing on short rest.

I appreciate your question though. I'll respond more later.

oeo
09-21-2009, 06:16 PM
I'm not assuming that he'd do the exact same thing (sub 3 ERA and all), but I don't think he'd be as bad as posters make him out to be -- which is basically Jamie Navarro. I think with our piss poor outfield defense pre-Rios, Javy would probably have an ERA around four (which is what I expect from Jake) while throwing about 200 innings. He's fluctuated year to year with good peripherals, but I think that's certainly a reasonable expectation.

Over the past five years, he's had exactly one year with an ERA around 4 or below it. I wouldn't expect that again. I would expect an ERA in the mid-4's which is what he's shown he's capable of the past five years.

You also have no evidence he wouldn't do this in Chicago. It goes both ways.

Considering the way last year ended, my argument has more in its favor. Javy needed a clean slate after all of last year's drama.

Don't even get me started on Ozzie doing that. Way to ruin his trade value there, skip. Show some temperance once in awhile.

What else did you think we were going to get for Javy? He's proven lately that he's nothing more than mediocre. He had one good year in the past five.

gobears1987
09-21-2009, 08:20 PM
I think I would take Freddy Garcia any day of the week over Javy. There is a reason we refer to him as "big game Freddy."

Craig Grebeck
09-21-2009, 09:03 PM
Over the past five years, he's had exactly one year with an ERA around 4 or below it. I wouldn't expect that again. I would expect an ERA in the mid-4's which is what he's shown he's capable of the past five years.



Considering the way last year ended, my argument has more in its favor. Javy needed a clean slate after all of last year's drama.



What else did you think we were going to get for Javy? He's proven lately that he's nothing more than mediocre. He had one good year in the past five.
I think you really need to re-evaluate what qualifies as mediocre MLB pitching. You are sorely mistaken.

I think I would take Freddy Garcia any day of the week over Javy. There is a reason we refer to him as "big game Freddy."
This is the same argument that leads to people saying they'll take Carl Everett over Jim Thome.

RadioheadRocks
09-21-2009, 11:02 PM
:deadhorse:

Vazquez is gone. It's it and that's that.

Iwritecode
09-21-2009, 11:46 PM
I'm not assuming that he'd do the exact same thing (sub 3 ERA and all), but I don't think he'd be as bad as posters make him out to be -- which is basically Jamie Navarro.

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

Scroll to the bottom and check out "Similar Pitchers through 31". # 6 is Jaime Navarro.

voodoochile
09-21-2009, 11:59 PM
I think you really need to re-evaluate what qualifies as mediocre MLB pitching. You are sorely mistaken.

This is the same argument that leads to people saying they'll take Carl Everett over Jim Thome.

Okay, who wants Everett over Thome? If that's an example, it's a lame one. I can't think of a single person who wants Carl Everett over Jim Thome. Did someone actually type something that stupid?

Craig Grebeck
09-22-2009, 03:03 AM
Okay, who wants Everett over Thome? If that's an example, it's a lame one. I can't think of a single person who wants Carl Everett over Jim Thome. Did someone actually type something that stupid?
Did someone actually type they would rather have Freddy than Javy? It's an example of the foolish sort of thinking that leads people to conclude "player A is clutch and player B isn't, even though there are mountains of evidence telling me that player B is better, give me player A!"

Also, 2005!!!1

Craig Grebeck
09-22-2009, 03:38 AM
I really got into this conversation because I wanted to talk about the dismissal of career wins of a 10+ year starter as a relevant statistic. I still would like to see some kind of analysis to prove it doesn't matter, but so far all I've gotten is denials.Because wins for pitchers are an archaic and meaningless statistic. Why, in the presence of so many other more advanced and useful statistics, would anyone discuss someone's pitching record as evidence for their proficiency or utility?

I know of no studies in this realm because I don't know a SABR person with their salt who would even consider undertaking a study on wins.

I think Javy is a solid to good pitcher whose win-loss record is due in some part to his six-year stay in Montreal (specifically that first season, which was absolutely his fault) and a general lack of consistency. I really haven't given much thought to his record, as I don't find it meaningful at all in evaluating him.

Would I take him back in a heartbeat? Yes.

Big D
09-22-2009, 04:30 AM
I think I would take Freddy Garcia any day of the week over Javy. There is a reason we refer to him as "big game Freddy."

I wouldn't go that far, but if we're talking about Freddy at $1 million a year vs. Javy at $11.5 million, that's a different story. I guess it also depends on whether you think Flowers can stay behind the plate. I actually like Javy, but AJ can't play forever, and the Sox didn't have a single MLB-caliber catcher in the organization other than AJ last year.

voodoochile
09-22-2009, 10:01 AM
Because wins for pitchers are an archaic and meaningless statistic. Why, in the presence of so many other more advanced and useful statistics, would anyone discuss someone's pitching record as evidence for their proficiency or utility?

I know of no studies in this realm because I don't know a SABR person with their salt who would even consider undertaking a study on wins.

I think Javy is a solid to good pitcher whose win-loss record is due in some part to his six-year stay in Montreal (specifically that first season, which was absolutely his fault) and a general lack of consistency. I really haven't given much thought to his record, as I don't find it meaningful at all in evaluating him.

Would I take him back in a heartbeat? Yes.

My argument is that over time some of the factors that can skew win totals (ballpark, offensive production, league) may even out especially with a pitcher like Javy who has pitched for several teams. One could argue the 3 years he spent in Montreal not sucking would be balanced by his time in NY and Chicago. Thus his win total seems to be more meaningful from a statistical standpoint.

I agree, he's inconsistent and thus not worth $12M/year.

As to the stuff you didn't answer, I understand your desire to deal with quantifiable analysis, but choke cannot be quantified because it's an emotional thing. Humans do react to pressure and negative feedback differently and it affects their performance. Some people hear negative feedback and get in stressful situations and come out swinging and have some of their best performances. Some people don't handle it well. The more a person is in those situations the more they tend to get better at dealing with them (Scottie Pippen comes immediately to mind). Javy hasn't been in them much because most of his time has been spent on non pennant contending teams.

It may well be that his performance this September in a less stressful situation where the odds are long and the fans and media aren't as intense is something he can cope with while last fall he couldn't and no you can't quantify that, you're right. It may also be that Javy finally learned to deal with the pressure better and again, you can't quantify that either.

How many games did he start on short rest last year, 1? 2? Ozzie threatened to go short rest earlier but didn't implement it until the final week of the season, IIRC.

Sometimes enough bridges get burned where keeping a guy is bad for both sides of the equation. Javy was one of those guys. Taking him back negates ALL of the emotional aspects of the equation and yes that does exist, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Maybe it's not as important as raw talent or things that can be quantified, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless.

Hitmen77
09-22-2009, 10:09 AM
Because wins for pitchers are an archaic and meaningless statistic. Why, in the presence of so many other more advanced and useful statistics, would anyone discuss someone's pitching record as evidence for their proficiency or utility?

I know of no studies in this realm because I don't know a SABR person with their salt who would even consider undertaking a study on wins.

I think Javy is a solid to good pitcher whose win-loss record is due in some part to his six-year stay in Montreal (specifically that first season, which was absolutely his fault) and a general lack of consistency. I really haven't given much thought to his record, as I don't find it meaningful at all in evaluating him.

Would I take him back in a heartbeat? Yes.

I think trading Javy was mostly about the Sox trying to shed payroll (in response to the revenue hit they took when the economy tanked) more than anything else. The Sox were stuck with huge salaries for Contreras, Thome, and Dye coming into 2009 and needed to dump at least one big salary.

No doubt we would have been much better off with Javy in 2009, but this still would have been a seriously flawed team (shutout 13 times) even with him. Maybe it'll work out in the long run. If we kept Javy and his salary, perhaps the Sox wouldn't have had enough salary flexibility to get Jake Peavy. Maybe Tyler Flowers will turn out to be something special too.

jabrch
09-22-2009, 10:17 AM
Peavy makes us a much better team in the future, there's no denying that. Just take a look at career stats.

I'm just not 100% sure. I want to see how Jake Peavy pitches as an older pitcher (just shy of 30 by opening day) coming off his first real injury in a hitters park in the AL as compared to pitcing in the best pitchers park in the NL. I'm optimistic - there are few more optimistic than me. But I've seen Javy Vazquez pitch well for the Sox. And I saw Javy Vazquez pitch well this season. I can't say either of those things about Jake. Even before getting hurt, he wasn't throwing great this year in SD.

Are we getting Peavy 06 or are we getting Peavy 07/08? 09 is not a good indicator.

Again - very optimistic - but I am not sold on the Javy is garbage stuff. I've seen too much evidence to the contrary.

jabrch
09-22-2009, 10:22 AM
If Javier Vazquez is still on the team, Jose Contreras and his 5-13 record don't go anywhere. So for the sake of argument, you have to consider the starts by Clayton, Bartolo and Freddy are the ones Vazquez would have had.

Combined, those three are/were 9-12 with a 4.36 ERA in their 33 starts. Coming into this season, Vazquez was 2 games under .500 lifetime with a 4.32 ERA. So Kenny basically said that he can replace the production of Vazquez, while saving a bit of money (later to be used on a former Cy Young Winner). Lo and Behold, he was correct. Our fifth starters have essentially mirrored the production that Javier has produced throughout his career. Even without the foresight of the Peavy deal, the trade makes absolute sense. Spend Less + Get the org's best C Prospect in a long time & no significant drop-off in on-field production.

The only way that trade isn't made is if Kenny tells himself Javier is going 14-9 with a sub 3.00 ERA (forget that it's in the NL) in 2009.

The difference between our 5th starters and Javier haven't been the problem this year. Letting Contreras get 18 decisions, Poor Fielding, a Fading Bullpen and the fewest Extra Base Hits in the A.L. are the reasons we're in 3rd place.


I was fine with the trade. It didn't bother me. Still doesn't. I am not fine with the conclusion that Javy sucks and that it was awesome that we got rid of him because he had no chance of delivering because for some reason he is bad when it counts. Williams logic was fine - he wanted to trim 10mm off the payroll. This was the best way to do so...I'm just not sold on some of the logic to support it. We got a good prospect in Flowers, some other potential parts, and we took 10mm off the payroll that helped us to be able to get Peavy. All good. But that's where I stop. I don't say that it is good because Javy sucks and would have spit the bit when we needed him.

jabrch
09-22-2009, 10:24 AM
I think I would take Freddy Garcia any day of the week over Javy. There is a reason we refer to him as "big game Freddy."

Respectfully, your hindsight is very good.

He was waived by Detroit and the Mets this year, right? I'd have to draw the conclusion that his arm was not in pitching shape most of this year.

I'm thrilled to have a cheap option on Freddy for next year to be our #5. But if we had Javy this year, we very well may be talking about how we could avoid the Tigers catching us in the last few weeks of the season.

jabrch
09-22-2009, 10:30 AM
My argument is that over time some of the factors that can skew win totals (ballpark, offensive production, league) may even out especially with a pitcher like Javy who has pitched for several teams. One could argue the 3 years he spent in Montreal not sucking would be balanced by his time in NY and Chicago. Thus his win total seems to be more meaningful from a statistical standpoint.

Voo - not to put words in your mouth, but I'll try anyhow... :-)

I think what you are saying is that you agree that A SINGLE WIN is meaningless for reasons we all understand. It doesn't take a PHD in math to get that. And despite the self-sold brilliance of the folks who have recently tought us all about the game, people have understood that for a long time.

However, WINS, over time, not a single win, are indicators of several things and that for a vet, consistent ability to win is meaningful. It's not an excercise in math, it's an excercise in baseball logic. Give me a pitcher who wins 15 games every year for 10 years and I will go out on a limb, without looking at any other numbers, and tell you he is a decent pitcher. Can you determine if a pitcher is better than another pitcher based on wins? Not really...but that's not the goal.

I'd ask someone to find me a list of all the "bad" (subjective term) pitchers who consistently have won 15 games a season over any reasonable timeframe... It will be a VERY small list.

voodoochile
09-22-2009, 10:55 AM
Voo - not to put words in your mouth, but I'll try anyhow... :-)

I think what you are saying is that you agree that A SINGLE WIN is meaningless for reasons we all understand. It doesn't take a PHD in math to get that. And despite the self-sold brilliance of the folks who have recently tought us all about the game, people have understood that for a long time.

However, WINS, over time, not a single win, are indicators of several things and that for a vet, consistent ability to win is meaningful. It's not an excercise in math, it's an excercise in baseball logic. Give me a pitcher who wins 15 games every year for 10 years and I will go out on a limb, without looking at any other numbers, and tell you he is a decent pitcher. Can you determine if a pitcher is better than another pitcher based on wins? Not really...but that's not the goal.

I'd ask someone to find me a list of all the "bad" (subjective term) pitchers who consistently have won 15 games a season over any reasonable timeframe... It will be a VERY small list.

Yes, that's my point to some extent. I also think it would be quantifiable statistically. Indeed single game outcomes and even season's worth of outcomes can be skewed by random factors having nothing to do with pitching ability. This can in some cases extend to whole careers when a given pitcher is employed by a team with a very good or very bad offense behind them or in a ballpark that favors pitchers over hitters or vice versa, but when a pitcher moves around, pitches in a variety of ballparks for several different teams, you'd think those external factors would "even out". Thus their win total (and loss total) becomes more statistically relevant.

Javy has averaged right around 12 wins/season, but he's also close to 12 losses per season. I'd argue that his outcomes make him best suited for a #5 slot maybe #4 which means he isn't worth the money he was getting.

When he went from the Expos in 2003 to the Yankees in 2004 his ERA ballooned over 1.5 runs from 3.24 (his best ever prior to this season) to 4.91 (his worst ever).

Park factor? Stress from pitching in a high pressure environment? He hasn't come close to touching those 2003 numbers until this year when he is on another contract drive. Things that make you go hmmmmmm...

Johnny Mostil
09-22-2009, 04:06 PM
My argument is that over time some of the factors that can skew win totals (ballpark, offensive production, league) may even out especially with a pitcher like Javy who has pitched for several teams. One could argue the 3 years he spent in Montreal not sucking would be balanced by his time in NY and Chicago. Thus his win total seems to be more meaningful from a statistical standpoint.

I agree, he's inconsistent and thus not worth $12M/year.

As to the stuff you didn't answer, I understand your desire to deal with quantifiable analysis, but choke cannot be quantified because it's an emotional thing. Humans do react to pressure and negative feedback differently and it affects their performance. Some people hear negative feedback and get in stressful situations and come out swinging and have some of their best performances. Some people don't handle it well. The more a person is in those situations the more they tend to get better at dealing with them (Scottie Pippen comes immediately to mind). Javy hasn't been in them much because most of his time has been spent on non pennant contending teams.

It may well be that his performance this September in a less stressful situation where the odds are long and the fans and media aren't as intense is something he can cope with while last fall he couldn't and no you can't quantify that, you're right. It may also be that Javy finally learned to deal with the pressure better and again, you can't quantify that either.

How many games did he start on short rest last year, 1? 2? Ozzie threatened to go short rest earlier but didn't implement it until the final week of the season, IIRC.

Sometimes enough bridges get burned where keeping a guy is bad for both sides of the equation. Javy was one of those guys. Taking him back negates ALL of the emotional aspects of the equation and yes that does exist, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Maybe it's not as important as raw talent or things that can be quantified, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless.

Nope, "choke" can't be quantified. I'll go further: at the major-league level, I think its prevalence is grossly exaggerated. But when considering Vazquez has been awful in what were arguably the seven biggest games he's ever pitched--the four postseason games he pitched for the Sox and the Yanks and the last three regular-season games he threw for the Sox last year--I, like you, go hmmmmm.

It will be interesting, should the Braves get really close to a wild-card spot (or, yes, much closer than 5 back with a dozen to play) to see how he fares. Maybe he really has pulled it together this year, as his other stats this year seem to indicate. If so, good for him! Yet, as you note, there were probably too many bridges burned at both ends to realistically think it would have worked with the Sox this year.

munchman33
09-22-2009, 04:21 PM
Freddie at no salary plus Flowers plus Peavy vs. Javy at 11.5 million.

Everyday I come back and more nonsense is typed. Why is this even a debate? Stop feeding the trolls.

Craig Grebeck
09-22-2009, 08:36 PM
How many games did he start on short rest last year, 1? 2? Ozzie threatened to go short rest earlier but didn't implement it until the final week of the season, IIRC. Two times in the final month of the season. He had been very, very good in September up until starting on short rest.
My argument is that over time some of the factors that can skew win totals (ballpark, offensive production, league) may even out especially with a pitcher like Javy who has pitched for several teams. One could argue the 3 years he spent in Montreal not sucking would be balanced by his time in NY and Chicago. Thus his win total seems to be more meaningful from a statistical standpoint.
First of all, he had four years in Montreal where he did not suck. He was actually quite good. During this timeframe, he was five games above .500 for teams that were 46 under the break-even mark.

I don't think a win total is really ever meaningful when one considers what Javy brings to the table in terms of missing bats and preventing runs. Run prevention is a pitcher's duty, not recording wins. There are too many factors out of his control.

Off the top of my head, I'd say Javy is more likely to have a lot of decisions (thus the double digits in wins and losses) because he pitches more innings (far more innings) than the average starting pitcher.

I agree, he's inconsistent and thus not worth $12M/year. I believe his salary is justifiable.

As to the stuff you didn't answer, I understand your desire to deal with quantifiable analysis, but choke cannot be quantified because it's an emotional thing. Humans do react to pressure and negative feedback differently and it affects their performance. Some people hear negative feedback and get in stressful situations and come out swinging and have some of their best performances. Some people don't handle it well. The more a person is in those situations the more they tend to get better at dealing with them (Scottie Pippen comes immediately to mind). Javy hasn't been in them much because most of his time has been spent on non pennant contending teams.And I believe it is lazy to conclude that a player is simply unclutch.


I think trading Javy was mostly about the Sox trying to shed payroll (in response to the revenue hit they took when the economy tanked) more than anything else. The Sox were stuck with huge salaries for Contreras, Thome, and Dye coming into 2009 and needed to dump at least one big salary.

No doubt we would have been much better off with Javy in 2009, but this still would have been a seriously flawed team (shutout 13 times) even with him. Maybe it'll work out in the long run. If we kept Javy and his salary, perhaps the Sox wouldn't have had enough salary flexibility to get Jake Peavy. Maybe Tyler Flowers will turn out to be something special too.
I believe Tyler will be a good catcher for the White Sox.
I'm just not 100% sure. I want to see how Jake Peavy pitches as an older pitcher (just shy of 30 by opening day) coming off his first real injury in a hitters park in the AL as compared to pitcing in the best pitchers park in the NL. I'm optimistic - there are few more optimistic than me. But I've seen Javy Vazquez pitch well for the Sox. And I saw Javy Vazquez pitch well this season. I can't say either of those things about Jake. Even before getting hurt, he wasn't throwing great this year in SD.

Are we getting Peavy 06 or are we getting Peavy 07/08? 09 is not a good indicator.

Again - very optimistic - but I am not sold on the Javy is garbage stuff. I've seen too much evidence to the contrary.
Absolutely well-reasoned post. We disagree a lot, but I respect the hell out of you for your temperance regarding Peavy. Expecting Cy Young caliber pitching out of him is too much. Could it happen? Yes, but we shouldn't bet on possibility rather than probability.
I was fine with the trade. It didn't bother me. Still doesn't. I am not fine with the conclusion that Javy sucks and that it was awesome that we got rid of him because he had no chance of delivering because for some reason he is bad when it counts. Williams logic was fine - he wanted to trim 10mm off the payroll. This was the best way to do so...I'm just not sold on some of the logic to support it. We got a good prospect in Flowers, some other potential parts, and we took 10mm off the payroll that helped us to be able to get Peavy. All good. But that's where I stop. I don't say that it is good because Javy sucks and would have spit the bit when we needed him.
I love Flowers. Without him I'd be pulling my hair out over the trade. I especially agree with the last sentence -- we got a good piece for a good pitcher, but I don't believe we're better without a good pitcher like Javy.

Respectfully, your hindsight is very good.

He was waived by Detroit and the Mets this year, right? I'd have to draw the conclusion that his arm was not in pitching shape most of this year.

I'm thrilled to have a cheap option on Freddy for next year to be our #5. But if we had Javy this year, we very well may be talking about how we could avoid the Tigers catching us in the last few weeks of the season.
I'm not at all confident in Freddy. Nothing against the guy, but sub-90 MPH junkballers don't usually succeed without superb control. The odds are against him, though I'll obviously root for him.

Freddie at no salary plus Flowers plus Peavy vs. Javy at 11.5 million.

Everyday I come back and more nonsense is typed. Why is this even a debate? Stop feeding the trolls.
Really? Troll? Because I disagree with you and post facts that contradict your illusory anecdotal assertions.

You also left the pitching prospects surrendered in the deal for Peavy out of the equation.
Yes, that's my point to some extent. I also think it would be quantifiable statistically. Indeed single game outcomes and even season's worth of outcomes can be skewed by random factors having nothing to do with pitching ability. This can in some cases extend to whole careers when a given pitcher is employed by a team with a very good or very bad offense behind them or in a ballpark that favors pitchers over hitters or vice versa, but when a pitcher moves around, pitches in a variety of ballparks for several different teams, you'd think those external factors would "even out". Thus their win total (and loss total) becomes more statistically relevant.

Javy has averaged right around 12 wins/season, but he's also close to 12 losses per season. I'd argue that his outcomes make him best suited for a #5 slot maybe #4 which means he isn't worth the money he was getting.

When he went from the Expos in 2003 to the Yankees in 2004 his ERA ballooned over 1.5 runs from 3.24 (his best ever prior to this season) to 4.91 (his worst ever).

Park factor? Stress from pitching in a high pressure environment? He hasn't come close to touching those 2003 numbers until this year when he is on another contract drive. Things that make you go hmmmmmm...
I'd blame it on a terrible Yankee defense, a terrible Diamondback defense, and a terrible White Sox defense. His teams in Montreal were proficient defensively, and his teams thereafter were not. There's ample evidence to suggest that his poor numbers correlate more with a terrible defense than a lack of balls.

But then again Atlanta's defense isn't much to write home about. I'll look into it more when I'm not half drunk. I'll also re-evaluate my paragraph above, as I explored the defenses of Javy's teams before heading to the pubs. Daggummit.

Mohoney
09-24-2009, 06:51 AM
Would I take him back in a heartbeat? Yes.

I wouldn't for $23 million over 2 years, plus have to give Flowers back.

If we were stuck with $11.5 million for Javy Vazquez for 2010, the Jake Peavy deal never would have happened, either.

It's not that the guy was a horrible pitcher, because I think even the most ardent Javy haters would admit that he was above league-average. However, I don't think he was far enough above league-average to justify a $23 million investment over 2 years. When you factor in Atlanta taking the whole deal, plus sending us Flowers, I think the move needed to be made.

I have no regrets over trading Vazquez. We had two undesirable contracts in Contreras and Vazquez going into 2009, and we stuck with the one that was up in 1 year instead of the one that was up in 2 years. Plus, I don't think we were going to get anybody remotely close to Flowers' worth if we dealt Contreras instead of Vazquez.

Mohoney
09-24-2009, 07:10 AM
But if we had Javy this year, we very well may be talking about how we could avoid the Tigers catching us in the last few weeks of the season.

Absolutely not. The bullpen would have blown games for him, the offense would have laid 1-run turds at his feet for run support, and the Keystone Cops defense would have been out there racking up error after error.

Starting pitching was actually the most consistent area of our team this year. They got a raw deal and deserved better. Vazquez would have just been another Floyd or Danks where we say to ourselves "He really got screwed over this year."