PDA

View Full Version : BP on Loaiza/Contreras


jeremyb1
08-02-2004, 05:38 PM
Joe Sheehan

The Yankees found a taker for Jose Contreras, sending him to the White Sox for Esteban Loaiza.

I can't be rational about this. Even though Loaiza has reverted to being an innings sponge this year, any trade that sends Contreras away is a good one. He can't pitch to good teams; lay off the splitter low, get ahead in the count, and it's over. He might be a good two-inning reliever, and I think there's a good chance he'll save 30 games some year, but he's a lousy starting pitcher and an absolute nightmare to watch. Loaiza is, at least, better than that. More importantly, he can be cut loose after this season.

I'm not sure what Kenny Williams was thinking here. His window for winning with this team is the next two months, and he made a trade that will make the Sox worse in the short term, and saddles him with a mediocre pitcher for $14 million over two more seasons. He needed to be aggressive about adding OBP and perhaps a reliever, and instead he let the offensive problems fester while adding a headache.

And he gave the Yankees payroll relief. Remember that $14 million when the Yankees sign somebody good this winter.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3294

And Chris Karl's transaction analysis

Acquired RHP Jose Contreras and cash from the Yankees for RHP Esteban Loaiza. [7/31]

If you trade a pumpkin that was once something more than a pumpkin for a pumpkin that was only rumored to someday be something more than a pumpkin, but couldn't prove it, did you really help yourself? This is a basic challenge trade. The Sox are talking bravely about how they see how Contreras has been tipping pitches, and there's the invariable chatter about how people escaping from New York can settle him down and let him get on with his career. But let's face it, Contreras gave the Yankees lousy value on their investment. For the Sox, this is a virtual white flag. Consider it the product of a triple hangover: The one left over from last summer, when Kenny Williams' multiple stretch moves didn't produce a division title, the one left over from the winter deal with Loaiza, and the one left over from last month, now that it's really looking like Freddy Garcia isn't the staff ace the Sox talked themselves into thinking he was. When you wake up with this many regrets, you can't gnaw off all of your limbs, so you make a compromise with your future. The Williams regime has been colorful, but the Sox remain the great non-achiever franchise.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3295#CHA

habibharu
08-02-2004, 05:45 PM
nothing in there that i dont agree with

Win1ForMe
08-02-2004, 05:48 PM
Good thing I don't have a BP subscription because Chris Karl is obviously retarded.

doublem23
08-02-2004, 05:50 PM
Who wants to put an over/under of how many posts of argument this thread will produce about a stupid deal that is probably going to be a wash anyway.

:rolleyes:

SoxxoS
08-02-2004, 05:51 PM
Good thing I don't have a BP subscription because Chris Karl is obviously retarded.I laughed out loud on that one. :D:

I like the part about Freddie Garcia...what exactly has he done that has shown he wasn't the staff ace...Hey Corky Karl...ISN'T THE ACE SUPPOSED TO STOP LOSING STREAKS?

DVsoxfan
08-02-2004, 05:52 PM
Good thing I don't have a BP subscription because Chris Karl is obviously retarded.

Agreed.

OEO Magglio
08-02-2004, 05:54 PM
Kahl:For the Sox, this is a virtual white flag. Consider it the product of a triple hangover: The one left over from last summer, when Kenny Williams' multiple stretch moves didn't produce a division title, the one left over from the winter deal with Loaiza, and the one left over from last month, now that it's really looking like Freddy Garcia isn't the staff ace the Sox talked themselves into thinking he was.

Wow this guy is really an idiot. Waiving the white flag......please. What has Garcia done for the sox that says he isn't a staff ace, I know there are people who believe he's not an ace based on numbers from previous years which is fine but so far with the sox he's been nothing but an ace, what's he supposed to do strikeout 15 every game with an era under 3.:rolleyes:

OEO Magglio
08-02-2004, 05:57 PM
To add on to that, so far with the sox freddy is 5 and 2 with a 3.6 era, with 49 k's and 11 walks in 49 innings, so once again how has he done anything so far that leads this guy to believe that Freddy isn't an ace?

CWSGuy406
08-02-2004, 05:59 PM
Unfortunately for hitters, it isn't as easy as 'lay off the splitter' and it's game over. Hell, I can say that about a lot of pitchers - lay off of Kerry Wood's nasty slider/curveball in the dirt, and game over (what the Marlins did last postseason).

Hell, he should just say, "Lay off every pitch that is out of the strike zone, and it's basically game over." :rolleyes:

chaz171
08-02-2004, 06:01 PM
Freddy Garcia is 5-2 in seven starts with the Sox. He's pitching into the Seventh and eight innings and averaging about a Stike out per inning. his ERA is also under 4.... I feel that Contreras has better Stuff than Loaiza, and is signed essentially for $6 milper year for the next 2 years. I find it difficult to believe that Loaiza will sign for that money....

Granted I don;t think this is a pennant sealing deal but it is not a White Flag.... Loaiza has had ONE solid season in his career. This season he is feast or famine.

Contreras has a 15-7 career record... those are not slouch numbers. It remains to be seen if he can be consistent for an entire season. He Posted a 7-2 mark, but he was not a starter for most of last year.

I Believe that this helps free up a few bucks to get a new Position player in the offseason, (CF and or SS and or C) or to help weigh down Magglio's Wallet.

Daver
08-02-2004, 06:02 PM
If Don Cooper can't help Contreras lose his flawed mechanics Kenny threw away a pile of cash on a mediocre pitcher.

DMarte708
08-02-2004, 06:05 PM
Has Baseball Prospectus ever complimented any of our trades? I swear, according to some "experts," KW can't make a good deal to save his balls. In every trade analysis, either too much is given up or he's simply fooled by another GM.

I love Sheenan's article in particular:


He can't pitch to good teams; lay off the splitter low, get ahead in the count, and it's over
Yes, its very simple to lay off a 93 mph pitch which looks like a fastball until it dives ahead off the plate. In the same sense, why don't teams just "lay off" Johan Santanas fastball and sit on his changeup.

Win1ForMe
08-02-2004, 06:19 PM
Joe Sheehan said it best: I can't be rational about this.Well, there you go.

Nard
08-02-2004, 06:27 PM
Lay off the splitter low and it's over?

It's that easy, huh?

Well it's a surprise he's still in the majors then, if it's that easy.

ma-gaga
08-02-2004, 06:28 PM
Contreras has a 15-7 career record...

For the Yankees who trot out one of the best lineups in the game. Terry 'Freaking' Mullholland could have a 15-7 record for them given 30 starts.

So, the Yankees fans think that the W.Sox got screwed.
And the W.Sox fans thing that the Yankees got screwed.

Sounds like a fair deal to me. :)

Foulke You
08-02-2004, 06:29 PM
I laughed out loud on that one. :D:

I like the part about Freddie Garcia...what exactly has he done that has shown he wasn't the staff ace...Hey Corky Karl...ISN'T THE ACE SUPPOSED TO STOP LOSING STREAKS?
Yeah, Karl's credibility just went out the window when he took a shot at Freddy Garcia not being "the staff ace the Sox talked themselves into thinking he was". What more do they want from the guy? He is 5W-2L since he got here and has pitched deep in every start. If he had gotten a little more run support in his two losses, he very well could be 7W-0L since his arrival from Seattle. What a moron this guy is! He obviously hasn't been watching Freddy pitch recently.

I'm not saying Contreras is a savior, but the way these know it all baseball prospectus morons talk, they make it sound like Kenny traded a super stud pitcher for nothing. This is not 2003 Loaiza we traded, it is 2004 Loaiza who was pitching like a #4 or #5 starter this year. Even if Contreras pitches the rest of the year like he has been without improvment, it won't be much of a downgrade from what Loaiza was throwing this year and Contreras has more upside to get better where there is a good chance Loaiza's 2003 season was a fluke and will never come close to a 21 win season again. Plus, the Prospectus guys don't mention that the Yankees are paying a chunk of Contreras's salary to boot.

Nard
08-02-2004, 06:32 PM
In Jose's wins this season, he's given up:

1 ER in 6.0 IP
3 ER in 6.0 IP
4 ER in 7.0 IP
2 ER in 6.1 IP
0 ER in 6.0 IP
1 ER in 6.2 IP
1 ER in 8.0 IP
1 ER in 7.0 IP

So that's 7 quality starts in 8 wins. Yep, the offense is really bailing him out here.

Looking at the runs given up in most of Esty's wins send me into the shivers.

3 ER in 6.0 IP
5 ER in 6.0 IP
0 ER in 9.0 IP
4 ER in 6.0 IP
3 ER in 7.0 IP
0 ER in 8.0 IP
6 ER in 6.0 IP
4 ER in 6.0 IP
4 ER in 6.0 IP

owensmouth
08-02-2004, 06:36 PM
Well, this particular White Sox fan thinks we would have been better off keeping Loaiza for two more months, then letting him walk. At least we would not be throwing away 8 to 10 million dollars over the next two years. Also, if somebody has to throw away money, I'd rather let Steinbottom do it.

jackbrohamer
08-02-2004, 06:36 PM
The BP writers sometimes prefer smartass comments to facts.

jeremyb1
08-02-2004, 06:38 PM
To add on to that, so far with the sox freddy is 5 and 2 with a 3.6 era, with 49 k's and 11 walks in 49 innings, so once again how has he done anything so far that leads this guy to believe that Freddy isn't an ace?

I think allowing 7 home runs in 50 innings is notable as far as his statline especially since he'd given up 8 in more than twice as many innings with Seattle.

Corlose 15
08-02-2004, 06:39 PM
Lay off the splitter low and it's over?

It's that easy, huh?

Well it's a surprise he's still in the majors then, if it's that easy.Hey it worked for the Braves against Ben Sheets and the Indians against Freddy Garcia. Oh wait.....

:)

SoxxoS
08-02-2004, 06:40 PM
I think allowing 7 home runs in 50 innings is notable as far as his statline especially since he'd given up 8 in more than twice as many innings with Seattle.
And he still has a 3.60 ERA. Hmm.

jeremyb1
08-02-2004, 06:41 PM
Has Baseball Prospectus ever complimented any of our trades? I swear, according to some "experts," KW can't make a good deal to save his balls. In every trade analysis, either too much is given up or he's simply fooled by another GM.

I love Sheenan's article in particular:

Yes, its very simple to lay off a 93 mph pitch which looks like a fastball until it dives ahead off the plate. In the same sense, why don't teams just "lay off" Johan Santanas fastball and sit on his changeup.

IIRC they liked some of the same trades I've liked such as Johnson for Jimenez, the Colon deal, the Harris for Singleton deal, and some of last seasons' deadline deals. I don't want to crush anyone's dreams here but let's hypothetically assume KW isn't a ver good GM. It would make sense then that most of his trades wouldn't be very good, right? How many good trades did Syd Thrift make with the O's? I can't name one.

jeremyb1
08-02-2004, 06:42 PM
Has Baseball Prospectus ever complimented any of our trades? I swear, according to some "experts," KW can't make a good deal to save his balls. In every trade analysis, either too much is given up or he's simply fooled by another GM.

I love Sheenan's article in particular:

Yes, its very simple to lay off a 93 mph pitch which looks like a fastball until it dives ahead off the plate. In the same sense, why don't teams just "lay off" Johan Santanas fastball and sit on his changeup.

Well Contreras walks a ton of guys and Santana doesn't so apparently Santana has more pitches to go to and the command to attack hitters in the zone effectively.

OEO Magglio
08-02-2004, 06:44 PM
I think allowing 7 home runs in 50 innings is notable as far as his statline especially since he'd given up 8 in more than twice as many innings with Seattle.True Jeremy. I think we all knew the amount of homers Freddy allowed would go up. However as long as he's allowing solo homeruns then it's not going to be a big deal, imo. He's keeping guys off base so the homers aren't very alarming if you ask me, jmo.

CallMeNuts
08-02-2004, 06:46 PM
In this week's episode of Battle of the Pitching Coaches we have Mel Stottlemeyer vs. Don Cooper. Can Mel bring E-Lo back to 2003 form? Can Coop keep Contreras from tipping pitches so badly that every talking head thinks they can hit him? Or will both of them have to eat crow? If Mel fails, E-Lo won't get resigned. If Coop fails, we have Contreras for 2 more years. I hope their was a bunch of Yankee $ that came along with Contreras (and I bet there was), as he is darn expensive for where he is now.

Win1ForMe
08-02-2004, 06:47 PM
I think allowing 7 home runs in 50 innings is notable as far as his statline especially since he'd given up 8 in more than twice as many innings with Seattle.
WEEEEAAAK.

If he's making his claim simply based on that one stat, then as I've said before, he's obviously retarded.

You know, Curt Schilling threw 37 HRs during the year he won 22 games and compiled a 2.98 ERA. My god, find something else to complain about already.

dpbyron
08-02-2004, 06:49 PM
now that it's really looking like Freddy Garcia isn't the staff ace the Sox talked themselves into thinking he was.

Who is this clown watching. What a joke. Does the national media actually watch any of our games? UGH:angry: :angry:

jabrch
08-02-2004, 06:54 PM
These mopes and their minyons make me laugh.

Freddy Garcia has was amongst the top pitchers in the AL in July. 12 ER in 35.2 IP (ERA under 3.00) with 3 games at USCF. Opponents hit about .210 off of him. Only gave up 10 walks. How is that not good pitching? The only thing people can gripe about is the HRs. And if you do, you obviously don't watch many of the games - and rely more on the box scores. Of the 7 HRs he gave up since coming here, 3 were in a game in Minnesota where he had a big lead. So he was doing what smart pitchers do - throw balls to be hit - let your defenders play em. Not surprsingly, we won that game 9-6. Another 2 of those HRs came at Detroit and were solo HRs given up when we had a lead. So ya know what - if the worst thing you can say about him is that he challenges hitters when we have a lead and sometimes he gets beat - well than damn him and his smart baseball. I'll take that every time.

As far as the deal, Loaiza would have cost us more next year than we would have been willing to pay for him. With the Yanks sending cash this way, the logic is that the net price we paid for Contreras is less that what we would have had to spend on the open market to get a 3rd/4th starter of that calibre. If you look at his numbers in his wins, it is really hard to argue. Take only Boston off of his calendar - and he has 44 ER in 85 IP - a 3.62 ERA. The deal may have been good, it may be a wash, it may be bad. It's far to early to know. However, to use the logic that KW is a dope because Garcia isn't an ace so this deal was bad is so stupid that it makes me laugh.

OEO Magglio
08-02-2004, 06:54 PM
Does the national media actually watch any of our games? No.

jabrch
08-02-2004, 06:59 PM
WEEEEAAAK.

If he's making his claim simply based on that one stat, then as I've said before, he's obviously retarded.

You know, Curt Schilling threw 37 HRs during the year he won 22 games and compiled a 2.98 ERA. My god, find something else to complain about already.
Note that 5 of those 7 HRs came in two games, one at home, one in Detroit, where he was pitching with a lead late, and was doing what smart pitchers do - getting good stuff over and making hitters beat them. Of those 5, I believe most were also solo HRs - not shots that were likely to, on their own, make a difference.

This is grasping at straws when the FHs (FreddyHaters) need to find something to complain about.

CWSGuy406
08-02-2004, 07:06 PM
Well Contreras walks a ton of guys and Santana doesn't so apparently Santana has more pitches to go to and the command to attack hitters in the zone effectively.Since I watch the Twins a TON on MLB Extra Innings, let me tell you - IMHO, Santana's two strikeout pitches are his high fastball and his tantalizing changeup, both of which are thrown out of the zone.

I'm just saying, he (the BP guy) is making a really silly comment by saying 'Just lay off the splitter, and you'll be OK.'

Jeremy - I can understand your beef with this trade, and some of Kenny's other trades. But even you can admit that's a pretty stupid comment...

jeremyb1
08-02-2004, 07:14 PM
And he still has a 3.60 ERA. Hmm.

Truth be told it's closer to 3.7 and if you think ERA is a precise statistic, particularly when you're only talking about seven starts (one ball a few feet to the left probably makes his ERA 4). If his ERA was 3.9 or 4 he'd be considered a 2 and not an ace and it's 3.67. I think the obvious point here is to make drastic statements one way or the other based solely on ERA over seven starts is worthless.

---- most of you probably won't want to read past this point ----

If you really want to get into the numbers despite the small sample size (although I think the long term, more reasonable sample size is far less favorable to Freddy) lets look at the numbers before and after the trade.

With Seattle:

2.69 BB/9, 6.9 K/9, 2.56 K/BB, .67 HR/9, 3.20 ERA

With Us:

2.02 BB/9, 9.0 K/9, 4.46 K/BB, 1.29 HR/9, 3.67 ERA

So Freddy's been effective for both teams but in a rather different fashion. With our club, he's allowed twice the home runs but minimzed the damage with sharp increases in his walks and his strikeouts in particular leading to nearly twice the K/BB.

I'd think we can all agree it's strange for a pitcher to become a completely different pitcher just because he was traded and that seven games doesn't tell you a lot so let's examine how his performances at the two different stops this season fall in line with his career numbers (best seasons in parentheses).

3.14 BB/9 (2.60 in '01), 6.82 K/9 (7.60 in '99), 2.17 K/BB (2.87 in '02), .99 HR/9 (.60 in '01).

So Garcia's walk total was more or less in line with his career totals, maybe a little better this season prior to his Sox stint. In his seven Sox starts he's allowed half a walk a game fewer than at any season in his career and more than a full walk less than he has over his career so the best case scenario is probably that he reverts to his levels with Seattle this season. His K rate with the Sox is even more out of line with his career as he's striking out an extra two batters a game for us and one and a half more than in his best seasons. Again, it seems unlikely those numbers will stay so high.

The truly interesting stat is his propensity to give up the long ball. This season in Seattle and in '01 (as well as '99 to a degree) Garcia did a great job of keeping the ball in the park. However in '00, '02, and '03 as well as since he's come over from Seattle, Garcia has surredered a ton of long balls. The most obvious explanation is that he benefitted from the dimensions in Safeco. However, if you look from '01 to '03 Garcia gave up home runs just as often at home as he did on the road.

There is an explanation for how Garcia allowed so few Home Runs in '01 and '99 however. His G/FB ratio was a solid 1.4 as opposed to 1.14, 1.15, and 1.03 in '00, '02, and '03 respectively. '00 should probably be taken with a grain of salt since he missed time starting only 20 games. It seems that when Garcia keeps the ball on the ground as one would expect he allows far fewer home runs. Well since Garcia allowed so few homeruns in Seattle this season when we acquired him he must've started throwing more ground balls again, right? Well no. This season his GB/FB ratio is a 1.07, the second worst of his career. Which I'm guessing explains why he's allowed 2 home runs in 50 innings in the spacious Safeco and 13 home runs in 100 innings in every other park. Freddy needs to start keeping the ball on the ground more or somehow keep up his massive increase in K's and decrease in BB's over the last seven games because if he continues to be on pace to allow 30 home runs a season outside of Safeco field, which he's done for three consecutive seasons now, the ERA is going to be over 4 I'd imagine. That's a good two but it's not a 9 million a season ace.

jeremyb1
08-02-2004, 07:17 PM
You know, Curt Schilling threw 37 HRs during the year he won 22 games and compiled a 2.98 ERA. My god, find something else to complain about already.

ROFL. You'll have to get back to me when Freddy Garcia can post a K/BB ratio of 7.5!!

jeremyb1
08-02-2004, 07:19 PM
Since I watch the Twins a TON on MLB Extra Innings, let me tell you - IMHO, Santana's two strikeout pitches are his high fastball and his tantalizing changeup, both of which are thrown out of the zone.

I'm just saying, he (the BP guy) is making a really silly comment by saying 'Just lay off the splitter, and you'll be OK.'

Jeremy - I can understand your beef with this trade, and some of Kenny's other trades. But even you can admit that's a pretty stupid comment...

Those are his strikeout pitches though he doesn't throw them early in the count. Maybe I just understand what he's getting at more because I've read the same argument before. I don't know about the splitter, maybe that's a dumb comment but the point Sheehan is making is that Contreras has bad control and hence struggles against disciplined teams. He made this argument in a column prior to the start of the season with Contreras coming of a 3.3 ERA and the guy has imploded to the tune of a 5.5 ERA this season. His walks are quite high and as I said, if you look he's been crushed by teams such as Oakland and Boston that stress plate discipline.

jeremyb1
08-02-2004, 07:23 PM
Freddy Garcia has was amongst the top pitchers in the AL in July. 12 ER in 35.2 IP (ERA under 3.00) with 3 games at USCF. Opponents hit about .210 off of him. Only gave up 10 walks. How is that not good pitching?

It's marvelous pitching and if he can continue to maintain this bump in K's and BB's over the next three seasons he can continue to pitch that well but I'm going to side with the 1100 IP over the most recent 50 IP to look for trends.

I agree that it wasn't an insightful comment by Karl that the Sox may be disinchanted with Garcia. I don't think he meant to indicate he believe the Sox actually were upset with him, he was merely trying to tie the current analysis back to his prior analysis of the Garcia trade/extension where he argued he didn't think the Sox were getting a pitcher as good as they believed. If you take it literally, it doesn't make much sense but I think it was more poor phrasing directed at an audience different than the posters in this thread that understood it merely as a reference to what was already believed about Garcia and not his most recent performance.

But yeah, obviously I don't agree with it if taken in a literal sense. I think it's wrong. Garcia has pitched wonderfully with great results, I just don't think you can book that identical performance down the road.

Win1ForMe
08-02-2004, 07:24 PM
Truth be told it's closer to 3.7 and if you think ERA is a precise statistic, particularly when you're only talking about seven starts (one ball a few feet to the left probably makes his ERA 4).
By the same token, the one hit horribly misplayed by Rowand yesterday opened the door for two extra runs. Those same two runs boosted his ERA. Of course, and not surprisingly, you neglected that little detail. I mean, one ball a few feet to the right probably makes his ERA 3.

I think the obvious point here is to make drastic statements one way or the other based solely on ERA over seven starts is worthless.
Blah blah blah. Wouldn't judging his HR totals based on 7 stats be worthless as well? 5 of them came in 2 starts, right?

jeremyb1
08-02-2004, 07:28 PM
By the same token, the one hit horribly misplayed by Rowand yesterday opened the door for two extra runs. Those same two runs boosted his ERA. Of course, and not surprisingly, you neglected that little detail. I mean, one ball a few feet to the right probably makes his ERA 3.

Well I thought it was common sense that the point was that ERA isn't particularly relevant over just seven starts. You obviously figured it out and I'm guessing everyone else did too. Give your fellow posters a bit more credit.

The lesson was that you can't read much in so few starts and if you're going to look at ERA you have to look at peripherals which were the longer part of the post.

Blah blah blah. Wouldn't judging his HR totals based on 7 stats be worthless as well? 5 of them came in 2 starts, right?

Well we're discussing how he pitched since he's been with the White Sox. So yes, I think it's worthless to look at his home run totals for just seven starts but since people are being adamant about looking at his ERA over seven starts, we need to look at how it got there. Ideally, we wouldn't be looking at any of the stats at all over seven starts because it's a very small sample size but I didn't see people willing to do that.

OEO Magglio
08-02-2004, 07:32 PM
Garcia has pitched wonderfully with great results, I just don't think you can book that identical performance down the road.Now I don't agree with that but if Karl would have said that, his article would have been much more credible in my mind.

batmanZoSo
08-02-2004, 07:38 PM
I laughed out loud on that one. :D:

I like the part about Freddie Garcia...what exactly has he done that has shown he wasn't the staff ace...Hey Corky Karl...ISN'T THE ACE SUPPOSED TO STOP LOSING STREAKS?
Garcia is the best pitcher on the team, he's our ace. But does every ace have to be as good as Pedro or Randy Johnson? No one ever said Garcia was. He's the next tier down, which is still damn good. And his Abe Lincoln beard earns him bonus points in my book.

Win1ForMe
08-02-2004, 07:42 PM
So yes, I think it's worthless to look at his home run totals for just seven starts
But it hasn't stopped you or Chris Karl from looking. You would agree then that saying Freddy Garcia has not pitched like an ace (or saying that he has) is premature? Just so you know, that's what Karl said.

but since people are being adamant about looking at his ERA over seven starts, we need to look at how it got there.
Actually, Karl was adamant about saying Garcia wasn't an ace, and then you quickly defended him by brining up "worthless" (your words) HR totals.

So you do agree with my general premise, Chris Karl is a retard?

jeremyb1
08-02-2004, 08:29 PM
But it hasn't stopped you or Chris Karl from looking. You would agree then that saying Freddy Garcia has not pitched like an ace (or saying that he has) is premature? Just so you know, that's what Karl said.

Karl only said "Could it be the White Sox are realizing Garcia's not the ace they thought he was?" That's a very vague statement and intentionally so. As I've said I think his intent was to harkon back to that argument which he made in an earlier transaction analysis not to critisize Garcia's performance with the White Sox thus far. Karl's comment said absolutely nothing about Garcia's performance only the Sox impression of him and that's if you choose to take it literally which is not how I interpret it.

I only looked at the stats when other people threw them around. If people are going to look at a small sample size, I'd rather look at it in context than out of context.

Actually, Karl was adamant about saying Garcia wasn't an ace, and then you quickly defended him by brining up "worthless" (your words) HR totals.

Nope. Quote me the post where I said "Garcia is not an ace because of his home run production with the White Sox" or "Garcia has not pitched as an ace with the White Sox due to his home run totals." I'd love to see it.

I brought up Garcia's HR totals only in response to a poster citing his stats without the home run totals. As I just said above if people are going to look at stats without a lot of meaning it still makes more sense to take a good look at them than to take an incomplete look at them. I used Garcia's Sox totals as a spring board to look at his career totals showing why his Sox totals weren't in line with his career numbers and hence why such a small sample size is dangerous. At no point did I argue his stats with us this season were an important indicator of his ability without combining them with hundreds of other innings in his career.

pudge
08-02-2004, 08:52 PM
Those are some of the dumbest remarks I've seen from BP... first off, nobody ever claimed Freddy was an out-and-out ace. I don't think Kenny Williams thought he was getting Curt Schilling or Roger Clemens when he got Garcia. Secondly, why is the Loaiza trade a white flag?? Loazia was awful with us, if anything it's a wash, and Kenny is taking an intriguing gamble on a pitcher who might just make our rotation outstanding in '05 if Contreras can figure some things out.

Win1ForMe
08-02-2004, 09:04 PM
Karl only said "Could it be the White Sox are realizing Garcia's not the ace they thought he was?" That's a very vague statement and intentionally so. ... Karl's comment said absolutely nothing about Garcia's performance only the Sox impression of him and that's if you choose to take it literally which is not how I interpret it.
Karl said: "...now that it's really looking like Freddy Garcia isn't the staff ace the Sox talked themselves into thinking he was."

I think you have to read those comments through your BP starter kit glasses to think Karl "said absolutely nothing about Garcia's performance." Seems pretty obvious to me.

I only looked at the stats when other people threw them around. If people are going to look at a small sample size, I'd rather look at it in context than out of context.

Well, the numbers were brought up to dispute Karl's claim, which was based only on Garcia's performance with the White Sox.

Stats were thrown around only because of Karl's statement, and the small sample size stats clearly prove he's wrong. There's no way he could make that claim based on those numbers (Not to mention one can't make a reasonable judgement based on 50 IP).

Therefore, Chris Karl is a retard.

soxwon
08-02-2004, 09:07 PM
Prediction:

contreras will throw a 2 hitter tommorow
strike out 6
sox win 8-1

OEO Magglio
08-02-2004, 09:17 PM
Jeremy, I agree with you that Garcia's time here is to much of a sample size to make a decision on him one way or the other, however that's not what we're talking about. Like win1forme said I threw the stats out there to prove how moronic Karl's theory is. To translate what he said is basically that the sox have realized he's not an ace because of his performance here. That is just completely idiotic considering Freddy has pitched exactly like an ace. Is Freddy's time in chicago to little to consider him an ace or not....... no doubt but are Karl's statements idiotic.........most definitely.

pczarapa
08-02-2004, 09:25 PM
Good thing I don't have a BP subscription because Chris Karl is obviously retarded.

Yep, can't contest that. He sounds very bitter, like Kenny stole his bike.

Flight #24
08-02-2004, 09:54 PM
Truth be told it's closer to 3.7 and if you think ERA is a precise statistic, particularly when you're only talking about seven starts (one ball a few feet to the left probably makes his ERA 4). If his ERA was 3.9 or 4 he'd be considered a 2 and not an ace and it's 3.67. I think the obvious point here is to make drastic statements one way or the other based solely on ERA over seven starts is worthless.
Huh? per ESPN 5 minutes ago, his ERA is 3.27 / 3.46 with Chicago.


If you really want to get into the numbers despite the small sample size (although I think the long term, more reasonable sample size is far less favorable to Freddy) lets look at the numbers before and after the trade.
I think it's even more useful to look at his numbers pre & post-ear injury

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
WHIP 1.47 1.42 1.13 1.30 1.33 1.20
ERA 4.07 3.91 3.05 4.39 4.52 3.27
K/BB 1.89 1.23 2.36 2.87 2.03 2.93
K/9 7.6 5.72 6.15 7.28 6.44 7.45
OPS .741 .733 .629 .729 .751 .655

If you eliminate 02 & 03, it's a relatively consistent pattern of a young ace pitcher. If Garcia had had an arm injury and recovered, no one would have said anything about 02 & 03, it would be "he was pitching hurt, now he's recovered". Instead, he had arguably a better injury to recover from, ruptured eardrums (since it's not arm-related). It's been reported that he was in constant pain (something I'm sure the impact & jarring associated with pitching helped), and had issues with balance. Both are consistent with the injury, and it's not at all surprising that his performance was impacted. He's now healthy, and imagine that - his performance is in line with what it was pre-injury.


That's a good two but it's not a 9 million a season ace.
I guess we have vastly different ideas of what an ace & a #2 are, and what their market worth is. Based on recent signings -

Sidney Ponson makes $7.5mil/yr. He's had 1 year when his ERA was under 4 and his WHIP was under 1.3 (conveniently, in his FA year including a trip to the NL). I'd call him a solid #2 or a weak #1

Kelvim Escobar makes $6.25mil/yr. He's never posted an ERA under 4.20 or a WHIP under 1.4 in years when he's started at least 20 games. I'd call him a solid #2

Bartolo Colon makes $11mil/yr. He's got a much better track record, and I'd call him a solid #1.

Tom Glavine makes 10.8. Russ Ortiz makes 6.2. Brad Radke makes 8. Garcia seems pegged about right above Ortiz/Radke & below Glavine.

Garcia's put up comparable or better #s to Ponson & Escobar in his injured years, and has put up significantly better #s in his non-injured years. $9mil/yr seems about right. I don't know who you think you could get that would be a better pitcher for less money. And I certainly dont' think that a Ponson and a 3mil pitcher would be money better spent. As the Sox were learning earlier in the season, having a staff of a #2, 2 #3s, and a #4 isn't really all that great. He's arguably approaching Colon status, and he's paid a lot less. He's not Pedro, Schilling, Randy, etc. But they'll all demand much higher $$$. Watch and see what Tim Hudson gets when he hits the market, unless there's a significant economic shift, it'll be at least 1-2mil more.

fquaye149
08-02-2004, 10:04 PM
Huh? per ESPN 5 minutes ago, his ERA is 3.27 / 3.46 with Chicago.


I think it's even more useful to look at his numbers pre & post-ear injury

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
WHIP 1.47 1.42 1.13 1.30 1.33 1.20
ERA 4.07 3.91 3.05 4.39 4.52 3.27
K/BB 1.89 1.23 2.36 2.87 2.03 2.93
K/9 7.6 5.72 6.15 7.28 6.44 7.45
OPS .741 .733 .629 .729 .751 .655

If you eliminate 02 & 03, it's a relatively consistent pattern of a young ace pitcher. If Garcia had had an arm injury and recovered, no one would have said anything about 02 & 03, it would be "he was pitching hurt, now he's recovered". Instead, he had arguably a better injury to recover from, ruptured eardrums (since it's not arm-related). It's been reported that he was in constant pain (something I'm sure the impact & jarring associated with pitching helped), and had issues with balance. Both are consistent with the injury, and it's not at all surprising that his performance was impacted. He's now healthy, and imagine that - his performance is in line with what it was pre-injury.



I guess we have vastly different ideas of what an ace & a #2 are, and what their market worth is. Based on recent signings -

Sidney Ponson makes $7.5mil/yr. He's had 1 year when his ERA was under 4 and his WHIP was under 1.3 (conveniently, in his FA year including a trip to the NL). I'd call him a solid #2 or a weak #1

Kelvim Escobar makes $6.25mil/yr. He's never posted an ERA under 4.20 or a WHIP under 1.4 in years when he's started at least 20 games. I'd call him a solid #2

Bartolo Colon makes $11mil/yr. He's got a much better track record, and I'd call him a solid #1.

Tom Glavine makes 10.8. Russ Ortiz makes 6.2. Brad Radke makes 8. Garcia seems pegged about right above Ortiz/Radke & below Glavine.

Garcia's put up comparable or better #s to Ponson & Escobar in his injured years, and has put up significantly better #s in his non-injured years. $9mil/yr seems about right. I don't know who you think you could get that would be a better pitcher for less money. And I certainly dont' think that a Ponson and a 3mil pitcher would be money better spent. As the Sox were learning earlier in the season, having a staff of a #2, 2 #3s, and a #4 isn't really all that great. He's arguably approaching Colon status, and he's paid a lot less. He's not Pedro, Schilling, Randy, etc. But they'll all demand much higher $$$. Watch and see what Tim Hudson gets when he hits the market, unless there's a significant economic shift, it'll be at least 1-2mil more.
don't try logic here. it's a lost cause.

Anyone who says the Garcia SIGNING was a bad one is crazy. He is probably a number one on half the teams in baseball and top 3 in all but maybe 2 or 3. The trade, that MIGHT be a different story.

batmanZoSo
08-02-2004, 10:26 PM
Those are some of the dumbest remarks I've seen from BP... first off, nobody ever claimed Freddy was an out-and-out ace. I don't think Kenny Williams thought he was getting Curt Schilling or Roger Clemens when he got Garcia. Secondly, why is the Loaiza trade a white flag?? Loazia was awful with us, if anything it's a wash, and Kenny is taking an intriguing ...gamble on a pitcher who might just make our rotation outstanding in '05 if Contreras can figure some things out.
Everyone read this post again. This is the case.

White flag my arse. Loaiza will only go down, Contreras might go way up.

Win1ForMe
08-02-2004, 10:33 PM
ROFL. You'll have to get back to me when Freddy Garcia can post a K/BB ratio of 7.5!!
Just saw this, sorry.

Schilling's '99: 25 HR in only 180 IP. 15 W - 6 L, 3.54 ERA. K/BB ratio of 3.46. :o: I'm shocked.

jeremyb1
08-02-2004, 10:57 PM
Karl said: "...now that it's really looking like Freddy Garcia isn't the staff ace the Sox talked themselves into thinking he was."

I think you have to read those comments through your BP starter kit glasses to think Karl "said absolutely nothing about Garcia's performance." Seems pretty obvious to me.

I stand corrected then. I misread what he wrote. I can admit was wrong you were right but I'm not sure it's so classy to gloat with your jackass "BP starter kit glasses" comment.

Well, the numbers were brought up to dispute Karl's claim, which was based only on Garcia's performance with the White Sox.

Stats were thrown around only because of Karl's statement, and the small sample size stats clearly prove he's wrong. There's no way he could make that claim based on those numbers (Not to mention one can't make a reasonable judgement based on 50 IP).

Therefore, Chris Karl is a retard.

That's fine but you accused me personally of placing emphasis on the small sample size. I guess you're then apologizing for misrepresenting what I wrote? If Chris Karl is "a retard" because he wrote one inaccurate statement (that most was most likely a fact based error as opposed to a reasoning based error) you'd better not read your own posts. I'm not sure you could take it.

jeremyb1
08-02-2004, 11:01 PM
Jeremy, I agree with you that Garcia's time here is to much of a sample size to make a decision on him one way or the other, however that's not what we're talking about. Like win1forme said I threw the stats out there to prove how moronic Karl's theory is. To translate what he said is basically that the sox have realized he's not an ace because of his performance here. That is just completely idiotic considering Freddy has pitched exactly like an ace. Is Freddy's time in chicago to little to consider him an ace or not....... no doubt but are Karl's statements idiotic.........most definitely.

No. Karl made a mistake in evaluating Garcia's performance with the White Sox. I'm guessing he'd seen a few of his poorer starts, assumed he struggled some and did a poor job looking up the information to confirm that notion.

At no point is Karl evaluating Garcia on his pitching with the White Sox. You can read his transaction analysis from the intial trade, I posted it here. The entire gist of it was that based on his stats from '02 and '03, Garcia is not as good a pitcher as his '04 performance with the M's seem to have let KW to believe. If he's reiterating an argument that he made before Freddy Garcia pitched a single game for the White Sox it can't be based on his performance with the White Sox. He was wondering if the small sample size allowed the organization to realize what he'd argued all along.

jeremyb1
08-02-2004, 11:20 PM
Sorry. Double Post.

jeremyb1
08-02-2004, 11:22 PM
Huh? per ESPN 5 minutes ago, his ERA is 3.27 / 3.46 with Chicago.

Haha. Hmm. Well it's coming up 3.20 with Sea, 3.67 with us, 3.35 overall.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?statsId=6168


I think it's even more useful to look at his numbers pre & post-ear injury

If you eliminate 02 & 03, it's a relatively consistent pattern of a young ace pitcher.

Well we definitely agree it's important to look at them pre and post. I've yet to hear a compelling explanation as to why it apparently only affected his ability to keep the ball on the ground and in the ballpark and nothing else. His BB and K rates are as good or better than any other point in his career. K's are generally seen as a sign of dominance, he was just as dominant with this terrible injury? I just don't get it.

I guess we have vastly different ideas of what an ace & a #2 are, and what their market worth is. Based on recent signings -

Sidney Ponson makes $7.5mil/yr. He's had 1 year when his ERA was under 4 and his WHIP was under 1.3 (conveniently, in his FA year including a trip to the NL). I'd call him a solid #2 or a weak #1

Kelvim Escobar makes $6.25mil/yr. He's never posted an ERA under 4.20 or a WHIP under 1.4 in years when he's started at least 20 games. I'd call him a solid #2

Bartolo Colon makes $11mil/yr. He's got a much better track record, and I'd call him a solid #1.

Tom Glavine makes 10.8. Russ Ortiz makes 6.2. Brad Radke makes 8. Garcia seems pegged about right above Ortiz/Radke & below Glavine.

Well just because other players earn the salaries doesn't make them reasonable in my opinion. I'd first like to point out that of the six players you pointed out, five of them play for teams with larger payrolls than us so they may be inclined to spend more and to overpay. I think Escobar and Ponson were both really poor signings. Still, if one full season with an ERA under 4 makes Ponson worth 7 million I'm not sure two make Garcia worth 9. Glavine in my opinion wasn't a great signing because of his age at the time but the two reasons he makes more than Garcia are 1) it was a different market two seasons ago and 2) the guy is a borderline HOFer. He only had one or two seasons similar to Garcia's last two seasons before this one in the ten years prior to his signing.

Garcia's put up comparable or better #s to Ponson & Escobar in his injured years, and has put up significantly better #s in his non-injured years. $9mil/yr seems about right. I don't know who you think you could get that would be a better pitcher for less money. And I certainly dont' think that a Ponson and a 3mil pitcher would be money better spent. As the Sox were learning earlier in the season, having a staff of a #2, 2 #3s, and a #4 isn't really all that great. He's arguably approaching Colon status, and he's paid a lot less. He's not Pedro, Schilling, Randy, etc. But they'll all demand much higher $$$. Watch and see what Tim Hudson gets when he hits the market, unless there's a significant economic shift, it'll be at least 1-2mil more.

I'm sorry man. When it comes down to it I don't buy that the ear condition had any significant impact on Garcia's last two seasons. There've supposedly been reports from those in Seattle that it had no effect on his pitching and the numbers bear that out unless again this is the injury that only affects allowing home runs. I've never argued that we overpaid for Garcia by very much in terms of the extension as far as what the market allows. I think there's some chance he would've gone for closer to 8 on the open market but basically similar money. My argument more was that it's not a particularly great value compared to what the market should offer (at best that's what he would've received in my opinion) and moreso that I don't think it's a good value even if other GMs are willing to pay it.

I don't really see the Colon comparison. Colon has been much more consistent. His worst ERA has been 4.09 and he still K'd 200 guys that season. Regardless of your opinion of Garcia and regardless of how much you think the ear injury affected him the bottom line is that he gave up a lot of home runs the past two seasons and as a result did not end up pitching all that well.

Pedro, Schilling, Johnson, etc. wouldn't get the deals approaching 20 million those types of pitchers have received in the past this upcoming offseason. They'd get in the neighborhood of Colon money. Hudson will get more than Garcia and he deserves to. I think Hudson for 12 is a much, much better investment than 9 million to Garcia. If I'm paying out tons of money to a starter I want to pay it to a guy whose the spitting image of a dominant starter and has a very strong track record. That way injury or some shocking dropoff is all that could really go wrong. With Garcia, if he posts a 4.5 ERA over the next three seasons I wouldn't be at all shocked whereas I would with Hudson.

jeremyb1
08-02-2004, 11:23 PM
don't try logic here. it's a lost cause.

Anyone who says the Garcia SIGNING was a bad one is crazy. He is probably a number one on half the teams in baseball and top 3 in all but maybe 2 or 3. The trade, that MIGHT be a different story.

Did you believe that last season or this past offseason?

CWSGuy406
08-02-2004, 11:37 PM
Just saw this, sorry.

Schilling's '99: 25 HR in only 180 IP. 15 W - 6 L, 3.54 ERA. K/BB ratio of 3.46. :o: I'm shocked.
...Still haven't answered this, jeremy. You were wrong about Freddy's ERA, now you're wrong about Schilling's K/BB, K/9 ratio. Do you even look up these numbers, err what?

OEO Magglio
08-02-2004, 11:39 PM
Jeremy said:Did you believe that last season or this past offseason?


Well I for one actually really wanted Freddy in the offseason, I'm sure you can find a post of mine in the offseason where I mentioned that if you really want to. Anyways Jeremy are you saying that you don't think Freddy is worthy of 9 mill or you don't think an ace is worth 9 mill? If you don't think freddy is worth 9 mill then I disagree with you but you have your concerns with him so I understand where that is coming from. If your saying an ace isn't worth 9 mill, then that I wouldn't understand.

Vsahajpal
08-02-2004, 11:50 PM
...Still haven't answered this, jeremy. You were wrong about Freddy's ERA, now you're wrong about Schilling's K/BB, K/9 ratio. Do you even look up these numbers, err what?

Err...the year in question was 2001, when Schilling gave up 37 HR. He was 22-6, 2.98, with 293 K against 39 BB (7.51 K/BB)

gobears1987
08-03-2004, 12:11 AM
For the Yankees who trot out one of the best lineups in the game. Terry 'Freaking' Mullholland could have a 15-7 record for them given 30 starts.

So, the Yankees fans think that the W.Sox got screwed.
And the W.Sox fans thing that the Yankees got screwed.

Sounds like a fair deal to me. :)
The difference is we know they got screwed, I was at the 6-22 Cleveland game where ELo was perfect through 3 innings and then with 1 out in the 5th gave up 6 earned runs. (luckily Cotts came in and shut that inning down). ELo deserved a loss, but the Sox were winning 8-0 when he started to Collapse. Shingo did win it in extra innings thanks to a Jose walk off homer.

JB98
08-03-2004, 12:52 AM
I don't know if any of you guys watched the Monday Night game on ESPN this evening, but Sutcliffe expressed his disbelief that the Sox "gave up" on Loaiza. He also indicated that the Sox appear to be conceding the division to the Twins with this deal. The national media really don't watch our games, do they? Give Loaiza about four starts in NY, and they'll all be singing a different tune. With our diminished offense, we couldn't afford to keep a starter who is guaranteed to give up 4-6 runs every start. We need to catch lightning in a bottle in order to win the division, and I think we have a better chance of doing that with Contreras than with Loaiza.

There has been way too much statistical analysis in this thread. I don't go by numbers or hype. I go by what I see when I watch the game, and Garcia is throwing the ball like an ace. Let's hope it continues.

Flight #24
08-03-2004, 05:52 AM
Haha. Hmm. Well it's coming up 3.20 with Sea, 3.67 with us, 3.35 overall.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?statsId=6168

That's really odd. I have no explanation, maybe I misread something or my Lasik's wearing off:?: .



Well we definitely agree it's important to look at them pre and post. I've yet to hear a compelling explanation as to why it apparently only affected his ability to keep the ball on the ground and in the ballpark and nothing else. His BB and K rates are as good or better than any other point in his career. K's are generally seen as a sign of dominance, he was just as dominant with this terrible injury? I just don't get it.
Easy. The injury isn't something that destroys his ability like an arm injury would. It's on the margin. So for a guy that challenges hitters, there are more balls that end up over the plate because he doesn't want to walk guys. More K/s, Fewer BBs, more hits & runs. The pain may also have inhibited him from "going all out" since exertion usually increases pain. Less effort = slower pitches = more hits, unless he started nibbling more, which is not his style.

Basically, you can say 2001 was a fluke AND this year is, and that 02 & 03 conveniently happened in the middle with no correlation to the injury at the same time. Or you can say that there seems to have been something going on since 04 appears in line with his 99-01 trends. The latter seems much more likely to me.


Well just because other players earn the salaries doesn't make them reasonable in my opinion. I'd first like to point out that of the six players you pointed out, five of them play for teams with larger payrolls than us so they may be inclined to spend more and to overpay.

Hey - I think they all make too much money, but that's the market that's out there. I haven't seen any pitchers of that ability going for anything significantly less, infact a better argument can be made that Garcia's a slightly cheap or market value signing than an expensive one.

There's no way to convince you on this except to see how Garcia pitches.

fquaye149
08-03-2004, 07:17 AM
Did you believe that last season or this past offseason?
Absolutely not. But I was ignorant of his ear injury which seems to account for his lousy two seasons. Yet you keep ignoring/skirting that, though your precious statistics do nothing but corroborate it.

Based on the assumption that he has overcome an injury that affected his pitching, yes I would have believed that last season or this past offseason. But at the time I was ignorant. What's your excuse now?

gosox41
08-03-2004, 08:12 AM
Who wants to put an over/under of how many posts of argument this thread will produce about a stupid deal that is probably going to be a wash anyway.

:rolleyes:
I don't necessarily think this deal will be a wash. The Sox could have gotten 2 draft picks and let Loaiza go after this season. Instead, the Sox may be stuck with another head case pitcher but for 2 more years at a price of $12 mill.


Bob

Flight #24
08-03-2004, 10:05 AM
The Yankees found a taker for Jose Contreras, sending him to the White Sox for Esteban Loaiza.

I can't be rational about this. Even though Loaiza has reverted to being an innings sponge this year, any trade that sends Contreras away is a good one. He can't pitch to good teams; lay off the splitter low, get ahead in the count, and it's over. He might be a good two-inning reliever, and I think there's a good chance he'll save 30 games some year, but he's a lousy starting pitcher and an absolute nightmare to watch. Loaiza is, at least, better than that. More importantly, he can be cut loose after this season.

I'm not sure what Kenny Williams was thinking here. His window for winning with this team is the next two months, and he made a trade that will make the Sox worse in the short term, and saddles him with a mediocre pitcher for $14 million over two more seasons. He needed to be aggressive about adding OBP and perhaps a reliever, and instead he let the offensive problems fester while adding a headache.

And he gave the Yankees payroll relief. Remember that $14 million when the Yankees sign somebody good this winter.
This "analysis" borders on the ludicrous. For an outfit that prides itself on using statistics to eliminate short-term trends and determine a players "true" value, this is one of the shoddiest pieces I've ever seen. Where to start:

Loaiza as "innings sponge". If by that you mean "a guy who gives up a lot of runs, but has been left in the game because his team has scored for him", sure. Since June 1, he's had *2* games where he gave up less than 4 runs. June/July ERA = 5.35 / 6.89. That sponge appears pretty old & moldy.

Loaiza as an "allstar". Yes, he playd in the allstar game. But that was as much of a sham as Jason Giambi being the "starter". Loaiza's 3 prior years to 2003 had WHIPs in the high 1.4s, K/( in the mid 5s, K/BB in the mid 2s and HR/9 over 1. Last year, ALL of those improved dramatically (WHIP=1.11 / K/(=8.24 / K/BB=3.7 / HR/9=.68). This year his #s are surprisingly like the first set mentioned.

Let's compare 2 pitchers:

A: 1.43 WHIP, 5.33 K/9, 1.84 K/BB, 1.48 HR/9, 4.86ERA
B: 1.42WHIP, 7.75K/9, 1.95 K/BB, 2.08HR/9, 5.65 ERA

Looks to me like B is better than A in all but HRs allowed. That's not insignificant, but when you factor in that A's #s are all in line with his historical performance (excepting the fluke year in 2003), and B just last year put up a drmatically reduced HR/9 (.51) & WHIP (1.15), Id' say that B at least has a chance to be better THIS YEAR. Add in that he's actually had some games this year where he showed that type of dominance, and it's another check on the side of B (yes, that's Jose).

Yet somehow, the "data-driven" BP can't cite one single stat except "he's a lousy starter", and "lay off of the splitter, get ahead in the count and it's over" (as if something similar couldn't be said about EVERY pitcher).

Let's see.....BP has consistently said KW gives up too much in deals (despite none of the guys except Kip Wells amounting to much of anything). Next they slam a deal without any actual analysis to support it. Seems consistent, and renders them virtually irrelevant.

Dadawg_77
08-03-2004, 10:48 AM
This "analysis" borders on the ludicrous. For an outfit that prides itself on using statistics to eliminate short-term trends and determine a players "true" value, this is one of the shoddiest pieces I've ever seen. Where to start:

Loaiza as "innings sponge". If by that you mean "a guy who gives up a lot of runs, but has been left in the game because his team has scored for him", sure. Since June 1, he's had *2* games where he gave up less than 4 runs. June/July ERA = 5.35 / 6.89. That sponge appears pretty old & moldy.

Loaiza as an "allstar". Yes, he playd in the allstar game. But that was as much of a sham as Jason Giambi being the "starter". Loaiza's 3 prior years to 2003 had WHIPs in the high 1.4s, K/( in the mid 5s, K/BB in the mid 2s and HR/9 over 1. Last year, ALL of those improved dramatically (WHIP=1.11 / K/(=8.24 / K/BB=3.7 / HR/9=.68). This year his #s are surprisingly like the first set mentioned.

Let's compare 2 pitchers:

A: 1.43 WHIP, 5.33 K/9, 1.84 K/BB, 1.48 HR/9, 4.86ERA
B: 1.42WHIP, 7.75K/9, 1.95 K/BB, 2.08HR/9, 5.65 ERA

Looks to me like B is better than A in all but HRs allowed. That's not insignificant, but when you factor in that A's #s are all in line with his historical performance (excepting the fluke year in 2003), and B just last year put up a drmatically reduced HR/9 (.51) & WHIP (1.15), Id' say that B at least has a chance to be better THIS YEAR. Add in that he's actually had some games this year where he showed that type of dominance, and it's another check on the side of B (yes, that's Jose).

Yet somehow, the "data-driven" BP can't cite one single stat except "he's a lousy starter", and "lay off of the splitter, get ahead in the count and it's over" (as if something similar couldn't be said about EVERY pitcher).

Let's see.....BP has consistently said KW gives up too much in deals (despite none of the guys except Kip Wells amounting to much of anything). Next they slam a deal without any actual analysis to support it. Seems consistent, and renders them virtually irrelevant.
Inning sponge is someone who soaks up innings but adds no other real vaule, E Lo this year. You also have to take into context this was written by a Yankees fan, so you are seeing that point of view. I think the comment about Kenny needing to add OBP was right on, and a hitter who can get on base would have helped this years team out more then Contreras. I think this deal ends up in a wash talent wise but salary constraints added by Contrera could end up hurting the Sox.

Dadawg_77
08-03-2004, 10:50 AM
Absolutely not. But I was ignorant of his ear injury which seems to account for his lousy two seasons. Yet you keep ignoring/skirting that, though your precious statistics do nothing but corroborate it.

Based on the assumption that he has overcome an injury that affected his pitching, yes I would have believed that last season or this past offseason. But at the time I was ignorant. What's your excuse now?
Well if you read his posts, you would clearly see, he said he doesn't believe the ear injury had any major effect. Medical personal form Seattle said it, Freddy said and even more importantly, it took him two years to correct the problem. If the injury was so serious don't you think it would have been corrected a lot sooner? But those who bring up surgery as reason why he has improved, keep ignoring/skirting that fact.

Frater Perdurabo
08-03-2004, 10:57 AM
The fact that the Sox signed Garcia instantly made the trade of Olivo and Reed (and whatever the heck his name was) better. I initially opposed giving up Olivo and Reed for a rent-a-pitcher, but to sign him for several more seasons made the trade a good one.

Likewise with Loiaza for Contreras. It too was a good deal to get a good (and potentially dominating) starter for several years in exchange for a career journeyman who, at the end of his career, will have had one great season.

The Sox now have the best rotation in the Central, with the strong possibility (with just few head adjustments to Contreras and Garland) that it could become one of the top rotations in the AL through at least 2006.

Flight #24
08-03-2004, 10:59 AM
Well if you read his posts, you would clearly see, he said he doesn't believe the ear injury had any major effect. Medical personal form Seattle said it, Freddy said and even more importantly, it took him two years to correct the problem. If the injury was so serious don't you think it would have been corrected a lot sooner? But those who bring up surgery as reason why he has improved, keep ignoring/skirting that fact.
He said it didn't have any impact initially, but then in the ESPN piece on him, he said it did affect his balance. I can easily believe that he didn't want to make excuses when it was happening, but after the fact wasn't worried since he was performing better. As to why he didn't get it corrected earlier, I have no idea.

What makes it seem more likely to me is that his performance this year seems much more in line with the trend established in his first 3. Obviously we'll have to see if he maintains it, but he hasn't shown any signs of regressing. That makes it just as likely that 02 & 03 were "fluke" years as 01 & 04, and the fact that he had a medical condition at the same time seems very coincidental. Put together, it maes a much stronger argument that he was impated than that he wasn't and his performance in both 2001 & 2004 are anomalies.

SoxxoS
08-03-2004, 11:06 AM
I watch the games, I can give a crap what baseball prospectus has to say. The guy has nasty stuff. He throws a fastball with life, 2 different curves and a nice change. He has a proven track record. He has pitched like an ace thusfar with the Sox. I don't understand this debate. BP is fine for somethings, but rediculous with others (this thread).

Dadawg_77
08-03-2004, 11:08 AM
He said it didn't have any impact initially, but then in the ESPN piece on him, he said it did affect his balance. I can easily believe that he didn't want to make excuses when it was happening, but after the fact wasn't worried since he was performing better. As to why he didn't get it corrected earlier, I have no idea.

What makes it seem more likely to me is that his performance this year seems much more in line with the trend established in his first 3. Obviously we'll have to see if he maintains it, but he hasn't shown any signs of regressing. That makes it just as likely that 02 & 03 were "fluke" years as 01 & 04, and the fact that he had a medical condition at the same time seems very coincidental. Put together, it maes a much stronger argument that he was impated than that he wasn't and his performance in both 2001 & 2004 are anomalies.
I see the ESPN as Freddy attributing his recent success to the surgery without any real cause and effect. Freddy isn't a doctor, so without any trained medical knowledge, he logically could go well since the surgery happen, my pitching has improved thus it must be the surgery that caused it. I think this is the stronger argument because if the ear condition could have cause the problem, he would have had the surgery much earlier then waiting two years. Another point is Garica is a different pitcher here then he was in Seattle. The eardrum correction surgery wouldn't have effected that.

Flight #24
08-03-2004, 11:23 AM
I see the ESPN as Freddy attributing his recent success to the surgery without any real cause and effect. Freddy isn't a doctor, so without any trained medical knowledge, he logically could go well since the surgery happen, my pitching has improved thus it must be the surgery that caused it. I think this is the stronger argument because if the ear condition could have cause the problem, he would have had the surgery much earlier then waiting two years. Another point is Garica is a different pitcher here then he was in Seattle. The eardrum correction surgery wouldn't have effected that.
I guess if the question is: was the Freddy in Seatle worth $9/yr? And is the Freddy with the Sox worth the $$$. I'd say yes to both. I think it's likely that he'll regress somewhat towards his #s this year in Seattle (but I can see how he could improve with the shift to a contender and a team where giving up 1-2 runs doesn't mean virtually automatic defeat). Regardless, his performance in Seattle this year combined with his age & his history puts him at a solid to good value at $9mil/yr.

If the question is: Is the Freddy of 2004 the "real" Freddy or is it more the 02 & 03 versions, I'd say it's more likely that 04 is than 02/03 because looking at his career, it seems to fit better in a trend.

As for his medical opinion, if he says it impacted him, then he must have been disturbed by the ears on the mound (despite his earlier comments). I don't think it's likely that he'd say that if it wasn't. He's feeling a lot better/more comfortable/balanced now and that translates to comfort on the mound which translates into better performance. It's also quite likely that he didn't think it was impacting him at the time, but after having it corrected, he realized how much it was and how much better he's able to pitch now.

jeremyb1
08-03-2004, 02:59 PM
Easy. The injury isn't something that destroys his ability like an arm injury would. It's on the margin. So for a guy that challenges hitters, there are more balls that end up over the plate because he doesn't want to walk guys. More K/s, Fewer BBs, more hits & runs. The pain may also have inhibited him from "going all out" since exertion usually increases pain. Less effort = slower pitches = more hits, unless he started nibbling more, which is not his style.

Alright. So the scenario I understand you to be putting forth is that due to his injury, Garcia has to adapt some in order to succeed. So since he wasn't able to hit his spots and make good pitches as often he had to go after hitters more with lesser stuff. I'd guess a pitcher with worse stuff and command than in the past would fear attacking hitters like Loaiza this season but I could be wrong (as you say he's not that type of pitcher) My question then is why did his strikeouts go up? Attacking hitters will increase your walks but it shouldn't increase your strikeouts as strikeouts are viewed as a measure of how good your command and stuff is which you seem to claim would be lacking due to the injury. Again, if he's not "going all out" due to the injury as you say, you'd expect a large dropoff in his strikeouts but there was none.

Basically, you can say 2001 was a fluke AND this year is, and that 02 & 03 conveniently happened in the middle with no correlation to the injury at the same time. Or you can say that there seems to have been something going on since 04 appears in line with his 99-01 trends. The latter seems much more likely to me.

Well if you read the previous thread, Garcia's numbers are not so different this season from the past two seasons. As I noted the only main difference is the home runs he allowed in his Seattle starts and in '01 and the increased K and BB rates in his 7 White Sox starts (which no one has argued is anything other than a result of a small sample thus far). So basically what we're looking at is his pattern of allowing home runs. It's been argued quite persuasively that the best determinant of allowing home runs is GB/FB ratio (if you keep the ball on the ground, fewer home runs). Garcia's GB/FB ratio has been lower ever since '01, including this season when he has been undeniably healthy. I don't think '01 was a fluke. It was largely the result of keeping the ball on the ground. I wouldn't call this season a fluke either. I'd call it Garcia finally benefitting from Safeco's spacious dimensions (13 of his 15 homers have come away from there). Park effects are a very real thing so it's not a fluke it's just park effects.

So assuming that Garcia's ear condition begun exactly at the began affecting him at the '02 season and ended exactly at the end of the '03 season then yes I think it's a coicidence that he started throwing more fly balls at the same time he was injured. However, I'm cautious to believe that after the fact. It's extremely easy to talk about timelines for injuries affecting players and the manner in which it affected them with 20/20 hindsight when you're trying to support a certain point.

Hey - I think they all make too much money, but that's the market that's out there. I haven't seen any pitchers of that ability going for anything significantly less, infact a better argument can be made that Garcia's a slightly cheap or market value signing than an expensive one.

There's no way to convince you on this except to see how Garcia pitches.

I guess. If he's lights out for the next three seasons then we got a bargain. My concern is that the players that are signed in the 6-9 million range are rarely a good bargain. I think it's clear that Garcia is closer to the Ponson, Escobar, Paul Byrd range than the Mulder, Hudson, Schilling range. I'd much rather have a superstar with extremely few question marks for 10-12 or an underrated innings eater for 3.

jeremyb1
08-03-2004, 03:30 PM
This "analysis" borders on the ludicrous. For an outfit that prides itself on using statistics to eliminate short-term trends and determine a players "true" value, this is one of the shoddiest pieces I've ever seen. Where to start:

Loaiza as "innings sponge". If by that you mean "a guy who gives up a lot of runs, but has been left in the game because his team has scored for him", sure. Since June 1, he's had *2* games where he gave up less than 4 runs. June/July ERA = 5.35 / 6.89. That sponge appears pretty old & moldy.

Aside from the editorializing and emphasis on splits and a small sample size, yes that's the definition of innings sponge. A guy who can eat up a lot of innings without pitching well but without pitching poorly enough to kill you. The pitcher's good enough to keep you in most games if you have a solid offenese and he saves a lot of wear and tear on your bullpen so there is some value there. But yeah, Sheehan wasn't talking him up as a strong pitcher right there just pointing out that he has some value.

Loaiza as an "allstar". Yes, he playd in the allstar game. But that was as much of a sham as Jason Giambi being the "starter". Loaiza's 3 prior years to 2003 had WHIPs in the high 1.4s, K/( in the mid 5s, K/BB in the mid 2s and HR/9 over 1. Last year, ALL of those improved dramatically (WHIP=1.11 / K/(=8.24 / K/BB=3.7 / HR/9=.68). This year his #s are surprisingly like the first set mentioned.

Was that an aside on your part? Sheehan didn't use the word All-Star in what you quoted. Was it in Karl's article? I'm too lazy to go back and check. It's pretty clear to me that Sheehan isn't portraying Loaiza as a great or probably even good pitcher. The terms "innings eater" or "innings sponge" are even derogatory in some circles. It basically means mediocre. I just think Joe correctly feels that there is some value is having a guy you know will be mediocre and pitch a fair amount of innings for you.

Let's compare 2 pitchers:

A: 1.43 WHIP, 5.33 K/9, 1.84 K/BB, 1.48 HR/9, 4.86ERA
B: 1.42WHIP, 7.75K/9, 1.95 K/BB, 2.08HR/9, 5.65 ERA

Looks to me like B is better than A in all but HRs allowed. That's not insignificant, but when you factor in that A's #s are all in line with his historical performance (excepting the fluke year in 2003), and B just last year put up a drmatically reduced HR/9 (.51) & WHIP (1.15), Id' say that B at least has a chance to be better THIS YEAR. Add in that he's actually had some games this year where he showed that type of dominance, and it's another check on the side of B (yes, that's Jose).

Well I think it's important to note that Loaiza has allowed fewer walks especially since Sheehan's entire problem with Contreras. So it'd be most accurate to say that Contreras has the edge in K's and a slight edge in K/BB with Loaiza outperforming him in home runs and walks. I have a problem with saying that Contreras' numbers are out of line with his career while the opposite is true for Loaiza. If Loaiza can throw 230 fluke innings in last season then Contreras could've certainly thrown 70 (!) fluke innings last season. There's far more evidence that Loaiza is a 3 ERA pitcher than there is that Contreras is a 3.3 ERA pitcher. Contreras has also thrown more pitches this season than last season so you could also say there's more evidence he's a 5.5 ERA pitcher than there is he's a 3.3 ERA pitcher.

Obviously that doesn't tell the entire story but I think it's incorrect to argue that Contreras has an equal or stronger MLB track record.

Yet somehow, the "data-driven" BP can't cite one single stat except "he's a lousy starter", and "lay off of the splitter, get ahead in the count and it's over" (as if something similar couldn't be said about EVERY pitcher).

Let's see.....BP has consistently said KW gives up too much in deals (despite none of the guys except Kip Wells amounting to much of anything). Next they slam a deal without any actual analysis to support it. Seems consistent, and renders them virtually irrelevant.

Sheehan's column is more of an editorial although obviously one coming from a performance standpoint. That column covered every major deal made on Saturday so there's not a whole lot of room for drawn out analysis and charts. Those are more present in Prospectus Triple Play. I think you'd be hardpressed to include tons of statistical data on the issue if you were only allowed 10 posts. Your post alone was probably 3 to four times the space Sheehan had in his article.

It'd be one thing if there were obvious inaccuracies in the article but your critique adds up to viewing issues differently as opposed to disproving points with facts. I think that the arguments that 1) Loaiza is an innings sponge 2) that Contreras struggles against good (disciplined) teams 3) that Loaiza is currently throwing the ball better and 4) that Loaiza has the more affordable contract in the long and short term can all be supported quite well by facts.

jeremyb1
08-03-2004, 03:33 PM
As for his medical opinion, if he says it impacted him, then he must have been disturbed by the ears on the mound (despite his earlier comments). I don't think it's likely that he'd say that if it wasn't.

Sorry but I find that to be somewhat simplistic reasoning. First of all, psychology will tell you that if a person is struggling in their career, particularly a career that will contribute to one's self image as much as pro athlete, the person will tend to blame environmental factors as oppossed to oneself.

Secondly, how could you argue that Garcia would take 10 million dollars from the Yankees over 9 million dollars from the White Sox if they were both on the table but wouldn't blame past poor performance on external factors in his walk year?

SoxxoS
08-03-2004, 03:35 PM
Secondly, how could you argue that Garcia would take 10 million dollars from the Yankees over 9 million dollars from the White Sox if they were both on the table but wouldn't blame past poor performance on external factors in his walk year?
:ozzie

"I'll tell you wat. I am going to be his cousin by blood. That is worth a million right dare."

OEO Magglio
08-03-2004, 03:40 PM
Let me fix this up a bit for you.




:ozzie

"I'll tell you wat. I am going to be this kids cousin by blood. That is worth a million (http://www.adsrve.com/linkredirect.php?h=528,28012355,whitesoxinteractiv e.com,1) right dare."

SoxxoS
08-03-2004, 03:54 PM
Let me fix this up a bit for you.You are right. If Garcia marries his niece, that would make Guillen his "uncle in-law" correct?

ndgt10
08-03-2004, 04:09 PM
I guess. If he's lights out for the next three seasons then we got a bargain. My concern is that the players that are signed in the 6-9 million range are rarely a good bargain. I think it's clear that Garcia is closer to the Ponson, Escobar, Paul Byrd range than the Mulder, Hudson, Schilling range. I'd much rather have a superstar with extremely few question marks for 10-12 or an underrated innings eater for 3.
Look at this seasons statistics for each of the pitchers you listed above, and you tell me how it is "CLEAR" that Garcia is closer to the Ponson, Escobar, Byrd range than the Mulder, Hudson, Schilling range:

Byrd 3-3 4.08 1.14 WHIP 5.63 K/9 .250
Ponson 6-12 5.81 1.62 WHIP 4.66 K/9 .309
Escobar 5-8 4.37 1.37 WHIP 7.77 K/9 .256

Mulder 14-3 3.43 1.19 WHIP 6.21 K/9 .241
Hudson 7-3 2.98 1.24 WHIP 4.31 K/9 .269
Schilling 12-5 3.46 1.15 WHIP 8.03 K/9 .257

Garcia 9-9 3.35 1.14 WHIP 7.56 K/9 .230

OEO Magglio
08-03-2004, 04:11 PM
Look at this seasons statistics for each of the pitchers you listed above, and you tell me how it is "CLEAR" that Garcia is closer to the Ponson, Escobar, Byrd range than the Mulder, Hudson, Schilling range:

Byrd 3-3 4.08 1.14 WHIP 5.63 K/9 .250
Ponson 6-12 5.81 1.62 WHIP 4.66 K/9 .309
Escobar 5-8 4.37 1.37 WHIP 7.77 K/9 .256

Mulder 14-3 3.43 1.19 WHIP 6.21 K/9 .241
Hudson 7-3 2.98 1.24 WHIP 4.31 K/9 .269
Schilling 12-5 3.46 1.15 WHIP 8.03 K/9 .257

Garcia 9-9 3.35 1.14 WHIP 7.56 K/9 .230Nicely done ndgt. Garcia is an ace, he's a great pitcher, he's no where near the Byrd, Ponson, or Escobar range.

SoxxoS
08-03-2004, 04:11 PM
Look at this seasons statistics for each of the pitchers you listed above, and you tell me how it is "CLEAR" that Garcia is closer to the Ponson, Escobar, Byrd range than the Mulder, Hudson, Schilling range:

Byrd 3-3 4.08 1.14 WHIP 5.63 K/9 .250
Ponson 6-12 5.81 1.62 WHIP 4.66 K/9 .309
Escobar 5-8 4.37 1.37 WHIP 7.77 K/9 .256

Mulder 14-3 3.43 1.19 WHIP 6.21 K/9 .241
Hudson 7-3 2.98 1.24 WHIP 4.31 K/9 .269
Schilling 12-5 3.46 1.15 WHIP 8.03 K/9 .257

Garcia 9-9 3.35 1.14 WHIP 7.56 K/9 .230
jeremy-You got served.

jeremyb1
08-03-2004, 05:24 PM
Look at this seasons statistics for each of the pitchers you listed above, and you tell me how it is "CLEAR" that Garcia is closer to the Ponson, Escobar, Byrd range than the Mulder, Hudson, Schilling range:

Byrd 3-3 4.08 1.14 WHIP 5.63 K/9 .250
Ponson 6-12 5.81 1.62 WHIP 4.66 K/9 .309
Escobar 5-8 4.37 1.37 WHIP 7.77 K/9 .256

Mulder 14-3 3.43 1.19 WHIP 6.21 K/9 .241
Hudson 7-3 2.98 1.24 WHIP 4.31 K/9 .269
Schilling 12-5 3.46 1.15 WHIP 8.03 K/9 .257

Garcia 9-9 3.35 1.14 WHIP 7.56 K/9 .230

Haha. Well you gave Garcia's stats from this season only! Furthermore you listed the current seasons of Byrd, Ponson, and Escobar when I was clearly discussing their contracts making peformance after the signings irrelevant.

If you change that section of your table to

Byrd 3.90 ERA
Ponson 3.75 ERA
Escobar 4.29 ERA

It doesn't look like I "got served" quite so much.

Garcia's career ERA is 3.88 not 3.34 (Schilling), 2.98 (Hudson), or 3.72 (Mulder).

Regardless, I wasn't referring to actual performance. If you take my post in context I'm talking about the risk involved in an investment in a starting pitcher. As I say at the end of the post I think it's safter to invest in a guy who's more of a certainty. In terms of risk, I think Garcia's consistency clearly ressembles the second group more.

ERAs in the last four seasons (obviously that's '99-'03 for Ponson and Escobar and '98-'02 for Byrd since we're discussing the contracts they were given):

Schilling 2.98, 3.23, 2.95, 3.46
Mulder 3.45, 3.47, 3.13, 3.43
Hudson 3.37, 2.98, 2.70, 2.98

Ponson 4.82, 4.95, 4.09, 3.75
Byrd 4.60, 6.51 (17 games, injured), 4.44, 3.90
Escobar 5.35, 3.50, 4.27, 4.29

Garcia 3.05, 4.39, 4.52, 3.20 (with Seattle)

Yes, Garcia is a better pitcher than the first group which is why I was careful not to say he was similar to that group, only that he was closer to that group than the first group (I can't think of too many recent FA pitchers similar to Garica). However, regardless of what you attribute his poor performance in '02 and '03 to, Garcia is clearly not at the same level as the first group. The lowest ERA posted amongst those three pitchers over the last four seasons (12 seasons total) is 3.47!! The largest variance amongst any of the pitchers between the lowest and highest ERAs is .48 for Schilling. Compared to the 1.34 difference between Garcia's best and worst seasons over that period it's clear he's not as safe a bet.

If you thought I was speaking only to career performance, current/walk year performance, or something else I apologize, I'll try to be clearer next time. I thought it was clear I was referring to the degree to which a pitcher is a sure thing (Schilling's age aside) worth investing a lot of money in. Garcia's question marks are much closer to the first group than the second in that regard. Regardless of the reasons he hasn't been a model of consistency and I think everyone can agree they'd rather have a guy who has been than one who hasn't.

jabrch
08-03-2004, 06:18 PM
I watch the games, I can give a crap what baseball prospectus has to say. The guy has nasty stuff. He throws a fastball with life, 2 different curves and a nice change. He has a proven track record. He has pitched like an ace thusfar with the Sox. I don't understand this debate. BP is fine for somethings, but rediculous with others (this thread).
Great post Soxxos...Great Post!

This is sillyness. Anyone who watches Garcia pitch, over the duration of his career, has to see the kind of stuff he has. So far he looks like he is in the right frame of mind (Bye Art Rhodes, Bye Carlos Guillen) he is focused on pitching. Garcia is entering the point in time when pitchers usually start to really get better. I am really looking forward to seeing it. There are those who seem so set that this was a bad acquistion - only time will tell based on what Reed and Olivo do. I can understand that arguement - I disagree COMPLETELY with it, but I understand it. I do not understand how people can say signing him to a 3 year 24mm deal is a bad idea. Find me a pitcher out there who can be signed this year in the offseason who will be signed for equal or less money and will provide equal of more productivity. I don't see it. I have seen all of Freddy's starts with us - and I am thrilled he is a part of this team.

OEO Magglio
08-03-2004, 06:20 PM
Great post Soxxos...Great Post!I agree. At the risk of sounding like Hawk Harrelson, stats aren't everything. Watching the games will show you more then stats will, imo.

jabrch
08-03-2004, 06:29 PM
I agree. At the risk of sounding like Hawk Harrelson, stats aren't everything. Watching the games will show you more then stats will, imo.
There is significant room for both statistics and for watching games. There was obviously none of the latter used in that piece of crap article. That article showed no balance or journalistic integrity. It was cheap, shoddy and uninformed.

jabrch
08-03-2004, 06:31 PM
I don't know if Contreras will be any good for us or not. I do know that that article was a piece of crap.

jeremyb1
08-03-2004, 06:32 PM
There is significant room for both statistics and for watching games. There was obviously none of the latter used in that piece of crap article. That article showed no balance or journalistic integrity. It was cheap, shoddy and uninformed.

Haha. Pretty funny for you to say that and then fail to even explain what part of the article you disagree with.

OEO Magglio
08-03-2004, 06:33 PM
There is significant room for both statistics and for watching games. I agree with that, however imo you learn more about a guy by watching them play, instead of looking at statistics.

ndgt10
08-03-2004, 06:47 PM
Garcia's career ERA is 3.88 not 3.34 (Schilling), 2.98 (Hudson), or 3.72 (Mulder). Show me the source saying that Hudson's career ERA is 2.98....According to Mlb.com and espn.com, it is 3.23.

Regardless, I wasn't referring to actual performance. If you take my post in context I'm talking about the risk involved in an investment in a starting pitcher. As I say at the end of the post I think it's safter to invest in a guy who's more of a certainty. In terms of risk, I think Garcia's consistency clearly ressembles the second group more.
Okay, what pitcher is a "certainty" that we could have signed this offseason?

ERAs in the last four seasons (obviously that's '99-'03 for Ponson and Escobar and '98-'02 for Byrd since we're discussing the contracts they were given):

Schilling 2.98, 3.23, 2.95, 3.46
Mulder 3.45, 3.47, 3.13, 3.43
Hudson 3.37, 2.98, 2.70, 2.98

Ponson 4.82, 4.95, 4.09, 3.75
Byrd 4.60, 6.51 (17 games, injured), 4.44, 3.90
Escobar 5.35, 3.50, 4.27, 4.29

Garcia 3.05, 4.39, 4.52, 3.20 (with Seattle)Interesting that you note that Byrd was injured in the season he posted his high ERA, but ignore the fact that Garcia was injured during the seasons when he had his highest ERA's (4.39 and 4.52).

Yes, Garcia is a better pitcher than the first group which is why I was careful not to say he was similar to that group, only that he was closer to that group than the first group.This statement is completely ludicrous and was made to cover your @ss from the original statement you made in the previous post. If that is indeed the case, however, please give us a list of names that Garcia is "similar" too, not a list that he is "closer" too.

(I can't think of too many recent FA pitchers similar to Garica). However, regardless of what you attribute his poor performance in '02 and '03 to, Garcia is clearly not at the same level as the first group. The lowest ERA posted amongst those three pitchers over the last four seasons (12 seasons total) is 3.47!! The largest variance amongst any of the pitchers between the lowest and highest ERAs is .48 for Schilling. Compared to the 1.34 difference between Garcia's best and worst seasons over that period it's clear he's not as safe a bet. I attribute Garcia's "low" ERA in those two seasons to his eardrum problem. I, unlike you, believe that it had a relatively profound effect on his pitching ability. Let me ask you this in terms that you might understand: Is Garcia's "stuff" closer to his 3.05 and 3.20 ERA seasons, or is his stuff closer to the 4.39 and 4.52 ERA seasons?

jabrch
08-03-2004, 07:03 PM
I agree with that, however imo you learn more about a guy by watching them play, instead of looking at statistics.
You are preaching to the choir here - you know that - right?

jeremyb1
08-03-2004, 07:33 PM
Show me the source saying that Hudson's career ERA is 2.98....According to Mlb.com and espn.com, it is 3.23.

You're right. My mistake.

Okay, what pitcher is a "certainty" that we could have signed this offseason?

I don't see what on earth that has to do with whether or not Garcia's contract was a good value. No one has yet demonstrated to me why adding a starter to the top of the rotation via free agency improves the club more than any other possible move.

Interesting that you note that Byrd was injured in the season he posted his high ERA, but ignore the fact that Garcia was injured during the seasons when he had his highest ERA's (4.39 and 4.52).

Haha. First and foremost I noted it because 83 innings pitched isn't a good sample size and shouldn't be relied on heavily when known serious physical problems exist. If he were healthy enough to pitch 200 innings the injury might've figured to be less serious and we'd have a reasonable amount of innings to make an evaluation. Garcia's injury was not to his arm and we have no evidence that it affected his pitching. As recently as a couple months ago he claimed it had no effect on his performance. On the other hand, its pretty well documented that a torn ulnar collateral muscle makes it more or less impossible to pitch at all effectively. Byrd's injury was serious enough for him to shut down immediately after it was diagnosed whereas Garcia pitched with his for two full seasons. Finally, Byrd's performance was completely abhorent and out of line with any other season in his career which can't be said for Garcia since 1) we're talking about two full seasons (roughly 500 IP vs. 83) to begin with 2) he's had other seasons (including this season other than his home runs allowed at Safeco) that are somewhat similar 3) He has fewer major league seasons and hence less of a basis for comparision.

I'm sorry but any comparison between Tommy John surgery and an ear condition that MAY have affected balance and/or concentration is grossly irresponsible and inaccurate.

This statement is completely ludicrous and was made to cover your @ss from the original statement you made in the previous post. If that is indeed the case, however, please give us a list of names that Garcia is "similar" too, not a list that he is "closer" too.

Really, well I think it's ludicrous to inform me that I didn't mean what I wrote in my post. As I said, a comp for Garcia doesn't jump to mind, particularly one that recently signed as a free agent. I was going to say Matt Morris but he's quite a bit better as he never posted an ERA above 3.57 prior to this season. I'd say Russ Ortiz but he walks more guys, has been more stingy with the long ball in recent seasons and like Morris has only had one season with an ERA above five since his rookie season when he threw just 80 IP. This is the reason I said he was closer to one group and not the other and not that he belonged in one group or the other, he's somewhat unique.


I attribute Garcia's "low" ERA in those two seasons to his eardrum problem. I, unlike you, believe that it had a relatively profound effect on his pitching ability. Let me ask you this in terms that you might understand: Is Garcia's "stuff" closer to his 3.05 and 3.20 ERA seasons, or is his stuff closer to the 4.39 and 4.52 ERA seasons?

And when you say pitching ability you're excluding the ability to dominate hitters (strikeouts) and the ability to command the ball (walks) and defining pitching ability as the ability to induce more groundballs than fly balls and keep the ball in the park? I don't really understand how why you believe it had a profound affect? Are you a doctor? Have you ever pitched in competitive baseball with an ear condition for two seasons?

If you're asking me about his stuff, I'd measure that with K's and I'd say his stuff has been about equal every season he's pitched.

Flight #24
08-03-2004, 08:13 PM
Sorry but I find that to be somewhat simplistic reasoning. First of all, psychology will tell you that if a person is struggling in their career, particularly a career that will contribute to one's self image as much as pro athlete, the person will tend to blame environmental factors as oppossed to oneself.

Secondly, how could you argue that Garcia would take 10 million dollars from the Yankees over 9 million dollars from the White Sox if they were both on the table but wouldn't blame past poor performance on external factors in his walk year?
As a general rule, the simplest explanation is usually more likely to be correct than a more complicated one. Injury coinciding with por performance, injury resolved, performance improves. Pretty simple. A lot more so than saying that 3 years of solid improvement was a fluke and the the 2 following years are the "truth" and yr #6's return to prior years is ANOTHER fluke - that seems a lot less likely.

As for the "walk year" comment - he's pitching extremely well in this, his walk year. He has little to no reason to discount his prior years since I don't think they'd have impacted his price much. It's not like he was going to get offers in the 6mil range after the year he's having. And again - it's not about him personally, it's about the psychology of walking away from a possible 10mil to take 9mil versus walking away from an actual 10mil. Big difference in the real world.

Flight #24
08-03-2004, 08:29 PM
Alright. So the scenario I understand you to be putting forth is that due to his injury, Garcia has to adapt some in order to succeed. So since he wasn't able to hit his spots and make good pitches as often he had to go after hitters more with lesser stuff. I'd guess a pitcher with worse stuff and command than in the past would fear attacking hitters like Loaiza this season but I could be wrong (as you say he's not that type of pitcher) My question then is why did his strikeouts go up? Attacking hitters will increase your walks but it shouldn't increase your strikeouts as strikeouts are viewed as a measure of how good your command and stuff is which you seem to claim would be lacking due to the injury. Again, if he's not "going all out" due to the injury as you say, you'd expect a large dropoff in his strikeouts but there was none.
Doesn't seem that complicated to me. Guy throws less hard but doesn't compensate by nibbling more. He's also afraid of walking guys so he tries to stay in the strike zone. Batters swing more because he's around the plate a lot and so he gets more Ks but gives up more hits.


Well if you read the previous thread, Garcia's numbers are not so different this season from the past two seasons. As I noted the only main difference is the home runs he allowed in his Seattle starts and in '01 and the increased K and BB rates in his 7 White Sox starts (which no one has argued is anything other than a result of a small sample thus far). So basically what we're looking at is his pattern of allowing home runs. It's been argued quite persuasively that the best determinant of allowing home runs is GB/FB ratio (if you keep the ball on the ground, fewer home runs). Garcia's GB/FB ratio has been lower ever since '01, including this season when he has been undeniably healthy. I don't think '01 was a fluke. It was largely the result of keeping the ball on the ground. I wouldn't call this season a fluke either. I'd call it Garcia finally benefitting from Safeco's spacious dimensions (13 of his 15 homers have come away from there). Park effects are a very real thing so it's not a fluke it's just park effects.
I'm not denying park effects helped him, but I find it quite odd that they helped him in 2004, not in 2002, 2003. have they been changing the park year by year? Has the Minnesota stadium management team been controlling their AC?

As for your assertion that he's basically pitching as he has previously - his WHIP is down dramatically from the past 2 years (but in line with his trend from 1999-2001). His BB/9 are down (which factors into the WHIP). His K/9 is up. To me that's not pitching the same but with more HR.


So assuming that Garcia's ear condition begun exactly at the began affecting him at the '02 season and ended exactly at the end of the '03 season then yes I think it's a coicidence that he started throwing more fly balls at the same time he was injured. However, I'm cautious to believe that after the fact. It's extremely easy to talk about timelines for injuries affecting players and the manner in which it affected them with 20/20 hindsight when you're trying to support a certain point.
Well, I can't PROVE it's not coincidence, but it's certainly not the most likely explanation. As I've said - his career tracks relatively smoothly, with a bump in 02-03. We'll see as the year progresses (although I'm sure if he maintains his performance this year, it'll be "just one year, not a great sample size").

I guess. If he's lights out for the next three seasons then we got a bargain. My concern is that the players that are signed in the 6-9 million range are rarely a good bargain. I think it's clear that Garcia is closer to the Ponson, Escobar, Paul Byrd range than the Mulder, Hudson, Schilling range. I'd much rather have a superstar with extremely few question marks for 10-12 or an underrated innings eater for 3.Well, it's nowhere near as clear as you'd make it out to be. Ponson's had 1 good year, Garcia's working on his 2d VERY good year. He's a lot closer to Mulder/Hudson than to Ponson, and his salary's a lot closer to what Ponson's getting (7.5/yr to Freddy's 9), than what Huddy will get (12 or so). As you say - if he maintains what he's doing, it'll be a bargain. If he declines slightly, it'll still be right on.

The Sox had a series of "underrated innings eaters", which puts a lot of pressure on the O. Those are great pitchers to fill the #3-5 roles (or 4-5 on a good team), not a #1 or 2. I'm not going to say I wouldn't rather have Mulder/Hudson/Schilling, but at the price, I'd rather have Garcia AND your innings-eater than just one of the "top aces".

Flight #24
08-03-2004, 08:35 PM
Yes, Garcia is a better pitcher than the first group which is why I was careful not to say he was similar to that group, only that he was closer to that group than the first group (I can't think of too many recent FA pitchers similar to Garica). However, regardless of what you attribute his poor performance in '02 and '03 to, Garcia is clearly not at the same level as the first group. The lowest ERA posted amongst those three pitchers over the last four seasons (12 seasons total) is 3.47!! The largest variance amongst any of the pitchers between the lowest and highest ERAs is .48 for Schilling. Compared to the 1.34 difference between Garcia's best and worst seasons over that period it's clear he's not as safe a bet.


Garcia's price is also a lot closer to the first group than the 2d, and falls in the middle. So I'm not sure where your problem is, unless you're saying that you'd rather have a pitcher that you admit is lesser because the price is also lower.:?:

Hey - I'll run out there for less than a mil (until my FA year hits!). I'm the best value of all!!!

jeremyb1
08-03-2004, 09:09 PM
Doesn't seem that complicated to me. Guy throws less hard but doesn't compensate by nibbling more. He's also afraid of walking guys so he tries to stay in the strike zone. Batters swing more because he's around the plate a lot and so he gets more Ks but gives up more hits.

It's that last part that doesn't really make any sense to me. I've never heard anyone argue that by throwing lesser quality pitches over the plate more often a pitcher would increase his strikeout rates. Strikeouts are pretty universally viewed as a measure of a pitcher's dominance, ie his ability to throw hard, throw pitches with lots of movement, and/or use pinpoint control to throw pitches in a difficult location. Garcia's walks weren't down any in '02-'03 so that pretty much eliminates the possibility that he improved his control and you're arguing that with the injury his balance and concentration was affected, diminishing his ability to throw hard and throw with good movement. I can't figure out for the life of me how he could've pitched with an injury that seriously affected him while striking out hitters the second most often in his career in '02.

As far as allowing an increased number of hits, the studies out there are pretty rigorous and suggest that even if you disagree with Voros McCracken and believe that pitchers do have some control over the percentage of batted balls in play that become hits, they don't have very much control. If you do look at his numbers if his number of hits allowed doesn't belong in any season it's '01. I can't find the numbers easily but I'm guessing his percentage of batted balls in play was very low (his translated ERA is .6 runs higher than his actual ERA) due to good defense and some good baseball bounces. Either way the bottom line is that an increase in hits due to attacking the zone more isn't a very good explanation since his hits allowed are not higher than any other season save '01 when they were very low.

Again the one glaring difference in his stats is the GB/FB ratio and in turn the HR/9.

I'm not denying park effects helped him, but I find it quite odd that they helped him in 2004, not in 2002, 2003. have they been changing the park year by year? Has the Minnesota stadium management team been controlling their AC?

I find it odd also. As I've said though, when he allowed fewer home runs from '99 to '01, his GB/FB ratio was higher. When he allowed more home runs in '02 and '03 his GB/FB ratio was down. In '04 it's still down, he just seemed to finally take advantage of Safeco's dimensions. I don't really know how else to explain it other than a fluke generated by a small sample size.

As for your assertion that he's basically pitching as he has previously - his WHIP is down dramatically from the past 2 years (but in line with his trend from 1999-2001). His BB/9 are down (which factors into the WHIP). His K/9 is up. To me that's not pitching the same but with more HR.

Well if we're going to look at WHIP we should just look at H/9 and BB/9, that'll tell us a lot more. If we look at the Sox stats his H/9 are at a career low which I would attribute to the fact that his K/9 are also a career high. His BB/9 are also a career low with the Sox. So, you could argue that since joining the Sox his ability to strike out hitters and avoid walks is and will continue to be marginally better than at any point in his career, making up for his increased propensity to allow home runs. I certainly agree that those factors have allowed him to overcome his home runs allowed and will continue to if he can maintain this pace. However, I think it's careless and dangerous to try to ignore over a thousand career innings to emphasize 50.

If we look at the numbers prior to the trade, 5.9 K/9 is his third best mark, 2.6 BB/9 his third best, and .8 HR/9 his third best. The home runs are the only number significantly better than his marks the past two seasons. His H/9 was lower than the past two sesaons but not by a ton and I've told you how I feel about that statistic.


Well, I can't PROVE it's not coincidence, but it's certainly not the most likely explanation. As I've said - his career tracks relatively smoothly, with a bump in 02-03. We'll see as the year progresses (although I'm sure if he maintains his performance this year, it'll be "just one year, not a great sample size").

The problem that I have is that I don't consider 2 full seasons in a 4.5 season career to be a bump, I consider it to be close to half a player's career.

Well, it's nowhere near as clear as you'd make it out to be. Ponson's had 1 good year, Garcia's working on his 2d VERY good year. He's a lot closer to Mulder/Hudson than to Ponson, and his salary's a lot closer to what Ponson's getting (7.5/yr to Freddy's 9), than what Huddy will get (12 or so). As you say - if he maintains what he's doing, it'll be a bargain. If he declines slightly, it'll still be right on.

Well I certainly agree that Garcia is better than the Ponson group I just think he much more closely ressembles it than the aces group in terms of reliability. I think that 2 very good seasons out of 5 is closer to one good season out of 6 than 5 good seasons out of 6 or 12 out of 15. I also find the time frame to be very important here. If Garcia's performance was on an upward curve throughout his career and he was coming off several phenominal seasons in a row I'd look at it differently. But saying, "well he had another really good season three years ago and we think his ear condition was the problem the last two seasons" just doesn't instill a ton of confidence personally compared to the guys you just know will be lights out.

The Sox had a series of "underrated innings eaters", which puts a lot of pressure on the O. Those are great pitchers to fill the #3-5 roles (or 4-5 on a good team), not a #1 or 2. I'm not going to say I wouldn't rather have Mulder/Hudson/Schilling, but at the price, I'd rather have Garcia AND your innings-eater than just one of the "top aces".

Well I think you can get an "underrated innings eater" pretty cheap. Schoenweis and Loaiza have been solid and they haven't been two expensive. I'm just saying I'd far rather have a top flight guy and whatever you can buy for a couple million than Garcia and Contreras. C'mon you were the guy arguing about how well KW can do with a few million. I'm not sure he can do that well but I think if he plays his cards right (which I'm sorry to admit isn't a given) he should be able to land a guy who can post an ERA of 4.7 or so and throw 200 innings. For the posters arguing what ace would you get other than Garcia, if I had to I'd knab a couple innings eaters and turn the rest into an All-Star position player if I thought that was where I'd find the values.

jeremyb1
08-03-2004, 09:10 PM
Garcia's price is also a lot closer to the first group than the 2d, and falls in the middle. So I'm not sure where your problem is, unless you're saying that you'd rather have a pitcher that you admit is lesser because the price is also lower.:?:

Hey - I'll run out there for less than a mil (until my FA year hits!). I'm the best value of all!!!

Because if you made a graph (I'm sorry stay with me here. Haha) of starting pitchers value versus price, I don't think it would be a straight line. I think the guys on the higher and lower end of the price scale tend to be the better values.

Flight #24
08-03-2004, 10:03 PM
Well I think you can get an "underrated innings eater" pretty cheap. Schoenweis and Loaiza have been solid and they haven't been two expensive. I'm just saying I'd far rather have a top flight guy and whatever you can buy for a couple million than Garcia and Contreras. C'mon you were the guy arguing about how well KW can do with a few million. I'm not sure he can do that well but I think if he plays his cards right (which I'm sorry to admit isn't a given) he should be able to land a guy who can post an ERA of 4.7 or so and throw 200 innings. For the posters arguing what ace would you get other than Garcia, if I had to I'd knab a couple innings eaters and turn the rest into an All-Star position player if I thought that was where I'd find the values.
I'm sorry, but I had to laugh when I read that first sentence here. A rotation with 3-4 Shoeny/ELo style pitchers will not get you anywhere near the playoffs. Adding Garcia to the top of that gets you a lot closer. I'd argue again and again that the current Sox roster including Garcia will win a lot more games than the current Sox roster adding the position player at 8mil and keeping Loaiza at even 2mil. I can't remember the last LCS participant without an ace of some type.

For example, 2 mil this year (or about that) would get you a Catalanotto. Cat+Garcia > Beltran+Shoney in terms of ability to help a team win games. There's a reason why pitching is valued higher than position players when it comes to trades, salaries, and pretty much anything else.

Flight #24
08-03-2004, 10:20 PM
As far as allowing an increased number of hits, the studies out there are pretty rigorous and suggest that even if you disagree with Voros McCracken and believe that pitchers do have some control over the percentage of batted balls in play that become hits, they don't have very much control. If you do look at his numbers if his number of hits allowed doesn't belong in any season it's '01. I can't find the numbers easily but I'm guessing his percentage of batted balls in play was very low (his translated ERA is .6 runs higher than his actual ERA) due to good defense and some good baseball bounces. Either way the bottom line is that an increase in hits due to attacking the zone more isn't a very good explanation since his hits allowed are not higher than any other season save '01 when they were very low.

Again the one glaring difference in his stats is the GB/FB ratio and in turn the HR/9.
OK, I don't know what to tell you except that he's performing like he did in 2001. You can keep expecting him to fall off the cliff, but you'll likely be disappointed. When the season is over and he's maintained his performance, then he'll have 2 excellent and 2 above average seasons in 4. Looking at his 6 year career, there will be 4 that seem to indicate a trend and 2 that don't. You can make of that what you will.



I find it odd also. As I've said though, when he allowed fewer home runs from '99 to '01, his GB/FB ratio was higher. When he allowed more home runs in '02 and '03 his GB/FB ratio was down. In '04 it's still down, he just seemed to finally take advantage of Safeco's dimensions. I don't really know how else to explain it other than a fluke generated by a small sample size.OK, his stats were fluky in Safeco this year, and they've gotten even flukier with the Sox. Next year if he puts up similar #s, it'll be flukier still.



Well if we're going to look at WHIP we should just look at H/9 and BB/9, that'll tell us a lot more. If we look at the Sox stats his H/9 are at a career low which I would attribute to the fact that his K/9 are also a career high. His BB/9 are also a career low with the Sox. So, you could argue that since joining the Sox his ability to strike out hitters and avoid walks is and will continue to be marginally better than at any point in his career, making up for his increased propensity to allow home runs. I certainly agree that those factors have allowed him to overcome his home runs allowed and will continue to if he can maintain this pace. However, I think it's careless and dangerous to try to ignore over a thousand career innings to emphasize 50. Except that his #s aren't that far off of his 2001 stats. So really, I'm not ignoring 1000 IP as much as I am discounting the 400 or so that both seem like they don't fit and coincidentally occured when he had a medical condition.



The problem that I have is that I don't consider 2 full seasons in a 4.5 season career to be a bump, I consider it to be close to half a player's career.Include his 1999 & 2000 #s and you see a decent pitcher improving and becoming in 2001 a possible ace. That trend continues to this year with exceptions in 02 & 03. He had a medical condition during that time. You can look for other reasons, call 01 & 04 flukes, or say the medical condition wasn't serious, but the most likely explanation is that the 2 occurences are linked.



Well I certainly agree that Garcia is better than the Ponson group I just think he much more closely ressembles it than the aces group in terms of reliability. I think that 2 very good seasons out of 5 is closer to one good season out of 6 than 5 good seasons out of 6 or 12 out of 15. I also find the time frame to be very important here. If Garcia's performance was on an upward curve throughout his career and he was coming off several phenominal seasons in a row I'd look at it differently. But saying, "well he had another really good season three years ago and we think his ear condition was the problem the last two seasons" just doesn't instill a ton of confidence personally compared to the guys you just know will be lights out.
I'm not sure what's left to be said here. Ponson got 7.5mil/yr, Garcia 9. Pedro, Hudson, etc will all get 12 or more. Freddy appears to be paid in line with where you rate him, and is actually cheap given his performance.

You really really seem to undervalue pitching, and I'm not sure where you think you'll get it since there are few if any FA signings that you deem "good deals". The handful of guys at the top are worth 12+mil in your eyes, no one else is apparently worth more than 4-5. I can't disagree with you any more strongly on anything than if you really think that a staff of Mulder and 4 Loaiza's will win you anything. A Loaiza+Beltran is not as good a combination as a Garcia+Catalanotto. There are a lot more solid hitters that can help you win than there are pitchers. As Billy Beane has shown, if you have the pitchers, you can fill in cheaply with hitters and have a winning team.

OEO Magglio
08-03-2004, 10:21 PM
You are preaching to the choir here - you know that - right?Now I do:smile: . I know some people don't feel that way so I just wanted to get my opinion across.:bandance: :bandance:

jeremyb1
08-03-2004, 10:53 PM
I'm sorry, but I had to laugh when I read that first sentence here. A rotation with 3-4 Shoeny/ELo style pitchers will not get you anywhere near the playoffs. Adding Garcia to the top of that gets you a lot closer. I'd argue again and again that the current Sox roster including Garcia will win a lot more games than the current Sox roster adding the position player at 8mil and keeping Loaiza at even 2mil. I can't remember the last LCS participant without an ace of some type.

For example, 2 mil this year (or about that) would get you a Catalanotto. Cat+Garcia > Beltran+Shoney in terms of ability to help a team win games. There's a reason why pitching is valued higher than position players when it comes to trades, salaries, and pretty much anything else.

I don't know. Tell that to the 90s Indians' clubs. They did pretty well for themselves and they had nothing but Schoeny/ELo pitchers in their rotation. Again a lot of this comes back to philosiphical differences. I firmly believe that you win games by scoring more runs than your opponent, regardless of your team's compsition. A balanced team is extremely overrated.

If you can get players like Catolonotto that are undervalued by the market that's one thing but I think you can work out that equation both ways. I could just as easily say, 3.5 million this season would've bought you Miguel Batista or Paul Wilson. If you can get one of those guys and Beltran that's better than Garcia and Catolonotto. The key is finding players that are undervalued by the market and personally I don't find that to be the case with Garcia. Whereas I do find that to be the case with Catolonotto, Wilson, and Batista. The key in my opinion is to find the undervaulued players at the positions where you have holes and sign them. I agree we have a hole at the front of the rotation but since I don't believe Garcia is a great value, I'd spend my money elsewhere.

OEO Magglio
08-03-2004, 10:56 PM
[QUOTE=jeremyb1]If you can get players like Catolonotto that are undervalued by the market that's one thing but I think you can work out that equation both ways. I could just as easily say, 3.5 million this season would've bought you Miguel Batista or Paul Wilson. If you can get one of those guys and Beltran that's better than Garcia and Catolonotto. QUOTE]

I disagree. I'd take Freddy and Catalanotto all day over Beltran and Paul Wilson.

jeremyb1
08-03-2004, 11:27 PM
OK, I don't know what to tell you except that he's performing like he did in 2001. You can keep expecting him to fall off the cliff, but you'll likely be disappointed. When the season is over and he's maintained his performance, then he'll have 2 excellent and 2 above average seasons in 4. Looking at his 6 year career, there will be 4 that seem to indicate a trend and 2 that don't. You can make of that what you will.

I don't think he'll fall off a cliff, I just don't think he's a 3.2 ERA pitcher and he's already regressed slightly from that since joining us. The reason is that from my perspective he's not performing like he did in '01, because he's allowing more fly balls and more home runs.

OK, his stats were fluky in Safeco this year, and they've gotten even flukier with the Sox. Next year if he puts up similar #s, it'll be flukier still.

True. It's just that we're talking about 50 and 100 IP here respectively. I wouldn't expect to see huge flukes and inconsistencies in a 200+ inning chunk. I guess we'll find out.

Except that his #s aren't that far off of his 2001 stats. So really, I'm not ignoring 1000 IP as much as I am discounting the 400 or so that both seem like they don't fit and coincidentally occured when he had a medical condition.

Obviously we see it differently. When I look it is what happened so it all fits. I see a pitcher that's been consistent throughout his career with one exception, in '02 he started giving up more fly balls he's been doing it for 2 and a half seasons and 500 IP now, about half his career, so I plan to see it persisting. I don't believe in ignoring anything unless the sample size is small and over 400 consecutive innings is huge. I'd argue that if you look at the most important numbers (particularly at the end of the season) his numbers are closer to '02 and '03 than '01. I'm looking at mostly BB/9, K/9, and HR/9 in conjunction with GB/FB ratio though so if you're just going to look at ERA you're obviously going to get a different picture. I'd argue it's a less detailed, less informative picture but I guess that's debatable.

Include his 1999 & 2000 #s and you see a decent pitcher improving and becoming in 2001 a possible ace. That trend continues to this year with exceptions in 02 & 03. He had a medical condition during that time. You can look for other reasons, call 01 & 04 flukes, or say the medical condition wasn't serious, but the most likely explanation is that the 2 occurences are linked.

We're basically going around in circles at this point I guess. I didn't find your explanation of why the injury would effect HR/9 and GB/FB ratio yet not walks and strikeouts to be at all convincing especially in light of that fact that those trends have continued this season after he's had the problem fixed.

Really that's only the half of it too. If I was completely in the dark about his performance the last few seasons and all you told me was "Pitcher A has pitched the last two seasons with ruptured ear drums, elected not to have surgery in the '02-'03 offseason, and has at times said the injury did not affect him until recently," I'd probably be highly skeptical that the injury had a large impact. We should all agree that just based on the circumstances of the injury alone that 1) it wasn't an injury which directly affected part of the body required for the physical act of pitching (ie elbow, shoulder, hip, ankle, etc.) 2) he was never missed a start over two seasons due to the injury 3) he has previously said the injury did not effect him 4) seemingly in support of that he chose not to have the injury operated on in the past, one should not be making strong assumptions either way. I would say that if his current performance is worth 9 million and the key to him repeating his current performance is that the injury explains '02-'03, that's leaning very heavily in one direction.

You really really seem to undervalue pitching, and I'm not sure where you think you'll get it since there are few if any FA signings that you deem "good deals". The handful of guys at the top are worth 12+mil in your eyes, no one else is apparently worth more than 4-5. I can't disagree with you any more strongly on anything than if you really think that a staff of Mulder and 4 Loaiza's will win you anything. A Loaiza+Beltran is not as good a combination as a Garcia+Catalanotto. There are a lot more solid hitters that can help you win than there are pitchers. As Billy Beane has shown, if you have the pitchers, you can fill in cheaply with hitters and have a winning team.

That's because pitching is notoriously fickle and hence a gigantic risk. Pitchers suffer injuries far more often than position players and career debilitating injuries in particular. Furthermore, pitchers are less consistent and predictable. This isn't a new stathead concept. For years in Roto baseball the concept of spending two thirds of your budget on hitting and one third on pitching despite the fact that each are equally valuable has been widespread because people have had a harder time projecting pitchers than hitters.

Regardless of the reasons behind his decline, the fact that Garcia went from a stellar 3.05 ERA in '01 to an ERA well over a run higher in '02 seems to underscore this point. You can pin it on injuries or pin Contreras struggles on playing in New York, tipping his pitches, or missing his family but the reality is that regardless of whether or not good reasons exist for this struggles, they do happen often with pitchers. Therefore, if it were up to me I'd break open the bank for one of the very few guys with far less question marks than the rest of the field or just find my bargains with the cheaper pitchers. I think this is what Oakland and Toronto have done with guys like Redman, Lilly, and Bautista and it's been pretty successful in my opinion.

I aboslutely think a Mulder and four Loaiza's can win you a lot if you're paying 15 or 17 million for that and you then can invest the rest of the money into a top flight offense. If you allow 5 runs a game and score just 7, you'll win a ton of games. A Mulder and four Loaiza's this season would give you a starters ERA of 4.58 (assuming the Loaiza's pitch the same number of innings, they'd pitch less most likely so it should be lower). Our team ERA is 4.52 this season (5th in the AL) and you have to assume the pen is better than the starters as far as ERA goes (I can't find the numbers), especially with four starters throwing 200 innings so apparently that rotation would be just as good as our rotation which according to many is good enough to go far in the playoffs. Also if you signed Mulder for 12 and four Loaiza's, it'd be 14 million. Next season we'll be paying (based on average per season) 9 million to Garcia, 6 to Contreras, and 6 to Buehrle for a total of 21 million with two rotation spots left to fill. That assumes that four Loaiza's each cost 3 million a piece and I'm skeptical about that.

jeremyb1
08-03-2004, 11:32 PM
[QUOTE=jeremyb1]

If you can get players like Catolonotto that are undervalued by the market that's one thing but I think you can work out that equation both ways. I could just as easily say, 3.5 million this season would've bought you Miguel Batista or Paul Wilson. If you can get one of those guys and Beltran that's better than Garcia and Catolonotto. QUOTE]
No way. I'd take Freddy and Catalanotto all day over Beltran and Paul Wilson.

Well for the sake of argument even if we assume Garcia repeats this season and Beltran doesn't improve:

5.8 WARP (Garcia) + 1.3 WARP (Catolonotto)

5.6 WARP (Beltran) + 1.9 (Wilson) or 3.9 (Batista)

The Beltran Combo wins both times.

OEO Magglio
08-03-2004, 11:39 PM
Well for the sake of argument even if we assume Garcia repeats this season and Beltran doesn't improve:

5.8 WARP (Garcia) + 1.3 WARP (Catolonotto)

5.6 WARP (Beltran) + 1.9 (Wilson) or 3.9 (Batista)

The Beltran Combo wins both times.Ok.... I don't really care about that. Give me the stud pitcher and the very good outfielder evertime over the stud outfielder and the average(in the case of Wilson) or pretty good(in the case of batista) pitcher.

jabrch
08-03-2004, 11:54 PM
Ok.... I don't really care about that. Give me the stud pitcher and the very good outfielder evertime over the stud outfielder and the average(in the case of Wilson) or pretty good(in the case of batista) pitcher.
Beam me up at Warp factor 9 Scottie.

How can anyone argue against wanting front of the rotation, ace calibre pitchers and filling in with lesser expensive position players than going for risky, old, injures, has beens or never was pitchers to carry a rotation?

I think these are the same people that would be crying if we had a bad pitching staff that we should have gotten better pitchers. It really is a senseless arguement.

OEO Magglio
08-04-2004, 12:11 AM
Beam me up at Warp factor 9 Scottie.

How can anyone argue against wanting front of the rotation, ace calibre pitchers and filling in with lesser expensive position players than going for risky, old, injures, has beens or never was pitchers to carry a rotation?

I think these are the same people that would be crying if we had a bad pitching staff that we should have gotten better pitchers. It really is a senseless arguement.Couldn't agree more and I'm happy Kenny has this same philosiphy. If Contreras can be as good as he was tonight consistantly, no matter what our offense looks like, the sox will be a contender as long as this staff is together..

Evman5
08-04-2004, 12:28 AM
I think that there are always bargains for position players. However, you definitely need to pay for pitching! That being said I want the Sox to build their team around there pitching staff and try to follow the Oakland mold. I mean how many offensive studs do the A's have? Chavez? Dye? Crosby? We should devote the majority of our payroll to starting pitching + bullpen.

OEO Magglio
08-04-2004, 12:30 AM
I think that there are always bargains for position players. However, you definitely need to pay for pitching! That being said I want the Sox to build their team around there pitching staff and try to follow the Oakland mold. I mean how many offensive studs do the A's have? Chavez? Dye? Crosby? We should devote the majority of our payroll to starting pitching + bullpen.And that's exactly what kenny is doing, building this team around pitching for now and the future. We have Freddy, Buehrle, Contreras, and Garland all locked up for another couple of years, that's not as good as what the a's have but that's still pretty darn good.

Evman5
08-04-2004, 12:54 AM
And that's exactly what kenny is doing, building this team around pitching for now and the future. We have Freddy, Buehrle, Contreras, and Garland all locked up for another couple of years, that's not as good as what the a's have but that's still pretty darn good.
Most definitely. I think that we should still go out and get one more #2 type pitcher. Hopefully Pavano. I also think that now Kenny will have a chance to show his true GM skills by going out and finding the low priced "grinders" that can help this team. IMO that is the hardest part of being a GM. Anybody can go after big name free agents and proven producers, but finding solid low priced position players can vault a team to greatness.

jabrch
08-04-2004, 01:11 AM
I mean how many offensive studs do the A's have? Chavez? Dye? Crosby? We should devote the majority of our payroll to starting pitching + bullpen.
I agree with you - in fact, I'll take it one step further. Chavez is the only STUD they have offensively. (and he is easy to pitch around) Dye strikes out a ton, and is a .275/.335 guy. That is not even close to studly. Crosby isn't close. He's hitting .268. They have a long way to go to come close to our offense. But with adding Contreras and Freddy and being posied to spend money on one more Garcia calibre SP (Pavano? Clement?), we could have an awesome rotation for the next 3+ years.

Add into that a decent core of hitters that we have, and hopefully a helpful Frank Thomas - and this team will be able to compete with anyone in the game.

KW has done a great job. Adding Garcia and now Contreras for 3 and 2 years, at reasonable salaries is awesome. KW should be a candidate for executive of the year this season.

OEO Magglio
08-04-2004, 01:14 AM
I agree with you - in fact, I'll take it one step further. Chavez is the only STUD they have offensively. (and he is easy to pitch around) Dye strikes out a ton, and is a .275/.335 guy. That is not even close to studly. Crosby isn't close. He's hitting .268. They have a long way to go to come close to our offense. But with adding Contreras and Freddy and being posied to spend money on one more Garcia calibre SP (Pavano? Clement?), we could have an awesome rotation for the next 3+ years.

Add into that a decent core of hitters that we have, and hopefully a helpful Frank Thomas - and this team will be able to compete with anyone in the game.

KW has done a great job. Adding Garcia and now Contreras for 3 and 2 years, at reasonable salaries is awesome. KW should be a candidate for executive of the year this season.Once again, I completely agree.

CWSGuy406
08-04-2004, 02:27 AM
Jeremy - maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but you argue Cleveland as a team that was successful with a high-powered offense and good, not great starting pitching. Yet Cleveland won 0, count 'em, 0 World Series Titles in the 90s...


:?:

OEO Magglio
08-04-2004, 02:29 AM
Jeremy - maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but you argue Cleveland as a team that was successful with a high-powered offense and good, not great starting pitching. Yet Cleveland won 0, count 'em, 0 World Series Titles in the 90s...


:?:You can slug your way to the playoffs but you can't slug your way through the playoffs.

CWSGuy406
08-04-2004, 02:30 AM
KW has done a great job. Adding Garcia and now Contreras for 3 and 2 years, at reasonable salaries is awesome. KW should be a candidate for executive of the year this season.
I wouldn't go that far - because Kenny still needs to make the playoffs before I start calling him a great GM, but I agree about our rotation - Garcia, Buehrle, Garland, and Contreras, at the very very least, should win us 50 or so games.

jabrch
08-04-2004, 05:32 AM
I wouldn't go that far - because Kenny still needs to make the playoffs before I start calling him a great GM, but I agree about our rotation - Garcia, Buehrle, Garland, and Contreras, at the very very least, should win us 50 or so games.
CWS Guy, a GM can only put the players in place. He can make the right moves and position the team to win, but he can't win himself. In this case, while it is no excuse that Frank and Magglio are hurt, it is an explanation. Imagine this team with the two of them healthy? Imagine it with either one of them healthy?

I don't blame him for Frank and Magglio not being healthy - I don't make excuses for it. All I can do is wonder - WHAT IF? But I do know that Kenny put the pieces in place for this team to win. Even without Frank and Magglio, this team still has a chance. That's a testament to what we have. It also gives reason for optimism for next year when we free up salary space in Ordonez 14mm.

Flight #24
08-04-2004, 06:17 AM
[QUOTE=jeremyb1]

OK, I'm not going to repost everything you wrote...

Oakland & Toronto's success with Redman, Lilly, Bautista - Works very well....because they have guys named Mulder, Hudson, Zito, and Halladay in front of them. I doubt very much that either team would be anywhere near as good replacing their aces with Redman, Lilly, Bautista. Especially not long term (when the "cheap vets" tend to regress from ace status to being simply decent pitchers/innings eaters).

A staff of 1 Mulder (12) and 4 Loaizas (3) is 24mil. We're paying Garcia(9) Contreras (6), Buehrle (6), Garland (1?). Add in 1 Loaiza and it's 25 total. I almost guarantee you the 2d staff will be more of a winning team with approximately the same $$$ devoted to offense.

Think that's expensive for ELo, make it 2mil per. 20 v. 24mil is the difference. 4mil doesn't get you a Beltran. Even if you replace Garland with another Loaiza, it's 5mil.

Even in your Beltran/Batista scenario, you're spending 15(Beltran) and 3.5(Batista). The equivalent is Garcia and a 9.5mil position player. That'll get you something very good like JD Drew/Dye AND another player. I haven't seen any examples since the Indians and thir record setting offense of teams that won with all mediocre pitchers, there's a reason why.

Cubbiesuck13
08-04-2004, 01:34 PM
Has it been said here that the trade went through at the last minute, literally.



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/baseball/mlb/07/31/bc.bba.lgns.yankschisoxtrade.r/index.html

jeremyb1
08-04-2004, 06:06 PM
Jeremy - maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but you argue Cleveland as a team that was successful with a high-powered offense and good, not great starting pitching. Yet Cleveland won 0, count 'em, 0 World Series Titles in the 90s...

And we have zero, count them zero playoff appearances is the weakest division in baseball since '00. The Tribe made it to the World Series with that club which we haven't done. I don't think that team's lack of World Series titles speaks to their quality but even if it does, as Sox fans we should be dreaming of success anywhere near that club.

jeremyb1
08-04-2004, 06:08 PM
You can slug your way to the playoffs but you can't slug your way through the playoffs.

Yeah, people say that but it's pretty unsubstantiated. Again, Cleveland made it to the World Series didn't they? Joe Morgan and a bevy of other analysts argued the A's plate discipline and slugging didn't work in the playoffs prior to the big three's complete development around '00 and '01 yet the A's scored a ton of runs and lost only because they had some dreadful performances from their heralded starting pitchers. I'm extremely skeptical of your claim until you can offer some strong support.

jeremyb1
08-04-2004, 06:28 PM
[QUOTE=jeremyb1]Oakland & Toronto's success with Redman, Lilly, Bautista - Works very well....because they have guys named Mulder, Hudson, Zito, and Halladay in front of them. I doubt very much that either team would be anywhere near as good replacing their aces with Redman, Lilly, Bautista. Especially not long term (when the "cheap vets" tend to regress from ace status to being simply decent pitchers/innings eaters).

I wasn't arguing those players were good signings based on the success of the A's and the Jays, I'm arguing they're good based on their performance. Oakland and Toronto are not hitting (8th and 11th in the AL in runs scored) so I think their staters even the ones that aren't their best starters are making large impacts. You can make a pretty strong argument that Lilly and Batista have been better than Halladay this season so I just don't agree that the pitchers at the top of the rotation have much to do with it. Based on their performances which by no means have come out of left field, those two pitchers (Redman and Batista) were undervalued by the market and hence present a better value than a pitcher like Garcia in my opinion.

The way Beane works if he didn't have the big three he wouldn't sign a pitcher to fill a hole at the top of the rotation unless he thought the contract was very close to or as good a value as Redman. He wouldn't have signed Redman if he didn't think it was an exceptional value since the fifth spot wasn't a hole for the A's. They had Blanton, Durscherer, and some other good arms in the top minors and Beane can easily acquire a solid five as he ended up doing with Saarloos.

A staff of 1 Mulder (12) and 4 Loaizas (3) is 24mil. We're paying Garcia(9) Contreras (6), Buehrle (6), Garland (1?). Add in 1 Loaiza and it's 25 total. I almost guarantee you the 2d staff will be more of a winning team with approximately the same $$$ devoted to offense.

Think that's expensive for ELo, make it 2mil per. 20 v. 24mil is the difference. 4mil doesn't get you a Beltran. Even if you replace Garland with another Loaiza, it's 5mil.

C'mon though, there's no way you believe you have to pay three million a piece to four pitchers to get them to average out to a 4.8 ERA. If so you're not a very good GM. Again you're the one that argued KW could pick up good starting pitchers for a couple million a month or two back. Loaiza largely earned that payday based on his season last year. Plus, if you have any kind of a farm system you can plug a Diaz or Rauch into your five spot and get an ERA of about 5 for the league minimum. Most teams have a homegrown pitcher better than that who is making a small sum of money. We're paying Garland 2 million this season (and we payed him 500,000) last season to post a 4.5 ERA and most people would agree he hasn't been a tremendous discovery thus far.

4 or 5 million doesn't get you a Beltran but it can get you a very good player. Look around the league. Again, Batista and Redman two pitchers with excellent track records who have pitched reasonably well this season were signed for less than 4 million and that's just one example. Epstein signed Millar and Mueller for a few million last season. We signed Gordon for a million. That would've gotten us Walker this season. 4 or 5 million can make a huge difference.

Even in your Beltran/Batista scenario, you're spending 15(Beltran) and 3.5(Batista). The equivalent is Garcia and a 9.5mil position player. That'll get you something very good like JD Drew/Dye AND another player. I haven't seen any examples since the Indians and thir record setting offense of teams that won with all mediocre pitchers, there's a reason why.

Well the exact combination of players wasn't the point. 9 million and a few million left over can buy you a superstar position player and a good pitcher. The point is that, Catalonotto is an example of a good, undervalued position player and that you can flip the example and sign a proven position player and an undervalued pitcher just as easily and I would find there to be less risk investing the larger sum of money into the position player almost every time since as I've argued, starting pitchers are a higher risk.

As far as offense favored teams that performed well, I'm sure there are plenty of others, the Angels didn't have a great starting staff two seasons ago, it was more their offense and bullpen. The '99 A's with Giambi had good pitching but better offense. I don't think people assume teams win with offense in the playoffs or advance to the playoffs with offense unless they're beaten over the head with it when a team has an absolutely terrible rotation like the Indians club. Otherwise, the rotation is just looked at optimistically and viewed as "solid" since people believe pitching is inherently more valuable than offense for some reason.

Flight #24
08-04-2004, 09:54 PM
I wasn't arguing those players were good signings based on the success of the A's and the Jays, I'm arguing they're good based on their performance. Oakland and Toronto are not hitting (8th and 11th in the AL in runs scored) so I think their staters even the ones that aren't their best starters are making large impacts. You can make a pretty strong argument that Lilly and Batista have been better than Halladay this season so I just don't agree that the pitchers at the top of the rotation have much to do with it. Based on their performances which by no means have come out of left field, those two pitchers (Redman and Batista) were undervalued by the market and hence present a better value than a pitcher like Garcia in my opinion.

The way Beane works if he didn't have the big three he wouldn't sign a pitcher to fill a hole at the top of the rotation unless he thought the contract was very close to or as good a value as Redman. He wouldn't have signed Redman if he didn't think it was an exceptional value since the fifth spot wasn't a hole for the A's. They had Blanton, Durscherer, and some other good arms in the top minors and Beane can easily acquire a solid five as he ended up doing with Saarloos.Are you serious? If Billy Beane didn't have the big 3, he'd sign a couple of Mark Redman's and be fine? You honestly believe that? The Blue Jays, sans Halladay, are 47-59. That's not all because they've had problems scoring. It's because unless you have an extremely high powered offense (ala the Indians in the late 90s, who remember - were a record setting O), you need good pitching and 4 Loaiza's don't cut it. Beane might not have signed an ace pitcher, but his team sure wouldn't be doing as well as they are.

It's fine to say "only sign guys who are undervalued", but unless you strike gold/get lucky with 1 or 2, which is highly unlikely, you have a staff with no aces, and it's extremely hard to win.


C'mon though, there's no way you believe you have to pay three million a piece to four pitchers to get them to average out to a 4.8 ERA. If so you're not a very good GM. Again you're the one that argued KW could pick up good starting pitchers for a couple million a month or two back. Loaiza largely earned that payday based on his season last year. Plus, if you have any kind of a farm system you can plug a Diaz or Rauch into your five spot and get an ERA of about 5 for the league minimum. Most teams have a homegrown pitcher better than that who is making a small sum of money. We're paying Garland 2 million this season (and we payed him 500,000) last season to post a 4.5 ERA and most people would agree he hasn't been a tremendous discovery thus far.The 3mil came from your post, even if you drop it to 2 mil, it's still not a huge savings. The point is that the cheap veteran types that I think KW can identify well are great to fill out the 4/5 slots in a rotation, not the 1-2-3. I freely admit that KW got lucky with Loaiza in that he pitched like a #1. That's rare out of the cheap vets. The same is true for Jon Garland - he's fine as a #4 or 5, or if you stretch it (or based on his good stretch), a #3. You can't win with a staff made up primarily of Jon Garland's.

Case in point: Esteban Loaiza every year except 2003. He's fine as a #4 or 5 pitcher, who'll likely give up 4-6 runs in 6-7 IP. But you simply cannot win with that type of performance 4/5 days unless you have a great O. Esteban Loaiza at 1mil is a pretty good deal. But 5 Esteban Loaiza's will not win you anything as a pitching staff, even though they're all undervalued at that price. Saying you want to sign undervalued guys is great, and a good principle. But taking it to an extreme and saying that you'll only sign those who you can get in the cheaper price range will not succeed. And in any case, Garcia's fairly valued, as you've agreed based on market information.

4 or 5 million doesn't get you a Beltran but it can get you a very good player. Look around the league. Again, Batista and Redman two pitchers with excellent track records who have pitched reasonably well this season were signed for less than 4 million and that's just one example. Epstein signed Millar and Mueller for a few million last season. We signed Gordon for a million. That would've gotten us Walker this season. 4 or 5 million can make a huge difference.
Again - I'm not disputing that Millar & Mueller are good players, but the dropoff from Garcia to Batista is a lot greater than the dropoff from Millar to a cheaper replacement. And for the record, your argument was that rather than signing Garcia, you'd rather go get an all-star position player and a cheaper pitcher. My point is that it's not that easy.


Well the exact combination of players wasn't the point. 9 million and a few million left over can buy you a superstar position player and a good pitcher. The point is that, Catalonotto is an example of a good, undervalued position player and that you can flip the example and sign a proven position player and an undervalued pitcher just as easily and I would find there to be less risk investing the larger sum of money into the position player almost every time since as I've argued, starting pitchers are a higher risk.

As far as offense favored teams that performed well, I'm sure there are plenty of others, the Angels didn't have a great starting staff two seasons ago, it was more their offense and bullpen. The '99 A's with Giambi had good pitching but better offense. I don't think people assume teams win with offense in the playoffs or advance to the playoffs with offense unless they're beaten over the head with it when a team has an absolutely terrible rotation like the Indians club. Otherwise, the rotation is just looked at optimistically and viewed as "solid" since people believe pitching is inherently more valuable than offense for some reason.Angels had Kevin Appier (9.5mil), Aaron Sele(7.75mil), Troy Percival(5.25mil). So to say that they won with discount pitching is incorrect. They also caught lightning in a bottle, as evidenced by pretty much the same team finishing 77-85 last year. And they didn't exactly win despite the pitching, in August that year they averaged 3.55 runs allowed. Were they Schilling & Johnson, no. But they paid the going rate for very good pitchers, and were able to ride that and a hot streak to a title. If you ask them, they'd probably tell you that it's extremely unlikely that they'd get that lucky again, which is one reason that they went out and signed Colon & Escobar.

Flight #24
08-04-2004, 09:57 PM
Yeah, people say that but it's pretty unsubstantiated. Again, Cleveland made it to the World Series didn't they? Joe Morgan and a bevy of other analysts argued the A's plate discipline and slugging didn't work in the playoffs prior to the big three's complete development around '00 and '01 yet the A's scored a ton of runs and lost only because they had some dreadful performances from their heralded starting pitchers. I'm extremely skeptical of your claim until you can offer some strong support.

I'm sorry, but when your primary example comes frm a record setting offense, it's not a great one. For the record, if your offense can be record setting or close to it, yes you can win with mediocre pitching. But there's a reason they call them "records". It's because it's extremely rare to be able to put a team together that can match those achievements.

jeremyb1
08-04-2004, 10:55 PM
Are you serious? If Billy Beane didn't have the big 3, he'd sign a couple of Mark Redman's and be fine? You honestly believe that? The Blue Jays, sans Halladay, are 47-59. That's not all because they've had problems scoring. It's because unless you have an extremely high powered offense (ala the Indians in the late 90s, who remember - were a record setting O), you need good pitching and 4 Loaiza's don't cut it. Beane might not have signed an ace pitcher, but his team sure wouldn't be doing as well as they are.

Well my guess is that he'd emphasize polished pitchers in the draft (as he did with Blanton and numerous other A's picks) and trade for good young pitchers with low salaries under contract for multiple seasons (as he did with Lilly). The Blue Jays absolutely have had problems scoring. They're 11 out of 14 in the AL in runs scored. If that's not problems scoring I'm clueless as to what it is.

As far as using W-L or even a team's record in a pitcher's starts, honestly I'm kind dissapointed flight. That feels like taking a step backwards from the somewhat advanced discussions we'd had in the past. You know that those numbers are heavily skewed by run support, bullpen support, and who scores/allows how many runs when. If you don't want to go by "stathead" measures like support neutral W-L or VORP that's fine but at least use something like ERA.

You want more teams that have succeeded based on offense? Texas is currently 8th in the AL in ERA, 4th in runs. Toronto last season was 9th in ERA, 2nd in runs scored. Boston was 8th in ERA, 1st in runs. Last season's Braves, 9th in ERA, 1st in runs scored. Last year's Cards, 11th in ERA 2nd in runs scored. This seasons Giants, 3rd in runs scored 12th in ERA. Those are the contending teams just in the past three seasons (as far as ESPN goes, I'll have to use baseball reference if you're still unconvinced.

It's fine to say "only sign guys who are undervalued", but unless you strike gold/get lucky with 1 or 2, which is highly unlikely, you have a staff with no aces, and it's extremely hard to win.

The 3mil came from your post, even if you drop it to 2 mil, it's still not a huge savings. The point is that the cheap veteran types that I think KW can identify well are great to fill out the 4/5 slots in a rotation, not the 1-2-3. I freely admit that KW got lucky with Loaiza in that he pitched like a #1. That's rare out of the cheap vets. The same is true for Jon Garland - he's fine as a #4 or 5, or if you stretch it (or based on his good stretch), a #3. You can't win with a staff made up primarily of Jon Garland's.

Well what spot you think they fit into aside, I've shown that a rotation with four Loaiza's and a Mulder is just as good as our rotation. If you can get four million Loiza's for 2 million a piece - my guess is you could do it even cheaper - then you'd get the same results for less money and assuming you don't completely blow the remaining cash have a better team which is what we're striving for, no?

Case in point: Esteban Loaiza every year except 2003. He's fine as a #4 or 5 pitcher, who'll likely give up 4-6 runs in 6-7 IP. But you simply cannot win with that type of performance 4/5 days unless you have a great O. Esteban Loaiza at 1mil is a pretty good deal. But 5 Esteban Loaiza's will not win you anything as a pitching staff, even though they're all undervalued at that price.

Well if you can't find good, inexpensive top of the rotation pitchers through trade or the draft and hence are forced to rely on free agency yet can only find bargains in "innings eaters", then you'd use the overwhelming majority of the money on your offense and you'd most likely have a great offense.

Saying you want to sign undervalued guys is great, and a good principle. But taking it to an extreme and saying that you'll only sign those who you can get in the cheaper price range will not succeed. And in any case, Garcia's fairly valued, as you've agreed based on market information.

I've never said cheaper, I've just said a good value. I've agreed that Garcia's price is reasonable in the market but I never said the market generated good values. I'm not arguing that only lower priced players are good values. Batista and Redman who I've mentioned have middling salaries (around 4 million). I think IRod's salary is high but reasonable. The same for what the Yanks now pay ARod. Vlad's salary was very reasonable. It has nothing to do with price and everything to do with the production you receive considering what you spent.

Again - I'm not disputing that Millar & Mueller are good players, but the dropoff from Garcia to Batista is a lot greater than the dropoff from Millar to a cheaper replacement. And for the record, your argument was that rather than signing Garcia, you'd rather go get an all-star position player and a cheaper pitcher. My point is that it's not that easy.

Well you may be right but there's also a five million dollar difference between Garcia and Batista compared to no more than a 1.7 million difference between Mueller and a cheaper replacement, so you're comparing apples and oranges here. That said, we're talking about 2-3 wins between Batista and Garcia (this season) wheras while Mueller has struggled some this season last year he was 7 wins above replacement so the difference between him and most guys making less salary was greater than Garcia vs. Batsita this season. Again though it's not a sound comparison.

Angels had Kevin Appier (9.5mil), Aaron Sele(7.75mil), Troy Percival(5.25mil). So to say that they won with discount pitching is incorrect. They also caught lightning in a bottle, as evidenced by pretty much the same team finishing 77-85 last year. And they didn't exactly win despite the pitching, in August that year they averaged 3.55 runs allowed. Were they Schilling & Johnson, no. But they paid the going rate for very good pitchers, and were able to ride that and a hot streak to a title. If you ask them, they'd probably tell you that it's extremely unlikely that they'd get that lucky again, which is one reason that they went out and signed Colon & Escobar.

I checked Anaheim's stats from that season, they were second or third in the league in pitching so I was way off there. However, I think calculating the money spent on pitching is a pretty poor way to evaluate whether you can win with poor pitching. The A's haven't spent a lot but you'd certainly agree pitching is their strong suit.

The rest of this all seems like solely anecdotal evidence...

Flight #24
08-05-2004, 10:00 AM
Well my guess is that he'd emphasize polished pitchers in the draft (as he did with Blanton and numerous other A's picks) and trade for good young pitchers with low salaries under contract for multiple seasons (as he did with Lilly). Right. Good plan. And in 2-3 years, when it bears fruit, you'll be replacing the rest of the team (or at least Frank, Paulie, Valentin, Lee, Maggs). Way to go. If that's the strategy, you'd be better off dealing your veteran hitterss now for prospects & younger players.

And as for trading for "good young pitchers with low salaries", I haven't seen any of those deals in a while, especially not by contending teams. Good young pitchers with low salaries don't often get dealt unless it's by contenders looking to add top-level pieces for a championship run. So to get them, you weaken yourself in the short term, which brings us back to the point above.



You want more teams that have succeeded based on offense? Texas is currently 8th in the AL in ERA, 4th in runs. Toronto last season was 9th in ERA, 2nd in runs scored. Boston was 8th in ERA, 1st in runs. Last season's Braves, 9th in ERA, 1st in runs scored. Last year's Cards, 11th in ERA 2nd in runs scored. This seasons Giants, 3rd in runs scored 12th in ERA. Those are the contending teams just in the past three seasons (as far as ESPN goes, I'll have to use baseball reference if you're still unconvinced.
Let's see, the Rangers & Red Sox play in 2 of the top scoring parks in the game. Turner & SkyDome aren't far behind. For those teams to be average in ERA is actually pretty good.

Not convinced? Let's look at LCS teams from the last 5 years - NYY, Boston, Anaheim, Minnesota, Seattle, Florida, Chicago, San Fran, St Louis, Arizona, Atlanta, NYM.

All but Boston, SF, STL had very good to excellent pitching. And even SF had Jason Schmidt, and 2 pretty good pitchers in Rueter & Ortiz - not the innings eaters you're talking about getting on the cheap. Take away Schmidt from thatgroup and they don't win. Same with Boston sans Pedro. You need a top-level pitcher in the rotation, you can't fill in with undervalued but merely above-average guys throughout the staff.

Well what spot you think they fit into aside, I've shown that a rotation with four Loaiza's and a Mulder is just as good as our rotation. If you can get four million Loiza's for 2 million a piece - my guess is you could do it even cheaper - then you'd get the same results for less money and assuming you don't completely blow the remaining cash have a better team which is what we're striving for, no?
I don't think you've shown any such thing. You've shown that it's cheaper, not that it's better. As I said - I'll put up the current Sox rotation against Mulder & 4 Loaiza's any day. In any case, if a Mulder's available I'm not aware of it.


Well if you can't find good, inexpensive top of the rotation pitchers through trade or the draft and hence are forced to rely on free agency yet can only find bargains in "innings eaters", then you'd use the overwhelming majority of the money on your offense and you'd most likely have a great offense.You'd need an all-time great offense ala the Indians to win with that kind of pitching. It doesn't work that easily, especially in the playoffs when you tend to face great pitching and have trouble scoring.



I've never said cheaper, I've just said a good value. I've agreed that Garcia's price is reasonable in the market but I never said the market generated good values. I'm not arguing that only lower priced players are good values. Batista and Redman who I've mentioned have middling salaries (around 4 million). I think IRod's salary is high but reasonable. The same for what the Yanks now pay ARod. Vlad's salary was very reasonable. It has nothing to do with price and everything to do with the production you receive considering what you spent.I dont' even know what your'e trying to say here. The point is that just because Redman's value is greater than his salary doesn't mean that you can build your rotation with a bunch of Redman's. As I said - if I had Loaiza at 1mil, a rotation of 4 or 5 of him wouldn't make for a winning team, even if you spent the rest on offense. If your point is that you'd rather have Mulder at 12 mil than Garcia at 9, I don't know that I'd disagree....but that's not an option. The only Mulder-caliber pitcher available is Pedro, and he'll go for more than 12 IMO (I'd guess something around 13-14mil for 3 years). He's also not a great long-term bet given his health issues. You could wait another year or 2, but then you're turning over much of a veteran team.


I checked Anaheim's stats from that season, they were second or third in the league in pitching so I was way off there. However, I think calculating the money spent on pitching is a pretty poor way to evaluate whether you can win with poor pitching. The A's haven't spent a lot but you'd certainly agree pitching is their strong suit.

The A's win because they have taken time to develop excellent pitching. The Sox aren't in position to do that right now unless they want to give up the next few years and rebuild. From the position they're in, it's better to invest resources into pitching at the top of the rotation and fill in with cheaper hitters and bottom of the rotation starters. They have offensive cornerstones locked up and need some tweaking that can be done relatively cheaply (i.e. adding a catallanotto for a couple of mil).

From the position the Sox were in, there were 4 options: A-Sign Freddy at the going rate, B-sign lesser pitchers cheaper, C-trade existing assets for pitchers, or D-go via draft. D doesn't work because the team is aging and will need rebuilding before it bears fruit. C is difficult because you have to create other holes on the team, and in any case I don't believe there are many young, cheap, good pitchers available (The Yankees are hte one exception to the rule that teams hold onto those types, and they don't have any more of them). B likely won't get you into the playoffs, and even if it does, it certainly wont' get you deep in the playoffs. A is what the Sox did.

Win1ForMe
08-05-2004, 04:42 PM
jeremy,

You should also make a Miguel Olivo v. Ben Davis watch. Here, I'll start you off:
Olivo - .228/.290/.456 with SEA.
Davis - .303/.303/.505 with CHI.

Just sayin' :cool:

jeremyb1
08-06-2004, 04:53 PM
Right. Good plan. And in 2-3 years, when it bears fruit, you'll be replacing the rest of the team (or at least Frank, Paulie, Valentin, Lee, Maggs). Way to go. If that's the strategy, you'd be better off dealing your veteran hitterss now for prospects & younger players.

Well if your smart you're already developing good players. With the exception of Frank and maybe Jose, it's not like it's really hard to the other players. You don't think we could turn the 30 milion we're paying Maggs, Carlos, and Paully into three pretty good players in free agency?

And as for trading for "good young pitchers with low salaries", I haven't seen any of those deals in a while, especially not by contending teams. Good young pitchers with low salaries don't often get dealt unless it's by contenders looking to add top-level pieces for a championship run. So to get them, you weaken yourself in the short term, which brings us back to the point above.

Well what would we have had to trade to get a top young pitcher? I mean good, young pitchers are hard to come by but they're not untouchable. I don't think we could've landed Sheets like some suggested but a Brian Lawrence or Zach Day can be had for the right price. Those types of deals don't ussually go down at the deadline because as you noted the structure is ussually contending teams trading young players to out of contention teams for veterans but the A's did deal for Lilly a few deadlines ago. And hey, make the deal in the offseason and you can have the player for the entire season.

Let's see, the Rangers & Red Sox play in 2 of the top scoring parks in the game. Turner & SkyDome aren't far behind. For those teams to be average in ERA is actually pretty good.

Not convinced? Let's look at LCS teams from the last 5 years - NYY, Boston, Anaheim, Minnesota, Seattle, Florida, Chicago, San Fran, St Louis, Arizona, Atlanta, NYM.

All but Boston, SF, STL had very good to excellent pitching. And even SF had Jason Schmidt, and 2 pretty good pitchers in Rueter & Ortiz - not the innings eaters you're talking about getting on the cheap. Take away Schmidt from thatgroup and they don't win. Same with Boston sans Pedro. You need a top-level pitcher in the rotation, you can't fill in with undervalued but merely above-average guys throughout the staff.

Park effects?? I'm as big a fan as any of recognizing park effects but I've never seen anyone claim they have that type of impact. You're trying to tell me that the Rangers team with Blalock, Texiera, Soriano, etc as hitters and Rogers and Dreese as their two best pitchers is actually a well balanced team with strong pitching? Huh?!?! Any Boston crushed the ball last season at home and away. They had huge seasons from Mueller, Ortiz, and Millar to add to Manny, Nomar and Company. As for their pitching the rotation was thin after Pedro and their pen was terrible at the begginning of the season. These teams had/have middling pitching at best with tremendous offense and are winning games. Most teams don't have that type of offense but if you do you don't have to have great pitching.

I don't think your examples hold a lot of weight because that's just showing that clearly most teams are more balanced. Most teams don't have great pitching and terrible hitting or vice versa so obviously by the same token most teams that make the playoffs aren't going to fit into one of those categories. If you can show me teams with middle of the pack pitching and tremendous offenses that floundered then you'd have something but I'm not sure what those examples would be. There are teams like the last few seasons Rangers' clubs with great offense and the worst pitching imaginable but obviously you have to prevent runs some to win. Dead last will rarely do it.

I don't think you've shown any such thing. You've shown that it's cheaper, not that it's better. As I said - I'll put up the current Sox rotation against Mulder & 4 Loaiza's any day. In any case, if a Mulder's available I'm not aware of it.

Well I showed that that rotation would feature an ERA in the top half of the AL and as good as our staff. Did you disagree with my methods there? Those calculations were pretty rough in that they assumed all five pitchers throw the same amount of innings and that the bullpen is no better than the rotation both of which benefit your side of the argument. I used the term better because if you can get the same thing for even a few million dollars less that's obviously an improvement.


You'd need an all-time great offense ala the Indians to win with that kind of pitching. It doesn't work that easily, especially in the playoffs when you tend to face great pitching and have trouble scoring.

Again, average the ERA of the four Loaiza's and Mulder (I did this prior to Loaiza's last start). It's 4.5 or 4.6 IIRC which is about 7th in the AL. Clearly you can win with that without a record setting offense, I've already shown you a few teams that have done so. We were going to win the division until injuries hurt the offense this season and that's where our ERA has been.

I dont' even know what your'e trying to say here. The point is that just because Redman's value is greater than his salary doesn't mean that you can build your rotation with a bunch of Redman's. As I said - if I had Loaiza at 1mil, a rotation of 4 or 5 of him wouldn't make for a winning team, even if you spent the rest on offense. If your point is that you'd rather have Mulder at 12 mil than Garcia at 9, I don't know that I'd disagree....but that's not an option. The only Mulder-caliber pitcher available is Pedro, and he'll go for more than 12 IMO (I'd guess something around 13-14mil for 3 years). He's also not a great long-term bet given his health issues. You could wait another year or 2, but then you're turning over much of a veteran team.

Well, four Redmans again give your rotation an ERA of 4.5 which is quite good. I'd rather have an ace for the playoffs but I'm not going to pay for it if it's not a good value. You're corrent there's no Mulder available this offseason but certainly there is in the long term. I find it rash to commit massive resources over a long period of time to a player when thinking only about the next season.


The A's win because they have taken time to develop excellent pitching. The Sox aren't in position to do that right now unless they want to give up the next few years and rebuild. From the position they're in, it's better to invest resources into pitching at the top of the rotation and fill in with cheaper hitters and bottom of the rotation starters. They have offensive cornerstones locked up and need some tweaking that can be done relatively cheaply (i.e. adding a catallanotto for a couple of mil).

I disagree with the notion that it takes time and rebuilding to develop good pitching. High picks certainly helped the A's net Zito and Mulder but Harden, Blanton, and Hudson were not taken at the top of the draft. Blanton would be in our rotation right now but we took Ring who became Alomar instead. I think it just takes some smarts and the patience not to move the guys you acquire in deadline deals, something KW rarely seem to have.

From the position the Sox were in, there were 4 options: A-Sign Freddy at the going rate, B-sign lesser pitchers cheaper, C-trade existing assets for pitchers, or D-go via draft. D doesn't work because the team is aging and will need rebuilding before it bears fruit. C is difficult because you have to create other holes on the team, and in any case I don't believe there are many young, cheap, good pitchers available (The Yankees are hte one exception to the rule that teams hold onto those types, and they don't have any more of them). B likely won't get you into the playoffs, and even if it does, it certainly wont' get you deep in the playoffs. A is what the Sox did.

Like I said, in my mind Reed, Olivo, and Morse is a huge package for a guy elligible for free agency in few months. I would be interested to see what we could've gotten elsewhere even if it required sweetening the deal some. I'd rather throw Sweeney in the deal and get Sabathia if that's possible than make the deal we did.

ndgt10
08-06-2004, 06:43 PM
Like I said, in my mind Reed, Olivo, and Morse is a huge package for a guy elligible for free agency in few months. I would be interested to see what we could've gotten elsewhere even if it required sweetening the deal some. I'd rather throw Sweeney in the deal and get Sabathia if that's possible than make the deal we did.
Reed, Olivo, Morse, Sweeney for Sabathia?

I like Garcia more than Sabathia, so obviously I believe adding Sweeney and only getting Sabathia is a horrible deal.

Your dislike for Garcia is sickening...

OEO Magglio
08-06-2004, 06:49 PM
Like I said, in my mind Reed, Olivo, and Morse is a huge package for a guy elligible for free agency in few months. I would be interested to see what we could've gotten elsewhere even if it required sweetening the deal some. I'd rather throw Sweeney in the deal and get Sabathia if that's possible than make the deal we did.What????????? Your complaining that the sox overpaid for Garcia, yet you want to add another top prospect for a guy that is worse then Freddy.:?:

Wealz
08-06-2004, 07:02 PM
What????????? Your complaining that the sox overpaid for Garcia, yet you want to add another top prospect for a guy that is worse then Freddy.:?:
Sabathia is owed $11.5M over through 2006. Garcia $27M through 2007. I'd rather have Sabathia too.

jabrch
08-06-2004, 07:05 PM
What????????? Your complaining that the sox overpaid for Garcia, yet you want to add another top prospect for a guy that is worse then Freddy.:?:
I don't read much of Jeremy's schtick anymore. It appears as if he only wants anything other than whatever KW does.

Flight #24
08-06-2004, 09:15 PM
Sabathia is owed $11.5M over through 2006. Garcia $27M through 2007. I'd rather have Sabathia too.
The appropriate comparison is therefore Garcia @ 17mil & Sabathia @ 11.5mil both through 2006. Because if you like Sabathia, you'll probably have to sig him to a big deal or replace him in 2007.

Oh, but I forgot - you don't want to give good pitchers market-value contracts, it's bad baseball.....

And for the record: Yes, I think Garcia is worth more than Sabathia. I'll give Garcia the 5.5mil and keep Ryan Sweeney, thank you.

Flight #24
08-06-2004, 09:16 PM
I don't read much of Jeremy's schtick anymore. It appears as if he only wants anything other than whatever KW does.
No, he also thinks that you can create a 4-man pitching staff with $4mil. That can work for a bottom of the rotation guy because you're not asking a lot, but 4/5 pitchers????:?:

Flight #24
08-06-2004, 10:02 PM
Well if your smart you're already developing good players. With the exception of Frank and maybe Jose, it's not like it's really hard to the other players. You don't think we could turn the 30 milion we're paying Maggs, Carlos, and Paully into three pretty good players in free agency?

Gee, my 3-years out timewarp sunglasses must be on the fritz because I'm not sure who'll be available in FA, what the going rate will be, what the baseball economic climate will be (CBA expires in 2006). I do know that rather than wait until 2006 for a possible chance with many variable that can screw it up, I'd rather take a chance now when I have a good one.


Well what would we have had to trade to get a top young pitcher? I mean good, young pitchers are hard to come by but they're not untouchable. I don't think we could've landed Sheets like some suggested but a Brian Lawrence or Zach Day can be had for the right price. Those types of deals don't ussually go down at the deadline because as you noted the structure is ussually contending teams trading young players to out of contention teams for veterans but the A's did deal for Lilly a few deadlines ago. And hey, make the deal in the offseason and you can have the player for the entire season. I'd agree with you about dealing in the offseason, but it doesn't happen that often because teams don't usually want to deal current assets for future assets then. Especially not for good players (unless they're due big raises, which invalidates at least part of your premise to get them cheap). The Expos being a prime exception.


Well I showed that that rotation would feature an ERA in the top half of the AL and as good as our staff. Did you disagree with my methods there? Those calculations were pretty rough in that they assumed all five pitchers throw the same amount of innings and that the bullpen is no better than the rotation both of which benefit your side of the argument. I used the term better because if you can get the same thing for even a few million dollars less that's obviously an improvement.

Again, average the ERA of the four Loaiza's and Mulder (I did this prior to Loaiza's last start). It's 4.5 or 4.6 IIRC which is about 7th in the AL. Clearly you can win with that without a record setting offense, I've already shown you a few teams that have done so. We were going to win the division until injuries hurt the offense this season and that's where our ERA has been.
It might work in theory, but I highly doubt you'd get 4 guys who all can be even serviceable at the prices you're talking. If you end up with 1 or 2 of your Loaiza's pitching like he has in the 2d half (or really, after May), you'll have a lot of trouble. It also puts an enormous strain on your bullpen. And the whole premise is predicated on the concept that you have a Mulder, who's one of the top 5 or so pitchers in baseball, and that you get him at 12 mil. There isn't a Mulder out there for at least a year or 2, and I'd guess you'll end up paying more becuase they hit the market pretty rarely. We'll see what Pedro makes, I'd guess it's closer to 14mil than 12, and maybe even more depending on how bad Big George wants him.

Again - you want to give up this season, hope to get a guy next season and hope to get him at the rate that lets you find your other pitchers. Or you want to wait 2 seasons to get him, at which point you're doing a lot more replacing. I disagree with that basic concept.


You're corrent there's no Mulder available this offseason but certainly there is in the long term. I find it rash to commit massive resources over a long period of time to a player when thinking only about the next season. OK, so you admit you can't find those guys, and because they rarely come available, I think your pricing on them is low. I also think that a 3-year deal is not long term, not for a team that's likely to be turning over a big chunk of it's roster by the end of those 3 years. Sound like it's about right - the contract comes due when the big changes are happening, so you can either deal the pitcher or let him walk (or resign him). It's not just for next year, I think Paul Konerko is replaceable. But I think when you look at the combo of Paul, Maggs, Frank, Lee all being gone - that's a much bigger deal.


I disagree with the notion that it takes time and rebuilding to develop good pitching. High picks certainly helped the A's net Zito and Mulder but Harden, Blanton, and Hudson were not taken at the top of the draft. Blanton would be in our rotation right now but we took Ring who became Alomar instead. I think it just takes some smarts and the patience not to move the guys you acquire in deadline deals, something KW rarely seem to have.Huh? Blanton might be in our rotation, but would he be any better than Diaz was? Not based on his AAA stats he wouldn't. But I'm sure he "projects higher" in some way that doesn't show up in AAA. Harden's been pretty inconsistent (I follow him closely since he's on my fantasy team). He's pitching better of late, but is fine as a #4, not as a 1 or 2. The Sox would still be mising that. Regardless, if you think either is capable of doing anything but being a #4 type of starter in the next 1-2 years, I'd say your mistaken. So again - if you want to wait, you might as well deal Maggs, Paulie, Lee, etc for other young players ala Cleveland a few years ago.



Like I said, in my mind Reed, Olivo, and Morse is a huge package for a guy elligible for free agency in few months. I would be interested to see what we could've gotten elsewhere even if it required sweetening the deal some. I'd rather throw Sweeney in the deal and get Sabathia if that's possible than make the deal we did.
Well, so you want to get a worse pitcher, give up MORE prospects, and save what - 5mil over 2 years (Since CC's @ $11.5mil through 06 & Garcia's 05 & 06 #s are 17mil). I'll pay 5.5mil and keep Ryan Sweeney, thank you. And who's to say CC was even on the market? Cleveland's got some good OF talent, so I don't know that they'd be looking for a Reed+Sweeney deal. And last I looked, they had a pretty decent catcher. They're looking to contend in the next year or 2, why would they trade a good pitcher for pieces they already have?:?:

This discussion is WAY beyond ludicrous. I cannot disagree more with some of your basic premises about the availability, cost, and value of pitching. High quality pitching is nowhere near as easy to come by as you think it is, and is WAY more valuable than you make it out to be. It's also not as easy as you make it to put together the type of offense that you'd need to win with the pitching staff you want to put together (not to mention the fact that you can't simply go out and get the top-level ace that you need to make your scenario work).

You have some nice theoretical ideas, but many of them are simply not grounded in reality or practicality.