PDA

View Full Version : AA v. AAA


Tragg
03-17-2005, 10:50 PM
The discussion of B Mac brought something to mind.

It seems to me that at least through the mid-1990s, AA Birmingham is where we put our studs, not AAA. McDowell, Fernandez ----these guys spent most of their time in Birmingham, not AAA, did they not? I seem to think Durham is the same way.

I don't remember about MB, and I don't know if our philosophy was changed.

But we used to develop our TOP prospects through AA, not AAA, to my memory.

Ol' No. 2
03-17-2005, 11:08 PM
The discussion of B Mac brought something to mind.

It seems to me that at least through the mid-1990s, AA Birmingham is where we put our studs, not AAA. McDowell, Fernandez ----these guys spent most of their time in Birmingham, not AAA, did they not? I seem to think Durham is the same way.

I don't remember about MB, and I don't know if our philosophy was changed.

But we used to develop our TOP prospects through AA, not AAA, to my memory.There's an old saying among scouts: "The good ones come along fast." Buehrle came up directly from AA after only 16 starts there. Danny Wright came up directly from AA, too. Some work out better than others.:o: I could look up other examples if I felt like it. I would give it a 90% chance that McCarthy will be sent to the AA camp after his next start. He'll pitch there for at least 10 starts. He still needs to work on that changeup and on learning the art of pitching. If he continues to develop at the same pace, it's very likely we'll see him before September. But as good as he's looked, there are no guarantees. I'll leave you with two words: Scott Ruffcorn.

Randar68
03-17-2005, 11:29 PM
But we used to develop our TOP prospects through AA, not AAA, to my memory.

I'll give you 2 reasons...

1) forr the past 10+ years, seems we've always been short at least one starter, meaning guys get rushed and pushed. With 5 real starters, hopefully this issue will dissipate long enough to give some of these guys time to develop.

2) AAA is full of veteran hitters and Charlotte is a hitter's park, does nothinig for the confidence....

StillMissOzzie
03-18-2005, 12:38 AM
For what it's worth, Hawk has also said on more than one occassion that AA is where the real prospects are. IIRC, he also felt that AAA was more for rehabs than true prospects.

SMO
:gulp:

SABRSox
03-18-2005, 12:44 AM
For what it's worth, Hawk has also said on more than one occassion that AA is where the real prospects are. IIRC, he also felt that AAA was more for rehabs than true prospects.

Case in point:
:LTP

Mohoney
03-18-2005, 01:09 AM
I'll leave you with two words: Scott Ruffcorn.

But McCarthy blows Ruffcorn's K/9 and K/BB ratios away.

350 minor league innings, and all the guy has ever done is dominate. Now he's dominating in Spring Training, too.

I know that he's not going to start the season with the Sox, so don't attack me for this, but the 406/60 minor league K/BB ratio, that curveball, and the way he carries himself all make me hope against hope that somebody floors us with a great trade offer for Garland so I can see McCarthy pitch.

For my $30, I would rather see McCarthy than Garland any day.

mdep524
03-18-2005, 11:25 AM
... make me hope against hope that somebody floors us with a great trade offer for Contreras so I can see McCarthy pitch.

For my $30, I would rather see McCarthy than Contreras any day.
Fixed it for ya. :D: Hey, it's in deep pink, right?

santo=dorf
03-18-2005, 11:46 AM
Fixed it for ya. :D: Hey, it's in deep pink, right?
At least Contreras wants to be here, and he has stuff.

mdep524
03-18-2005, 11:49 AM
At least Contreras wants to be here, and he has stuff. Billy Koch wanted "to be here" too. Garland's stuff is plently good BTW. Neither one of them has a head on their shoulders. Considering that, I'll take Garland, who is cheaper, younger, more consistent and had better numbers last year.

santo=dorf
03-18-2005, 11:55 AM
Billy Koch wanted "to be here" too. Garland's stuff is plently good BTW. Neither one of them has a head on their shoulders. Considering that, I'll take Garland, who is cheaper, younger, more consistent and had better numbers last year.
Billy Koch did not have to waive a no-trade clause to come here.

Why do you care about how much money they are making? KW filled all of our holes and JR said there will be money available at the deadline, so why should we be concerned with how much players are making? :?:

Garland might be more consistent, but that means you'll be getting alot of 6 IP, 4 ER, 2 K games, which is fine for a #5, but not good enough for a #3 (a spot given to him the previous 3 seasons.)

Since you're judging by one season, who had better numbers in 2003?

mdep524
03-18-2005, 12:23 PM
Billy Koch did not have to waive a no-trade clause to come here.

Why do you care about how much money they are making? KW filled all of our holes and JR said there will be money available at the deadline, so why should we be concerned with how much players are making? :?:

Garland might be more consistent, but that means you'll be getting alot of 6 IP, 4 ER, 2 K games, which is fine for a #5, but not good enough for a #3 (a spot given to him the previous 3 seasons.)

Since you're judging by one season, who had better numbers in 2003?
Santo, I respect you and agree with you a large majority of the time around here, but this is one subject on which we've never agreed.

a.) Conteras has a higher salary than Garland, but produces inferior numbers, (4.85 career ERA for Contreras, 4.68 for Garland) thus he is over priced relative to Garland.

b.) 4 ER over 6 IP works out to a 6.00 ERA, which Garland has never had, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers from. Neither pitcher is a stud, that line could easily come from Contreras. I'll take Garland's consistency.

c.) To say that Garland isn't good enough to be a number 3 but Contreras somehow is is baffling to me. :?: (IMO neither is.)

d.) Both pitchers have equal opportunity to improve in '05, and I hope both of them do. I am just less confident in Contreras, and think it is a large mistake to count on this guy to be a number 3 starter on a contending team. He just doesn't have the smarts or the mental toughness or fortitude to be counted on.

Give me a Mark Buehrle, Greg Maddux or Jamie Moyer--guys with less overpowering "stuff"--any day of the week (and twice on Sunday).

Ol' No. 2
03-18-2005, 01:46 PM
Santo, I respect you and agree with you a large majority of the time around here, but this is one subject on which we've never agreed.

a.) Conteras has a higher salary than Garland, but produces inferior numbers, (4.85 career ERA for Contreras, 4.68 for Garland) thus he is over priced relative to Garland.

b.) 4 ER over 6 IP works out to a 6.00 ERA, which Garland has never had, so I don't know where you are getting those numbers from. Neither pitcher is a stud, that line could easily come from Contreras. I'll take Garland's consistency.

c.) To say that Garland isn't good enough to be a number 3 but Contreras somehow is is baffling to me. :?: (IMO neither is.)

d.) Both pitchers have equal opportunity to improve in '05, and I hope both of them do. I am just less confident in Contreras, and think it is a large mistake to count on this guy to be a number 3 starter on a contending team. He just doesn't have the smarts or the mental toughness or fortitude to be counted on.

Give me a Mark Buehrle, Greg Maddux or Jamie Moyer--guys with less overpowering "stuff"--any day of the week (and twice on Sunday).Forget ERA. Contreras won 13 games last year. Garland is stuck on 12. By the most important measure there is, Garland is NOT better than Contreras.

SoxOnTop
03-18-2005, 02:08 PM
For my $30, I would rather see McCarthy than Garland any day.

...but I'll take Garland over Contreras any day.

OG4LIFE
03-18-2005, 02:18 PM
Forget ERA. Contreras won 13 games last year. Garland is stuck on 12. By the most important measure there is, Garland is NOT better than Contreras.

:?: ???????

forget ERA, man!

Ismael Valdez won 14 games last year, pitching in the national league (one team was the padres, who have one of the most pitcher-friendly parks in baseball).

Freddy Garcia won 13 games last year (half of which at coors east).

i guess you'll take valdez?????

Ol' No. 2
03-18-2005, 02:23 PM
:?: ???????

forget ERA, man!

Ismael Valdez won 14 games last year, pitching in the national league (one team was the padres, who have one of the most pitcher-friendly parks in baseball).

Freddy Garcia won 13 games last year (half of which at coors east).

i guess you'll take valdez?????Don't be ridiculous. Valdez and Garcia weren't even pitching in the same leagues, much less the same team.

mdep524
03-18-2005, 02:42 PM
Forget ERA. Contreras won 13 games last year. Garland is stuck on 12. By the most important measure there is, Garland is NOT better than Contreras. :o:

Forget ERA? No offense ON2, because I think you are very wise, but this is one of the least intelligent things you've ever said. ERA is a much, much better measure of a pitcher's isolated abilities and performance than wins.

If you put Jon Garland on the Yankees last year, I guarantee you he would have won more than 13 games. Also, does this mean that Freddy Garcia was a bad pitcher for Seattle last year because he only had 4 wins at the time of the trade?

Ol' No. 2
03-18-2005, 02:56 PM
:o:

Forget ERA? No offense ON2, because I think you are very wise, but this is one of the least intelligent things you've ever said. ERA is a much, much better measure of a pitcher's isolated abilities and performance than wins.

If you put Jon Garland on the Yankees last year, I guarantee you he would have won more than 13 games. Also, does this mean that Freddy Garcia was a bad pitcher for Seattle last year because he only had 4 wins at the time of the trade?Arrrgh!!!! Enough with the red herrings!!! We're not putting Jon Garland on the Yankees. We're comparing Garland and Contreras - two pitchers who pitched for the same team in the same park with the same offense supporting them. Over a relatively short span, ERA is prone to spiking from one really bad outing. But one really bad outing, no matter how bad, is still just one game. I'm a lot more interested in how often he was effective than how good he was on average.

Mohoney
03-18-2005, 10:18 PM
I'm a lot more interested in how often he was effective than how good he was on average.

Amen. This is where Judy falls way short in my eyes.

In my deep pink world, both of these guys are replaced now or in July.

:jon :crede

wdelaney72
03-21-2005, 09:43 AM
The problem with all of this is Contreras's salary. He's not even close to being worth the $6 million a year we're paying him (it sickens me to even think that he's getting an additional $3 million from the Yanks). He has all the stuff in the world with absolutely nothing upstairs. He shouldn't be anywhere higher than a 5th starter, but then again, neither should Garland.

Kenny WAY overpaid for Contreras, plain and simple. Salary has to be taken into consideration with our team. It affects who else is signed to the team. Taking salary and all other factors into consideration, I'd keep Garland and replace Contreras, but unfortunately, Steve Phillips is no longer an active GM.

Maybe Baltimore would like to trade for Contreras.

Iwritecode
03-21-2005, 10:21 AM
We're comparing Garland and Contreras - two pitchers who pitched for the same team in the same park with the same offense supporting them.

Have you been watching this team the past few years? The offense does anything but stay consistent day-to-day. IIRC, there was one year that Burly was getting 6+ runs of support per game and all the other pitchers were getting under 4.

W/L records are a horrible stat to use when comparing pitchers. They have very little control over it.

Contreras was on the Yankees for half the season last year so that blows your comparison out of the water anyway...

Ol' No. 2
03-21-2005, 11:29 AM
Have you been watching this team the past few years? The offense does anything but stay consistent day-to-day. IIRC, there was one year that Burly was getting 6+ runs of support per game and all the other pitchers were getting under 4.

W/L records are a horrible stat to use when comparing pitchers. They have very little control over it.

Contreras was on the Yankees for half the season last year so that blows your comparison out of the water anyway...Rubbish. Look at Contreras' record with the Sox and project to 33 starts and you get...13 wins. And I'm really getting sick and tired of the Burhrle run support myth. He won 2 games back to back last year 11-0 and 15-0. So I guess he only won those because of the run support, huh? Over a small number of starts, ERA can be badly inflated by one or two bad outings (see Shingo's August numbers). Look closer and I think you'll find Contreras was a better pitcher than Garland.

Flight #24
03-21-2005, 12:00 PM
Rubbish. Look at Contreras' record with the Sox and project to 33 starts and you get...13 wins. And I'm really getting sick and tired of the Burhrle run support myth. He won 2 games back to back last year 11-0 and 15-0. So I guess he only won those because of the run support, huh? Over a small number of starts, ERA can be badly inflated by one or two bad outings (see Shingo's August numbers). Look closer and I think you'll find Contreras was a better pitcher than Garland.

FWIW: Jon Garland in 2004 had 16 quality starts out of 33 total, Jose Contreras 13 out of 31. With the Sox, Contreras was 5 QS in 13 starts.

Iwritecode
03-21-2005, 12:16 PM
Rubbish. Look at Contreras' record with the Sox and project to 33 starts and you get...13 wins. And I'm really getting sick and tired of the Burhrle run support myth. He won 2 games back to back last year 11-0 and 15-0. So I guess he only won those because of the run support, huh? Over a small number of starts, ERA can be badly inflated by one or two bad outings (see Shingo's August numbers). Look closer and I think you'll find Contreras was a better pitcher than Garland.

Wow, now your using projected numbers instead of actual numbers? This is getting worse...

My only point is that wins and loses are more of a reflection of the team than the individual pitcher.

I hate to use this pitcher as an example but everyone always points to Kerry Woods career high in wins but fails to mention the number of times he's lost games because the team failed to score enough runs or the bullpen sucked.

Also, the point about Burly is that if you're getting 6+ runs of support a game, you don't have to be a good pitcher to rack up a lot of wins. Hell, Dan Wright could have won the same number of games with that kind of support...

Ol' No. 2
03-21-2005, 12:25 PM
Wow, now your using projected numbers instead of actual numbers? This is getting worse...

My only point is that wins and loses are more of a reflection of the team than the individual pitcher.

I hate to use this pitcher as an example but everyone always points to Kerry Woods career high in wins but fails to mention the number of times he's lost games because the team failed to score enough runs or the bullpen sucked.

Also, the point about Burly is that if you're getting 6+ runs of support a game, you don't have to be a good pitcher to rack up a lot of wins. Hell, Dan Wright could have won the same number of games with that kind of support...Now YOU'RE projecting. Dan Wright could have won those games, but that's completely irrelevant. Buehrle pitched consecutive shutouts, for crissake. What more do you want?

As for comparing Garland and Contreras, you're looking at a small number of games that, because of the small sample size, are subject to a lot of variation and inflation by one or two bad outings. Look at the whole picture. What about Contreras' 3.30 ERA in 2003? If you'd rather have Garland, you're welcome to him. I'll take Contreras over Garland any day.

Iwritecode
03-21-2005, 12:35 PM
Now YOU'RE projecting. Dan Wright could have won those games, but that's completely irrelevant. Buehrle pitched consecutive shutouts, for crissake. What more do you want?

As for comparing Garland and Contreras, you're looking at a small number of games that, because of the small sample size, are subject to a lot of variation and inflation by one or two bad outings. Look at the whole picture. What about Contreras' 3.30 ERA in 2003? If you'd rather have Garland, you're welcome to him. I'll take Contreras over Garland any day.

I'm not debating on who's better. I'm just questioning the stats you used to come to that conclusion.

Wins and loses are too dependant on whether or not the bullpen blows the game or the teams scores enough runs. It's not a reliable measure of how good a pitcher is IMO.

Ol' No. 2
03-21-2005, 12:41 PM
I'm not debating on who's better. I'm just questioning the stats you used to come to that conclusion.

Wins and loses are too dependant on whether or not the bullpen blows the game or the teams scores enough runs. It's not a reliable measure of how good a pitcher is IMO.Over a short period, everything is dependent on highly variable things. But you brought up Kerry Woulda. He's a perfect example of a pitcher who puts up great stats year after year and just doesn't win games. Over a few starts you can blame it on bullpen, run support, etc. But at what point do you decide that it's him? Some guys just know how to win.

mdep524
03-21-2005, 12:52 PM
Over a short period, everything is dependent on highly variable things. But you brought up Kerry Woulda. He's a perfect example of a pitcher who puts up great stats year after year and just doesn't win games. Over a few starts you can blame it on bullpen, run support, etc. But at what point do you decide that it's him? Some guys just know how to win. So you say "Over a short period everything is dependent on highly variable things," then use Contreras' two months with the Sow to project he is better than Garland? :?: Doesn't that violate the rule you just set out?

By the way, you're whole "projecting" thing is flawed anyway, because Jon Garland and Jose Cotreras had EXACTLY the same amount of wins (5) after Contreras joined the Sox.