Ozzie Ball

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 18, 2009 -> 02:48 AM) Why are other pitchers who outperform Javy with the same defense "worth" significantly less? Garland and Javy had the same defense, pitched in the same park in 2006. Garland had a better ERA, won more games, lost fewer games and your stat says Javy wasn't only worth more than him, but $12 million more. He even gives up more homers than Garland. Walks more than Garland. Apparently the outfielders not being able to jump 75 feet in the air is screwing him as well.Don't you find a flaw with that? No matter what team Javy has pitched with, and he's pitched for 4 of them now, he just keeps getting screwed by his defense. I think your stat basically puts a premium on a strikeout saying all the other stuff the pitcher can't control. Well obviously the strikeout is going to be valued more highly than any other event because a strikeout leads to an out at a higher percentage than any other event, but it doesn't solely value the K. Here's the full methodology behind the stat.

And Excerpt from John Sickels' book via his site: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/1/17/7...e-book-excerpts

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 05:51 PM) Any way to evaluate Javy Vazquez's 3 year stint as a White Sox is worth $85 million, or $28.3 million a year for a guy who 2 out of the 3 years had gave up more runs than league average and was below .500 on a team that was quite a bit above .500, is more than a little flawed. Again, tRA eliminates the factors that a pitcher cannot control, so in other words Javy has been screwed over by defense and his home ballpark. This past season for example, Javy is a fly ball pitcher with Quentin, Swish/Griffey and Dye roaming his outfield and we're expecting him to have huge success? His BABIP was .316, the highest it's been over any of the last 6 years, he was set up to fail this year and I think it's unfair to criticise him for that. QUOTE (sircaffey @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 04:50 PM) Any metric that puts Javy ahead of Johan Santana, should be rethought. Johan had a tRA of 3.75 compared to Javy's 3.51 last season. In fact, Johan had a worse tRA in 2007 as well. I guess the Mets should have spent $200 million on Javy. This "statistic" is garbage. Or maybe it's public perception that's garbage.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 04:05 PM) Please tell me I'm not the only who doesn't know WTF WAR and tRA, and all that other crap is. I've been following and watching baseball my whole life, and I never heard of those stats. tRA is a fairly new metric, I think WAR has been around for a little longer. I can link you to some good sites if you want to learn about them, I would just post the links here but I don't get the feeling that anyone's particularly receptive towards the fact that there may be other ways of evaluating players and so I'd rather not waste my time. Just let me know.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 11:30 AM) You mention someone doesn't "know the game well enough", and you cite some crazy stats that have a pitcher who was : 11-12 4.84 ERA for a team that won 90 games 15-8 3.74 ERA for a team that lost 90 games 12-16 4.67 ERA for a team that won a division worth almost $30 million a year for those 3 years. In other words, if he was paid what your crazy stats think he should be paid, Javy Vazquez basically should be the highest paid player in baseball history on the basis of a 38-36 record with a 4.40 ERA. You even have his 2006 performance worth more than his 2007 performance. I figure I have a little bit of knowledge when it comes to baseball, and just by looking at stats and the games, I would think Javy was much better in 2007 than he was in 2006. Jon Garland on the other hand was 18-7 4.51 ERA 10-13 4.23 ERA 14-8 4.90 ERA According to your fine stats and "knowledge of the game" Garland's 42-28 record and 4.54 ERA over the same time (during the 3 seasons Garland pitched 11 total fewer innings than Vazquez and gave up 4 more earned runs) those numbers are "worth" $20 million a year less than Vazquez. An average of 3 2/3 innings a year and 1.3 runs a year, is worth $20 million . In fact, pitching on the same team in 2006, Garland's 18-7 4.51 vs. Vazquez 11-12 4.84 is worth $12 million less. LOL. Nice stats. According to you 14-8 4.90 ERA worth 1.92 million if its Jon Garland, 12-16 4.67 ERA worth 27.84 million if you're Javy Vazquez. I don't think there are many that understand that game. Scott Boras has his eye on you. If he ever takes over for Trump on "The Apprentice", you would have to be a favorite. Firstly, I didn't say I have a great knowledge of the game, I just know enough to realise the obvious flaws in ERA, please read this fantastic piece from USS Mariners Dave Cameron on pitcher evaluation, he's able to sum it all up far better than I would be able to. Secondly tRA is not "my crazy stat", it's a metric designed by people much smarter than I and it only takes into account factors that we know a pitcher can control, so things like defense and home ballpark factors are eliminated and it tells us exactly how good a pitcher is. So what that tells us is that if everything were equal, Vazquez, on pure ability, would be around a 6 win player, which on the open market is worth nearly $30m a year. QUOTE (Jimmywins1 @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 03:02 PM) Anything that values a pitcher by their win total is terribly flawed. If the Padres are absolutely terrible this year and Jake Peavy only wins 8 games, does that make Javier Vazquez a better pitcher/worth more than him? I was using WAR (Wins Above Replacement player) as my source for the win totals not the pitchers W/L records.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 02:19 AM) How did Mark Buerhle stack up after 2006? I'm not saying Garland is the equivalent of Buerhle. Garland had a bad second half. He's still a better than average starter. If Javy Vazquez is worth $11.5 million a year, Garland is going to be a bargain for the team he pitches for in 2009. Vazquez is worth a whole lot more than $11.5m a year, he's really a terrific pitcher, here are his last three seasons by tRA and WAR: 2006: tRA- 3.57 (lgtRA- 5.11) WAR- 6.0 2007: tRA- 3.56 (lgtRA- 4.99) WAR- 5.9 2008: tRA- 3.51 (lgtRA- 4.87) WAR- 5.8 Currently one win on the open market is worth I believe around $4.8m, now don't quote me on that, but I think that is the mark (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong), so by that value Vazquez has been worth $28.8m, $28.32m and $27.84m over the last three years respectively. Garland on the other hand, here are his tRA and WAR totals over the last three seasons: 2006: tRA- 4.58 (lgtRA- 5.11) WAR- 3.5 2007: tRA- 5.50 (lgtRA- 4.99) WAR- 1.1 2008: tRA- 5.74 (lgtRA- 4.87) WAR- 0.4 And going by the same value as before he was worth $16.8m, $5.28m and $1.92m over the last three years. Also you mentioned Buehrle so I thought I'd chuck him in here: 2006: tRA- 5.22 (lgtRA- 5.11) WAR- 2 2007: tRA- 4.57 (lgtRA- 4.99) WAR- 3.1 2008: tRA- 4.03 (lgtRA- 4.87) WAR- 4.5 Which would have made him worth $9.6m, $14.88m and $21.6m. Now because WCSox and I were discussing Oliver Perez I'll throw him in too: 2006: tRA- 5.40 (lgtRA- 5.11) WAR- 0.3 (In very limited PT it must be noted) 2007: tRA- 4.19 (lgtRA- 4.99) WAR- 3.6 2008: tRA- 4.98 (lgtRA- 4.87) WAR- 1.7 Making him worth $1.44m, $17.28m and $8.16m over the three years. So over those three years Vazquez was worth $84.94m and he was paid $35.5m (a net underpay of $49.44m), Garland was worth $24m and he was paid $29m (a net overpay of $5m), Buehrle was worth $46.08m and he was paid $31.25m (a net underpay of $14.83m) and finally Oliver Perez was worth a combined $26.88m and was paid $10.725m (net underpay of $16.155m). (Contract values all from Cot's). QUOTE (Texsox @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 02:51 AM) You know just sayin' basically you are telling someone, use my stats (which prove me right) or it's impossible to have a discussion. Kind of stacking the deck before playing the hand. I was more trying to make the point that if he can't realise the obvious flaws in the ERA and ERA+ statistics then it is going to be difficult to have a discussion with him because, fundamentally, he just doesn't know the game well enough, although reading back I realise it does sound like I'm saying "use my metric or you're an idiot". QUOTE (WCSox @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 02:16 AM) Over one season. Try again. Amended. QUOTE (WCSox @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 02:16 AM) Your posts are heavy on hyperbole and lacking in common sense. Too bad sabermetrics can't help you with that. It really is.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 11:58 PM) Despite what your stat cherry-picking suggests, Garland doesn't "suck." In fact, he's had a significantly better career than Perez (whose 100 ERA+ last season was pretty average). But I agree that Perez will likely (and rightfully) garner a larger contract, due to his youth, better stuff, and better numbers over the past two seasons. Cherry-picking stats? I used tRA, probably the best stat currently available for evaluating a pitchers ability (along with tRA* and tRA+) as well as WAR, you use the awful ERA+ stat, really, if you can't see how flawed that metric is then it's impossible for me to have a discussion with you about pitchers and a pitchers ability.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 07:22 PM) He's coming off of a below-average year. He also has several solid years, youth, and a ring on his side. Oliver Perez has had some absolutely terrible seasons (especially for the NL), so I'm not seeing your logic here. "Below average"? Garland ranked 113th among starters in tRA last season at 5.74, that is terrible, he's had several very mediocre seasons where he's been around a 2-2.5 WAR player and one decent year when he was a 3.5 WAR player. Admittedly me saying Perez is "good" was a little kind, but if I was to risk $10m+/year on one of the two it would be Perez because of the upside but personally I wouldn't touch either of them.

QUOTE (bschmaranz @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 06:56 PM) If Oliver Perez is on the verge of $10M/yr, Garland should be right in there too. Why? Oli Perez is good, Garland is terrible and therefore I don't see any reason why the two would be payed equally.

^yes. Some links on the aforementioned Kyle Long story in case anyone missed it: Well... not links, I don't have the links any more, just the stories.

From the comments: I think it's a good move on both parts, Allen definitely deserves to be at least a B-.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 19, 2008 -> 03:08 PM) What? We're currently with only 3 proven starters on the ML level, one of which, Floyd, very well could regress. I'm all for a little battle for the #5 spot, but a team that has ANY aspirations of repeating as AL Central Champs sure as hell had better have another major league arm ready. I agree to an extent, I believe we need another arm but Garland is most definitely not the answer due to the fact that he has been terrible for the last two years and even prior to that he was only ever league average. Handing $10+/year to Jon would be a huge mistake, however if we could get a Ben Sheets on a similar deal then that would be a great move, then we'd only have about 4 spots in our line up and one spot in our rotation to worry about. Result!

I hate Orlando but in his defense he was the best defensive SS in terms of UZR and the 5th best defensive player in baseball by UZR.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Dec 9, 2008 -> 10:35 PM) 4 1/2 Days. Last day is Rule 5 Draft that should be fun It's not.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prosp...008/267292.html

51-60: * 51. Justin Smoak, 1B, Rangers * 52. Logan Morrison, OF/1B, Marlins * 53. Daniel Cortes, RHP, Royals * 54. Jordan Walden, RHP, Angels * 55. Ivan DeJesus, SS, Dodgers * 56. Aaron Poreda, LHP, White Sox * 57. Brett Cecil, LHP, Blue Jays * 58. J.P. Arencibia, C, Blue Jays * 59. Tim Alderson, RHP, Giants * 60. Aaron Hicks, OF, Twins http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...sp&c_id=mlb I think it's a really bad list.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 03:15 AM) Where is that article at? Goldstein's blog talks about it, that's all I can see: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=1118

QUOTE (spiderman @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 03:11 AM) Twitter? http://twitter.com/

QUOTE (Sox It To Em @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 02:46 AM) Worse than Fields? Rally's fielding projections has Encarnacion as a -14 for next year and Fields as a -9.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 08:20 PM) According to the chat(thanks to Jim at Soxmachine.com), Nevin Griffith had Tommy John surgery and is out for all of '09, Buddy Bell really likes Morel's D at 3rd, Jon Link may be in the front of the line for back-of-the-bullpen fodder, and Carter and Hudson may start at W-S this year. I think the Jorge Castillo possibly moving to catcher point is a fairly significant one also, as a 1st baseman he's not much of a prospect, but if he can learn to catch, and catch well, he suddenly become a much more attractive prospect.

Originally posted by larry at SSS:

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 14, 2008 -> 06:02 PM) Whoa. I just read a rumor that St Louis was interested in Dye and Javy and have been dangling Colby Rasmus. He would be a perfect fit for us. He's a CF'er, lead off hitter, has speed. If we could get a package involving Rasmus that would be great, then all we'd need to do is flip some prospects to Florida for Hermida, sign Lowe and we'd be almost set. Oh, also, could I get a link to that rumour?

I believe Brandon Allen needs to be protected.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Nov 14, 2008 -> 01:30 PM) I think Wing may actually be a minor league free agent He is according to; http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=1786

Harrell making improvements: http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=1776