He's gonna be matched up with a lot of other 5th starters. 

That doesnt work after the first few weeks of the season though. Everyone has different off days and schedules.

Unless he decreases the long balls he gives up, not much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I compiled this thread a while back:

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45103

 

2002 JavVaz Dominant:17, Just Quality:9, Just Winnable:4, Poor:5

2003 JavVaz Dominant:14,Just Quality:12,Just Winnable:6, Poor:2

2004 JavVaz Dominant:10, Just Quality:11,Just Winnable:5, Poor:9

2005 JavVaz Dominant:17, Just Quality:3, Just Winnable:3, Poor:10

 

It's the 17 dominant starts that Kenny was looking at. Whether Javier becomes our best pitcher will depend on whether an improved defense + AJ + Coop can cut his poor starts in 1/2. That's just a 5 game differential over 33 starts.

 

Obviously his ERA & HR's given up were greatly impacted by the 10 poor starts.

What shocks me about your suggestion is you're not even factoring the impact Cooper is going to have on Vazquez.  Just look at what he did for Garland Contra.  There's no reason to believe he can't make Vazquez a MUCH better pitcher as well.

 

Contreras was 15-7 with the Yankees, he went 15-7 last year with the World Champion Chicago White Sox. Is this MUCH better?

 

Also, look what a fine job he did with Koch, Colon, Adkins, Walker, Diaz, Ginter, Glover, Grilli, Jackson, Loaiza, Marte, Munoz, Rauch, Sanders, Shoeneweis, Stewart, Takatsu, White, Wright and Wunsch. If Cooper is so freaking great why couldn't he fix these guys?

 

I think there is a stronger corelation between success and a pitcher's health and talent than with his pitching coach. Coop's a good coach but the pitchers throw the ball.

Contreras was 15-7 with the Yankees, he went 15-7 last year with the World Champion Chicago White Sox.  Is this MUCH better?

 

Also, look what a fine job he did with Koch, Colon, Adkins, Walker, Diaz, Ginter, Glover, Grilli, Jackson, Loaiza, Marte, Munoz, Rauch, Sanders, Shoeneweis, Stewart, Takatsu, White, Wright and Wunsch.  If Cooper is so freaking great why couldn't he fix these guys?

 

I think there is a stronger corelation between success and a pitcher's health and talent than with his pitching coach.  Coop's a good coach but the pitchers throw the ball.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

None of those guys have good stuff or control?

Contreras was 15-7 with the Yankees, he went 15-7 last year with the World Champion Chicago White Sox.  Is this MUCH better?

 

Also, look what a fine job he did with Koch, Colon, Adkins, Walker, Diaz, Ginter, Glover, Grilli, Jackson, Loaiza, Marte, Munoz, Rauch, Sanders, Shoeneweis, Stewart, Takatsu, White, Wright and Wunsch.  If Cooper is so freaking great why couldn't he fix these guys?

 

I think there is a stronger corelation between success and a pitcher's health and talent than with his pitching coach.  Coop's a good coach but the pitchers throw the ball.

 

Are you honestly comparing the Yankees version of Jose Contreras to last year's version of Jose Contreras? lol. And what the hell is with some of those guys you named? You can't fix what never was. What the hell has Koch done since his last good season in 02? Colon was here one season and won 14 games. Loaiza was a fluke and everybody knew it before the 04 season started. You're gonna blame Coop because Marte could no longer throw strikes or get left handed hitters out anymore? All the other guys you named are scrubs who have never done anything with or away from the Sox. Nobody is implying Cooper can take any scrub and turn him into an all-star. NO pitching coach can do that. But his impact is undeniable.

That doesnt work after the first few weeks of the season though.  Everyone has different off days and schedules.

 

He'll get many more favorable match-ups with us than he would've as a Diamondback. Let's just put it that way.

Contreras was 15-7 with the Yankees, he went 15-7 last year with the World Champion Chicago White Sox.  Is this MUCH better?

Wins mean basically nothing when analyzing pitchers. Do you really think Contreras, or just about any other pitcher in the league, was better than Roger Clemens last year?

Wins mean basically nothing when analyzing pitchers.  Do you really think Contreras, or just about any other pitcher in the league, was better than Roger Clemens last year?

 

Well I wouldnt go that far.... Wins do mean something but yeah they are far from everything.... some pitchers pitch to Win though like if we score 5 runs they will give up 4 if we score 3 they give up 2 and so on.... I think Jack McDowell was a lot like that.

Well I wouldnt go that far.... Wins do mean something but yeah they are far from everything.... some pitchers pitch to Win though like if we score 5 runs they will give up 4 if we score 3 they give up 2 and so on.... I think Jack McDowell was a lot like that.

 

He was very much like that. The only stat that mattered to him was the W.

Are you honestly comparing the Yankees version of Jose Contreras to last year's version of Jose Contreras?  lol.  And what the hell is with some of those guys you named?  You can't fix what never was.  What the hell has Koch done since his last good season in 02?  Colon was here one season and won 14 games.  Loaiza was a fluke and everybody knew it before the 04 season started.  You're gonna blame Coop because Marte could no longer throw strikes or get left handed hitters out anymore?  All the other guys you named are scrubs who have never done anything with or away from the Sox.  Nobody is implying Cooper can take any scrub and turn him into an all-star.  NO pitching coach can do that.  But his impact is undeniable.

I was objecting to Jugg's assertion to another poster that just being around Don Cooper will make Javier Vazquez a better pitcher.

 

"What shocks me about your suggestion is you're not even factoring the impact Cooper is going to have on Vazquez. Just look at what he did for Garland Contra. There's no reason to believe he can't make Vazquez a MUCH better pitcher as well."

 

So, I showed that Contreras had success before Cooper got him and wasn't some failure that got magically turned around. Then I cited 22 guys who didn't fare so well under Coop, which to me is very good reason to question that his aura alone will cure Vazquez's tendency to stink the joint up 10 times a year.

 

I like Coop and think he and Oz did a masterfull job of keep everyone focused and fresh despite the heavy innings. I just don't buy that a guy like Vazquez, who has been the same for 8 years, will suddenly change his stripes just because of a new pitching coach.

I was objecting to Jugg's assertion to another poster that just being around Don Cooper will make Javier Vazquez a better pitcher. 

 

"What shocks me about your suggestion is you're not even factoring the impact Cooper is going to have on Vazquez. Just look at what he did for Garland Contra. There's no reason to believe he can't make Vazquez a MUCH better pitcher as well."

 

So, I showed that Contreras had success before Cooper got him and wasn't some failure that got magically turned around.  Then I cited 22 guys who didn't fare so well under Coop, which to me is very good reason to question that his aura alone  will cure Vazquez's tendency to stink the joint up 10 times a year. 

 

I like Coop and think he and Oz did a masterfull job of keep everyone focused and fresh despite the heavy innings.  I just don't buy that a guy like Vazquez, who has been the same for 8 years, will suddenly change his stripes just because of a new pitching coach.

 

The goal is to get him back to his 01-03 level. That's an attainable goal.

Keep predicting Owens as this stud CF'er and you will be flamed every time its proven otherwise.

I heard KW call Owens a CF at Soxfest.

I was objecting to Jugg's assertion to another poster that just being around Don Cooper will make Javier Vazquez a better pitcher. 

 

"What shocks me about your suggestion is you're not even factoring the impact Cooper is going to have on Vazquez. Just look at what he did for Garland Contra. There's no reason to believe he can't make Vazquez a MUCH better pitcher as well."

 

So, I showed that Contreras had success before Cooper got him and wasn't some failure that got magically turned around.  Then I cited 22 guys who didn't fare so well under Coop, which to me is very good reason to question that his aura alone  will cure Vazquez's tendency to stink the joint up 10 times a year. 

 

I like Coop and think he and Oz did a masterfull job of keep everyone focused and fresh despite the heavy innings.  I just don't buy that a guy like Vazquez, who has been the same for 8 years, will suddenly change his stripes just because of a new pitching coach.

 

How do you figure he was so successful with New York? They were ready to run him out of town. He was decent at the very beginning of his career because nobody had seen him yet, and then he started getting rocked. His ERA was 5.50 in 2004, and the only reason he got to 13 wins was that the Yankees gave him some ridiculous run support which made him 8-5 with them. He always had good stuff, but he had no consistency. He was light years better with us this year. The difference is night and day. You only rarely saw him have those days where he had no control and got hit around this year, that used to be about every third start (maybe more).

 

How long do you think Contreras was pitching like his old self before he got to the Sox? He's listed at 35, and knowing the state of Cuban baseball he's been pitching heavy workloads in the pros since he was about 17. He's been around baseball a hell of a lot longer than Vazquez, and he has a lot more history of success than Contreras did when we got him. Vazquez is a very talented pitcher that could easily end up being the most dominant of our starters. All you have to do is look at what he did in his career before the second half of his season with the Yankees. He was obviously a bit worn down or hurt in that second half, and Arizona is just a terrible place to pitch, especially if you rely on a curveball. He's easily as good as Freddy, maybe better.

QUOTE(Felix @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 10:58 PM)

Wins mean basically nothing when analyzing pitchers.  Do you really think Contreras, or just about any other pitcher in the league, was better than Roger Clemens last year?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you think if a pitchers get 5 runs scored in the first inning, he should try to strike every batter outafter that? Or is it ok for him to give up a few runs? What's wrong with pitching at the level of your opponent as long as you get the win?

Edited February 3, 200620 yr by santo=dorf

Wins say much more about the team a pitcher plays for than the pitcher himself. Maddux was blessed with the Braves. If he had remained a Cub for his whole career there's no way he gets to 300.

 

Close wins; however, do say something about a pitcher's competitiveness. The White Sox had a ton last year which I think makes them the favorites to repeat.

 

With respect to Vazquez it's his rise back to 17 dominant wins that probably has Cooper going gaga over him. How many pitchers in 2005 had a 70% increase in dominant wins?

With respect to Vazquez it's his rise back to 17 dominant wins that probably has Cooper going gaga over him.  How many pitchers in 2005 had a 70% increase in dominant wins?

 

 

Yeah, right on man.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whats a dominant win?

Do you think if a pitchers get 5 runs scored in the first inning, he should try to strike every batter outafter that?  Or is it ok for him to give up a few runs?  What's wrong with pitching at the level of your opponent as long as you get the win?

This basically sums up a lot of the saber-metric type debates in my eyes. A lot of the new generation stat guys say that wins are a very useless stat...but right there you just gave the best reason why they're not useless. Sometimes a win comes because you see you're pitching against Santana and you throw a near-no-hitter, sometimes a win comes because you're pitching against the Royals and you figure you've got some room to work with.

 

Wins aren't a perfect stat, but because of that reason, I don't think they're a worthless one either.

This basically sums up a lot of the saber-metric type debates in my eyes.  A lot of the new generation stat guys say that wins are a very useless stat...but right there you just gave the best reason why they're not useless.  Sometimes a win comes because you see you're pitching against Santana and you throw a near-no-hitter, sometimes a win comes because you're pitching against the Royals and you figure you've got some room to work with.

 

Wins aren't a perfect stat, but because of that reason, I don't think they're a worthless one either.

 

If you're comparing two similarly talented pitchers, like say Roy Oswalt and Carlos Zambrano, then the difference in win totals could have some value, although I still think the difference in teams can explain a couple of them. If you're using that as an argument to try to explain why Bartolo Colon is better than or as good as Johan Santana, that's another story. You can't really use any one stat to compare pitchers. I'd say that ERA and WHIP are still better indicators of a pitcher's success.

Do you think if a pitchers get 5 runs scored in the first inning, he should try to strike every batter outafter that?  Or is it ok for him to give up a few runs?  What's wrong with pitching at the level of your opponent as long as you get the win?

Who is better, pitcher A who goes 21-4 with a 7.50 ERA and 2.00 WHIP or pitcher B who goes 10-7 with a 1.00 ERA and .90 WHIP? And yes, these are extremes.

Edited February 4, 200620 yr by Felix

Everytime I see people argue that wins can be used as an indicator of a pitcher's talent, I think of Shawn Estes's 2004 season...

 

15-8 record

5.84 ERA

Everytime I see people argue that wins can be used as an indicator of a pitcher's talent, I think of Shawn Estes's 2004 season...

 

15-8 record

5.84 ERA

pfft, that was while pitching half his games at Coors field. Now that very same year I can think of a certain starting pitcher who pitched half his games at a notorious pithchers park in Oakland

 

Mark Mulder (2004):

 

17-8 4.43 ERA, 1.36 WHIP

pfft, that was while pitching half his games at Coors field. Now that very same year I can think of a certain starting pitcher who pitched half his games at a notorious pithchers park in Oakland

 

Mark Mulder (2004):

 

17-8 4.43 ERA, 1.36 WHIP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Estes still won 7 games on the road that season... with a 5.53 ERA.

 

Just last season, Rodrigo Lopez of the Orioles won 15 games with a 4.90 ERA.

Im pretty sure Lopez and Mulder had like really good first halves of their season and than just kind of let it go in the 2nd half.... im almost 100% positve that was the case with Mulder and maybe 70-80 with Lopez.

Im pretty sure Lopez and Mulder had like really good first halves of their season and than just kind of let it go in the 2nd half.... im almost 100% positve that was the case with Mulder and maybe 70-80 with Lopez.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rodrigo López (2005 stats)

Pre All-Star: 19 starts | 8-5 record | 4.47 ERA | 1.31 WHIP | .258 BAA

Post All-Star: 16 starts | 7-7 record | 5.44 ERA | 1.53 WHIP | .299 BAA

 

Mark Mulder (2005 stats)

Pre All-Star: 18 starts | 10-5 record | 4.34 ERA | 1.38 WHIP | .279 BAA

Post All-Star: 14 starts | 6-3 record | 2.77 ERA | 1.37 WHIP | .266 BAA

We were talking about Mulder in 2004 so his 2005 stats dont mean much to me. I guess I was wrong about Lopez but idonno maybe I remember him off to a fast start idonno what was his first month stats.