MVN: Most Valuable Network

#1

Posted by Andrew, November 25, 2008 3:27 PM

I have heard that the Yankees were starting training camps in China. The Braves seem Latin-America focused.

I actually thought about looking to see if the Yankees were looking to hire when I heard that news, I speak a little Chinese and spent time in Beijing.

Reply

#2

Posted by Brent, November 25, 2008 3:34 PM

Its looking worse and worse out there by the minute. Not that Tazawa was the answer, because i doubt that he was. But the fact that we can't seem to even get in the room with anyone right now is disappointing. I know we have $40mm right now to spend, but its looking like that won't be enough to get anything at a reasonable price.

Maybe its just that New York is being so aggressive this off season, or maybe it is a general trend in the free agent market. But I don't see where or how we are going to make any significant signings this off season. Maybe instead we should spend the money on long term price controlled contracts for KJ, Escobar, and Jurrjens.

Reply

#4

Posted by Brent, November 25, 2008 4:55 PM

If we are willing to give Burnett $16 million a year for 5 years, then I'm sure we can get him. But I hope we don't do it. Vazquez? Yes, he can eat up innings and get strikeouts, but he has had an era above 4.42 (the 4.42 came in the NL by the way, getting to pitch in the offensively challenged NL West) in 4 of the last 5 years, including last season when he went 12-16 with a 4.67. Sorry if I'm not excited about trading away our prospects for a slightly below average pitcher, who is durable.

Yes, I am sure that something will get done. But a month ago I thought that something would be landing Peavy and Burnett or Lowe. Now it looks more like we are going to get someone in the Oliver Perez/Garland talent area. Not that they can't help us, but we're not exactly positioning ourselves for a winning season. The fact that even Tazawa is apparently not interested just shows how much trouble we are having.

Right now we have Jurrjens, Campillo, and no one next year. This is why we wanted two frontline starters, and right now we are having issues getting one middle of the rotation guy without breaking the bank.

Reply

#5

Posted by Coach (Skip and Pete will be missed), November 26, 2008 10:06 AM

Brent, exactly right. This is what losing and bad judgment by the front office does to a franchise.

However, there is plenty of pitching to be had. It may not be top of the line or even veteran pitching, but it is out there.

Right now the Braves have a decent core of young starting pitchers in Jurrjens, Morton, Reyes and Hanson. Campillo is a junk baller who relies on his fine control. Jeff Bennett has the stuff to be a back end of the rotation starter , except that Cox has kept him in the bullpen because Bennett is such an effective ground ball pitcher. Anthony Lerew is coming back from T.J surgery and is an unknown commodity.

And that's about it right now until Tim Hudson returns or should Mike Hampton be resigned. My advice is for the Braves to add some young arms, go get some solid defensive players to back them up and roll it all up in one big ball of mud, throw against the 162 game schedule and see what sticks.

Very simply because, we all know they have no chance of competing for the playoffs in 2009.

Reply

#7

Posted by Brent, November 26, 2008 11:40 AM

All three years he has been in Chicago his ERA has been worse on the road then at home, and significantly worse. Call his home park tough, but he has been a below average pitcher wherever he has pitched. Strikeouts are fun, but this is about run prevention, and he is not particularly good at that. There is some value in durability, but beyond that he brings very little to the table.

Reply

#8

Posted by Anonymous, November 26, 2008 3:21 PM

What happened to us getting the best 2 free agent pitchers on the market???

I really haven't been following the Braves that closely lately. I've been keeping my eyes on my Yellow Jackets and Falcons. I know that the whole Peavy thing blew up, but that's been about it. What is Wren planning on doing w/ all of this extra coin? Rent a clown (lil Bobo over there. lol.)?

Reply

#9

Posted by coach (skip and pete will be missed), November 26, 2008 8:54 PM

Javier Vasquez, underrated?

I don't think so. If anything, he is vastly overrated. all one has to do is look at his career numbers (127-129 4.32 ERA and .496 winning percentage). For any pitcher like Vasquez who possesses an above average fastball, ace type stuff and yet to see these numbers attributed to him is simply embarrassing.

Javier Vasquez represents ace level talent with league average results. He's a thrower, not a pitcher. Durable? yes. Lunkhead? that too.

Reply

#10

Posted by Andrew, November 26, 2008 9:48 PM

Coach,
Have to disagree. I'm glad we agree on the ace-level talent. The durability alone makes him that much better than AJ Burnett or Ben Sheets in my opinion. In a better park with a good defense behind him, who knows what could happen.

All I am saying is that the Braves could get Dye and Vazquez without giving up Yunel. That fills two holes without costing a lot of money or giving up Yunel.

The White Sox were looking at Willy Taveras. Willy F-ING Taveras! If the Braves could use KJ, Anderson/Blanco, Gorkys, and Jo-Jo Reyes to get both Dye and Vazquez, they have immediate off-season success. They will still have the money to sign another starter (who could be Burnett). Would you not make that trade?

Reply

#11

Posted by Coach (Skip and Pete will be missed), November 27, 2008 2:00 AM

Andrew, disagree all you want. Vasquez is still an underachieving pitcher. Here is another stat to prove my point. In eleven season with four different team he has a team record of 175-178 in 353 career starts. That's right in line with his personal career record of 127-129.

Worse yet, in spite of all that ace caliber talent, Vasquez has all of one all-star appearance in eleven years. Basically, if he is going to cost the Braves 23 million over the next two seasons along with players/prospects in trade, the Braves would be much better off just going after Jon Garland or Randy Wolf. Either pitcher would cost less in contract dollars without having to fork over players in trade.

Reply

#12

Posted by Andrew, November 27, 2008 11:38 AM

Coach,
I don't really find W/L to be the best indicator of talent. ERA, Whip, and K/BB are the first stats I look at. Vazquez has the K/BB and Whip to be far more successful than Wolf or Garland. He is less injury-prone than Wolf, and doesn't seem to be declining as fast as Garland.

Reply

#13

Posted by Coach (Skip and Pete will be missed), November 27, 2008 2:27 PM

Yea Andrew. And after eleven seasons, I don't find Javier Vasquez to be the best indicator of what a talented pitcher should be. You have a great turkey day.

Reply

#14

Posted by D'Andre Williams, November 28, 2008 2:49 PM

What are some of the top FA pitchers for next year?

Reply

#15

Posted by Tom, November 29, 2008 3:54 PM

Coach, you make some pretty worthless points there. You don't judge pitchers by wins and losses, especially not pitchers that threw over 1000 innings for the lowly late-90s/early-2000s Expos. Vazquez hasn't started less than 30 games since 1999, and he's struck out eight guys or more in each of the last four seasons while not having control issues or extended bouts of homeritis. Career FIP of 3.93. Friendly contract. Where can I sign up? He's no ace, but he's a solid midrotation pitcher.

Hate to say it, but if you're still hung up on ERA and record, you don't really have any place anywhere near baseball analysis. And what poll shows that "we all know" the Braves have no shot at the playoffs in 2009? They get Jake Peavy and another front-of-the-rotation starter, they are going to have a solid group of guys from which to choose the rotation. The bullpen should be a strength, as should the bench, with Infante, Prado, Blanco, and Diaz all serving as solid role players. All that's missing is a couple of outfield bats, and there's enough OF hitting out there to make something work.

We won't be unanimous picks to win the World Series, but it would take some pretty shallow analysis not to see that a fertile farm system and loads of loose cash, plus a solid ML talent base, could very well add up to a playoff berth. But then again, I should know better than to expect any deep analysis from you.

Reply

#16

Posted by Brent, November 29, 2008 5:37 PM

Tom, I have no idea what you're saying about ERA. It is by far the most important statistic for pitchers. BY FAR. There are always going to be other factors to take into account, such as unearned runs, defense, and park factor. And clearly you have to examine these, but you can throw all the stats in the world at me, and I'm still going to say that a guy with a below league average ERA is a below average pitcher. Sure, his ballpark is a good hitters park, but he has been even worse on the road. So when it comes to preventing runs, Vasquez has been worse than the average American League pitcher.

There is definitely some value in durability. A guy who consistently makes 200 starts is going to help in a lot of ways, since he takes some strain off the bullpen, etc. But a guy going all those innings without preventing runs isn't all that valuable. Sorry, he just isn't. His win loss record is actually in line with his below average ERA.

Now, as for your other point about our ability to compete next year. If everything goes our way, and I mean everything, then we could be a competitive team next year. That means Campillo has to produce again, Tommy Hanson has to be an effective ML starter, Jurrjens has to be at least as good as last year, Frenchy has to have a comeback year, we have to add a power bat and a couple of pitchers, and we have to stay relatively healthy. that is a lot of things that have to go right. Not that its impossible, but its a stetch. If we add Peavy, as you suggest, then we lose Yunel, which means our defense and offense take a big hit.

If we are completely objective here, this team is not set up to win next year. As of today we have no productive outfielders, and only 1 productive starting pitcher. Whatever additions we are able to make through FA and trades will help plug some of those holes, but an awful lot has to go right for us to be a 90+ win team next year.

Reply

#17

Posted by Tom, November 29, 2008 7:32 PM

Brent, a few things:

1) ERA is actually a pretty terrible predictive metric, as far as year-to-year correlation goes. ERA is hugely luck-dependent, and normal fluctuations in BABIP and HR/FB rate can play havoc with how many earned runs a pitcher allows. If you want to talk about how effective a pitcher WAS, then ERA is great, because it tells you what HAPPENED. But it doesn't say WHY that happened, and when you're predicting, you try to sort out the true talent from the park, the luck, the defense, etc. So if you want to know how effective a pitcher WILL BE, you need to dig a little deeper.

The best way to at least get started is to look at peripherals. There are only three outcomes in a game that are really under a pitcher's control, since balls put in play are subject to a myriad of other factors that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the pitcher's talent. The Three True Outcomes, as they are known, are strikeouts, walks, and home runs. You find a pitcher that misses bats, doesn't walk people and keeps the ball in the park, it's pretty darn likely that he's going to have success. Now maybe he ultimately WON'T have success, but you can't predict anything with 100% certainty.

So the guy with a below-average ERA...yes, he WAS a below-average pitcher. The far more difficult question is to sort out whether he WILL BE anything more than below-average, and looking at his peripherals is the best way to see that. In that way, stats like FIP and tRA are far more indicative than straight ERA.

2) On competing next year, there are several things to point out. With Peavy and another legitimate top-of-the-rotation arm, you've got a #1 and a #2. Then, there is little reason to expect anything but a repeat season from Jurrjens as a #3. Solid 1-2-3 punch. Then for the back-end, you're sorting through Mike Hampton or a comparable injury-risk pickup like Freddy Garcia or Bartolo Colon, Jorge Campillo, Buddy Carlyle (did anyone notice what a good year he had?), Charlie Morton or Jo-Jo Reyes, James Parr, Tommy Hanson and maybe Tom Glavine. Anthony Lerew's in there as a massive long shot. You're correct in saying that things would have to go right, but the talent is definitely there. You'll get #4/#5 performance out of Hampton I think. I like James Parr also...I think he's a 4.50 ERA arm at the end of the day. Morton and/or Reyes (whichever remains after the Peavy deal, preferably Morton) both still have potential. That doesn't even factor in Hanson, even though I'd bet that he's up and contributing by May. Again, remember, with the front of the rotation stabilized, Hanson doesn't have to post better than a low- to mid-4 ERA. I'd say that's pretty objective analysis.

As for Francoeur, I'm assuming the acquisition of two outfielders, one a big power bat and one a solid fourth outfielder with the glove for center and the bat for a corner (see Byrd, Marlon; or DeJesus, David). They'll be starters if Schafer isn't ready or Frenchy goes in the tank once again. I like Nick Swisher and Juan Rivera as a cheap combo there as well. Four outfielders (Schafer, Frenchy, two acquisitions), three spots...there's room for someone to fail or get hurt. Losing Escobar is a defensive hit; big deal...get someone league-average and call it a day. And he's NOT an offensive loss. It won't be hard to replace his production at shortstop.

I agree that right now, we are not set up to win, but we CAN BE if Wren plays things right this offseason. Like I say, give me Peavy, Burnett, Bradley, Rivera and Maicer Izturis ($44 million?) and I think we'd be a pretty damn good ballclub in 2009.

Reply

#18

Posted by telemakhos, November 29, 2008 8:49 PM

if you want to get into stats, you could create a prediction interval for his ERA based on his mean ERA, standard deviation, and sample size with a certain amount of confidence. That's how you would make a prediction.

Reply

#19

Posted by Brent, November 30, 2008 11:31 AM

Look, I understand that a lot of things go into a pitcher's talent. And I will grant you that ERA in one year may not be very indicative. But when a pitcher has a similar ERA over a 5 year span, especially the relatively similar road ERA, I no longer think luck has much to do with it. And as far as the 3 true outcomes- there are certainly other things in his control. A ground ball pitcher like Tim Hudson gets more outs on balls in play because ground balls are more often hit at people, and less often hit out of the park. A fly ball pitcher like JV tends to give up more home runs, for obvious reasons.

Look, I love stats, and I think most of them have a place in our analysis. But we can't forget the basic numbers that are still the most important. ERA is very good at telling us how good a pitcher was, and at predicting his future performance. Pitching is about run prevention, and while there are plenty of other elements that go into a pitchers ability to get outs, I think that ERA, especially road ERA which takes the park factor out of the equation, is the most important stat. In any given year there is going to be a good deal of variation, as with anything, but when a Pitcher like Vasquez has consistantly been below league average in ERA, I think that means something. He hasn't been "unlucky" for 5 straight years, and his defense has certainly changed over some. If you dig deep enough, you can always find numbers to make someone look useful (like Frenchy pleading about all his RBI's), but in the end a hitter has to produce runs and a pitcher has to prevent them, and Vasquez has not been good at doing the latter.

Reply

#20

Posted by Tom, November 30, 2008 12:45 PM

Brent, you're right that the larger the sample size gets, the more likely that the actual performance will mirror the true talent level, as things like luck even out. But that doesn't ALWAYS happen. Take enough statistical cases, and there are inevitably going to be ones that consistently get unlucky, since luck is, by definition, random. Now I am not trying to say that Vazquez is a victim of the same kind of bad luck all the time, but I'll get to that later.

Your argument about groundball pitchers is incoherent, and suggests you haven't done your homework. Flyball pitchers tend to get MORE outs on balls in play, because home runs aren't balls in play. Flyball pitchers almost universally have lower BABIPs than groundball pitchers. But Vazquez is neutral (GB/FB ratio very close to 1). And when his HR/FB rate is normal, it's not like Vazquez has problems with homers. One homer per nine innings is hardly enough to sink a career.

The "basic" numbers are not the most important, not by a long shot (again, we're talking prediction here, not evaluation of the past). If that were the case, then the only thing you would look at were wins and losses, because that's as basic as it gets. You'd look at a pitcher's start and say, "oh, he lost...must have been a bad outing." The numbers beneath the surface, the ones that EXPLAIN the basic numbers are FAR more important in terms of predictive capability than the basic ones.

Then you talk about road ERA. Why would that have any value as a stat? You're just going to pretend that all the pitcher's performance at home never happened? Please. That's terrible analysis. That's just a lazy way to avoid park-adjusting a player's numbers.

I'm not just picking out the numbers to make him look good. It's that I can't find the numbers that make him look bad. Here is my challenge to you: with every bad pitcher, you can almost universally identify the problem. Maybe he doesn't miss bats, maybe he's got control problems, maybe he gives up tons of homers, maybe he's too hittable. Could be any number of things. What is Vazquez's problem? I want you to point to it and tell me what it is. What is it that causes him to give up runs?

I'll look at the last five years and offer my take.

2004: pitched in New York, and it was well-reported that he couldn't deal with the media spotlight. Peripherals suffered.

2005: Horrific HR/FB rate of 16.3%. Bad luck, and his HR/9 soared to 1.46, way out of line with career norms.

2006: Horrific strand rate of 65.8%. Didn't allow many baserunners, but a huge portion of them scored. Why? .343 BABIP with men on didn't help...that's bad luck.

2007: Had a fine year, ERA under four. Strand rate normal (BABIP w/ men on normal), HR/FB rate normal.

2008: Again, horrific strand rate. Again, horrific BABIP with men on.

I challenge you to refute any or all of those claims.

Reply

#22

Posted by Coach (Skip and Pete will be missed), November 30, 2008 8:00 PM

Tom, you wouldn't know a baseball if it hit you upside the head. But that's beside the point.

The Braves are not going to get Jake Peavy. I already knew that but apparently some people don't know when to come inside when it starts raining ignorance.

I will say it again for the clueless, Javier Vasquez is a league average pitcher. So are Jon Garland and Randy Wolfe. The last two pitchers are free agents who will cost money.

The aforementioned Vasquez will cost money and players/prospects. Who is the more expensive commodity? Think about it, but not to hard less your brain explode.

Reply

#23

Posted by Coach (Skip and Pete will be missed), November 30, 2008 8:54 PM

Since our buddy Tom went and made the following brilliant statement that: You don't judge pitchers by wins and losses, I submit the following list of free agent pitchers that Tom should love.

Odalis Perez, Career 73-82, last season, 7-12.

Sidney Ponson, Career 90-106, last season, 8-5.

Oliver Perez, career 55-60, last season, 10-7.

Kip Wells, career 65-94, last season, 1-3.

Carl Pavano, career 66-66, last season, 4-2.

And on and on and on I could go... Laughing my butt off in the process!

Reply

#24

Posted by Brent, November 30, 2008 9:57 PM

Tom, check my post. At no point did I argue that he was good because of wins and losses. Winning % is loosely correlated to the effectiveness of a pitcher, but far too many things out of his control effect it to be much of a useful measure. I merely said his below average record was in line with his below average ERA. And you seem to be misunderstanding my entire argument. I don't think other stats are useless, I find them very interesting and enlightening about certain things. But I think there are enough different statistics out there that you can always find a statistical excuse for why someone wasn't effective. In the end that doesn't change the fact that they weren't effective.

In his last 5 years he has had three bad years, one average year, and one good year. You say that in three of those years he had bad luck, and in one of them he "couldn't deal with the media spotlight". Sorry, I just don't buy it. I could come up with plenty of guesses as to why he has been "unlucky" as you say. Maybe he pitches worse with men on base, maybe he gives up lots of line drives and that is why is BABIP has been so high (if you'd like to look up something on his line drive rate, please do). Or maybe, he just isn't a very good pitcher. You're making excuses for him, even pulling the New York media line, when the point is he has been below average in 4 of the last 5 years. It would make much more since to try and explain why he had a successful season, because I'm sure there were plenty of ways he was lucky that year.

And if you want to know his problem, it is that he gives up too many earned runs. I'm sorry if I am not willing to delve into a statistical argument with you about whether he was lucky, or argue his scouting report with you. Instead I am comfortable in saying that a pitcher who has a below average ERA in 4 of 5 seasons in the middle of his prime is a below average pitcher. There are of course exceptions. I wouldn't expect someone pitching in Denver to be judged solely on his ERA, for example. But I can't say it enough, pitching is about run prevention. It isn't about the number of balls in play that become outs, and it isn't about strand rates, homerun rates, strikeout rates, or walk rates. Those all play major roles in a pitcher's ability to prevent runs, but his job is still to prevent runs.

You can come back at me with endless stats if you want. I'm not going to pretend that I am doing the extensive reasearch you are on this rather trivial argument. I know that ERA is the most important statistic for pitchers. It is not like batting where none of the basic stats are able to show a hitter's ability to create runs.

Reply

#25

Posted by Brent, November 30, 2008 10:01 PM

And yes, I understand that what you are talking about a stats ability to predict the future. ERA over a 5 year period is more predictive of ERA in the future than luck, or problems with the media, or strand rates, homerun rates, or any of them put together.

Reply

#26

Posted by Alex Remington, November 30, 2008 10:37 PM

I actually like Vasquez, but I think there's merit in both arguments. He has a very good K-rate, a good BB-rate, a good K/BB, and doesn't give up too many homers. (He gives up quite a few, to be sure, but he's not in Eric Milton territory.) However, for some reason, his ERA has been substantially higher than his components. For example, in 4 of the past 5 years, his FIP has been lower than his ERA -- in 2006 and 2008, his FIP was nearly a full run lower. So why is his performance so much worse than what you'd expect from the components?

If you want to say he's a league-average pitcher, you can, because his career ERA+ is 105, his ERA+ in the past 5 years is 102, and in the past 5 years he's had an ERA+ of 98 twice, of 92 once, and of exactly 100 once. In 2007, he had an ERA+ of 127, which by that measure appears extremely anomalous. Unsurprisingly, 2007 was the one year in the past 5 in which his FIP was actually higher than his ERA.

So what pitcher is he? Is he the guy with the third-most strikeouts since 2004, behind only Johan Santana and Jake Peavy, the 9th-most innings, the 5th-best K/9 (among pitchers who've pitched at least 900 innings), the 11th-best BB/9, the seventh-best K/BB -- the guy who by any reasonable measure should be one of the 15 or 20 best pitchers in baseball? Or is he the guy with a 4.50 ERA (102 ERA+) and a 63-61 record over that same period?

If you're going to talk about predictive stats that tell you he should be a better picture next year, you have to figure out why they failed to predict his utter mediocrity in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2008 -- yes, maybe it was the media one year, an anomalous HR-rate the next year, an anomalous BABIP and strand rate the next year... but what we call "luck" is really "unpredictable randomness," and unpredictable randomness is supposed to even out, unless there are other variables that we haven't accounted for. And it's not just the last five years. His career ERA+ is slightly above league-average, which suggests that his ERA+ of 102 the past years is right in line with his career performance, which may be indicative of his true talent. But when he has bad "luck," a poor HR-rate, or a poor BABIP, or poor reaction to the media spotlight, that drives his performance below average. This seems to happen a lot to him.

I like Vazquez, and I think he'd look a lot better in the NL (and outside of the thin air in Arizona), but you can't cite predictive stats without explaining why they're at such odds -- so persistently, and so consistently -- with the descriptive stats.

Reply

#27

Posted by Brent, November 30, 2008 11:38 PM

Alex, I agree completely. I think that in any given year, those predictive stats could tell us more than his performance stats. But when it becomes a trend over several years or a decade, you have to stop pretending he is something more than his performance. The loser always complains about bad luck; whether its a bad call from the umps, an unlucky bounce, or anything. But when you lose consistently then you are bringing the "bad luck" upon yourself, or you are simply not good. I'm not saying that Vasquez is a loser, far from it, I am merely agreeing with you that in baseball all the randomness evens out over the course of 800 games (150 starts for him) and we are left with a players performance, not their peripheral statistics.

Reply

#28

Posted by coach (skip and pete will be missed), December 1, 2008 1:03 AM

Javier Vasquez is neither winner nor loser. He is what he is, an underachieving meathead on the mound.

Many things have been said about the talented right hander, among them are:

Ace level talent, league average results.

Hard thrower who has never learned to harness his gift. Doesn't pitch to contact.

He continually gets beat on bad off-speed pitches, even though he possesses one of the best fastballs in the league.

Not a big game pitcher.

Armed with four above average pitches it is almost unfathomable that the 31-year-old right-hander sits two games under five hundred for his career.

Believe me when I say this. There is a reason that Vasquez is with his fourth team and they (the White Sox) have him on the trading block.

Reply

#29

Posted by Tom, December 1, 2008 5:33 PM

Coach: I have to say you have potential. If you would just leave out the limitlessly clever zingers and instead devote that time to developing your argument, you could be a pretty good analyst. Alas, you appear to prefer wasting your time insulting me (which is fine by me).

So, on to baseball:

1) You say the Braves will not get Jake Peavy. You already know that, so naturally anyone that knows anything knows that also. Duh. Where, pray tell, is Peavy going? There appears to be no market for him anywhere else, with Kevin Towers saying today that the Dodgers are looking elsewhere and a deal with the Cubs remains distant. What evidence have you that the Braves will not get him? Perhaps you could deign to enlighten us with your wisdom as to where he WILL get traded. Surely someone with all the answers has that solution as well.

2) Javier Vazquez is only a league-average pitcher if you don't know how to look. But please, continue advertising your ignorance by claiming that there is nothing more to evaluating pitching than wins and losses.

3) Your post #23 is a classic. The logic there is absolutely impeccable. Flawless really. I said you don't judge pitchers by record, so you made the brilliant deduction that I like pitchers that have bad records. A first grader could pick out the fallacy there. All the guys you mention have terrible peripheral statistics, and thus I am fond of none of them. Laugh your butt off all you like, but don't pretend like you actually made a point.

4) Yes, Javier Vazquez has underachieved. The magic of the Braves organization over the past decade is that they can identify underachievers that have the potential to break through and ACHIEVE. Vazquez is one of those guys. Maybe he is a "meathead" (though I'm not sure how you would know that unless you've met him. I want pitchers that have talent, and I think given the right situation, the ace level talent will produce at least mid-rotation-caliber results. Get the luck out of the picture and that tends to happen all on its own. The fact that Vazquez has played for four teams means nothing; if everyone had the same opinion about players, then there would be no competition. This is an opportunity for the Braves to get a guy at a cut-rate price who has solid talent. The translation between talent and results should come.

I'll close by letting you know how glad I am that you're with us here at C-n-C after your rather ignominious exit from the AJC blogs.

Reply

#30

Posted by Tom, December 1, 2008 5:48 PM

Andrew, you're right that no statistical "excuses" can change past effectiveness. But the game here, as I've been saying is the future. And the underlying stats have proven to be far more indicative of the future than "surface" stats. You can accept that or not, but it is fact.

Re: his year in New York, you can buy it or not. Again, it is fact that some players struggle to play in New York due to the media's magnifying glass. You can deny that if you like, but it's the case. Reports say he was one of those guys. Couple those reports with a season that was way out of line with his career norms, and it's not difficult to draw the conclusion that somehow New York affected him.

Your "guesses" as to why he gets unlucky are invalid. I won't explain why since you don't seem to like research. You're just going to have to go on good faith that I'm smarter than you, and I'm right. Really? Is that how you would have me argue? No, I'm going to present evidence. His career BABIP is pretty normal with men on base. He doesn't give up lots of line drives. And if you're so "sure" he was lucky in his one successful season, let's see you show it to me rather than forcing me to go on good faith that you know better. BABIP normal, HR/FB normal, strand rate normal, you name it. The ONE year that happened and he has a good year...go figure.

"But I can't say it enough, pitching is about run prevention. It isn't about the number of balls in play that become outs, and it isn't about strand rates, homerun rates, strikeout rates, or walk rates. Those all play major roles in a pitcher's ability to prevent runs, but his job is still to prevent runs."

Right. Unfortunately, the auxiliary factors correlate better with run prevention in the future than past run prevention does. If you want to know how many runs a pitcher will prevent in the future, you are more likely to be right if you look at his peripherals than his results.

Don't try to patronize me for research because you're too lazy to do your homework before forming an argument. You think whatever you want; I'm simply trying to provide the facts of statistical analysis. I have nothing invested in your acceptance or denial of said facts, but you might.

Reply

#31

Posted by Coach (Skip and Pete will be missed), December 1, 2008 6:03 PM

Tom, you can be my punching bag and whenever I need to kick somebody, I'll just rehash your mindless quote: You don't judge pitchers by wins and losses!

Reply

#32

Posted by Tom, December 1, 2008 6:20 PM

Coach, feel free to kick all you like. By the way, I love how you just avoid all the discussion here. You don't know how to respond, so you just don't. So really the only person you're kicking is yourself...anyone can see that you have no idea how to make baseball-related case here, and so you resort to punching and kicking. That's what eight-year-olds do. They don't know how to get their way, so they punch and kick. If that's the way you want to operate, power to you. But don't expect anyone to LISTEN to you.

Furthermore, I challenge you to find any expert. ANY EXPERT who says that wins and losses are the most correlative with future performance. I'll save you the leg work and tell you that you simply can't do it. You can ignore the truth all you like; it's nothing to me. But until you realize that my quote is far from mindless, you'll still be in the dark about how to analyze pitching. At this point, I'm wondering if you just might be stupid enough to think that guys like Matt Cain (8-14), Jake Peavy (10-11) and Felix Hernandez (9-11) are bad pitchers.

Reply

#33

Posted by Brent, December 1, 2008 8:44 PM

Tom, I assume by "Andrew" you meant me. I'll tell you what. You can have a team full of guys with great peripherals, and I'll have a team full of guys with good ERA's, and we'll see who's team plays better. Its not that I can't do research, and I assure you it has nothing to do with yours or my intelligence, instead it is a fundamental disagreement on statistics. I tend to think that there is such a thing as underacheivers, and that there is such a thing as losers. I'm not going to go searching through fields of data in an attempt to prove that a bad pitcher is good. It just doesn't make sense. Instead, I see that in the middle of his prime he was a below average pitcher, and I simply don't care why it was. Nothing you have said has refuted the fact that he was below average for the five years from his year 27 season to his year 31 season. You've given loads of information trying to explain why he wasn't good, but nothing has refuted the basic fact that he wasn't good. So until he proves otherwise, I see no reason to try and come up with reasons why a 31 year old pitcher is suddenly going to find what he has never had.

Sabermetics has made you're problem quite common. You get so tied up in a series of detailed peripheral stats that you forget to look at a player's actual performance. No matter what the reason for it was, a season with a 4.75 ERA is a bad season. And when you start doing it year after year, you are a bad pitcher. As I have said countless times, every stat tells us something. But when you are using the NY media effect (whether its real or not), bad strand rates, and even BABIP to explain a career of mediocrity, while claiming that ERA is irrelevant, then you are arguing from a position of obvious weakness. Certain pitchers no how to get outs when they have to and prevent runs, and others simply don't. Vasquez has proven that he is not particularly good at preventing runs. For me, thats the most important thing about him.

Reply

#35

Posted by coach (skip and pete will be missed), December 2, 2008 6:50 AM

Tom, when it comes to the merits of Javier Vasquez, I'm right and I know I'm right.

You on the other hand will continue to vainly support your worthless argument. Continue on my beat down boy, continue on!

Everything I have said concerning Vasquez is the truth and you sir have not the integrity to admit that fact. It's a character flaw on your part and it is eating you alive.

Do me and the rest of the bloggers a favor, admit you are wrong and man up. otherwise, I will continue to flog the hell out of you!

Reply

#37

Posted by Tom, December 2, 2008 4:50 PM

Brent: You say, "I'm not going to go searching through fields of data in an attempt to prove that a bad pitcher is good."

Fair enough. To begin with, it's hardly fields of data. As far as I can see, every piece of data I have used has come from one webpage (Javier Vazquez's FanGraphs player page). All the luck data and PBP data is available in one handy spot, so it's not like I've had to spend hours poring over spreadsheets to get these numbers. It's really not that hard.

For another thing, your opinion is not entirely without validity; however, it's the easy way out. For a mid-market team like the Braves, the challenge is not to find talent where talent is obvious. The deep-pocketed teams gobble up most of that, and the Braves can only bid to a certain extent. No, for the Braves, the challenge is finding talent where no one else sees it. The only way to get by with a modest payroll is to possess an ability to see trends BEFORE they begin to express themselves, and then leverage that knowledge into successful bargain-hunting.

So is Vazquez an ideal option? No, and I would certainly be upset if Frank Wren tried to sell me some "Vazquez as #1 pitcher" crap. However, because of the great peripherals and the myriad red flags for bad luck, this is a place where the player's market valuation and his ACTUAL valuation might be significantly different, to the extent that the Braves would be advantaged by exploiting that gap.

So yes, you can take the "obvious" road and say that he's had bad ERAs so he must be a bad pitcher. But the Braves can't afford to take that same road, because with their payroll, they need to be able to find GOOD pitchers with bad ERAs that are undervalued for that reason. With Vazquez, all underlying signs point to an ability to be successful in the future, and all surface signs suggest that the White Sox are more than ready to get rid of him. Add that all up and you have a quality acquisition.

I said it once and I will say it again, it's great to look at a player's performance. That's fine. But it is a STATISTICAL FACT that peripherals correlate better than past performance with future performance. If I were to make a prediction about a player's future based on peripherals and you were to make one based on past performance, I would be more likely to be right. I am not saying I WOULD be right, simply that I would be MORE LIKELY to be right. Take that for what it's worth to you.

To close, I have to fundamentally disagree with the statement that, "Certain pitchers no how to get outs when they have to and prevent runs, and others simply don't." There's no such thing as "getting outs when you have to," any more than there is such a thing as "clutch hitting." A pitcher's job is to get outs, and with that will (usually) come run prevention. Pitchers have little to no ability to prevent runs outside of getting hitters out.

Reply

#38

Posted by Tom, December 2, 2008 5:03 PM

Coach: that is the single worst justification I have ever heard for any argument. Effectively, what you just said is "I'm right because I'm right." Because you know something, it must naturally be fact. There's a term for that: arrogance. Please do us all a favor and quit posting if that is simply going to be your justification for things, because you can use it for any argument and it is NEVER valid. You have demonstrated no ability whatsoever to analyze baseball, and thus I have absolutely no reason to listen to you. Until you show me that YOU would know a baseball if it hit you upside the head (to borrow a very witty expression I once heard), do not expect me to take you seriously.

So, flog away, and continue to avoid the baseball discussion here. As I mentioned earlier, you are only running it up the flagpole that you actually have no idea what you are talking about. Insult my character all you want. I know that the only reason you're insulting my character is that you have no case against Javier Vazquez, or at least you're too damn lazy to conceive one. If my refusal to blindly accept the boundless wisdom of Coach means that my character is flawed, then it is flawed.

Maybe you ARE ultimately right about Vazquez, but I would never know it because you can't SHOW me that you are right, outside of some moral BS about you knowing the truth and my flawed character being unwilling to accept it. It's really quite simple: if you know the truth and are sure you know the truth, how hard would it be for you to educate a simple peon like myself? Show us your benevolence. Pronounce the Baseball Truth from your throne, and teach us all how to live up to your highest of standards. An intellect of your caliber shouldn't take more than seconds to formulate a complete destruction of my argument above, so spare me those seconds and just show me how wrong I am.

Until you do that, you're just blowing smoke out of your butt, because you sure as hell aren't going to play me for a fool. Unlike the guys on the AJC blog, I don't get frustrated and I don't back down. Show me something and I'll listen. Until then, keep your mouth shut.

Reply

#40

Posted by Brent, December 2, 2008 5:17 PM

Tom, I agree with everything you said except the last two paragraphs. Especially about the challenge of mid level teams and seeking out potential above performance. You'll get no argument from me on any of that. And really, as far as the usefullness of peripheral stats, I don't think we're that far from each other.

My only real problem with what you're saying is that I think you are under-valuing performance. I recognize that the clutch factor gets blown out of performance (although no more than the New York media factor). But pitching is different from hitting in one key respect. Ptiching out of the stretch is actually a different mechanism than pitching out of the wind up, and we should expect it to lead to different results. For his entire career, Vasquez has been a significantly worse pitcher with men on base, and this tells us something about his ability to prevent runs. Beyond that, most pitchers do not fully exert themselves for every single batter during a game. And I believe there are certain pitchers who are better at knowing when to give a max effort within a single game. That is why certain pitchers have an ability to get "big outs" and thus prevent runs beyond what their peripherals might suggest. It isn't really that they are more clutch, it is that they know when and how to reach back for a big pitch in an important spot.

I agree that it is a statistical fact that in any one season peripherals correlate better than past performance with future performance. Again, you get no argument from me on that point. But I completely disagree about their role over an extended period of time. 5 years is a long time, and when there is no consistent identifiable reason for performance to be out of whack with peripherals (like playing in Colorado, or a consistently terrible defense) I trust the performance.

Reply

#41

Posted by Alex Remington, December 2, 2008 5:29 PM

Now, here's something I could get behind. Rosenthal's reporting the Braves are in on Vazquez, offering something along the lines of Jo-Jo Reyes, Brent Lillibridge, and one other guy. As long as the one other guy isn't too good, that sounds fine to me.

I wish I believed Reyes had a future in an Atlanta uniform, but he's had a two-year tryout and doesn't seem to be able to hit the black on the major league rubber. If we can get a league-average innings eater in a deal in which he's the biggest chip, I say go for it.

Reply

#42

Posted by Tom, December 2, 2008 6:01 PM

At the price Rosenthal is reporting, it'd be hard NOT to like Vazquez, unless the third player is a big name yet to be revealed. After seeing how low the White Sox sold Nick Swisher, it wouldn't surprise me to see Blanco or Anderson as the third player to fit the White Sox' speed/defense model.

Reply

#43

Posted by Brent, December 2, 2008 6:12 PM

If that is the deal, then we should take it and run. Seriously. Whatever else I've said about him, Vasquez would be around league average in the NL, or perhaps better according to some of you. Giving up Lillibridge and Reyes is basically giving up nothing, and we would get an effective major league starter. If third player is Josh Anderson or Blanco then I'm not as crazy about it, but I still think I'd do it. Guys like Reyes, Lillibridge, Anderson and Blanco are easily replacable, and as the current market has shown, major league pitchers are hard to find.

Reply

#44

Posted by coach (skip and pete will be missed), December 3, 2008 12:55 AM

Well, once again, I'm right. I told you all the Jake Peavy trade was dead in the water and now we have the proof.

I am happy as hell that the Braves didn't give up any real pitching prospects, but stunned beyond words due to the complete waste of prospects for a league average pitcher when guys like Garland and Wolfe can easily accomplish the same thing with nothing more than the investment of an eight to ten million one or two year contract.

Somewhere right now, Ozzie Guillen is laughing his ass off and Joe Torre is shaking his head in amusement.

Frank Wren is clearly out of his league. This was an unnecessary trade. The Braves GM is oblivious to the reality of where the Braves stand right now. He actually believes they can compete in 2009, talk about a born boy scout. I have long had zero confidence in Bobby Cox and now feel the same way toward Frank Wren. The lunatics are running the asylum and chaos rules supreme!

Reply

#45

Posted by Tom, December 3, 2008 8:24 AM

Coach: Once again, you're right? When was the first time? This is no proof that the Jake Peavy trade is "dead in the water." Your limited mental capacities clearly did not enable you to recognize that NONE of the pieces necessary for a potential Peavy deal were moved to Chicago.

There is absolutely no logical connection between one event and the other. Garland and Wolf are nowhere near as valuable as Vazquez. Garland got shelled last year and deserved it, and Wolf can't come anywhere close to Vazquez's durability. Remind me again why we should care what Ozzie Guillen and Joe Torre think? Last time I checked, they have no affiliation with the Braves' organization.

The Braves CAN compete in 2009; you have yet to provide any evidence why the can't. Even if they can't, this trade builds for 2010 because Vazquez will still be around and still be just 33 years old. It's time for you to put up (some real facts) or shut up around here.

Reply

#46

Posted by Alex Remington, December 3, 2008 8:51 AM

Hey, Tom, let's avoid the personal attacks, okay?

Reply

#48

Posted by Alex Remington, December 3, 2008 7:55 PM

Tom, I understand the impulse, and I really hope that no one will be attacking anyone else. But I'm trying to appeal to your sense of mercy rather than justice here. Also, this board is a lot nicer when people are nice to each other -- and while you can't control the guttersniping directed at you, you can conciliate your response. Also, remember: withering contempt is one thing, baldfaced insults are quite another.

Reply