View Full Version : Baseball Prospectus not too kind to Yankee pitchers
YankeePride1967
03-01-05, 08:49 PM
Compared the signings of Pavano and Wright to the 1980's signings of Andy Hawkins and Dave LaPoint after 1988. Said the Yanks subscribe to the theory of "need a number one pitcher but only number fours are available, then buy the number four pitchers".
Prickly Pete
03-01-05, 08:59 PM
Compared the signings of Pavano and Wright to the 1980's signings of Andy Hawkins and Dave LaPoint after 1988. Said the Yanks subscribe to the theory of "need a number one pitcher but only number fours are available, then buy the number four pitchers".
Who did they think were better signings? And doesn't acquiring RJ count as getting a No. 1?
YankeePride1967
03-01-05, 09:08 PM
Who did they think were better signings? And doesn't acquiring RJ count as getting a No. 1?
THey thought RJ was good, but they think WRight was a product of Mazzone and that Pavano will just be mediocre.
SoCal Pinstriper
03-01-05, 09:13 PM
THey thought RJ was good, but they think WRight was a product of Mazzone and that Pavano will just be mediocre.I fear that they might be right, but really, what were our alternatives? It's great to question a team's moves, but I put alot more creadence in the writers that state what they would have done instead.
What did they say about the Red Sox signings of Wells, Clement and Miller?
YankeePride1967
03-02-05, 07:29 AM
What did they say about the Red Sox signings of Wells, Clement and Miller?
They liked them.
justinvarnes
03-02-05, 07:50 AM
They liked them.
Of course they did. Those 3 are solid, intelligent choices, whereas the Yanks are gambling...grabbing at straws.
&po'd&
WiffleWOOD
03-02-05, 08:10 AM
Of course they did. Those 3 are solid, intelligent choices, whereas the Yanks are gambling...grabbing at straws.
&po'd&
i'm plagiarizing myself here, but...
i think the miller move was smart, of course. the clement deal was OK (i would have chosen him over Pavano), though it's not like they got him cheap and he's probably got just as many question marks as Pavano does.
the wells move, however? i'm still not sold. i don't know why everyone is so high on Wells at Fenway. I understand that the money is low and they only have to pay if he meets the incentives, which would be good for them. But most of what I'm reading is that he's going to be a good-great #2 or #3 guy for them...i don't understand how that happens when a 41 yr old lefty with a 4.65 K/9 (in the NL!) at Fenway. yes, he is durable. yes, he has insane command and doesn't walk anybody.
but no, he doesn't throw with the right arm for Fenway. and no, he doesn't strikeout anybody in the NL, and thus should strike out even less in the AL. and no, he's not an extreme groundball pitcher.
there's been the suggestion that maybe he has some control over his BABIP. perhaps, though there's no evidence to support this. there's got to be something more to it, i guess, because he's had a lot of success over the years and his K-Rate has never been much to speak of. He can't be getting by on control alone. But I don't think sticking him in Fenway is going to be good. You can cite his last 7 starts at Fenway, when he started pitching well there, but that is too small a sample size, especially considering how poorly he pitched there before this.
good value? yes. good bet to be a solid #2/3? not so sure.
YankeeFan1
03-02-05, 09:52 AM
I understanding questioning Wright, but I don't get the issue with Pavano. I never thought that Pavano was all that and I've actually watched the Marlins play a lot. However, Pavano was all the rage in the off season when it seemed that he was going to the Red Sox. Anyway it isn't like the Yankees signed Pavano to be a no. 1. Pavano is clearly the no. 3 pitcher so what's the problem here?
Wells is a great signing for the Red Sox, except that he is 41 and has back trouble. Clement should be good, but how come he wasn't the Red Sox first choice? As for Miller, they aren't getting much from him this season and he may very likely need surgery.
Both the Yankee and Red Sox have good rotation with huge question marks. Health will determine what happens this season.
Pavano's low K rate in the NL really worries me, it'll be even lower in the AL without the benefit of facing the pitcher. I think he'll be mediocre for us, and would have preferred Clement. Plus looking at Pavano's 2003 to 2004 improvement the only really distinct change statistically that could have led to his success is a lower BABIP. This points to his improvement being driven by a combination of better luck and better defense. A team with Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter, and Tony Womack is not going to be very good defensively.
WiffleWOOD
03-02-05, 10:13 AM
I understanding questioning Wright, but I don't get the issue with Pavano. I never thought that Pavano was all that and I've actually watched the Marlins play a lot. However, Pavano was all the rage in the off season when it seemed that he was going to the Red Sox. Anyway it isn't like the Yankees signed Pavano to be a no. 1. Pavano is clearly the no. 3 pitcher so what's the problem here?
Wells is a great signing for the Red Sox, except that he is 41 and has back trouble. Clement should be good, but how come he wasn't the Red Sox first choice? As for Miller, they aren't getting much from him this season and he may very likely need surgery.
Both the Yankee and Red Sox have good rotation with huge question marks. Health will determine what happens this season.
you can't judge the value of a signing based on whether or not they were someone's "first choice." if that were true, I guess signing El Duque was a really bad idea by the Yanks, and signing Schilling was a really bad move by the Sox, since neither were the respective team's first choice.
the problem with Pavano is that many expect him to put up similar numbers to last year, which is probably not going to happen considering his low K rate. Additionally, he's signed to a ton of money, which, even in this market, was unnecessary. Other comparable pitchers could have been had for less.
if miller can contribute at all, the signing will be a success. even if he doesn't, they didn't sign him to much money. if he is healthy by the break, he'll be their #2, and, at that money, he was a steal. may not end up working out, but it still was a good move.
WiffleWOOD
03-02-05, 10:18 AM
that said, i do think that the teams made comparably good moves this year: high risk, high reward. as was said earlier in this thread, it's all about health (isn't it always?).
Kulish29
03-02-05, 11:14 AM
They liked them.
:lol:
Figures. Wells is as old as Johnson, not as good and has chronic back problems , Miller is injured and will start the season on the DL and Clement is a career enigma.
But ya, those three signings are much better and less risky than Pavano and Wright. Whatever. :o
ClayParker
03-02-05, 11:50 AM
I think I would have preferred Lieber over Pavano. I really liked what I saw out of Lieber near the end of the season. I don't really care that Pavano is younger.
I think I would have preferred Lieber over Pavano. I really liked what I saw out of Lieber near the end of the season. I don't really care that Pavano is younger.And don't forget that history says that Lieber will be better this year than last.
They liked them.How does that make any sense?
YankeeFan1
03-02-05, 12:30 PM
you can't judge the value of a signing based on whether or not they were someone's "first choice." if that were true, I guess signing El Duque was a really bad idea by the Yanks, and signing Schilling was a really bad move by the Sox, since neither were the respective team's first choice.
the problem with Pavano is that many expect him to put up similar numbers to last year, which is probably not going to happen considering his low K rate. Additionally, he's signed to a ton of money, which, even in this market, was unnecessary. Other comparable pitchers could have been had for less.
Apples and Oranges. The situations with Duque and Schilling are different. You can judge how a team values a player by whether or not a player is their "first choice" when there are other comparable players who are free agents and are available on the market. Why didn't the Red Sox go after Clement as hard as they did Pavano, if they considered Clement to be superior pitcher? Because for "some" reason, the sabermetrically inclined Red Sox perferred Pavano over Clement and were willing to pay more for him. Probably the same reason that the Yankees perferred Pavano over Clement. I'm not sure what the reason is and perhaps it won't matter in the end, but as things stand the Yankees got the player preferred by both teams so Pavano can't be as bad as the Baseball Propectus people, Gammons and others are now claiming.
WiffleWOOD
03-02-05, 01:01 PM
again, you can't judge the intelligence/value of a signing based on whether or not that team really wanted him. how does that make sense at all? just because the Yanks and Sox both wanted Pavano doesn't make signing him a smart move. A team's desire to have a player doesn't make that player good, or his contract good.
Bowden wanted Guzman and is happy he got him. Does this make his signing a good one? A few teams really wanted Magglio, and the Tigers signed him; does this make his signing good? of course not.
i understand that there may be something beyond the pure statistics that Pavano has going for him if the Sox wanted him more than Clement. If the Sox had signed him, though, I guarantee that BP still would have said it wasn't a smart move. there is no team bias here; most statistically-oriented analysts don't like the Pavano signing, regardless of team.
YankeePride1967
03-02-05, 01:04 PM
again, you can't judge the intelligence/value of a signing based on whether or not that team really wanted him. how does that make sense at all? just because the Yanks and Sox both wanted Pavano doesn't make signing him a smart move. A team's desire to have a player doesn't make that player good, or his contract good.
Bowden wanted Guzman and is happy he got him. Does this make his signing a good one? A few teams really wanted Magglio, and the Tigers signed him; does this make his signing good? of course not.
i understand that there may be something beyond the pure statistics that Pavano has going for him if the Sox wanted him more than Clement. If the Sox had signed him, though, I guarantee that BP still would have said it wasn't a smart move. there is no team bias here; most statistically-oriented analysts don't like the Pavano signing, regardless of team.
The Yankees and Reds both wanted Milton, another example.
WiffleWOOD
03-02-05, 01:34 PM
The Yankees and Reds both wanted Milton, another example.
don't remind me. that was a scary period in all of our lives.
JavyVazquezIsSick
03-02-05, 01:41 PM
the problem with Pavano is that many expect him to put up similar numbers to last year, which is probably not going to happen considering his low K rate. Additionally, he's signed to a ton of money, which, even in this market, was unnecessary. Other comparable pitchers could have been had for less.
Supposively he was offered more money with others teams. Of course he is still overvalued by a lot but I didn't see any alternatives on the FA market...
Supposively he was offered more money with others teams. Of course he is still overvalued by a lot but I didn't see any alternatives on the FA market...
I hightly doubt he was offered more money from other teams, and a clear alternative was Clement who is probably better and cheaper.
YankeeFan1
03-02-05, 01:47 PM
again, you can't judge the intelligence/value of a signing based on whether or not that team really wanted him. how does that make sense at all? just because the Yanks and Sox both wanted Pavano doesn't make signing him a smart move. A team's desire to have a player doesn't make that player good, or his contract good. I'm judging how the team values the player by how hard they were going after him and that I can do. I don't know how good Pavano is compared to Clement, but I know that the Red Sox who are always promoted as the one of the most sabermetrically inclined team wanted him over Clement so they believed that Pavano was the better pitcher. Baseball Prospectus may disagree with the Red Sox, but so what? Baseball Prospectus may be wrong as hell. Regardless, no one knows how any of these signings will turn out until after the season is over.
Is it possible that the Sox really weren't that interested in Pavano? How many fictional reports are leaked during each off-season?
YankeeFan1
03-02-05, 01:50 PM
Is it possible that the Sox really weren't that interested in Pavano? How many fictional reports are leaked during each off-season? So that whole hour meeting with Schilling and tour of their facilities as well as Boston was just for fun?
38Special
03-02-05, 01:52 PM
I hightly doubt he was offered more money from other teams, and a clear alternative was Clement who is probably better and cheaper.
All reports said that the Orioles/Tigers offered more than the Yankees did. As for Clement, he's been known to fall apart Weaver-style in the blink of an eye, and is prone to wildness. Pavano while not having strikeout producing stuff, he seems to be very strong is pressure situations and did awesome in 2003 in the postseason.
So that whole hour meeting with Schilling and tour of their facilities as well as Boston was just for fun?
They never wanted him, Wells was their true target all along.
So that whole hour meeting with Schilling and tour of their facilities as well as Boston was just for fun?
Well they were obviously somewhat interested, but at a far lower price than the Yankees were offering. I just don't see what leads you to believe he was their number 1 target. Hell, for all any of us know the whole meeting/tour thing could have been a sham designed to get the Yankees to drive up their price.
All reports said that the Orioles/Tigers offered more than the Yankees did.
You got a link?
Edit: The only sources I've seen say that the Orioles and Tigers at best matched the Yankees offer.
YankeeFan1
03-02-05, 02:00 PM
Well they were obviously somewhat interested, but at a far lower price than the Yankees were offering. I just don't see what leads you to believe he was their number 1 target. Hell, for all any of us know the whole meeting/tour thing could have been a sham designed to get the Yankees to drive up their price. Guess you weren't around for the off season. The Red Sox offered more. Pavano accepted the Yankees slightly lower offer. Go to ESPN.com and search Gammons' older columns so you get a sense of how the whole thing went down.
Guess you weren't around for the off season. The Red Sox offered more. Pavano accepted the Yankees slightly lower offer. Go to ESPN.com and search Gammons' older columns so you get a sense of how the whole thing went down.
The Red Sox offered more than the Yankees? You got a link?
Edit: And Gammons is not a reliable source to be quoting. Remember when the Sox were going to sign Pedro and Pavano.
WiffleWOOD
03-02-05, 02:13 PM
why are we debating who offered more (the reports i remember reading said the sox offered slightly more, i think) when that is completely irrelevant as to whether or not this was a smart deal for the Yankees? this is illogical.
YankeeFan1
03-02-05, 02:17 PM
why are we debating who offered more (the reports i remember reading said the sox offered slightly more, i think) when that is completely irrelevant as to whether or not this was a smart deal for the Yankees? this is illogical. You're right.
Back to Pavano, I don't know if it was a good signing. I don't have high expectations for him, myself. I just hope that he becomes a solid no. 3, maybe a no. 2 in a couple of years when Mussina is gone. He is not a strikeout guy, but he does have good control. The Yankees need to find a couple young power pitchers. I'm skeptical, but hopefully about Wright.
For what its worth this is what PECOTA predicts for these guys in 2005.
Pavano:
4.64 ERA
21.3 VORP
Wright:
4.69 ERA
16.5 VORP
Clement:
3.85 ERA
38.6 VORP
38Special
03-02-05, 02:38 PM
For what its worth this is what PECOTA predicts for these guys in 2005.
Pavano:
4.64 ERA
21.3 VORP
Wright:
4.69 ERA
16.5 VORP
Clement:
3.85 ERA
38.6 VORP
Well considering how many issues that Pavano and Wright had with injury prior to 04 (Pavano prior to 03), im not surprised that those computer printouts give them those kinds of numbers.
They never wanted him, Wells was their true target all along.Wells? Why would Wells be their true target? That doesn't make any sense.
38Special
03-02-05, 02:45 PM
Wells? Why would Wells be their true target? That doesn't make any sense.
Oh hay Serge i'd like to introduce you to my friend. His name is Sarcasm and i'm guessing you two havent met
Oh hay Serge i'd like to introduce you to my friend. His name is Sarcasm and i'm guessing you two havent metOh, hey 38Special, I would like to introduce you to my friends, too. Their names are spelling and punctuation and I am guessing you three haven't met.
JavyVazquezIsSick
03-02-05, 03:36 PM
why are we debating who offered more (the reports i remember reading said the sox offered slightly more, i think) when that is completely irrelevant as to whether or not this was a smart deal for the Yankees? this is illogical.
I agree, but you said:
"Additionally, he's signed to a ton of money, which, even in this market, was unnecessary. "
I was just showing it actually was necessary because teams were offering similar and even higher salaries to get Pavano. Even though the market was highly overvalued, the Yankees themselves didn't sign Pavano over the current market value...
38Special
03-02-05, 03:59 PM
Oh, hey 38Special, I would like to introduce you to my friends, too. Their names are spelling and punctuation and I am guessing you three haven't met.
I heart grammar nazis
I heart grammar nazisWe're going to get along real well.
WiffleWOOD
03-02-05, 05:48 PM
I agree, but you said:
I was just showing it actually was necessary because teams were offering similar and even higher salaries to get Pavano. Even though the market was highly overvalued, the Yankees themselves didn't sign Pavano over the current market value...
they did sign Pavano over the market value, since Clement, Radke, and arguably Perez are all comparable or better, and all were signed for less.
ChewieTobbacca
03-02-05, 05:49 PM
PECOTA was pretty accurate about Quantrill last year IIRC and these predictions are sort of in-line with the warnings given by many on these signins earlier in the offseason...
JeffWeaverFan
03-02-05, 06:06 PM
How does that make any sense?
Clement has a high K rate and so does Wade Miller. Miller also is low risk.
Pavano relies on his defense a lot which will hurt him. Wright scares the hell out of me. Personally, I think Pavano will have an ERA around 4.40 and Wright around 4.70. Both would be fine.
JeffWeaverFan
03-02-05, 06:07 PM
they did sign Pavano over the market value, since Clement, Radke, and arguably Perez are all comparable or better, and all were signed for less.
Radke was the guy we should have gone hard after.
nhyankeefan
03-02-05, 06:14 PM
Radke was the guy we should have gone hard after.
I would have loved Radke and Lieber instead of Pavano and Wright, but Radke was never going to come here anyways. He was offered more money by the Sox, but still stayed w/ the Twins.
JeffWeaverFan
03-02-05, 06:17 PM
I would have loved Radke and Lieber instead of Pavano and Wright, but Radke was never going to come here anyways. He was offered more money by the Sox, but still stayed w/ the Twins.
I know. The Sox offerred something like 3/$21 while the Twins gave him 2/$14. I would have blown that offer out with a 3/$30.
Bernie51A-Rod13
03-02-05, 07:01 PM
Outside of Randy Johnson, every single pitching move made by the Yankees and Sox this offseason was very questionable.
Clement has a high K rate and so does Wade Miller. Miller also is low risk.
Pavano relies on his defense a lot which will hurt him. Wright scares the hell out of me. Personally, I think Pavano will have an ERA around 4.40 and Wright around 4.70. Both would be fine.Miller may be low risk but isn't he injury prone? And what about Johnson and Wells?
JeffWeaverFan
03-02-05, 07:49 PM
Miller may be low risk but isn't he injury prone? And what about Johnson and Wells?
Yeah, Miller is very injury prone but they signed him for hardly anything so even if it doesn't work out, it's no big deal. Wells is also an injury risk with his back and moving from the best pitchers park in the league last season to a hitters park will hurt him.
YankeePride1967
03-02-05, 08:10 PM
Another comment in BP that I thought interesting relative to our outfield defense, we gave up the most triples in 2004 and the 4th most doubles.
PECTOA is an average of several different predicted outcomes. They were broken up into percentiles.
JavyVazquezIsSick
03-03-05, 01:24 PM
they did sign Pavano over the market value, since Clement, Radke, and arguably Perez are all comparable or better, and all were signed for less.
Market value is determined by what others teams are offering. There must be some reason why other teams were willing to pay a higher price for Pavano than others. Radke wanted to stay in Minn and I'd rather have Pavano than Clement. I would of loved to see them sign Perez, but he did horrible in the playoffs, so his value went down.
WebsterMulligan
03-03-05, 06:07 PM
Another comment in BP that I thought interesting relative to our outfield defense, we gave up the most triples in 2004 and the 4th most doubles.
Given those numbers, I'm surprised that the Yanks did'nt pursue Beltran, or another capable outfielder. I expect more of the same, or worse, from the Yankee outfield in 2005.
I don't mean to hijack this thread. :)
Dynasties R Forever
03-03-05, 06:40 PM
Is it possible that the Sox really weren't that interested in Pavano? How many fictional reports are leaked during each off-season?
Anything's possible, but thinking they offered a contract to a player they don't want just doesn't make any sense.
Dynasties R Forever
03-03-05, 06:49 PM
Well they were obviously somewhat interested, but at a far lower price than the Yankees were offering. I just don't see what leads you to believe he was their number 1 target. Hell, for all any of us know the whole meeting/tour thing could have been a sham designed to get the Yankees to drive up their price.
Probably all the news reports were the thing that tipped him off to the fact he was the Sox number one target. That and the report they offered him more money than the Yanks. Matter of fact, four teams offered him more money than the Yanks. The news reports confirm this. There is nothing to confirm your view. The reports at the time are directly opposite the Boston offered much less fantasy. Here is a link to an article by a Florida reporter (presumably with no bone to pick either way). http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/baseball/10397648.htm?1c
Given those numbers, I'm surprised that the Yanks did'nt pursue Beltran, or another capable outfielder. I expect more of the same, or worse, from the Yankee outfield in 2005.
I don't mean to hijack this thread. :)I got the feeling in Cashman's interview that he didn't think Bernie's defense was that horrible.
YankeePride1967
03-03-05, 09:07 PM
I got the feeling in Cashman's interview that he didn't think Bernie's defense was that horrible.
That's what he would say, there is no way that he would say anything derogatory to a current Yankee.
That's what he would say, there is no way that he would say anything derogatory to a current Yankee.Yeah, you're right. I didn't think about that.
But, Cashman <i>has</i> to know how badly he played defense last year. It's just amazing that their solution (if you can even call it that) was Glanville. :uhh:
YankeePride1967
03-03-05, 09:19 PM
Yeah, you're right. I didn't think about that.
But, Cashman has to know how badly he played defense last year. It's just amazing that their solution (if you can even call it that) was Glanville. :uhh:
I honestly think it came down to money and the players that might have been available for the price they could afford might not have been an upgrade.
I honestly think it came down to money and the players that might have been available for the price they could afford might not have been an upgrade.You are right. The Yankees wern't the most intelligent spenders this offseason.
What was Vazquez's PECOTA for 2004?
Bernie51A-Rod13
03-04-05, 12:32 AM
What was Vazquez's PECOTA for 2004?
3.22 era, 194 Ks 224 inn 204 hits.
Here are some other PECOTAs for Yankees last year
Brown 3.58 175 innings
Mussina 3.31 213
Lieber 4.44 153
Jeter 292/364/433
Posada 261/368/460
Matsui 279/360/451
Bernie 285/374/440
A-Rod 307/402/619 (Note that this projection was for Texas not New York, so it's not really worth much)
Sheff 297/387/515 (only projected 25 homers)
As you can tell it's a very mixed bag.
i'm plagiarizing myself here, but...
i think the miller move was smart, of course. the clement deal was OK (i would have chosen him over Pavano), though it's not like they got him cheap and he's probably got just as many question marks as Pavano does.
the wells move, however? i'm still not sold. i don't know why everyone is so high on Wells at Fenway. I understand that the money is low and they only have to pay if he meets the incentives, which would be good for them. But most of what I'm reading is that he's going to be a good-great #2 or #3 guy for them...i don't understand how that happens when a 41 yr old lefty with a 4.65 K/9 (in the NL!) at Fenway. yes, he is durable. yes, he has insane command and doesn't walk anybody.
but no, he doesn't throw with the right arm for Fenway. and no, he doesn't strikeout anybody in the NL, and thus should strike out even less in the AL. and no, he's not an extreme groundball pitcher.
there's been the suggestion that maybe he has some control over his BABIP. perhaps, though there's no evidence to support this. there's got to be something more to it, i guess, because he's had a lot of success over the years and his K-Rate has never been much to speak of. He can't be getting by on control alone. But I don't think sticking him in Fenway is going to be good. You can cite his last 7 starts at Fenway, when he started pitching well there, but that is too small a sample size, especially considering how poorly he pitched there before this.
good value? yes. good bet to be a solid #2/3? not so sure.
The Wells contract could end up being very expensive for very little production. HIs incentives are based only on starts. I believe they kick in after 15 starts. He has consistently started 30+. If he does that he will make 10M this year. He could conceivably do that and still pitch poorly- making his contract expensive and overpriced
what opened my eyes was how much arod in fact did bastardize his career by moving to 3rd.
check out the BP on it. he literally halved his MLVr
what opened my eyes was how much arod in fact did bastardize his career by moving to 3rd.
check out the BP on it. he literally halved his MLVr
He's been declining since 2000, though. It's just becoming more noticable.
Stupid Flanders
03-08-05, 10:13 PM
I fear that they might be right, but really, what were our alternatives? Jon Lieber
Orlando Hernandez
Chien Wang
Spend the money on Beltran
Then hold out for the deadline or next season
This is what I would have done
Pavano's PERA the last two years: 3.70, trending downward. Clement's? 3.80, trending upward. Clement strikes-out more guys and allows fewer hits, but Pavano walks fewer and gives up fewer homeruns.
What's more, the defense that Pavano relies so heavily on is likely infield defense, and likely mostly the left side. The left side of Florida's infield's combined defensive rating last year: 9. New York's:18.
I'm sure I've missed something which y'all will now point out, but I think Carl will be fine. This likely isn't the bad signing some are making it out to be.
justind
03-30-05, 04:57 PM
I fear that they might be right, but really, what were our alternatives?
i think that this is the key for both clubs, with the exception of the johnson deal. both the sox and yanks needed to fill holes in their rotations and got the people that were probably the best available at the time, regardless of the fact that they each came with risks.
i'm 100% convinced wright is a mazzone guy and will suck and i'm almost as convinced (98%?) that clement will be a bust. pavano will do fine for a #3 and Wells will be...David Wells.
the yanks can live with wright sucking, the sox really need clement or miller to come through.
Munson's 'Stash
04-24-05, 05:51 PM
What's more, the defense that Pavano relies so heavily on is likely infield defense, and likely mostly the left side. The left side of Florida's infield's combined defensive rating last year: 9. New York's:18.
Pavanno is a flyball pitcher. Part of his increased performance in 2004 was playing in a pitcher's park with deep outfeilds, in front of one of the best defenses in the NL. That is a good recipe to bring down your BABIP.
As for Radke, the Sox went hard after him; he was their first choice. He fits a profile they like; namely control pitchers with low walk numbers. He's not a fireballing dominator, but he's a solid #2. They almost got him, but at the last minute the Twin's pitching coach called him and brokered a deal that upped the Twins offer by $1M/ yr. He really didn't want to leave MN. which is the only place he's ever played, so throwing a ton of $ at him likely wouldn't have helped the Yank's land him.
Clement is the anti-Radke: Radke has amazing command over mediocre stuff; Clement has mediocre command over amazing stuff. The difference is that a pitcher can learn command (look at RJ), but stuff isn't going to improve. Clement was the sleeper pitching pick up, IMO.
Wells is a substitue for Radke. The fact that he's a lefty kind of offsets his age/ injury concerns. The fact that the signing is for less $ also helps. Wells has historically provided around 200 innings pitching above the MLB average. He does it without walking people. The contract is structured to mitigate the risk that would come if he went down with an injury. If he isn't hurt you know what you're going to get from him, and that's what makes him valuable.
Pavanno is a flyball pitcher..
NO, Pavano (one "n") is a sinkerball pitcher!
G/F: 1.49 (League avg.: 1.25)
G/F: Groundball/Flyball ratio. Pitchers with high ratios are groundballs pitchers and those with low ratios are flyball pitchers. Note that this calculation does not include line drives.
Pavanno is a flyball pitcher. Part of his increased performance in 2004 was playing in a pitcher's park with deep outfeilds
Pavano's ERA last year was better on the road than in Pro Player (I don't have the exact numbers -- I'm sure someone here does, but there was an article where they asked him about it).
Also Joe Robbie/Pro Player/Dolphin Stadium isn't so much a "pitcher's park" as it is a "football stadium that is rented out for a few months for baseball games", but I digress on that one :).
Mattpat11
05-01-05, 02:13 AM
Pavanno is a flyball pitcher. .Wow, you just completely made that up.
bakntime
05-04-05, 07:32 AM
Pavanno is a flyball pitcher. Part of his increased performance in 2004 was playing in a pitcher's park with deep outfeilds, in front of one of the best defenses in the NL. That is a good recipe to bring down your BABIP.
Spelling guy's names right helps your credibility. He was better on the road than at home last year.
NO, Pavano (one "n") is a sinkerball pitcher!
G/F: 1.49 (League avg.: 1.25)
G/F: Groundball/Flyball ratio. Pitchers with high ratios are groundballs pitchers and those with low ratios are flyball pitchers. Note that this calculation does not include line drives.
I asked this in ITL, but don't think I'll get an answer there, so I'll try here.
He throws a sinker...but is he really that much of a ground ball pitcher? Last year, his g/f ratio was 1.43 (not 1.49), good enough for 31st in the majors. That was behind Roger Clemens, Matt Clement, Carlos Zambrano, and a lot of other guys who generally aren't considered ground ball pitchers. This year, his g/f ratio is 1.13, which is about where it was in 2003 (1.10). 2003 and 2004 represent Pavano's only full seasons as a starter, and they don't seem to indicate that he throws all that many ground balls. In 2003, Pavano's ratio was 59th in baseball, and in 2005, he is 76th overall.
What makes people think he is a ground ball pitcher? He hasn't given up a whole lot of home runs in the last few years, but he also doesn't induce a whole lot of ground balls either. If you combine 2003-2005, his g/f is right around 1.25, which is apparently league average.
bs the yankees fielding has sucked most of this year anyways
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
0