Yankees deal for Vazquez

[riverside sluggers]

You dont know who is the #5 since DiceK is just as much of a question mark since he's coming back from a shoulder injury. There is an inherent risk that you will need to lean on a pitcher more, ie move them up in the pecking order. A #4 starter is vital. A #5 starter can be skipped 10 times a yr and is obviously less vital (see Yankees 2009). The bottom line is....

 

The sox have a 1-2 punch that is really hard to find, unless your root for the Mariners. Their #3 is at least a #2 in performance and is really only a mild injury question mark. Your #4 and #5 spots are question marks since one is coming off a concerning injury and the other is entering his first full yr of big league starting. The Yankees have an ace that is the best pitcher between the two sides. They have a 2-3-4 that is durable, but not of the caliber of Beckett (when he isnt hurt) and Lackey (if he isnt hurt). Notice a theme here? There is a certain relief that you can take when you know who is taking the hill. I am pretty damn sure that 1-4 will be starting regularly thoughout the yr. The #5 spot is a question mark. For the sox, you are pretty sure 1-3 will take the hill, although a bit less sure IMO when you talk about Beckett and Lackey due to their recent injury history. My question for you, is, can you count on 30+ starts from DiceK or Buchholz? The answer is, no. Just like I cannot count on 30 starts from Joba in yr 2. It certainly may happen without a hitch. But there is an inherent amount of risk involved.

 

The #5 is a question mark? You do realize that right now there is 6 set starters for the Sox, right?

[Dipre]

The #5 is a question mark? You do realize that right now there is 6 set starters for the Sox' date=' right?[/quote']

 

Dude.

 

It doesn't matter. It's about the Sox, so it's a question mark. Even though the Yankees don't even know which one of Joba or Hughes will start and who gets bumped to the 'pen, the Red Sox are obviously the team with rotation question marks.

[jacksonianmarch]

They have a 6th starter who cannot stay healthy and just had back surgery. Guys, I am not saying the sox dont have depth. They just have questionmarks after 1-3. My definition of a question mark is someone who you cannot pencil in for 30+ starts and close to 200IP. You cannot pencil in anyone past Lackey for that. As we have seen yr in and yr out, the teams that have the least variability in both performance and endurance in their pitching staffs have more successful seasons.

[Dipre]

They have a 6th starter who cannot stay healthy and just had back surgery. Guys' date=' I am not saying the sox dont have depth. They just have questionmarks after 1-3. My definition of a question mark is someone who you cannot pencil in for 30+ starts and close to 200IP. You cannot pencil in anyone past Lackey for that. As we have seen yr in and yr out, the teams that have the least variability in both performance and endurance in their pitching staffs have more successful seasons.[/quote']

 

You sure you can mark Burnett, Petitte, and Chamberlain/Hughes for close to 200 ip?

 

 

Honest question.

[jacksonianmarch]

I NEVER SAID THAT. I said that the Yankees 1-4 are not questionmarks. All should reach close to 200IP barring anything unforseen happening. All 4 should be in the 4.5 or lower category in ERA. I said that the Yankee #5 spot was a ???. Reading is fundamental

[Dipre]

I NEVER SAID THAT. I said that the Yankees 1-4 are not questionmarks. All should reach close to 200IP barring anything unforseen happening. All 4 should be in the 4.5 or lower category in ERA. I said that the Yankee #5 spot was a ???. Reading is fundamental

 

No.

 

By your statement, you believe the Yankees 1-4 are not question marks, therefore, you believe both Pettite and Burnett will reach close to 200 ip again, which is a question mark given Petitte's age and Burnett's injury history, therefore, you contradict yourself. Thinking before you type is fundamental.

[jacksonianmarch]

Its like arguing with a shrew.

[Dipre]

Its like arguing with a shrew.

 

Well you told me.

 

I'm sorry, it's not my fault bias does not allow your thought process to be either logical or consistent.

[26 to 6]

 

The day that guy takes anything to heart will be the day hell freezes over. He'll just read what we've said, assess whether or not he's been proven wrong/embarassed enough that he wants to change the subject and then he'll likely move on to his next point (probably something like "the Yankees are in a good predicament with Cano being a poor defensive player because he's a young stud who would turn it around next year").

Ummm......did you watch Cano play at all last year? He was quite good on defense. One of the best at turning a double play. His defense has improved tremendously since he came up.

 

Do you really believe this, or did you just say it for the sake of argument?

[Imperial59]

This is stupid. Seriously' date=' are you guys that delusional? A guy missed 2/3 of the season with arm trouble and he isnt an injury risk? Seriously?[/quote']

 

Straw man.

 

No one said he wasn't an injury risk. But the Yankees also have plenty of injury risks in their rotation.

 

You're the one who made the ridiculous assertion that having a 4th starter with an injury history meant that we didn't know who our 4th starter so Buchholz is pushed up to #4 and Wakefield's our #5.

 

I was simply indulging in your ridiculousness in order to show you how silly you're being.

[Imperial59]

They have a 6th starter who cannot stay healthy and just had back surgery. Guys' date=' I am not saying the sox dont have depth. They just have questionmarks after 1-3. My definition of a question mark is someone who you cannot pencil in for 30+ starts and close to 200IP. You cannot pencil in anyone past Lackey for that. As we have seen yr in and yr out, the teams that have the least variability in both performance and endurance in their pitching staffs have more successful seasons.[/quote']

 

And I don't think any logical fan would pencil in Burnett or a 38 year old Pettitte for an automatic 30+ starts and 200 IP either. Both rotations have question marks. I feel as if you're harping on injury risks and question marks because you know you can't make an objective statistical case for the Yankees rotation being comparable to the Red Sox.

 

When stats back up your point, you tend to use them. When stats don't back you up, you tend to revert to fanboy speak, claiming your team has "young studs" or that they're "sure things".

[Imperial59]

I NEVER SAID THAT. I said that the Yankees 1-4 are not questionmarks. All should reach close to 200IP barring anything unforseen happening. All 4 should be in the 4.5 or lower category in ERA. I said that the Yankee #5 spot was a ???. Reading is fundamental

 

Now Vazquez is a lock to have an ERA under 4.50?

 

He's pitched in the AL four years and he's had an ERA over 4.65 in three of them. What's next, you're going to claim the sky's yellow?

[jacksonianmarch]

And I don't think any logical fan would pencil in Burnett or a 38 year old Pettitte for an automatic 30+ starts and 200 IP either. Both rotations have question marks. I feel as if you're harping on injury risks and question marks because you know you can't make an objective statistical case for the Yankees rotation being comparable to the Red Sox.

 

When stats back up your point, you tend to use them. When stats don't back you up, you tend to revert to fanboy speak, claiming your team has "young studs" or that they're "sure things".

 

what part of...190+ innings for all 4 starters over the past 2 yrs is invalid statistically?

[Imperial59]

what part of...190+ innings for all 4 starters over the past 2 yrs is invalid statistically?

 

Backtracking 101. Which one do you want me to debate? Your original assertion that 4 Yankees starters are a sure thing for 30+ starts and 200 innings or that they all pitched around 190 innings the last 2 years?

 

Those are two very different things.

[jacksonianmarch]

Pettitte was the only one to not reach 200IP, since he only threw 194IP.

[Imperial59]

Pettitte was the only one to not reach 200IP' date=' since he only threw 194IP.[/quote']

 

Are we talking the 2009 Yankees now? I could have sworn we were discussing 2010.

 

A lot went right for the Yankees last year. But I doubt they stay as healthy this year with the extensive injury histories of Burnett, Chamberlain and Hughes and the 36+ year old players they have at key positions such as catcher, short, closer and the #3 spot in their rotation.

[diony]

Using injury histories as an argument.

[Imperial59]

Using injury histories as an argument.

 

Well aren't injury histories and ages pertinent when someone is claiming that 4 of their starters are a "lock" for 30+ starts and 200 innings?

[diony]

Well aren't injury histories and ages pertinent when someone is claiming that 4 of their starters are a "lock" for 30+ starts and 200 innings?

 

No they're not a lock. Yanks had only 2/5 pitchers with 30+ starts and 200 IPs and still won the WS. I'm not concerned about that. They replaced Wang/Mitre with Vasquez, and Joba is now on his 2nd full year as starter, so they should be even better.

 

I mentioned it because of the "A lot when right..." part. You posted the same counterarguments I read on this forums against the 2009 Yankees, last offseason.

 

And explain me Joba's extensive injury history, as a 24 year old.

[Dipre]

No they're not a lock. Yanks had only 2/5 pitchers with 30+ starts and 200 IPs and still won the WS. I'm not concerned about that. They replaced Wang/Mitre with Vasquez, and Joba is now on his 2nd full year as starter, so they should be even better.

 

I mentioned it because of the "A lot when right..." part. You posted the same counterarguments I read on this forums against the 2009 Yankees, last offseason.

 

And explain me Joba's extensive injury history, as a 24 year old.

 

Every reasonable Yankee fan admits a lot actually went the Yanks' way last year, just like the 2008 Phillies, 2007 Sox, 2006 Cards etc etc etc.

 

If you want to think they will be so lucky again in 2010 that's your prerogative, but it's obviously a flawed argument.

[Plumpamania]

diony, can you please explain to me using pertenant statistics that Javier Vazquez will be solid above average SP in 2010..?

[Imperial59]

No they're not a lock. Yanks had only 2/5 pitchers with 30+ starts and 200 IPs and still won the WS. I'm not concerned about that.

 

Thank you for being reasonable.

 

And explain me Joba's extensive injury history' date=' as a 24 year old.[/quote']

 

It's really Hughes who has the more extensive injury history of the two. But as for Chamberlain:

 

2005 - Knee surgery

2006 - Triceps tendinitis

2008 - Rotator cuff tendinitis (went to Dr. Andrews)

 

I feel like I'm forgetting one. Maybe he doesn't have as long as an injury history as I thought.

[Imperial59]

I mentioned it because of the "A lot when right..." part. You posted the same counterarguments I read on this forums against the 2009 Yankees' date=' last offseason[/quote']

 

You don't think a lot went right for the Yankees last year? Look at how many members of that lineup had career years, or near career years.

 

Jeter - Tie for career high OPS+

Damon - Career high OPS+

Teixeira - Tie for second best career high OPS+

A-Rod - Career average OPS+

Matsui - Second best OPS+ of career (best in the last 5 years)

Posada - Well above career average OPS+ at age 37

Cano - Career best OPS+

Swisher - Career best OPS+

Melky - Career best OPS+

 

More than 2/3rds of the lineup had career years or almost career years and not a single member of the lineup posted an OPS+ that was below their career average. Not exactly a typical day in the neighborhood.

[jacksonianmarch]

diony' date=' can you please explain to me using pertenant statistics that Javier Vazquez will be solid above average SP in 2010..?[/quote']

 

198+IP for 10 consecutive seasons. A K/9 among the best in the league and a FIP throughout most of his seasons (except for 2004) in the mid 3 range.

[Imperial59]

198+IP for 10 consecutive seasons. A K/9 among the best in the league and a FIP throughout most of his seasons (except for 2004) in the mid 3 range.

 

 

Can you name a single year in which Vazquez had a FIP in the mid-3 range in the American League?

[diony]

diony' date=' can you please explain to me using pertenant statistics that Javier Vazquez will be solid above average SP in 2010..?[/quote']

 

He was an above average pitcher with the White Sox from '06 to '08.

[Dipre]

He was an above average pitcher with the White Sox from '06 to '08.

 

He was below average two years and above average one year.

 

He had and ERA+ of 98, 126 and 98 in '06,'07 and '08.

[Plumpamania]

Nice stats jerky. ERA+ of 98, 126, 98. That's two years below league average. That was done during the prime of his career. Going into his age 33 season, after his age 27 year in pinstripes and his ERA+ of 92 and horrid playoff performance you trust him to NOW be an above average pitcher?

 

He has had one season of being an above average pitcher...one in the AL.

[Plumpamania]

He was below average two years and above average one year.

 

He had and ERA+ of 98, 126 and 98 in '06,'07 and '08.

 

If I wasn't posting at work I so would have owned him quicker.

[jacksonianmarch]

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/8/12/985970/why-javier-vazquez-is-baseballs

 

Sorry, I should have said 3.86 or less FIP