Yankees deal for Vazquez

[Dojji]

Do really need to bait and insult other members this much?

 

Yes he does because otherwise he'd have nothing to say.

[jacksonianmarch]

Do really need to bait and insult other members this much?

 

Just dishing it back there Imperial. And really, you are one to talk.

[Dipre]

^ Lol.

[Dipre]

About Vasquez' "Sterling" FIP but actual lack of results in what a pitcher is supposed to do, which is preventing other people from scoring, i found the following abnormality:

 

The issue with Vasquez seems to be an utter ineffectiveness while dealing with men on base, and this is something that WAR or FIP won't show.

 

Let's take a look at the following:

 

Javier Vazquez career OPS against bases clear and men on.

 

Clear On base

98:.875 .834

99:.678 .839

00:.799 .732

01:.620 .699

02:.751 .754

03:.617 .728

04:.712 .831 +119

05:.711 .857

06:.649 .834 +185

07:.681 .733 +52

08:.714 .818 +104

09:.603 .629

 

Career: .697 OPS with bases clear, .773 OPS with men on base.

 

That's a +76 OPS differential with men on base to bases clear. Not to mention the two years where he kept the deficit below 50, (07,09) were both aided by statistical flukes.

 

Consider the following:

 

Both years he had a BABIP under .300, both years he had LOB% over 74%, not a huge help, but definitely something to note, however, the above proves that his problems with men on base are not a fluke but a career trend. It's funny that in his 2004 with the Yanks he actually had a .284 BABIP and a 19.2 LD%, both below his career averages, even though HR/9 and FB/GB were slightly above his career averages.

 

 

Javier Vasquez 3.83 (697/773= +76)

 

Continues......

[Dipre]

Here's how hitters fare against him with the bases empty/men on broken down by hits, 2B, 3B, HR and BB, while also examining K%:

 

Bases clear:

 

23.04% H

5.37% BB

3.0% HR

4.96% 2B

0.55% 3B

22.88 K%

 

Men on base:

 

24% H

7.42% BB

3.12% HR

4.44% 2B

0.52% 3B

19.56% K

 

Pitchers with similar career FIP to Vasquez' 3.83 career OPS with bases clear/men on.

 

AJ Burnett: 3.83 (.667/714=- +47)

 

Bases Clear:

 

20.58% H

9.57% BB

2.25% HR

3.68% 2B

0.31% 3B

22.09% K

 

Men on base:

 

20.94% H

10.39% BB

2.09% HR

4.75% 2B

0.52 % 3B

21.74% K

 

John Lackey: 3.83 (.700/750= +50)

 

Bases clear:

 

24.32% H

4.84% BB

2.26% HR

4.89% 2B

0.37% 3B

18.91% K

 

Men on base:

 

23.19% H

7.39% BB

2.52 % HR

4.22% 2B

0.33% 3B

18.77% K

 

 

After a thorough analysis of each of these pitchers (who happen to have the same career FIP) i'll expose the flaw both in the formula for Vasquez' case, and the reason why his "sterling" peripherals haven't translated into success when trying to accomplish a pitcher's main objective: Keeping runs off the board.

 

First off, a look at FIP:

 

(HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB )*3-K*2)/IP

 

The formula looks to "Find out how well a pitcher pitched, regardless of how well the fielders fielded", and the premise in correct in most cases, but it assumes a pitcher always pitches in a context-neutral environment (i.e: bases empty) and fails to account for an abnormal career trend such as Vasquez, more on this following:

 

Every pitcher has a tendency to pitch slightly worse when pitching from the stretch, however, if you compare statistics from the three above pitchers, you'll notice that Vasquez declines sharply (taking into context percentage and sample size) in every category except triples (which is the type of hit with the SSS by the way),and doubles, (which he still gives up at a significant rate both with the bases clear and with men on base) he's simply as prone to giving up XBH (specially homers) and walks while much less able to strike out batters, which is basically his signature mark, while, if you notice the statistics for Lackey and Burnett, you'll notice that they decline in some aspects but maintain others (noticeably K%), by doing calculations, i noticed that a lot of the pitchers with similar FIP to Vasquez besides these two (Josh Beckett, Roy Halladay, Justin Verlander) all have a similar difference in OPS from bases cleared and man on base, which ranges from (+47 to +62(, however, none of them come even close to sniffing a 3.0% in HR's allowed neither with the bases clear or men on base, and this is significant, neither does anyone come close to a (+70) difference.

 

Continues...

[Dipre]

This is not something that can be attributed to a mere statistical fluke, but rather a career trend:

 

Comparison:

 

Javier Vasquez with men on base:

 

OBP: .331

XBH%: 8.08

H%: 24

 

 

AJ Burnett with men on base:

 

OBP: .328

XBH: 7.36

H%: 20.94 %

 

John Lackey with men on base:

 

OBP: .340

XBH%:7.07

H%:23.19

 

 

As you can see, Vasquez is simply inferior at preventing runs with men on base than either John Lackey or AJ Burnett, and Beckett, Halladay or Verlander for that matter, but i don't have the patience and i'm not bored enough to do those calculations as well.

 

But wait!

 

He's also more prone to allowing runs without people on base:

 

Percentage of earned runs allowed with the bases clear (via solo homer of course):

 

Javier Vasquez:

 

16.30%

 

AJ Burnett:

 

12.86%

 

John Lackey:

 

13.20%

 

No pitcher i checked comes even close to Vasquez in this category either. His homer-prone ways are much more significant than some would lead us to believe.

 

While this may be considered a "TL: DR" post, not only was i bored, but i'm tired of some people treating Vasquez like the second coming of Jesus. He is what he is, he eats innings, strikes people out, but gives up tons of XBH and runs. That is not the definition of an "effective pitcher".

[diony]

While this may be considered a "TL: DR" post, not only was i bored, but i'm tired of some people treating Vasquez like the second coming of Jesus. He is what he is, he eats innings, strikes people out, but gives up tons of XBH and runs. That is not the definition of an "effective pitcher".

 

Who actually did that?

[Dipre]

Who actually did that?

 

Don't feel called out if you didn't.

[Plumpamania]

They mustnt teach basic reasoning in the Dominican. I said that Vazquez and Halladay were the only ones to post a 4.5+ WAR since 2006. I never said that Vazquez was as good as Halladay. Cmon man' date=' you are just getting more and more ridiculous with each passing day[/quote']

 

As a certified teacher in NY, I think I have to go back and rethink about some of our tools to use in reading comprehension from grades K up, b/c Jackson you're failing at them moreso than posters here who are ESL.

 

You keep baiting out a Red Sox fan on a Red Sox fan site. You're a moronic imbesicle and on top of that a bias Yankee fan to the tenth degree. STFU and GTFO.

[BSN07]

You forgot he plays for the Yankees now Dipre. He's straight cash homie!

[Imperial59]

Just dishing it back there Imperial. And really' date=' you are one to talk.[/quote']

 

Thanks for being mature about it. Next time you might as well just go with the "he started it!" argument.

[Imperial59]

About Vasquez' "Sterling" FIP but actual lack of results in what a pitcher is supposed to do, which is preventing other people from scoring, i found the following abnormality:

 

The issue with Vasquez seems to be an utter ineffectiveness while dealing with men on base, and this is something that WAR or FIP won't show.

 

Let's take a look at the following:

 

Javier Vazquez career OPS against bases clear and men on.

 

Clear On base

98:.875 .834

99:.678 .839

00:.799 .732

01:.620 .699

02:.751 .754

03:.617 .728

04:.712 .831 +119

05:.711 .857

06:.649 .834 +185

07:.681 .733 +52

08:.714 .818 +104

09:.603 .629

 

Career: .697 OPS with bases clear, .773 OPS with men on base.

 

That's a +76 OPS differential with men on base to bases clear. Not to mention the two years where he kept the deficit below 50, (07,09) were both aided by statistical flukes.

 

Consider the following:

 

Both years he had a BABIP under .300, both years he had LOB% over 74%, not a huge help, but definitely something to note, however, the above proves that his problems with men on base are not a fluke but a career trend. It's funny that in his 2004 with the Yanks he actually had a .284 BABIP and a 19.2 LD%, both below his career averages, even though HR/9 and FB/GB were slightly above his career averages.

 

 

Javier Vasquez 3.83 (697/773= +76)

 

Continues......

 

Vazquez' low FIP could easily be explained by the formula overvaluing strikeouts. There's almost a 0.40 point differential in his career ERA and his career FIP, so clearly FIP isn't the most accurate assessment of his ability. That's all you needed to say

[Dipre]

Vazquez' low FIP could easily be explained by the formula overvaluing strikeouts. There's almost a 0.40 point differential in his career ERA and his career FIP' date=' so clearly FIP isn't the most accurate assessment of his ability. That's all you needed to say [/quote']

 

I wanted to go for the whole shebang so no illogical arguments could be brought up.

[Imperial59]

I wanted to go for the whole shebang so no illogical arguments could be brought up.

 

You know all that's gonna happen is that a certain someone's going to skim a couple lines and then come back with some line about how we're glossing over how durable and effective he is, right?

[diony]

Vazquez' low FIP could easily be explained by the formula overvaluing strikeouts. There's almost a 0.40 point differential in his career ERA and his career FIP' date=' so clearly FIP isn't the most accurate assessment of his ability. That's all you needed to say [/quote']

 

Because lots of strikeouts are a good thing for a pitcher, duh.

[Dipre]

Because lots of strikeouts are a good thing for a pitcher' date=' duh.[/quote']

 

I'd like to see you attack the core of the argument, instead of making trolling remarks like this one.

[Emmz]

Argument_Destroyah.

[yankees228]

Excellent analysis Dipre. It clearly isn't fair to use FIP to predict future performance, when the pitcher in question almost never produces what his FIP suggests.

 

However (I've already made this point), we're talking about a guy, who according to anyone, has an enormous ceiling, but he just hasn't quite lived up to it. Now, I don't expect him to come anywhere close to replicating last years' numbers, but I do think it's possible that he has learned to harness his stuff. I think it's possible that he has gotten smarter about when to throw certain pitches in certain situations. Clearly this is subjective, and it's purely conjecture on my part, because I barely saw him pitch last year. The optimistic side of me hopes this is the case, and he can keep his ERA below four this year. I'm not predicting that, and I'm not banking on it, but I do think it's a possibility.

[diony]

I'd like to see you attack the core of the argument' date=' instead of making trolling remarks like this one.[/quote']

 

I do not disagree with your argument, otherwise I would have replied.

[Imperial59]

I'd like to see you attack the core of the argument' date=' instead of making trolling remarks like this one.[/quote']

 

I'm pretty sure he was kidding.

[Dipre]

I'm pretty sure he was kidding.

 

He wasn't.

[Imperial59]

He wasn't.

 

Really, the duh didn't send off red flags for you? He just said he agreed with your argument...

[jacksonianmarch]

As a certified teacher in NY, I think I have to go back and rethink about some of our tools to use in reading comprehension from grades K up, b/c Jackson you're failing at them moreso than posters here who are ESL.

 

You keep baiting out a Red Sox fan on a Red Sox fan site. You're a moronic imbesicle and on top of that a bias Yankee fan to the tenth degree. STFU and GTFO.

 

You are a teacher and you cannot spell imbecile? Maybe you should quit your job and join Gom's taxi force.

[jacksonianmarch]

Here is the entire problem with your Vazquez argument. You pit him against 2 other pitchers and try to make it sound like he is being compared with the league. Well, it is difficult to prove a point when you...

 

A. arent using a significant sample size

B. arent comparing like players

C. arent taking into account the entire career of Vazquez yet take into account the entire career of the others.

 

One of the things that I have ceded is that Vazquez is a MAJOR flyball pitcher. And that makes Yankee Stadium dicey. All that your stats show is that Vazquez allows more homeruns. That is easy, you could have made that point by going to the ESPN homepage. But Burnett and Lackey, for the most part, have been even to groundball pitchers through their careers. It isnt fair to compare homeruns and OPS when the homer itself is the compounding factor and it is pretty significantly in the favor of the other two. When you figure that one homerun adds 5 points to the OPS scale (1 to the OBP and 4 to the SLG) then you see why OPS is a poor way of proving a point. You can make a case that Vazquez' homeruns are a reason why he has underperformed when talking about FIP. But you cannot say that that is A. a trend, and B. not attributable to chance. You made a lot of work, and some of it was informative, but it is skewed by your comparison of non-like variables.

[Dipre]

Here is the entire problem with your Vazquez argument. You pit him against 2 other pitchers and try to make it sound like he is being compared with the league. Well, it is difficult to prove a point when you...

 

A. arent using a significant sample size

B. arent comparing like players

C. arent taking into account the entire career of Vazquez yet take into account the entire career of the others.

 

One of the things that I have ceded is that Vazquez is a MAJOR flyball pitcher. And that makes Yankee Stadium dicey. All that your stats show is that Vazquez allows more homeruns. That is easy, you could have made that point by going to the ESPN homepage. But Burnett and Lackey, for the most part, have been even to groundball pitchers through their careers. It isnt fair to compare homeruns and OPS when the homer itself is the compounding factor and it is pretty significantly in the favor of the other two. When you figure that one homerun adds 5 points to the OPS scale (1 to the OBP and 4 to the SLG) then you see why OPS is a poor way of proving a point. You can make a case that Vazquez' homeruns are a reason why he has underperformed when talking about FIP. But you cannot say that that is A. a trend, and B. not attributable to chance. You made a lot of work, and some of it was informative, but it is skewed by your comparison of non-like variables.

 

2490.0 IP worth of sample size is not enough to establish a trend? Major LOL.

 

Not HR prone. XBH and walk prone with men on base. Disprove it.

 

I compared him to pitchers with exactly the same FIP who have vastly different results for a reason. Maybe it flew over your head? Read it again.

 

Being homer-prone in itself is going to screw with him at Yankee stadium. The rest is gravy.

[jacksonianmarch]

I did read it. And you didnt use the 2490IP but you made conclusions based on about 800IP. There were 3 seasons in there where the difference was negligible, or he was better with runners on.

[Dipre]

I did read it. And you didnt use the 2490IP but you made conclusions based on about 800IP. There were 3 seasons in there where the difference was negligible' date=' or he was better with runners on.[/quote']

 

I used his entire body of work as a baseline. Where the f*** did you come up with that? To ascertain the difference in his none on/men on base splits, you need the entire body of work, even if he has pitched less with men on base.

[jacksonianmarch]

You made conclusions based on his 4 AL seasons and tried to say that the minority of his work is a trend for who he is overall.

[Dipre]

You made conclusions based on his 4 AL seasons and tried to say that the minority of his work is a trend for who he is overall.

 

I didn't use the 4 AL seasons. I used his entire career.

[jacksonianmarch]

You know what I mean. Regardless, the point is, you essentially tried to point out that Vazquez is a homerun/flyball pitcher. You could have stated as such and nobody would have denied it.