Yankees deal for Vazquez

[jacksonianmarch]

Wait, did my position just benefit from the ORS hammer? Nice

[ORS]

How much more consideration do you need? I've demonstrated how the formula for FIP overvalues strikeouts and I've demonstrated how the best strikeout pitchers in the AL have better FIPS than ERA's even though many of them had a BABIP below .300, pitched in pitcher friendly parks and had good defenses behind them.

 

In theory, you're correct that a 99% chance of an out is better than a 70% chance of an out, but it's a weighting issue. Formulas like FIP overvalue strikeouts because they don't take into account the fact that balls put into play and walks outnumber strikeouts by a HUGE margin.

 

I'm not sure what stats you're looking at, but of the top 20 pitchers in K/9 last year, Lincecum, Verlander, Lester, Vazqeuz, Kershaw, Greinke, Nolasco, De La Rosa, Sherzer, Beckett, Johnson and Billingsley had a better FIP than they did an ERA. And of the top 10 pitchers in K/9 last year, 9 of them had a better FIP than ERA.

 

I wouldn't call that correlation zero.

 

I looked at what you stated in your argument.

[ORS]

I'm not sure what you're asking. I listed the top 10 pitchers in K/9 last year and 9 of the top 10 had a lower FIP than they did an ERA.

 

I don't know of any way to look up the top 10 pitchers with the largest difference between their ERA and FIP.

 

Fagraphs has a E-F category in the advanced pitching statistics (this is ERA-FIP). You can sort by each category. Also, if you have excel on your computer, you can right click on the stats table at most websites and export the data to excel, but fangraphs makes this even easier by providing a link at the top of the table for exporting to excel. Then you can run the correlation function between two columns to determine if there is a relationship. While I did not run the function for the top-20 pitchers in the AL (as the data suggested a zero correlation), I will do so now for all qualified pitchers from fangraphs. Specifically, I will correlate the ERA-FIP to K/9.

 

The correlation is 0.304, which as you can see from the graph, is not very strong.

 

http://www.math.upenn.edu/~estorm/115s08/bestfitline/correlation.jpg

 

The data doesn't support your idea. I suggest you drop it.

[Imperial59]

Fagraphs has a E-F category in the advanced pitching statistics (this is ERA-FIP). You can sort by each category. Also, if you have excel on your computer, you can right click on the stats table at most websites and export the data to excel, but fangraphs makes this even easier by providing a link at the top of the table for exporting to excel. Then you can run the correlation function between two columns to determine if there is a relationship. While I did not run the function for the top-20 pitchers in the AL (as the data suggested a zero correlation), I will do so now for all qualified pitchers from fangraphs. Specifically, I will correlate the ERA-FIP to K/9.

 

The correlation is 0.304, which as you can see from the graph, is not very strong.

 

http://www.math.upenn.edu/~estorm/115s08/bestfitline/correlation.jpg

 

The data doesn't support your idea. I suggest you drop it.

 

If the correlation is .304, that essentially means that the two stats have a 30.4% relation, correct?

 

I'd call that pretty significant if that's the case. That would be like claiming that if a ballpark gave up 30% more home runs than a neutral park, it wasn't a home run friendly park.

[jacksonianmarch]

Wow, you read that completely wrong

[Imperial59]

Wow' date=' you read that completely wrong[/quote']

 

Care to explain how I read it wrong?

[jacksonianmarch]

If 0 is completely unrelated and 1 is absolutely related, then 0.3 is much closer to unrelated than it is to related. If you want to prove something to be related, you typically want a 95% correlation, which means that in your specific study, there is only a 5% likelihood that the results you have found were based on chance alone. With the 0.3 correlation, there is a 70% chance that your conclusion is based on chance alone. That means that it is almost as statistically unrelated as it can be. Actually, based on the numbers, there is a 70% chance that the correlation is completely unrelated. When you put it that way, you should probably drop the argument

[Imperial59]

If 0 is completely unrelated and 1 is absolutely related' date=' then 0.3 is much closer to unrelated than it is to related. If you want to prove something to be related, you typically want a 95% correlation, which means that in your specific study, there is only a 5% likelihood that the results you have found were based on chance alone. With the 0.3 correlation, there is a 70% chance that your conclusion is based on chance alone. That means that it is almost as statistically unrelated as it can be. Actually, based on the numbers, there is a 70% chance that the correlation is completely unrelated. When you put it that way, you should probably drop the argument[/quote']

 

So you don't think Yankee Stadium was a friendly home run hitting park because it only had a 24% correlation to home runs?

[jacksonianmarch]

Wait, are you trying to say that Yankee stadium allowed 24% more homers than the average stadium? Cause if that's what you are saying, then you arent comparing apples and oranges

[Imperial59]

Fagraphs has a E-F category in the advanced pitching statistics (this is ERA-FIP). You can sort by each category. Also, if you have excel on your computer, you can right click on the stats table at most websites and export the data to excel, but fangraphs makes this even easier by providing a link at the top of the table for exporting to excel. Then you can run the correlation function between two columns to determine if there is a relationship. While I did not run the function for the top-20 pitchers in the AL (as the data suggested a zero correlation), I will do so now for all qualified pitchers from fangraphs. Specifically, I will correlate the ERA-FIP to K/9.

 

The correlation is 0.304, which as you can see from the graph, is not very strong.

 

http://www.math.upenn.edu/~estorm/115s08/bestfitline/correlation.jpg

 

The data doesn't support your idea. I suggest you drop it.

 

Oh, and ORS, when you get a chance could you look at the correlation between K/9 and E-F over the last few years? I don't have excel but that .304 correlation is awfully close to one standard deviation. I'm curious what a larger sample size would look like.

[Cocos Disciples]

I'm pretty sure that exact picture is in my stat textbook.

[jacksonianmarch]

Vazquez has his ERA in the high 4's right now and is pitching really well.

 

Melky Cabrera has been bad for a 4th OFer

Michael Dunn has been lights out in AAA

and Arodys Vizcaino looks like he blew out his elbow and may require TJS

 

I'd call that a win of a deal, especially if the Yankees let Javy go and get 2 picks prior to the second round. Score.

[Dipre]

Ah, the excellence that was the Javier Vasquez deal.

 

Stat line: 5.32 ERA (career high), 1.7 HR ( career high, gee, who would've guessed? 32 Homeruns allowed for the total), 7.1 K/9 (Career low).

 

And to recap:

 

Jacko's claims: "He will have an ERA in the mid 4's, near 200 K's, and pitch more than 200 innings".

 

ERA: 5.32 FAILED.

 

K's: 121 in 157.1 IP. FAILED.

 

IP: 157.1. FAILED.

 

Feel free to counter with a "The Sox didn't make the playoffs" post. That doesn't mitigate the fact that Vasquez (like everyone else foresaw) absolutely sucked ass.

[italstallianion]

And to think that I got kicked out of a fantasy league for telling the commissioner to f*** himself after he offered me Javier Vasquez and Octavio Dotel for Pablo Sandoval (in a keeper league)

[italstallianion]

Where is Vasquez in the FA rankings anyway? Is he even a Type B?

[Yaz Sideburn]

Ah, the excellence that was the Javier Vasquez deal.

 

Stat line: 5.32 ERA (career high), 1.7 HR ( career high, gee, who would've guessed? 32 Homeruns allowed for the total), 7.1 K/9 (Career low).

 

And to recap:

 

Jacko's claims: "He will have an ERA in the mid 4's, near 200 K's, and pitch more than 200 innings".

 

ERA: 5.32 FAILED.

 

K's: 121 in 157.1 IP. FAILED.

 

IP: 157.1. FAILED.

 

Feel free to counter with a "The Sox didn't make the playoffs" post. That doesn't mitigate the fact that Vasquez (like everyone else foresaw) absolutely sucked ass.

 

what a surprise, the resident yankee knob slobber was wrong again

[yankees228]

Where is Vasquez in the FA rankings anyway? Is he even a Type B?

 

Actually, I think he's a type A by a very slim margin. Won't matter though.

[italstallianion]

Maybe he lost it after this start.

[Yaz Sideburn]

Actually' date=' I think he's a type A by a very slim margin. Won't matter though.[/quote']

 

as of yesterday, he was a type b

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/elias-rankings/

 

you're right though, it doesn't matter. the yankees won't offer him arbitration and risk him accepting for $12 million

[yankees228]

as of yesterday, he was a type b

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/elias-rankings/

 

you're right though, it doesn't matter. the yankees won't offer him arbitration and risk him accepting for $12 million

 

Ah OK, didn't realize he had dipped below the threshold.

[jacksonianmarch]

what a surprise' date=' the resident yankee knob slobber was wrong again[/quote']

 

Yep, I admit it. It was a bad deal. But that has a lot more to do with his stuff taking a steep turn downward than it does about him being poorly evaluated. Who knew his FB would dip from 92-93 to 87-89 in one season.

[Will617]

He had similar velocity last year to when he played with the White Sox, and his White Sox days weren't particularly great. Add the fact that he's a fly-ball pitcher in Yankee Stadium, and well...

Not that I think Melky Cabrera turned out great either. Both teams traded for players that had career years, and they paid for it.

[jacksonianmarch]

Vazquez was in Atlanta last yr and no, his velocity was not the same

[yankees228]

Vazquez was in Atlanta last yr and no' date=' his velocity was not the same[/quote']

 

The poster is saying Vazquez's velocity in ATL was similar to his velocity in CHI, which is true, although I'm not sure it proves a great deal.

[Spudboy]

:lol:

 

This is pretty funny.

 

This from a guy that thought he'd be a quality starter for the Yankees!

[Yaz Sideburn]

it's not as if his velocity suddenly fell off out of nowhere. we're talking about a 34 year old whose seen a decrease in velocity for the 3rd straight year. his previous struggles in the american league (4.50+ era) coupled with his high home run rates (1.2 hr per 9 ip) should have been major red flags as well for a pitcher coming to the al east to pitch in yankee stadium

 

not many reasonable fans thought he'd be much more than a low to average quality innings eater at the back of the rotaiton

[jacksonianmarch]

I thought he would have 200IP, 200K and a 4.50ERA. I thought of him only as a durable innings eater whose HR tendencies would keep him right around 4.50ERA, ie mediocre. But his loss of stuff took a toll on his ability to even be average. After he kinda peaked up for 2 months and got his ERA under 4.50 for a little while, his stuff died again. For a solid 2 month stretch, he was sitting in the 90s. Then, the wheels fell off again and his FB topped out in the 88 range. He has to be hurt. Cause that kind of complete loss of velocity doesnt just happen overnight

[Yaz Sideburn]

here are his average fastball velocities

 

2007 - 92.5 mph (age 31)

2008 - 91.9 mph (age 32)

2009 - 91.2 mph (age 33)

2010 - 89 mph (age 34)

 

nothing sudden or out of the ordinary about that. it's pretty typical for a pitcher to lose a few mph off their fastball as they go into their mid-30's. his velocity charts show that his fastball consistently sat below 90 mph this year with the exception of one start and one appearance as a reliever

[BSN07]

He's an NL pitcher at this point. And will probably be respectable there. The funniest part is tht the Yanks tried this once when he was younger and his stuff was better. They had the perfect sample to tell them not to do this gain. But they went against the logic that everyone outside of Jacko saw. If the Red Sox had gotten him I would have killed the deal. Any AL team trading for him was taking an enormous risk.

[jacksonianmarch]

here are his average fastball velocities

 

2007 - 92.5 mph (age 31)

2008 - 91.9 mph (age 32)

2009 - 91.2 mph (age 33)

2010 - 89 mph (age 34)

 

nothing sudden or out of the ordinary about that. it's pretty typical for a pitcher to lose a few mph off their fastball as they go into their mid-30's. his velocity charts show that his fastball consistently sat below 90 mph this year with the exception of one start and one appearance as a reliever

 

That's just poor analysis of the stats you're posting. Over 3 yrs prior to this one, his fastball velocity dropped a total of 1.3mph. From last yr to this yr, he dropped 2mph on average, which is a massive dropoff