Official: Sox trade for Vazquez

by The Cheat on Dec 14, 2005 1:15 PM CST in White Sox News

Diamondbacks get: Orlando Hernandez (40 year old arm of dust), Luis Vizcaino (slider-hangin non-tender candidate), Chris Young (projectable AA OFer whose best comp is an underrated non-super star.)

White Sox get: Javier Vazquez (Gopherballin' pitcher with great stuff) and Cash ($5-8MM)

I'm not going to provide a ton of analysis here. I'll just say that it appears Kenny is not done yet. Garland and Contreras have apparently both been offered similar 3-year deals. Garland, rightfully so, rejected his outright, and negotiations broke off. Contreras is in a much different position and I suspect will sign soon. It appears that one of these two will be traded to solidify the bullpen and upgrade somewhere else.

Last week, Studes wrote an article on FIP and the longball. In it he pointed out that Vazquez was one of the unluckiest pitchers in baseball, closing with the quote,

Most of these guys will do better next year, particularly the ones at the top of the list. So who's going to pick up Javier Vazquez?

I didn't even seem like a possibility at the time that the answer to that question would be us.

As pointed out by Studes and Tybor in the comments, Vazquez is a good candidate to have rebound to his former greatness. Vazquez' ZiPS bear some of this out. I added the other 5 Sox starters just for context.

Player W L G GS IP H ER HR BB SO ERA ------------------------------------------------------------- Vazquez 12 13 33 33 213 208 101 32 54 195 4.27 Buehrle* 15 10 34 34 236 239 100 23 48 149 3.81 Garcia 13 10 32 32 213 202 93 24 62 162 3.93 Garland 14 12 33 33 208 206 97 26 60 116 4.20 McCarthy 10 10 30 28 180 175 87 32 43 169 4.35 Contreras 10 11 31 30 176 162 87 23 76 139 4.45

ZiPS is park adjusted, and it's worth noting that according to Baseball-Reference league average for pitchers who throw half their innings at USCF the last two years is 4.92 and 4.45.

The real beauty of the move, however, comes from a financial perspective. El Duque's base salary in '06 is about $4.6M, and Vizcaino is due to make about $2M. With the D'backs cash subtracted from his contract, Vazquez looks to be due $7.5 in salary from the Sox in '06. In other words, this deal adds about $1M to the Sox '06 payroll. -- It also locks the Sox into 4 starting pitchers for '07, and Vazquez will not be a free agent until after the '08 season.

Kenny is all but saying he's never going to pay top dollar for free agent pitching. His modus operandi appears to be locking up starting pitching through the trade market. -- Who are we to argue with his results?

Tweet Comment 46 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

8 Million

I look at this deal, right now, as Young for Vazquez & 8 million. I look at losing El Duque & Vizcaino as a positive, since they were overpaid and can easily be replaced with someone cheap. Looking at it like that, I see this as a good deal for Chicago. I just need to know what happens next. I love Tejada, but I don't think I'd want to trade for him (partially b/c I like Uribe so much and I value his defense). At this point, I see Contreras agreeing to an extension and Garland being traded for some combination of: Prospect, Reliever, & OF.

AIM: shaftr01

blog

by shaftr on Dec 14, 2005 1:53 PM CST reply actions

Money

Isn't anybody concerned about Vazquez? I never understood the outrageous contract he got in the first place, but everyone seems incredibly thrilled to have him? Is it his slightly-above-100 ERA+ or his name that makes people so happy? He will get killed at the Cell.

Beyond that, he's not that great a pitcher. I hope to God that KW brought him in to get Garland and el Conde to sign realistic contracts and then (hopefully) trade Vazquez + Uribe for Tejada... Wouldn't that make much more sense for all parties involved than the Garland + Uribe for Tejada?

Am I missing something?

by generico12 on Dec 14, 2005 2:15 PM CST reply actions

He's Garcia with a better K/BB

and since he's in the zone more he gives up more HRs.

Observe...

Freddy Garcia

Year Ag W L G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO ERA *lgERA *ERA+ +--------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+----+----+----+---+----+----+-----+-----+----+ 1999 24 17 8 33 33 2 1 201.3 205 96 91 18 90 170 4.07 5.02 123 2000 25 9 5 21 20 0 0 124.3 112 62 54 16 64 79 3.91 4.58 117 2001 26 18 6 34 34 4 3 238.7 199 88 81 16 69 163 3.05 4.21 138 2002 27 16 10 34 34 1 0 223.7 227 110 109 30 63 181 4.39 4.20 96 2003 28 12 14 33 33 1 0 201.3 196 109 101 31 71 144 4.51 4.44 98

Javier Vazquez

Year Ag W L G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO ERA *lgERA *ERA+ +--------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-----+----+----+----+---+----+----+-----+-----+----+ 2000 23 11 9 33 33 2 1 217.7 247 104 98 24 61 196 4.05 4.64 114 2001 24 16 11 32 32 5 3 223.7 197 92 85 24 44 208 3.42 4.62 135 2002 25 10 13 34 34 2 0 230.3 243 111 100 28 49 179 3.91 4.16 106 2003 26 13 12 34 34 4 1 230.7 198 93 83 28 57 241 3.24 4.97 154 2004 27 14 10 32 32 0 0 198.0 195 114 108 33 60 150 4.91 4.50 92 2005 28 11 15 33 33 3 1 215.7 223 112 106 35 46 192 4.42 4.40 99

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 14, 2005 2:36 PM CST up reply actions

Still

I looked through that, and what I see is a mediocre guy with some fantastic years... His 162-game average for ERA+ is only slightly mediocre, and isn't it entirely possible that he is past his prime (he is 30 after all, and there's only one Roger Clemens... at least in this day and age...)

by generico12 on Dec 14, 2005 2:39 PM CST up reply actions

30 = prime

most prime years for athletes are 30-35 (maybe just a tad younger). Still physically fit but have learned the game. For the next two years he should not be past his prime, if he is it is just because he is bad...not because of age.

AIM: BrentBrookhouse

by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 14, 2005 2:48 PM CST up reply actions

moreover

he won't actually be 30 until after the middle of the upcoming season. a small point, but there is a bit of a difference in perception if we're thinking KW is trading for an "over 30" pitcher.

by goldstone97 @ South Side Sox on Dec 14, 2005 3:00 PM CST up reply actions

prime

Although i agree with the overall sentiment that 30 isn't old, there have been numerous studies that show that on average baseball players peak at 27-28. Of course the correlation is a little better for position players than for pitchers (mostly because of higher injury risks in pitchers of that age than hitters of that age), but it still applies for pitchers.

by bhoov on Dec 14, 2005 3:31 PM CST up reply actions

You're just not getting it then

Mediocre pitchers get 3 yr 21M+ deals on the open market. Burnett is a mediocre pitcher with great stuff and he got 5/55. -- Kenny is looking to lock up guys who are better than mediocre. (I find it hard to classify a guy with a 230 inning season of 154 ERA+ ball as mediocre, but whatever helps your argument)

Vazquez, like Contreras, has some of the best stuff in the game. He can be filthy. 2004, specifically the second half of '04 was a lost year for him. He was just flat bad. his peripherals were bad, and he just plain wasn't a very good pitcher.

Last season, however, you have to look beyond the stats. His K/BB ratio returned to being excellent. I cited the THT article that showed his HR rate was likely a product of bad luck. And as BHoov points out in the post below Arizona's OF defense was atrocious last season. This resulted in lots more hits, especially of the extra-base variety. Those hurt your ERA a whole lot.

I see a guy who is here to replace a pitcher (Garland) who is more accurately described as mediocre, with just one full season with and ERA+ above 100. I see a guy who had one bad year, and in that bad year, he was slightly below league average. I see a guy who may be among the best candidate in baseball to have a "surprise" season.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 14, 2005 2:55 PM CST up reply actions

well said

Plus, all of a sudden KW has an awful lot of flexibility in making his next trade. He'll be dealing from a position of strength.

My guess is we'll look back on this one as a shrewd bit of manouvering.

AIM: ozspengler

by spengler on Dec 14, 2005 3:04 PM CST up reply actions

Mediocre pitcher with 154+ ERA & 230 IP

How about this guy?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/loaizes01.shtml

226 1/3 innings with a 154 ERA+ in 2003.

Hmmmm. Didn't Vazquez's 154 ERA+ come in 2003 as well?

Hey- even better, Loaiza had an ERA+ of 84 and 105 in 2004 and 2005 (actually 101 with the White Sox in half of '04) Pretty much the same as Vazquez's 92 and 99 ERA+ in 2004 and 2005.

by BlackBetsy on Dec 14, 2005 3:45 PM CST up reply actions

That's a good comparison

for your argument. (seriously, good find. I can't believe he had exactly a 154 ERA+) But Vazquez has 4 years on Loiaza, and his established level of performance at age 22-25(the years before his dominant season) was much better than Loaiza. He had already established himself as better than a mediocre pitcher.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 14, 2005 4:01 PM CST up reply actions

Does the $5 million change your opinion?

If the Sox get only $5 million (that's what MLB.com says), then they'll be paying $9 million in 2006 and $10 million in 2007...exactly what they will be paying Freddy Garcia, IIRC.

Vazquez simply hasn't had the sustained success like Freddy (and Freddy isn't that great, either).

They are overpaying Vazquez. Given that the D'Backs are keeping $1 million from the Yankees (preposterous, IMHO), you are essentially taking $18 million off of the D'backs books AND you are giving them what will be their #2 position prospect (behind Stephen Drew). Great deal for the D'Backs, bad for the White Sox.

And that doesn't even begin to approach the fact that if the D'Backs couldn't trade Vazquez, he would become a free agent and you could get him for less than the 2 years $19 million you would have to pay him (2 years $16 million would be more likely).

by BlackBetsy on Dec 14, 2005 4:18 PM CST up reply actions

but isn't the whole point

that the market for pitchers has shot up this past year, since freddy was signed? if it was this time last year it would be a poor deal compared to freddy's...but considering what other pitchers are now getting, it hardly seems that way.

by goldstone97 @ South Side Sox on Dec 14, 2005 4:25 PM CST up reply actions

I suggest you wait

until all the corresponding moves are made before you denounce this as an outright fleecing. And it may take until the trade deadline to unload one of these guys.

I think we both acknowledge that El Duque and Vizcaino are nothing. Nothing. They have no trade value. This deal was Chris Young for Javier Vazquez. Chris Young wasn't going to help the '06 team.

The Sox are in a position to move one of Garland/Contreras for either prospects or somebody who will help this team. Heck, they can even keep them and let them walk for so they'll have 4-6 picks in the first 2 rounds, restocking those prospects you seem so upset about losing.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 14, 2005 4:38 PM CST up reply actions

If AZ can get Chris Young...

...for Vazquez, the Sox should be able to do pretty well for Garland or Contreras. Sneaky of Williams to set the market for his next trade. The Garcia trade actually would be a good comparison for a trade of Garland, I think. The Sox might expect to get a little less since Gracia was the only major SP on the market then. But still, I would expect a reasonable return for Garland (or Contreras). If not, then getting Vazquez becomes somewhat disappointing.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 14, 2005 5:07 PM CST up reply actions

Defense

The other point is that he will be going from a below average defensive team to one of the best defensive teams. That should also play a role in him bouncing back.

by bhoov on Dec 14, 2005 2:40 PM CST up reply actions

Not really

I will compare Vazquez's "bad" 05 year to Garlands "good" 05 year.*

Vazquez
WHIP: 1.25
BAA: .255
K/9: 8.01
K/BB: 4.17

Garland
WHIP: 1.17
BAA: .266
K/9: 4.68
K/BB: 2.45

As you can see, they are pretty close in BAA & WHIP (with Garland having the edge) and Vazquez strikes out more people and has better control.

The big difference is in ERA, Garland's 3.50, Vazquez's 4.20. The thing is ERA is dependent on defense, of which Chicago has a great one and Arizona doesn't. Look at AZ's OF last year: Green, Gonzalez & Terrero? The other problem is that Vazquez gave up 35 home runs (compared to Garland's 26). But, as Cheat mentioned in his entry, look for Vazquez's home runs allowed to drop this year (also it is important to note that Garland gave up 34 in 04). Point is, these are 2 pitchers who were on different ends of the spectrum in luck.

So, essentially Chicago has Vazquez locked up for 3 years at a below market price (look at the market). Compare that to Garland (who will probably be traded) who will only be here for one year.

*KEY
WHIP = Walks + Hits per Inning Pitched
BAA = Batting Average Against
K/9 = Strikeouts per 9 Innings Pitched
K/BB = Strikeouts per Walk

AIM: shaftr01

blog

by shaftr on Dec 14, 2005 2:42 PM CST up reply actions

What I'd like to see is a ...

Comparison, both O and D, of Uribe and Tejada. Obviously Tej would have much better O #s, but is there a better D SS in the league than Uribe? Would the increased O compensate for lesser D? Or is the drop-off not that significant?

Thx.

It should be called Bill Veeck Park!

by Chiburb on Dec 14, 2005 2:15 PM CST reply actions

Uribe and Tejada D

According to UZR Tejada should have won a GG. According to Chris Dial's system Uribe should have won the GG. Both are rated quite higly by most defensive metrics. Looks even on D. and of course Tejada (.864 OPS) has a huge edge over Juan (.713) in offense.

To top it off they are both from the same town in the DR (bani). Which is also where TIMO is from.

Still guess I'd rather do Garland and Dye for Abreu.

by bhoov on Dec 14, 2005 2:30 PM CST up reply actions

I'm a little pissed about losing Young...

in fact, I punched a locker this morning. He was the one guy in the system that I'd really grown attached to.

Any speculation on what this means for Garland? McCarthy really isn't going to spend a whole year in the bullpen, is he?

by CWSKeith on Dec 14, 2005 3:36 PM CST reply actions

Anyone notice that...

Garland's #1 Comp through Age 25 is Brad Radke
Vazquez's #1 Comp through Age 28 is Brad Radke

AIM: shaftr01

blog

by shaftr on Dec 14, 2005 3:45 PM CST reply actions

You just blew my mind..

AIM: i2ockbotm

by 3E8 on Dec 14, 2005 4:02 PM CST up reply actions

Projecting Pitchers with DIPS

Generico and Blackbetsy:

We have to look beyond ERA when projecting future pitching performance. The Defensive Independent Pitching Statistics are the most important indicators of performance. Just as you wouldn't use W/L record to predict next year's stats, ERA is too noisy.

Comparing Loaiza to Vazquez is foolish. Here are their walk and K rates.

Vazquez: 2001-2005
BB / K
1.8 / 8.4 in 2001
1.9 / 7.0
2.2 / 9.4
2.7 / 6.8
1.9 / 8.0 in 2005

Loaiza: 2001-2005
BB / K
1.9 / 5.2 in 2001
2.1 / 5.3
2.2 / 8.2
3.5 / 5.8
2.3 / 7.2 in 2005

It is clearly obvious from these data that Vazquez is a far better pitcher than Loaiza. Look at Vazquez' lower walk rate and higher strikeout rate. He consistently shows the skills that Loaiza only briefly flashed.

The other important statistic for pitchers is the number of flyballs they yield, which can predict their homerun rate. Since 10% of major league flyballs become HRs, we can use flyball rate as a indicator of HR risk. Vazquez and Loaiza are similar in this respect.

White Sox fans should be VERY excited about their new starting pitcher.

by Tybor on Dec 14, 2005 4:41 PM CST reply actions

xFIP rankings

Vazquez #7 in NL. Here's the link.

Seems particularly relevant for Javy, given his unusual home run/flyball ratio last year, and his ballpark. Since xFIP is:

Expected Fielding Independent Pitching. This is an experimental stat that adjusts FIP and "normalizes" the home run component. Research has shown that home runs allowed are pretty much a function of flyballs allowed and home park, so xFIP is based on the average number of home runs allowed per outfield fly, and adjusted for the home run tendencies of the ballpark. Theoretically, this should be a better predicter of a pitcher's future ERA.

(can someone tell me how to make the pretty boxes for quotes?)

by goldstone97 @ South Side Sox on Dec 14, 2005 5:02 PM CST up reply actions

xFIP definition

Thanks goldstone. I'll add one more thing:

The Hardball Times calls xFIP an "experimental" statistic that "should" be a better predictor of future ERA.

I think it is safe to remove those qualifiers from the definition. Hardball Times is not the first group to create such a statistic. Other analysts who have been working with pitching projection and have previously analyzed batted ball data from Baseball Info Solutions have come up with similar models for prediction.

Based on our current knowledge, this is one of the best ways to predict future ERA. Hopefully we will yield some interesting results soon.

I'll add that we are currently analyzing data from Questec to see if pitch information that is not captured in the traditional statistics can explain some of the residual variability in ERA.

by Tybor on Dec 14, 2005 5:13 PM CST up reply actions

DIPs are the beginning, not the end of knowledge

What would you like better?

Pitcher A: 1.5 HR/9 - 2.0 BB/9 - 8.0 K/9
Pitcher B: 0.7 HR/9 - 2.5 BB/9 - 5.0 K/9

The answer is that Pitcher B and Pitcher A are just as valuable. The 0.8 home runs per 9 mean, on average, an extra 1.2 runs. The extra walk is only worth .3 runs, and the extra K's are only worth .9 runs.

Your leaving the HR/9 number out completely skews the results. Home runs are vastly more valuable/harmful than walks or strikeouts. Loaiza had a much lower HR/9 rate in 2005 at least.

Here are there comparative ERA+:

Loaiza

Vazquez:

Ok, so Vazquez was better in 2001 and 2002, and about the same in 2000, 2003-05.

What makes a guy who was better three years ago so much better than Loaiza? His K rate? His HR rate is enough to scare me off.

By the way, here are some other ERA+ leaders from 2001 and 2002. Would you want these guys?

2001

Burkett ATL - 145
Kile STL - 140
Miller HOU - 134 (same age as Vazquez)

2002

Lowe - 171(!)
Wakefield - 157
Dessens - 145

You are going to have to convince on something other than what Vazquez has done 3 or 4 years ago.

This trade is going to be a very big success for the Diamondbacks. The $18 million in savings was enough to get rid of Vazquez (see Lowell, Mike), giving them Chris Young makes it a great deal.

Again, this is a guy WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN A FREE AGENT if the D'Backs didn't trade him. Talk about zero leverage. Much like the Thome trade, the Sox got a valuable guy, but they overpaid under the circumstances.

by BlackBetsy on Dec 14, 2005 6:03 PM CST up reply actions

Using 2005 hr/9 is disingenuous

I imagine you're well aware that Vazquez was in Arizona and Loaiza was in Washington. They play just a little bit different with regard to the longball.

HR Ballpark Factors
BankOne: 1.157 (#9 in MLB)
RFK: 0.775 (#25 in MLB)

Loaiza's hr/flyball ratio: 0.10; Vazquez: 0.18

by goldstone97 @ South Side Sox on Dec 14, 2005 6:34 PM CST up reply actions

Check Loaiza's splits

And tell me whether he gave up that many more home runs on the road vs. at home.

9 on the road, 9 at home.

Loaiza pitched in the AL from 2000-2004 and had the same or better HR rate than Vazquez. Including in Toronto (107 park factor) and Chicago (you know the HR factor).

(1) Vazquez is not worth the $19 million the Sox will be paying him over the next two years. If the Sox really wanted another starting pitcher, they could have gotten Loaiza or Byrd for $2.5 million less per year.

(2) Chris Young was too much to give up. Again, Vazquez HAD TO BE TRADED - Arizona had zero leverage. And the Sox give up Chris Young? Not smart.

by BlackBetsy on Dec 14, 2005 7:08 PM CST up reply actions

is what I am reading wrong

or did Vasquez forfeit his free agency clause by demanding a trade?

I still don't think they have enough hitting to win in the playoffs

by dyspeptic on Dec 14, 2005 7:23 PM CST up reply actions

kind of

By demanding to be traded, Vazquez gives up his right to free agency for one year at the end of his contract. However, his club has to offer him arbitration (I guess the equivalent to a 6th year arbitration) to retain rights to him.

On the other hand, if Vazquez demands a trade and is not traded by a certain date, he has the right to void his contract and immediately becomes a free agent. So if Arizona didn't unload him, he would be a free agent if he wanted.

by BlackBetsy on Dec 14, 2005 7:28 PM CST up reply actions

OK, let's look at Loaiza's splits

Point taken about the homeruns, though had Loaiza pitched in Arizona, he would have given up more homeruns, so I still don't see that it's a fair comparison without normalising for ballpark.

And here are some more of Loaiza's splits from 2005:

Home
ERA 2.86 WHIP 1.13
Away
ERA 4.71 WHIP 1.47

Nice.

Loaiza is over 4 years older (so is Byrd) and has worse career numbers. Who would you rather have 3 years from now (presuming the Sox keep Javy the 3rd yr), when their respective deals expire? You really don't think someone with Vazquez's advantage in age and k/bb over Loaiza doesn't have a lot more upside?

by goldstone97 @ South Side Sox on Dec 14, 2005 7:38 PM CST up reply actions

how this all started

Is that the Cheat said he refused to say that someone with a season of 230 IP and a 154 ERA+ was "mediocre." I pointed out that Loaiza, the King of Mediocrity (tm BlackBetsy), had done precisely that in 2003.

Sure, I'd rather have Vazquez than Loaiza, but only because he's younger. His HR rate and his G/F scares the bejeezus out of me. He'd be a perfect pitcher for the Washington Nationals in cavernous RFK. But he's a shell-shock candidate at the Cell.

But if the question now becomes, "Would you rather have Esteban Loaiza, Chris Young and $2.5 million for the next two years or Javier Vazquez?" my answer is going to be Loaiza, Young and $2.5 million every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

by BlackBetsy on Dec 14, 2005 7:42 PM CST up reply actions

budget ramifications

What you're failing to acknowledge is the budget ramifications the trade has...

Sure Loiaza, Young, and $2.5M sounds nice, but that's not how it works, or even accurate for that matter.

You're taking the $24M Vazquez is owed, and subtracting the $5M included to come up with your $19M figure. I seem to recall 2 other pitchers in the deal too. Sure, they're easily replaceable, but they're easily replaceable pitchers with about $6.5M in contracts next season. El Duque was going to be pretty useless to the '06 Sox, and Vizcaino was in danger of being non-tendered. From my point of view, the Snakes gave us $11.5M in that deal.

Yeah we're paying Vazquez $19M over the next two seasons, but it costs less to the bottom line when the other players are factored in. -- Could we have singed Loaiza? Sure, but he would have pushed our budget to near the $100M mark. And I don't think you would have found many takers for Viz/Duque without the inclusion of a top prospect.

And I never refused anything. I found it hard to classify. ;p
I'm more open-minded than that.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 14, 2005 8:26 PM CST up reply actions

Don't understand your math

Loaiza is making $7 million per year.
The Sox will be paying Vazquez $9.5 million per year.

That's the $2.5 million I'm talking about. If the Sox really wanted another starter, they could have signed Loaiza, kept Young and would have been $2.5 million better off.

Now, El Duque may have been owed $4.5 million in 2006, but you can easily get rid of his salary. You could deal him for a low-level prospect to an NL team - Washington has a couple of holes in its rotation & has his brother on the team. Or you could just put him on waivers - I really doubt that he'd go through waivers given that the commitment is only 1 year and $4.5 million.

So I don't understand why the budget would be worse with Loaiza + Young vs. Vazquez. It's $2.5 million more with Vazquez.

The other, perhaps better, alternative, would be to trade El Duque (maybe get someone like Terrmel Sledge or another 4th OF) and give the 5th spot to BMac. You'd save $4.5 million in 2006, which you could use to sign Garland to an extra 2 years. Here's the math:

all other Sox salaries equal and No El Duque
2006 2007
w/ Vazquez $9.0 $10.0
(no Chris Young)
w/ Loaiza $7.0 $7.0 ($5 million savings)
(w/Chris Young)
w/ BMac $0.3 $0.3 ($19 million savings)
(w/ Chris Young)

I'd save the $19 million and give it to Garland in 2007-09.

Even if you assume that Garland is going to get traded to another team in a later deal for a great player (read: Tejada), that doesn't justify giving up Young in THIS deal. In fact, it just makes the second deal less likely because you don't have Chris Young to trade any more (for example, Garland + Uribe + Young for Tejada is a deal I do every time if I'm the Orioles)

The Sox have a history of overpaying for guys they fall in love with. Freddy Garcia is one; Brian Cashman was floored by what the Sox offered in '04. Thome had no job in Philadelphia; just taking on the $16 million in salary was worth Aaron Rowand. And now Vazquez, for whom the D'Backs had zero leverage because of his trade demand, they've taken on $19 million and given up their best position player prospect. Garcia hasn't hurt them, but I fear the Thome and Vazquez deals will. Play with fire enough, and you'll get burned.

by BlackBetsy on Dec 14, 2005 9:31 PM CST up reply actions

Cashman's judgment?

Can't pull out the fancy statistics, but it's funny to hear that Cashman was "floored" about overpaying Garcia.

Pavano
K Brown
J Wright

As for Vasquez, sounds a lot like the criticism of the Garcia deal - right down to similar stats. True, he would have been a FA, but KW could not have signed him for market rates + el duque + vizciano.

by BayAreaSoxFan on Dec 15, 2005 1:42 AM CST up reply actions

Another point

Is that the D'Backs can just non-tender Vizcaino, too. So they don't have to take on his salary if they don't want to.

And El Duque at $4.5 million and 1 year is a pretty reasonable price considering. The Sox just overused him last year; he'd have been much better with less use. He should be a Sunday starter, as I've argued for a year now.

by BlackBetsy on Dec 14, 2005 9:34 PM CST up reply actions

Please re-read my post

Blackbetsy, I think you misunderstand xFIP and similar measures.

The xFIP does not consider HR rate. It looks at the number of flyballs (from the GB/FB ratio) as a predictor of future HRs.

This is the appropriate approach, since we know that in MLB, 10% of flyballs become homers. Any fluctuations below or above the 10% are random noise. If you look at Vazquez, he was unlucky in this respect in 2004 (13%) and very unlucky in 2005 (16%). Loaiza's stellar 2003 was due in part to his luck at keeping flyballs in the park (8%). In projecting the future, our most accurate projections will come by assuming 10%. (Actually there is a slight park effect, Comiskey being around 11.5-12.0%, but I digress.)

So you misrepresented my post by saying that I "left HR out." I simply said that Loaiza and Vazquez had similar GB/FB patterns, so the HR factor is a wash. Read the xFIP definition at Hardball Times and it should clear up the issue.

You also said "you are going to have to convince on something other than what Vazquez has done three or four years ago." I'm not trying to convince you of anything - I'm just putting the relevant data out there to let you draw your own conclusions.

And the relevant data are a 1.9 walk rate and an 8.0 K rate.

ps - Also, I agree that the DIPS is just step 1 (maybe step 2, depending on whether you sided with Bill James when he said pitchers were too unpredictable) of pitching projection. With pitch-by-pitch data becoming available, the real paradigm shift is on its way.

by Tybor on Dec 14, 2005 6:50 PM CST up reply actions

And response

I simply said that Loaiza and Vazquez had similar GB/FB patterns, so the HR factor is a wash.

Well, if your argument is based on that, then it falls apart. G/F for Loaiza and Vazquez:

Career:
Vazquez: 1.09
Loaiza: 1.34

By year, since 2000:

Year Loaiza Vazquez
2000 1.18 1.51
2001 1.36 1.28
2002 1.32 0.94
2003 1.44 0.83
2004 0.98 0.85
2005 1.21 1.19

Three of the last four years Vazquez has had a G/F ratio of less than 1, while 3 of the last four years Loaiza has had a G/F of 1.2 or better. In fact, their career G/F would be more distinct if Vazquez had not had an outlier season in 2000.

Vazquez is going to give up a LOT of bombs at US Cellular next year. The best thing to do is give him the Freddy Garcia treatment and skew his starts to the road.

The Sox need groundball, low-HR rate pitchers. Vazquez isn't one of them. You know who the best ones would be? Brandon Webb. Carlos Silva. Now those guys are worth trading Chris Young for.

by BlackBetsy on Dec 14, 2005 7:20 PM CST up reply actions

too bad

too bad you're not going to get either of those guys for chris young.

we've got anderson ready in CF and owens soon to be ready. there are other outfielders in the farm. we traded surplus requirements to get a serviceable 4th or 5th starter and saved money. we're now in a position of strength to dictate terms to garland or contreras. makes sense to me.

by larry on Dec 14, 2005 9:04 PM CST up reply actions

ugh

(1) of course you can't get either of them for Chris Young. But Chris Young would be worth putting in a package for them.

(2) the Sox are not saving money. They are TAKING ON $13 MILLION IN SALARY AT MINIMUM. $19 million for Vazquez minus $4.5 million for El Duque and $1.5 million for Vizcaino. And that $1.5 million for Vizcaion is only on paper; the Sox could non-tender him and pay him nothing.

by BlackBetsy on Dec 14, 2005 9:37 PM CST up reply actions

and

my point was speaking more towards the fact that neither of those guys are available for chris young and anything else we'd want to give them. you can only trade for players who are available. and this whole thing about "arizona had no leverage" is bogus. of course they have leverage. you think we're the only team interested in a very serviceable starting pitcher?

you forget the money the sox will now be able to save by dumping contreras/garland in the next trade. and the wheels are still in motion. wait until the roster is set and then evaluate the moves. and then we can evaluate the moves again at the end of the year. there's a big picture here. and for me the big picture is KW making moves that will allow us to stay competitive for more than 2006. we were never, ever going to be able to afford garland. we've got his replacement now and what looks to be far less than market rate for "average" pitching come next offseason. bmac goes in for el duque. presuming we sign contreras, we have a very solid rotation set up through 2007. sounds good to me.

and if for some reason we start to stink, don't you think we could get more than chris young for vasquez at the trade deadline?

by larry on Dec 14, 2005 10:41 PM CST up reply actions

Vazquez unlucky?

I do not see how you say how vazquez is a very unlucky pitcher. His BABIP (batting average against with ball in play) was .300 which is not to far away from the league average which is around .295. He gives up a lot of home runs and that has been his down fall. When he was in olympic stadium his home runs were down a bit since that was a pitchers park. He has tallent but he has a few problems that he has not been able to get away from. In my opinion we over paid for him.

by hagan on Dec 14, 2005 9:37 PM CST reply actions

Home run rates

FWIW, here are Vazquez's number for HR given up per outfield fly over the last four years:

The trend is up, but he'll almost certainly come down from that 2005 number.

Chase Field increases HR/OF rates about 3%. The Joan increases rates about 14%.

Let's say, based on the above data, that Vazquez is a home run pitcher, and his "innate" level is around 13% (two points higher than the league average). That indicates his rate will be 15% next year, which is pretty high.

Last year he gave up 1.5 HR per game. At 15%, that would decrease to 1.25. The net impact is an ERA decrease of 0.1. Not as much as you might imagine.

At first, I liked this deal for the Sox a lot. But Young is a great prospect and, unless there is a terrific market for Garland or Contreras (which there might be), I'm not so sure now. I'll wait and see what happens next.

by studes on Dec 15, 2005 9:53 AM CST reply actions

Questions for Studes

From my interpretation of the HR per FB data, there is not evidence that an individual pitcher's variability around the league average is indicative of an "innate level." In other words, we cannot conclude - from our current evidence - that pitchers have the ability to prevent homeruns per flyball. (Of course, they DO have an effect on the number of flyballs allowed, and thus the number of HRs allowed.)

My reading of the bottom line is that when we project a pitcher, we should use the league average HR/FB rate. 10%. And we can park-adjust it for better accuracy.

If the variability around the league average can be mainly attributed to luck, then I hesitate to look at Vazquez' 2002-2005 numbers as indicative as a "trend." Just as we wouldn't say that a decreasing BABIP showed a trend, it is inappropriate to label this pattern as a trend. You are of course correct to say that his 2006 rate is likely to be closer to the league average.

Finally, no doubt some readers will think I am a moron, because it is painfully obvious by watching Vazquez that he is simply one of those "homerun pitchers." But I think there is an interesting discussion to had about that label -- does that tag only come after a pitcher has been victimized by bad luck on his HR/FB rate??

Studes, I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this. Particularly about the "innate" level. Your work with these hit-type data has been great. If anyone reading this has not yet purchased the Hardball Times 2006 Annual, you are missing out on some great analyses by Studes et al.
http://www.actasports.com/detail.html?&id=076

by Tybor on Dec 15, 2005 11:55 AM CST up reply actions

Some answers

Hey Tybor,

Thanks for the Annual props. As you know, the Annual found that there was a .08 correlation in one-year HR/OF stats. That's almost random, but not quite. To regress to the mean, you'd use a 90/10 rule.

To use another data point, Shandler's analysis of HR/Flies, they found that pitchers regresssed toward the mean (in their case 10%) but not totally. Pitchers who gave up an average of 13.7 in one year allowed 10.5 the next, and those who allowed 7% gave up 8.9% the next. Again, strong regression to the mean, but not total randomness.

I believe the correlation would increase with several year's data, perhaps to .2, maybe a bit more. That's one of my offseason projects. And, as you know, blanket regression analyses like that can completely miss certain underlying trends.

So, bottom line, I don't believe that HR/OF is completely random. If you take Vazquez's four years and regress him to the mean using some reasonable factor, my guess is you'd get around 13% instead of the average of 11%. That's what I based my assumptions on.

Re: your other point, I didn't mean to say that Vazquez was exhibiting a trend in any predictive way. Just that the data clearly trended up during the timeframe in question.

by studes on Dec 15, 2005 7:21 PM CST reply actions