Jump to content

Yankees and Sox interested in Mike Gonzalez


AFJF

Recommended Posts

I admire madmikes passion but he's so obsessed with off the wall stats that he ignores the basics to try and look smarter than the average fan.

What off the wall stats? The "basics" is just going with conventional wisdom and not even trying to come up with better ways to judge players and their values. Why should a judge a player on batting AVG when i have a better stat like OPS to judge him with? Why should a judge a player on luck based stats like RBI's and R's when i have better stats at my disposal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply
What off the wall stats? The "basics" is just going with conventional wisdom and not even trying to come up with better ways to judge players and their values. Why should a judge a player on batting AVG when i have a better stat like OPS to judge him with? Why should a judge a player on luck based stats like RBI's and R's when i have better stats at my disposal?

Your "stats" would suggest that Keith Foulke is better than Mike Gonzalez. My basic understanding of the game and lack of desire to dazzle people with new wave baseball math would tell me otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big element of any team winning the series is luck and the same goes for the yankees.

Yes, some luck...but believe it or not...you've gotta have good players too. Scott Scrubenweiss and his 5.88 ERA and .295 BAA righties is not good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big element of any team winning the series is luck and the same goes for the yankees.

I would disagree, but youi are entitled to your opinion.

Back to the A's and their middle-men, isn't it awfully coincidental that luck continues to play against them in so many playoff series in a row?

Just an observation.

BTW-The White Sox won it last year on great starting pitching alone. They thought they could get by on that again, and the middle men let their staff down after the starters could not hold it.

I have seen many a "great" baseball team be let down entirely by not having good set-up men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, some luck...but believe it or not...you've gotta have good players too. Scott Scrubenweiss and his 5.88 ERA and .295 BAA righties is not good.

the yankees have alot of good players in their bullpen right now and thats only getting better. and the teams that won titles had role players as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And again, The Yankees just signed a NL pitcher, who was mediocre in total to 16 million dollars for a year.

I think it might have had something to do with this pitcher being a former AL pitcher who won 4 WS titles with the Yankees.

On Mike Gonzalez, I would love to have him. I'd hate to give up Proctor AND Melky, 1 of the 2 and something else, but not both. Proctors value wont be any higher than it is right now, and I really have concerns that a RP who throws over 100 innings in a single season will be healthy the entire season next year.

We do need a real lefty reliever to get guys out. Myers is good for Oritz and nothing else really, at least thats how Torre uses him.

Torre has no idea how to manage a bullpen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the yankees have alot of good players in their bullpen right now and thats only getting better. and the teams that won titles had role players as well.

You're right. The players they have are good, so Brian Cashman should just stop being all crazy and trying to make them better. Just settle for what you have. No need for improvement. What's that? We just got an offer of Scot Shields for Sean Henn? Nah, tell em we're good. We don't need to get better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the Yankees dynasty-Just mostly luck in a crapshoot?

keyword: dynasty. ie winning more than once disproves any thoughts of luck.

Who actually thinks the cardinals were the best team in baseball this past year? Not even the best team in their own league. I wouldnt care though if I was a cards fan, win a WS championship any way you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What stat are you talking about?

WHIP for one. I cold care less if a guys WHIP is 3.00. If he comes in and walks the bases loaded every time he comes in to the game before getting out of the inning and getting the save I'll take it. What the hell does it matter how many baserunners a guy allows as long as they don't cross the plate. Thats what matters Mike. You lose games because too many guys who get on base come all the way around and touch home plate. You said several times that Gonzalez sucked because he didn't have a great WHIP. So that's why I mentioned the fact that Keith Foulke had a bette WHIP at the time but had been demoted and sported an ERA around 6.00. Based on your obsession with WHIP, you would take a guy who gives up a walk and a homer over a guy who gives up a walk and two singles before getting out of a scoreless inning. Please explain to me how that makes sense. I want pithcers who don't allow runs. Not pitchers who allow a ton of runs but are very efficient because they don't need a lot of batters to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHIP for one. I cold care less if a guys WHIP is 3.00. If he comes in and walks the bases loaded every time he comes in to the game before getting out of the inning and getting the save I'll take it. What the hell does it matter how many baserunners a guy allows as long as they don't cross the plate. Thats what matters Mike. You lose games because too many guys who get on base come all the way around and touch home plate. You said several times that Gonzalez sucked because he didn't have a great WHIP. So that's why I mentioned the fact that Keith Foulke had a bette WHIP at the time but had been demoted and sported an ERA around 6.00. Based on your obsession with WHIP, you would take a guy who gives up a walk and a homer over a guy who gives up a walk and two singles before getting out of a scoreless inning. Please explain to me how that makes sense. I want pithcers who don't allow runs. Not pitchers who allow a ton of runs but are very efficient because they don't need a lot of batters to do it.
You think WHIP is an advanced "new wave" baseball stat?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think WHIP is an advanced "new wave" baseball stat?

No, I think it's an overrated stat that people like you fall in love with. That and VORP.

Please explain to me why it's more important to have a guy who allows fewer baserunners as opposed to a guy who allows less runs. Explain that to me please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

keyword: dynasty. ie winning more than once disproves any thoughts of luck.

Who actually thinks the cardinals were the best team in baseball this past year? Not even the best team in their own league. I wouldnt care though if I was a cards fan, win a WS championship any way you can.

They only play one World Series and League Championship series each year. It is very possible that one team could get lucky 2-3 years in a row. That coincidence is certainly not beyond numerical factions, if we are talking strictly luck.

Cardinals were the best TEAM in baseball this year. Deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I think it's an overrated stat that people like you fall in love with. That and VORP.

Please explain to me why it's more important to have a guy who allows fewer baserunners as opposed to a guy who allows less runs. Explain that to me please.

Because there is a bigger element of luck in runs their their are in base runners. (though there is a big element of luck in base runners too)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because there is a bigger element of luck in runs their their are in base runners. (though there is a big element of luck in base runners too)

So that's it huh? That's your answer? It's better to have a guy who allows more runs because of luck. Wonderful. You've changed my mind forever..how did it take me so long to grasp the concept.

Hey, maybe the Yankees should make a run at Scott Scrubenweiss after all..I heard he won ten bucks on a scrach off last weekend. That is one lucky dude. Or maybe go out and sign all of the worst free agents on the market because let's face it, they'd be lucky to get a contract offer which would mean a lower WHIP and of course we all know championships are won on luck...now I get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that's it huh? That's your answer? It's better to have a guy who allows more runs because of luck. Wonderful. You've changed my mind forever..how did it take me so long to grasp the concept.

Hey, maybe the Yankees should make a run at Scott Scrubenweiss after all..I heard he won ten bucks on a scrach off last weekend. That is one lucky dude. Or maybe go out and sign all of the worst free agents on the market because let's face it, they'd be lucky to get a contract offer which would mean a lower WHIP and of course we all know championships are won on luck...now I get it.

The idea of stats is to come up with the best ways to

A. Separate what a player has control of from luck and put a value on it.

B. Use previous performance as a way of trying to predict what will happen in the future.

An example of this was Jon Lester. When he first came up crazy carl was signing his praises because of his good ERA. I said that because his WHIP was so high there was a very good chance that his ERA was caused by luck and that it would correct itself and thats exactly what happened. You can't pitch to a high WHIP for any extended period of time and expect to get away with it. The WHIP is the root cause. The ERA is only the symptom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They only play one World Series and League Championship series each year. It is very possible that one team could get lucky 2-3 years in a row. That coincidence is certainly not beyond numerical factions, if we are talking strictly luck.

Cardinals were the best TEAM in baseball this year. Deal with it.

2-3 yrs in a row is luck? LOL. Its called a trend, and it was 4 out of 5 for the Yankees dynasty.....

The cards had 86 wins last year, they werent the best anything. They barely made the facking playoffs. They got hot and beat the padres, a better mets team, and the not stongest team in the AL. I could care less that they won, I was rooting for them to win it, but they werent the best team, get real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of stats is to come up with the best ways to

A. Separate what a player has control of from luck and put a value on it.

B. Use previous performance as a way of trying to predict what will happen in the future.

An example of this was Jon Lester. When he first came up crazy carl was signing his praises because of his good ERA. I said that because his WHIP was so high there was a very good chance that his ERA was caused by luck and that it would correct itself and thats exactly what happened. You can't pitch to a high WHIP for any extended period of time and expect to get away with it. The WHIP is the root cause. The ERA is only the symptom.

Right, so how does this example of one player prove that it's better to have pitchers who give up more runs as opposed to more base runners. No matter how you spin it and try to dress it up..giving up runs still loses games. Allowing baserunners puts you at risk to lose a game. I'd rather win with a risky pitcher on the mound than lose with one who just gave up a three run bomb. JMO though because I'm talking about the basics here. Ya' know. Winning as opposed to looking good but losing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2-3 yrs in a row is luck? LOL. Its called a trend, and it was 4 out of 5 for the Yankees dynasty.....

The cards had 86 wins last year, they werent the best anything. They barely made the facking playoffs. They got hot and beat the padres, a better mets team, and the not stongest team in the AL. I could care less that they won, I was rooting for them to win it, but they werent the best team, get real.

Barton, If you bothered to watch Cardinal and NL baseball, you will realize what happened with teir team:

They lost their best hitter, and close to teh best hitter in baseball for a period, and he was hampered as well late.

They lost their closer mid-Season, and had to prompt a rookie into the spot.

They lost one of their best starters mid-season.

While they did not have the mosty wins, thayt can not preclude them from having the best TEAM. Which they did. You win a 7 game series, you are the best TEAM most times.

As far as "luck" and a dynasty. Barton, if I had a die in my hand, conceivably I could call that I would roll a "one" on that die in 3 consecutive roll, and even do it. That would be luck, but it COULD happen.

If you want to call the Cardinals winning "luck" I am forced to call teh Yankees dynastry "luck"

i don't believe it, but by your convoluted way of looking at things, it is conceivable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, so how does this example of one player prove that it's better to have pitchers who give up more runs as opposed to more base runners. No matter how you spin it and try to dress it up..giving up runs still loses games. Allowing baserunners puts you at risk to lose a game. I'd rather win with a risky pitcher on the mound than lose with one who just gave up a three run bomb. JMO though because I'm talking about the basics here. Ya' know. Winning as opposed to looking good but losing.
Because pitchers who give up the most base runners will give up the most runs over any sample size.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because pitchers who give up the most base runners will give up the most runs over any sample size.

So because most pitchers will give up more runs if they give up more baserunners, there's no need to scout individual players who have a knack for working out of jams? Is that what you're saying? So we can take the collective average stats of every pitcher in baseball and apply it to guys who don't actually give up runs. A pitcher like Gonzalez who sports an ERA in the twos should be avoided because a bunch of other guys who are not as good as him have a hard time settling down and working out of a jam. Ignore the fact that he does not give up many runs and saved 24 games in 24 opportunities becuase most guys can't do that. That is just absolutely brillinat. Do you have even the slightest clue as to how absurd that sounds. Don't sign a player because most guys aren't as good as he is. Wonderful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So because most pitchers will give up more runs if they give up more baserunners, there's no need to scout individual players who have a knack for working out of jams? Is that what you're saying? So we can take the collective average stats of every pitcher in baseball and apply it to guys who don't actually give up runs. A pitcher like Gonzalez who sports an ERA in the twos should be avoided because a bunch of other guys who are not as good as him have a hard time settling down and working out of a jam. Ignore the fact that he does not give up many runs and saved 24 games in 24 opportunities becuase most guys can't do that. That is just absolutely brillinat. Do you have even the slightest clue as to how absurd that sounds. Don't sign a player because most guys aren't as good as he is. Wonderful.
The "knack to get out of jams" is nothing more then luck. I didn't say gonzalez should be avoided either i just don't want to give up mekly and proctor for him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHIP for one. I cold care less if a guys WHIP is 3.00. If he comes in and walks the bases loaded every time he comes in to the game before getting out of the inning and getting the save I'll take it. What the hell does it matter how many baserunners a guy allows as long as they don't cross the plate. Thats what matters Mike. You lose games because too many guys who get on base come all the way around and touch home plate. You said several times that Gonzalez sucked because he didn't have a great WHIP. So that's why I mentioned the fact that Keith Foulke had a bette WHIP at the time but had been demoted and sported an ERA around 6.00. Based on your obsession with WHIP, you would take a guy who gives up a walk and a homer over a guy who gives up a walk and two singles before getting out of a scoreless inning. Please explain to me how that makes sense. I want pithcers who don't allow runs. Not pitchers who allow a ton of runs but are very efficient because they don't need a lot of batters to do it.

I hear you. But consider this:

A setup man usually comes in with men on base. If he allows them to score, they are charged to the starter. Then the setup guy pitches 2 scoreless innings. So on paper, it looks like he did OK. But the hit or 2 he gave up to allow the inherited runners to score, as well as the hit or 2 he gave up in the remaining 2 innings effect his WHIP.

For a setup guy, IRS and WHIP are important stats. More so then ERA, since 1 bad outing may require 10 scoreless outings to compensate for it.

So, Mike has some logic here, and I think this is the point he was trying to get across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barton, If you bothered to watch Cardinal and NL baseball, you will realize what happened with teir team:

They lost their best hitter, and close to teh best hitter in baseball for a period, and he was hampered as well late.

They lost their closer mid-Season, and had to prompt a rookie into the spot.

They lost one of their best starters mid-season.

While they did not have the mosty wins, thayt can not preclude them from having the best TEAM. Which they did. You win a 7 game series, you are the best TEAM most times.

As far as "luck" and a dynasty. Barton, if I had a die in my hand, conceivably I could call that I would roll a "one" on that die in 3 consecutive roll, and even do it. That would be luck, but it COULD happen.

If you want to call the Cardinals winning "luck" I am forced to call teh Yankees dynastry "luck"

i don't believe it, but by your convoluted way of looking at things, it is conceivable

All so very true. But losing Izzy may have been a blessing in disguise, as Wainwrigght was lights out in teh post-season, and I doubt Izzy could have done better, if even as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "knack to get out of jams" is nothing more then luck. I didn't say gonzalez should be avoided either i just don't want to give up mekly and proctor for him.

Dude, that is not the discussion. Melky and Proctor were mentioned in the article. If you had read my immediate response to the article. The post right after the article I said that Melky and Proctor was too much. This discussion goes back to the fact that you said he would be a bad move last season because his WHIP was higher than Villones at the time. Instead of looking at Villones body of work vs. Gonzalez, you took your WHIP obsession and said you wouldnt want him on the team. You've even said in this thread that you wouldn't want either of them.

I don't care what "case study" or "field sample" you want to use but there is no way in hell that you or anybody else is going to spin Gonzalez' stats in a way that makes him a player I wouldnt want on my team. Again, I like players who make my favorite team better. Not a guy who loses games by giving up runs but walking away feeling good about the fact that other than the runners that scored, nobody else reached base. Absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you. But consider this:

A setup man usually comes in with men on base. If he allows them to score, they are charged to the starter. Then the setup guy pitches 2 scoreless innings. So on paper, it looks like he did OK. But the hit or 2 he gave up to allow the inherited runners to score, as well as the hit or 2 he gave up in the remaining 2 innings effect his WHIP.

For a setup guy, IRS and WHIP are important stats. More so then ERA, since 1 bad outing may require 10 scoreless outings to compensate for it.

So, Mike has some logic here, and I think this is the point he was trying to get across.

Gonzalez wasn't a set up man. It would be a new role and nobody knows how he would perform. In addition, Joe Torre has developed a routine of bringing his set up man in to start an inning. He usually lets his middle guys come in with men on base so I don't think it would be an issue. I do know that he is better than Ron Villone. I also know that madmikes suggestion of signing a guy like Scott Showenweiss is absolutely crazy. The guy had an ERA close to six last season and over the last three years has allowed RH hitters to hit almost .300 against him. So he would say no to Gonzalez, but yes to that bum? That's what I would expect a Sox fan to say...not a Yankee fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you. But consider this:

A setup man usually comes in with men on base. If he allows them to score, they are charged to the starter. Then the setup guy pitches 2 scoreless innings. So on paper, it looks like he did OK. But the hit or 2 he gave up to allow the inherited runners to score, as well as the hit or 2 he gave up in the remaining 2 innings effect his WHIP.

For a setup guy, IRS and WHIP are important stats. More so then ERA, since 1 bad outing may require 10 scoreless outings to compensate for it.

So, Mike has some logic here, and I think this is the point he was trying to get across.

I disagree...we've had the discussion before and Mike always stands by the fact that WHIP is more important than ERA which is a "meaningless stat" in his mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonzalez wasn't a set up man. It would be a new role and nobody knows how he would perform. I do know that he is better than Ron Villone. I also know that madmikes suggestion of signing a guy like Scott Showenweiss is absolutely crazy. The guy had an ERA close to six last season and over the last three years has allowed RH hitters to hit almost .300 against him. So he would say no to Gonzalez, but yes to that bum? That's what I would expect a Sox fan to say...not a Yankee fan.

On the Yankees Gonzo would be the setup man for at least 1 more season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Yankees Gonzo would be the setup man for at least 1 more season.

I know that. I was saying that his past performances were not as a set up man. This would be a new role for him that he could fill better than most other options available. JMO of course. He might come over to the Yanks and be the next Paul Gibson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree...we've had the discussion before and Mike always stands by the fact that WHIP is more important than ERA which is a "meaningless stat" in his mind.

I understand, and recall some of your discussions over the past.

But remember this. A relief pitcher, one who usually goes an inning or so at a time, can give up a 3 run jack in his 1 inning. It will take a long time to get that ERA down to a very respectable 3.00 (basically 6-8 scorless appearances in a row!!), but not so long to get that WHIP down (maybe 2-3 solid innings)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand, and recall some of your discussions over the past.

But remember this. A relief pitcher, one who usually goes an inning or so at a time, can give up a 3 run jack in his 1 inning. It will take a long time to get that ERA down to a very respectable 3.00 (basically 6-8 scorless appearances in a row!!), but not so long to get that WHIP down (maybe 2-3 solid innings)

Which kind of shows how good Gonzalez has been. To keep an ERA that low for a young kid shows that he's very good on a consistent basis which his WHIP might contradict because it's worse than the league average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...