LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


  
Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next  [ 314 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??

Author Message
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 21, 2017, 3:50 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 783
Location: Baltimore, MD
nate82 said:
The Red Sox went from a 90 win team to a 90 win team this off season. So 0 wins added from the addition of Sale.

So yes if the Brewers got Bumgarner they would only improve by about 1 win as nothing else for the Brewers is changing and no this is not based on WAR.

Now if you said Villar or Broxton would be replaced by Trout or a Harper level of talent then yes you would see a more dramatic increase in your expected wins. Positional players have more of an impact on a teams wins than starting pitchers for obvious reasons.

So what is it based on then? How did you get the 1 win? That's a serious question. Saying it's *not* based on WAR (which would actually be something to back up a claim) is zero proof of something being true. And the previous statement about Sale, with nothing else considered, is borderline baiting as I truly believe you realize that's an incredibly flawed conclusion to derive from that.

I really am interested in your reason behind the last statement as well. Has this been proven? For instance, David Price has faced on average 886 batters the past 7 years, compared to Mike Trout averaging 685 plate appearances the past 5 years. So ace starting pitchers affect significantly more at bats than an everyday position player does. Additionally, adding an ace to your staff replaces your 5th best starter, whereas adding a centerfielder replaces your best centerfielder. I'm not saying that's proof you're wrong, but I definitely wouldn't jump to the conclusion that you're correct on that point unless you have some study proving otherwise.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 21, 2017, 3:54 PM Post
Posts: 193
I think nate82 is Ken Mocha or Matt Garza's mom. What you are saying is that Matt Garza is equal to DeGrom, Bumgarner or Sale. I am at a loss for words.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 21, 2017, 4:20 PM Post
Posts: 10173
So if team A and team B have the same lineups and bullpen, but Team A has a rotation of 5 Clayton Kershaw's, and Team B has a rotation of 5 Matt Garza's, Team A should be on the average 5 wins better over the course of a full season?

That is literally what you are saying. I cannot fathom that you possibly believe that. Do you really think aces get these massive contracts for 1 extra win a season ?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 21, 2017, 6:36 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 4699
Location: Phoenix, AZ
MrAllen said:
nate82 said:
The Red Sox went from a 90 win team to a 90 win team this off season. So 0 wins added from the addition of Sale.

So yes if the Brewers got Bumgarner they would only improve by about 1 win as nothing else for the Brewers is changing and no this is not based on WAR.

Now if you said Villar or Broxton would be replaced by Trout or a Harper level of talent then yes you would see a more dramatic increase in your expected wins. Positional players have more of an impact on a teams wins than starting pitchers for obvious reasons.

So what is it based on then? How did you get the 1 win? That's a serious question. Saying it's *not* based on WAR (which would actually be something to back up a claim) is zero proof of something being true. And the previous statement about Sale, with nothing else considered, is borderline baiting as I truly believe you realize that's an incredibly flawed conclusion to derive from that.

I really am interested in your reason behind the last statement as well. Has this been proven? For instance, David Price has faced on average 886 batters the past 7 years, compared to Mike Trout averaging 685 plate appearances the past 5 years. So ace starting pitchers affect significantly more at bats than an everyday position player does. Additionally, adding an ace to your staff replaces your 5th best starter, whereas adding a centerfielder replaces your best centerfielder. I'm not saying that's proof you're wrong, but I definitely wouldn't jump to the conclusion that you're correct on that point unless you have some study proving otherwise.


Jose Altuve has a wRC+ of 167 which translates to about 8 wins on the year note this is not taking into account Altuve's defense lets just look at his offensive value. Now lets look at Chris Sale who is having a phenomenal year for his K/BB ratio which has the highest correlation to wins for a pitcher at about .7. If we take Sale's K/BB ratio and put that into context he is about a 6 win pitcher. Now just offensively alone we are looking at a +2 for Altuve.

Now lets look at Villar who has a very pitiful wRC+ of 62 Villar is generating about 1 win and I am being generous here with this 1 win. Now lets look at Garza who has a K/BB of 1.86 which gives us a 1.5 win player. Switching out Villar for Altuve gives us more predicted wins than removing Garza with Sale. Now we are not just removing Garza from the rotation because why would Sale be a #5 in your rotation? Same with Altuve you wouldn't be hitting Altuve lower in the batting order. Both are going to get more opportunities but Altuve's opportunities offensively alone is worth more than Sale.

Generally speaking offense is worth 48% of a teams wins, pitchers receive about 36% and defense is about 16%. So offense carries more weight if you replace a bad offensive player with a good offensive player you should see your win expectations to increase significantly while replacing a bad pitcher with a good pitcher is not going to increase your win expectations all that much.

Maybe 1 win is to low but I wouldn't put it past anywhere above 3 wins being added to the team as a whole. You are just not replacing a bad pitcher with a good pitcher you are really replacing a bad pitcher with an average pitcher. Going from Woodruff to Garza is not that great of an improvement in the grand scheme of things. Moving everyone down one spot gives you what a +2-4 win expectancy improvement. So adding Sale would bring the Brewers from an 80 win team to about a 82-86 win team assuming a margin of error of about .05. Does that make the Brewers a playoff team? I don't think it does as you are just going from about .500 team to an about above .500 team.

Adding someone like Altuve to replace Villar would actually bring you closer to 84-88 wins with the current team still not really enough to make the Brewers a playoff team but they are closer adding Altuve than they are by adding Sale. I know this sounds weird and is counter intuitive to everything that everyone says about baseball but offense just has a higher correlation to winning than pitching does.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 21, 2017, 6:50 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 4699
Location: Phoenix, AZ
adambr2 said:
So if team A and team B have the same lineups and bullpen, but Team A has a rotation of 5 Clayton Kershaw's, and Team B has a rotation of 5 Matt Garza's, Team A should be on the average 5 wins better over the course of a full season?

That is literally what you are saying. I cannot fathom that you possibly believe that. Do you really think aces get these massive contracts for 1 extra win a season ?


Not even close to what I was saying. Of course a team of 5 Clayton Kershaw's would beat a team of 5 Garza's over the course of a season your runs saved would be lower compared to Garza's. That is not the comparison I was making it was replacing Garza with the next available person Woodruff in this case and putting Kershaw or whoever at the top. You wouldn't give the least amount of starts to your best pitcher. If you were to put Kershaw as a #5 even Kershaw's win expectations for a season would go down as he is not getting as many opportunities as your #1 pitcher. On average your #5 pitcher gets about 20 starts a year which if you had Kershaw replacing Garza would mean you are missing about 1/3 of Kershaw's value to the team.

So if you are really replacing Kershaw with Garza as your #5 starter then yeah your win expectation is not going to go up all that much as you are missing about 1/3 of Kershaw's value.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 21, 2017, 7:28 PM Post
Posts: 1100
nate82 said:
adambr2 said:
So if team A and team B have the same lineups and bullpen, but Team A has a rotation of 5 Clayton Kershaw's, and Team B has a rotation of 5 Matt Garza's, Team A should be on the average 5 wins better over the course of a full season?

That is literally what you are saying. I cannot fathom that you possibly believe that. Do you really think aces get these massive contracts for 1 extra win a season ?


Not even close to what I was saying. Of course a team of 5 Clayton Kershaw's would beat a team of 5 Garza's over the course of a season your runs saved would be lower compared to Garza's. That is not the comparison I was making it was replacing Garza with the next available person Woodruff in this case and putting Kershaw or whoever at the top. You wouldn't give the least amount of starts to your best pitcher. If you were to put Kershaw as a #5 even Kershaw's win expectations for a season would go down as he is not getting as many opportunities as your #1 pitcher. On average your #5 pitcher gets about 20 starts a year which if you had Kershaw replacing Garza would mean you are missing about 1/3 of Kershaw's value to the team.

So if you are really replacing Kershaw with Garza as your #5 starter then yeah your win expectation is not going to go up all that much as you are missing about 1/3 of Kershaw's value.



Nate you have to compare the same number of starts assuming no injury, each starting pitcher in the majors typically gets 32 starts, maybe adjust if a team goes to a 4 man rotation during the pennant run. For the purposes of this futile exercise you have to compare 32 Matt Garza starts to Chris Sale's starts. I'm guessing you would get 8-10 more wins (maybe more) with Sale which equates to a TON!!!!

I would argue a great #1 starter can have a greater impact on a team than a great hitter and he's only pitching every 5th day. Didn't Robin Yount win the MVP on a last place team? Give me #1 starters any day of the week and I will build an average offense with high OBP guys (no superstars) and I like my chances.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 21, 2017, 7:36 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 660
So what it sounds like you are trying to say is that if we traded for a chris sale to replace garza it wouldnt help as much because sale would go to the top of the rotation and garzas actual replacement would be the old #4 starter. What? That is a crazy way of looking at it. I dont even care if we made the new ace our defacto number 5 by giving him the 5th start of the season. Going from garza to him woukd be a huge upgrade.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 21, 2017, 8:00 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5937
WAR has made people look at the value of player in a craaaaaaazy way.

“There's a fine line between being confident and cocky, or overconfident. This is an extremely humbling game. But if you don't believe in yourself, no one else is going to believe in you.”


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 21, 2017, 8:14 PM Post
Posts: 1699
Location: Madison, WI
KCBrewerfan34 said:
nate82 said:
adambr2 said:
So if team A and team B have the same lineups and bullpen, but Team A has a rotation of 5 Clayton Kershaw's, and Team B has a rotation of 5 Matt Garza's, Team A should be on the average 5 wins better over the course of a full season?

That is literally what you are saying. I cannot fathom that you possibly believe that. Do you really think aces get these massive contracts for 1 extra win a season ?


Not even close to what I was saying. Of course a team of 5 Clayton Kershaw's would beat a team of 5 Garza's over the course of a season your runs saved would be lower compared to Garza's. That is not the comparison I was making it was replacing Garza with the next available person Woodruff in this case and putting Kershaw or whoever at the top. You wouldn't give the least amount of starts to your best pitcher. If you were to put Kershaw as a #5 even Kershaw's win expectations for a season would go down as he is not getting as many opportunities as your #1 pitcher. On average your #5 pitcher gets about 20 starts a year which if you had Kershaw replacing Garza would mean you are missing about 1/3 of Kershaw's value to the team.

So if you are really replacing Kershaw with Garza as your #5 starter then yeah your win expectation is not going to go up all that much as you are missing about 1/3 of Kershaw's value.



Nate you have to compare the same number of starts assuming no injury, each starting pitcher in the majors typically gets 32 starts, maybe adjust if a team goes to a 4 man rotation during the pennant run. For the purposes of this futile exercise you have to compare 32 Matt Garza starts to Chris Sale's starts. I'm guessing you would get 8-10 more wins (maybe more) with Sale which equates to a TON!!!!

I would argue a great #1 starter can have a greater impact on a team than a great hitter and he's only pitching every 5th day. Didn't Robin Yount win the MVP on a last place team? Give me #1 starters any day of the week and I will build an average offense with high OBP guys (no superstars) and I like my chances.


I laid exactly that out for the Sox and Sale a few posts back. Another thing I forgot in that is the Sox this year have basically played without Price all year.

People take WAR stat way too literally. They should use a different title like Overall Player Value or Efficiency, something like that


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 21, 2017, 9:45 PM Post
Posts: 10173
nate82 said:
adambr2 said:
So if team A and team B have the same lineups and bullpen, but Team A has a rotation of 5 Clayton Kershaw's, and Team B has a rotation of 5 Matt Garza's, Team A should be on the average 5 wins better over the course of a full season?

That is literally what you are saying. I cannot fathom that you possibly believe that. Do you really think aces get these massive contracts for 1 extra win a season ?


Not even close to what I was saying. Of course a team of 5 Clayton Kershaw's would beat a team of 5 Garza's over the course of a season your runs saved would be lower compared to Garza's. That is not the comparison I was making it was replacing Garza with the next available person Woodruff in this case and putting Kershaw or whoever at the top. You wouldn't give the least amount of starts to your best pitcher. If you were to put Kershaw as a #5 even Kershaw's win expectations for a season would go down as he is not getting as many opportunities as your #1 pitcher. On average your #5 pitcher gets about 20 starts a year which if you had Kershaw replacing Garza would mean you are missing about 1/3 of Kershaw's value to the team.

So if you are really replacing Kershaw with Garza as your #5 starter then yeah your win expectation is not going to go up all that much as you are missing about 1/3 of Kershaw's value.


I'm sorry, but this argument is just bizarre. Why do you think most #5 pitchers get 20 starts per year? Because many of them are very marginal starters, who are either spending time in AAA, (Guerra), getting demoted to the pen (Peralta), or end up elsewhere (Milone).

If you hypothetically acquire Kershaw and have Woodruff as your #5, it doesn't mean he has to start 20 games a year. If you had five starters you liked and they stayed healthy and you didn't skip starts with days off they would each get 32-33 starts a year.

None of that adequately explained why replacing Garza with a #1 pitcher makes us 1 win better next year.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 21, 2017, 11:05 PM Post
Posts: 6387
Location: Kenosha, WI
Even if you were using the bizarre argument that Garza is being replaced by the current #4 guy it still is the same massive upgrade. In the weird theory you are marginally improving every spot of the rotation on down. So instead of say 5 extra wins straight up replacing Garza with Kershaw you are getting an extra win for each spot in the rotation to equal 5 total.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 22, 2017, 3:27 AM Post
Posts: 227
tmwiese55 said:
People take WAR stat way too literally. They should use a different title like Overall Player Value or Efficiency, something like that


Yeah, the "above replacement" part confuses a lot of people and makes them use it incorrectly. The benefit of how it's framed though is that it gives you something tangible, however misunderstood, to relate it to. As opposed to just a ratio or percentage. In a partial season WAR isn't something to pay too much attention to, but over time it correlates well with with actual wins. I would imagine that as baserunning and defensive metrics continue to improve, it'll get better and better.

But the main benefit of WAR is that it allows comparisons between hitters and pitchers. Not perfect, but again with enough of a sample size it's pretty good. And it's a cumulative stat, so takes into account the difference in playing time as well. With regards to the batter value vs pitcher value, one simple way to look at it is that for instance there are 20 position players with 4 fWAR or above, while there are only 8 pitchers with the same. 37 batters and 17 pitchers with 3+ fWAR. But in the #1 spot, with 7.4 fWAR is Chris Sale. #2 is Jose Altuve with 6.1.

Which would be fairly consistent with what seems to be the general consensus as well: That position players in general have a bigger impact. But that a truly dominant pitcher who (And this part is crucial) goes deep into games (Sale is averaging 7 innings) can impact his team even more. Had Sale had the same numbers but averaging 6 innings, he'd be neck to neck with Altuve.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 22, 2017, 8:02 AM Post
Posts: 470
Location: Madison, WI
I think WAR does a pretty good job of assessing Matt Garza's value. Below replacement level in 2015, and will be about 1/2 win over replacement level in 2016 and 2017. If a 2018 win is worth 9.16 million, Garza's projected value will be about 4.6 million which means even at a 5 million dollar salary he still has negative surplus value. And the majority of teams will probably downgrade him further because of his age and recent loss of velocity. I think he is in Tommy Milone territory. IMO declining the option is probably the smart move (unless he shows a near miraculous turnaround over the next few weeks) and if that happens he likely winds up in spring training next year on a split contract (or else he just retires).


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 25, 2017, 3:29 PM Post
Posts: 3605
Miguel Gonzalez is being paid over 5mil by the White Sox for starts, knowing a 4ERA+ was best they were going to get. Garza's option has value to some rebuilding team with hopes to catch some lightening in a bottle. San Fran makes perfect sense on a Garza trade. Philly, the Mets, minnesota, KC, Seattle, Oakland, there's someone willing to waste 5mil at the prospect of him having half a good season or more.
Theres value to having Garza keep a rotation spot warm while a top prospect does work in AAA til Super 2 passes, or a TJ pitcher rehabs his final month or so to begin the season to then replace Garza with. In our system, say you gave up a Gilbert Lara type prospect. We know he was believed a high value at 16, now hes getting 1? Vote was it in our top 30. Having a turnaround season like Harrison/Gatewood is still potentially there if that happened whoa, if not you saved 5million/rotation spot from Garza who is deemed here not worthy of.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 29, 2017, 7:45 AM Post
Posts: 470
Location: Madison, WI
Miguel Gonzalez entered the 2017 season with a career MLB ERA of 3.80 (107 ERA+) and WHIP of 1.28. The FIP was high (4.51) but he had a solid track record of pitching better than the FIP would indicate (715 1/3 innings pitched). In 2016 he had a 3.73 ERA, 1.24 WHIP, 109 ERA+, 3.71 FIP and an average WAR of 2.35. I don't see how current day Garza can be compared to Gonzalez at all. Garza currently has a season ERA of 4.67, 1.40 WHIP, 94 ERA+, 4.94 FIP and an average WAR of 0.8. Gonzalez entering 2017 looked way, way better than Garza currently looks. And Gonzalez has been better than Garza this season as well (4.30 ERA, 1.43 WHIP, 100 ERA+, 4.65 FIP and an average WAR of 1.65).

Garza will be entering his age 34 season. Here are the 3 year splits from 2015-2017: 5.03 ERA, 1.50 WHIP, 83 ERA+, 4.76 FIP and an average season WAR of +0.23. IMO those numbers are not worth a 5 million dollar salary.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 29, 2017, 8:36 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5937
I am good with them moving on from Garza only because I want to see Hader and Woodruff in the rotation. I also think if there is an injury, or two, there are guys to fill in that could give us close to what Garza is now. I would rather that spot go to the youth of this team because I feel as though they are ready. When you couple that with the main three of Nelson, Davies, and Anderson... you just might have something really special if Hader and Woodruff pitch like they are capable of.

“There's a fine line between being confident and cocky, or overconfident. This is an extremely humbling game. But if you don't believe in yourself, no one else is going to believe in you.”


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 29, 2017, 7:05 PM Post
Posts: 487
When can we just cut Garza and end the insanity?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 29, 2017, 8:35 PM Post
Posts: 2347
The 3rd inning tonight was hardly Garza's fault, but the 4th inning mostly was (with help from Torres, who threw kerosene rather than water on the fire). I don't think we just cut him. But I'd love to see them move him for anything equal or greater to a bag of balls in value.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 30, 2017, 5:47 AM Post
Posts: 10730
Mr Southpaw said:
When can we just cut Garza and end the insanity?


Amen. Heck why not pick up Miguel Gonzalez if you don't trust Suter or Jungmann? He's got 7 quality starts in his last 8.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??
Posted: August 30, 2017, 5:48 AM Post
Posts: 10730
MNBrew said:
The 3rd inning tonight was hardly Garza's fault, but the 4th inning mostly was (with help from Torres, who threw kerosene rather than water on the fire). I don't think we just cut him. But I'd love to see them move him for anything equal or greater to a bag of balls in value.


Nobody would take him.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next  [ 314 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search this forum (phpBB search):
Jump to:  
Search entire board (Google search):
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Test