Hmmm.... (Vargas pitching well)

[kramnoj]

What methodology did they use to define how good a #5 starter should be in in terms of both ERA and average innings/start?

 

In case you didn't see, I edited my post to link the thread that I am basing my knowledge on. I won't pretend to have the ability to perform these studies, but I do find them intereting and revealing.

[rluzinski]

In case you didn't see, I edited my post to link the thread that I am basing my knowledge on.

 

Thanks. I appreciate the link. If you read the comments, you can see that many have the same objections as I did here. Jest because Vargas projects to be a 5.0 ERA pitcher and an average #5 pitcher has an ERA of 6+ (or whatever the study found) doesn't necessailry make Vargas a good #5 starting pitcher.

 

Quick and dirty, I took the Marcel projections for 2008 and looked at all the NL "starters" and their projected ERA (I removed any pitcher who was projected to have a save or pitch less than 80 innings). The highest 16 projections where designated #1 starters, the next 16 were the #2, etc...

 

POS ERA

#1 3.69

#2 4.07

#3 4.37

#4 4.59

#5 4.79

#6 5.06

 

Vargas 4.95

 

Vargas projects as a good #6 for what it's worth. Of course, I'm ignoring park factors (Miller Park is pretty neutral overall, though) and many other things , so if someone wants to say he projects as a #5 starting pitcher, I can't call them wrong. I'm still suspicious that Vargas's 5-1/3 average start is below average even for a #5 though, which would further reduce his value. Maybe I will take a look tonight.

 

If anyone is curious, here are my #5's:

 

Lohse	Kyle	4.69
Loaiza	Esteban	4.69
Jennings	Jason	4.71
Morris	Matt	4.72
Rodriguez	Wandy	4.72
Lieber	Jon	4.74
Hendrickson	Mark	4.79
Marquis	Jason	4.81
Wolf	Randy	4.81
Pelfrey	Mike	4.83
Reyes	Jo-Jo	4.83
Reyes	Anthony	4.84
Olsen	Scott	4.85
Belisle	Matt	4.87
Carlyle	Buddy	4.88
Moyer	Jamie	4.9

I'm sure there's a couple of mistakes (Jennings is in the AL this year) but liek I said, it's a quick and dirty look. Hey look, Jo-Jo!!!

 

And #6's:

 

Tomko	Brett	4.92
Hanrahan	Joel	4.93
Vargas	Claudio	4.95
Hernandez	Livan	4.96
Livingston	Bobby	4.99
Bacsik	Mike	5
Williams	Woody	5.01
Lopez	Rodrigo	5.01
Albers	Matt	5.03
Trachsel	Steve	5.05
Pineiro	Joel	5.13
Fogg	Josh	5.13
Armas	Tony	5.13
VandenHurk	Rick	5.18
Wells	David	5.24
Milton	Eric	5.24

[kramnoj]

I'm still suspicious that Vargas's 5-1/3 average start is below average even for a #5 though, which would further reduce his value.

 

Based on that study you wouldn't be wrong. The pitchers as a group who were considered #5 starters averaged 167.7, 168.3, 173, 170.7. So in Vargas best season he would be below average for IP, but close to it. The whole point though is that there aren't that many #5 starters. They are often swingmen, or veterans who make a few starts and get cut, or young guys who come up to make a few starts for injured players and go back down, etc.

[MJLiverock]

I think Vargas' release came down to money and bodies. The had an entire collection of guys who would be classified as 5th/6th starters, Bush, Cappy, Vargas, Villanueva, Parra. It seems no teams were really jumping up to take any of Cappy, Bush, Vargas off the Brewers hands in the spring.

 

The team certainly wasn't going to cut Villy or Parra, and the agrument could be made that neither really had anything to prove in the minors other than being stashed there for later use. So it came down to the three headed monster of Bush Cappy Vargas with Vargas inline for a few million dollar pay bump. I can see why they kept Bush, he has had his moments and until this year had good control. So really it comes down to Cappy vs. Vargas. Cappy is a lefty and had put up decent years and they gambled he would rebound. I never really bought into the whole Cappy just had bad luck line and thought maybe something was either wrong with him or he just couldn't locate like he used to but the Brewers took a gamble and it didn't work, Cappy was diagnosed with a serious arm problem. It happens, no front office is ever 100% right on every move. If letting Vargas go is the worst mistake they make this year I can live with that.

 

I don't think the team counted on Bush losing control and a few MPH on his fastball, Villy being totally ineffective as a starter, Parra not being able to go 6 innings, Cappy's arm falling off, Gallardo blowing out a knee like a NFL running back, Riske developing elbow problems, Gagne with shoulder problems, control problems, etc.

 

So now the team ends up Tavarez, Dillard, ZJack, appearing with McClung starting, etc. so it make Vargas seem like a bitter loss because he might be better than some these guys but I really didn't see it coming down to this level back in March and I can't believe many others really thought they would be digging this deep for pitchers in May.

[endaround]

Of that list only Vargas would be labeled a 5/6 starter.

[rluzinski]

The whole point though is that there aren't that many #5 starters. They are often swingmen, or veterans who make a few starts and get cut, or young guys who come up to make a few starts for injured players and go back down, etc.

 

Well sure. Some of those #5s will get hurt or will under-perform and get demoted, which is when a guy like Vargas might step in. That's precisely why I would consider him more of a swingman, especially after you consider that he can't really be counted on for 5 innings, much less 6.

 

If Vargas could go 6 innings, I wouldn't even bother arguing whether he's a #5 or a #6, since ERA-wise, you could easily argue both ways.

[Gopher74]

Not one person was saying how good a pitcher Vargas was back in March. At this point in time, I'm more intriqued with McClung than Vargas. With Vargas, you knew what you were going to get: 5 IP, 9 H, 5 ER, 2 K, 6 BB.

Not even a little true. I was one of the people arguing that we should keep Vargas due in large to how effective his changeup looked this spring, a pitch that he'd either recently developed to the point of being able to use it effectively, or a pitch that he suddenly developed confidence in.

 

So saying that nobody thought he was good is totally inaccurate.

 

That said, I don't recall many others making that argument, and even given his recent success, it's not only just one start, but McClung's emergence makes it pretty tough to complain about letting Vargas go. In order to do that, you have to argue that you thought the Brewers should have let someone else other than McClung go(who I thought they should have cut at the time). Who else at the time did anyone argue should be cut? Certainly not Bush.

Point is I liked Vargas and argued that I thought with his increased conditioning(he also lost about 20 pounds this past off-season) and his newfound change that he could be a very good back of the rotation type guy, or long man. With McClung's emergence, I can't complain.

 

[TooLiveBrew]

There were definitely people that worried letting Vargas go would be a risky decision -- in case of injuries, etc. I know personally I felt he was not a good SP option, but was a bit concerned when he was flat-out released. I don't think I argued that we should keep him per se, but releasing him made me worry about our depth. Unfortunately the injuries to Cappy & Gallardo have magnified that the old 'You can never have too much pitching' is true.

 

I agree that McClung looked good in his start, but I also have to be honest & say that I'm concerned that it was a fluke as opposed to a sign of things to come. However, I stubbornly remain optimistic that Seth has really figured something out about his delivery.

[logan82]

In the spring I argued that Vargas was the same 100 pitches in 5 innings guy he was last year. I wouldn't have sent him packing, but wasn't disappointed to see him go. I thought we needed to limit Parra's innings, still do, and would have sent him down to keep Vargas.