Doug Davis vs Jon Garland

[Crash2303]

During the offseason, I heard that Melvin had an opportunity to sign Garland, but opted to sign Davis instead. if true, was this a bad decision with the info that we had at the time? also, would it have really mattered- how many extra wins do you think Garland would have given us over Davis?

[RightFieldCoder]

We didn't know Davis would go to the DL for the second time in his career.

 

Nor do us fans know how much money it would have taken to get Garland.

[thebruce44]

Taken in a vacuum, Davis has 0.0 WAR for the year while Garland has 0.6 WAR. So he would have provided less than a single win. (FWIW, BRef.com has his WAR at 1.5. I hate having two conflicting sources).

[Sage]

Well, I'll be honest. I don't think a single person in all of baseball could have predicted (with a straight face) that Davis would spend most of the year on the DL. He's been easily one of the most durable starters in baseball for his whole career.

 

This offseason, I actually did not care which of Garland or Davis we signed. They have been almost identical pitchers throughout their careers:

 

Garland: 4.34/4.69/4.59 (ERA/FIP/xFIP) with a 23.1 WAR. 70.8% LOB, 45.2% GB, 10.7% HR/FB

Davis: 4.38/4.43/4.44 (ERA/FIP/xFIP) with a 23.5 WAR. 72.5% LOB, 44.7% GB, 10.1% HR/FB

 

Only big difference was age, which doesn't matter much since they both would have been on 1-year deals.

 

As for how many more wins, it's hard to say. Garland has that low 0.6 WAR, indicating less than a win. However, he's actually been healthy this season, whereas Davis has not provided a single win and has been injured.

[And That]

Davis pitched terribly, but he pitched so few innings that his overall impact on the club, outside his hit on the payroll (which I'm not trying to downplay) was minimal.

 

Garland pitched alright this year, but with the Brewers' infield defense behind him, he probably would have fared about as well as Randy Wolf.

[BrewCrewForever]

Adding to what And That said, the Brewers bad infield defense bhind Garland and not pitching in Petco. Garland was helped big time by his defense and the park he pitched in.

[MNBrew]

Melvin also mentioned recently (wish I could remember where -- JSOnline or brewers.com) that Garland is from California and was more interested in landing a job in California than in coming to the Brewers.

 

Sure, any of us would love to have had Garland's 2010 performance in this year's Brewers rotation over anything Doug Davis did. But hindsight is 20-20 and, as Sage mentioned, as with David Riske a few years ago, there was absolutely no indication that any, let alone the majority, of Davis' Milwaukee tenure this time would be spent on the DL.

 

Given how playing for Milwaukee is viewed by many FAs, you can't underestimate the better chances of signing a player w/ positive vibes about Milwaukee (Davis) vs. someone who, for whatever reason, would rather be pitching somewhere else (Garland).

[Ennder]

Garland is one of the worst pitchers in baseball, Davis got hurt. There isn't much difference between the two. Given he exact same contracts I'd pick Garland though just because of his age.

[JohnBriggs12]

Garland is one of the worst pitchers in baseball, Davis got hurt. There isn't much difference between the two. Given he exact same contracts I'd pick Garland though just because of his age.

For being "one of the worst pitchers in baseball", he's sure had a productive career with 131 wins and at least 191 IP for 9 straight seasons assuming he pitches 4 more this year. Amazing a guy that bad will likely go over 200 wins by the time he hangs it up.

[thebruce44]

Garland is one of the worst pitchers in baseball, Davis got hurt. There isn't much difference between the two. Given he exact same contracts I'd pick Garland though just because of his age.

For being "one of the worst pitchers in baseball", he's sure had a productive career with 131 wins and at least 191 IP for 9 straight seasons assuming he pitches 4 more this year. Amazing a guy that bad will likely go over 200 wins by the time he hangs it up.

Even you have to know bringing up wins is just going to be met with eye rolls on this board.

[RockCoCougars]

Garland is one of the worst pitchers in baseball, Davis got hurt.

Huh? I was O.K. with the Davis deal when it was signed, but I think this is a tad hyperbolic. Jeff Suppan is one of the 'worst pitchers in baseball'. Garland is not even in his stratosphere.

[joepepsi]

Garland is one of the worst pitchers in baseball, Davis got hurt. There isn't much difference between the two. Given he exact same contracts I'd pick Garland though just because of his age.

For being "one of the worst pitchers in baseball", he's sure had a productive career with 131 wins and at least 191 IP for 9 straight seasons assuming he pitches 4 more this year. Amazing a guy that bad will likely go over 200 wins by the time he hangs it up.

Even you have to know bringing up wins is just going to be met with eye rolls on this board.

Except that it is an indication of the length of a career. A pitcher who is able to stick around and gather 150-200 wins is not one of the worst pitchers in baseball. The worst pitchers in baseball do not make 30 starts a year for a decade. They last a couple years then are gone, at best.

[RockCoCougars]

Except that it is an indication of the length of a career. A pitcher who is able to stick around and gather 150-200 wins is not one of the worst pitchers in baseball. The worst pitchers in baseball do not make 30 starts a year for a decade. They last a couple years then are gone, at best.

Some of the 'worst pitchers in baseball' can and do make 30 starts in a season when their manager manipulates things around to allow them to do so- even when they have not earned those 30 starts. Just saying...

[thebruce44]

RockCoCougars[/b]]

joepepsi[/b]]Except that it is an indication of the length of a career. A pitcher who is able to stick around and gather 150-200 wins is not one of the worst pitchers in baseball. The worst pitchers in baseball do not make 30 starts a year for a decade. They last a couple years then are gone, at best.

Some of the 'worst pitchers in baseball' can and do make 30 starts in a season when their manager manipulates things around to allow them to do so- even when they have not earned those 30 starts. Just saying...

 

Getting 18 wins when you have a 4.5+ era certainly helps skew the numbers. Or routinely getting 12 wins when you are posting FIPs of 4.5-5.25. During those same years, Sheets was lucky to get double digit wins with FIPs in the 3s and 2s (yes, I know towards the end he didn't pitch as many innings).

 

The fact remains, wins is a horrible, horrible way to evaluate a pitcher.

[CheezWizHed]

The fact remains, wins is a horrible, horrible way to evaluate a pitcher.

 

Overall, most everyone would agree with you. But the way its being used (i.e. Garland vs. "one of the worst SP in baseball") its enough. Call it a "sniff test". Its enough to tell you its not true; an indicator that you should look further.

 

He might be the worst SP to accumulate 131 wins, but the true worst SPs in baseball never get enough starts (no matter how much offensive support) to get there.

[thebruce44]

The fact remains, wins is a horrible, horrible way to evaluate a pitcher.

 

Overall, most everyone would agree with you. But the way its being used (i.e. Garland vs. "one of the worst SP in baseball") its enough. Call it a "sniff test". Its enough to tell you its not true; an indicator that you should look further.

 

He might be the worst SP to accumulate 131 wins, but the true worst SPs in baseball never get enough starts (no matter how much offensive support) to get there.

This:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/earned_run_avg_plus_active.shtml

 

or this:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/careerleaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&type=1&min=1500 (sort by FIP)

 

would have been more effective and would also show that tons of bad players get tons of innings, often masked by their park or defense behind them.

[Never Outhustled]

When we wonder how the Brewers continue to be such a bad franchise, nothing sums it up better than a discussion of who's better, Doug Davis or Jon Garland. Sadly, this option wasn't to fill the 5th starter spot.

[sveumrules]

According to the fangraphs link only 414 men have ever accumulated 2000 or more career IP, and that includes all the old timers too. Guys named Hippo, Deacon, Mordecai, Stump and Noodles. I'd be curious if you filter out to post WWII how many there are.

 

Garland isn't an ace by any means but he has consistently put up 2+ WAR for the last 7 years prior to this one. (Ok got me, there's a 1.8 & 1.9 in there) That puts him at league average or better every year. Fangraphs WAR is FIP based from what I understand so park/defense doesn't enter into their equation.

 

If you want to say "Of the handful of pitchers durable and consistent enough to accumulate over 2000 career IPs during his lifetime, Garland was one of the worst" I can get behind that. But to say he is bad or one of the worst pitchers in baseball is a HUGE overstatement.

[CheezWizHed]

...would have been more effective and would also show that tons of bad players get tons of innings, often masked by their park or defense behind them.

 

Again... agreed. Its like a grenade vs. a sniper rifle: No comparison on accuracy. But sometimes the grenade is all that is needed to tell a bad pitcher from the worst.

[thebruce44]

sveumrules[/b]]According to the fangraphs link only 414 men have ever accumulated 2000 or more career IP, and that includes all the old timers too. Guys named Hippo, Deacon, Mordecai, Stump and Noodles. I'd be curious if you filter out to post WWII how many there are.

 

Garland isn't an ace by any means but he has consistently put up 2+ WAR for the last 7 years prior to this one. (Ok got me, there's a 1.8 & 1.9 in there) That puts him at league average or better every year. Fangraphs WAR is FIP based from what I understand so park/defense doesn't enter into their equation.

 

If you want to say "Of the handful of pitchers durable and consistent enough to accumulate over 2000 career IPs during his lifetime, Garland was one of the worst" I can get behind that. But to say he is bad or one of the worst pitchers in baseball is a HUGE overstatement.

I would add that he is of a handful of pitchers who were given the chance to accumulate over 2000 IPs despite not being very good. No, he isn't the worst pitcher in the league (Soup and Marquis are worse guys who continue to get chances). Still though, for me wins doesn't even enter into the discussion.

 

[dadofandrew]

The Brewers infielders are -10.2 runs using UZR thus far in 2010. Those that continue to complain about the infield defense are ignoring the metrics and/or just not paying attention.

[trwi7]

The Brewers infielders are -10.2 runs using UZR thus far in 2010.

Now where does that compare to the rest of the league?

[dadofandrew]

They are 20th overall. Fangraphs does not list INF, just by position and team, so the work involved in adding up all teams 1b/2B/SS/3B is more than I care to do.

[And That]

Those that continue to complain about the infield defense are ignoring the metrics and/or just not paying attention.

Is this another shot at Maine?

 

I don't like below-average defense, which is what the Brewers' infield has produced, whether you judge that by UZR or the naked eye.

[dadofandrew]

10 runs below average equals a game using the Rule of 10. The problem is, many act like it's causing the ERA to be a half-run higher, which would equal a -81, of course. Defense is overrated, as pitching plus defense is 50% of the game. Many games, there's little more than a plethora of routine plays, but every single game, the pitching is important, ask that rookie who threw BP tonight in the 7th inning.

 

Actually, Prince will soon be gone, and suddenly, the infield defense is average. I won't be giddy about that improvement, however, as whoever replaces him will be fortunate not to be far worse offensively than 10 runs.