Matt Garza - Significant Trade Asset??

[bill hAll Star]

If one looks at the Mariners or maybe the Twins or the Angels if some of their guys coming back from injury don't round into form, I think you could probably deal Garza at $5 million next year for something of substance. All of those teams will be desperate for MLB-caliber starting pitching. Even if it's just a helpful bullpen arm, it's nice.

 

He'll do well @SF most likely and start getting his numbers back down. The Coors game was very expected and he has never been the type of pitcher in his career that will do well there.

 

The only way I'd accept not picking up his option is if he continues to get destroyed and legitimately seems done and like a guy that would put up a 6+ ERA next season OR if the Brewers decline the option and are big spenders on the free agent market (which would bring up other debates).

[adambr2]

If one looks at the Mariners or maybe the Twins or the Angels if some of their guys coming back from injury don't round into form, I think you could probably deal Garza at $5 million next year for something of substance. All of those teams will be desperate for MLB-caliber starting pitching. Even if it's just a helpful bullpen arm, it's nice.

 

He'll do well @SF most likely and start getting his numbers back down. The Coors game was very expected and he has never been the type of pitcher in his career that will do well there.

 

The only way I'd accept not picking up his option is if he continues to get destroyed and legitimately seems done and like a guy that would put up a 6+ ERA next season OR if the Brewers decline the option and are big spenders on the free agent market (which would bring up other debates).

 

His previous start vs. Cincy was not grear and the one before against the Twins was even worse than the Rockies game, so this is not a stretch we can just chalk up to the Colorado air.

 

That said as I stated in another thread I'm not opposed to one more start to see if he can turn it around but if not the leash needs to be getting short.

[shanedog19]

Matt Garza is batting practice, period.

[tmwiese55]

He's pitching his way out right now. have to think two more bad games and he might get yanked from the rotation for Woodruff when he's back. Then it's probably a given he won't be back

[bill hAll Star]

If one looks at the Mariners or maybe the Twins or the Angels if some of their guys coming back from injury don't round into form, I think you could probably deal Garza at $5 million next year for something of substance. All of those teams will be desperate for MLB-caliber starting pitching. Even if it's just a helpful bullpen arm, it's nice.

 

He'll do well @SF most likely and start getting his numbers back down. The Coors game was very expected and he has never been the type of pitcher in his career that will do well there.

 

The only way I'd accept not picking up his option is if he continues to get destroyed and legitimately seems done and like a guy that would put up a 6+ ERA next season OR if the Brewers decline the option and are big spenders on the free agent market (which would bring up other debates).

 

His previous start vs. Cincy was not grear and the one before against the Twins was even worse than the Rockies game, so this is not a stretch we can just chalk up to the Colorado air.

 

That said as I stated in another thread I'm not opposed to one more start to see if he can turn it around but if not the leash needs to be getting short.

 

I agree in an odd way that I'd be ready to yank him from the rotation this year because he is a fringe #5 starter, but for next year, he's still a surplus value trade commodity and at the very least, depth for our own rotation.

 

However, given that Hader isn't getting put in the rotation and Guerra's velocity seems to not be returning this year, I guess I kinda just say "meh" when asked who the #5 starter could/should be for the final month+. Anderson, Nelson, Davies, Woodruff (he'll be back) is the top 4.

 

Suter and Garza are the same pitcher or at least same risk at this point. Garza's got a higher FIP/xFIP, but I think the risk of Suter getting absolutely rocked is very high as the league starts figuring him out more and more. So I guess they'll both hang around through the end of the year and then I probably keep Garza next year as depth (it's always good to have 8 or 9 MLB-caliber starters) and the situation will sort itself out. Either Garza gets dealt in the offseason, you have some injuries to sort things out, or somebody gets cut/dealt a few months into the season.

[pacopete4]

Garza is pitching the next two games for not only his spot but possibly his $5mil option next season. If he is a bum, he'll be treated as such. Time to show up and earn your keep.

[bill hAll Star]

There are a lot of teams (specifically ones that are in the AL Wild Card race this year and would assume to be in it next year) that would give something up for 1 year of Matt Garza at $5 million at his current state most likely. The Mariners have given up good prospects for AAAA pitchers in recent weeks to try to fill out their MLB pitching staff.

 

If he completely bombs the rest of the season, that could change...but I think he has that value currently.

[nate82]

 

Wait what? So you're saying, hypothetically in the off-season, if the Mets were to make DeGrom available, or the Giants were to make Bumgarner available, like Sale became available last off-season, and we were to pull a blockbuster and acquired DeGrom or Bumgarner in trade, and either traded Garza or let him walk, DeGrom or Bumgarner over Garza in the rotation is worth 0-1 additional wins over the course of a full season?

 

There's no way that's true.

 

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.

 

Plus you are not replacing Garza for whoever Garza would be replaced by. Even moving down one pitcher to the next you are gaining at most 1 win over the season. Take 2011 for example the Brewers expected wins didn't change when they acquired Marcum and it only changed by about 2 wins when they acquired Greinke. That team without Greinke or Marcum was about an above 500 team with those two acquisitions it bumped the Brewers up to about an 88 win team. So they went from an 86 win team to an expected 88 win team and beat the expected by 8 wins mostly due to their offense was better in 2011 compared to 2010.

[KCBrewerfan34]

 

Wait what? So you're saying, hypothetically in the off-season, if the Mets were to make DeGrom available, or the Giants were to make Bumgarner available, like Sale became available last off-season, and we were to pull a blockbuster and acquired DeGrom or Bumgarner in trade, and either traded Garza or let him walk, DeGrom or Bumgarner over Garza in the rotation is worth 0-1 additional wins over the course of a full season?

 

There's no way that's true.

 

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.

 

Plus you are not replacing Garza for whoever Garza would be replaced by. Even moving down one pitcher to the next you are gaining at most 1 win over the season. Take 2011 for example the Brewers expected wins didn't change when they acquired Marcum and it only changed by about 2 wins when they acquired Greinke. That team without Greinke or Marcum was about an above 500 team with those two acquisitions it bumped the Brewers up to about an 88 win team. So they went from an 86 win team to an expected 88 win team and beat the expected by 8 wins mostly due to their offense was better in 2011 compared to 2010.

 

 

 

This is flat out wrong. Other factors are involved I would empty our top 5 prospects for a #1 starter, I don't consider DeGrom a #1

[nate82]

 

Wait what? So you're saying, hypothetically in the off-season, if the Mets were to make DeGrom available, or the Giants were to make Bumgarner available, like Sale became available last off-season, and we were to pull a blockbuster and acquired DeGrom or Bumgarner in trade, and either traded Garza or let him walk, DeGrom or Bumgarner over Garza in the rotation is worth 0-1 additional wins over the course of a full season?

 

There's no way that's true.

 

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.

 

Plus you are not replacing Garza for whoever Garza would be replaced by. Even moving down one pitcher to the next you are gaining at most 1 win over the season. Take 2011 for example the Brewers expected wins didn't change when they acquired Marcum and it only changed by about 2 wins when they acquired Greinke. That team without Greinke or Marcum was about an above 500 team with those two acquisitions it bumped the Brewers up to about an 88 win team. So they went from an 86 win team to an expected 88 win team and beat the expected by 8 wins mostly due to their offense was better in 2011 compared to 2010.

 

 

 

This is flat out wrong. Other factors are involved I would empty our top 5 prospects for a #1 starter, I don't consider DeGrom a #1

 

But it is not. Offense correlates to winning more than pitching/defense. Replace your worst hitter with the best hitter in the league and your win expectation will go up more than if you changed your worst pitcher for the league's best.

[KeithStone53151]

 

Wait what? So you're saying, hypothetically in the off-season, if the Mets were to make DeGrom available, or the Giants were to make Bumgarner available, like Sale became available last off-season, and we were to pull a blockbuster and acquired DeGrom or Bumgarner in trade, and either traded Garza or let him walk, DeGrom or Bumgarner over Garza in the rotation is worth 0-1 additional wins over the course of a full season?

 

There's no way that's true.

 

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.

 

Plus you are not replacing Garza for whoever Garza would be replaced by. Even moving down one pitcher to the next you are gaining at most 1 win over the season. Take 2011 for example the Brewers expected wins didn't change when they acquired Marcum and it only changed by about 2 wins when they acquired Greinke. That team without Greinke or Marcum was about an above 500 team with those two acquisitions it bumped the Brewers up to about an 88 win team. So they went from an 86 win team to an expected 88 win team and beat the expected by 8 wins mostly due to their offense was better in 2011 compared to 2010.

 

I honestly don't even know where to begin with this...you are approaching Briggs territory of foolishness.

[nate82]

 

Wait what? So you're saying, hypothetically in the off-season, if the Mets were to make DeGrom available, or the Giants were to make Bumgarner available, like Sale became available last off-season, and we were to pull a blockbuster and acquired DeGrom or Bumgarner in trade, and either traded Garza or let him walk, DeGrom or Bumgarner over Garza in the rotation is worth 0-1 additional wins over the course of a full season?

 

There's no way that's true.

 

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.

 

Plus you are not replacing Garza for whoever Garza would be replaced by. Even moving down one pitcher to the next you are gaining at most 1 win over the season. Take 2011 for example the Brewers expected wins didn't change when they acquired Marcum and it only changed by about 2 wins when they acquired Greinke. That team without Greinke or Marcum was about an above 500 team with those two acquisitions it bumped the Brewers up to about an 88 win team. So they went from an 86 win team to an expected 88 win team and beat the expected by 8 wins mostly due to their offense was better in 2011 compared to 2010.

 

I honestly don't even know where to begin with this...you are approaching Briggs territory of foolishness.

 

Please explain how it is foolish.

[tmwiese55]

Your point that an offensive player has more value than a pitcher because he's involved in so many more games is a fine and reasonable assertion. Where it gets foolish is trying to use Sale/Sox as an example and implying he made no difference in their wins. Ignoring that they lost Papi who was awesome last year. And off the top of my head a few others like Betts have played a bit worse this year overall. And they created a blackhole at 3B giving away Shaw.

 

Look at this way, replace Sale's 35ish starts with Garza/Guerra type combination of guys and think whether that team will only win 1 more of those starts? For real numbers, Sox are 18-7 when Sale pitches for a 72 win %. And if my math is correct they'd be 53-45 in non Sale starts for 54%. And in those losses the Sox scored 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1, 3 and all were close games. This also doesn't factor in that he helps the team in those other days when he's not pitching because it rests the bullpen for him to consistently go deep in games.

 

If 35 starts at 72% that is 25.2 wins and at 54% it's 18.9 wins. He's probably literally the difference between them being in 1st place and being out of the playoffs right now.

[KeithStone53151]

 

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.

 

Plus you are not replacing Garza for whoever Garza would be replaced by. Even moving down one pitcher to the next you are gaining at most 1 win over the season. Take 2011 for example the Brewers expected wins didn't change when they acquired Marcum and it only changed by about 2 wins when they acquired Greinke. That team without Greinke or Marcum was about an above 500 team with those two acquisitions it bumped the Brewers up to about an 88 win team. So they went from an 86 win team to an expected 88 win team and beat the expected by 8 wins mostly due to their offense was better in 2011 compared to 2010.

 

I honestly don't even know where to begin with this...you are approaching Briggs territory of foolishness.

 

Please explain how it is foolish.

 

Explain how the Mets with Degrom, Syndergaard, Harvey, etc in 2015 beat the cubs and advanced to the world series and won so many games? Their offense was not good, and they weren't a particularly great team defensively. The 2015 cubs won 97 games with a below league average OPS. I don't know how you can possibly think that if we plugged Scherzer into Garza's rotation spot to start the season that we would have only won 1 more game? We probably would have won 6 or 7 more games assuming everything else was equal. Not only would we have had a much more effective pitcher in that slot, but Scherzer certainly eats more innings and helps our bullpen way more than Garza did. Everyone stays more fresh down the stretch. Only good things come from this.

 

And your point makes zero sense to begin with because the 2010 brewers won 77 games and the 2011 brewers won 96 games...but please keep telling me how adding 2 frontline pitchers to the top of your rotation only adds a couple wins. Maybe we should trade our entire starting rotation for position player prospects and sign 5 Matt Garza's...we'd be way better off long term based on your logic.

 

Those tools that calculate expected wins are almost always universally terrible and wrong. Looking at projections versus actuals year to year, I'd bet projections are rarely close.

[OnaBadger58]

 

Wait what? So you're saying, hypothetically in the off-season, if the Mets were to make DeGrom available, or the Giants were to make Bumgarner available, like Sale became available last off-season, and we were to pull a blockbuster and acquired DeGrom or Bumgarner in trade, and either traded Garza or let him walk, DeGrom or Bumgarner over Garza in the rotation is worth 0-1 additional wins over the course of a full season?

 

There's no way that's true.

 

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.

 

Plus you are not replacing Garza for whoever Garza would be replaced by. Even moving down one pitcher to the next you are gaining at most 1 win over the season. Take 2011 for example the Brewers expected wins didn't change when they acquired Marcum and it only changed by about 2 wins when they acquired Greinke. That team without Greinke or Marcum was about an above 500 team with those two acquisitions it bumped the Brewers up to about an 88 win team. So they went from an 86 win team to an expected 88 win team and beat the expected by 8 wins mostly due to their offense was better in 2011 compared to 2010.

So would the Brewers have made the playoffs if Sabathia wasn't traded for?

[brewerfan82]

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.

[BrewCrewBlueDevil]

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.

[adambr2]

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 ?

[nate82]

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.

[nate82]

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.

[KCBrewerfan34]

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.

[young guns]

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.

[pacopete4]

WAR has made people look at the value of player in a craaaaaaazy way.

[tmwiese55]

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

[adambr2]

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.