I've seen you vigorously defend mathematical statistics in other contexts, and now you think that luck stats are nonsense?

 

Sure, those stats aren't all-inclusive, and sometimes there are other explanations (i.e. a guy really is just more hittable than most known stats would indicate). But it's absurd to completely discount the implications of these stats when they are empirically grounded and have tremendously strong correlations.

 

And of course anyone can be lucky in any year......what does that have to do with it? Variance AKA luck is built into the equation for every single player, game, play, and pitch.

 

 

Are you talking to me? If so... what are luck stats? I'm saying there's no such thing as luck. I'm saying that whatever the outcome of a season is, it is what it is. Trends might be indicators of the future, but Ricky Nolasco was not unlucky. He pitched both well and poorly, but poorly more often. Thus the crap statistics. He wasnt unlucky. You can go and preview his game logs, watch his games, etc. and they tell that story.

He hasn't lost his touch because his WHIP and K numbers haven't really changed.

 

 

So then... you believe in this business of being unlucky?

 

If that's the case... what's to say his luck will change? What's to say Pavano's will change?

 

Inconsistency, he hasn't been unlucky, he just simply goes out there some nights without his control. I personally think it comes from overconfidence, because normally the bad outing comes following a great outing. he isn't a bad pitcher he just is inconsistent from outing to outing.

For those who only believe in standard stats, and could care less about sabermetrics...

 

Ricky Nolasco

Career W-L: 54-39

Career ERA: 4.45

Career WHIP: 1.26

Career IP/S: 6.0

 

Javier Vazquez

Career W-L: 152-149

Career ERA: 4.26

Career WHIP: 1.25

Career IP/S: 6.4

 

Carl Pavano

Career W-L: 97-89

Career ERA: 4.34 ERA

Career WHIP: 1.33

Career IP/S: 6.2

 

Pavano is clearly way more consistent than the other two guys, though. And he's totally worth a lot more money + the 3 years he wants in his mid-30's. SIGN HIM!

I say the marlins forget signing either. Sign up more bullpen pieces and sign some depth. We wait until the trade deadline and get our starting pitcher than.

I say the marlins forget signing either. Sign up more bullpen pieces and sign some depth. We wait until the trade deadline and get our starting pitcher than.

 

 

 

It's easier to get bullpen arms at the trading deadline than it is to trade for a quality SP. Plus, the hope is that signing a SP not only makes the rotation better, but the pen as well (because Sanabia would become a pen arm).

He hasn't lost his touch because his WHIP and K numbers haven't really changed.

 

 

So then... you believe in this business of being unlucky?

 

If that's the case... what's to say his luck will change? What's to say Pavano's will change?

 

I don't really care about lucky or unlucky. What I do know is, Nolasco needs to limit the amount of Extra base hits he gives up, and needs to stop having so many bad games where he just blows up and it effects his stat sheet. He did it in 08, so I don't know why you think he can't do it again.

Erick - career numbers are irrelevant. Represented by way too many outliers and effected numbers. For someone like Nolasco, fine, but for Vazquez and Pavano, not justice to use career numbers.

 

To illustrate my point.... on a more extreme level... look at Barry Bonds career averages and tell me about them. Doesnt do justice.

Lost in all this debate is that fact that Nolasco is yet to sign a contract with us. If he's not going to Arizona in a trade for Upton, we kinda need him signed.

I'm referring to pitching in general, not just a starter, but didn't Loria or Beinfest (think Loria but can't remember) not almost guarantee we would make a further acquisition yesterday? Still waiting......

 

 

That was actually taken out of context by Erick I believe. The article meant "Loria said today that more moves are coming" NOT "Loria said that more moves are coming today"

Erick - career numbers are irrelevant. Represented by way too many outliers and effected numbers. For someone like Nolasco, fine, but for Vazquez and Pavano, not justice to use career numbers.

 

To illustrate my point.... on a more extreme level... look at Barry Bonds career averages and tell me about them. Doesnt do justice.

 

 

How can you justify this? You use far too strong of words, i.e. "career numbers are irrelevant." That's ridiculous. Sure, there might be more meaningful time frames, like if a guys been in the league 15 years, you should be more interested in his last 3-4 maybe, but you're either doing a poor job of expressing yourself or you have a warped view on statistics.

 

Think about this: you say that career stats have too many outliers - yet a 2-year sample size from Nolasco MUST be indicative of the type of pitcher he is and can't be influenced by luck? That doesn't jive.

Erick - career numbers are irrelevant. Represented by way too many outliers and effected numbers. For someone like Nolasco, fine, but for Vazquez and Pavano, not justice to use career numbers.

 

To illustrate my point.... on a more extreme level... look at Barry Bonds career averages and tell me about them. Doesnt do justice.

 

 

How can you justify this? You use far too strong of words, i.e. "career numbers are irrelevant." That's ridiculous. Sure, there might be more meaningful time frames, like if a guys been in the league 15 years, you should be more interested in his last 3-4 maybe, but you're either doing a poor job of expressing yourself or you have a warped view on statistics.

 

Think about this: you say that career stats have too many outliers - yet a 2-year sample size from Nolasco MUST be indicative of the type of pitcher he is and can't be influenced by luck? That doesn't jive.

 

How can I justify this? Vazquez and Pavano are both old. They've played games. 10 years ago. Their abilities have changed dramatically over those 10 years. Why is it fair, good or bad, to draw statistics from lets say... 2003 for Pavano or Vazquez? However with Nolasco, you've seen what he's doing as of recent. That's not to say it wont change, but it's certainly more indicative of the near future than 10 years ago was. Career numbers are ridiculous. Perhaps not for Nolasco, I'd take all 3 of his full seasons into consideration, including the good one.

 

It's not my poor job of expressing it, you just didnt understand it. I was making the very same point you made ~ "like if a guys been in the league 15 years, you should be more interested in his last 3-4 maybe". Nolasco, statistically, has nothing else to work with. His career averages are more important not because they hold a higher value, but rather because Pavano's and Vazquez's career numbers are not important at all.

 

I never said that Nolasco's 3 year sample size was indicative of the pitcher, you're simply derriving that from my distaste from Nolasco. Never said that. I'm just making the case that Erick drew up 3 different sample sizes between the 3 pitchers, and Nolasco has a much smaller sample size than Pavano or Vazquez, and he completely makes that work in Nolasco's favor.

I wonder how much Zach Duke would cost.

 

 

Minor league contract, probably. That would be a good minor deal.

 

As for the whole "career #'s are irrelevant" thing...your boy (Dr.Beinfest, not you) Pavano wasn't good in 2009, 2008, 2007, etc. Recent years. So I'm not sure why you like him so much, compared to the other two.

By the way, maybe it's a crazy thought to some, but what about trading for Joakim Soria and converting him to a starter?

By the way, maybe it's a crazy thought to some, but what about trading for Joakim Soria and converting him to a starter?

 

 

I'd rather keep him as Plan B if we can't get a starter, and put him in the bullpen. He'd be the final piece to a dominant bullpen.

By the way, maybe it's a crazy thought to some, but what about trading for Joakim Soria and converting him to a starter?

 

 

Just get Soria and we could do what ever we want with him. No homo.

The Marlins wouldn't spend that much on a reliever; they'd obviously spend it on a starter though, and Soria has shown the potential to start as he's been equally dominant against lefties and righties, in his career. He's one of those potential #2's that everyone's been hoping for since the start of the offseason; as the article on mlbtraderumors.com states, there's little reason for KC to keep Soria as their closer when they already suck and are about to trade their best player, in Grienke. Maybe they'd consider trading Soria, as well.

The Marlins wouldn't spend that much on a reliever; they'd obviously spend it on a starter though, and Soria has shown the potential to start as he's been equally dominant against lefties and righties, in his career. He's one of those potential #2's that everyone's been hoping for since the start of the offseason; as the article on mlbtraderumors.com states, there's little reason for KC to keep Soria as their closer when they already suck and are about to trade their best player, in Grienke. Maybe they'd consider trading Soria, as well.

 

 

Get both of them!

 

Seriousely though, either one would be great. I don't know who's cheaper in terms of players. Also, the great part about Soria is he has a no trade clause to certain teams, and two of those teams are the Phillies and Yankees.

 

Edit: But then again, Grienke and I have so much in common. Both born in Orlando, Florida, and only 3 days apart in birth. I don't know who I want more.

The Marlins wouldn't spend that much on a reliever; they'd obviously spend it on a starter though, and Soria has shown the potential to start as he's been equally dominant against lefties and righties, in his career. He's one of those potential #2's that everyone's been hoping for since the start of the offseason; as the article on mlbtraderumors.com states, there's little reason for KC to keep Soria as their closer when they already suck and are about to trade their best player, in Grienke. Maybe they'd consider trading Soria, as well.

 

 

Get both of them!

 

Seriousely though, either one would be great. I don't know who's cheaper in terms of players. Also, the great part about Soria is he has a no trade clause to certain teams, and two of those teams are the Phillies and Yankees.

 

Edit: But then again, Grienke and I have so much in common. Both born in Orlando, Florida, and only 3 days apart in birth. I don't know who I want more.

 

 

Grienke is the proven starter, so I'm pretty sure the answer is Soria. That's why I brought it up.

The Marlins wouldn't spend that much on a reliever; they'd obviously spend it on a starter though, and Soria has shown the potential to start as he's been equally dominant against lefties and righties, in his career. He's one of those potential #2's that everyone's been hoping for since the start of the offseason; as the article on mlbtraderumors.com states, there's little reason for KC to keep Soria as their closer when they already suck and are about to trade their best player, in Grienke. Maybe they'd consider trading Soria, as well.

 

 

Get both of them!

 

Seriousely though, either one would be great. I don't know who's cheaper in terms of players. Also, the great part about Soria is he has a no trade clause to certain teams, and two of those teams are the Phillies and Yankees.

 

Edit: But then again, Grienke and I have so much in common. Both born in Orlando, Florida, and only 3 days apart in birth. I don't know who I want more.

 

 

Grienke is the proven starter, so I'm pretty sure the answer is Soria. That's why I brought it up.

 

Good point. It can't be much of a difference, though. Soria is as dominant as you can get. If we were even rumored to be in discussion for one of them, I'd flip.

The Marlins wouldn't spend that much on a reliever; they'd obviously spend it on a starter though, and Soria has shown the potential to start as he's been equally dominant against lefties and righties, in his career. He's one of those potential #2's that everyone's been hoping for since the start of the offseason; as the article on mlbtraderumors.com states, there's little reason for KC to keep Soria as their closer when they already suck and are about to trade their best player, in Grienke. Maybe they'd consider trading Soria, as well.

 

 

Get both of them!

 

Seriousely though, either one would be great. I don't know who's cheaper in terms of players. Also, the great part about Soria is he has a no trade clause to certain teams, and two of those teams are the Phillies and Yankees.

 

Edit: But then again, Grienke and I have so much in common. Both born in Orlando, Florida, and only 3 days apart in birth. I don't know who I want more.

 

 

Grienke is the proven starter, so I'm pretty sure the answer is Soria. That's why I brought it up.

 

Good point. It can't be much of a difference, though. Soria is as dominant as you can get. If we were even rumored to be in discussion for one of them, I'd flip.

 

You never know what you can get from the Royals. For all we know, they'd take Bonifacio as part of a trade for Soria. Dayton Moore would do such an idiotic thing. He loves guys with "tools" that produce horrible .OBP #'s.

Being a Yankee fan, funny the fish are looking at both that were busts for them. Since Pavano left, he's turned it around and seems like a safer bet then Javy. I definitely agree Javy has the talent, but seems like he can be another Nalsco. Really wished there were other options then these 2. But it's nice to see them willing to spend Ugla's money, and not count it with Buck's contract like we thought they would.

On a side note, does anyone think Pavano and Matt Garza look alike?

 

 

I really don't know why folks were thinking that, other than the signing and trade were announced so close together. And of course the "experts/unnamed insider" saying the payroll would be between $47 and $50 mil, which since has gone up to 50-55. It won't be long before the "experts/unnamed insider" change their "predictions" again. As stated a few times, they went into the off season knowing they needed a starting catcher and IMO had already set $$$ aside for one. The Buck deal evidently was close to the amount they were willing to spend on one so it was inked.

By the way, maybe it's a crazy thought to some, but what about trading for Joakim Soria and converting him to a starter?

 

 

I would much rather acquire Soria, stick him in the closer role and shift Hensley back into the rotation. Although I guess we could have both in the pen and Sanabia in the rotation.

The Marlins wouldn't spend that much on a reliever; they'd obviously spend it on a starter though, and Soria has shown the potential to start as he's been equally dominant against lefties and righties, in his career. He's one of those potential #2's that everyone's been hoping for since the start of the offseason; as the article on mlbtraderumors.com states, there's little reason for KC to keep Soria as their closer when they already suck and are about to trade their best player, in Grienke. Maybe they'd consider trading Soria, as well.

 

 

The funny thing about Soria is his limited no-trade clause - he can veto deals to the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Cardinals, Cubs, and Tigers. It sure sounds like he does NOT want to go to a big city. Also, it sounds like he doesn't want to go to a good team :mis2

The Marlins wouldn't spend that much on a reliever; they'd obviously spend it on a starter though, and Soria has shown the potential to start as he's been equally dominant against lefties and righties, in his career. He's one of those potential #2's that everyone's been hoping for since the start of the offseason; as the article on mlbtraderumors.com states, there's little reason for KC to keep Soria as their closer when they already suck and are about to trade their best player, in Grienke. Maybe they'd consider trading Soria, as well.

 

 

The funny thing about Soria is his limited no-trade clause - he can veto deals to the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Cardinals, Cubs, and Tigers. It sure sounds like he does NOT want to go to a big city. Also, it sounds like he doesn't want to go to a good team :mis2

 

Will it not just be that he wants to keep closing games hence make more money, and he would be blocked by the likes of Rivera, Papelbon, Marmol, Lidge etc at those teams?

The Marlins wouldn't spend that much on a reliever; they'd obviously spend it on a starter though, and Soria has shown the potential to start as he's been equally dominant against lefties and righties, in his career. He's one of those potential #2's that everyone's been hoping for since the start of the offseason; as the article on mlbtraderumors.com states, there's little reason for KC to keep Soria as their closer when they already suck and are about to trade their best player, in Grienke. Maybe they'd consider trading Soria, as well.

 

 

The funny thing about Soria is his limited no-trade clause - he can veto deals to the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Cardinals, Cubs, and Tigers. It sure sounds like he does NOT want to go to a big city. Also, it sounds like he doesn't want to go to a good team :mis2

 

Will it not just be that he wants to keep closing games hence make more money, and he would be blocked by the likes of Rivera, Papelbon, Marmol, Lidge etc at those teams?

That seems more likely than the "big city" possibility, especially as there are several very large cities not on his list.