Comments on: Wolf’s Deal with LA

By: James

James — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:16:21 +0000

So the “padded on the back” remark stands?

By: Matthew Carruth

Matthew Carruth — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:09:09 +0000

Maybe RJ never wanted to play for LA compared to us knowing he would have played in Arizona. Maybe I find it hard to believe that you cannot actually discern the difference between LA signing Randy Wolf and Arizona letting RJ leave and then signing Garland for the same money. And maybe you should find more civil ways of expressing your displeasure, including directing them at the actual parties involved.

By: Levski

Levski — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:59:48 +0000

Uh, I meant “Colletti stupidly allowed RJ to sign with the Giants”, obviously…

By: Levski

Levski — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:56:35 +0000

I really don’t want to re-visit the Garland article in a Wolf thread, so apologies to Matthew Carruth. I was simply struck by the inconsistency of the analysis offered in the Wolf and Garland articles–two seemingly similar pitchers signed to rather similar contracts by teams that project to do similarly in the 2009 season. One team gets ripped, the other team gets padded on the back.

By the way, Matthew, I don’t see anywhere in the article the following passage:

“Ned Colletti had the opportunity to sign Randy Johnson for $8m, on one year deal, and de facto steal the future Hall of Famer from arguably LA’s toughest contender for the NL West title in 2009. Instead, Colletti stupidly allowed RJ to sign with the Dodgers, and settled for a much inferior pitcher in Randy Wolf, on a contract that will very likely pay something close to the $8m that Colletti could have given to Randy Johnson.

Signing Randy Johnson to replace Derek Lowe would have been a very solid move for the Dodgers. Instead, they blew it. Instead of delivering a lethal blow to their division rivals, Colletti dilly-dallied way too long, allowed Sabean to outmaneuver him, and in the end brought back a pitcher who was downright horrible in LA just a couple of season ago. Colletti had a great chance to secure the 2009 NL West title, yet he fumbled miserably.

Congrats, Colletti, on destroying your team this offseason.”

By: kensai

kensai — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:40:45 +0000

Also, I don’t mean to interject myself into the discussion, but the league average GB% is around 42-43%.

When people talk about “groundball pitchers”, they usually talk about guys like Derek Lowe or Brandon Webb who have GB% in the 60s.

By: kensai

kensai — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:37:40 +0000

Nick-The point is that Cameron was NOT comparing Garland/Johnson in a vacuum. He’s asking why the D-Backs would lowball Johnson and then turn around to give Garland 9 million. It’s a valid question considering their projections/stats.

That was the only point I was trying to make. As a Dodger fan, I hope both fail anyway. :o

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:41:59 +0000

Okay. Using Fangraphs data, his career ground ball percentage is around 45%. And his GB/FB ration is 1.29. Furthermore he has never allowed more ground balls than fly balls in ANY season in the majors.

By: yang

yang — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:47:04 +0000

Dodgers screwed up their entire offseason

because they replaced Derek Lowe, Brad Penny and Takashi Saito by signing Randy Wolf

lol

By: buttsecks?

buttsecks? — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:43:42 +0000

1. FB% on StatCorner separates outfield flies from infield flies for the purpose of calculating tRA. You’ll have to add the two values to return a ratio of 1.68.

2. Please stop using one year of data. If you have even so much as unsourced anecdotal evidence that Garland’s spike in GB% was attributable to a sustainable change in style, repertoire, or approach and not merely random variation, then I will concede to you this point.

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:34:31 +0000

OK. Tracy’s career UZR/150 is 0.5 and Clark’s is -0.9. It doesn’t really chance much.