Cards get Jeff Weaver

Classic threads for your viewing pleasure.
Locked
Dwtlr
Veteran Player
Posts: 527
Joined: May 17 06, 10:20 am

Post by Dwtlr »

thrill wrote:
Dwtlr wrote:Is Tankersly an alternative until Mulder is ready..? Can three or four starts from Tankersly really be as bad as Suppan right now?
I'd rather see Thompson or Wainright.
Well I'd rather see Wainwright to be honest but it would appear La Russa and Duncan are adamant about him not being in the rotation..

However I would think the state of the rotation has reached emergency status and hopefully a re-think on their part is in order but I doubt it..

stewie13
Veteran Player
Posts: 1122
Joined: April 20 06, 10:13 am

Post by stewie13 »

Here's the thing, if someone asked me the following questions:

Was Jeff Weaver overused as a young pitcher?

My answer would be yes based on his high pitch counts and high PAP amongst other things.

Was Jeff Weaver's heavy workload as a young pitcher a prominent factor in his recent struggles? (note the use of the word "prominent", I didn't say "main" but wanted something a little stronger than just "a factor")

My answer would be I don't know but based on the fact he has been able to throw almost 450 innings (6th most) the past two seasons and his VORP of 62.2 is the 37th highest in baseball I would lean heavily to the side of no.

The thing is if players peak around the ages 26-28 on average then just by random distribution there are going to be pitchers that have their peak years at age 23,24 and 25. Griffey had his peak years from age 21-24 but nobody makes the conclusion that his heavy workload as a young player contributed to his "relative decline" after age 24.

And I only pointed out the mistake in years because you have made a pretty big deal about it being specifically "under 25".

I know it is your passion and you have spent a lot of time looking at these things which is why I feel almost obligated to throw some rocks at it to see what holds up and what falls down :lol:

User avatar
vinsanity
Chili dog truther
Posts: 8836
Joined: July 3 06, 2:19 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Post by vinsanity »

stewie13 wrote:The thing is if players peak around the ages 26-28 on average then just by random distribution there are going to be pitchers that have their peak years at age 23,24 and 25.
There is something to be said for this. But I think the idea behind the 26-28 peak is that your body is fully matured and your mind has caught up. A mature pitcher (mentally) could feasably catch up at 23-25, but would his body be fully coordinated?
stewie13 wrote: Griffey had his peak years from age 21-24 but nobody makes the conclusion that his heavy workload as a young player contributed to his "relative decline" after age 24.
Actually if you look at it Griffy peaked from 27 - 29
He was 20 when he broke in to the league (1989)
Between 1996 - 1999:
49 56 56 48 homers
303 304 285 284 AVG
OPS of around 1.000 those years (hit 4 times in his career...twice in that period).

Only played 111 games in 2001 and has been plagued with injury.

User avatar
JL21
NPR & THT Contributor
Posts: 36109
Joined: April 18 06, 7:44 am
Location: Chocolate City

Post by JL21 »

fanforever wrote:but don't the players get a % of the gate?
I believe that a small portion- something like $2 per ticket sold- goes into the player's fund, which goes to the WS winner and runner-up.

stewie13
Veteran Player
Posts: 1122
Joined: April 20 06, 10:13 am

Post by stewie13 »

When you make adjustments for league and park, Griffey was more productive from age 21-24 than at any other 4 year period.

User avatar
skmsw
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 6340
Joined: April 18 06, 7:12 pm
Location: The Hub

Post by skmsw »

stewie13 wrote:When you make adjustments for league and park, Griffey was more productive from age 21-24 than at any other 4 year period.
Actually, Griffey might not be the best example of what you are trying to illustrate.

But I get your point. The difference is, there is not an equivalent risk factor for hitters that there is for pitcher workload.

User avatar
vinsanity
Chili dog truther
Posts: 8836
Joined: July 3 06, 2:19 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Post by vinsanity »

Where are you getting OPS? Onbase plus Slugging no?

And league and park adjustments? Do you mean leagu averages? Cause he played in the same park during the peak I mentioned as the peak you mentioned (SEA).

But I can see where Steverino makes his argumenta bout A-Rod. Though I'll take 20 years of this production from Pujols :D

User avatar
JL21
NPR & THT Contributor
Posts: 36109
Joined: April 18 06, 7:44 am
Location: Chocolate City

Post by JL21 »

vinsanity wrote:Where are you getting OPS? Onbase plus Slugging no?

And league and park adjustments? Do you mean leagu averages? Cause he played in the same park during the peak I mentioned as the peak you mentioned (SEA).

But I can see where Steverino makes his argumenta bout A-Rod. Though I'll take 20 years of this production from Pujols :D
OPS+ is likely what Stewie is referring to. You can find it here (for Junior):

http://baseballreference.com/g/griffke02.shtml

100 is average, below 100 is below average, above 100 is above average. It's OPS compared against the league average (100), and then a ballpark factor is added.

User avatar
vinsanity
Chili dog truther
Posts: 8836
Joined: July 3 06, 2:19 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Post by vinsanity »

You metrics guys are gonna kill me with This VORP, OPS+, ERA+ and PECOTA and PETA and STD i'm just going insane.

Fat Strat
Official GRB Sponsor of Larry Bigbie
Posts: 28010
Joined: April 17 06, 9:16 pm
Location: No. 16 on the Cards Top 15 Prospect List

Post by Fat Strat »

I've come to rely on PETA and STD for all my sabermetric work.


Seriously though, there's nothing too difficult about using OPS+ and era+ in place of their counterparts. Just bookmark baseball-reference.com and anytime you want to talk about a pitcher/hitter just go there and check the numbers.

It's a real eye opener for some players.

But, it's also slightly flawed.

I used era+ to make a fairly convincing argument that the Reds staff hasn't been that bad the last couple years. I was only partially having some fun with the numbers. You always have to use them within the context of actual performance on the field, what your eyes tell you, and what general "league opinion" is on a certain player.

i.e. Dave Williams (era+ career of 101) is not just as good as Jeff Suppan (era+ career of 101).

Locked