|
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 7388
Location: Limbo | ...because the statistics don't bear it out, or at least Fangraphs' WAR doesn't. First of all, what's the difference between Fangraphs' WAR and Baseball Reference WAR? The easiest way to put it is that B-R has more to do with what a pitcher actually did, while Fangraphs has more to do with what they should have done based upon their peripherals. Both are useful, but B-R is more descriptive (that is, it described what actually happened, not unlike ERA) while Fangraphs is more predictive (it indicates what they should have done if they hadn't been lucky or unlucky). Technically speaking, Fangraphs WAR is based on FIP, which is "Fielding Independent Pitching" - meaning, what a pitchers ERA might look like with league average defense on balls in play; xFIP takes it a step further and replaces their home run total with what they "should have" with a league average HR/fly ball ratio. To put it another way, both FIP and xFIP are ways to look at a pitcher's underlying performance and should remain relatively constant, while ERA tends to fluctuate more. If, for example, a pitcher's ERA goes way up but his FIP and/or xFIP stays about the same, it likely means that pitcher had some bad luck and is probably still the same pitcher.
In other words, Fangraphs is a better tool in predicting what a player such as James Shields is likely to do going forward. Now let's take a look: - Over his six years as a regular starter (2007-12), Shields is 15th in the majors with 20.9 WAR - that's just ahead of Mark Buehrle at 20.8 and just behind Matt Cain and Ubaldo Jimenez. - Shields' WAR: 4.5, 4.1, 3.7, 2.0, 4.9, 1.8 (so far) - Shields' ERA: 3.85, 3.56, 4.14, 5.18, 2.82, 4.39 - Shields' FIP: 3.86, 3.82, 4.02, 4.24, 3.42, 3.89 - Shields' xFIP: 3.65, 3.87, 3.85, 3.65, 3.25, 3.42 So there we see the culprit in this year's and 2010's performance: the notable difference in EA to FIP and xFIP points to poor defense, a penchant for the long ball, and perhaps bad luck. His xFIP has been very consistent, ranging between 3.25 and 3.87, which means that his HR rate fluctuates. This year his HR/FB rate is 15.6%, by far the highest of his career and well above his career average of 11.9%. The odd thing is that he also has the highest ground ball rate of his career.
This year he actually has the best strikeout rate of his career (8.5), although his walk rate (2.67) is his highest since his partial season in 2006, although still very good. All things tolled I'd be happy to "risk" having Shields as the Angels' 4th starter because behind the numbers I see a very good pitcher whose numbers fluctuate because his HR and flyball fluctuates. Is he as he good as his 2011 near-Cy Young performance? No, but he's better than 2012 and 2010. Now the question is what should the Angels give up for him, and whether they can also pry Ben Zobrist away, as the early rumors were having. I'll leave that to another discussion.
|
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 19315
| I think people are just looking at his ERA and assuming he sucks. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 7388
Location: Limbo | I will say, however, that Bourjos, Conger, and Santana for Shields alone is too much to give up, imo. That is a trade that would haunt the Angels as soon as next year, when Maddon works his magic on Santana, who recovers his 2010-11 form, Conger gets playing time and hits well, and Bourjos blossoms, while Shields remains what he is: a very good #2-3 starter, a bit better than a stable Santana.
Now if we threw in Kendrick and they threw in Zobrist, I'd do it. Or if they threw in a very good prospect, I'd consider it. But those three for Shields is a bit much. |
|
| |
|
| If you take out 2011 - I'd consider that a career year for him - he's nothing better than a #4/#5 pitcher. And again, you have to be suspicious of the Rays wanting to get rid of him, much like they did with Kazmir. They're selling high.
We need pitching help, but we don't need Shields. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5418
| Not a big fan of WAR for pitchers. The values just aren't very well laid out. And in the case of Shields I think it really over values him. Fangraphs WAR measurement for pitchers is all about FIP. And FIP basically ignores that some pitchers just give up more hits. It just happens. Shields is one of those. It's not the defense behind him. It's him. And ignoring that is going to give you a shiny number that makes him look great. But he's not. Now to clarify, I don't think he's bad. But he's being compared to a lot of people (Wilson, Cain now) and he's just simply not that good. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 7388
Location: Limbo | Tin, how can we take out his best year? That actually happened. He's also had a few other very good years.
HaloMagic, you make a really good point. On the other side of the spectrum, WAR and FIP don't like Jered Weaver all that much who is, I think, better than those stats describe. But I think WAR does accurately point out that Shields is a good pitcher. Not (recent) Cain or Wilson good, but a marginal #2, a solid #3, and a great #4, which is what he'd be on the Angels.
But again, it depends upon what the deal is. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5418
| Well I agree with that. Although he's only a #2 on teams with an average or below #3 because I feel that an above average #3 is better than Shields. He's an average (MAAAAYYBBEEE slightly above-average) #3. But as you said, that's great. That's what we need. We have a #1 (Weaver), a #2 who would be a #1 on many staffs and on his good days he could be our #1 (Wilson) and then we have 4 pitchers all performing like a #5, marginal #4 if we want to be nice (Haren, Williams, Santana, Richards). We just need someone to not completely suck. Shields fits that role. We don't need Hamels (a clear #1) or Grienke (#2 but #1 on good days). Shields is good for that void. I gotta think there must be other players that can give what we need. Look at players like Travis Blackley and look what the A's are getting from him. There's gotta be some players out there that can go out there every 5th days and get a couple outs. If the price is good we pretty much need at least 1 #4 starter. #3 if possible,
Edited by HaloMagic 2012-07-25 6:15 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Angelsjunky - 2012-07-25 5:55 AM
Tin, how can we take out his best year? That actually happened. He's also had a few other very good years.
HaloMagic, you make a really good point. On the other side of the spectrum, WAR and FIP don't like Jered Weaver all that much who is, I think, better than those stats describe. But I think WAR does accurately point out that Shields is a good pitcher. Not (recent) Cain or Wilson good, but a marginal #2, a solid #3, and a great #4, which is what he'd be on the Angels.
But again, it depends upon what the deal is.
It was his best year by a noticeable margin. He hasn't really had a year close to it, and he's on pace for his worst year ever. Those are all warning signs to me. I think he's gonna be what he is this year, which is an end-of-rotation pitcher. I wouldn't mind having him but I think the cost will be too high. |
|
| |
|
Salt Lake Bees
Posts: 996
| Compare Weaver's schedule to Shields'. See what you find. Weaver faced weak-hitting teams in 13 of his 17 starts. Meanwhile, Shields faced really good offenses in 12 of his 20 starts, a few average-ish offenses and some not-so-good offenses.
Shields' brutal schedule maybe had a little something to do with the inflated numbers...
Edited by Angels Reloaded 2012-07-25 9:41 AM
|
|
| |
|
Salt Lake Bees
Posts: 996
| People overlook so many things that can negatively affect a pitcher's numbers, it's funny. Not everything is black and white.
Give Weaver Shields' schedule and then give Shields Weaver's schedule. I wonder what their numbers would look like then...
Edited by Angels Reloaded 2012-07-25 6:25 AM
|
|
| |
|
Salt Lake Bees
Posts: 996
| Shields' career BABIP is .302. That's a "normal" BABIP for the vast majority of pitchers. Calling him hittable is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 12201
| I love it when people make excuses for a player's performance. You still have to beat the good teams. If we get Shields to help us in the playoff run, he'll be facing Texas frequently, and then if we make the playoffs, potentially the Yankees, Detroit, etc. He'll still have to face good offenses, won't he? |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 7388
Location: Limbo | Tin, how is 2012 worse than 2010? He's having a better year - a better ERA, WAR, FIP, you name it. Calling him an "end-of-rotation pitcher" is very inaccurate, imo.
HaloMagic, well said again. I personally wouldn't want the Angels to make the trade that would be required to get Hamels and then have to pay him $140 million over the next six years; Greinke wouldn't be as bad, but also isn't quite as good.
As for the Angels, I think you undersell Haren a bit. I know, he's been sub-par this year but his track record implies that we should have a little faith that he can turn it around. At his best he's right there with Weaver and Wilson, a 5+ WAR pitcher, and one of the most consistent in baseball. If Haren can sort things out the Angels have a strong front three. Shields would add greatly to that. |
|
| |
|
Salt Lake Bees
Posts: 996
| jsnpritchett - 2012-07-25 6:28 AM
I love it when people make excuses for a player's performance. You still have to beat the good teams. If we get Shields to help us in the playoff run, he'll be facing Texas frequently, and then if we make the playoffs, potentially the Yankees, Detroit, etc. He'll still have to face good offenses, won't he?
The point was, he has had a brutal schedule up to this point. When 60% of your starts are against some of the best offenses in baseball, it's not surprising to see a pitcher end up with inflated numbers.
How did Jered Weaver do in his 4 starts against very good offenses? What were his overall numbers? |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5418
| Angels Reloaded - 2012-07-25 6:28 AM
Shields' career BABIP is .302. That's a "normal" BABIP for the vast majority of pitchers. Calling him hittable is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction.
Knee-jerk to him giving up 9+ hits per 9 innings?
That's called hittable. |
|
| |
|
Salt Lake Bees
Posts: 996
| Here they are, in Weaver's 4 starts against very good offenses: 17.1 IP, 28 H, 14 ER, 3 BB, 10 K...good for a 7.27 ERA.
|
|
| |
|
Salt Lake Bees
Posts: 996
| HaloMagic - 2012-07-25 6:36 AM
Angels Reloaded - 2012-07-25 6:28 AM
Shields' career BABIP is .302. That's a "normal" BABIP for the vast majority of pitchers. Calling him hittable is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction.
Knee-jerk to him giving up 9+ hits per 9 innings?
That's called hittable.
His career BABIP is .302. Most pitchers tend to stay around there. If he's very hittable, then I guess you are saying most pitchers are hittable? |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 7388
Location: Limbo | Weaver against TEX and NYY: 4 starts, 2-1, 17.1 IP, 14 ER, 3 walks, 10 strikeouts, 7.27 ERA
One start he got blown out (8 ER in 3.1 IP vs. Texas), one start he got pulled out due to injury in the 1st inning, one start was poor (5 ER in 7 IP vs NYY) but he won, and one start he was very good (1 ER in 7 IP vs TEX).
Shields against TEX and NYY: 5 starts, 2-2, 29 IP, 22 ER, 10 walks, 22 strikeouts, 6.83 ERA
So basically they've been very similar against the two best teams in the AL: terrible. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 19315
| Shields has pitched well against Texas in his career. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5418
| Most pitchers don't give up 9+/9inn. Not good ones, anyway. Barry Zito doesn't even do that.
Looks like something is wrong with your little calculator. Back to the drawing board on that stat. Because Shields is giving up 9+/9inn and he's been doing it for years. But I guess you think that's all luck? |
|
| |
|
Salt Lake Bees
Posts: 996
| Anyone care to guess what Weaver's numbers would look like if he had Shields' schedule? And what Shields' numbers would look like if he had Weaver's schedule? Weaver's schedule is quite nice, since over 75% of his starts have been against some of the most light-hitting teams in baseball.
Strength of schedule/opponent matters, yet most people tend to overlook that when judging or comparing pitchers. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 19315
| HaloMagic - 2012-07-25 6:45 AM
Most pitchers don't give up 9+/9inn. Not good ones, anyway. Barry Zito doesn't even do that.
Looks like something is wrong with your little calculator. Back to the drawing board on that stat. Because Shields is giving up 9+/9inn and he's been doing it for years. But I guess you think that's all luck?
You act like 9+ hits per 9 innings is terrible. Greg Maddux gave up 8.5 hits per 9 innings over his career. That guy sucked. Dan Haren? 8.7 hits per 9 innings. |
|
| |
|
Salt Lake Bees
Posts: 996
| HaloMagic - 2012-07-25 6:45 AM
Most pitchers don't give up 9+/9inn. Not good ones, anyway. Barry Zito doesn't even do that.
Looks like something is wrong with your little calculator. Back to the drawing board on that stat. Because Shields is giving up 9+/9inn and he's been doing it for years. But I guess you think that's all luck?
Zito's career BABIP is .267, in large part because he played his entire career with Oakland and SF, two stadiums that are brutal on offense. Not to mention his fly-ball tendencies did/do him wonders in those stadiums.
By the way, re: H/9, do you realize that strikeouts play a role in that? A pitcher with a 9 K/9 and .302 BABIP will allow much less hits than a pitcher with a 7.5 K/9 and .302 BABIP. They may both have the same BABIP, but because the pitcher with the less strikeouts is allowing more balls in play, he'll allow more hits. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5418
| Selected Stats vs Specific Teams, 2012:
Baltimore
Shields - 5.68 ERA, 1.42 WHIP
Weaver - 1.52, 0.67
Cleveland
Shields - 5.14, 1.71
Weaver - 0.00, 1.46
Minnesota
Shields - 1.13, 0.87
Weaver - 2.57, 0.66
Shields vs:
Atlanta - 6.00, 1.66
Boston - 4.05, 1.50
Miami - 0.64, 1.21
Philadelphia - 9.00, 1.60
Seattle - 2.63, 1.02
Weaver vs:
Kansas City - 0.00, 0.50
Oakland - 0.61, 0.75
San Diego - 2.57, 0.85
San Francisco - 0.00, 0.66
They've both sucked against NY and TEX. Shields ERA vs TEX is lower but his WHIP is higher and the reverse is true for NY.
In short, to state that Shields has hard a harder schedule sort of implies that he's done well against easy teams but has just had more tough games tilting his yearly stats. That's not true.
Edited by HaloMagic 2012-07-25 7:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 29300
| HaloMagic - 2012-07-25 6:36 AM
Angels Reloaded - 2012-07-25 6:28 AM
Shields' career BABIP is .302. That's a "normal" BABIP for the vast majority of pitchers. Calling him hittable is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction.
Knee-jerk to him giving up 9+ hits per 9 innings?
That's called hittable.
 not particularly |
|
| |
|
Big League Angels
Posts: 1259
| He's better than Santana and Richards/Williams, and that's good enough for me. At least he won't be an automatic loss every time he takes the mound like our current 4/5 starters. |
|
| |
|
Salt Lake Bees
Posts: 996
| Boston has a very good offense and I wouldn't call the Braves a light-hitting team. Compared to other NL teams (teams without a DH), they're doing quite alright. So, of the teams with a not-so-good offense that Shields did poorly against...that's a 6 IP sample against BAL, a 7 IP sample against CLE, and a 5 IP sample against PHI. Some 1-start samples, basically. Any pitcher can have a bad game on any given day against any given team. It still does not change the fact that he has had a brutal schedule up to this point. |
|
| |
|
Big League Angels
Posts: 1151
| Angels Reloaded - 2012-07-25 7:29 AM
Boston has a very good offense and I wouldn't call the Braves a light-hitting team. Compared to other NL teams (teams without a DH), they're doing quite alright. So, of the teams with a not-so-good offense that Shields did poorly against...that's a 6 IP sample against BAL, a 7 IP sample against CLE, and a 5 IP sample against PHI. Some 1-start samples, basically. Any pitcher can have a bad game on any given day against any given team. It still does not change the fact that he has had a brutal schedule up to this point.
Is this your only argument for Shields? I have seen you post the same exact thing, reworded 3 different times in 3 different threads... |
|
| |
|
Salt Lake Bees
Posts: 996
| KMo34 - 2012-07-25 7:32 AM
Angels Reloaded - 2012-07-25 7:29 AM
Boston has a very good offense and I wouldn't call the Braves a light-hitting team. Compared to other NL teams (teams without a DH), they're doing quite alright. So, of the teams with a not-so-good offense that Shields did poorly against...that's a 6 IP sample against BAL, a 7 IP sample against CLE, and a 5 IP sample against PHI. Some 1-start samples, basically. Any pitcher can have a bad game on any given day against any given team. It still does not change the fact that he has had a brutal schedule up to this point.
Is this your only argument for Shields? I have seen you post the same exact thing, reworded 3 different times in 3 different threads...
Two threads, actually.
And what is your argument AGAINST Shields? Besides the typical black-and-white view of his ERA? Do you have anything to add? |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 14135
| tdawg87 - 2012-07-25 6:51 AM
HaloMagic - 2012-07-25 6:45 AM
Most pitchers don't give up 9+/9inn. Not good ones, anyway. Barry Zito doesn't even do that.
Looks like something is wrong with your little calculator. Back to the drawing board on that stat. Because Shields is giving up 9+/9inn and he's been doing it for years. But I guess you think that's all luck?
You act like 9+ hits per 9 innings is terrible. Greg Maddux gave up 8.5 hits per 9 innings over his career. That guy sucked. Dan Haren? 8.7 hits per 9 innings.
Roy Halladay 8.66
Cliff Lee 8.84
Chris Carpenter 8.94
Zach Greinke 9.02
Andy Pettitte 9.34
Mark Buehrle 9.45
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/hits_per_nine_career.shtm...
|
|
| |
|
Salt Lake Bees
Posts: 996
| fan_since79 - 2012-07-25 7:33 AM
tdawg87 - 2012-07-25 6:51 AM
HaloMagic - 2012-07-25 6:45 AM
Most pitchers don't give up 9+/9inn. Not good ones, anyway. Barry Zito doesn't even do that.
Looks like something is wrong with your little calculator. Back to the drawing board on that stat. Because Shields is giving up 9+/9inn and he's been doing it for years. But I guess you think that's all luck?
You act like 9+ hits per 9 innings is terrible. Greg Maddux gave up 8.5 hits per 9 innings over his career. That guy sucked. Dan Haren? 8.7 hits per 9 innings.
Roy Halladay 8.66
Cliff Lee 8.84
Chris Carpenter 8.94
Zach Greinke 9.02
Andy Pettitte 9.34
Mark Buehrle 9.45
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/hits_per_nine_career.shtm...
Terrible pitchers, obviously. Way too many hits and way too hittable! |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 10258
| Angels Reloaded - 2012-07-25 6:56 AM
HaloMagic - 2012-07-25 6:45 AM
Most pitchers don't give up 9+/9inn. Not good ones, anyway. Barry Zito doesn't even do that.
Looks like something is wrong with your little calculator. Back to the drawing board on that stat. Because Shields is giving up 9+/9inn and he's been doing it for years. But I guess you think that's all luck?
Zito's career BABIP is .267, in large part because he played his entire career with Oakland and SF, two stadiums that are brutal on offense. Not to mention his fly-ball tendencies did/do him wonders in those stadiums.
By the way, re: H/9, do you realize that strikeouts play a role in that? A pitcher with a 9 K/9 and .302 BABIP will allow much less hits than a pitcher with a 7.5 K/9 and .302 BABIP. They may both have the same BABIP, but because the pitcher with the less strikeouts is allowing more balls in play, he'll allow more hits.
So let's trade Wells for Zito and move on! |
|
| |
|
Big League Angels
Posts: 1303
Location: Lakers Talk | AngelsFaninGA - 2012-07-25 9:09 AM He's better than Santana and Richards/Williams, and that's good enough for me. At least he won't be an automatic loss every time he takes the mound like our current 4/5 starters. This. And why is Shields being compared to Weaver? We're not going to get a pitcher like Jered Weaver. The key is to get someone better than Santana. |
|
| |
|
Big League Angels
Posts: 1151
| Angels Reloaded - 2012-07-25 7:33 AM
KMo34 - 2012-07-25 7:32 AM
Angels Reloaded - 2012-07-25 7:29 AM
Boston has a very good offense and I wouldn't call the Braves a light-hitting team. Compared to other NL teams (teams without a DH), they're doing quite alright. So, of the teams with a not-so-good offense that Shields did poorly against...that's a 6 IP sample against BAL, a 7 IP sample against CLE, and a 5 IP sample against PHI. Some 1-start samples, basically. Any pitcher can have a bad game on any given day against any given team. It still does not change the fact that he has had a brutal schedule up to this point.
Is this your only argument for Shields? I have seen you post the same exact thing, reworded 3 different times in 3 different threads...
Two threads, actually.
And what is your argument AGAINST Shields? Besides the typical black-and-white view of his ERA? Do you have anything to add?
I'm for adding shields for the right price. He's a good pitcher whose numbers don't tell the whole story and has playoff experience which is key down the stretch. It's just kind of annoying when everybody already heard your argument (a not very good one at that) and you keep stating it, where you that proud of what you came up with?
Edited by KMo34 2012-07-25 7:53 AM
|
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 19315
| Primitive - 2012-07-25 7:44 AM
AngelsFaninGA - 2012-07-25 9:09 AM He's better than Santana and Richards/Williams, and that's good enough for me. At least he won't be an automatic loss every time he takes the mound like our current 4/5 starters. This. And why is Shields being compared to Weaver? We're not going to get a pitcher like Jered Weaver. The key is to get someone better than Santana.
Thank you.
The Angels don't need another "ace" like Greinke or Hamels, as great as they would be. They need a good back end of the rotation guy who will eat up innings. That is exactly what Shields is.
Granted, I'm not saying "trade the farm" for him, but he's definitely a pitcher they should look into. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 14135
| Primitive - 2012-07-25 7:44 AM
AngelsFaninGA - 2012-07-25 9:09 AM He's better than Santana and Richards/Williams, and that's good enough for me. At least he won't be an automatic loss every time he takes the mound like our current 4/5 starters. This. And why is Shields being compared to Weaver? We're not going to get a pitcher like Jered Weaver. The key is to get someone better than Santana.
Last ten starts:
Shields
64.1 innings
86 hits
8 HR
18 BB
58 SO
5.18 ERA
Santana
51.1 innings
61 hits
11 HR
24 BB
30 SO
8.06 ERA
|
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 19315
| Only 11 homeruns? |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5418
| Angels Reloaded - 2012-07-25 7:29 AM
Boston has a very good offense and I wouldn't call the Braves a light-hitting team. Compared to other NL teams (teams without a DH), they're doing quite alright. So, of the teams with a not-so-good offense that Shields did poorly against...that's a 6 IP sample against BAL, a 7 IP sample against CLE, and a 5 IP sample against PHI. Some 1-start samples, basically. Any pitcher can have a bad game on any given day against any given team. It still does not change the fact that he has had a brutal schedule up to this point.
Well first I'll say as I said before, I'm for getting him if the price is right.
You can't take away all his "1-start samples" against light-hitting teams and also discredit his more extensive work against tougher hitting squads because then you've just taken away all his starts. He's been bad against most teams this year. Any pitcher can have a bad game, true. But Shields isn't having sporadic bad games. He's having sporadic good games. Quite different. He's had a tougher schedule, sure. But he's also struggled during the easy parts, too.
Edited by HaloMagic 2012-07-25 8:00 AM
|
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 14135
| tdawg87 - 2012-07-25 7:54 AM
Only 11 homeruns?
Seems like more. He allowed 10 home runs in his first four starts of 2012.
|
|
| |
|
Salt Lake Bees
Posts: 996
| Overall, Shields has a 3.16 ERA (54 IP, 19 ER) against teams (SEA, PHI, MIA, MIN, CLE, BAL) with a below average (or worse) offense. The rest of his starts have come against teams with well above average offenses.
You can cherry-pick certain #s all you want, but there is no doubt that his brutal schedule had a lot to do with his inflated numbers.
Edited by Angels Reloaded 2012-07-25 8:10 AM
|
|
| |
|
Big League Angels
Posts: 1151
| Angels Reloaded - 2012-07-25 8:07 AM
Overall, Shields has a 3.16 ERA (54 IP, 19 ER) against teams (SEA, PHI, MIA, MIN, CLE, BAL) with a below average (or worse) offense. The rest of his starts have come against teams with well above average offenses.
You can cherry-pick certain #s all you want, but there is no doubt that his brutal schedule had a lot to do with his inflated numbers.
Cherry-picking stats is what your WHOLE argument is based on! What are you talking about?? |
|
| |
|
Salt Lake Bees
Posts: 996
| Really? Examples, please?
Do you even know what that word means? |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 50047
| tdawg87 - 2012-07-25 5:11 AM
I think people are just looking at his ERA and assuming he sucks.
I just can't get my hands around acquiring someone who CONSISTENTLY has a mid/high 4.00s road ERA going back to early in his career.
I imagine his road ERA is probably below average in the AL since 2008?
Edited by Angel Oracle 2012-07-25 10:03 AM
|
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 50047
| Primitive - 2012-07-25 7:44 AM
AngelsFaninGA - 2012-07-25 9:09 AM He's better than Santana and Richards/Williams, and that's good enough for me. At least he won't be an automatic loss every time he takes the mound like our current 4/5 starters. This. And why is Shields being compared to Weaver? We're not going to get a pitcher like Jered Weaver. The key is to get someone better than Santana.
He isn't that much better than Santana though, to trade Bourjos and Conger!
What do we do for a catcher in 2013, if Iannetta walks?
Edited by Angel Oracle 2012-07-25 10:05 AM
|
|
| |
|
| James' road starts were against
Detroit
Boston
Texas
NYY - twice
Baltimore
MIami
Philly
Cleveland
Some tough teams and parks on that list.
|
|
| |
|
| Angel Oracle - 2012-07-25 10:02 AM Primitive - 2012-07-25 7:44 AM AngelsFaninGA - 2012-07-25 9:09 AM He's better than Santana and Richards/Williams, and that's good enough for me. At least he won't be an automatic loss every time he takes the mound like our current 4/5 starters. This. And why is Shields being compared to Weaver? We're not going to get a pitcher like Jered Weaver. The key is to get someone better than Santana. He isn't that much better than Santana though, to trade Bourjos and Conger! What do we do for a catcher in 2013, if Iannetta walks? Sign Napoli and Mathis |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 50047
| Heck, compared to 2012, I'd take those two. That's how bad it's been without Iannetta.
Edited by Angel Oracle 2012-07-25 10:20 AM
|
|
| |
|
All-Star
Posts: 3021
| Angel Oracle - 2012-07-25 10:01 AM
tdawg87 - 2012-07-25 5:11 AM
I think people are just looking at his ERA and assuming he sucks.
I just can't get my hands around acquiring someone who CONSISTENTLY has a mid/high 4.00s road ERA going back to early in his career.
I imagine his road ERA is probably below average in the AL since 2008?
Stop judging pitchers based on ERA.
That's like judging hitters based on batting average. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 9978
Location: Fullerton,CA | Shields sucks |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 50047
| rage1973 - 2012-07-25 10:21 AM
Angel Oracle - 2012-07-25 10:01 AM
tdawg87 - 2012-07-25 5:11 AM
I think people are just looking at his ERA and assuming he sucks.
I just can't get my hands around acquiring someone who CONSISTENTLY has a mid/high 4.00s road ERA going back to early in his career.
I imagine his road ERA is probably below average in the AL since 2008?
Stop judging pitchers based on ERA.
That's like judging hitters based on batting average.
True if over smaller periods of time.
But can you truly say that someone with that high of a road ERA since 2008 is a victim of something, other than making bad pitches on the road far too often?
How many pitchers have had a bad road ERA for FIVE straight years, and still been considered a solid pitcher?
Edited by Angel Oracle 2012-07-25 10:27 AM
|
|
| |
Stop with the "Shields sucks" nonsense...
