Matt Garza, Savior?

[Pickles]

Garza is 29 and Guthrie is 33.

My argument has never been about going forward. But rather a comparison for what has come before.

Garza numbers are trending upward in comparison to his career averag.

Except for the fact that he's in the worst season of his career as we speak this is entirely true.

He K's more than Guthrie,

This is true.

walks fewer

This is patently false.

has a lower career FIP

Guthrie has shown a consistent ability to "outpitch" his FIP for half a decade now.

and most imortantly gives up fewer HR's.

Over the last 5 years he's given up .2 homers per 9 less than Guthrie pitching in far more friendly confines- Tampa and the NL Central vs. OPACY. This isn't some great gap.

Garza is in the middle of his prime.

Again, other than being in the midst of his worst season as a MLer since his debut, this is true.

Guthrie's best season would barely equal Garza's career average season, if at all

.

Guthrie's 07 and 08 are better seasons than Garaza's ever put up.

No oe is contending Garza is a TOR and would be worth giving up Bundy and/or Machado. He would be a big upgrade for our current rotation. About as good as Chen iIMO. Be nice to have 2 Chens.

And no one is saying that Garza doesn't upgrade our rotation. That doesn't make him the difference maker some erroneously see him as.

[Pickles]

Wow...Jeremy Guthrie? Really??? I understand you think people overestimate Garza's worth, but I think you underestimate his value even more.

As I've said, and provided the numbers, yes. Look at it. The numbers don't lie.

[Va Beach O's fan]

If someone wants to make boorish, insulting posts I'll respond in kind. Maybe that isn't particularly noble of me, but I'm ok w that.

Ha ha you really can't be serious can you??

I'm not going to get into a tit for tat with a child (that's clearly what you are right?) who does nothing but hurl insults at anyone he disagrees with, especially when he is wrong in the first place.

You calling someone else boorish and insulting.....fantastic.

[Va Beach O's fan]

Guthrie's 07 and 08 are better seasons than Garaza's ever put up.

to steal your thunder, patently false!

Last year, in Chicago, was garza's best season of his career. It was a better year than Guthrie has ever had. You are wrong, now will you respond without personal attacks and try and have an adult conversation or should I just not bother?

[crissfan172]

to steal your thunder' date=' patently false!

Last year, in Chicago, was garza's best season of his career. It was a better year than Guthrie has ever had. You are wrong, now will you respond without personal attacks and try and have an adult conversation or should I just not bother?[/quote']

Uh...that's not true at all. A 3.32 ERA in the NL Central is not better than a 3.70 or a 3.63 ERA in the AL East. Point in case, Guthrie's ERA+'s for those seasons were 125 and 122. Garza's last year was 118.

[Va Beach O's fan]

Uh...that's not true at all. A 3.32 ERA in the NL Central is not better than a 3.70 or a 3.63 ERA in the AL East. Point in case, Guthrie's ERA+'s for those seasons were 125 and 122. Garza's last year was 118.

it's not just the better era. He struck out 74 more batters than Guthrie did in either of those seasons, he gave up only 14 home runs to guthries 23/24, he pitched more innings than Guthrie did in either season and as I said, the era was significantly lower.

Yes, pitching in the NL is a little bit easier, but remember, garza is also just now entering his prime.

His 1.06 whip this year is one of the better in all of baseball right now.

Besides, the whole argument is absurd. Which one of you WOULDNT want a slightly better 2007-08 Jeremy Guthrie with a better strikeout % back on this current team for a few prospects, provided they aren't our TOP, TOP guys?

I'm still kind of surprised this is even a debate.

[Hooded Viper]

it's not just the better era. He struck out 74 more batters than Guthrie did in either of those seasons' date=' he gave up only 14 home runs to guthries 23/24, he pitched more innings than Guthrie did in either season and as I said, the era was significantly lower.

Yes, pitching in the NL is a little bit easier, but remember, garza is also just now entering his prime.

His 1.06 whip this year is one of the better in all of baseball right now.

Besides, the whole argument is absurd. Which one of you WOULDNT want a slightly better 2007-08 Jeremy Guthrie with a better strikeout % back on this current team for a few prospects, provided they aren't our TOP, TOP guys?

I'm still kind of surprised this is even a debate.[/quote']

What you can't grasp is that it isnt about getting Garza that most of us are worried about, it's the cost. He will cost a lot and he simply isn't going to be worth it!

[Va Beach O's fan]

And I disagree he won't be worth it as long as it isn't for machado and bundy.

If they want either of them then I agree, not interested.

But a guy like school or hoes or a struggling pitcher like matusz? Screw it, send then and take a chance. There is just as much of a chance that schoop never becomes more than a AAAA hitter anyways. Could he blow up and become a stud? Sure, I guess.

But garza is a proven commodity in the majors and would be a very valuable add on to a team that is currently in a wild card spot. We may still fall out of contention WITH garza, but we DEFINITELY will without him.

I'm willing to take a chance on a guy like garza, who could be reinvigorated by joining a potential wild card team and getting the hell out of Chicago. Just an idle thought.

[Crazysilver03]

If I could get Garza for some combination of one of Schoop/Avery, Matusz/Arrieta/Tillman, and Hoes/Flaherty or a PTBNL. I'd do it. Is tha giving up our top prospects and mortgaging the future?

I dont know how these two can be considered in the same category. Schoop has a much higher upside than Avery.

[El Gordo]

Which SP would you want?

Garza's career average year:

K/9-7.57

BB/9-3.05

K/BB-2.48

HR/9-1.00

ERA-3.85

FIP-3.98

WHIP-1.29

or Guthrie's best year:

K/9-6.31

BB/9-2.41

K/BB 2.07

HR/9-1.18

ERA-3.70

FIP-4.18

WHIP-1.21

As to whether or not this is Garza's worst season, I guess it depends on what you value. His K/9 is up from CA 7.57 to 8.43; BB/9 down from CA 3.05 to 2.45; K/BB up from CA 2.48 to 3.43; and WHIP down from CA 1.29 to 1.09. If ERA is more important then this is indeed his worst season at 4.06. His HR/9 has also increased from a CA 1.00 to 1.28.

[Greg]

http://msn.foxsports.com/video/MLB?vid=3a566a53-7e3d-4695-b5bc-ef57e76f9340

Said the O's are still after matt

[Va Beach O's fan]

Which SP would you want?

Garza's career average year:

K/9-7.57

BB/9-3.05

K/BB-2.48

HR/9-1.00

ERA-3.85

FIP-3.98

WHIP-1.29

or Guthrie's best year:

K/9-6.31

BB/9-2.41

K/BB 2.07

HR/9-1.18

ERA-3.70

FIP-4.18

WHIP-1.21

And there you have it. And remember, that was Guthrie at his prime. But again, the main point was, he compared two completely different TYPES of pitchers and just said "they are very similar" because they had a era+ in the same neighborhood. Garza has been the better pitcher over his career and will be a very good pitcher going forward as he is just now entering his prime.

[El Gordo]

I dont know how these two can be considered in the same category. Schoop has a much higher upside than Avery.

Schoop is at AA and who knows what he will be. Avery is close to ML ready and he looks pretty promising. Depends on what you're looking for. I like Avery.

[El Gordo]

What you can't grasp is that it isnt about getting Garza that most of us are worried about, it's the cost. He will cost a lot and he simply isn't going to be worth it!

I don't know why anyone would be worried. DD has said repeatedly he is not giving up his top prospects.

[Pickles]

So to summarize:

Two pitchers, who through the last 4 and 5 years respectively, or all their respective time as major league starters, who have thrown an almost identical number of innings, have ERA+ within 2% of each other, have WHIPs within 0.02 of each other, have H/9, HR/9, when adjusted for context, that are highly comparable, have nothing at all in common w each other. Nothing at all.

The reasons given to support this are as follows:

One strikes out 2 more per 9 than the other.

I put this first because it's the only thing with any merit provided.

The rest are all fallacies, including:

Innings pitched and ERA+ are "fabricated" numbers.

One pitcher is entering his prime, even though he has the worst ERA+ of his career since his debut.

One pitcher's best season is not even as good as the other pitchers average, when in fact, the other pitcher has produced two seasons of ERA+ that exceed anything the other pitcher has ever produced.

One pitcher walks less than the other pitcher, when, in fact, the latter pitcher has consistently walked less batters.

Yes, getting outs and keeping runs off the board are not the primary means by which we should evaluate a pitcher. No, rather more important, is how he gets those outs, and how he allows those runs. Very interesting analysis.