Some stuff

[Birds08]

Not sure its been mentioned, but lets not forget that NL pitchers get a free out, while AL pitchers have to face DHs who are usually (except on the Orioles) top notch hitters.

[Rob H]

Every stat other than wins and games started was in favor of Bedard. If you honestly think Beckett gave his team a better chance to win than Bedard each time out there (lets assume they were both on the same team, because obviously Bostons offense would always give them the advantage), then I don't see the point of discussing this any further because I think you off base.

No, not every other stat.

Just to make things easy, let's look at ERA+. It's not a perfect metric, but it's simply ERA, adjusted for ballpark and league. Since Bedard and Beckett are both in the same league, the only thing it needs to adjust for is ballpark. 100 is the baseline for an average pitcher. The higher the number, the better.

Bedard has an ERA+ of 146... which is a sensational number.

Beckett has an ERA+ of 145... which is, again, a sensational number.

Even paying no attention whatsoever to the offense behind them, Beckett and Bedard were essentially the exact same pitcher last season in terms of effectiveness. And guess what? Beckett was healthier... which made him more valuable to his team.

On a per-start basis, Bedard was only very slightly better... just simply not good enough to make up for the difference in how many innings they went out there and threw.

Oh, and that VORP list completely discounts the offense behind a pitcher as well. It does adjust for ballpark, though.

[Lucky Jim]

I think the dissenting posters have strong points - and for me, the questions about durability were enough to make me question the extension (I would've liked him to stay and turn into a late-blooming Koufax, but wasn't convinced it would happen.)

And VORP brings up an interesting point. Yes, it's a counting stat. And yet, injuries mean sub-optimal production from the #1 spot in the rotation...which lead to the question (this is just a hypothetical and the numbers just a thinking-through):

Do we consider a pitcher (say Harang) who, in a vacuum, gives his team a 60% likelihood of winning over 34 starts a year over a guy like Bedard who gives the team an 70% chance of winning over 30 starts a year.

From a purely number-crunching standpoint, Harang would lead to a likelihood of about 20.5 wins per season in games started, Bedard would be at 21.

But the real question is - and again, don't put stock in those numbers, they were just the method I used of framing the question in my head - how important is dominance in limited innings relative to quality over more extensive innings. Obviously, there's a tipping point where the number of innings really starts to matter. But when we're dealing with "an extra" 18 innings, how much does it matter? Because Bedard was far more "dominant" than the pitchers mentioned ahead of him in VORP (nearly all of them.)

Further, many of the pitchers listed as being chosen over Bedard are the beneficiaries of pitcher-friendly parks and poor divisions. Again, Bedard's dominance has come in a (perhaps neutral) less pitcher-friendly park against a much more daunting division.

If you normalize for these discrepancies, it's hard to take a number of those pitchers over Bedard.

But the injuries hurt. They really do. The question is, do they hurt enough to outweigh the extreme dominance that Bedard (and very few others) can bring over his 200 innings?

[awalt]

It's time to do to the Dodgers the same thing MacPhail did to the Angels this week. Everybody thought the Angels would be the winner in the Tejada trade talks but......Houston stepped forward and made the best offer.

In the McPhail interview last night, he said that from the winter meetings Houston was really the only team interested in just Tejada. Once McPhail figured out he could get a lot more by NOT packaging guys together, despite what the media thought Houston was in the lead.

[Pre-Highlanders]

But the injuries hurt. They really do.

When we're trying to ascertain past value of pitchers, then quantity of performance obviously matters, and the injuries obviously hurt. But if we're trying to predict who will provide more value in the future, it seems to me that an injury history only matters to the extent that it make future injuries more likely. I am no expert on injuries, but remember reading both here and in the mainstream press that the kinds of arm injuries Bedard has suffered are not the sort that would generally cause one to increase his probability of suffering an injury in the future.

Beckett's blister problems may or may not be more likely to recur than Bedard's arm problems. If they are, it would be one factor that would tilt the balance in Bedard's favor.

[Lucky Jim]

When we're trying to ascertain past value of pitchers, then quantity of performance obviously matters, and the injuries obviously hurt. But if we're trying to predict who will provide more value in the future, it seems to me that an injury history only matters to the extent that it make future injuries more likely. I am no expert on injuries, but remember reading both here and in the mainstream press that the kinds of arm injuries Bedard has suffered are not the sort that would generally cause one to increase his probability of suffering an injury in the future.

Beckett's blister problems may or may not be more likely to recur than Bedard's arm problems. If they are, it would be one factor that would tilt the balance in Bedard's favor.

You're absolutely right. And my discounting for injury probability is based more on anecdotal evidence or "general sense" than it is anything else. I don't think Bedard's an injury risk in the "lose a season" kind of way. He's an injury risk in the "miss a handful of starts every year" kind of way. Combine this with the fact that he goes deep in counts (though he's getting better at this) and doesn't pitch a boatload of innings, and it's something worth noting.

Not dispositive of his value, of course. Just worth noting.

[srh523]

OK OK OK Erik Bedard only pitched 182 innnings last year we all know that but lets talk about the innings he did pitch and not VORP!

#4 in ML K just 19 behind Peavy who threw 41 more innings!

#9 in Ml ERA

#1 in ML k/9

#10 in ML K/BB

#3 in ML in Whip

#3 in ML opp OPS

#3 in ML opp BA

and Sabermetric has him as the #3 starter in all the ML last year.

So I guess show where in there you could prove that he isnt one of the top ten starters in the ML and none of that is league or park adjusted.

[Lucky Jim]

OK OK OK Erik Bedard only pitched 182 innnings last year we all know that but lets talk about the innings he did pitch and not VORP!

#4 in ML K just 19 behind Peavy who threw 41 more innings!

#9 in Ml ERA

#1 in ML k/9

#10 in ML K/BB

#3 in ML in Whip

#3 in ML opp OPS

#3 in ML opp BA

and Sabermetric has him as the #3 starter in all the ML last year.

So I guess show where in there you could prove that he isnt one of the top ten starters in the ML and none of that is league or park adjusted.

Well, that was MY point earlier, and I'm a Bedard fan. The question is: which has more value, dominance over limited innings or being very good over more innings. I don't know the answer. But it's a legitimate question.

Otherwise, we'd be paying dominant relievers starter money.

[roncey10]

OK OK OK Erik Bedard only pitched 182 innnings last year we all know that but lets talk about the innings he did pitch and not VORP!

#4 in ML K just 19 behind Peavy who threw 41 more innings!

#9 in Ml ERA

#1 in ML k/9

#10 in ML K/BB

#3 in ML in Whip

#3 in ML opp OPS

#3 in ML opp BA

and Sabermetric has him as the #3 starter in all the ML last year.

So I guess show where in there you could prove that he isnt one of the top ten starters in the ML and none of that is league or park adjusted.

Those are the many reasons why I, more than some Dodgers fans would like to add Bedard.

However, too many GMs are still old school and overvalue innings pitched as a means to evaluate talent. Look at the Zito contract, he is a far cry from the pitcher he was three or four years ago, but he got the big contract because he does not get hurt and piles up the innings...

Silva will be another overpaid pitcher this off season because he takes the ball.

[srh523]

Well, that was MY point earlier, and I'm a Bedard fan. The question is: which has more value, dominance over limited innings or being very good over more innings. I don't know the answer. But it's a legitimate question.

Otherwise, we'd be paying dominant relievers starter money.

I guess you have to define limited innings? Is less then 200 limited innings? 190? 180?

I used a min. of 160 innings for those stats.

[Lucky Jim]

I guess you have to define limited innings? Is less then 200 limited innings? 190? 180?

I used a min. of 160 innings for those stats.

I'm talking the difference between a guy who goes 220 at slightly less dominant numbers and a guy who goes 190, for instance.

That's 30 sub-optimal innings from the second pitcher.

[srh523]

I'm talking the difference between a guy who goes 220 at slightly less dominant numbers and a guy who goes 190, for instance.

That's 30 sub-optimal innings from the second pitcher.

Well lets look at it this way 38 pitchers pitched 200+ innings in 2007 I will name a few who clearly dont have near the value of Bedard:

Wainwright

Gorzelanny

Glavine

Lilly

Suppan

Willis

Dice-K

L. Hernandez

Meche

Pettite

Francis

Shields

Arroyo

Garland

Snell

Silva

and of course DCab

so I gotta say no because an extra 40 innings from these guys isnt better then the 180 (at worst) you get from Bedard. If the O's would have had any chance at winning anything this year I also dont think Bedard would have been shut down this year. They had no reason to send him out there in any type of pain.

[Lucky Jim]

Well lets look at it this way 38 pitchers pitched 200+ innings in 2007 I will name a few who clearly dont have near the value of Bedard:

Wainwright

Gorzelanny

Glavine

Lilly

Suppan

Willis

Dice-K

L. Hernandez

Meche

Pettite

Francis

Shields

Arroyo

Garland

Snell

Silva

and of course DCab

so I gotta say no because an extra 40 innings from these guys isnt better then the 180 (at worst) you get from Bedard. If the O's would have had any chance at winning anything this year I also dont think Bedard would have been shut down this year. They had no reason to send him out there in any type of pain.

The innings alone don't do it, of course.

[Pre-Highlanders]

Wouldn't the standard way to compute the difference in value be to compare Bedard's projected innings + the alternative for the innings missed to the other players total # of innings?

Doing it abstractly, you'd use some baseline replacement pitcher metric. Doing it for a specific team, you'd compare to the players most likely to put in the extra innings. A guy with 220 inning potential is a lot more valuable on a team with a terrible 6th starter/bullpen than to one who's 6th starter could be a 3rd or 4th most places. Obviously, 300 innings of Sabathia like performance will be worth more than 12 innings of vintage Pedro. But running the numbers should do a much better of telling us about 200 innings of Sabathia vs. 150 of Pedro.

Also, if a team has its sights set on the postseason, the dominance needs to be weighed more heavily than the innings (except, of course, if there is a legit fear the dominant started will be injured for the playoffs), because dominant starting pitching is so central to having good odds of winning in the playoffs.

My guess is that Bedard would be particularly valuable to the Dodgers because they are deep in decent pitching to augment him in the regular season, and have significant postseason ambitions. They also can foresee going up against a very formidable Padres rotation a lot, and having a 1-2 to match up with theirs might make a big difference in who gets what postseason slot.

Writing this post is making me think I need to get a BP subscription and take out my calculator! Until then, do any of you quantitative types here have some work bearing on this that you can copy and paste into this thread?

[srh523]

Wouldn't the standard way to compute the difference in value be to compare Bedard's projected innings + the alternative for the innings missed to the other players total # of innings?

Doing it abstractly, you'd use some baseline replacement pitcher metric. Doing it for a specific team, you'd compare to the players most likely to put in the extra innings. A guy with 220 inning potential is a lot more valuable on a team with a terrible 6th starter/bullpen than to one who's 6th starter could be a 3rd or 4th most places. Obviously, 300 innings of Sabathia like performance will be worth more than 12 innings of vintage Pedro. But running the numbers should do a much better of telling us about 200 innings of Sabathia vs. 150 of Pedro.

Also, if a team has its sights set on the postseason, the dominance needs to be weighed more heavily than the innings (except, of course, if there is a legit fear the dominant started will be injured for the playoffs), because dominant starting pitching is so central to having good odds of winning in the playoffs.

My guess is that Bedard would be particularly valuable to the Dodgers because they are deep in decent pitching to augment him in the regular season, and have significant postseason ambitions. They also can foresee going up against a very formidable Padres rotation a lot, and having a 1-2 to match up with theirs might make a big difference in who gets what postseason slot.

Writing this post is making me think I need to get a BP subscription and take out my calculator! Until then, do any of you quantitative types here have some work bearing on this that you can copy and paste into this thread?

I think bullpens come into play here as well. Do you feel comfortable taking your pitcher out in the 6th or 7th with a lead or does he need to pitch till the 8th or 9th?

Bedard seems to have been handled with care ever since his TJ surgury almost always on pitch counts and almost always being taken out at 100 or so pitches. If he had any kind of bullpen behind him or would have went ahead and pitched alot of 8th innings he certainly would have had a much better record.