BA's Jim Callis perspective on Bedard

[TonySoprano]

No, what was ridiculous was his suggestion that he had names to name.

I just called him on his BS.

He never said that he did. Go back to what I first said about generic references (national league executive) in the press. Have the last word.

[Fairfax Bird]

Here is Bedard, IMO.

* Outstanding when he's on his game.

* Terrific breaking pitch complemented by a fastball with enough gas that you have to be ready for it, making the breaking pitch that much better.

* Susceptible to running up pitch counts by nibbling more than attacking. This seems to be much improved in 2007.

* Susceptible to runs of 6, 8, 10 (or more) starts where he just isn't on his game, and is average at best. He didn't have one of these in 2007, but he has every other year.

* Susceptible to missing time with injuries. This struck again in 2007.

These various "susceptibles" have held him back in the past. If you think he's over them, then a sky-high evaluation is understandable, and terms like "bonafide ace" are warranted.

I'm apparently more skeptical than most that these various issues are dead and gone.

Is Zambrano a "bonafide ace?" Just wondering because he is prone to many of these things as well. He hasn't had the injury bug, but just about all else applies to him.

BTW, enough gas that you have to be ready for it does not apply to Bedard. He throws 91-94. He has more than enough gas.

[davearm]

Is Zambrano a "bonafide ace?"

Zambrano has one fewer questionmarks. He's never been hurt.

He's also got a longer and more distinguished track record.

That said Zabrano is certainly not without faults. Control/walks is the biggest, by far.

"Bonafide ace" is highly subjective, but Zambrano is closer to it than Bedard IMO.

[Fairfax Bird]

Zambrano has one fewer questionmarks. He's never been hurt.

He's also got a longer and more distinguished track record.

That said Zabrano is certainly not without faults. Control/walks is the biggest, by far.

"Bonafide ace" is highly subjective, but Zambrano is closer to it than Bedard IMO.

Well, I agree his track record is much better and he certainly is durable. They are trending in different directions though, I wonder, who will have the better year next year.

My money is on Bedard.

[Sports Guy]

Well, I agree his track record is much better and he certainly is durable. They are trending in different directions though, I wonder, who will have the better year next year.

My money is on Bedard.

Of course, there is also the immense difference between the 2 leagues and divisions but whatever...It isn't worth discussing with him.

[Fairfax Bird]

Of course, there is also the immense difference between the 2 leagues and divisions but whatever...It isn't worth discussing with him.

Yeah, I don't want to get into the differences in the division, cause technically the fact that the Orioles play the Red Sox and Yankees 38 times a season doesn't make a difference.

Bottom line, if I had a choice of the two I would take Bedard and I will call him a bonafide ace.

[davearm]

Well it should be no surprise that O's fans would take the glass-half-full view that Bedard has gotten over his "susceptibles", while an outsider like me would take the glass-half-empty view that we haven't see the last of these issues.

Only time will tell who's right. :thumbsup:

[TonySoprano]

I was trying to avoid bringing Zambrano into the conversation, but since he's who you know best, let me ask you this.

Is Carlos Zambrano a "bonafide ace"?

How does he compare to Bedard using the criteria you set forth for Bedard?

I'm having deja vu all over again. Check out his answer above

[Sports Guy]

I was trying to avoid bringing Zambrano into the conversation, but since he's who you know best, let me ask you this.

Is Carlos Zambrano a "bonafide ace"?

How does he compare to Bedard using the criteria you set forth for Bedard?

Dave doesn't usae the same criteria you do...He doesn't care much about the predictive stats...So, it isn't worth it to you to get invovled in this because you 2 will just go back and forth for 10-15 posts and solve nothing.

[Sports Guy]

Thanks, but I want him to specifically address each of these criteria, which he does not do in the post you referenced:

Suffice to say that I'm prepared to refute his argument.

SG, I'm well aware that he doesn't use the predictive stats, therefore I wasn't going to bring them into the discussion.

Oh ok...I see where you are going with this.

Bottom line between Zambrano and Bedard is that Bedard is better now and his stats would show you him to be better in the future....However, if you look at their careers as a whole, Zambrano has been the better pitcher.

[davearm]

Dave doesn't usae the same criteria you do...He doesn't care much about the predictive stats...So, it isn't worth it to you to get invovled in this because you 2 will just go back and forth for 10-15 posts and solve nothing.

You couldn't be more wrong.

I like to use predictive stats. To predict.

I don't like to use predictive stats to explain the past.

[davearm]

Thanks, but I want him to specifically address each of these criteria, which he does not do in the post you referenced:

Suffice to say that I'm prepared to refute his argument.

SG, I'm well aware that he doesn't use the predictive stats, therefore I wasn't going to bring them into the discussion.

Zambrano doesn't nibble. He just can't throw strikes at times. The net result on pitch counts is the same though.

Zambrano was definitely very streaky this year -- much moreso than in the past.

Injury has not ever been an issue.

Hope this helps.

[Sports Guy]

Okay, I'll tell you where I was going with the Bedard/Zambrano comp. One of the knocks against Bedard has been that he nibbles too much on 0-2. This has always been a valid concern. There also used to be a concern that he doesn't throw enough strikes overall. The following numbers are the % of overall pitches thrown by Bedard and Zambrano that were strikes over the last three seasons (the last line is overall for the 3 years):

63.2% - 62.4%

64.6% - 59.9%

64.2% - 61.3%

64.1% - 61.2%

Bedard has a pretty clear advantage.

How about nibbling on 0-2 pitches? There are two ways I'll do this. The first is to compare them to each other on the % of 0-2 pitches that are strikes. The second is to compare that % to the % of all non-0-2 pitches that are strikes.

This is how each rates in 0-2 Strike%:

48.1% - 56.8%

59.3% - 54.8%

55.8% - 53.5%

55.1% - 55.1%

So they have the same exact % over the last three seasons combined. At least Bedard isn't trending downward. If anything, Bedard is getting better at this (his % was actually close to 59% last year prior to his injury). If I'm a Cubs fan I'd be worried that Zambrano is nibbling more now than he did in the past.

0-2		non 0-2			EB	CZ	EB	CZ	EB	CZ05	48.1%	56.8%	0.642	0.627	74.9%	90.6%06	59.3%	54.8%	0.650	0.602	91.2%	91.1%07	55.8%	53.5%	0.650	0.618	85.9%	86.6%55.1%	55.1%	0.648	0.615	85.1%	89.5%

The above chart compares how each has done in 0-2 and non-0-2 situations. The last column for each is the 0-2% divided by the non-0-2%. So overall Zambrano has been better in 0-2 pitches compared to all other ptiches, but he is also trending downward. For the record, looking only at the last two seasons, Zambrano's final column % is 88.7% versus 88.5% for Bedard.

Bottom line (to me at least), if Bedard has issues with nibbling on 0-2 then Zambrano certain does as well.

As for the injury thing. I wouldn't exactly be comfortable with the thought of Zambrano being a durable pitcher for the remaining years of his career if I were a Cubs fan.

If Zambrano is considered to be a "bonafide ace" going into next season, then Erik Bedard should certainly be considered one as well. And if neither meets the definition, then the list of those who do meet is an extemely short list.

Bedard nibbled in the past but i certainly don't think he did much of it this year.

[davearm]

Throwing a ball on 0-2 is hardly evidence of nibbling. That entire analysis relies on a flawed premise.

[Sports Guy]

The knock on Bedard is that he nibbles too much on 0-2, not that he nibbles too much on other pitchers, so the analysis most definitely is not flawed.

I wonder how many Bedard starts Dave has seen?