Author Topic: Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks  (Read 447 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4313
  • #EatFace
Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks
« Topic Start: January 25, 2011, 08:00:35 PM »
Surprised this wasn't posted earlier.

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/cactus/articles/2011/01/24/20110124arizona-diamondbacks-acquire-armando-galarraga.html

Galarraga was traded to the D-backs for pitchers Kevin Eichhorn and Ryan Robowski, aka trash.  This seems like a pretty good deal for the Diamondbacks as Galarraga is a decent bottom-of-the-rotation starter with upside and they gave up nothing for him.

Offline Potomac Cannons

  • Posts: 3279
Re: Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks
« Reply #1: January 25, 2011, 08:03:52 PM »
One below average year and one game that almost was.  That's it.  The rest has been replacement level.  At some point he's just a failed 29-year-old SP and has no upside at all.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37010
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks
« Reply #2: January 25, 2011, 08:16:41 PM »
One below average year and one game that almost was.  That's it.  The rest has been replacement level.  At some point he's just a failed 29-year-old SP and has no upside at all.

Well he has upside as an incredible gracious human being.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4313
  • #EatFace
Re: Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks
« Reply #3: January 25, 2011, 08:54:23 PM »
One below average year and one game that almost was.  That's it.  The rest has been replacement level.  At some point he's just a failed 29-year-old SP and has no upside at all.
At 29 he is not a geezer by any stretch and I see upside in a guy who threw a 28-out perfect game and had a few other impressive outings on the year.  For Galarraga the issue seems to be that elusive consistency that so many pitchers seem to struggle with but I guarantee there are at least a couple competent major league managers that believe they can channel good Armando much more often than bad Armando.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 13890
  • Lerners = Bluth family
Re: Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks
« Reply #4: January 25, 2011, 11:07:49 PM »
Well he has upside as an incredible gracious human being.

That counts for a lot! /sarcasm

He'll make for a fine fifth starter.  And replacement level my ass.  He had a very nice season in '08.

Online Vega

  • Posts: 3915
Re: Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks
« Reply #5: January 25, 2011, 11:13:34 PM »
Would you rather have Duke or Galarraga as your fifth starter?

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4313
  • #EatFace
Re: Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks
« Reply #6: January 25, 2011, 11:29:08 PM »
Would you rather have Duke or Galarraga as your fifth starter?
I'll take Galarraga any day but mainly because Duke seems to have a struggle with confidence that is becoming more and more painfully obviously impossible to overcome.

Offline Potomac Cannons

  • Posts: 3279
Re: Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks
« Reply #7: January 25, 2011, 11:41:58 PM »
That counts for a lot! /sarcasm

He'll make for a fine fifth starter.  And replacement level my ass.  He had a very nice season in '08.

1.6 fWAR.  That's it.  Two other seasons combined 1.1 and he's already 29.  Barely above replacement level his last two seasons.

Offline Potomac Cannons

  • Posts: 3279
Re: Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks
« Reply #8: January 25, 2011, 11:42:06 PM »
Would you rather have Duke or Galarraga as your fifth starter?

Neither, but Duke has 4 seasons better than Galarraga's best season.  Duke is also 15 months younger than Galarraga.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17127
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks
« Reply #9: January 26, 2011, 08:47:28 AM »
1.6 fWAR.  That's it.  Two other seasons combined 1.1 and he's already 29.  Barely above replacement level his last two seasons.
While I'm a big fan of Fangraphs, I'm not so wild about relying on pitching WAR. They admit that pitching WAR is a bit shaky.  I forget if it is Sean Smith who has an alternative WAR for pitching. I prefer using a mix of rates, like FIP, xFIP, ERA+, and some of the other tERA that normalize batted ball, and then look at innings pitched.  When I post, I try to put up at least two rate measures and IP if I can when evaluating a player, or WAR and another measure.

Galarraga's big down side is he gives up too much contact and walks 3+ batters per 9.  Last year, he became flyball prone.  Maybe he was being smart and pitching to Comerica.  He had a big drop in his HR/FB.  I have not looked at the game log from his 28 out perfecto, but I'd be curious about whether there were a lot of flies that stayed in the ballpark.  He's not better than Lannan, and you could argue that Stammen with a better strand percentage would be a better pitcher (and at this point Blue, SSB and few others are rolling their eyes, but that is more of an indication how mediocre Galarraga is than an expectation for a Stammen perfect game and slot in the rotation.)

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4313
  • #EatFace
Re: Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks
« Reply #10: January 26, 2011, 12:21:43 PM »
While I'm a big fan of Fangraphs, I'm not so wild about relying on pitching WAR. They admit that pitching WAR is a bit shaky.  I forget if it is Sean Smith who has an alternative WAR for pitching. I prefer using a mix of rates, like FIP, xFIP, ERA+, and some of the other tERA that normalize batted ball, and then look at innings pitched.  When I post, I try to put up at least two rate measures and IP if I can when evaluating a player, or WAR and another measure.

Galarraga's big down side is he gives up too much contact and walks 3+ batters per 9.  Last year, he became flyball prone.  Maybe he was being smart and pitching to Comerica.  He had a big drop in his HR/FB.  I have not looked at the game log from his 28 out perfecto, but I'd be curious about whether there were a lot of flies that stayed in the ballpark.  He's not better than Lannan, and you could argue that Stammen with a better strand percentage would be a better pitcher (and at this point Blue, SSB and few others are rolling their eyes, but that is more of an indication how mediocre Galarraga is than an expectation for a Stammen perfect game and slot in the rotation.)
According to BR this is how it breaks down:
Groundouts: 15 (counting the one that should have been an out but was called wrong, officially 14 with a single)
Flyball outs: 5 (3 were deep)
Lineouts: 4 (2 were deep)
Strikeouts: 3 (2 swinging)
Foulouts: 1

For comparison here are the breakdowns for Halladay and Braden as well:

Halladay
Groundouts: 8
Flyball outs: 6 (2 deep, 2 pop)
Lineouts: 2 (both deep)
Strikeouts: 11 (5 swinging)

Braden
Groundouts: 7
Flyball outs: 6 (3 deep)
Lineouts: 5 (1 deep)
Strikeouts: 6 (2 looking)
Foulouts: 3

Not that it proves a whole lot about Galarraga but the numbers in his perfect game would depict a much more focused player who attacked with a plan versus Braden who seemed to be all over the place.  Halladay obviously had the most impressive perfect game with more Ks than both Galarraga and Braden combined.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17127
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks
« Reply #11: January 26, 2011, 01:20:26 PM »
It all points to a bit of the randomness of no hitters and perfect games.  24 balls in play and none falling is crazy.  Also, groundballs are actually more likely to go for hits than flies that stay in the park (the down side of flies is that 10+% typically go for homers).  The liners are something like 70+% hits.  Looking at that mix of contact, it does not look as dominant as say Pedro's 1 hitter v. the NYY in one of his peak years where he had 17 Ks and only let up a solo to Chili Davis.  

Online blue911

  • Posts: 16214
Re: Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks
« Reply #12: January 26, 2011, 01:33:39 PM »
It all points to a bit of the randomness of no hitters and perfect games.  24 balls in play and none falling is crazy.  Also, groundballs are actually more likely to go for hits than flies that stay in the park (the down side of flies is that 10+% typically go for homers).  The liners are something like 70+% hits.  Looking at that mix of contact, it does not look as dominant as say Pedro's 1 hitter v. the NYY in one of his peak years where he had 17 Ks and only let up a solo to Chili Davis. 

Why don't the stat people break that out by direction? Pull/straight away/Oppo.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4313
  • #EatFace
Re: Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks
« Reply #13: January 26, 2011, 01:34:54 PM »
It all points to a bit of the randomness of no hitters and perfect games.  24 balls in play and none falling is crazy.  Also, groundballs are actually more likely to go for hits than flies that stay in the park (the down side of flies is that 10+% typically go for homers).  The liners are something like 70+% hits.  Looking at that mix of contact, it does not look as dominant as say Pedro's 1 hitter v. the NYY in one of his peak years where he had 17 Ks and only let up a solo to Chili Davis. 
I agree with this.  However, inducing 15 ground balls in a game is good regardless because isolated ground balls cause minimum damage whether they are hits or not.  It's pretty clear that he was pitching to contact and did a good job inducing ground balls.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17127
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks
« Reply #14: January 26, 2011, 01:44:30 PM »
Why don't the stat people break that out by direction? Pull/straight away/Oppo.
If you go to the detail splits for players on the source I cite to much, they do break it down by direction.  

David Ortiz in 2010 hit 40.5% of his flies to right for homers (!), while he hit 2.9% of his flies to left out.  Despite all the "David's more effective when he goes to the opposite field" stuff, he has topped 7% HR/FB to left only one season, 2003, when he was juicing. He also pops out on 19+% of his FB to the left side.  That I think figures - when you miss the opposite way, Ted Williams used to say you tend to pop, and when you miss to the pull side, you tend to top.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17127
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks
« Reply #15: January 26, 2011, 01:47:04 PM »
I agree with this.  However, inducing 15 ground balls in a game is good regardless because isolated ground balls cause minimum damage whether they are hits or not.  It's pretty clear that he was pitching to contact and did a good job inducing ground balls.
+1

Online blue911

  • Posts: 16214
Re: Almost-Perfect Galarraga Traded to Diamondbacks
« Reply #16: January 26, 2011, 03:19:01 PM »
If you go to the detail splits for players on the source I cite to much, they do break it down by direction. 

David Ortiz in 2010 hit 40.5% of his flies to right for homers (!), while he hit 2.9% of his flies to left out.  Despite all the "David's more effective when he goes to the opposite field" stuff, he has topped 7% HR/FB to left only one season, 2003, when he was juicing. He also pops out on 19+% of his FB to the left side.  That I think figures - when you miss the opposite way, Ted Williams used to say you tend to pop, and when you miss to the pull side, you tend to top.


So why don't they look use that data instead of using a worse data set?

 This is a rhetorical question but I'll never accept the theory that all fly balls should be treated the same. Nor do I think it's a bad thing to pitch Nyjer Morgan,Alberto Gonzalez or Wil Nieves up in the zone.