174 replies to this topic

[PaulSporer]

BSL: Orioles Probably Over-Investing With Gallardo

http://baltimorespor...ovani-gallardo/

[Mike B]

Good stuff....truthfully, IMO every pitcher signed this year got way more then they should have.   (Ian Kennedy and the Shark, come right to mind).  You are right, signing Gallardo for the amounts speculated, and losing the pick is an over spend.

 

The problem is the Orioles waited around while guys flew off the board.  They want an established starter and Gallardo is, and he is basically the last option for them.

 

Looking back, John Lackey, may have been best suited for the Orioles at what he signed for.  FWIW, I can't stand Lackey but his dollars may have been more in their range than anyone.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

This is why I (and others) were blasting DD back in December. Remember all those "its still early in the offseason" "there is time to address the teams needs" "wait until the start of the season to give grades on the offseason"

 

Well guess what folks. This is what happens. Yes you can get lucky and hit the jackpot with a Cruz type signing. But more often than not you end up with not addressing your needs or having to pay more for some less than good choice.

 

If they sign Gallardo I will be his biggest fan. But there were other options out there that APPEAR to have been better choices.

[RShack]

The O's need somebody to fill a rotation spot.  They don't need iffy guys who may or may not come back from injuries or other problems, and who may or may not be able to hang on to the job for 30 GS...

 

Of the guys listed, I don't see why they'd prefer any of them, except for Latos, number-wise... but almost nobody in MLB wanted any part of that guy for non-number reasons.

 

All in all, the Gallardo-hire hate (not just you, but a dominant theme around here) boils down to people thinking a couple peripheral stats are more important than actual baseball performance.  Which I think is nuts.   And, no, I have nothing against peripheral stats... I think they can be quite useful... but I also think they can be misused, and I think a whole lot of that is happening re: Gallardo.  

 

The basic flaw is thinking we armchair guys have special knowledge and insight based on just looking up a few numbers on the internet.  That attitude is both arrogant and dumb.  (I don't mean to pick on you, what I'm describing here is a widespread epidemic, it's not aimed at you.)

[BSLChrisStoner]

Shack... We at-least agree there is some arrogant thinking here...but probably disagree on the source

[Pedro Cerrano]

"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination."

[RShack]

Shack... We at-least agree there is some arrogant thinking here...but probably disagree on the source

 

I'm sure that's true... but IMO the very selective attention paid to Gallardo's stats is a cartoon of bad judgment... it's assigning weights to things in a fashion that is completely irrational based on anything that we might call evidence...

[BSLChrisStoner]

I'm sure that's true... but IMO the very selective attention paid to Gallardo's stats is a cartoon of bad judgment... it's assigning weights to things in a fashion that is completely irrational based on anything that we might call evidence...

Don't have to go down this road again... you've made your opinion on peripheral stats clear... but I fundamentally disagree with that general position.

[RShack]

Don't have to go down this road again... you've made your opinion on peripheral stats clear... but I fundamentally disagree with that general position.

 

I know  

[BSLChrisStoner]

I know  

 

Without us going back and forth on that, and why again... for the 1,000 time...   You have to know that your take places you on the spectrum way opposite of what is accepted by the 'majority' at this time, right?  (I think you do, as you describe this thought as a widespread epidemic.)

That doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong, and that the majority is correct...   but if you are the outlier, isn't the burden of proof on the minority?

Re: The world is flat...

If you prove the world is round, I get calling the previous prevailing thoughts arrogant and dumb... but until that happens...
 

[CA-ORIOLE]

I've actually blasted Shack on this topic (i.e peripheral stats), but I don't have any particular problem with his opinion/views here. i think it's quite reasonable that Gallardo (a guy I admittedly like more than most) would be viewed as considerably more favorable than many of the alternatives listed in the OP/article (which by the way was a nice summary by Paul). 

[fishteacher]

Investing 12-15M a year for him is not THAT CRAZY IMO, and giving up that 14th pick, while it seems to suck, THIS FRANCHISE, besides Manny and a few others have pissed draft picks away for years.  We can't draft a dominant pitcher, which is what we've ATTEMPTED to do for hte past 10 years....face it...we don't develop players well....we suck at it....thankfully Schoop (who is my pick for the AL All-star starting 2B this year) was lucky to only spend a bit of time int he minors and then get to the big club under Buck....lucky guy.  

 

Gallardo is not going to win us a ton of games, but I don't see him being the reason we're pissed off all season...or he could suck, and we'll all say how poor he is (besides in the wallet) and wish we had some draft pick that pans out to be nothing but crap in a toilet in the long run and we're no better off anyways.  Go win something boys!  If Gallardo can go 13-10 or better with a sub 4 ERA and keep that WHIP down below his average, he may be worth it.  

 

We're not getting David Price or another top of the rotation guy....shit we got one in Tillman remember!     Gallardo should be fine.

[RShack]

Without us going back and forth on that, and why again... for the 1,000 time...   You have to know that your take places you on the spectrum way opposite of what is accepted by the 'majority' at this time, right?  (I think you do, as you describe this thought as a widespread epidemic.)

That doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong, and that the majority is correct...   but if you are the outlier, isn't the burden of proof on the minority?

Re: The world is flat...

If you prove the world is round, I get calling the previous prevailing thoughts arrogant and dumb... but until that happens...
 

 

But I'm not saying the world is flat... I'm saying it's round, like a baseball... not flat, like a handful of peripheral stats on a screen  

 

When somebody claims that Actual Results count less than 2nd- and 3rd-order stats (which, in keeping with their very name, are in fact "peripheral"), the onus is on those who deny Actual Reality in favor of Hypothetical Reality to demonstrate why Actual Reality should be dismissed... 

 

It also doesn't help when those relying on K-rate, FIP, etc. completely ignore relevant aspects of Gallardo's performance... including his recent performance.   For example, how can you possibly defend people saying his poor 2nd half is evidence of decline while they consistently ignore his stellar 1st half performance?   (Answer:  you can't.)

 

Here's what's happening:  it's been repeatedly asserted that he's in long-term decline... based on a couple peripherals looking worse... despite the fact that he has maintained his overall results during that transition.   In the face of his continued stable level of performance, key points of evidence which run counter to the "he's in decline because peripherals" are simply ignored.  

 

Now, if and when the Hypothetical Reality people decide to play fair in examining his record, then I might take seriously the idea that I'm supposed to defend Actual Reality.  But as long as they don't even try to do a fair job, well, pffffftt.

 

BTW, I do not agree that the Hypothetical Reality people are in the majority.  I think they are a very vocal minority.  Hint:  Do a body count, not a post count.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Ah well, I take it back.

[BSLChrisStoner]

But I'm not saying the world is flat... I'm saying it's round, like a baseball... not flat, like a handful of peripheral stats on a screen  

 

When somebody claims that Actual Results count less than 2nd- and 3rd-order stats (which, in keeping with their very name, are in fact "peripheral"), the onus is on those who deny Actual Reality in favor of Hypothetical Reality to demonstrate why Actual Reality should be dismissed... 

 

It also doesn't help when those relying on K-rate, FIP, etc. completely ignore relevant aspects of Gallardo's performance... including his recent performance.   For example, how can you possibly defend people saying his poor 2nd half is compelling evidence while they consistently ignore his stellar 1st half performance?   (Answer:  you can't.)

 

Here's what's happening:  it's been repeatedly asserted that he's in long-term decline... based on a couple peripherals looking worse... despite the fact that he has maintained his overall results during that transition.   In the face of his continued stable level of performance, any evidence counter to the "he's in decline because peripherals" is simply ignored in its entirety.  

 

Now, if and when the Hypothetical Reality people decide to play fair in examining his record, rather than seeing only the pro-decline factoids, then I might take seriously the idea that I'm supposed to defend Actual Reality.  But as long as they don[t even try to do a fair job, well, pffffftt.

 

BTW, I do not agree that the Hypothetical Reality people are in the majority.  I think they are a very vocal minority.  Hint:  Do a body count, not a post count.

 

Peripherals are actual results. They happened just as much as anything else, and they are a better indication of what is likely to happen going forward vs. anything else.

There is no need to separate Gallardo's 1st and 2nd halves... they both happened. 

When I'm talking about the spectrum of what is accepted by the majority... the majority I'm talking about are the people writing and covering the game (and frankly those currently running front offices across the game).

[CA-ORIOLE]

Peripherals are actual results. They happened just as much as anything else, and they are a better indication of what is likely to happen going forward vs. anything else.

There is no need to separate Gallardo's 1st and 2nd halves... they both happened. 

When I'm talking about the spectrum of what is accepted by the majority... the majority I'm talking about are the people writing and covering the game (and frankly those currently running front offices across the game).

It is interesting how people don't grasp that. 

[dude]

Peripherals are actual results. They happened just as much as anything else, and they are a better indication of what is likely to happen going forward vs. anything else.

 

Bingo.  The key question is how you get to that ERA.  The 'other numbers' are real...and they are indicators (absolutely agree with that word) of where you are headed in terms of your ability to prevent runs from crossing the plate.

 

Side Note: Outside of this specific truth, the Fangraphs 'compiled' numbers (WAR, $/WAR, 'value') are not real in the same sense.  They are comprised of real numbers, but the relationships are a perspective of what they think right looks like.

 

I guess I just don't understand why some (I guess, including the Orioles) think that Gallardo is some answer.  On his best days he's not really the answer and so many other things besides him have to go right.  There's almost zero upside to acquiring him, unless you really believe he's going to lead this team to something.  Simply saying you 'added the best player available' is incredibly dumb...especially when there are better things you should be doing.

 

Seriously, just walk away from him.  Not. Worth. It.  Not in years.  Not in dollars. Not in compensation.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I think with Gallardo (far more than some of the examples cited) is that you have a much higher expectation of reasonable performance. On that part, I agree with Shack (despite some of the peripheral concerns).  Cost-benefit and resource allocation can certainly be debated. 

[RShack]

Peripherals are actual results. They happened just as much as anything else, and they are a better indication of what is likely to happen going forward vs. anything else.

There is no need to separate Gallardo's 1st and 2nd halves... they both happened. 

When I'm talking about the spectrum of what is accepted by the majority... the majority I'm talking about are the people writing and covering the game (and frankly those currently running front offices across the game).

 

I'll see if I can respond to this more fully later... because there are a few statements in here that are not justifiable in context... right now, I'm about to get distracted by other things...

 

But for right now, can we at least agree that your initial stmt that you don't want to get into this again was completely bogus? Because I was 100% ready to simply accept out disagreement... but you keep on picking at the scab...  

[SportsGuy]

I think with Gallardo (far more than the some of the examples cited) is that you have a much higher expectation of reasonable performance. On that part, I agree with Shack (despite some of the peripheral concerns).  Cost-benefit and resource allocation can certainly be debated. 

Guess it depends on how you define reasonable performance.