Matt Garza Overrated?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from RawckinSox. Show RawckinSox's posts

    Matt Garza Overrated?

    Matt Garza. First the Boston Red Sox asked for him as Theo Epstein compensation. I was okay with that.

    Then things fell by the wayside and he was forgotten—I was also okay with that. Now, they want to flat-out trade for him.

    That's where I draw the "no way in hell" line.

    The following analysis is going to rip Matt Garza apart. If you're squeamish, pregnant or a Garza fanboy who is going to rage on me in the comments, please look away.

    If you're interested in an in-depth analysis that proves Matt Garza isn't worth the asking price of the Mat Latoses and Gio Gonzalezes of the world, then please read on.

    *All stats pulled from www.baseballreference.com and www.fangraphs.com.
    **Some calculations were done by myself.

     

    Matt Garza Has AL East Experience

    This is undeniable. After being traded from the Minnesota Twins, Garza spent three seasons with the Tampa Bay Rays before being sent off to the Chicago Cubs.

    From 24 to 26 years old, Garza spent his most important developmental years under Joe Maddon and his superb coaching staff.

    For a youngster in the AL East, Garza did hold his own. In those three seasons he went 34-31 with a 3.86 ERA. His 2008 AL East inaugural season was his best, as he went 11-9 with a 3.70 ERA.

    After 2008, Garza dropped off the map. After all the promise he showed in the second half of 2008, it was more like a nosedive.

    In 2009 and 2010, Garza was less of an ace and more of a No. 4 starter. The AL Beast ate Garza alive.

    At first glance, the numbers aren't too terrible. Garza was able to dominate the lowly Orioles and Blue Jays, while holding his own against the Yankees and Red Sox. But, that's when you factor in home starts at cozy Tropicana Field.

    When pitching at the other AL East ballparks (Camden Yards, Fenway Park, Yankee Stadium and the Rogers Center), he is 14-9 with a 3.20 ERA. Not too shabby.

    However, let's subtract the weaker teams and look only at Fenway and Yankee Stadium. Now Garza is 5-5 with a 4.05 ERA.

    Even more suspect are Garza's career numbers against teams that made the American League playoffs last season:

    Career numbers against Texas, New York and Detroit: 7-12 with a 4.36 ERA in 169.3 innings of work.

    When pitching against lesser opponents, Garza can be stellar. But when pitching in a hitter's park or against a playoff-bound team, his numbers fall apart.

     

    Matt Garza Was a Beast in Chicago

    It is true that Matt Garza was fantastic with the Chicago Cubs last season. In fact, it was his best campaign yet.

    Garza only went 10-10, but that's not bad for someone on a 71-91 ball club. His ERA was a career-best 3.32, as were his 8.95 K/9 and 3.13 K/BB.

    Once again, let's go under the surface.

    First off, we must accept that fact Garza is great in pitching-oriented parks. In 2011, Wrigley Field was one of the best places to pitch.

    Let's look at Garza's 2011 home/away splits:

    Home: 6-5, 2.46 ERA, 1.120 WHIP, 3.73 K/BB
    Away: 4-5, 4.56 ERA, 1.457 WHIP, 2.47 K/BB

    The numbers speak for themselves, don't you think?

    How did Garza fare at rival Miller Park and Great American Ball Park (two notorious hitter's parks)? His combined numbers are 0-2 with a 5.33 ERA.

    Once again, we see how Garza's career has benefited from pitcher's parks. When out of his element, his numbers explode and he is not nearly as effective.

     

    Matt Garza Is a Consistent Mid-Rotation Starter, Nothing Else Matters


    No matter what the splits say, all Boston really needs is a consistent starter. Someone who won't have the blow-up games we saw in September.

    Some might say Garza fits that bill, but I beg to differ. Here is a breakdown of his statistical trends over the last four seasons.

      2008 2009 2010 2011 Average Change per Season
    ERA 3.70 3.95 3.91 3.32 7.62%
    Innings Pitched 184.2 203.0 204.2 198.0 4.61%
    WHIP 1.240 1.261 1.251 1.258 1.01%
    K/9 6.2 8.4 6.6 8.95 30.84%
    BB/9 2.9 3.5 2.8 2.9 14.76%
    HR/9 0.9 1.1 1.2 0.6 27.10%

     

     

     

     

     

    I know that is a lot of information to sift through, but it shows a lot. Nothing has been too consistent for Garza (except maybe that fringe 4.00 ERA he had from '08-'10).

    Looking at innings, he has issues consistently touching 200 or more per season. For a guy who has been consistently healthy throughout his entire career, he should have no problem pitching 210-220 innings.

    His control is suspect, evidenced by his fluctuations in K/9, BB/9 and K/BB.

    Finally, his HR/9 shows how much of an effect Wrigley and the NL had on his pitching abilities.

    Over his career, Matt Garza has been anything but consistent, and he is certainly not the answer for the Boston Red Sox rotation.

     

    Let's Look at the Sabermetrics

    The ultimate statistical dive—with all the sabermetrics out there, you'd be hard pressed to delve into deeper analytical waters.

    Is Matt Garza Worth the Current Asking Price?

  2. Yes

    35.4%
  3. No

    64.6%
  4. Total votes: 144

First, let's look at FIP/xFip.

These numbers say that Garza's 2011 ERA should have been closer to 2.95-3.19. That's expected, because the Chicago Cubs had a below-average defense (-9.5 UZR).

When we look at the same two numbers for Garza's time in Tampa, we see that his ERA should have been between 4.14-4.42. It's easy for a pitcher to look better than they are playing with the Rays defense (they lead all MLB in UZR over the last four seasons at 209.1).

Now, one can make the case that Garza became better as an independent pitcher in 2011.

In fact, he posted the best K/9 of his career (8.95). He also saw a spike in whiff rate (12% in 2011) and a decline in contact rate (76%). Both were career bests.

But once again, we have to factor in the change of leagues and divisions. We can't compare total strikeouts and walks, because the AL has the DH while the NL Central has six teams.

But, we can examine average K/BB ratio for each divisions' offenses:

2011 AL East K/BB ratio: 2.09
2011 NL Central K/BB ratio: 2.45

Garza flashed better stuff in the NL Central and was able to gain more punch outs for himself. This made him a better independent pitcher, even when backed by a below-average defense.

However, he also pitched in a division that had a K/BB ratio 18 percent higher than that of the AL East. Will he be able to generate as many strikeouts in a division that demonstrates better plate discipline?

Final Comments

Despite the points I've tried to convey in this article, I don't completely hate Matt Garza. He has had flashes of brilliance (a no-hitter comes to mind) and has knowledge of the AL East.

However, he is far from the rotation savior. He's no ace, nor is he a No. 2. At his best, he's maybe a No. 3 pitcher, and a serviceable No. 4 at worst.

The reason I wrote this article is because current trade rumors have it that the Chicago Cubs are asking a lot for Garza. He is not worth a Latos, Trevor Cahill or Gonzalez (was Gio Gonzalez even worth a Gio Gonzalez?).

If Boston can make a reasonable trade for Matt Garza, I'd be okay with it. If they can trade for him at a premium and call the Theo Epstein compensation settled, I'd be okay with that too.

But if Ben Cherington gives up an ace's ransom for the right-hander, it will be this season's biggest waste of talent.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1000288-matt-garza-an-overrated-commodity-and-the-boston-red-sox


Edit: I liked this one posters arguement on the comments section:

Have you even looked at the stats you posted? How can you say it's inconsistent? Besides the K/9 of course. The WHIP? Consistent. The innings? Consistent. Your basis of him not hitting 200 all the time is irrelevant. The most starts he's ever had in a season is 32. 30 starts in 2008 = 184.2 innings. 31 starts with the Cubs in 2011 = 198 innings. 32 starts in 2009 = 203 innings. 32 starts in 2010 = 204.2 innings. His innings per start is consistent. How many starts he's had wavers from year to year. I doubt it's his fault.

Here's an accurate statistic for you. Garza threw his fastball 70% of the time when he was in Tampa. When he went to Chicago, he threw it around 45% of the time. He threw his slider more often. So he had better success. To say that didn't effect how well he pitched would be a laughable statement. So please don't go there.

So, Garza has had success in the AL East before while have a different pitching perspective. If he were to come back to the AL East in a Red Sox uniform(hopefully not from my point of view) he'd actually be better than he was with the Rays because they way he pitches is different. Would his sabermetrics point to a sub 3 ERA? Probably not. But I wouldn't doubt if he'd match the 3.30 ERA he posted with the Cubs for numerous reasons. The Red Sox have a better defense. Also, he wouldn't have to face the Red Sox anyway. So all you have to worry about is the Yankees(he dominates the Blue Jays who aren't too shabby offensively). And despite the Rays being just as good as the Sox and Yanks, the offense isn't their strength.

If I was a Red Sox fan, I'd absolutely be thrilled if Garza went to Boston. If I was a Yankees fan, I'd be thrilled if went to New York. He's a good pitcher. Even a great one nowadays.

...I myself consider Garza to be a number 3 type, on this team he maybe a number 4. I actually wouldn't argue with putting him in the 3 slot just to put less pressure on Clay. I myself perfer Garza to Gio Gonzalez, just because of the fact lefties not named Jon Lester seem to struggle at Fenway, and Gio has problems with walking people, he could be a left handed Dice-K. I would not want to give up Middlebrooks, Lavarnway, Iggy, or any of our top prospects, however I'd be okay with maybe 3 or 4 2nd tier prospects or 2 second tier prospects and 1 top prospect that maybe blocked. What do you guys think? I really enjoyed this article, and I also liked the commenters arguement.

 

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    In Response to Matt Garza Overrated?:
    [QUOTE]Matt Garza . First the Boston Red Sox asked for him as Theo Epstein compensation. I was okay with that. Then things fell by the wayside and he was forgotten—I was also okay with that. Now, they want to flat-out trade for him. That's where I draw the "no way in hell" line. The following analysis is going to rip Matt Garza apart. If you're squeamish, pregnant or a Garza fanboy who is going to rage on me in the comments, please look away. If you're interested in an in-depth analysis that proves Matt Garza isn't worth the asking price of the Mat Latoses and Gio Gonzalezes of the world, then please read on. *All stats pulled from www.baseballreference.com and www.fangraphs.com . **Some calculations were done by myself.   Matt Garza Has AL East Experience This is undeniable. After being traded from the Minnesota Twins , Garza spent three seasons with the Tampa Bay Rays before being sent off to the Chicago Cubs . From 24 to 26 years old, Garza spent his most important developmental years under Joe Maddon and his superb coaching staff. For a youngster in the AL East, Garza did hold his own. In those three seasons he went 34-31 with a 3.86 ERA. His 2008 AL East inaugural season was his best, as he went 11-9 with a 3.70 ERA. After 2008, Garza dropped off the map. After all the promise he showed in the second half of 2008, it was more like a nosedive. In 2009 and 2010, Garza was less of an ace and more of a No. 4 starter. The AL Beast ate Garza alive. At first glance, the numbers aren't too terrible. Garza was able to dominate the lowly Orioles and Blue Jays , while holding his own against the Yankees and Red Sox. But, that's when you factor in home starts at cozy Tropicana Field. When pitching at the other AL East ballparks (Camden Yards, Fenway Park, Yankee Stadium and the Rogers Center), he is 14-9 with a 3.20 ERA. Not too shabby. However, let's subtract the weaker teams and look only at Fenway and Yankee Stadium. Now Garza is 5-5 with a 4.05 ERA. Even more suspect are Garza's career numbers against teams that made the American League playoffs last season: Career numbers against Texas , New York and Detroit : 7-12 with a 4.36 ERA in 169.3 innings of work. When pitching against lesser opponents, Garza can be stellar. But when pitching in a hitter's park or against a playoff-bound team, his numbers fall apart.   Matt Garza Was a Beast in Chicago It is true that Matt Garza was fantastic with the Chicago Cubs last season. In fact, it was his best campaign yet. Garza only went 10-10, but that's not bad for someone on a 71-91 ball club. His ERA was a career-best 3.32, as were his 8.95 K/9 and 3.13 K/BB. Once again, let's go under the surface. First off, we must accept that fact Garza is great in pitching-oriented parks. In 2011, Wrigley Field was one of the best places to pitch. Let's look at Garza's 2011 home/away splits: Home: 6-5, 2.46 ERA, 1.120 WHIP, 3.73 K/BB Away: 4-5, 4.56 ERA, 1.457 WHIP, 2.47 K/BB The numbers speak for themselves, don't you think? How did Garza fare at rival Miller Park and Great American Ball Park (two notorious hitter's parks)? His combined numbers are 0-2 with a 5.33 ERA. Once again, we see how Garza's career has benefited from pitcher's parks. When out of his element, his numbers explode and he is not nearly as effective.   Matt Garza Is a Consistent Mid-Rotation Starter, Nothing Else Matters No matter what the splits say, all Boston really needs is a consistent starter. Someone who won't have the blow-up games we saw in September. Some might say Garza fits that bill, but I beg to differ. Here is a breakdown of his statistical trends over the last four seasons.   2008 2009 2010 2011 Average Change per Season ERA 3.70 3.95 3.91 3.32 7.62% Innings Pitched 184.2 203.0 204.2 198.0 4.61% WHIP 1.240 1.261 1.251 1.258 1.01% K/9 6.2 8.4 6.6 8.95 30.84% BB/9 2.9 3.5 2.8 2.9 14.76% HR/9 0.9 1.1 1.2 0.6 27.10%           I know that is a lot of information to sift through, but it shows a lot. Nothing has been too consistent for Garza (except maybe that fringe 4.00 ERA he had from '08-'10). Looking at innings, he has issues consistently touching 200 or more per season. For a guy who has been consistently healthy throughout his entire career, he should have no problem pitching 210-220 innings. His control is suspect, evidenced by his fluctuations in K/9, BB/9 and K/BB. Finally, his HR/9 shows how much of an effect Wrigley and the NL had on his pitching abilities. Over his career, Matt Garza has been anything but consistent, and he is certainly not the answer for the Boston Red Sox rotation.   Let's Look at the Sabermetrics The ultimate statistical dive—with all the sabermetrics out there, you'd be hard pressed to delve into deeper analytical waters. Is Matt Garza Worth the Current Asking Price? Yes 35.4% No 64.6% Total votes: 144 First, let's look at FIP/xFip. These numbers say that Garza's 2011 ERA should have been closer to 2.95-3.19. That's expected, because the Chicago Cubs had a below-average defense (-9.5 UZR). When we look at the same two numbers for Garza's time in Tampa, we see that his ERA should have been between 4.14-4.42. It's easy for a pitcher to look better than they are playing with the Rays defense (they lead all MLB in UZR over the last four seasons at 209.1). Now, one can make the case that Garza became better as an independent pitcher in 2011. In fact, he posted the best K/9 of his career (8.95). He also saw a spike in whiff rate (12% in 2011) and a decline in contact rate (76%). Both were career bests. But once again, we have to factor in the change of leagues and divisions. We can't compare total strikeouts and walks, because the AL has the DH while the NL Central has six teams. But, we can examine average K/BB ratio for each divisions' offenses: 2011 AL East K/BB ratio: 2.09 2011 NL Central K/BB ratio: 2.45 Garza flashed better stuff in the NL Central and was able to gain more punch outs for himself. This made him a better independent pitcher, even when backed by a below-average defense. However, he also pitched in a division that had a K/BB ratio 18 percent higher than that of the AL East. Will he be able to generate as many strikeouts in a division that demonstrates better plate discipline? Final Comments Despite the points I've tried to convey in this article, I don't completely hate Matt Garza. He has had flashes of brilliance (a no-hitter comes to mind) and has knowledge of the AL East. However, he is far from the rotation savior. He's no ace, nor is he a No. 2. At his best, he's maybe a No. 3 pitcher, and a serviceable No. 4 at worst. The reason I wrote this article is because current trade rumors have it that the Chicago Cubs are asking a lot for Garza. He is not worth a Latos, Trevor Cahill or Gonzalez (was Gio Gonzalez even worth a Gio Gonzalez?). If Boston can make a reasonable trade for Matt Garza, I'd be okay with it. If they can trade for him at a premium and call the Theo Epstein compensation settled, I'd be okay with that too. But if Ben Cherington gives up an ace's ransom for the right-hander, it will be this season's biggest waste of talent. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1000288-matt-garza-an-overrated-commodity-and-the-boston-red-sox Edit: I liked this one posters arguement on the comments section: Have you even looked at the stats you posted? How can you say it's inconsistent? Besides the K/9 of course. The WHIP? Consistent. The innings? Consistent. Your basis of him not hitting 200 all the time is irrelevant. The most starts he's ever had in a season is 32. 30 starts in 2008 = 184.2 innings. 31 starts with the Cubs in 2011 = 198 innings. 32 starts in 2009 = 203 innings. 32 starts in 2010 = 204.2 innings. His innings per start is consistent. How many starts he's had wavers from year to year. I doubt it's his fault. Here's an accurate statistic for you. Garza threw his fastball 70% of the time when he was in Tampa. When he went to Chicago, he threw it around 45% of the time. He threw his slider more often. So he had better success. To say that didn't effect how well he pitched would be a laughable statement. So please don't go there. So, Garza has had success in the AL East before while have a different pitching perspective. If he were to come back to the AL East in a Red Sox uniform(hopefully not from my point of view) he'd actually be better than he was with the Rays because they way he pitches is different. Would his sabermetrics point to a sub 3 ERA? Probably not. But I wouldn't doubt if he'd match the 3.30 ERA he posted with the Cubs for numerous reasons. The Red Sox have a better defense. Also, he wouldn't have to face the Red Sox anyway. So all you have to worry about is the Yankees(he dominates the Blue Jays who aren't too shabby offensively). And despite the Rays being just as good as the Sox and Yanks, the offense isn't their strength. If I was a Red Sox fan, I'd absolutely be thrilled if Garza went to Boston. If I was a Yankees fan, I'd be thrilled if went to New York. He's a good pitcher. Even a great one nowadays. ...I myself consider Garza to be a number 3 type, on this team he maybe a number 4. I actually wouldn't argue with putting him in the 3 slot just to put less pressure on Clay. I myself perfer Garza to Gio Gonzalez, just because of the fact lefties not named Jon Lester seem to struggle at Fenway, and Gio has problems with walking people, he could be a left handed Dice-K. I would not want to give up Middlebrooks, Lavarnway, Iggy, or any of our top prospects, however I'd be okay with maybe 3 or 4 2nd tier prospects or 2 second tier prospects and 1 top prospect that maybe blocked. What do you guys think? I really enjoyed this article, and I also liked the commenters arguement.  
    Posted by RawckinSox[/QUOTE]

    There area few types of pitchers:

    #1 Ones who may or may not want the ball in games but don't really have the mindset to take on the challenge.

    #2
    Guys like Garza, who always wants the ball in big games and has what it takes to go that extra mile and suceed through mental touhgness and determination.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from donrd4. Show donrd4's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    In Response to Re: Matt Garza Overrated?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Matt Garza Overrated? : There area few types of pitchers: #1 Ones who may or may not want the ball in games but don't really have the mindset to take on the challenge. #2 Guys like Garza, who always wants the ball in big games and has what it takes to go that extra mile and suceed through mental touhgness and determination.
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

    Because he wants the ball??? Wakefield wanted the ball also.Name a pitcher who never wanted the ball?
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from GosoxJ. Show GosoxJ's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    Other sabermetric numbers for consideration (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3340&position=P):

    He has a career FIP- of 96, although that was largely due to the influence of the 74 he posted last season with the Cubs. With the Rays he posted FIP-'s of 98, 99, 111 in 2008, 2009, 2010 respectively.

    His career xFIP- is a 97, again influenced by last season's performance where he turned in a 83. With the Rays he had 102, 94, 103.

    His career SIERA is 4.08 despite posting 3.31 last season. With the Rays he posted 4.44, 3.98, 4.27.

    Personally, I'd love to have Matt Garza in Boston, depending upon the cost. If the Red Sox were somehow able to get him at a discount by cashing in the compensation card (finally) he could be well worth it. Of the seven teams that didn't have a starter throw 200 innings last season, none of them made the playoffs. The fact that Garza can be counted on for about 200 innings is very valuable and he doesn't need to post Cy Young numbers as a third starter either. Of course this hinges on the Red Sox getting a discount from what's reported to be a significant asking price, which just isn't going to happen.

    TL;DR: Garza would be a great addition for the right price. The numbers do seem to indicate some cause for concern and he isn't worth an ace's weight in prospects.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    I don't think anyone is expecting an ace if they get Garza. They are expecting an innings horse that doesn't wilt under pressure. The other important factor over looked in the post is cost control. I much prefer Garza and his controlled cost as opposed to say what Danks just signed for or what Edwin Jackson will sign for. Lastly, as us fans often do, I think you are over valuing the perceived market worth of Iglesias, Lavarnway and Middlebrooks. Looking at a mindset such as Theo's, he does put a premium on offensive production from the SS position. And unless Castro is moved to another position (doubtful) Iglesias is blocked in Chicago. In addition, who better thanTheo realizes Lavarnway's true position is DH, making him obsolete in the NL. I welcome the addition of Garza on the Sox, but I simply do not feel that they have the chips to trump a team such as the Yankees, if they want Garza, offering Bettances and Romine.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from william93063. Show william93063's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    The red sox would essentially be slotting him into a number 4 role.  He is UNDERRATED in that role regardless of the data.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    The author of that piece "has always been a diehard Red Sox fan."

    http://bleacherreport.com/users/691943-jonathan-irwin

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1000288-matt-garza-an-overrated-commodity-and-the-boston-red-sox

    Read the comments following his Bleacher Report analysis.

    The Red Sox would be setting their sights too high if the Sox pursue Matt Garza.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from KRomine. Show KRomine's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    It says his ERA against the ALE was between 3.75-4.00.  I would take that in a heartbeat for a #4!
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    After 2008, Garza dropped off the map. After all the promise he showed in the second half of 2008, it was more like a nosedive.

    In 2009 and 2010, Garza was less of an ace and more of a No. 4 starter. The AL Beast ate Garza alive.

    His ERA in 2008 was 3.70.  In 2009 and 2010, his ERA was 3.95 and 3.91.  In terms of ERA, that's virtually identical.  'Nosedive' means the writer was into his scotch.

    However, let's subtract the weaker teams and look only at Fenway and Yankee Stadium. Now Garza is 5-5 with a 4.05 ERA.

    Wow, only a 4.05 at YS and Fenway, the two toughest places in the league to pitch at.  Is the writer unaware of that, or was he into his Jack Daniels by that point.

    First off, we must accept that fact Garza is great in pitching-oriented parks. In 2011, Wrigley Field was one of the best places to pitch.

    To infer that Wrigley is a pitcher's park means the writer has run out of spirit-based delusions and moved onto the harder stuff.  Time to pee into the specimen cup dude.

    I don't care for Garza on price and fit, but to say ERAs of 3.91 and 3.95 constitute a nosedive and being a #4 SP, and to imply that a 4.05 at YS and FP is bad, and to infer that Wrigley is a pitcher's park is delusional.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from soxmeister. Show soxmeister's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    Yes, he is a solid #4 pitcher with upside.  We need that.  Lots of info, but it depends what it costs to get Garza.  If his cost is lowered as part of Theo compensation, then maybe.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    Funny thing many dump on pitchers who don't go the distance in their opinion. Yet here is a guy (Garza) who will fight for every pitch. He is tough as nails.

    When you look at the numbers you can be swayed either way. However when you compare his numbers to other pitchers he looks a lot better.
    His overall numbers last year were similar to Lester and Carpenter. You look at his numbers compared to Gio and I see very little difference

    Player W▼ L▼ ERA▲ IP▼ H▼ R▼ ER▼ HR▼ BB▼ SO▼ AVG▲ WHIP▲
    Gonzalez, G 16 12 3.12 202 175 81 70 17 91 197 0.23 1.32
    Garza, M 10 10 3.32 198 186 90 73 14 63 197 0.245 1.26


    It is not just about his numbers since you can make them say what ever you want. You could also plug in several names in place of Garza and your premise might change based upon the name. There are several "name" pitchers who Garza is similar to. They are 3's on their team and that is what Garza would be on the RS or any other team.
    He was a one on the Ray's until others came along and moved him down the ladder. That did not deter him from being a bull dog on the mound.
    BTW he has never had an injury.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    In Response to Re: Matt Garza Overrated?:
    [QUOTE]After 2008, Garza dropped off the map. After all the promise he showed in the second half of 2008, it was more like a nosedive. In 2009 and 2010, Garza was less of an ace and more of a No. 4 starter. The AL Beast ate Garza alive. His ERA in 2008 was 3.70.  In 2009 and 2010, his ERA was 3.95 and 3.91.  In terms of ERA, that's virtually identical.  'Nosedive' means the writer was into his scotch. However, let's subtract the weaker teams and look only at Fenway and Yankee Stadium. Now Garza is 5-5 with a 4.05 ERA. Wow, only a 4.05 at YS and Fenway, the two toughest places in the league to pitch at.  Is the writer unaware of that, or was he into his Jack Daniels by that point. First off, we must accept that fact Garza is great in pitching-oriented parks. In 2011, Wrigley Field was one of the best places to pitch. To infer that Wrigley is a pitcher's park means the writer has run out of spirit-based delusions and moved onto the harder stuff.  Time to pee into the specimen cup dude. I don't care for Garza on price and fit, but to say ERAs of 3.91 and 3.95 constitute a nosedive and being a #4 SP, and to imply that a 4.05 at YS and FP is bad, and to infer that Wrigley is a pitcher's park is delusional.
    Posted by Joebreidey[/QUOTE]

    talk about skewing data...was this writer seriously into his scotch...what Red Sox fan doesnt respect Garza?????? I would take him in a beckett trade straight up, I would take him in a trade for 4 prospects, I would take him in just about any situation for the money that he makes and his past performance....unf'nbelievable
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    I would not want this guy on my team.  However, I would make an exception for trading him for Crawford straight up. 
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from beavis. Show beavis's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    Rays got 5 players from Cubbies for Garza trade. A huge price to pay, so yes he is valuable, not over-rated. His mound presence is enduring, weather you like his constant spitting. Playing in the AL East shows he is battle tested. He is in his second year of arb. so Theo should garnish some decent players for him.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from pri360. Show pri360's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    In Response to Re: Matt Garza Overrated?:
    [QUOTE]The red sox would essentially be slotting him into a number 4 role.  He is UNDERRATED in that role regardless of the data.
    Posted by william93063[/QUOTE]agreed
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    In Response to Re: Matt Garza Overrated?:
    [QUOTE]Rays got 5 players from Cubbies for Garza trade. A huge price to pay, so yes he is valuable, not over-rated. His mound presence is enduring, weather you like his constant spitting. Playing in the AL East shows he is battle tested. He is in his second year of arb. so Theo should garnish some decent players for him.
    Posted by beavis[/QUOTE]

    Garza would be a huge upgrade over Lackey.  With an offense like ours there is no telling how many games he could win and I wouldn't hesitate to pitch him in a big PS game.  Why?  Because he doesn't fall apart at the seems like Lackey, Matt has bad games like any 'mid rotation" pitcher but he is far from being a bum.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from attic-dan. Show attic-dan's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

      I have to agree I think Garza is over-rated by the posters. He is a 3rd or 4th pitcher someone who'll take the ball every 5th day and keep the Sox in the game, the Sox surely could do worse. I would go after him as long price isn't too high.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxu571. Show redsoxu571's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    You make some solid points, but others are...not so good. Here's a few comments on some...

    -"However, let's subtract the weaker teams and look only at Fenway and Yankee Stadium. Now Garza is 5-5 with a 4.05 ERA. Even more suspect..."

    How in the world is a 4.05 era in a decent number of starts against only the Yankees and Red Sox, in their hitting ballparks, a negative? I'd take that in a heartbeat. Garza is not an ace, but he's a very dependable #2/#3 caliber guy, shown by the fact that he can handle good lineups.

    -"First off, we must accept that fact Garza is great in pitching-oriented parks. In 2011, Wrigley Field was one of the best places to pitch."

    As has been said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The above comment is an example of shallow analysis. It's widely accepted that park factors (the simplest way to see how parks perform) vary season to season, and the most reliable way to judge a park is over a number of seasons.

    Here are Wrigley's park factors for the past few years:
    '11- .934 (runs, 23rd in baseball), .987 (HRs, 14th), 1.047 (BBs, 9th)
    '10- 1.170 (runs, 3rd), 1.134 (HRs, 9th), 1.019 (BBs, 9th)
    '09- 1.146 (runs, 3rd), 1.006 (HRs, 15th), 1.040 (BBs, 10th)
    '08- 1.068 (runs, 8th), 1.163 (HRs, 7th), 0.939 (BBs, 25th)
    '07- 1.172 (runs, 2nd), 1.150 (HRs, 8th), 1.112 (BBs, 2nd)

    As you can clearly see, Wrigley Field is not only NOT a pitcher's park, it is actually one of the most consistent hitter's parks in all of baseball. Wrigley is typically a pretty good HR ballpark and it is steadily an above-average walk field (possibly due to extra day games?).

    If anything, last year's runs park factor was a fluke, and likely just due to the inconsistency of a number of Cub hitters (Pena, Soriano, Soto, etc), in which case the park had little or nothing to do with Garza's success last year. If anything, Garza was even a bit better last year than his numbers, as Wrigley probably gave his BB and HR rates a bit of a hit.

    -"Finally, his HR/9 shows how much of an effect Wrigley and the NL had on his pitching abilities."

    11 HR allowed at home, 3 HRs allowed on the road (that actually shocked me)...next!

    -As I think someone else mentioned, you cite many of his stats and rates from the past few years, and judge them as "inconsistent". I beg to differ...despite varying K and BB rates, Garza puts up steady WHIP and ERA numbers, which is a sign of a pitcher who knows how to handle things when he doesn't have his stuff, which is arguably the single most important trait of a consistent pitcher (as opposed to, say, AJ Burnett, who can go from Cy Young level to high school level inning to inning).

    As for his "inconsistent" inning totals, from '08 to '11 Garza's innings per start (as opposed to just total innings) have been 6.16, 6.34, 6.375, 6.39. Due to having one fewer start than usual, Garza actually set a career high for IP/GS last year, and his numbers have been as steady as humanly possible in that area over the past three.

    -"When we look at the same two numbers for Garza's time in Tampa, we see that his ERA should have been between 4.14-4.42. It's easy for a pitcher to look better than they are playing with the Rays defense (they lead all MLB in UZR over the last four seasons at 209.1)."

    This is where we hit the sabermetric frontier. Yes, the Rays had a great defense, but that doesn't mean it affected all their pitchers equally. We cannot be in any way statistically sure how much, if anything, Garza benefitted from his defense. Given the opposition Garza had to face, I'm pretty sure the benefits and negatives he had to face somewhat cancel out.

    -"However, he is far from the rotation savior. He's no ace, nor is he a No. 2. At his best, he's maybe a No. 3 pitcher, and a serviceable No. 4 at worst."

    He's not supposed to be a rotation saver! The Red Sox need quality, safe depth in their rotation, and Garza offers that. Truth be told, he's good enough to be a #2 pitcher in a deep rotation, and he's a great #3 pitcher for any kind of championship aspiring one.

    -"He is not worth a Latos, Trevor Cahill or Gonzalez (was Gio Gonzalez even worth a Gio Gonzalez?).

    That is the truest statement in this analysis, but not because of how good Garza is compared to these guys. I'd take Garza over Cahill and Gonzalez in a second in terms of expected production, and Latos would come with the uncertainty of moving from baseball's best pitching park (SD) in the NL to the cauldron of the Al East, meaning even he might be less of a pitcher than Garza.

    However, all three of these pitchers have at least four years of team control remaining, and team control is the possibly most important factor when it comes to the values of players. Garza, meanwhile, only has two years of control left.

    So while Theo and company may say they want a Latos or Gonzalez type package, they will not get it, and so that is not the real "price" of Garza. Make no mistake about it, while I would absolutely not pay a premium for Garza, he would be a perfect fit for the Sox, especially at what should be his reasonable price, and the Sox always have the slight edge of this silly compensation deal. When when the Cubs first said they would not allow Garza to be Theo's compensation, my opinion was that I would be happy for the Sox to include whatever reasonable prospects it took to make that deal, and I stand by that opinion.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from bbenton87. Show bbenton87's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    How many No. 4 starters have those kinds of stats and consistancy with the bullpen taking shape adding a solid No. 4 (Garza) would keep Bard in the pen probably where he belongs (we could be on the other side of the Joba incidents)
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    In Response to Re: Matt Garza Overrated?:
    [QUOTE]You make some solid points, but others are...not so good. Here's a few comments on some... -"However, let's subtract the weaker teams and look only at Fenway and Yankee Stadium. Now Garza is 5-5 with a 4.05 ERA. Even more suspect..." How in the world is a 4.05 era in a decent number of starts against only the Yankees and Red Sox, in their hitting ballparks, a negative? I'd take that in a heartbeat. Garza is not an ace, but he's a very dependable #2/#3 caliber guy, shown by the fact that he can handle good lineups. -"First off, we must accept that fact Garza is great in pitching-oriented parks. In 2011, Wrigley Field was one of the best places to pitch." As has been said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The above comment is an example of shallow analysis. It's widely accepted that park factors (the simplest way to see how parks perform) vary season to season, and the most reliable way to judge a park is over a number of seasons. Here are Wrigley's park factors for the past few years: '11- .934 (runs, 23rd in baseball), .987 (HRs, 14th), 1.047 (BBs, 9th) '10- 1.170 (runs, 3rd ), 1.134 (HRs, 9th), 1.019 (BBs, 9th) '09- 1.146 (runs, 3rd ), 1.006 (HRs, 15th), 1.040 (BBs, 10th) '08- 1.068 (runs, 8th ), 1.163 (HRs, 7th), 0.939 (BBs, 25th) '07- 1.172 (runs, 2nd ), 1.150 (HRs, 8th), 1.112 (BBs, 2nd) As you can clearly see, Wrigley Field is not only NOT a pitcher's park, it is actually one of the most consistent hitter's parks in all of baseball. Wrigley is typically a pretty good HR ballpark and it is steadily an above-average walk field (possibly due to extra day games?). If anything, last year's runs park factor was a fluke, and likely just due to the inconsistency of a number of Cub hitters (Pena, Soriano, Soto, etc), in which case the park had little or nothing to do with Garza's success last year. If anything, Garza was even a bit better last year than his numbers, as Wrigley probably gave his BB and HR rates a bit of a hit. -"Finally, his HR/9 shows how much of an effect Wrigley and the NL had on his pitching abilities." 11 HR allowed at home, 3 HRs allowed on the road (that actually shocked me)...next! -As I think someone else mentioned, you cite many of his stats and rates from the past few years, and judge them as "inconsistent". I beg to differ... despite varying K and BB rates, Garza puts up steady WHIP and ERA numbers, which is a sign of a pitcher who knows how to handle things when he doesn't have his stuff, which is arguably the single most important trait of a consistent pitcher (as opposed to, say, AJ Burnett, who can go from Cy Young level to high school level inning to inning). As for his "inconsistent" inning totals, from '08 to '11 Garza's innings per start (as opposed to just total innings) have been 6.16, 6.34, 6.375, 6.39. Due to having one fewer start than usual, Garza actually set a career high for IP/GS last year, and his numbers have been as steady as humanly possible in that area over the past three. -"When we look at the same two numbers for Garza's time in Tampa, we see that his ERA should have been between 4.14-4.42. It's easy for a pitcher to look better than they are playing with the Rays defense (they lead all MLB in UZR over the last four seasons at 209.1)." This is where we hit the sabermetric frontier. Yes, the Rays had a great defense, but that doesn't mean it affected all their pitchers equally. We cannot be in any way statistically sure how much, if anything, Garza benefitted from his defense. Given the opposition Garza had to face, I'm pretty sure the benefits and negatives he had to face somewhat cancel out. -"However, he is far from the rotation savior. He's no ace, nor is he a No. 2. At his best, he's maybe a No. 3 pitcher, and a serviceable No. 4 at worst." He's not supposed to be a rotation saver! The Red Sox need quality, safe depth in their rotation, and Garza offers that. Truth be told, he's good enough to be a #2 pitcher in a deep rotation, and he's a great #3 pitcher for any kind of championship aspiring one. -"He is not worth a Latos, Trevor Cahill or Gonzalez (was Gio Gonzalez even worth a Gio Gonzalez?). That is the truest statement in this analysis, but not because of how good Garza is compared to these guys. I'd take Garza over Cahill and Gonzalez in a second in terms of expected production, and Latos would come with the uncertainty of moving from baseball's best pitching park (SD) in the NL to the cauldron of the Al East, meaning even he might be less of a pitcher than Garza. However, all three of these pitchers have at least four years of team control remaining , and team control is the possibly most important factor when it comes to the values of players. Garza, meanwhile, only has two years of control left. So while Theo and company may say they want a Latos or Gonzalez type package, they will not get it , and so that is not the real "price" of Garza. Make no mistake about it, while I would absolutely not pay a premium for Garza, he would be a perfect fit for the Sox, especially at what should be his reasonable price, and the Sox always have the slight edge of this silly compensation deal. When when the Cubs first said they would not allow Garza to be Theo's compensation, my opinion was that I would be happy for the Sox to include whatever reasonable prospects it took to make that deal, and I stand by that opinion.
    Posted by redsoxu571[/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure why anyone is worried about only having Garza for two years unless we lose significant young prospects for him. 

    At the present time I don't personally consider many of our "so called" top prospects very good except for guys like Lavarnway, Brentz and Barnes who I watched pitch many times at Uconn.  I'm not even sure Renaudo will make a huge impact at the big league level.  Even Iggy who is still young and plays great defense is a question mark. 
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from traven. Show traven's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    Last year the Sox had Wake as a starter...enough said.  Get Garza or anybody else!
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    In Response to Re: Matt Garza Overrated?:
    [QUOTE]Last year the Sox had Wake as a starter...enough said.  Get Garza or anybody else!
    Posted by traven[/QUOTE]

    Maybe Wake and Tek can catch on with Theo, or possibly another club but I agree his days as a starter are well behind him.  If it comes down to saving money hes always an option but I think our team is better off with a more reliable sixth man at this point.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from GosoxJ. Show GosoxJ's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    In Response to Re: Matt Garza Overrated?:
    [QUOTE]"When we look at the same two numbers for Garza's time in Tampa, we see that his ERA should have been between 4.14-4.42. It's easy for a pitcher to look better than they are playing with the Rays defense (they lead all MLB in UZR over the last four seasons at 209.1)." This is where we hit the sabermetric frontier. Yes, the Rays had a great defense, but that doesn't mean it affected all their pitchers equally. We cannot be in any way statistically sure how much, if anything, Garza benefitted from his defense.
    Posted by redsoxu571[/QUOTE]
    There are a number of statistics aimed at demonstrating this exact effect. Stats like FIP, SIERA, and xFIP are all defense independent, usually with an emphasis on predicting a pitcher's true skill level. If we were to pick one of these metrics and compare it alongside his ERA we could get an idea of exactly how much the defense contributed to a lower or higher ERA. Despite posting ERAs under 4.0 in all three years as a Ray, SIERA, FIP, and xFIP all have him consistently over 4.0, with the exception of SIERA (3.98 in 2009). From this we can see that Garza's ERAs were not entirely the products of his own skills and he received a significant benefit from his defense or from luck. Considering how good Tampa's defense is though, it seems far more reasonable to conclude that his lower ERAs (as opposed to the Defense Independent metrics) over the three years be attributable to the defense rather than luck.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    Garza is not over-rated.  He is just not a true Ace nor #2 starter.  He is probably as even as Bucholtz when he is healthy. 

    So therefore, he is not worth of alot of prospects.  Boston also have the compensation deal in their hand.  So that mean Boston can part away one less prospects than these other teams offer to the Cubs.

    But Garza have been on the trade market for like five weeks, and nothing got in a serious discussion. 


     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from NegativeTrollsAbound. Show NegativeTrollsAbound's posts

    Re: Matt Garza Overrated?

    Garza would be nice but Theo would require 2 or 3 SP prospects which I don't believe they have. Renaudo and Alex Wilson may not be enough even though they may be able to give less compensation dur to the Theo deal. I don't think it will happen. MLB blogs had Cubs taking "last offers" on 12/29. Any update?
     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share