Lord, I want no part of Ollie Perez. I don't deny he's talented, and relatively young, and so on. But for the amount of grief he caused Met fans the past two seasons, and the reasons behind causing them that grief, I don't think I could take it.

Is Oliver Perez the great white whale? Why do scouts always think their team can fix him, and that he's not a journeyman with a career 94 ERA+ who occasionally produces a stellar season when he gets lucky on BABIP?

I'll stick with Hughes, thanks.

I don't have much faith that Perez will ever be better than a league avg. SP (95-100 ERA+), and he's not consistent enough and doesn't pitch enough innings to be valuable in the "league average inninngs eater" role.

4/50 for him seems like a huge waste.

I believe the Boras pitch on Perez this offseason was that his career arc should match up nicely with that of Sandy Koufax.

Do you think any GM or member of their staff listen to such bunkum and blurt out, "Scott, get the f@^$ out of here with this delusional crap?"

I knew Sandy Koufax. Sandy Koufax was a friend of mine. Oliver, you're no Sandy Koufax.

I'd don't consider myself to be much of a Yankee-hater, but I have to say I'd cry to see Perez turned into a soul-bereft Yankee Baseball Automaton Unit. Or be destroyed in the attempt.

Where'd you get 4/50, snaps?

Like most other potential signings, I have different opinions about it depending on whether it's need-based or depth-based. We can often make that out from the terms of the deal. I echo that 4/50 would be way too much, but I'd go 2/20 or 3/30 pretty quickly. A league-average starter with upside for $10/per would fit in this team just fine. If they do this rather than sign Pettitte, I don't see Hughes losing too many starts.

pitching in front of a packed house, he would not be complacent

Indeed, I hear he's been pitching in a two bit town in front of empty seats. What a baffling comment.

I absolutely agree that the Yankees should sign Perez Hilton.

1. Mark Langston (954)
2. Bobby Witt (950)
3. Frank Viola (941)
4. Livan Hernandez (940)
5. Tom Underwood (937)
6. Sidney Ponson (936)
7. Randy Wolf (935)
8. Ryan Dempster (933)
9. Melido Perez (933)
10. Mike Moore (932)

Even with an era adjustment, you could do much worse than that set of comps. Oliver looks to be in for a long career, at least.

Oliver looks to be in for a long career, at least.

Not if you consider the career of his TRUE top comp, Mr. Koufax

There's some truth in that, but the idea of bringing in someone--for real money--who is apparently comparable to Sidney Ponson and Melido Perez just makes me shiver.

Melido was their best pitcher for a year or two there. I don't think it's rigorous at all to point to a single person on the top ten (and not even in the top five) Similarity Score list and assume that it represents a realistic level of performance.

Why are your "action words" different colors than everything else?

Why are your "action words" different colors than everything else?

Because I'm an idiot who hit "CODE" instead of "QUOTE" last time.

I was half-kidding, since I'm just not interested in Ollie, and SimScores aren't predicative anyway. I'd argue Melido was their best pitcher for only one year ('92) incidentally. But I will grant he was awesome that year.

Lowe to Philadelphia? I wish. But I haven't seen any evidence that it's even a possibility. Where the hell did such a quote come from?

I think it's a "balance of power in this quadrant" quote, nothing more. I agree that even by speculative Post standards, this one was speculative to the Nth degree.

Is Oliver Perez the great white whale? Why do scouts always think their team can fix him, and that he's not a journeyman with a career 94 ERA+ who occasionally produces a stellar season when he gets lucky on BABIP?

This is obviously extremely misleading. But you know that.

Where'd you get 4/50, snaps?

Speculating based on Lowe turning down 3/36 flat. I figure Lowe ends up getting ~3/42-45, probably from the Mets.

Perez is worse, so he gets 12.5 per rather than 14-15, but gets the extra year b/c he still young.

Perez is too young to be called a "journeyman" and also too young to be wholly written off. On the other hand, since mid-June 2007:

288 IP
4.19 ERA
278 K (8.6 K/9)
155 BB (4.7 BB/9)
36 HR

If Perez doesn't get that walk or HR rate down, he is soon going to be match what #2 said.

@19

That's not an ace, but that's a durable, above-average starter.

That's not an ace, but that's a durable, above-average starter.

Well, it's not a durable starter either. Those 288 IP came in 50 starts. So he's averaging less than six innings a start. There's earthly way you can call that "durable." He has some value, there's no question, but a guy who gives you less than six innings per start of league average ball isn't that notable.

That was a hell of a '92 season. Thanks for bringing him up and getting me to look him up. Too many damned walks, but a really good indication of how bad that Yankees team was and how essentially meaningless pitcher W/L record is is contained in his 13-16 mark.

Those 288 IP came in 50 starts. So he's averaging less than six innings a start. There's [no] earthly way you can call that "durable."

I guess if that were what durable meant, you might have a point.

Just to put numbers on things. Perez' VORP since his big season:

21, 24, -2, -4, 55

A simple 3-2-1 projection puts him at 18 VORP, which is worth maybe 8-9M per year. If you ignore his two seasons of replacement level pitching, you could maybe project a $12M contract.

It's quite confusing to me that a team would be deciding between Derek Lowe and Oliver Perez. Unless they are short of cash, they should really obviously sign Derek Lowe, a far superior pitcher by a margin in the range of two wins per year.

Well, it's not a durable starter either. Those 288 IP came in 50 starts. So he's averaging less than six innings a start. There's earthly way you can call that "durable." He has some value, there's no question, but a guy who gives you less than six innings per start of league average ball isn't that notable.

I wonder what Boras would say if some GM actually bothers to bring this up. Now that I think about it, I would love to be a fly on a wall in some of these talks. I guess that's not a particularly new thought, but isn't there a reality show for the MLB Network waiting to be made there?

I really don't think anyone calls 370 IP in two years "durable", at least not when that's the best two-year total a pitcher has ever achieved. It's definitional, though, doesn't really matter. Perez looks like a somewhat above average starting pitcher who carries more than usual injury / meltdown risk.

Perez is worse, so he gets 12.5 per rather than 14-15, but gets the extra year b/c he still young.

Maybe if he had a consistent track record he would get that extra year. But the team will give someone an extra year because they think there's a good chance they will be worth it, not just because the pitcher probably won't be looking to retire in four years. Ben Sheets is young too, and we'll see what kind of contract he gets. I predict 2 years.

I guess if that were what durable meant, you might have a point.

So what does durable mean? Perez has never pitched 200 innings. Made 30 starts just twice in 7 years. There's no way he can be called durable.

He's been ineffective, not injury (or fatigue) prone. His ineffectiveness has had nothing whatsoever to do with durability. He takes the ball more or less whenever you give it to him. It's just that sometimes he throws it to the backstop. As starters go, he's durable.

Durability basically means innings, in everyday baseball parlance. It doesn't mean total games started.

Hey! I'm durable. I could start 162 games a season if they'd let me.

Granted the only batter I could get out would be Andruw Jones . . .

Oliver Perez, 2008. Number of innings in each start:

6, 5.2, 4.1, 5.2, 5.2, 1.2
6, 6, 7.2, 5, 6
0.1, 5.1, 7, 6, 5, 7
7, 6, 6, 7.2, 6
6, 7, 6.2, 6.1, 6.1, 6
6.2, 3.1, 7, 6, 4.1, 5.1

In 22 of his 34 starts, he threw at least 100 pitches.
In 30 of his 34 starts, he threw at least 85 pitches.
Never more than 120 pitches.

I was expecting more of a boom-bust sort of pattern, with some complete games and several total blowups. But no.

I think the issue is more that he is "inefficient" than that he is "ineffective". He made 34 starts, with an exactly league-average ERA. His WHIP was slightly above league average. He led the league in starts, but was about 40 innings behind the league leader in innings. He led the league in walks allowed in only 194 innings, and was in the top 10 in K/9 as well as hits/9.

Here we go again.

The last 4 years, Perez has made 105 ML starts and 14 AAA starts.

He made 34 starts in 2008. 1 pitcher had more starts, 12 others also had 34.
He's made 63 starts in 2007-8. 27 pitchers had more starts.
He's made 85 starts in 2006-8. 45 pitchers have more starts.
He's made 105 starts in 2005-8. 50 pitchers have more starts.

If you include his AAA starts, which is biased because I'm not including them for others, he has 119 starts over 4 years. Only 31 pitchers have 120+ starts in MLB 2005-8.

Over those 4 years, he has 587 ML IP and 70 pitchers have more IP. Add his AAA numbers (again biased) and it's 53.

The number of pitchers over the last 4 years with 720+ IP is 36; with 120+ starts is 31.

And the median number of innings thrown by a team's starters last year was about 940 or 5.8 IP per start. It's been around there for 4 of the last 5 seasons. Perez has been a smidgen above 6 the last 2 years (after being around 5 at ages 23-24).

At worst, Oliver Perez has been of average durability.

Apparently some of you think there are only about 30 durable starters in MLB. Or maybe you just haven't kept up with current patterns of starter usage, injury and ineffectiveness.

Are there standings for league leaders in pitches thrown anywhere?

Oliver Perez might have been near the top of that stat his year, despite only 194 innings. He might be one of the most durable pitchers in baseball, in fact, if he's good enough to be used regularly.

Over those 4 years, he has 587 ML IP and 70 pitchers have more IP.
...
Apparently some of you think there are only about 30 durable starters in MLB.

I'd say 50-60 durable starters seems about as high as I would go, and that puts Perez on the outside looking in based on your numbers.

I'm further confused by the claim that Perez has been of at least average durability, and thus that he must be categorized as "durable". If a pitcher is "at worst ... average" in his groundball/flyball ratio, that doesn't mean it's imperative that we categorize him as a groundball pitcher. Most people would only categorize the pitchers who have notably higher than average GB/FB ratios as groundball pitchers.

Yeah, it's hard for Ollie to rack up complete games when 1) he throws so many pitches per batter and 2) his own team views him as a ticking time bomb and lifts him whenever someone gets on base in the seventh inning or later.¹

It'd be interesting to see how Ollie would do if not managed with a quick-hook strategy, but naturally a team that is trying to contend is going to be reluctant to risk that.

I like Ollie better for the Mets than Lowe because the money saved is meaningful to them and because, with the Wright/Reyes/Beltran/Johan core, there is no need to load up for 2009 specifically; they can think a little more long-term. The Yanks, on the other hand, have an older core, and don't care about money. And if they did feel like gambling on potential, they already have on the roster the guy who was considered the best pitching prospect in baseball two years ago, plus another guy who was very highly regarded at that time; since they have those options and are clearly not interested in utilizing them, I have to assume that's not their mindset. So I'd reverse this article and say that logically, the Mets should be the ones who end up with Ollie, and the Yanks with Lowe. (That said, if the Mets do decide to outbid the Yanks and other teams for Lowe on the basis that he is simply the better pitcher, I'm not going to particularly object.)

¹ Only a very slight exaggeration.

I like Ollie better for the Mets than Lowe because the money saved is meaningful to them and because, with the Wright/Reyes/Beltran/Johan core, there is no need to load up for 2009 specifically

Lowe projects something like 15-20 runs better than Perez (CHONE, eg). Do you really expect the savings to match the runs?

I'm further confused by the claim that Perez has been of at least average durability, and thus that he must be categorized as "durable". If a pitcher is "at worst ... average" in his groundball/flyball ratio, that doesn't mean it's imperative that we categorize him as a groundball pitcher. Most people would only categorize the pitchers who have notably higher than average GB/FB ratios as groundball pitchers.

You can't use the word "average" like this. What's the group that you're taking an average of? All MLB starting pitchers? All starting pitchers in both MLB and the minors? Everyone who was good enough to keep a rotation spot for a whole year when healthy?

It makes more sense to say "If Perez isn't durable, then only 30 (or 60 or whatever) pitchers are both durable and effective major league starters."

I really don't see what's wrong with thinking there are only about 40 or 50 durable starters in major league baseball. As Walt documented, most starters miss lots of time due to injury or ineffectiveness. Durability is a prized and rare trait among pitchers.

2) his own team views him as a ticking time bomb and lifts him whenever someone gets on base in the seventh inning or later.¹

But at that point he has already thrown enough pitchers that he should probably be lifted anyway. He pitched into the 7th inning nine times in 2008, and was lifted after 116, 106, 110, 120, 104, 114, 111, 117, and 111 pitches. And most of these were after exactly 3 times through the lineup (27, 25, 27, 26, 28, 30, 24, 30, 28 batters faced), so I don't know if he was being treated differently from any other pitcher.

Except that most other pitchers would at least occasionally get to the eighth inning before they've gotten through the lineup three times.

Jaret Wright saw this usage pattern for the Yankees a few years ago. I wasn't sure if I should be angry at Jaret for not pitching deep into games or mad at Joe Torre for taking him out. But one of those guys really broke the Yankee bullpen late in the year by making them pitch the sixth on every one of Wright's starts.

Hey! I'm durable. I could start 162 games a season if they'd let me.

I sincerely doubt it.

I think I can fix this. It was my comment about Ollie being "durable." I meant that he can pitch regularly in a 5-man rotation without breaking down physically. The fact that he can't seem to hit 200 innings (if that is indeed a fair standard - Walt indicates that it may not be) is more due to inconsistency and non-fatigue/non-injury related ineffectiveness.

If your definition of "durable" is different from mine, then we probably have no disagreement at all, as Ollie's stats are what they are.

I always think of durability in terms of games started for pitchers, not necessarily innings pitched. That doesn't make me right, of course, but thats how I always think of it. Obviously, the most durable guys are those like Santana who give you both lots of innings and starts. But I usually think of it in starts.

I like Ollie better for the Mets than Lowe because the money saved is meaningful to them and because, with the Wright/Reyes/Beltran/Johan core, there is no need to load up for 2009 specifically; they can think a little more long-term. The Yanks, on the other hand, have an older core, and don't care about money. And if they did feel like gambling on potential, they already have on the roster the guy who was considered the best pitching prospect in baseball two years ago, plus another guy who was very highly regarded at that time; since they have those options and are clearly not interested in utilizing them, I have to assume that's not their mindset. So I'd reverse this article and say that logically, the Mets should be the ones who end up with Ollie, and the Yanks with Lowe. (That said, if the Mets do decide to outbid the Yanks and other teams for Lowe on the basis that he is simply the better pitcher, I'm not going to particularly object.)

As a suffering Mets fan I have to disagree strongly with this. The Mets have a core of exactly four stars whom they have managed to surround with old guys prone to breaking down, guys like Chruch who had not demonstrated durability (I think I can get away with using that word in this context as he had one almost full season before being traded to the Mets), and Maine, who also could not have put "durable" on his resume, and poor trades for or signings of guys likely to be weak contributors, like Schneider and Castillo. Derek Lowe, had he been on the Mets in 2008 instead of Ollie, would likely have caused them to win the division. If it's close again this year, as it probably will be, Ollie--again--is exactly the sort of dice roll the Mets should avoid. In this case, the pitcher who is almost a decade older is the better, more reliable, more durable pitcher, and as much as Omar has undermined the Mets by signing older players, Lowe gives every indication of being worth 3/45 to the Mets, particularly next year and the year after. He's exactly what the Mets need.

To say that the Mets don't need to hurry and can afford to take their time with Perez underestimates, imo, how quickly windows of opportunity close: Beltran suffers enough of an injury that he becomes merely average. A couple of Phillies youngsters break out and they turn into a 100-win team. It's been a long time since 1986, and an awfully long time since 1969. The small difference in cost is something the Mets can well afford and if in 2011 an aging Lowe isn't quite as good as Ollie, well, one day every wife gets ugly.

A couple of Phillies youngsters break out and they turn into a 100-win team.

All the Phillies youngsters who might possibly do that are blocked right now, except maybe Carlos Carrasco (a pitcher). Worry about other things for at least the 2009 season; Jason Donald, Lou Marson and John Mayberry, Jr. will not explode your dreams.

In this case, the pitcher who is almost a decade older is the better, more reliable, more durable pitcher, and as much as Omar has undermined the Mets by signing older players, Lowe gives every indication of being worth 3/45 to the Mets, particularly next year and the year after. He's exactly what the Mets need.

I respectfully disagree with this. I know I'm in the minority on that.

There is no doubting that Derek Lowe has been great over the last couple of years. Oliver Perez is somewhat of an enigma, but we're getting to the point where his band of possible outcomes is getting narrower - no longer does he seem possible to post a 2.50 ERA or a 6.00 ERA... we have enough data on him and have seen enough of him to place him between 3.5 and 4.5.

With Lowe, you're looking at is a 36 year old sinkerballer. You're not signing him to repeat the last three seasons. The overwhelming odds are that he will be worse in his age 37, 38, and 39 seasons. He could be worse, of he could be MUCH worse.

Would you really take a 38 year old Lowe over a 31 year old Perez? I wouldn't... especially if Ollie comes cheaper.

I'd take a 34-year-old Lowe over a 27-year-old Perez. I'd take a 35-year-old Lowe over a 28-year-old Perez. I'd take a 36-year-old Lowe over a 29-year-old Perez. I'd be right in each case, by an average of a couple wins per season. You'd seriously take Perez over Lowe? Met fans are weird.

With Lowe, you're looking at is a 36 year old sinkerballer. You're not signing him to repeat the last three seasons. The overwhelming odds are that he will be worse in his age 37, 38, and 39 seasons. He could be worse, of he could be MUCH worse.

Would you really take a 38 year old Lowe over a 31 year old Perez? I wouldn't... especially if Ollie comes cheaper.

Well, to make the comparison worse from my point of view, it's a 38 year old Lowe versus a 29 year old Ollie. I'd still sign Lowe, though. The Mets keep missing because they keep betting on guys like Ollie, and Castillo, and Moises Alou, and El Duque, and Pedro, and Julio Franco, and Ryan Church, and on and on. (Funny how their old-guy signings just about always have durability or performance issues--Lowe has neither.) Too, I'm not entirely ready to accept your 3.5 to 4.5 prognosis. I would take Lowe over Perez, in 2009 and 2010, and if I really had to bet I'd take Ollie in 2011. But for the next two years, when Beltran has a good shot at remaining Beltran, when Fernando might be Fernando!, while Wright and Reyes are still around, and before Santan leaves his prime, I want Derek Lowe on the mound for the Mets. He's 35, true, but with only 1940 innings on his arm it's not an old 35. With no ML season over 125 innings until he was 29, and no season under 180 innings since then, well, that's a damned good track record, one, I think, of a pitcher likely to age well, if any pitcher not named Maddux or Clemens or Glavine is likely to. So yes, let's get Lowe. He's the perfect low risk signing. And if his ERA+ goes from 114 (in 2005), 124, 118, 131 to 123 to 117 to 109 (or 107, or 98--there's no reason at all to think he's going to crater at a young 38), that's perfectly acceptable. The Mets are favorites to win the division behind Santana and Lowe even though Maine is iffy, Pelfrey has one real ML year behind him, and Jon Niese is a thoroughgoing roll of the dice. Substitute Ollie with his ups and downs for Lowe and I don't think you can make that claim.

I'd say Lowe has a much better shot of ending up on the Mets, and I think that would be great assuming it means Perez ends up someplace else. With Ibanez now replacing Burrell, the Phillies have ONE quality right handed bat in Jayson Werth (with Jimmy and Shane switching). As a Phillies fan I would much rather see a rotation with Lowe and without Perez than vice versa.

That being said, Derek Lowe can be still be effective at his age. His style permits it, and he has a few more years in him. If the Phillies were to bring him in, I think that would be great. Ryan Howard is only locked up for two more years and the Phillies won't be coughing up 200 million to one guy when that day comes. They have to try to win a couple more now, and Derek Lowe would fit right in.