which might well be his floor, already placed him among the league’s better pitchers.

Perez is an above average starting pitcher in my opinion but I don't think I'd say he is one of the league's better pitchers. He wasn't as good as his ERA+ last season. He has allowed a ton of unearned runs. He has been unlucky in that regard in some instances but he has also been putrid in other instances.

I really did think Perez had taken a step forward with regard to the walks last season when he walked only 47 in his first 125 IP of the season, an average of 3.38 walks/9. Unfortunately, he has walked 53 in his last 81 IP (5.89 bb/9). He is not improving, he is regressing with respect to his control.

Considering Boras is his agent and there are several good starting pitchers that should be available next season, I would not be sad if the Mets let him go, spent that money otherwise, and just collected the draft picks, especially if Ollie is a Type-A free agent.

2007, which might well be his floor

Stupid on its face.

Perez had a 3.56 ERA in 2007, coming off back-to-back years of 5.85 and 6.55. Sure, it's possible that every year he has from here on out will be better than 2007, but his floor remains a terrible pitcher who can't find the strike zone with a map.

Is there any real reason to think 2007 was Perez' floor?

Is there any real reason to think 2007 was Perez' floor?

Are we talking about Perez Hilton again?

Is there any real reason to think 2007 was Perez' floor?

Howard really, really, really, wants it to be?

Perez is an above average starting pitcher in my opinion but I don't think I'd say he is one of the league's better pitchers.

This is a pretty narrow difference. And I'm not sure how you make this claim. K-rate was top-10, as was ERA+.

He wasn't as good as his ERA+ last season. He has allowed a ton of unearned runs.

I'd suggest you read the article. The Mets made twice as many errors in Perez starts as Maine starts.

Is there any real reason to think 2007 was Perez' floor?

The reason I think so is that 2007 was the first full year Perez was pitching with anything approaching a consistent, repeated motion. That he was able to do so without his stuff suffering was very telling to me.
His numbers are down early this year, in a ridiculously small sample. There are those who thought I was crazy last year on Perez, and I pretty much nailed his 2007 statistical line. I have every confidence that his across-the-board numbers will sustain/build on last season's gains.

Perez had a 3.56 ERA in 2007, coming off back-to-back years of 5.85 and 6.55. Sure, it's possible that every year he has from here on out will be better than 2007, but his floor remains a terrible pitcher who can't find the strike zone with a map.

I have heard this argument before. Ordinarily, I'd agree with you. But I think there are changes in a pitcher that make his previous statistics relatively worthless in projecting him going forward. Perez's change in motion is one of them, in my opinion. Purely statistically, you are correct. But much like Mike Scott's addition of the splitter made previous stats moot, I believe Perez's change in motion- in fact, that he has a repeated motion- is such a change.

I respect your disagreement, however. Ultimately, only time will tell.

I have every confidence that his across-the-board numbers will sustain/build on last season's gains.
I used to think that about Vincente Padilla after a hot streak too. :)
Granted I don't see Perez much outside of when he pitches against the Phils, but he seems to manage to fall apart at some point in the game. That didn't seem to happen in the first 2/3 of last year and then he reverted to the old Ollie.
Howard, you are certainly one of the level-headed Mets fans but this is sounding fan-boyish. If he ends up with a better 2008 than 2007, I shall tip my logical hat to you. Feel free to remind me if it happens.

Granted I don't see Perez much outside of when he pitches against the Phils, but he seems to manage to fall apart at some point in the game. That didn't seem to happen in the first 2/3 of last year and then he reverted to the old Ollie.

In fairness, his biggest fall-apart game was against Philly last year- in April.

Howard, you are certainly one of the level-headed Mets fans but this is sounding fan-boyish. If he ends up with a better 2008 than 2007, I shall tip my logical hat to you. Feel free to remind me if it happens.

Fair enough. I can only fall back on the fact that most of my projections are not on the far-optimistic side. With the bad walk numbers so far, he could be more consistent in 2008 than 2007 over the remaining five months, but end up with BB and K numbers similar to 2007. I'm not projecting a 2.60 ERA or anything- but what would surprise me is a 2008 far out of line with his 2007 numbers.

If I had to guess right now, I'd guess 80 BB, 195 K in 200 IP, around a 3.70-3.80 ERA.

I will say that it should be fascinating to see hoe Perez, notoriously thin-skinned, comes out tonight on the heels of the Wagner criticism. More than results, I want to see if he goes back to freelancing in a way he really hasn't as a Met. That would spell trouble for his 2008.

But I think there are changes in a pitcher that make his previous statistics relatively worthless in projecting him going forward. Perez's change in motion is one of them, in my opinion.

I think these sorts of claims can be made for most players in baseball. Why is someone doing awesome/struggling? Because they either made a mechanical adjustment or mistake of course. You can take everything we knew about them before, and throw it out the window!

I'm not saying there aren't genuine changes that really do make previous statistics relatively worthless, but I'm very skeptical that one can identify reliably ex ante which ones are "real" and which ones are just early season BBTN talking points. Players change motions and add pitches all the times. Sometimes this results in massive swings in statistical performance. Much more commonly, it doesn't. I have no idea how to figure out ahead of time which is which, and I suspect neither does anyone else really.

Why is Perez's change a Mike Scott change? I'll add that in broad strokes, Perez remains the same pitcher he's been before the "new motion" - high Ks, high BBs, high FB rate.

I'd suggest you read the article. The Mets made twice as many errors in Perez starts as Maine starts.

And Perez allowed 3 times as many unearned runs as Maine.

Perez is probably going to get a ton of money on the offseason from some team and I don't trust him enough to make that commitment to him. He has time to change that (not that my opinion matters one whit, of course) by putting together a solid season. Two back to back solid seasons, particularly if he can keep the walks to a reasonable number would go a long way towards making me feel better.

Perez is an above average starting pitcher in my opinion but I don't think I'd say he is one of the league's better pitchers.

This is a pretty narrow difference. And I'm not sure how you make this claim. K-rate was top-10, as was ERA+.

Well, for one thing, the ERA was so misleading. Fine, they made a lot of errors behind him. NY Met starting pitchers last year combined for 940.2 IP last year, and allowed 40 unearned runs. Oliver Perez accounted for half of them. In 18% of the starters innings, he allowed 50% of the unearned runs. That's absurd.

And because he had one year where he was probably a top 15 pitcher in the NL (maybe) he's now one of the leagues better starting pitchers? Santana, Smoltz, Hudson, Zambrano, Lincecum, Penny, Hamels, Webb, Haren, Harang, Myers, Peavy; who is he better than? He hasn't been better than Jeff Francis since probably 2004.

If I had to guess right now, I'd guess 80 BB, 195 K in 200 IP, around a 3.70-3.80 ERA.


I don't think this is a particularly outrageous projection, although it's more optimistic than I'm expecting (I expect more walks, fewer K, a slightly higher ERA, and about 10-15 fewer innings).

I love Oliver Perez and I really would like him to succeed. I am very nervous about what sort of dollars he'll command, though. Perez is not the pitcher I want to be committed to for $20M per over 5-6 years. I don't see how he's not going to be grossly overpaid on his next contract, and that makes me nervous.

I RTFA and think that you're right and wrong. I think your evaluation of Perez is way too optimistic to take seriously, and that your right that the Mets have put themselves in a position (not saying wrongly) where they have little choice but to overpay for him. Other than Pelfrey, who comes with his own issues, is there another Mets pitcher within a 3-wood of being ML ready?

I'm becoming less sold on Perez with each month. His K rate is still excellent, but he's basically been a 4 ERA pitcher (with a huge number of walks and Ks) since the end of last May. At this point, what stands out as the outlier is his 2 months at the beginning of 2007 when he was walking less than 3 per 9, as opposed to the 150 IP thereafter, where his walk rate is up to 5 per 9.

I'm not saying there aren't genuine changes that really do make previous statistics relatively worthless, but I'm very skeptical that one can identify reliably ex ante which ones are "real" and which ones are just early season BBTN talking points.

This is a fair point. The two reasons I see it as a fundamental change is that while his career BB rate is around 5, his BB rate last year was an even 4. But more to the point- when he is succeeding fundamentally, his walks aren't just under control- he throws 60-70% of his pitches for strikes. He becomes, in a very significant way, a different pitcher.

NY Met starting pitchers last year combined for 940.2 IP last year, and allowed 40 unearned runs. Oliver Perez accounted for half of them. In 18% of the starters innings, he allowed 50% of the unearned runs. That's absurd.

I'd argue that absurd would be to cling to this stat without recognizing that the Mets made a ton more errors for Perez than for the other starters.

And because he had one year where he was probably a top 15 pitcher in the NL (maybe) he's now one of the leagues better starting pitchers? Santana, Smoltz, Hudson, Zambrano, Lincecum, Penny, Hamels, Webb, Haren, Harang, Myers, Peavy; who is he better than?

This may be semantics, frankly. I think Perez can be one of the league's better SP, and not be better than the guys you listed. That is 12 NL starters- I'd put Perez in the next rung. Considering that there are 80 SP in the National League, putting Perez, say, 20th or 25th, makes him one of the better starters in the league. Is that clearer?

I'm becoming less sold on Perez with each month. His K rate is still excellent, but he's basically been a 4 ERA pitcher (with a huge number of walks and Ks) since the end of last May.

Actually, if you break it down by month, he had three excellent and three mediocre ones last year.

Month ERA IP BB K
April 3.86 23 7 26
May 2.01 40.1 11 35
June 4.06 31 19 24
July 1.40 19.1 7 23
Aug 5.19 34.2 20 39
Sept 4.45 28.1 15 27

I'd argue that absurd would be to cling to this stat without recognizing that the Mets made a ton more errors for Perez than for the other starters.

Than the whole staff? The Mets made 50% of their errors last year in games Perez pitched?

Taken from your article, the Mets committed 31 errors in 35 Perez starts since Opening Day 2007. (while he was on the mound, or in a game he started?). Combined, Glavine and Maine had 34 errors made behind them in 69 starts. Those 3 have combined to pitch 631 innings; Perez pitched 32.6% of the innings, and had 47.9% of the errors made behind him. Based on that, what % of the unearned runs that those 3 allowed would you expect him to have allowed, base on those numbers? I guess the 45% range, or so. He allowed 71% of the unearned runs those 3 allowed. Fine, the Mets make more errors behind him, he still allows a ton more unearned runs than you would expect based on the distribution of errors. You just can't waive away that many unearned runs because of the amount of errors made behind him.


I am not necessarily saying Perez has some fatal flaw that will always see him allow more unearned runs than you would think; as you point out in your article, for his career he allows an average number of unearned runs. However, that doesn't change the fact that last year he allowed way more unearned runs than you would expect, and his ERA is incredibly misleading because of that.

That is 12 NL starters- I'd put Perez in the next rung. Considering that there are 80 SP in the National League, putting Perez, say, 20th or 25th, makes him one of the better starters in the league. Is that clearer?

Sure, but can you really say that he's a 20th or so in the league, and also say his 2007 season was his floor?

Edited: Based on what you had written before, it seems like you thought Perez was better than 20th or 25th in the NL. I come down closer to that opinion, so my post may seem more combative than it should because I read it as you thinking he was closer to top 10. My apologies.

I will say that it should be fascinating to see hoe Perez, notoriously thin-skinned, comes out tonight on the heels of the Wagner criticism. More than results, I want to see if he goes back to freelancing in a way he really hasn't as a Met. That would spell trouble for his 2008.

The time for Perez to go out and have a good outing, at least not an awful one, was last Wednesday when he was relatively free of teammmate broadsides in the press. Now I think Wagner should shut his face, but if Perez goes out and stinks up the joint again tonight, that's still on Perez. And perhaps Rick Peterson some too. But mostly Perez.

I'd suggest you read the article. The Mets made twice as many errors in Perez starts as Maine starts.

And Perez allowed 3 times as many unearned runs as Maine.

Part (but not all) of that was Perez' fielding itself. Perez committed 3 errors last season, which I believe caused 6 out of his 20 unearned runs. All other Mets pitchers made 6 errors, and the only other starting pitcher to commit an error was Glavine, who made 1.

Anecdotally, he seemed to panic a bit and rush his throws when the ball was hit to him. Maybe it's just a small sample size thing, because it doesn't appear that Perez had this problem in the past.

You just can't waive away that many unearned runs because of the amount of errors made behind him.

Correct. Nor can you somehow assign all the blame to Perez. But I am not arguing that his ERA of 3.56 is exactly how to evaluate his run-prevention. I am arguing that claiming he is somehow responsible for all those unearned runs is silly. The truth lies in the middle- and even in the middle, his performance last season was among the better ones among NL starters.

The time for Perez to go out and have a good outing, at least not an awful one, was last Wednesday when he was relatively free of teammmate broadsides in the press. Now I think Wagner should shut his face, but if Perez goes out and stinks up the joint again tonight, that's still on Perez. And perhaps Rick Peterson some too. But mostly Perez.

Frankly, the time for him to go out and have a good outing is as consistently as possible every fifth day. And evaluating him based on one start, either Wednesday or tonight, doesn't get at the full picture of what value he provides.

Sure, but can you really say that he's a 20th or so in the league, and also say his 2007 season was his floor?

Edited: Based on what you had written before, it seems like you thought Perez was better than 20th or 25th in the NL. I come down closer to that opinion, so my post may seem more combative than it should because I read it as you thinking he was closer to top 10. My apologies.

I don't see these two statements as at odds. And again, if I am right, and his floor is a performance that is 20th or so in the NL- well that is obviously an extremely valuable pitcher.

We'll have a better sense of it after 2008 is over, of course- and I assume the Mets will make an offer accordingly.

As for apologies, none are necessary- I like discussing this stuff. It is why I am happy when BTF links to my articles. Feels like peer review, which I think only sharpens my evaluating.

Actually, if you break it down by month, he had three excellent and three mediocre ones last year.

Well, again, this is somewhat semantics. But the other way of looking at it is that since June 2007 he's had one good month.

His total numbers from that time are fine, but nothing special: 149.1 IP, 67 ER (4.03 ERA), 147 K, 82 BB, 17 HR. Ollie is going to have to show me he can bring that BB number down before I'd be ready to say he's a top pitcher in the NL. At the moment he looks like an average pitcher who had an outstanding start to a season once.

I RTFA and think that you're right and wrong. I think your evaluation of Perez is way too optimistic to take seriously, and that your right that the Mets have put themselves in a position (not saying wrongly) where they have little choice but to overpay for him. Other than Pelfrey, who comes with his own issues, is there another Mets pitcher within a 3-wood of being ML ready?

The Mets are going to have pay someone a lot of money to be in their rotation in 2009 but that doesn't mean it has to be Perez. There should be a lot of pitchers available next offseason. I think the Mets would be better off signing someone like Derek Lowe for less money and years than Perez, and taking the draft picks.

The thing about Perez is that there's always going to be that chance that he figures things out and becomes a Cy Young candidate. But I don't want the Mets to pay him 15 million a year to see if that happens. He has better raw stuff than Johan Santana but that does not mean that much when you walk the ballpark.

The thing about Perez is that there's always going to be that chance that he figures things out and becomes a Cy Young candidate. But I don't want the Mets to pay him 15 million a year to see if that happens.

Thats pretty much exactly how I feel.

However, I could be convinced otherwise with another solid season. If he has another year like last year, that might be good enough for me.

Well, again, this is somewhat semantics. But the other way of looking at it is that since June 2007 he's had one good month.

And since April 30, 2008 he's been flat-out terrible.

His total numbers from that time are fine, but nothing special: 149.1 IP, 67 ER (4.03 ERA), 147 K, 82 BB, 17 HR. Ollie is going to have to show me he can bring that BB number down before I'd be ready to say he's a top pitcher in the NL. At the moment he looks like an average pitcher who had an outstanding start to a season once.

Are these really average numbers? This sounds like a semantic argument in the making, too, but even the numbers you cite, which are selectively working against Perez, don't appear to be average- league ERA last year was 4.43, this year 4.18, and obviously that includes relievers, who tend to have lower ERAs.

The thing about Perez is that there's always going to be that chance that he figures things out and becomes a Cy Young candidate. But I don't want the Mets to pay him 15 million a year to see if that happens.

How I look at it is they are paying $12 million a year for an above-average strikeout pitcher in his 20s, and about $3 million per year for the upside chance he becomes a number one. Again, this is with no discount for the chance he reverts to 05-06, which I think will be legit if he finishes 08 with comparable numbers to 07.

Unusual career shape? The great season age 22, then two terrible years, then a very good year last year --Bref top two comps through age 25 are Viola and Dempster -- each had a great year early on followed by a couple dropoff years, not nearly as bad as Perez though. Has there been anyone with a more similar early career?

Frankly, the time for him to go out and have a good outing is as consistently as possible every fifth day. And evaluating him based on one start, either Wednesday or tonight, doesn't get at the full picture of what value he provides.

Well sure. I was responding though to your remark above about how he comes out tonight. What I meant to impart is that Perez needing a good outing was palpable before his last start.

Oliver Perez is 26, left-handed, can throw 93 mph and has managed to stay in the rotation.

Unless he's Steve Dalkowski I hang onto a guy like that.

Perez is a Boras client. There's no way the Mets re-sign him before he becomes a free agent.

Unless he's Steve Dalkowski I hang onto a guy like that.

Even if it costs 15 million a year for 5+ seasons?

Other than Pelfrey, who comes with his own issues, is there another Mets pitcher within a 3-wood of being ML ready?

Jon Niese is getting there quickly. A 6'4", 215 pound, lefty 7th round pick out of high school in 2005, he went 11-7 with a 4.19 ERA and a 113/32 K/BB in 137 IP in the FSL in 2007. Only 21 and in AA Binghamton this year, he's off to a 2-2, 1.82, 27/13 start in 29.2 IP. If things continue like this, he'll see the major leagues some time in 2009.

Year ERA+ BABIP
2002 107 .261
2003 73 .324
2004 145 .276
2005 72 .293
2006 67 .332
2007 120 .273
2008 100 .325
Career 95 .294

Oliver was lucky last year on BABIP. He's a league average starter, no more, no less. Rick Peterson "fixed" him about as well as he fixed Victor Zambrano.

Jon Niese is getting there quickly. A 6'4", 215 pound, lefty 7th round pick out of high school in 2005, he went 11-7 with a 4.19 ERA and a 113/32 K/BB in 137 IP in the FSL in 2007. Only 21 and in AA Binghamton this year, he's off to a 2-2, 1.82, 27/13 start in 29.2 IP. If things continue like this, he'll see the major leagues some time in 2009.

I am a Niese fanboy. I really like his stuff. He doesn't have a huge upside but I think he can be a nice middle of the rotation starter.

Value Arb, Perez's FIPS was 4.36 last season (don't lefties usually outperform DIPS?) and part of the reason his BABIP was down was because his line drive percentage was down. Perez was a 105-110 ERA+ pitcher last season. That's better than league average.

Are these really average numbers? This sounds like a semantic argument in the making, too, but even the numbers you cite, which are selectively working against Perez, don't appear to be average- league ERA last year was 4.43, this year 4.18, and obviously that includes relievers, who tend to have lower ERAs.

Last year, Maine had a 3.91 ERA and ERA+ of 109. My guess is a 4.03 ERA with half your games at Shea is around 104-106. This year his ERA+ is 100. Add in the "extra" unearned runs and he has at best been slightly above average.

Oliver was lucky last year on BABIP.

Not really. He's a flyball pitcher when he's right, so his in-play BA should be low - and when he's been healthy, it has been.

What's interesting so far this year is that his GO/AO rate is nearly 1.0, and he's never been anything close to that in his major league career (last year it was 0.57, career is 0.72). That suggests that something else is going on here.

-- MWE

Hmmm...why do they call them "UNEARNED RUNS"?

Every pitcher has some good and some bad months, even Santana.

He's pretty good pitcher, with some upside. Someone posted 12-13 pitchers he's NOT better than. Although, I don't think Lincecum has exactly proven anything yet, I understand he has a ton of upside. Francis and Perez, I'd rate about even, yet Francis is the ace in Colorado

Value Arb, Perez's FIPS was 4.36 last season (don't lefties usually outperform DIPS?) and part of the reason his BABIP was down was because his line drive percentage was down. Perez was a 105-110 ERA+ pitcher last season. That's better than league average.

1. Yeah, lefties systematically outperform on BABIP (not on DIPS though, which has an adjustment built in for that.)

2. Yes his line drive percentage was down last season, but line drive percentage itself is subject to a great deal of luck. It's not as stable as K rate or BB rate for instance. A low line drive percentage might just be a result of getting lucky on BABIP, rather than a reason his BABIP was down.

3. Perez's questions aren't just limited to his BABIP - there are also issues of his HR rate. While his FIP was 4.36, his xFIP was 4.74. This year, he has a FIP of 4.21, but an xFIP of 5.02. I won't claim to know whether Perez has some significant HR prevention ability, and I would suggest nobody else does either.

Has anyone actually shown that xFIP shows us anything more than FIP does?

Has anyone actually shown that xFIP shows us anything more than FIP does?

It hasn't been nearly as well studied as DIPS in general, which is why I refrained from taking a position on whether he has some special ability in that regard. THT did a study finding good results, which was the basis for the creation of the xFIP stat in the first place though. That was a while back though, and I haven't seen verification.

I thought Perez was damaged beyond repair before last season, so I have to give him credit for reassembling his career in such a relatively short time. Hell, I still remember Gammons praising Perez for throwing from “ten different arm angles” and thinking um… isn’t that bad? His collapse happened shortly thereafter, and I really thought he was shot, on the verge of a serious injury because of his terrible mechanics. Megdal and I debated this on a thread a couple of years ago, and I’d have to say he won. But the biggest winner, undoubtedly, is Perez’s bank account. He’ll get paid big this off-season even if he puts up a 4.40 ERA at Big Shea. He’s left-handed, throws hard, and has been pretty durable. And I have a feeling very few mainstream fans will criticize the Mets for letting him walk. The mainstream and BTF type fans probably distrust Perez for the same reasons. While the BTF dude is more apt to find the numbers backing his opinion, the mainstream guy’s “gut” tells him Perez can’t be fully trusted. I mean, I rarely hear a ton of support for Perez on the FAN, when, for whatever dumb reason, I bother listening.

Hmmm...why do they call them "UNEARNED RUNS"?

For the same reason they call other things "SAVES" and "HOLDS" and "SACRIFICE HITS". Because at some point, the guys who define official scoring called them that. They also defined "UNEARNED RUNS" such that they don't count even though many unearned runs are (mostly) the pitcher's fault. Or at least many are as or nearly as much the pitcher's fault as "EARNED RUNS" (many of which are more the defense's and/or reliever's fault).

It's certainly fair not to penalize pitchers for guys who score after reaching on an ROE. Similarly it's generally fair not to penalize them for guys already on base who score because of an ROE. But just the other day Perez gave up 5 BB and 2 hits in less than 2 innings and got charged with just 2 ER (and 7 R overall). He threw 55 pitches, only 28 for strikes. He pitched very poorly but that wasn't heavily reflected in his ERA. This obviously is the sort of thing people are talking about and why things like CERA, FIP, DIPS, etc. are often better measures of the quality of a pitcher's performance than ERA.

Ollie's fluky 4.8 HR/FB rate taking a hit tonight. Much closer now to his career 14% rate.

I gotta say, this does read like a Mets fan talking who likes Perez.

A LOT can still change, but Perez is looking like a so-so pitcher for a very long stretch, and his floor is a scary scary place.

Despite the fact that he allowed 3 homers today, I honestly feel that he made progress. Perez was a lot sharper today despite the homers.

Umm, yeah. Giving up three homeruns in 6 innings (two after dark, when Dodger Stadium is tough to hit homers at) is not my idea of progress.

Umm, yeah. Giving up three homeruns in 6 innings (two after dark, when Dodger Stadium is tough to hit homers at) is not my idea of progress.

Obviously, the results were bad but the process was much better. He wasn't missing wildly like he has been early this season. If he pitchs the way he did tonight the rest of the season, the good results will come.

Obviously, the results were bad but the process was much better.

Exactly. A flyball pitcher is going to give up some home runs. Let's see if the walks stay down- that was good to see.

Exactly. A flyball pitcher is going to give up some home runs. Let's see if the walks stay down- that was good to see.

Could it be that the two are related? Is Perez much more hittable when he isn't wild?

In the 5 times since 2007 where Perez has give up 2 or more HR, his BB totals been 5, 2, 0, 0, and 0.

When Perez has walked 5 or more batters in a game, his HR totals have been 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0

Interestingly, the only game where Perez has walked 5 and given up 2 HR was a game at Philly last August (bolded). Otherwise, its been one or the other. I think I'd rather have the guy who gives up the long balls.

Could it be that the two are related? Is Perez much more hittable when he isn't wild?

Yes


That was Victor Zambrano's problem as well, what little success he had (with TB) was due to keeping his BABIP low by pitching out of the zone (which led to walks of course), when throwing strikes- he was hammered- as such his upside was severely limited (and whatever Mets scouts thought otherwise should have been fired)

Oliver has much better stuff than the Wrong Zambrano of course, but his upside, while higher, is still limited, I see 2002/07 as marking his upper boundary, his lower boundary is quite low unfortunately.

By lower boundary I mean how badly he can pitch even when healthy- some pitchers really only suck when pitching while hurt. Oliver can be fine physically and still blow chunks out there.

Could it be that the two are related? Is Perez much more hittable when he isn't wild?

In his rookie season, he was both wild and unhittable, but that hasn't been the pattern since. In his "good" seasons (2004 and 2007), he's had the two lowest walk rates and the two best in-play BAs of his career, outside of his rookie year. In his lesser seasons, he's had high walk rates AND high in-play BA.

-- MWE