Is Santana or Dotel better than Gagne? As good, maybe. Better? No.

Regarding this thread ... oh, I don't care.

I'd probably vote for Dotel as the best reliever in baseball, if only because Santana would be in the rotation anywhere else (aside from the Cubs, I guess, where he and Cruz could cry on each other's shoulders) and Gagne doesn't (yet) have Dotel's track record. But, man, is Gagne impressive. I wasn't sure what to expect in '03, but holy crap! is he good. He and Smoltz have rightly replaced the gimpy Rivera as the most feared closers on the mound.

It's still funny to think that the Dodgers were trying to send us Gagne instead of Prokopec.

Here are their numbers (Dotel's the only one who had a good 2001; Santana and Gagne didn't hit their stride till last year):

Dotel
2001 Hou
105 IP, 79 H, 47 BB, 145 K, 2.66 ERA, 1.20 WHIP, .180 OppBA, 1.38 K/IP
2002 Hou
97 IP, 58 H, 27 BB, 118 K, 1.85 ERA, 0.87 WHIP, .154 OppBA, 1.21 K/IP

Santana
2002 Min
108 IP, 84 H, 49 BB, 137 K, 2.99 ERA, 1.23 WHIP, .186 OppBA, 1.27 K/IP

Gagne
2002 LA
82 IP, 55 H, 16 BB, 114 K, 1.97 ERA, 0.86 WHIP, .175 OppBA, 1.39 K/IP

It's pretty much a toss-up, I think. Gagne's numbers are a little more overpowering, but Dotel and Santana throw about 20 more innings. I'm also inclined to think Dotel and Santana face more high-leverage situations -- 7th and 8th innings, runners on base, heart of the order -- whereas Gagne usually starts the ninth with the bases clear, but that's not Gagne's fault, and in any event I don't have those numbers accessible. Still, give me the choice among them, and I'll take Dotel -- he has a slightly longer track record, he matched Gagne in 20 more IP in '02, and he actually seems to be getting better.

http://economics.about.com
Dotel doesn't get to pitch half of his games in Dodger Stadium, so you should account for that.

MP

True enough, Mike. But if you focus solely on his road stats for 02-03, Gagne has still been great.

45.2 IP, 33 H, 10 BB, 65 K, 2.17 ERA, 0.94 WHIP, 1.42 K/IP

It's still funny to think that the Dodgers were trying to send us Gagne instead of Prokopec.
Was there ever any proof of this? I'm just curious because I've also read that the reverse was true (TO wanted Gagne).
Gagne is two years older (27 to 25) but was better in 2001 on the big club

Gagne 2001 LAD
IP H HR BB SO
151.2 144 24 46 130

Prokopec 2001 LAD
138.1 146 27 40 91

The previous year (2000), Gagne had a mediocre first year in bigs after a great small stretch in AAA (in the hitter friendly PCL). Prokopec had a good cup of coffee in the Bigs (but with a bad K:B ratio) and a great year at AA. If we look at Gagne's last year in AA (1999), he was good in a small stretch in the Majors after a great (better than Prokopec's AA numbers) stint in AA.

Gagne 2000 LAD
IP H HR BB SO
101.1 106 20 60 79
Gagne 2000 Albuquerque (AAA)
IP H HR BB SO
55.2 56 8 15 59

Prokopec 2000 LAD
IP H HR BB SO
21.0 19 2 9 12
Prokopec 2000 San Antonio (AA)
IP H HR BB SO
128.2 118 8 23 124

Gagne 1999 San Antonio (AA)
IP H HR BB SO
167.2 122 17 64 185
Gagne 1999 LAD
IP H HR BB SO
30.0 18 3 15 30

With his better K rates and obviously better 'stuff' (velocity) I would have wanted Gagne over Prokopec. The fact that he's a Canadian would also count for a small amount if I was running the Jays (BJ fans do like having Canadian players on the team)

benum--

The rumours began in the aftermath of the deal, and Toronto obviously denied that they were ever offered Gagne. To be fair, for all I know, the rumours could have been started by Griffin or maybe even Gord Ash and Buck Martinez.

That said, given the cuts made to the Canadian scouting, I don't think the Canadian side of the Gagne equation would have swayed J.P. either way.

I remember reading that JP said he wanted Prokopec, and Evans saying that JP had asked for Gagne. Who to believe? Well, if I had traded for a guy, I would try and make it seem like he was the guy I wanted all the time. Why make him resentful of the club before he's even pitched for it? There was no advantage for Evans to lie. Considering Gagne had way better peripheral stats, I would think JP would have had the greater interest in Gagne.

There seemed to be a story going around with JP saying they were offered Gagne but Prokopec was the guy they were after all along. They loved his makeup despite his inferior performance metrics.

As far as Prokopec's terrible 2001 season, do you bet that those 27 homers in 138 innings was indicative of his true ability or do you assume it's his first year in the league and that he'll improve?

What I thought was unfortunate was the way Prokopec kept getting pounded early in 2002 and no-one suspected it may have been an arm problem. If these things could be detected earlier, more careers could be saved. Considering how much the Jays and similar organizations have invested in their young pitching, early injury detection is something they should look closely at.

I would even go as far as routine pre-season, mid-season, and post-season MRI's for all of your significant pitchers/prospects. Significant cost, but how much does losing Carpenter and Prokopec for nothing cost a team? These guys are out there pitching through pain to protect their jobs or earning potential...they don't always realize the possible consequences.

early injury detection is something they should look closely at

You can't save all players from themselves. Gil Patterson is famously protective of his pitchers, and the Jays value their investments. Carpenter's vanity (wanting to pitch Opening Day at Fenway) and Walker's tenacity were, like Prokopec's "makeup," possible reasons they lied about their pain level for so long when asked, "how's the arm?" Even between R Billie's mandatory MRIs, it's the player's responsibility to be honest with the training staff, and they can ruin their own careers by being tough guys.

That said, given the cuts made to the Canadian scouting, I don't think the Canadian side of the Gagne equation would have swayed J.P. either way.

This isn't at all related to my point (such as it was).

I wouldn't expect them to find Gagne in the wilderness of Quebec pitching for a Community College and draft him (Canadian Scouting).

I'm saying that given the choice between an Aussie with inferior numbers (but considered a 'gamer') and a Canadian kid with superior numbers and talent (maybe not considered a 'gamer'), I would take into account the origin of birth. I think the tangible performance was enough for them to choose Gagne over Prokopec but...(here's the big but)...if the evaluation was about equal (i.e. stuff v.s. 'gamer'), I would add a point or two for him being a Canadian player. It's good marketing (and there's no such thing as a pitching prospectTM)