View Full Version : The New 2006 Rotation

03-20-2006, 09:48 PM
Harang, Arroyo, Claussen, Dave Williams and Wilson.

Don't you get the feeling that we have a couple 3's and a couple 4's here?

This rotation isn't anywhere near where it needs to be to compete for a pennant, but it's better than what it's been (and that's not saying a whole lot).

But if you consider that Wilson is probably No. 5 right now and he used to be No. 1, I guess we can take solace in that.

I guess I forgot about Milton. Does Milton or Wilson make it?

03-20-2006, 09:50 PM
I guess I forgot about Milton.

Us to. Glad to hear therapy's working. :thumbup:

03-20-2006, 09:53 PM
Milton will start about 35 times no matter what.

He's being paid a lot, he'll play a lot.

03-20-2006, 10:05 PM
Milton is in there unless hes hurt. I look for it to be:
Harang, Claussen, Arroyo, Milton, Wilson. That splits the lefties up.

Just plug Williams or whoever in there for a month if Wilson isnt healthy. But if Wilson is back my May 1st then in April we should only need a number 5 starter 2 times by the way the off days are set up. Maybe 3 games but no more than 3 games in the first month.

03-20-2006, 10:59 PM

03-20-2006, 11:31 PM
I wouldn't count on Wilson.

I think he's toast.

03-20-2006, 11:56 PM
I wouldn't count on Wilson.

I think he's toast.

03-21-2006, 12:08 AM
Harang, Claussen, Arroyo, Milton and Williams.

Good balance. Hopefully we can get 14 wins apiece from each at least.

03-21-2006, 12:18 AM
Harang, Claussen, Arroyo, Milton and Williams.

Good balance. Hopefully we can get 14 wins apiece from each at least.

Have you been drinking again Krusty? :evil:

03-21-2006, 12:37 AM
I wouldn't count on Wilson.

I think he's toast.



03-21-2006, 01:20 AM
I wouldn't count on Wilson.

I think he's toast.

I haven't commented either because 1) I've been too busy, and 2) It just didn't interest me for some reason.

I DO think that one of the main reasons why Krivsky went after Bronson was that Wilson will never be effective again. Simply put, he wasn't going to help this year.

I also think that trading WMP is probably a no-brainer. It was obvious that our last three managers (Boone, Miley, and Narron) didn't have enough faith in him in the field and at the plate to play him much. The only time he played over the last three years was when there was no one else. He can hit the bombs, but he's streaky and has big problems with the curve, which is documented in every clubhouse in the National League. His fielding has been well documented here. He's a rough piece of wood that may someday be molded, sanded and finished into a fine piece of furniture, but that's iffy. Eveyone knew that so we got just about all we could get for Willy Mo. And we got another starter who just may surprise (or may not--it's a crap shoot).

One of the dastardly things Jim Bowden did to this team was fill it with players no one else wanted. One-by-one, they are going away in favor of some players with a minimal upside which is an improvement. Can you name one other team who would have given us more for Sean Casey?

Krivsky is working slowly but surely toward the ultimate goal and that's for the 2006 Reds and every Reds team after that to not be like the 2001-2005 Reds. I hope he knows what he is doing and if history is any barometer of that, he does. If he doesn't, I would expect Bob C. to make a change. That's the refreshing part.

03-21-2006, 02:47 AM
2005 DIPS:

Harang- 3.77 (84)
Claussen- 4.56 (92)
Arroyo- 4.57 (92)
Williams- 5.08 (102)
Milton- 5.26 (106)

Assuming 200 IP for Harang and 180 IP for everyone else, a repeat of 2005 performance would produce a probable result of 476 Runs Allowed. That's a 4.66 rotation ERA, which would have ranked the rotation 14th in the NL in 2005, 12th in 2004, 13th in 2003, and would pretty much replicate the Reds' 2002 (4.69 ERA) 13th place finish.

Because we're talking about Defense-independent numbers, let's take a look at the Reds Defensive Efficiency for those seasons:

2002- .693 (MLB Rank- 17th)
2003- .690 (22nd)
2004- .690 (18th)
2005- .678 (28th)

Now, let's ask ourselves...did the 2006 Reds team get significantly better during the offseason? Well. Um. No. And that affects the probable actual ERA versus the the DIPS. Individual pitchers don't always end up with low DIPS percentages simply because of bad defense behind them, but in 2005 it was pretty consistent. The Reds SP's posted a 93% DIPS rate. The pen put up a 94% DIPS rate. That's bad and it means that we can expect that the defense-independent rotation ERA I posted earlier (4.66) projects to be about 6-7% worse. 4.66 x 1.06 = a probable result of 4.94.

Yeah, that's a 4.94 rotation ERA staring us square in the face. The good news (if there is any) is that we'd be looking at 536 Runs Allowed vs. 583 Runs Allowed including Unearned Runs if the pitchers manning the rotation produced exactly the same numbers as they did in 2005. That's a gain of 47 Runs.

The bad news is that if the 2006 Reds replicated their NL-leading Runs Scored numbers (doubtful), they'd need to pare 69 Runs from their RA total just to finish with a .500 record. The additional 22 Runs would have to come from a bullpen that is...well...not so much better.

The worse news is that the Reds most likely just dumped about 20 Runs offensively by replacing Pena with Hatteberg. They'll take another hit by giving Tony Womack Plate Appearances. Some of that can be made up if Kearns progresses offensively, but even if so also easily lost if other players regress (and there are candidates like Valentin and Aurilia).

And then there's the bullpen. Yeah. The bullpen. Still waiting for someone who can convince me that the bullpen is worth the amount of Runs the Reds need to actually contend for anything other than a .500 record.