PDA

View Full Version : What's the word on Wilson?



Wheelhouse
04-16-2006, 12:53 AM
Any news?

KittyDuran
04-16-2006, 12:55 AM
Isn't he still in Sarasota working out? And wasn't Larue catching some of his pitches?

RedsMan3203
04-16-2006, 12:55 AM
Furball says to look around Memorial Day for Willy to be back.

pedro
04-16-2006, 12:57 AM
I have a hard time believing he'll ever be back at this point.

KronoRed
04-16-2006, 12:59 AM
Yeah, I think we'll keep hearing he's close then a setback then he'll retire.

KittyDuran
04-16-2006, 01:03 AM
I have a hard time believing he'll ever be back at this point.Oh, he'll be back... a team can never have enough dark haired guys with beards... ;)

Team Clark
04-16-2006, 01:17 AM
Yeah, I think we'll keep hearing he's close then a setback then he'll retire.

There is a VERY good chance that will happen.

He may get a token start or two. I have heard a few of his "hyped" medical reports on WLW. So far from the truth it's ridiculous. Then again miracles do happen. I plan on talking to Jason LaRue in the next week. I'll ask him how Wilson looked.

pedro
04-16-2006, 01:46 AM
The guy is trying. You have to give him that.

flyer85
04-16-2006, 01:53 AM
Nice guy who at his best was still below average. After surgeyr on his arm for the umteenth time you can put a fork in him.

2001MUgrad
04-16-2006, 03:57 AM
Nice guy who at his best was still below average. After surgeyr on his arm for the umteenth time you can put a fork in him.

At his best is below average???

Thats a very unfair and insane statment to make.

If what you are taking is legal can you please send some my way???

GAC
04-16-2006, 06:13 AM
The guy is trying. You have to give him that.

I wish alot of the players had the attitude and work ethic that this guy does.

If anything, I could see him converting to the BP to possibly try and resurrect his career. And it is an area where we may need the help.

pahster
04-16-2006, 10:57 AM
At his best is below average???

Thats a very unfair and insane statment to make.


Unfair and insane? For his career -
ERA: 4.87
OPS against: .779
WHIP: 1.45

Not that great.

StillFunkyB
04-16-2006, 11:13 AM
Nice guy who at his best was still below average. After surgeyr on his arm for the umteenth time you can put a fork in him.

Agreed. He wasn't as good as the hype that surrounded him.

Paul Wilson
Jason Isringhausen
Bill Pulsipher

Man, I remember thinking that the Mets were going to rule baseball for a decade or so.

Caveman Techie
04-16-2006, 11:18 AM
Unfair and insane? For his career -
ERA: 4.87
OPS against: .779
WHIP: 1.45

Not that great.

In all fairness he said "at his best" not over his career. Yes Paul Wilson has put up very average numbers over the course of his career, but at times he has shown flashes of why he was a former number 1 draft pick. I think the injuries just sidelined him.

I hope he can come back and like GAC said resurrect his career in the bullpen.

pahster
04-16-2006, 11:32 AM
In all fairness he said "at his best" not over his career. Yes Paul Wilson has put up very average numbers over the course of his career, but at times he has shown flashes of why he was a former number 1 draft pick. I think the injuries just sidelined him.

I hope he can come back and like GAC said resurrect his career in the bullpen.

At times, Jimmy Haynes and Josias Manzanillo have looked good too. As I recall, Eric Milton and Jose Lima had a couple of pretty nice starts last year as well.

StillFunkyB
04-16-2006, 11:43 AM
I wish alot of the players had the attitude and work ethic that this guy does.

If anything, I could see him converting to the BP to possibly try and resurrect his career. And it is an area where we may need the help.

I think he should have been in the bullpen long before he came to Cincinnati.

The bullpen needs help, if Paul can pitch, that is where he should be.

Lose Hammond, put Dave Williams in his role. Move Belisle to #5, and Wilson to the pen.

westofyou
04-16-2006, 11:47 AM
What's the word on Wilson?

Done?

Finished?

Retired?

M2
04-16-2006, 12:21 PM
At his best is below average???

Thats a very unfair and insane statment to make.

If what you are taking is legal can you please send some my way???

ERA+

2001 - 92
2002 - 92
2003 - 92
2004 - 92

He's as consistently below average as any pitcher in history. He doesn't have an above average bone in his body.

westofyou
04-16-2006, 12:29 PM
Thats a very unfair and insane statment to make.
And yours is?

Any number with a Minus sign in front of it indicates that the number is "below average"


PAUL WILSON

YEAR TEAM AGE W L PCT G GS CG SV GF IP H R ER BB SO ERA RSAA
1996 Mets 23 -3 -4 0 0 -7 -24 -19 -16 -3 -1.15
2000 Devil Rays 27 -2 -1 0 0 17 10 9 5 4 1.57
2001 Devil Rays 28 -1 -1 -1 -2 -9 -12 -7 2 11 -0.40
2002 Devil Rays 29 -5 -1 -1 0 -21 -9 -8 3 -24 -0.37
2003 Reds 30 -1 -1 -1 0 -23 -11 -7 13 -30 -0.36
2004 Reds 31 1 4 0 0 -7 3 -1 6 -20 -0.05
2005 Reds 32 -2 -2 0 0 -21 -17 -18 0 -4 -3.54
TOTALS -13 -5 -4 -2 -71 -60 -51 14 -66 -0.48


YEAR TEAM HR H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB SHO WP IBB HBP BFP BK NW NL
1996 Mets 1 -0.43 -1.70 -0.18 -0.96 -0.50 0 3 -6 -5 -34 -2
2000 Devil Rays 6 2.96 3.48 0.79 0.93 0.83 0 1 -1 -2 19 0
2001 Devil Rays -2 -0.53 -0.74 0.63 0.14 0.30 0 -1 2 -6 -19 1
2002 Devil Rays -5 -0.99 -1.06 -1.10 0.14 -0.27 -1 3 3 -5 -14 0
2003 Reds -4 -1.24 -0.53 -1.62 0.72 -0.08 0 5 1 0 -9 1
2004 Reds -3 -0.32 -0.05 -1.00 0.30 -0.13 0 -1 2 0 -2 1
2005 Reds -5 -4.12 -4.53 -0.74 -0.01 -0.23 0 -1 1 -2 -24 0
TOTALS -13 -0.68 -0.75 -0.63 0.13 -0.11 -3 9 1 -21 -83 0

MartyFan
04-16-2006, 12:31 PM
I wish alot of the players had the attitude and work ethic that this guy does.

If anything, I could see him converting to the BP to possibly try and resurrect his career. And it is an area where we may need the help.

I agree...if his arm would even hold up to be a middle relief guy or a specialist like Merker that would be something but you gotta wonder after all the "trauma" to the arm is there really anything there.

cincy09
04-16-2006, 12:36 PM
ERA+

2001 - 92
2002 - 92
2003 - 92
2004 - 92

He's as consistently below average as any pitcher in history. He doesn't have
an above average bone in his body.


Wow that is consistent

2001MUgrad
04-16-2006, 06:44 PM
WOY,

Any comparision of like pitchers instead of just the league average ie starters who throw 170 or so innings a year. Let's compare apples to apples if we are going to compare.

westofyou
04-16-2006, 07:03 PM
WOY,

Any comparision of like pitchers instead of just the league average ie starters who throw 170 or so innings a year. Let's compare apples to apples if we are going to compare.
All those comparisons are based on ALL the pitchers in the league, and park normalized, anyway you cut it he's a tad below the average.

I don't think he'll ever throw 100 innings much alone 170.

2001MUgrad
04-16-2006, 08:03 PM
I don't either I think he's probably done. But it was stated that at his best he was a below average pitcher and he was not. With the way managers situationally(if thats a word) use the BP you cannot just lump their stats in there with league averages and compare them to starting pitchers averages.

M2
04-16-2006, 08:50 PM
I don't either I think he's probably done. But it was stated that at his best he was a below average pitcher and he was not. With the way managers situationally(if thats a word) use the BP you cannot just lump their stats in there with league averages and compare them to starting pitchers averages.

No, it was stated that he was a below average pitcher and proved conclusively that he was. What you're offering up here is a plate of red herring.

2001MUgrad
04-16-2006, 08:55 PM
You cannot compare a pitcher that throws 160 innings in a season to a closer that pitches 50 times and only pitches 45 innings. That would be like comparing Sirius radio to FM radio. Sure its still "radio" but its not comparing the same thing.

M2
04-16-2006, 09:07 PM
You cannot compare a pitcher that throws 160 innings in a season to a closer that pitches 50 times and only pitches 45 innings. That would be like comparing Sirius radio to FM radio. Sure its still "radio" but its not comparing the same thing.

Maybe you can't because you're lazy and numbers-averse and have no real idea as to what you're talking about. So make any baseless claim you want because you and I both know you'll never produce an ounce of evidence to back it up.

Meanwhile if Paul Wilson returned to 100% of what he was in 2001-2004 he'd still only be 92% of an average pitcher.

2001MUgrad
04-16-2006, 09:10 PM
LOL.. Again.. you cannot compare a closer to a starting pitcher, to a middle releif pitcher. The rolls are different and defined. Look how great David Weathers' numbers have been this year until today. I guess coming into today he was well above average maybe one of the best, huh??

M2
04-16-2006, 09:15 PM
LOL.. Again.. you cannot compare a closer to a starting pitcher, to a middle releif pitcher. The rolls are different and defined. Look how great David Weathers' numbers have been this year until today. I guess coming into today he was well above average maybe one of the best, huh??

Yep, just keep saying the same thing with no evidence to back it up. Unsupported repetition, that's sure to make your point for you.

Re: Weathers - It's painful how little you understand about how to use simple statistics. Honestly, anyone who'd attempt to use a pitcher's ERA 11 games into the season to represent something is hopelessly lost.

Balls
04-16-2006, 10:16 PM
In 2004 Paul Wilson posted some pretty good numbers. His ERA was ranked number 53, just ahead of Barry Zitto and Mark Mulder. Considering the number of starting pitchers, what, at least 150 (5 X 30 teams) i'd say that's above average. Here's his stats from 2004:

2004 Cin 29 29 1 0 184.2 192 93 89 26 63 117 11 6 0 0 -- 4.36

His career might be over or maybe it isn't, but I'd take that line any day of the week over pulling a random starter out of the hat. Granted, that's just one year, but Wilson was a pretty good pitcher at his best.

flyer85
04-16-2006, 10:26 PM
Yep, just keep saying the same thing with no evidence to back it up. Unsupported repetition, that's sure to make your point for you.it worked for Goebbels.

It's just a joke:)

M2
04-16-2006, 11:05 PM
In 2004 Paul Wilson posted some pretty good numbers. His ERA was ranked number 53, just ahead of Barry Zitto and Mark Mulder. Considering the number of starting pitchers, what, at least 150 (5 X 30 teams) i'd say that's above average. Here's his stats from 2004:

2004 Cin 29 29 1 0 184.2 192 93 89 26 63 117 11 6 0 0 -- 4.36

His career might be over or maybe it isn't, but I'd take that line any day of the week over pulling a random starter out of the hat. Granted, that's just one year, but Wilson was a pretty good pitcher at his best.

And while he was posting a 4.36 ERA, a park-adjusted league average for that season was 4.01.

That's a pretty below average pitcher.

2001MUgrad
04-16-2006, 11:45 PM
And while he was posting a 4.36 ERA, a park-adjusted league average for that season was 4.01.

That's a pretty below average pitcher.

If all 5 members of the Reds rotation ended up with a 4.01 ERA I'd say the Reds will be making the playoffs. I'd also say all would end up with 15+ wins.

M2
04-16-2006, 11:58 PM
If all 5 members of the Reds rotation ended up with a 4.01 ERA I'd say the Reds will be making the playoffs. I'd also say all would end up with 15+ wins.

And at his best Paul Wilson wasn't good enough to be one of them. That's the point here, that he never was up to being that average guy around whom you can build a playoff rotation.

He's a below average guy, one who never even ate innings all that well. That's the kind of guy a team with designs on winning needs to replace.

westofyou
04-17-2006, 12:19 AM
With the way managers situationally(if thats a word) use the BP you cannot just lump their stats in there with league averages and compare them to starting pitchers averages.Those comps are with pitchers who produced the same amount of innings as he did and starts, they are not cross comparisons.

But here are his comps for worst ERA vs the league from 2000-2005, Under 200 games started, between 700-1300 IP.

Bolded for the taste of flavor country.


CAREER
2000-2005

ERA DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE GS IP
1 Jose Lima -1.46 5.92 4.46 142 842.2
2 Scott Elarton -1.05 5.52 4.47 124 717.1
3 Pedro Astacio -.81 5.17 4.36 119 729.2
4 Jason Jennings -.78 5.02 4.24 124 729
5 Shawn Estes -.64 4.97 4.34 169 988
6 Ismael Valdes -.54 4.99 4.45 138 802.1
7 Joe Kennedy -.50 4.91 4.41 123 763
8 Eric Milton -.49 4.98 4.49 167 996
9 Tanyon Sturtze -.49 5.01 4.53 78 732.1
10 Jamey Wright -.47 4.82 4.35 125 764
11 Joe Mays -.40 4.96 4.55 126 775.1
12 Scott Schoeneweis -.40 5.00 4.60 93 727.2
13 Ryan Dempster -.36 4.71 4.35 126 875
14 Paul Wilson -.36 4.77 4.41 127 792.2
15 Mike Maroth -.32 4.82 4.50 121 748
16 Brett Tomko -.30 4.61 4.31 137 918.2
17 Glendon Rusch -.25 4.58 4.33 151 978.2
18 Jason Johnson -.23 4.76 4.54 165 1031.1
19 Kyle Lohse -.22 4.72 4.50 144 844.2
20 Steve Sparks -.22 4.74 4.52 96 752.2

Balls
04-17-2006, 12:53 AM
Paul Wilson was 6-3 with a 3.32 ERA in 16 home starts in 2004 and had 16 quality starts in total. His 11-6 record would have been better if not for 6 blown saves. A lot of teams had interest in signing Wilson after this "below average season." I'm not saying his career in total has been very good - it hasn't been - but overall Wilson pitched well in 2004.

M2
04-17-2006, 01:22 AM
Paul Wilson was 6-3 with a 3.32 ERA in 16 home starts in 2004 and had 16 quality starts in total. His 11-6 record would have been better if not for 6 blown saves. A lot of teams had interest in signing Wilson after this "below average season." I'm not saying his career in total has been very good - it hasn't been - but overall Wilson pitched well in 2004.

You've been shown the numbers. He had a 4.36 ERA and 4.01 was the GAB-adjusted league average. That is NOT a good season. It's not awful either, just kind of blah.

And a lot of folks here were all for trading Wilson during the 2004 season to another club with "interest" in him, especially when he had better numbers early in the season. They were also all for letting another interested club sign Wilson and taking two draft picks in compensation.

When you determine what counted for average in 2004 you quickly learn that Wilson was no better that season than he was in 2003 or 2002 or 2001. In fact, he was amazingly consistent. He had the same below average season four years in row.

Caveman Techie
04-17-2006, 09:03 AM
No, it was stated that he was a below average pitcher and proved conclusively that he was. What you're offering up here is a plate of red herring.


OK, I agree that Paul Wilson over the course of his career has been below average (not horible). But it WAS stated that at his best he was still below average and that is simply not true. In 2000 with 11 games and 7 starts he had a 3.35 ERA. So while that is only 7 game starts there is your "at his best".

klw
04-17-2006, 09:25 AM
I plan on talking to Jason LaRue in the next week. I'll ask him how Wilson looked.


Are the D-Rays getting a new catcher?;)

doug flynn
04-17-2006, 09:57 AM
Meanwhile if Paul Wilson returned to 100% of what he was in 2001-2004 he'd still only be 92% of an average pitcher.

At 92% of an average pitcher...would 46% of Wilson's game be mental...using the Yogi formulary?

M2
04-17-2006, 11:54 AM
OK, I agree that Paul Wilson over the course of his career has been below average (not horible). But it WAS stated that at his best he was still below average and that is simply not true. In 2000 with 11 games and 7 starts he had a 3.35 ERA. So while that is only 7 game starts there is your "at his best".

Do you really want to hang any sort of a hat on what the guy did in a short, most September stint in 2000?

Because I'll go on record as saying that small sample was as meaningless as Luke Hudson's 2004 mirage. Wilson also had a 4.23 ERA and 1.33 WHIP in 83 AAA IP in 2000.

Given a full time job in 2001-2004, the real Paul Wilson stood up and if you think he'd have been able to stretch out his 2000 anomaly over the course of a full season then I've got some swampland on the moon that might interest you.

Balls
04-17-2006, 11:55 AM
You've been shown the numbers. He had a 4.36 ERA and 4.01 was the GAB-adjusted league average. That is NOT a good season. It's not awful either, just kind of blah.

And a lot of folks here were all for trading Wilson during the 2004 season to another club with "interest" in him, especially when he had better numbers early in the season. They were also all for letting another interested club sign Wilson and taking two draft picks in compensation.

When you determine what counted for average in 2004 you quickly learn that Wilson was no better that season than he was in 2003 or 2002 or 2001. In fact, he was amazingly consistent. He had the same below average season four years in row.


Yes, and Wilson had a 3.32 at GAB in 16 starts (well above the league adjusted average of 4.01 for GAB). A couple of bad starts at the end of the year after the Reds were already out of it did increase his overall ERA, but he pitched well above abverage for most of the year when it counted.

M2
04-17-2006, 12:11 PM
Yes, and Wilson had a 3.32 at GAB in 16 starts (well above the league adjusted average of 4.01 for GAB). A couple of bad starts at the end of the year after the Reds were already out of it did increase his overall ERA, but he pitched well above abverage for most of the year when it counted.

You're failing to understand how a park-adjusted league average works. The league-adjusted average I provided is based on what a pitcher who threw half his games in the GAB that season would have posted. That 4.01 represents what an average pitcher getting Paul Wilson's workload should have achieved. He posted a 4.36.

Plus, that Wilson did all right in the elephant grass the Reds grew at the GAB in 2004 and got pounded elsewhere, doesn't really argue in favor of him being a good pitcher. Mostly he was a guy who needed a fairly extreme gimmick in order to be effective. Also, if you look at his monthly numbers, what he mostly did in 2004 is have a good May and then his numbers tumbled fairly steadily after that. His ERA for each month after May that season:

June - 4.45
July - 4.24
August - 11.20
September - 4.50

His April ERA was 4.50.

Wilson was pretty much the opposite of what you positioned him as being in 2004. He's a guy that generally pitched poorly and who didn't deliver much of anything when it really mattered.

SMcGavin
04-17-2006, 12:21 PM
So if Wilson ranked 53rd out of starters in with a 4.38 ERA, but the adjusted league average ERA was 4.01, wouldn't it follow that the average ERA for starters was higher than the average ERA for all pitchers? I don't really care about the Wilson argument and I'm not trying to weigh in on this, but this number made me curious. I know alot of starters get hurt or yanked from the rotation, so there probably werent 150 guys with 150+ IP in 2004. However I'm guessing if Wilson was 53rd in ERA he would still have ranked in the top half of those that did throw 150 innings.

So now that I'm curious, could anyone show some stats of league average ERA vs. average ERA of starters for the past few seasons? You could filter to include only those with 150+ IP, but that would include only the guys who were good enough to make it that long in the rotation. Is there a better way to include only the stats of starters?

westofyou
04-17-2006, 12:28 PM
So if Wilson ranked 53rd out of starters in with a 4.38 ERA, but the adjusted league average ERA was 4.01, wouldn't it follow that the average ERA for starters was higher than the average ERA for all pitchers? I don't really care about the Wilson argument and I'm not trying to weigh in on this, but this number made me curious. I know alot of starters get hurt or yanked from the rotation, so there probably werent 150 guys with 150+ IP in 2004. However I'm guessing if Wilson was 53rd in ERA he would still have ranked in the top half of those that did throw 150 innings.

So now that I'm curious, could anyone show some stats of league average ERA vs. average ERA of starters for the past few seasons? You could filter to include only those with 150+ IP, but that would include only the guys who were good enough to make it that long in the rotation. Is there a better way to include only the stats of starters?

Here's 2004 and 5


SEASON
2004

INNINGS PITCHED >= 150
GAMES STARTED >= 20

ERA DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE IP GS
1 Jake Peavy 2.04 2.27 4.31 166.1 27
2 Johan Santana 2.03 2.61 4.64 228 34
3 Randy Johnson 1.71 2.60 4.31 245.2 35
4 Ben Sheets 1.62 2.70 4.31 237 34
5 Carlos Zambrano 1.57 2.75 4.31 209.2 31
6 Curt Schilling 1.38 3.26 4.64 226.2 32
7 Roger Clemens 1.33 2.98 4.31 214.1 33
8 Oliver Perez 1.33 2.98 4.31 196 30
9 Carl Pavano 1.32 3.00 4.31 222.1 31
10 Jake Westbrook 1.26 3.38 4.64 215.2 30
11 Brad Radke 1.15 3.48 4.64 219.2 34
12 Jason Schmidt 1.11 3.20 4.31 225 32
13 Tim Hudson 1.11 3.53 4.64 188.2 27
14 Al Leiter 1.10 3.21 4.31 173.2 30
15 Odalis Perez 1.06 3.25 4.31 196.1 31
16 Rodrigo Lopez 1.05 3.59 4.64 170.2 23
17 Jaret Wright 1.03 3.28 4.31 186.1 32
18 Doug Davis 0.93 3.39 4.31 207.1 34
19 Chris Carpenter 0.85 3.46 4.31 182 28
20 Freddy Garcia 0.82 3.81 4.64 210 31
21 Roy Oswalt 0.82 3.49 4.31 237 35
22 Mark Buehrle 0.75 3.89 4.64 245.1 35
23 Pedro Martinez 0.74 3.90 4.64 217 33
24 Brandon Webb 0.72 3.59 4.31 208 35
25 Livan Hernandez 0.71 3.60 4.31 255 35
26 Tom Glavine 0.71 3.60 4.31 212.1 33
27 Kelvim Escobar 0.71 3.93 4.64 208.1 33
28 Joe Kennedy 0.65 3.66 4.31 162.1 27
29 Rich Harden 0.65 3.99 4.64 189.2 31
30 Matt Clement 0.63 3.68 4.31 181 30
31 Bronson Arroyo 0.61 4.03 4.64 178.2 29
32 Jason Marquis 0.60 3.71 4.31 201.1 32
33 John Thomson 0.59 3.72 4.31 198.1 33
34 David Wells 0.59 3.73 4.31 195.2 31
35 Ted Lilly 0.58 4.06 4.64 197.1 32
36 Josh Beckett 0.52 3.79 4.31 156.2 26
37 C.C. Sabathia 0.52 4.12 4.64 188 30
38 Ryan Drese 0.43 4.20 4.64 207.2 33
39 Carlos Silva 0.43 4.21 4.64 203 33
40 Mike Maroth 0.32 4.31 4.64 217 33
41 Steve Trachsel 0.32 4.00 4.31 202.2 33
42 Jon Lieber 0.31 4.33 4.64 176.2 27
43 Jeff Weaver 0.31 4.01 4.31 220 34
44 Dontrelle Willis 0.29 4.02 4.31 197 32
45 Greg Maddux 0.29 4.02 4.31 212.2 33
46 Brett Tomko 0.28 4.04 4.31 194 31
47 Jose Lima 0.25 4.07 4.31 170.1 24
48 Mark Mulder 0.21 4.43 4.64 225.2 33
49 Brian Lawrence 0.19 4.12 4.31 203 34
50 Russ Ortiz 0.18 4.13 4.31 204.2 34
51 Barry Zito 0.16 4.48 4.64 213 34
52 Jeff Suppan 0.15 4.16 4.31 188 31
53 Woody Williams 0.14 4.18 4.31 189.2 31
54 Mike Mussina 0.05 4.59 4.64 164.2 27
55 Mike Hampton 0.03 4.28 4.31 172.1 29
56 Kris Benson 0.00 4.31 4.31 200.1 31
57 John Lackey -.04 4.67 4.64 198.1 32
58 Paul Wilson -.05 4.36 4.31 183.2 29
59 Mark Redman -.08 4.71 4.64 191 32
60 Kenny Rogers -.13 4.76 4.64 211.2 35
61 Miguel Batista -.17 4.80 4.64 198.2 31
62 Mark Hendrickson -.17 4.81 4.64 183.1 30
63 Tim Wakefield -.24 4.87 4.64 188.1 30
64 Jeremy Bonderman -.25 4.89 4.64 184 32
65 Jon Garland -.26 4.89 4.64 217 33
66 Nate Robertson -.26 4.90 4.64 196.2 32
67 Ryan Franklin -.26 4.90 4.64 200.1 32
68 Javier Vazquez -.27 4.91 4.64 198 32
69 Adam Eaton -.29 4.61 4.31 199.1 33
70 Josh Fogg -.33 4.64 4.31 178.1 32
71 Bartolo Colon -.37 5.01 4.64 208.1 34
72 Kazuhisa Ishii -.40 4.71 4.31 172 31
73 Matt Morris -.41 4.72 4.31 202 32
74 Kirk Rueter -.41 4.73 4.31 190.1 33
75 Eric Milton -.43 4.75 4.31 201 34
76 Jason Johnson -.49 5.13 4.64 196.2 33
77 Aaron Harang -.55 4.86 4.31 161 28
78 Jamie Moyer -.58 5.21 4.64 202 33
79 Cory Lidle -.58 4.90 4.31 211.1 34
80 Victor Santos -.65 4.97 4.31 154 28
81 Sidney Ponson -.66 5.30 4.64 215.2 33
82 Kyle Lohse -.70 5.34 4.64 194 34
83 Derek Lowe -.78 5.42 4.64 182.2 33
84 Cliff Lee -.79 5.43 4.64 179 33
85 Jose Contreras -.86 5.50 4.64 170.1 31
86 Ismael Valdes -.87 5.19 4.31 170 31
87 Darrell May -.98 5.61 4.64 186 31
88 Brian Anderson -1.00 5.64 4.64 166 26
89 Esteban Loaiza -1.07 5.70 4.64 183 27
90 Jason Jennings -1.19 5.51 4.31 201 33
91 Brett Myers -1.21 5.52 4.31 176 31
92 Scott Elarton -1.35 5.90 4.55 158.2 29
93 Shawn Estes -1.52 5.84 4.31 202 34
94 Jose Acevedo -1.62 5.94 4.31 157.2 27



SEASON
2005

INNINGS PITCHED >= 150
GAMES STARTED >= 20

ERA DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE IP GS
1 Roger Clemens 2.36 1.87 4.23 211.1 32
2 Andy Pettitte 1.84 2.39 4.23 222.1 33
3 Dontrelle Willis 1.60 2.63 4.23 236.1 34
4 Kevin Millwood 1.50 2.86 4.36 192 30
5 Johan Santana 1.49 2.87 4.36 231.2 33
6 Pedro Martinez 1.41 2.82 4.23 217 31
7 Chris Carpenter 1.40 2.83 4.23 241.2 33
8 Jake Peavy 1.35 2.88 4.23 203 30
9 Roy Oswalt 1.29 2.94 4.23 241.2 35
10 Mark Buehrle 1.24 3.12 4.36 236.2 33
11 John Smoltz 1.17 3.06 4.23 229.2 33
12 Jarrod Washburn 1.16 3.20 4.36 177.1 29
13 John Patterson 1.10 3.13 4.23 198.1 31
14 Carlos Zambrano 0.97 3.26 4.23 223.1 33
15 Carlos Silva 0.92 3.44 4.36 188.1 27
16 John Lackey 0.92 3.44 4.36 209 33
17 Kenny Rogers 0.91 3.46 4.36 195.1 30
18 Ben Sheets 0.90 3.33 4.23 156.2 22
19 Bartolo Colon 0.89 3.48 4.36 222.2 33
20 Jon Garland 0.86 3.50 4.36 221 32
21 Shawn Chacon 0.86 3.44 4.30 151.2 24
22 Josh Beckett 0.85 3.38 4.23 178.2 29
23 Joe Blanton 0.83 3.53 4.36 201.1 33
24 A.J. Burnett 0.78 3.44 4.23 209 32
25 Jose Contreras 0.76 3.61 4.36 204.2 32
26 Tim Hudson 0.71 3.52 4.23 192 29
27 Tom Glavine 0.69 3.53 4.23 211.1 33
28 Brandon Webb 0.69 3.54 4.23 229 33
29 Jeff Suppan 0.66 3.57 4.23 194.1 32
30 Josh Towers 0.65 3.71 4.36 208.2 33
31 Gustavo Chacin 0.64 3.72 4.36 203 34
32 Danny Haren 0.63 3.73 4.36 217 34
33 Derek Lowe 0.62 3.61 4.23 222 35
34 Paul Byrd 0.62 3.74 4.36 204.1 31
35 Scott Kazmir 0.59 3.77 4.36 186 32
36 Mark Mulder 0.59 3.64 4.23 205 32
37 Cliff Lee 0.57 3.79 4.36 202 32
38 Randy Johnson 0.57 3.79 4.36 225.2 34
39 Mark Prior 0.56 3.67 4.23 166.2 27
40 Bruce Chen 0.53 3.83 4.36 197.1 32
41 Brett Myers 0.51 3.72 4.23 215.1 34
42 Barry Zito 0.50 3.86 4.36 228.1 35
43 Freddy Garcia 0.49 3.87 4.36 228 33
44 Esteban Loaiza 0.46 3.77 4.23 217 34
45 Noah Lowry 0.45 3.78 4.23 204.2 33
46 Aaron Harang 0.40 3.83 4.23 211.2 32
47 Doug Davis 0.39 3.84 4.23 222.2 35
48 C.C. Sabathia 0.33 4.03 4.36 196.2 31
49 Brad Penny 0.33 3.90 4.23 175.1 29
50 Brad Radke 0.32 4.04 4.36 200.2 31
51 Livan Hernandez 0.25 3.98 4.23 246.1 35
52 Chris Capuano 0.24 3.99 4.23 219 35
53 Tim Wakefield 0.21 4.15 4.36 225.1 33
54 Kirk Saarloos 0.19 4.17 4.36 159.2 27
55 Tomo Ohka 0.19 4.04 4.23 180.1 29
56 Kyle Lohse 0.18 4.18 4.36 178.2 30
57 Matt Morris 0.12 4.11 4.23 192.2 31
58 Kris Benson 0.10 4.13 4.23 174.1 28
59 Jason Marquis 0.10 4.13 4.23 207 32
60 Chris Young 0.10 4.26 4.36 164.2 31
61 Jamie Moyer 0.09 4.28 4.36 200 32
62 Victor Zambrano 0.06 4.17 4.23 166.1 27
63 Jon Lieber 0.02 4.20 4.23 218.1 35
64 Brandon Claussen 0.02 4.21 4.23 166.2 29
65 Jeff Weaver 0.01 4.22 4.23 224 34
66 Greg Maddux -.01 4.24 4.23 225 35
67 Mike Mussina -.05 4.41 4.36 179.2 30
68 David Wells -.09 4.45 4.36 184 30
69 Nate Robertson -.12 4.48 4.36 196.2 32
70 Jake Westbrook -.12 4.49 4.36 210.2 34
71 Bronson Arroyo -.15 4.51 4.36 205.1 32
72 Daniel Cabrera -.16 4.52 4.36 161.1 29
73 Jason Schmidt -.17 4.40 4.23 172 29
74 Jason Johnson -.18 4.54 4.36 210 33
75 Javier Vazquez -.19 4.42 4.23 215.2 33
76 Matt Clement -.21 4.57 4.36 191 32
77 Jeremy Bonderman -.21 4.57 4.36 189 29
78 Scott Elarton -.25 4.61 4.36 181.2 31
79 Brett Tomko -.25 4.48 4.23 190.2 30
80 Cory Lidle -.30 4.53 4.23 184.2 31
81 Brian Moehler -.32 4.55 4.23 158.1 25
82 Mike Maroth -.38 4.74 4.36 209 34
83 Brad Halsey -.38 4.61 4.23 160 26
84 Horacio Ramirez -.40 4.63 4.23 202.1 32
85 Rodrigo Lopez -.54 4.90 4.36 209.1 35
86 Casey Fossum -.56 4.92 4.36 162.2 25
87 Brian Lawrence -.60 4.83 4.23 195.2 33
88 Woody Williams -.62 4.85 4.23 159.2 28
89 Mark Redman -.67 4.90 4.23 178.1 30
90 Ryan Franklin -.74 5.10 4.36 190.2 30
91 Josh Fogg -.82 5.05 4.23 169.1 28
92 Kip Wells -.86 5.09 4.23 182 33
93 Ramon Ortiz -1.13 5.36 4.23 171.1 30
94 Runelvys Hernandez -1.16 5.52 4.36 159.2 29
95 Jamey Wright -1.23 5.46 4.23 171.1 27
96 Doug Waechter -1.26 5.62 4.36 157 25
97 Joel Pineiro -1.26 5.62 4.36 189 30
98 Joe Mays -1.29 5.65 4.36 156 26
99 Chan Ho Park -1.41 5.74 4.32 155.1 29
100 Zack Greinke -1.44 5.80 4.36 183 33
101 Jeff Francis -1.45 5.68 4.23 183.2 33
102 Mark Hendrickson -1.54 5.90 4.36 178.1 31
103 Joe Kennedy -1.73 6.01 4.28 152.2 24
104 Eric Milton -2.24 6.47 4.23 186.1 34
105 Jose Lima -2.63 6.99 4.36 168.2 32

M2
04-17-2006, 12:29 PM
So if Wilson ranked 53rd out of starters in with a 4.38 ERA, but the adjusted league average ERA was 4.01, wouldn't it follow that the average ERA for starters was higher than the average ERA for all pitchers?

The league average provided here is park adjusted. Greg Maddux in 2004 would be compared to a 4.24 league average because he threw his home games in Wrigley. Jason Jennings, hurling for the Rockies, would compare to a 5.05 league average. The reason why it's done that way is to normalize the results so that what you're talking about is how well Pitcher A did instead of basing your conclusions on the circumstances in which the guy pitched. For instance, Wilson's 4.36 ERA looks a whole lot better than Jennings's 5.51 and Eric Milton's 4.75 from 2004. Yet when you normalize them for park factors, all three wind up with a 92 ERA+. A 100 is average and the better you pitch, the higher that ERA+ will climb.

Beyond that, finishing 51st out of 86 ERA qualifiers is nothing to write home about. Yet if you rank players using a park-adjusted ERA+ (slightly different from the calculation WOY used above), Wilson would drop into the high 60s in a dead heat with the guys who finished 61st, 71st and 81st in overall ERA.

Balls
04-17-2006, 12:38 PM
Actually, he didn't just pitch well at GAB:

PNC Park 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 12.0 15 5 5 0 3 5 3.75 1.50 .300
Great American 16 16 6 3 0 1 0 105.2 92 39 39 13 32 70 3.32 1.17 .237
Citizens Bank Park 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 7.1 6 1 1 1 2 2 1.23 1.09 .222
Jacobs Field 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5.2 8 3 2 0 2 4 3.18 1.76 .364
Dodger Stadium 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 7.0 5 1 1 0 2 4 1.29 1.00 .200

And yes, you're right, he did have a very good May, but a lot of pitchers have similar variations in their seasons' performance month by month. The fact remains that if you take away a bad August when he was hurt and went on the DA, he had a substantially above average year.

westofyou
04-17-2006, 12:42 PM
The fact remains that if you take away a bad August when he was hurt and went on the DA, he had a substantially above average year.And if you take away Rich Aurilia's away numbers last year he would have had a .941 OPS.

flyer85
04-17-2006, 12:46 PM
I vounteer myself as the president of the Paul Wilson for Cy Young campaign. :D

M2
04-17-2006, 12:53 PM
Actually, he didn't just pitch well at GAB:

PNC Park 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 12.0 15 5 5 0 3 5 3.75 1.50 .300
Great American 16 16 6 3 0 1 0 105.2 92 39 39 13 32 70 3.32 1.17 .237
Citizens Bank Park 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 7.1 6 1 1 1 2 2 1.23 1.09 .222
Jacobs Field 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5.2 8 3 2 0 2 4 3.18 1.76 .364
Dodger Stadium 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 7.0 5 1 1 0 2 4 1.29 1.00 .200

And yes, you're right, he did have a very good May, but a lot of pitchers have similar variations in their seasons' performance month by month. The fact remains that if you take away a bad August when he was hurt and went on the DA, he had a substantially above average year.

And would you now care to list all of the parks where Wilson laid an egg in 2004?

You can "but' this until you're blue in the face. He finished with a 4.36 ERA. If you want to x out his uncharacteristically bad August, then I'm xing out his uncharacteristically good May. That would leave you with the mediocre pitcher from April, June, July and September where he showed little to no variance. He also finished with a .775 OPS against, which indicates that his overall ERA could have been a good bit higher than it was.

Pretending Wilson was better than he was gets us nowhere. The point isn't to seek out the sunnyside of his stats, it's to take a look at his entire body of work, to see what the sum total of his performance nets you. That sum total, not surprisingly, puts Wilson in the exact same spot where he finished in 2001, 2002 and 2003. In short, Paul Wilson managed to be Paul Wilson in 2004 and, once again, Paul Wilson was nothing worth crowing about.

flyer85
04-17-2006, 12:55 PM
In short, Paul Wilson managed to be Paul Wilson in 2004 and, once again, Paul Wilson was nothing worth crowing about.and now he is coming off his umteenth arm surgery and is in his mid 30's. His future looks rosy red to me.

Jpup
04-17-2006, 01:11 PM
Plus, that Wilson did all right in the elephant grass the Reds grew at the GAB in 2004 and got pounded elsewhere, doesn't really argue in favor of him being a good pitcher. Mostly he was a guy who needed a fairly extreme gimmick in order to be effective.

M2, please don't say stuff like that. That's insane to assume the grass had some kind of effect on his performance.

It has just been stated that he pitched the same way for 4 straight years. I don't think the grass caused it.

M2
04-17-2006, 01:24 PM
M2, please don't say stuff like that. That's insane to assume the grass had some kind of effect on his performance.

It has just been stated that he pitched the same way for 4 straight years. I don't think the grass caused it.

He managed to induce a high GB rate at home in 2004 and with the ridiculously high grass that gave his numbers a bump. He was worse on the road than usual in 2004 and that offset his home performance. So, while he wound up in the same place in 2004 as in previous seasons, if you dig into it, Wilson was much more reliant on a fluke to achieve it.

His home performance in 2004 was actually another reason to be concerned about him heading into 2005. The Reds knew they performed some extreme groundskeeping and that Wilson relied on it. A smarter organization would have done the math on what to expect from Wilson without that sort artificial help.

flyer85
04-17-2006, 01:25 PM
That's insane to assume the grass had some kind of effect on his performance.Maybe he was smoking it? :p:

SMcGavin
04-17-2006, 03:01 PM
The league average provided here is park adjusted. Greg Maddux in 2004 would be compared to a 4.24 league average because he threw his home games in Wrigley. Jason Jennings, hurling for the Rockies, would compare to a 5.05 league average. The reason why it's done that way is to normalize the results so that what you're talking about is how well Pitcher A did instead of basing your conclusions on the circumstances in which the guy pitched. For instance, Wilson's 4.36 ERA looks a whole lot better than Jennings's 5.51 and Eric Milton's 4.75 from 2004. Yet when you normalize them for park factors, all three wind up with a 92 ERA+. A 100 is average and the better you pitch, the higher that ERA+ will climb.

So for 2004, GAB rated very strongly as a pitcher's park? I've heard the argument that it isn't as much of a hitter's park as many say, and is really more in the middle, but I haven't heard this before. Has this been true for the other seasons of GAB's existence?

Also, bear with me if I'm little slow on alot of the stats stuff - I've been reading here for a couple of seasons, and picked up what I could. It doesn't really come intuitively to me as I'm more of a basketball guy. I have at least become the "OPS guy" in my circle of friends, but it may be a while before I understand the whole Runs Created and Win Shares argument.

M2
04-17-2006, 04:30 PM
So for 2004, GAB rated very strongly as a pitcher's park?

Because of The World's Smallest RainforestTM it rated as one of the more severe pitching parks in the majors in 2004.

Overall pitching adjustment ratings for the first three years of the GAB (according to www.baseball-reference.com) were (over 100 favors hitters):

2003 - 100
2004 - 93
2005 - 105

In general, the GAB is friendly for homers and tough on singles. When they cut the grass last season it became more singles friendly and that eliminated the safety cushion for the pitching.

Though the upside of that is the strength of the team is hitting, meaning that the Reds' best players get the chance to enhance their value by playing in a neutral or better park.


Also, bear with me if I'm little slow on alot of the stats stuff - I've been reading here for a couple of seasons, and picked up what I could. It doesn't really come intuitively to me as I'm more of a basketball guy. I have at least become the "OPS guy" in my circle of friends, but it may be a while before I understand the whole Runs Created and Win Shares argument.

No problem. This stuff isn't native to what we're taught in Little League, on the backs of baseball cards or in the sports pages. Though it can become oddly intuitive once you get the knack for it.

For instance, it makes a certain amount of sense to normalize for park conditions when comparing Pitcher A and Pitcher B. Not all ERAs are created equal. Understanding the luck effects of BABIP (batting average on balls in play) can help you avoid a guy like Ramon Ortiz or Corey Lidle or Dave Williams once it becomes clear that said pitcher needs good luck in order to be an effective pitcher.

Most of what statheads try to do is built around methodolgy - compare apples to apples, identify true cause and effect, develop reliable methods for projecting performance. I can't imagine anyone disagrees with that in theory, but man do some folks get upset about it when they see it in practice.

Team Clark
04-17-2006, 09:45 PM
Are the D-Rays getting a new catcher?;)

Naaah. Been friends with Jason for a LONG time now. I tried calling him on my way to the ballpark today. Hopefully, he'll call back soon. He's probably having a good time in Fla.


I'd welcome him in Tampa. He'd probably hit better here.

I like Kevin Cash. Once he gets settled in at the plate I think he can contibute at the big league level. Pretty smart kid.

Team Clark
04-17-2006, 09:57 PM
He managed to induce a high GB rate at home in 2004 and with the ridiculously high grass that gave his numbers a bump. He was worse on the road than usual in 2004 and that offset his home performance. So, while he wound up in the same place in 2004 as in previous seasons, if you dig into it, Wilson was much more reliant on a fluke to achieve it.

His home performance in 2004 was actually another reason to be concerned about him heading into 2005. The Reds knew they performed some extreme groundskeeping and that Wilson relied on it. A smarter organization would have done the math on what to expect from Wilson without that sort artificial help.

That reminds me of the old Ryne Sandberg "Wrigley Effect" when he was winning all of those gold gloves. No matter that he was playing against teams that had "HORRIBLE" or less than desirable turf... Pittsburgh, Cincy, Philly, St. Louis, Montreal, and Houston on the road. San Diego's Infield was pretty darn bad and they had GRASS.

Wilson, like Jimmy Haynes, had a career year and to be honest it should be thrown out with his worst year when making comparisons. In retrospect, I can't recall how many times the bullpen blew his 10th win that year. He pitched his butt of for 7 and even sometimes 8 innings before the Bully gave it up. If memory serves he could have easily been a 15-16 game winner. Paul put everything he had into that season and that was ALLhe had left. Folks, I CAUGHT the guy. TWO separate years. He had better stuff in 1998-2000 then he does now.

IslandRed
04-17-2006, 10:50 PM
Folks, I CAUGHT the guy. TWO separate years. He had better stuff in 1998-2000 then he does now.

And that was after the first round of arm injuries. I watched him at Florida State quite a bit, so I probably remember better than most just how good his stuff was before the injuries. It's depressing for me to watch even when he's having a good game, because the juxtaposition between now and then is just so jarring.

Aronchis
04-17-2006, 11:05 PM
What started Paul's decline? TJ or Shoulder?. I can't remember which was first.

RedlegJake
04-17-2006, 11:13 PM
I think one of the things that make so many argue so futilely for Wilson is the same thing that had people arguing Casey's merits - he's likeable, upstanding, "great team guy", a "leader", "veteran presence" and all that...and I agree with that. I want him on my team of "Most likeable fan friendly" players but I don't want him pitching if I'm putting together a contender. The numbers simply don't support him unless you pick and choose streaks of performance - and you can do that for just about any player. The first time he injured his arm Paul Wilson's career as an above average pitcher was over.

Team Clark
04-17-2006, 11:17 PM
What started Paul's decline? TJ or Shoulder?. I can't remember which was first.


I recall the shoulder was first.

NatiRedGals
04-17-2006, 11:38 PM
Pitcher Paul Wilson (rehabbing after right shoulder surgery) threw 73 pitches over 5 1/3 innings on Sunday in his second start at extended Spring Training. He allowed four earned runs on seven hits with no walks and three strikeouts. His next scheduled start is Friday.