PDA

View Full Version : it is depressing



flyer85
07-14-2006, 10:58 PM
I was at the game tonight. I will start my comments by saying the guys make the routine plays each booted the most routine of plays tonight. In the case of Clayton his error was potentially the biggest play of the game but a now healthy Mercker bailed him out.

The depressing part is that via trades and lineup decisions Wayne and Jerry have transformed one of the best offenses in the league into one that will be average at best. The infield tonight featured Aurilia, Clayton, Phillips and Hatteberg. 3 or the 4 are below average for the position. Of the entire starting lineup there were only 2(dunn and Jr) are above average at their position.

On Clayton, he doesn't move all that well anymore, at best is average with the glove(and that is being generous) and is an offensive black hole. I have little doubt that Phillips could play the position as well as Clayton starting tomorrow. Clayton needs to be DFAed tomorrow.

On Majewski he is a slightly less talented version of Coffey. Throws a 92-94 sinker and a slider.

There is no way that Hatty keeps up his current pace, guys don't have the best years of their career at 36. Ross and Phillips are due to decline. I have a hard time seeing Denorfia as a 850 OPS player.

Unless Narron reconfigures the lineup by the Reds are in serious trouble
1)move Dunn into the 3 slot, he will have to carry this team now and the Reds have to maximze his opportunities with runners on base.

My lineup would be

Freel 2b
Denorfia rf
Dunn lf
Jr cf
EE 3b
Ross c
Hatty/RA 1b
Phillips ss

knowing instead that nothing will happen and that we are going to get full doses of RA at 3rd and Clayton at SS is going to be a huge anchor on this team.

redsmetz
07-14-2006, 11:05 PM
There is no way that Hatty keeps up his current pace, guys don't have the best years of their career at 36. Ross and Phillips are due to decline. I have a hard time seeing Denorfia as a 850 OPS player.

I'm beginning to think we should rename Redzone the Doom & Gloom Room. Why is it impossible for someone to have a career year at 36? Is it improbable? Yes, but it's not impossible. All year some folks have said time and again, Hatteberg won't stay like this. Ross can't stay like this, Phillips will return to the dreaded "career norms" and on and on and on.

This is a team which can stay in contention. Yes, Clayton should have made that routine play, but yes, Mercker came in and bailed him out. Bravo! That's what teams do. I liked Denorfia's hustle and I have nto been on the bandwagon all season. I think Majwhathisname just had the jitters. The double was legit, the blooper was just that. Get out with one run, shut them down and you've got that win. That was refreshing.

I coined a phrase tonight after Aurilia made that stellar play at third tonight: Aurilia good play there! - yeah, corny, but I amused myself. :laugh:

Falls City Beer
07-14-2006, 11:09 PM
I think Denorfia will make people forget all about Kearns. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to see Kearns slip into absolute obscurity in D.C's cavernous RFK.

And now was absolutely the right time to dump Kearns. (I still think Lopez would have found his way back to above respectable numbers).

Still, no reason to surrender two trading chips for what we got back.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 11:10 PM
Why is it impossible for someone to have a career year at 36? Is it improbable? Yes, but it's not impossible. All year some folks have said time and again, Hatteberg won't stay like this. Ross can't stay like this, Phillips will return to the dreaded "career norms" and on and on and oncounting on guys to continue to produce well above their career norms for a team to have success is a recipe for failure. Instead you should count on regression to the mean(because that is far more likely) and make your plan with that in mind if you want to ensure some level of success. Counting on career years from numerous players to continue to sustain a needed level of performance is courting disaster.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 11:12 PM
I think Denorfia will make people forget all about Kearns. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to see Kearns slip into absolute obscurity in D.C's cavernous RFK.

And now was absolutely the right time to dump Kearns. (I still think Lopez would have found his way back to above respectable numbers).

Still, no reason to surrender two trading chips for what we got back.Denorfia I see as a player who will likely OPS around 800 and provide solid defense and speed. If you get more than, great but counting on it is not a good idea.

Falls City Beer
07-14-2006, 11:17 PM
Denorfia I see as a player who will likely OPS around 800 and provide solid defense and speed. If you get more than, great but counting on it is not a good idea.

It's what I see too. But I don't think Kearns' numbers are going to be pretty in D.C.--and they were already in the process of slipping down to the .825 mark he's maintained for his career.

I don't know about you, but I think I'd rather deep fry my own stool than pay Kearns 6 million bucks + in arbitration for that kind of production next year(plus his defense just continues to get worse).

Now was unquestionably the time to flip Kearns....for something better.

registerthis
07-14-2006, 11:20 PM
counting on guys to continue to produce well above their career norms for a team to have success is a recipe for failure. Instead you should count on regression to the mean(because that is far more likely) and make your plan with that in mind if you want to ensure some level of success. Counting on career years from numerous players to continue to sustain a needed level of performance is courting disaster.

It happened in '99. It's not unheard of. But, you're right, it's not smart management.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 11:20 PM
It's what I see too. But I don't think Kearns' numbers are going to be pretty in D.C.--and they were already in the process of slipping down to the .825 mark he's maintained for his career. Kearns and his opp field power is not suited for that park. He is certainly a player that doesn't profile well in RFK but that his nothing to do with his expected level of performance in GABP. GABP certainly was a nice fit for Kearns.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 11:21 PM
It happened in '99. It's not unheard of. But, you're right, it's not smart management.I suggest we all get out the four leaf clovers and cross our fingers.

Patrick Bateman
07-14-2006, 11:23 PM
It's what I see too. But I don't think Kearns' numbers are going to be pretty in D.C.--and they were already in the process of slipping down to the .825 mark he's maintained for his career.

I don't know about you, but I think I'd rather deep fry my own stool than pay Kearns 6 million bucks + in arbitration for that kind of production next year(plus his defense just continues to get worse).

Now was unquestionably the time to flip Kearns....for something better.

That's a good post FCB.

As much as I like Kearns, he just wasn't doing it. His patience has slipped and he swings at bad pitches. We should have been able to get more for him, but I agree the thought in trading him now while his value is high was a good idea.

We wont miss his offense between Freel and Denorfia. Over the course of the season I expect Freel/Denorfia to outplay Kearns. They will more than mkae up for him IMO. The loss of Lopez hurts more since he has 2.5 years until free agency and unless we suddenly shift Phillips to SS we don't have a decent alternative to man the position. Watching Clayton today was nothing short of sickening.

Falls City Beer
07-14-2006, 11:25 PM
Kearns and his opp field power is not suited for that park. He is certainly a player that doesn't profile well in RFK but that his nothing to do with his expected level of performance in GABP. GABP certainly was a nice fit for Kearns.

Kearns this year hit with the same degree of power on the road as he did at GAB. I don't know how he's done there historically, but then again he's been awful the last three seasons with "injury." I contend Kearns will vanish into the same sinkhole that grabbed Aaron Boone. Old-player's skills and a brittle body. Bad combo. Good riddance to him.

Dumping Lopez--I just don't get.

Cedric
07-14-2006, 11:26 PM
That's a good post FCB.

As much as I like Kearns, he just wasn't doing it. His patience has slipped and he swings at bad pitches. We should have been able to get more for him, but I agree the thought in trading him now while his value is high was a good idea.

We wont miss his offense between Freel and Denorfia. Over the course of the season I expect Freel/Denorfia to outplay Kearns. They will more than mkae up for him IMO. The loss of Lopez hurts more since he has 2.5 years until free agency and unless we suddenly shift Phillips to SS we don't have a decent alternative to man the position. Watching Clayton today was nothing short of sickening.

Should have gotten more for a player that even his own fans didn't really like? I think we on Redszone underestimate other teams gm's and scouting departments. We just got rid of two soon to be overpriced players with HUGE holes in each's games.

I don't like the return much at all, but I think the whining is a bit much about Kearns and Lopez.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 11:26 PM
Clayton before tonight

18th in the majors for SS in both FLD% and ZR, 20th in RF.

Data suggests the Reds still have a below average defensive SS, just an improvement over what was here before.

Cedric
07-14-2006, 11:27 PM
Clayton before tonight

18th in the majors for SS in both FLD% and ZR, 20th in RF.

Data suggests the Reds still have a below average defensive SS, just an improvement over what was here before.

So at least we got a few relievers and the chance of seeing more Phillips SS and Freel 2b.

I personally really like this trade if Phillips lands at SS in the near future.

reds44
07-14-2006, 11:46 PM
If Narron would get over his vet man crush and put our best lineup out there, the offense would be fine.

Dunn/Griffey/Edwin give you a good 3-4-5 in any order, Freel (2B)/Deno at as 1/2 give you good OBP guys with good speed, and BP, Hatte/RA, and Ross are not a bad bottom of the order. Instead we hae to get RA and Hatte in the middle of the order, Clayton batting 7th and playing short, and Freel and Edwin on the bench. We have the talent to hit, but Narron refuses to use it.

Freel 2B
Deno RF
Griffey CF
Dunn LF
Edwin 3B
BP SS
RA/Hatte 1B
Ross C

Rich is a good assest when he is used correctly. Have him spell Freel at 2nd and EE at 3rd, and have him start at 1st vs. lefties, but no we have to get him playing everyday and batting 4th.

Not to mention Clayton and Rich be vastly overrated by Narron defensively. Rich had an error in the 1st, and I counted 2 balls that Edwin would have got to that he didn't. That is 3 plays right there. If Edwin throws one away it is still +2 Edwin.

I like Wayne, but not so much Narron.

Patrick Bateman
07-14-2006, 11:46 PM
Should have gotten more for a player that even his own fans didn't really like? I think we on Redszone underestimate other teams gm's and scouting departments. We just got rid of two soon to be overpriced players with HUGE holes in each's games.



They may have holes in their game, but they are still very good players. Teams whine that nobody good was available, yet they just watched 2 above average regulars go to a team out of contention.

Patrick Bateman
07-14-2006, 11:49 PM
I like Wayne, but not so much Narron.

:eek:

flyer85
07-14-2006, 11:52 PM
So at least we got a few relievers and the chance of seeing more Phillips SS and Freel 2b.

I personally really like this trade if Phillips lands at SS in the near future.I said when the trade was made I would have been happier with a 7 player deal and the Nats keep Clayton.

ochre
07-14-2006, 11:54 PM
sweet mother of abraham lincoln.

Once again, we're all eager to throw Kearns and Lopez under the bus for only having limited success at the major league level, while concurrently building the monuments to the half season of Phillips and the handful of games of Denorfia.

For all the alleged overvaluing of Kearns and Lopez on this board I see an awful lot of contrary sentiment.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 11:55 PM
sweet mother of abraham lincoln.

Once again, we're all eager to throw Kearns and Lopez under the bus for only having limited success at the major league level, while concurrently building the monuments to the half season of Phillips and the handful of games of Denorfia.

For all the alleged overvaluing of Kearns and Lopez on this board I see an awful lot of contrary sentiment.you left out Ross and a career half season from Hatty as well.

reds44
07-14-2006, 11:58 PM
you left out Ross and a career half season from Hatty as well.
So Ross, Phillips, and Hatte are all having career years and will fall back to norms.

Well our offense was bound to go down the crapper anyway.

Patrick Bateman
07-15-2006, 12:00 AM
So Ross, Phillips, and Hatte are all having career years and will fall back to norms.

Well our offense was bound to go down the crapper anyway.

On the other hand, Griffey, Aurillia, Dunn, and LaRue are all due to progress to their means.

Cedric
07-15-2006, 12:02 AM
sweet mother of abraham lincoln.

Once again, we're all eager to throw Kearns and Lopez under the bus for only having limited success at the major league level, while concurrently building the monuments to the half season of Phillips and the handful of games of Denorfia.

For all the alleged overvaluing of Kearns and Lopez on this board I see an awful lot of contrary sentiment.

I would have gotten rid of Kearns or Lopez no matter who we had in the system, but that's just me.

flyer85
07-15-2006, 12:03 AM
So Ross, Phillips, and Hatte are all having career years and will fall back to norms.we don't know but certainly the odds always favor a regression to the mean. They may defy the odds but counting on defying the odds to provide a necessary level of offensive performance is a low percentage play.

Cedric
07-15-2006, 12:04 AM
we don't know but certainly the odds always favor a regression to the mean. They may defy the odds but counting on defying the odds to provide a necessary level of offensive performance is a low percentage play.

What odds are there on Phillips? He's got no mean at this level in this situation.

Players are pigeon holed very young sometimes.

flyer85
07-15-2006, 12:11 AM
On the other hand, Griffey, Aurillia, Dunn, and LaRue are all due to progress to their means.I'd say Larue is likely to go elsewhere,

Aurilia is on his 75% PECOTA, well above expectations, not below.

Jr is close to his, near his 40% PECOTA

Dunn is on his 40% PECOTA.

For the Reds there is a lot more decline in regressing to the mean than there is increase in progressing to the mean.

flyer85
07-15-2006, 12:14 AM
What odds are there on Phillips? He's got no mean at this level in this situation.

Players are pigeon holed very young sometimes.Phillips is above his 90% PECOTA projection, and so are Ross and Hatteberg (they are both off the charts) Hattys 90% projection was only a little over 800 OPS. Ross is 300 OPS over his 90th percentile projection

Patrick Bateman
07-15-2006, 12:16 AM
I'd say Larue is likely to go elsewhere,

Aurilia is on his 75% PECOTA, well above expectations, not below.

Jr is close to his, near his 40% PECOTA

Dunn is on his 40% PECOTA.

For the Reds there is a lot more decline in regressing to the mean than there is increase in progressing to the mean.

I'm basing it on how well they have actually played. All 3 guys have been career .300 BAPIP hitters (give or take) and should improve just by a factor of luck and not neccessarily playing any better.

Dunn .262
LaRue .230
Aurillia .265
Griffey .240

They will all likely see better results by simply playing to the same level that they have so far.

flyer85
07-15-2006, 12:26 AM
looking about OPS tells more about performance than looking at BABIP does.

Shandler(baseball HQ) has a projected total BABIP of .270 for RA, .270 for Dunn and .260 for Jr, and .250 for Larue

ochre
07-15-2006, 12:31 AM
What odds are there on Phillips? He's got no mean at this level in this situation.

Players are pigeon holed very young sometimes.
Lopez in AAA as a 21 yr. old -
.279 .339 .506 .845
as a 22 yr. old -
.318 .419 .457 876
as a 23 yr. old -
.280 .333 .399 732

Phillips in AAA as a 21 yr. old -
.283 .321 .453 774
as a 22 yr. old -
.175 .247 .279 526
as a 23 yr. old -
.296 .353 .416 769

while this isn't conclusive, and doesn't factor in defense, comparing their numbers at similar stages of their career points to Lopez being significantly better offensively.

Cedric
07-15-2006, 12:36 AM
Lopez in AAA as a 21 yr. old -
.279 .339 .506 .845
as a 22 yr. old -
.318 .419 .457 876
as a 23 yr. old -
.280 .333 .399 732

Phillips in AAA as a 21 yr. old -
.283 .321 .453 774
as a 22 yr. old -
.175 .247 .279 526
as a 23 yr. old -
.296 .353 .416 769

while this isn't conclusive, and doesn't factor in defense, comparing their numbers at similar stages of their career points to Lopez being significantly better offensively.

Highly subjective statement coming next...

I think Phillips is a very special talent, the type of raw talent that just takes longer to perform than most other players.

I can't prove that statement, though it somewhat is being shown this year.
Just my two cents on the type of player Phillips is.

flyer85
07-15-2006, 12:40 AM
Highly subjective statement coming next...

I think Phillips is a very special talent, the type of raw talent that just takes longer to perform than most other players.

I can't prove that statement, though it somewhat is being shown this year.
Just my two cents on the type of player Phillips is.he may well be. The fact that he is on his 90% PECOTA tells you that the system felt he had some upside. He has had a great half and it could continue. A lot more likely than guys like Ross and Hatty who are smashing their 90% projections.

Reds1
07-15-2006, 12:43 AM
Keeps amazing me all the talk about how terrible we are. Well, I guess depressing was the word. Didn't we win 3-1? Didn't Harang throw a gem?

As far as the line up, I agree, this line up wasn't our best, but if there's one thing I know it will be different tomorrow! :)

KronoRed
07-15-2006, 12:49 AM
As far as the line up, I agree, this line up wasn't our best, but if there's one thing I know it will be different tomorrow! :)
Yeah Castro will need playing time ;)

I was at the game and it was a nice performance by Harang, working out of some jams as well, the new pitcher struck me as someone who will fit right in :lol:

Lineup? Don't like it..but Narron has his logic for it..whatever that may be..if EE isn't gonna play send him down to AAA or trade him, a platoon of 2 righties is kinda foolish.

Patrick Bateman
07-15-2006, 01:51 AM
looking about OPS tells more about performance than looking at BABIP does.

Shandler(baseball HQ) has a projected total BABIP of .270 for RA, .270 for Dunn and .260 for Jr, and .250 for Larue

Just wondering, but how does Shandler come to that conclusion, when over their careers, the players in question generally BAPIP close to .300?

MWM
07-15-2006, 01:57 AM
I'd throw PECOTA out for Phillips this year. It's worthless for players like him.

Tommyjohn25
07-15-2006, 02:31 AM
Don't care what lineup is out there at this point, they won tonight and are now in the lead for the wild card. Nothing depressing about that, I'm going to enjoy it. Some of you may want to try joining me. ;)

dsmith421
07-15-2006, 02:36 AM
sweet mother of abraham lincoln.

Once again, we're all eager to throw Kearns and Lopez under the bus for only having limited success at the major league level, while concurrently building the monuments to the half season of Phillips and the handful of games of Denorfia.

For all the alleged overvaluing of Kearns and Lopez on this board I see an awful lot of contrary sentiment.

And Gary Majewski is now Bruce Sutter. If you didn't hear...

SteelSD
07-15-2006, 02:40 AM
It happened in '99. It's not unheard of. But, you're right, it's not smart management.

I've always been of the opinion that if you haven't built your ballclub for contention, you need a goodly number of players who have career years at the same time to contend. And man, did 1999 exemplify that. I've also always been of the opinion that the best way to maximize the probability that would happen is to keep the average age of your primary AB and IP players slightly under 30 years old (age-prime) with only a smattering of offensive players over the 30-year old threshold (and I'd prefer they be tight to that threshold). But that was just a preference on my part so I figured I'd run the numbers:

1999 Cincinnati Reds Average Age:

Offense (min 150 AB): 28.18 years old
Pitching (min 50 IP): 27.83 years old

% Offense Over 30: 2/11 (18.2%)
% Pitchers Over 30: 3/12 (25%)
% Offense 4+ Years over 30: 1/11 (9.1%)
% Pitchers 4+ Years over 30: 0/12 (0.0%)

Well, that's kinda scary. Makes me want to pull more numbers.

Just for fun, here's the 1975 Cincinnati Reds. They were obviously contenders coming into the season, but I just wanted to see.

1999 Cincinnati Reds Average Age:

Offense (min 150 AB): 28.33 years old
Pitching (min 50 IP): 27.6 years old

% Offense Over 30: 4/12 (25%)
% Pitchers Over 30: 3/10 (30%)
% Offense 4+ Years over 30: 1/12 (8.3%)
% Pitchers 4+ Years over 30: 1/10 (10.0%)

Now a look at a recent "surprise" team that got a bunch of career years from players after finishing poorly the year before (2002 Angels)...

2002 Los Angeles Angels of Whatever Average Age:

Offense (min 150 AB): 28.5 years old
Pitching (min 50 IP): 29.9 years old

% Offense Over 30: 2/10 (20.00%)
% Pitchers Over 30: 4/10 (40.00%)
% Offense 4+ Years over 30: 0/10 (0.0%)
% Pitchers 4+ Years over 30: 2/10 (20.0%)

Now, I'm not saying there's any correlation with keeping your average age under 30 or that there's a causality link between younger teams and contending because young teams fail all the time if they lack talent. But with age comes performance volatility. Players tend to have career years during age-prime seasons. When I see three successful teams who have a combined 5 of 65 (7.7%) of their players 34 or older after I've drawn them from a virtual hat, I raise an eybrow.

Here's the 2006 Cincinnati Reds based on the lineup card tonight:

Offense: 31.25 years old

Now let's add the remaining projected 150 AB contributors...

Freel: 30
David Ross: 29
Javier Valentin: 30

That brings us to an average of 30.64 years old with 4 of 11 (36.4%) at or above 34 years of age. The pitching? Average of 28.92 years old with 3 of 13 pitchers (23%) falling outside age threshold level. Add that up and you've got 7 of 24 players we couldn't reasonably project for a career year (29.2%). That's nearly a third of the team. Hatteberg is having a career year, but that's nothing anyone could have reasonably anticipated. His trend is to play decently before the ASB and then tank after so we may be seeing a manifestation of that this season. I hope not because I like the good version, but the bad version is Casey-lite.

The Reds have three offensive players who project to hit peak season performance soon (Dunn, Phillips). Everyone else is moving away from it. The offense just got old in a hurry and 50% of the players who'll be moving into their age-prime seasons (Phillips) is a low-plate discipline performer. That means he's volatile. Denorfia- who I like- may end up producing an .820 OPS season or two. But I'd estimate that he's at least two seasons from that real potential. Nothing fancy. Just somthing good. But not now.

The trading of Kearns and Lopez got the Reds old in a hurry. They're counting on continued performance by a guy who hasn't been able to find a second half of a season he likes (Hatteberg) and they're hoping that older players like Griffey and Aurilia can somehow step up their games. Krivsky may not know he's asking that, but that's exactly what he's asking- for improbable things to come together for a hamstrung offense so that they can outscore a pitching staff that isn't all that improved. It's sad really. I like pitching and defense. But the trade didn't address the latter and the former isn't enough to overcome the current or projected offensive loss of the players traded away.

I look at this team and have absolutely no idea how making the offense older is going to work. As a residual, Adam Dunn is going to have to often carry this offense on his back. When he does, it's beautiful. But he can't do that 24/7 and he shouldn't be expected to.

GAC
07-15-2006, 10:38 AM
counting on guys to continue to produce well above their career norms for a team to have success is a recipe for failure.....

Counting on career years from numerous players to continue to sustain a needed level of performance is courting disaster.

Who are you referring to?

I don't think this management is doing, or counting on that, as much as you suggest.

As far as I'm concerned, Krivsky is simply trying to keep us in the "hunt" this year, without making huge player sacrifices/selling off, while retaining the core of this team. And many don't see Lopez/Kearns as being huge sacrifices.

But it is these type of "borderline" players that you have to use to possibly acquire players to help you in the future. You certainly aren't going to do it with Aurilia, Hatteberg, Castro, Clayton, or some of the other fodder on this team. And that is all Castro/Clayton are in '06. They are simply being "used", and soon to be on the trash heep IMO.

And other then guys like Dunn, Encarnacion, Phillips, and our SP's - we don't have much in the shopping cart.

I left out Jr because no one is gonna touch this guy. ;)

Kearns can (and will) be easily replaced.

The loss of Lopez does create a minor problem, because we now have to rely on a tandem of Castro/Clayton for the remainder of the season at SS. I don't think we will lose anything defensively. But I bet BP is at SS next season.

This is a team in transition IMO.... and a well needed transition. And I also believe it is a period of player evaluation for Krivsky - nothing more.

I think Edskin "hit the nail on the head" with this thread (when it comes to guys like Lopez and Kearns), and that some of the "parts" weren't taking us where we need to go....

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48614

But to say that this team is "doomed" offensively because....

we lost two offensive juggernauts in Lopez and Kearns

And guys like Aurilia/Hatteberg are "playing over their heads"

While the young arms we acquired aren't going to amount to much

Shows the problem, respectfully, that I have with "projections" inwhich to gauge player/team future performance. I'm not saying it should be ignored or totally disregarded - just not a sure thing as some like to say it is.

But this year's squad has given alot of us hope in just a short order.

But it is not a squad that is SET, or that Krivsky is content with IMO.

I think we will see quite a few changes in '07.

GAC
07-15-2006, 10:42 AM
Rich had an error in the 1st, and I counted 2 balls that Edwin would have got to that he didn't. That is 3 plays right there. If Edwin throws one away it is still +2 Edwin.

Are you counting that stellar defensive play RA made at 3B later in the game? ;)

The guy is not a board out there, as some like to suggest.

But that is not saying I prefer him at 3B over EE. I disagree with Narron over this.

But you make EE out to be Brooks Robinson! :lol:

redsmetz
07-15-2006, 10:48 AM
counting on guys to continue to produce well above their career norms for a team to have success is a recipe for failure. Instead you should count on regression to the mean(because that is far more likely) and make your plan with that in mind if you want to ensure some level of success. Counting on career years from numerous players to continue to sustain a needed level of performance is courting disaster.

No one has said anything about "counting on" Hatteberg to have a career year. I'm just saying it's possible and there's far to many folks in the Redszone who seem to wake up every morning wishing for guys like Scott Hatteberg and Rich Aurilia and Eric Milton to fail just so they can be right.

Who here believed Hatteberg would have the year he's having? No one. Let's cheer it on instead of wishing for the da***ed "career norms".

My frustration is folks choosing who they like and who they disdain and pulling for the disdained to fail. It gets old. Let's play ball and hope players play out their minds for us. :bang:

redsmetz
07-15-2006, 10:52 AM
What odds are there on Phillips? He's got no mean at this level in this situation.

Players are pigeon holed very young sometimes.

I thought about this at last night's game. Can you imagine the coals a DemBumsZone board in the late 50's would have raked the young Sandy Koufax over?

redsmetz
07-15-2006, 10:59 AM
One more thought on career norms. I keep saying this over and over. "Career norms" are created by living breathing human beings. The excellent post from Team Clark yesterday shared with us the inner workings of a ball team and the choices that individuals make. He talked about Kearns' swing having changed and how various coaches have tried to get him to return to his old form. That's a choice Kearns is making. His career norms will become what they are because of his choices, teaching he takes or doesn't take.

We've all heard stories of players coming to a new place and get this little tweak or that little adjustment and suddenly there career is on a differenet path. A career plays out over years.

Anther example talked about here was the Reds Houston trade of 1971. Joe Morgan's career norms up to then did not suggest the power he would show with the Reds. Was he playing above his career norms or shaping the totality of his career there?

Things are not predetermined. This is the beauty of baseball and perhaps the curse of Sabermetrics as I think I understand it. I'll take a more holistic view to these careers. Players are not robots, they're flesh and blood, thinking (sometimes, that is) crafty humans capable of making adjustments.

My friend who played in the minors with the Reds in the 50's talked about his own career. He said he had great stuff (I think he made it to AAA before going into the Army) but I wasn't smart baseball wise. He tried to get by with his power and not with thinking through his pitch selection. That's humanity.

pedro
07-15-2006, 11:03 AM
I think Denorfia will make people forget all about Kearns. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to see Kearns slip into absolute obscurity in D.C's cavernous RFK.

And now was absolutely the right time to dump Kearns. (I still think Lopez would have found his way back to above respectable numbers).

Still, no reason to surrender two trading chips for what we got back.

I think both those guys tank in washington.

westofyou
07-15-2006, 12:39 PM
This is the beauty of baseball and perhaps the curse of Sabermetrics as I think I understand it.

You're right, it's baseball and no one knows what is going to happen, but don't blame sabermetrics for this... that's just the study of the numbers side of it, James who coined the term would tell you that that in itself is all it is.

A trade is a talent swap on the surface, beneath it is all sorts of crap that gets passed over...the growth potential for the player in his position and his ability to adjust as he makes his way through the league time and time again, that's the "adjustment variable" the thing a boss looks at as he watches you live and work day in aday out and that's the one that depends on intangibles and fairy dust. To the numbers crunchers out here it also happens to be the thing that we miss when we look at the raw data.

We aren't privy to the inner scouting reports, the day to day, the stuff that the front office says when talking about building "Their Team" not ours.

So, we must turn to the numbers to help make us understand what we see.

One of the beauties of the game is that it is all interconnected on the field, a pitch in the 4th inning might have something to do with a incident in the 8th inning. This applies to the players actions and the ensuing actions of his teammates and so on, that also applies to trades, there is usually some sort of behind the scenes take on a player aside from his numbers.

IMO there is a lot of that sort of undercurrent involved in this deal, taking a talent loss for a gamble, a gamble for an immediate shore up in a putrid bullpen, a gamble that 3 young hard throwers will morph into overperforming their future contracts and a gamble that the two outgoing Reds offense can be replaced and that in the future THEY won't overperform their future contracts.

It's a pure gamble and nothing else, if it fails it will be the reason this team that was 8-20 before the break stinks, while not fair that's the way it will be seen.

One thing for sure is if you look at Baseball from a Sabermetric view you see commodities in many players, for instance if you look at Win Shares to value players you have to accept this one reality, there are only so many "Win Shares" to divy up amongst teams and players.

Historically the Win Shares fall into the lap of the players whose style of play dominates that current era. In short offensive players garner most of them currently. Both Kearns and Lopez had 9 WS, Harang has 9 and Arroyo 13.5. Coffey/Weathers have 7, Brey and Gary M. have 5.

The Reds have moved one pile of WS from the offense to the pitching and hoped that the replacements can equal the missing offense (Clayton 6 WS) and the pitching can normalize.

They needed Win Shares in the pitching department, it was like having flour and sugar but no butter, the Reds just traded a bunch of their flour for a stick of butter, the problem is they are trying to make two pie crusts with one stick of butter, and even less flour. If the pie sucks it's going to be because there wasn't enough butter and probably not enough flour either.

But before all they had was a big pile of flour.

redsfanmia
07-15-2006, 07:43 PM
I'd throw PECOTA out for Phillips this year. It's worthless for players like him.
Its not just worthless for players like Phillips its worthless for all players IMO.

MWM
07-15-2006, 08:30 PM
Its not just worthless for players like Phillips its worthless for all players IMO.

And what do you base that opinion on? Have you done a serious evaluation of how it works, its historicl accuracy, etc...?

pedro
07-15-2006, 09:50 PM
Its not just worthless for players like Phillips its worthless for all players IMO.

do you even know what pecota is? or do you think he wrote Moneyball? ;)

alloverjr
07-15-2006, 09:56 PM
do you even know what pecota is? or do you think he wrote Moneyball? ;)

No, he's the guy that filled in for Welch on the TV games a couple weeks back. Jeff I think is his first name.

Tony Cloninger
07-15-2006, 09:58 PM
Bill Pecota? The backup INF for the Mets.

Poco? The MOR singing group?

KronoRed
07-15-2006, 10:00 PM
do you even know what pecota is? or do you think he wrote Moneyball? ;)
Joe Morgan hates that book

:D

edabbs44
07-15-2006, 11:47 PM
Should have gotten more for a player that even his own fans didn't really like? I think we on Redszone underestimate other teams gm's and scouting departments. We just got rid of two soon to be overpriced players with HUGE holes in each's games.

I don't like the return much at all, but I think the whining is a bit much about Kearns and Lopez.
What's the "HUGE" hole in Kearns' game?

redsmetz
07-16-2006, 08:46 AM
What's the "HUGE" hole in Kearns' game?

If you haven't had a chance to read it, take a look at the thread titled "The Skinny" which gives an indepth look at Lopez and Kearns (Kearns in particular) which many have found fairly insightful.

edabbs44
07-16-2006, 09:58 AM
If you haven't had a chance to read it, take a look at the thread titled "The Skinny" which gives an indepth look at Lopez and Kearns (Kearns in particular) which many have found fairly insightful.
I find it hard to believe that Kearns skips batting practice a few times and seems lazy and is now someone that many teams don't want. The guy's stat line is still well above avg, projecting for 95 runs, 28 HR, 88 RBI and an .825 OPS.

The Braves traded for Sheffield a few years ago, but Kearns is a bad apple? The Yankees committed $40 million for Sheffield when he was a FA. Over 10 years of being a complete jerk (Sheff) should be a lot worse than what was described in that thread. Talent wins out most times over certain flaws in attitude, and since Kearns wasn't a crackfiend, rapist, murderer or child molester, I can't see his value plummeting to the levels of middle relievers.

GAC
07-16-2006, 10:11 AM
The Braves traded for Sheffield a few years ago, but Kearns is a bad apple? The Yankees committed $40 million for Sheffield when he was a FA. Over 10 years of being a complete jerk (Sheff) should be a lot worse than what was described in that thread. Talent wins out most times over certain flaws in attitude, and since Kearns wasn't a crackfiend, rapist, murderer or child molester, I can't see his value plummeting to the levels of middle relievers.

Gary Sheffield, talent-wise, has a far greater track record then Austin Kearns.

Sheffield career...

.298 BA .398 OB% .525 SLG% .923 OPS

Are you saying that Kearns has similar value? Ridiculous IMO.

And "projecting" how someone may perform in the future may be as close as one can get - but it's not something I'm going to completely be dependent upon when it comes to trades/acquisitions.

We can talk about "probabilities" all we want; but I look at the numbers produced by Ear's numbers over the last 3 years (03-05) - not great, not terrible, but around average (a .785 OPS overall) ;)

edabbs44
07-16-2006, 10:14 AM
Gary Sheffield, talent-wise, has a far greater track record then Austin Kearns.

And "projecting" how someone may perform in the future may be as close as one can get - but it's not something I'm going to completely be dependent upon when it comes to trades/acquisitions.

We can talk about "probabilities" all we want; but I look at the numbers produced by Ear's numbers over the last 3 years (03-05) - not great, not terrible, but around average (a .785 OPS overall) ;)
I agree, but that thread said that the Braves removed AK completely from their board. But they dealt a decent haul only 4 years ago for Sheffield who, to that point, was one of the biggest cancers to play the game in the preceding 25 years. Agreed that he is/was more talented than AK has shown, but the Braves come out looking all high and mighty b/c of their due diligence on AK when they took on Sheffield only a few years back.

edabbs44
07-16-2006, 10:16 AM
Gary Sheffield, talent-wise, has a far greater track record then Austin Kearns.

Sheffield career...

.298 BA .398 OB% .525 SLG% .923 OPS

Are you saying that Kearns has similar value? Ridiculous IMO.

Sheffiled is also a steroid user. Let's throw his later career stats in the trash, unless you also want Bonds' stats in the record books.

pedro
07-16-2006, 10:40 AM
Sheffiled is also a steroid user. Let's throw his later career stats in the trash, unless you also want Bonds' stats in the record books.


based on what evidence?

edabbs44
07-16-2006, 10:48 AM
based on what evidence?
The same evidence we have on Giambi, Bonds and the rest of them. Supposed grand jury testimony where he claimed he used the cream on his "arthritic" knee but had no idea what it was. And all the damaging stuff from Game of Shadows.

pedro
07-16-2006, 10:55 AM
The same evidence we have on Giambi, Bonds and the rest of them. Supposed grand jury testimony where he claimed he used the cream on his "arthritic" knee but had no idea what it was. And all the damaging stuff from Game of Shadows.

Using "the cream" on your knee is hardly the same thing as the regimen that Bonds supposedly went through.

I agree Sheffield is a jerk but it's not like he huge the the way other supposed steroid users are.

Either way Austin Kearns will never be even close to the player that Scheffield is or was.

edabbs44
07-16-2006, 11:04 AM
Using "the cream" on your knee is hardly the same thing as the regimen that Bonds supposedly went through.

I agree Sheffield is a jerk but it's not like he huge the the way other supposed steroid users are.

Either way Austin Kearns will never be even close to the player that Scheffield is or was.
Did you read the book? Same stuff as Bonds.

PuffyPig
07-16-2006, 11:06 AM
Waht's so depressing aboput being 1.5 games in front in the Wild Card, when 3 games ago we were 1.5 games behind?

pedro
07-16-2006, 11:07 AM
Did you read the book? Same stuff as Bonds.

No I haven't read it. Frankly I'm sick of hearing about steroids and have no interest in reading about them or specualting on who is or isn't a juicer.

Anyway, you're saying that according to the book Sheffield was injecting himself with steroids?

edabbs44
07-16-2006, 11:25 AM
No I haven't read it. Frankly I'm sick of hearing about steroids and have no interest in reading about them or specualting on who is or isn't a juicer.

Anyway, you're saying that according to the book Sheffield was injecting himself with steroids?
Not sure if he was injecting himself, but Anderson supposedly had calendars documenting his use of testosterone and HGH.