PDA

View Full Version : Ryan Wagner Called Up by the Nats



TheBigLebowski
07-31-2006, 01:04 AM
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=MLB&id=3722

He's the forgotten casualty of "The Trade."

In my opinion, it was WAY too early to give up on him. He's a first-rounder, just llike the centerpiece in our haul from our nation's capital, Mr. Bill Bray.

Most Reds' fans hated losing Lopez and Kearns for the guys we got in return. The two of them would have been overly sufficient for the players we eventually received. Throwing in Ryan Wagner was just stupid. NO one can convince me he was a deal-breaker on Bowden's end and, on Krivsky's end, there does not appear to have been a deal-breaker. He'd have given and given until our bullpen needs were addressed.

It is wrong for me to root against Ryan as he did not ask to be traded (to my knowledge), and he is, by all accounts, a nice guy. Still, early returns from this trade have been abyssmal (See: Majewski, Gary), and success on the ML Level by Wagner might just destroy Reds' fans morale.

captainmorgan07
07-31-2006, 01:06 AM
he needed a change of scenery he stunk it up at AAA this year no exactly screaming call up for the reds change of scenery in washington might rejuvenate him i wish the kid the best no pressure in the second half for the nats as there well out of it hopefully the kid can go pitch and pitch well

kaldaniels
07-31-2006, 02:01 AM
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=MLB&id=3722

He's the forgotten casualty of "The Trade."

In my opinion, it was WAY too early to give up on him. He's a first-rounder, just llike the centerpiece in our haul from our nation's capital, Mr. Bill Bray.

Most Reds' fans hated losing Lopez and Kearns for the guys we got in return. The two of them would have been overly sufficient for the players we eventually received. Throwing in Ryan Wagner was just stupid. NO one can convince me he was a deal-breaker on Bowden's end and, on Krivsky's end, there does not appear to have been a deal-breaker. He'd have given and given until our bullpen needs were addressed.

It is wrong for me to root against Ryan as he did not ask to be traded (to my knowledge), and he is, by all accounts, a nice guy. Still, early returns from this trade have been abyssmal (See: Majewski, Gary), and success on the ML Level by Wagner might just destroy Reds' fans morale.

I may be wrong, but I believe some posters with "inside info" have said he is a jerk in other forums.

TheBigLebowski
07-31-2006, 02:03 AM
I may be wrong, but I believe some posters with "inside info" have said he is a jerk in other forums.

You may be right. His personality is irrelevant.

kaldaniels
07-31-2006, 02:09 AM
You may be right. His personality is irrelevant.

I would say it is relevant if Cap'n Morgan is considering rooting for/following him after being traded. But the Captain is the one to make that call.

StillFunkyB
07-31-2006, 02:25 AM
His personality is irrelevant.

It's possible that it's irrelevant.

If he chooses not to take advice/coaching he could very well never amount to anything. So his personality could very well be very relevant, and possibly Krivsky witnessed this during his evaluations.

Over and over again we have seen people say things about pitchers, like they have absolute filthy stuff, then they never amount to anything. I think it could be the personality of the individual that plays a part in that.

and Captain, if you want to root for the guy that is up to you. I'll be rooting against him....when he plays the Reds.

KronoRed
07-31-2006, 05:14 AM
Seem every player we trade ends up being called lazy, a clubhouse problem, a jerk or ext.

Maybe it's all true..but it is Interesting

REDREAD
07-31-2006, 11:10 AM
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=MLB&id=3722

He's the forgotten casualty of "The Trade."

In my opinion, it was WAY too early to give up on him. He's a first-rounder, just llike the centerpiece in our haul from our nation's capital, Mr. Bill Bray.
.

I think Wagner was our Brandon Phillips. His relationship with the organization had soured to the point where he was never going to be productive for us. Since it was clear the Reds had given up on him, his trade value was about zero.

I'm not saying Wagner will have a rebirth in Wash or not, but it's a case of where you might as well just move the guy. I would've preferred to get more for him as well though. I would think he could've had similiar value to Gernamo for example.

I do agree with you that Wagner might come back and bite us.

REDREAD
07-31-2006, 11:13 AM
It's possible that it's irrelevant.

If he chooses not to take advice/coaching he could very well never amount to anything. .

That's a pretty harsh accusation. From what I've read about him, he readily did listen to everything the Reds told him to do. He tried to learn a changeup like DanO wanted and he tried the new arm angles the Reds wanted him to.

It looks like Washington is taking the approach of telling him just to pitch like he did in college. In other words, Wash is telling him to stop doing what the Reds' coaches told him to do. :laugh:

REDREAD
07-31-2006, 11:15 AM
Seem every player we trade ends up being called lazy, a clubhouse problem, a jerk or ext.

Maybe it's all true..but it is Interesting

Just wait until you leave the board, we'll be calling you all kinds of names, Mr Cancer. :laugh:

It's been going on for a long time. Everytime someone leaves the Reds, suddenly all these rumors appear about what a selfish jerk the guy was. Personally, I think a lot of it is made up.

princeton
07-31-2006, 11:20 AM
success on the ML Level by Wagner might just destroy Reds' fans morale.

LOL. last place finishes destroy fan morale. Trevor Hoffman doesn't

TheBigLebowski
07-31-2006, 11:36 AM
LOL. last place finishes destroy fan morale. Trevor Hoffman doesn't

This trade has not been popular. My point is that most people are forgetting about Wagner in the midst of losing Kearns and Lopez. Say what you will about Majewski being unlucky & his DIPS, BABIP, DHARMA, and GIGO, so on and so forth....this was a very questionable deal. If Wagner turns it around for WAS and becomes an effective middle reliever, people are going to start throwing babies from balconies.

LINEDRIVER
07-31-2006, 11:55 AM
I heard that Wags was toting a 7+ ERA with New Orleans about a week ago and he had a 7+ ERA for much of the time he spent with Louisville. Wagner is a lucky guy...he's back in the major leagues.

Has his pitching really merited the call-up or has the call-up come about because JimBo and his ego are hellbent on showing the world that he couldnt of possibly been wrong about his former #1 pick?

Wagner had a brief taste of success a few yrs ago while NL batters/mgrs/scouts were getting to know him. Once word got around to lay off the low and away slider, Wagner was in trouble. Back in those days, I recall a radio interview where he was asked if he was developing another pitch. His reply was along the lines of, "Nah, I'll just stick with what got me here". I figured his hard-headedness would lead to his eventual downfall.

KronoRed
07-31-2006, 05:08 PM
Just wait until you leave the board, we'll be calling you all kinds of names, Mr Cancer. :laugh:

It's been going on for a long time. Everytime someone leaves the Reds, suddenly all these rumors appear about what a selfish jerk the guy was. Personally, I think a lot of it is made up.
I agree, 95% of it's junk made up to try and justify deals that don't look so hot from the get go.

Expect to hear Germano was a grade a JERK soon ;)

REDREAD
07-31-2006, 05:25 PM
I agree, 95% of it's junk made up to try and justify deals that don't look so hot from the get go.

Expect to hear Germano was a grade a JERK soon ;)

Yeah, he and Zach Ward were real headcases: lazy, hard to get along with, bad attitude, wouldn't listen to coachs.... :)

kheidg-
08-01-2006, 02:12 AM
Wagner pitched tonight. Here's his line: 1.2 IP, 2 ER, 2 BB, 0 K.

He didn't look too bad on the mound the first inning he pitched, then started the next out with a HBP, then a routine single, then another walk.

FYI, Kearns is 3-5 with 2 2B and 3 RBI. Lopez is 2-3 with 2 runs and 1 RBI.

Cedric
08-01-2006, 02:22 AM
I agree, 95% of it's junk made up to try and justify deals that don't look so hot from the get go.

Expect to hear Germano was a grade a JERK soon ;)

People were saying these same things about Wagner WAY before he was traded.

I don't know how that helps your conspiracy theory about the dreaded Redszone haters.

And I don't particularly think it's cool to label people as fakes because they disagree with your viewpoint on a trade.

SteelSD
08-01-2006, 03:35 AM
I agree, 95% of it's junk made up to try and justify deals that don't look so hot from the get go.

Expect to hear Germano was a grade a JERK soon ;)

The irony is that Kyle Lohse has actually demonstrated the kind of attitude assigned to the Reds who've headed out. The guy has been a Milo of the first order with the Twins. It's one of the reasons why Twins fans despise the guy and It's one of the reasons why the Twins don't want him around during a playoff chase.

Rojo
08-01-2006, 03:39 AM
Yeah, he and Zach Ward were real headcases: lazy, hard to get along with, bad attitude, wouldn't listen to coachs.... :)

I don't recall anyone saying that about Ward. Could be wrong.

Maybe Wagner's a fine mensch, but his implosion was unusual. I'm always going to be leary of a guy that doesn't regroup after a demotion.

StillFunkyB
08-01-2006, 04:33 AM
That's a pretty harsh accusation. From what I've read about him, he readily did listen to everything the Reds told him to do. He tried to learn a changeup like DanO wanted and he tried the new arm angles the Reds wanted him to.

It looks like Washington is taking the approach of telling him just to pitch like he did in college. In other words, Wash is telling him to stop doing what the Reds' coaches told him to do. :laugh:

I wasn't accusing him of doing that. I said IF.

princeton
08-01-2006, 09:16 AM
I heard that Wags was toting a 7+ ERA with New Orleans about a week ago and he had a 7+ ERA for much of the time he spent with Louisville. Wagner is a lucky guy...he's back in the major leagues.

Has his pitching really merited the call-up or has the call-up come about because JimBo and his ego are hellbent on showing the world that he couldnt of possibly been wrong about his former #1 pick?.

did anyone not believe that if Wagner could have a decent week, then JimBo would immediately recall him? Just as Brian Reith throws his first cutter, then gets promoted two days later....

NC Reds
08-01-2006, 09:52 AM
Rough outing for Wagner last night - three earned runs in 1.2 innings.

I still think he can be a solid middle relief guy someday.

PuffyPig
08-01-2006, 10:20 AM
I watched Wagner pitch last night.

He was pretty wild, and didn't K any one (9 batters). But they weren't scorching the ball off him either.

princeton
08-03-2006, 01:48 PM
. If Wagner turns it around for WAS and becomes an effective middle reliever, people are going to start throwing babies from balconies.

Wagner's major league performance is saving a lot of babies from a terrible fate :thumbup:

flyer85
08-03-2006, 02:38 PM
When I saw Wagner I noticed two things
1) his arm slot is lower, almost completely sidearm
2) his slider had no tilt, it's break was almost entirely in the horizontal plane. When he first cam up his slider break was most in the vertical plane. The slider just sat there and said "hit me". His fastball was a better pitch as it still had some good sink.

Matt700wlw
08-03-2006, 03:07 PM
Jimbo is insane.

He does the same things over and over again even though they never bring success.

Keep it up, Jimbo!

Team Clark
08-03-2006, 03:10 PM
I love to watch Frank Robinson's face when Wagner pitches. I wish I could tape record his thoughts.

REDREAD
08-03-2006, 03:48 PM
I don't recall anyone saying that about Ward. Could be wrong.

Maybe Wagner's a fine mensch, but his implosion was unusual. I'm always going to be leary of a guy that doesn't regroup after a demotion.

Sorry, I was joking about Ward. Should've made that clearer.

I agree that Wagner could've handled his demotion with more maturity

KronoRed
08-03-2006, 03:56 PM
He does the same things over and over again even though they never bring success.

Keep it up, Jimbo!
94, 95, 99..2000 the last winning season around here :evil:

Jpup
08-03-2006, 03:56 PM
I love to watch Frank Robinson's face when Wagner pitches. I wish I could tape record his thoughts.

He doesn't have to play him, does he?

Matt700wlw
08-03-2006, 04:33 PM
94, 95, 99..2000 the last winning season around here :evil:

Early on, Jimbo was good.


Then new ownership happened, and he still hasn't rebounded.

Team Clark
08-04-2006, 02:48 PM
He doesn't have to play him, does he?


That's a good question... Something tells me Jimbo put his hand in that jar.

REDREAD
08-04-2006, 03:02 PM
He doesn't have to play him, does he?

Isn't that what a rebuilding team does though? Better to find out now whether Ryan has a chance to turn it around than to wait until opening day next year and still not know.

If nothing else, at the end of the season, they can sit down with Ryan, give him a list of stuff to work on, and hopefully send him back to the minors encouraged instead of disgruntled. The coaches can analyze the tapes of these bad outings with him, etc.

The guy put a string of scoreless innings together at AAA, I see no problem with bringing him up now and trying to tweak him at the ML level. Wash isn't going anywhere for the rest of the year anyhow.

Cedric
08-04-2006, 03:07 PM
Isn't that what a rebuilding team does though? Better to find out now whether Ryan has a chance to turn it around than to wait until opening day next year and still not know.

If nothing else, at the end of the season, they can sit down with Ryan, give him a list of stuff to work on, and hopefully send him back to the minors encouraged instead of disgruntled. The coaches can analyze the tapes of these bad outings with him, etc.

The guy put a string of scoreless innings together at AAA, I see no problem with bringing him up now and trying to tweak him at the ML level. Wash isn't going anywhere for the rest of the year anyhow.

I see a ton of problems with it. A string of scoreless outings? It was like four innings.

This was all about ego with Bowden again. Nothing changes.

princeton
08-04-2006, 03:27 PM
Redread, I have abandoned hope.

dsmith421
08-04-2006, 03:27 PM
This was all about ego with Bowden again. Nothing changes.

If we're going to rag on Bowden for egotistically re-acquiring "his guys," then it's fair game on Krivsky. And to be honest, Krivsky is not going to fare well in that comparison.

KronoRed
08-04-2006, 03:29 PM
That's a good question... Something tells me Jimbo put his hand in that jar.
I would think Robinson would quit rather then let the GM tell him how to do his job

Cedric
08-04-2006, 03:33 PM
If we're going to rag on Bowden for egotistically re-acquiring "his guys," then it's fair game on Krivsky. And to be honest, Krivsky is not going to fare well in that comparison.

That's not what I'm ragging him on at all.

Bowden rushed Wagner again trying to quickly prove the point that he won this deal and that the Reds were the problem with Wagner the whole time, not his judgement in drafting Wagner.

REDREAD
08-04-2006, 05:02 PM
Redread, I have abandoned hope.

I think it's a long shot. I agree that Bowden might not be doing it the right way. But there's still a chance. IMO, it's worth it for a team like Wash to spend time on a project like Wagner.

REDREAD
08-04-2006, 05:05 PM
Bowden rushed Wagner again trying to quickly prove the point that he won this deal and that the Reds were the problem with Wagner the whole time, not his judgement in drafting Wagner.

I guess I disagree with Bowden's motive. I think he's gotten over being fired by the Reds. He's more worried about keeping his job and rebuilding his team than making the Reds look bad. I mean, when he was hired at Cincy, he was an ex-Pirate and ex-Yankee. Was he on a crusade to make those teams look bad? Of course not.

To Bowden, we're just another team. Especially now that Carl is gone, and Allen has been stripped of power (and probably on his way out at the end of the year).

Bowden even said that in hindsight, being fired from Cincy was a good thing for him.

kheidg-
09-03-2006, 06:25 PM
Well, Wagner has now pitched 10 (that's right - 10) consecutive innings without giving up an earned run. His ERA for the season has lowered to 4.00. Maybe he has figured something out...

NC Reds
09-03-2006, 06:34 PM
I think Wagner has a lower ERA than Bray and Majewski now. Yet there are still posters who refuse to acknowledge how badly Wayne got hosed in that deal.

RBA
09-03-2006, 07:38 PM
I think Wagner has a lower ERA than Bray and Majewski now. Yet there are still posters who refuse to acknowledge how badly Wayne got hosed in that deal.


I want names. Let's tar and feather these posters. ;)


edit: I have no idea why I spelled "want" "wan't".

BoydsOfSummer
09-03-2006, 07:49 PM
He's still aloowing waaaay to many baserunners.,two in an inning today.

Cedric
09-03-2006, 07:50 PM
His whip is like 1.7 and he's had 5 unearned runs in those 10 innings.

kheidg-
09-03-2006, 08:51 PM
His whip is like 1.7 and he's had 5 unearned runs in those 10 innings.

I did notice the unearned runs as well. Still, after all the ripping that he has gotten in the past, maybe he is starting to put things back together...

MartyFan
09-03-2006, 11:54 PM
I wan't names. Let's tar and feather these posters. ;)

Hi, My name is MartyFan and I refuse to believe that Wayne got hosed on the deal with the Nats.

The reasons why I believe this are posted all over the board so I don't need to go into it again but I can tell you when all is said and done this deall will look much bettr for the Reds than the Nats.

PuffyPig
09-04-2006, 12:00 AM
His DIPS ERA is 6.18, he's improving but has a long way to go.

But his DIPS was over 10 before his streak, so it's improving.

With Cincy, Majewski has a 3.64 DIPS ERA, Bray a 3.62. They've been very BABIP unlucky since the trade.

REDREAD
09-05-2006, 02:04 PM
Wagner is looking like he might be salvagable.

After Maj rests all winter, I hope he'll be better. But this year, he just plain stinks. I don't buy the BABIP excuse. He has a high BABIP because he stinks.

Even if Bray and Maj end up better than Wagner, it looks as though Bowden MIGHT have stolen a decent reliever from the Reds. If Wagner becomes a usable pitcher in Wash (close to average), that's a huge failure of the Reds development system... because they have just given away an asset that they've been breaking the bank to acquire.

Looks like a great throw in for Bowden to ask for, considering it probably only cost Harris and/or that sore armed Thompson guy.

If nothing else, Wagner's rebound shows that Bowden wasn't insane to call Wagner up and let him work out his problems at the big league level. It certainly appears as if Wagner is making progress.

MaineRed
09-05-2006, 02:19 PM
Based on what I've read in this thread, if Wagner's ERA was in the 20s you'd still be defending Bowden's decision to call the kid up.

If Wayne was the one who traded for Wagner and then called him up the loudest trade critics would be saying that he was only doing so to justify the trade.

M2
09-05-2006, 02:20 PM
I think Wagner has a lower ERA than Bray and Majewski now. Yet there are still posters who refuse to acknowledge how badly Wayne got hosed in that deal.

And Ramon Ortiz has Pedro-like stuff. Swear to God, just squint hard enough and you'll see it.

westofyou
09-05-2006, 02:22 PM
And Ramon Ortiz has Pedro-like stuff. Swear to God, just squint hard enough and you'll see it.

Wagner is still a mess, throwing across his body, sloppy mechanics, if he ever pops it's more likley to be his arm then his career.

M2
09-05-2006, 02:26 PM
Wagner is still a mess, throwing across his body, sloppy mechanics, if he ever pops it's more likley to be his arm then his career.

Quite possibly, though Wagner delivering something for the Nats would just be like getting spit on after the atomic wedgie and the chocolate swirlie. D.C. already has the two best players from the deal.

MartyFan
09-05-2006, 02:33 PM
And Ramon Ortiz has Pedro-like stuff. Swear to God, just squint hard enough and you'll see it.

Plus he keeps everyone on the team looking great...and laughing...did you know he cuts hair and always has a smile on his face?

:D

REDREAD
09-05-2006, 02:46 PM
Based on what I've read in this thread, if Wagner's ERA was in the 20s you'd still be defending Bowden's decision to call the kid up.

If Wayne was the one who traded for Wagner and then called him up the loudest trade critics would be saying that he was only doing so to justify the trade.

Yes, I probably would defend Bowden calling up Wagner regardless of the outcome this year. You want to know why? The Reds approach was not working at all.

Washington tried something different. They told him to throw as he did in college (in contrast to the Reds tweaking his arm angle and other mechanics).
The Reds also pretty much banished Wagner to the minors with no hope of coming back. Washington is out of the race anyhow, so I see no harm at all in calling up Wagner and letting him learn in the ML. People forget that these players are human beings, not robots whose performance comes from a random number generator. The Nats called up Wagner and apparently told them that they'd keep using him until he got himself figured out. Pete Rose did something similiar with Rijo (who had bounced around before coming to Cincy). Pete told Rijo he was going to keep running him out there every fifth day until he figured it out. Rijo said it was great for someone to have confidence in him.

What did the Nats have to lose by calling up Wagner? Nothing at all. Great move.

Note, Wagner might still wash out. At the time of the trade, I said Wagner was a great throw in for Wash. I still think Wagner has a decent shot of being an average reliever. But Washington is doing what smart rebuilding teams do. They got a reliever in Wagner with great potential (former #1 pick), at low cost, and now they're giving him an opportunity.

Doc. Scott
09-05-2006, 03:33 PM
Wagner is still a mess, throwing across his body, sloppy mechanics, if he ever pops it's more likley to be his arm then his career.

Well, hey, Genius said publicly he wanted Ryan to "go back to pitching like he did at Houston". It sounds like the mission's accomplished.

westofyou
09-05-2006, 03:42 PM
Well, hey, Genius said publicly he wanted Ryan to "go back to pitching like he did at Houston". It sounds like the mission's accomplished.

The Rickey way, drain all the resources out of him that you can and move on... that's what I'd do with a guy with his motion.... it's been done before by Bowden and crew, Scott Williamson once again is on the DL with arm troubles. 76% of Willy's IP were with the Reds and they traded him in 2003.

Team Clark
09-05-2006, 05:58 PM
The Rickey way, drain all the resources out of him that you can and move on... that's what I'd do with a guy with his motion.... it's been done before by Bowden and crew, Scott Williamson once again is on the DL with arm troubles. 76% of Willy's IP were with the Reds and they traded him in 2003.

Excellent point. Scott Sullivan, Gabe White, Danny Graves and Felix Heredia all say "Hi" too. :wave:

Patrick Bateman
09-05-2006, 06:40 PM
I don't buy the BABIP excuse. He has a high BABIP because he stinks.



I've done a lot of reading on BAPIP this year, and although what you say sounds like it's true, every result I have seen suggests other wise.

Just look at the following career BAPIP's of some random pitchers with sizeable careers:

Great Pitchers
Randy Johnson: .300
Pedro Martinez: .286
Tom Glavine: .286
Greg Maddux: .288
John Smoltz: .289
Tim Hudson: .289
Roger Clemons: .294
Andy Petitte: .314
kevin Brown: .297

Terrible Pitchers
Joe Mays: .301
Jason Johnson: .308
Josh Fogg: .298
Ramon Ortiz: .291
Luke Hudson: .292
Dave Williams: .270
Eric Milton: .293

You can pretty much pick out any pitcher with a decent amount of innings and they will pretty much fit in the 285.-.300 range regardless of their skill level. Even during Randy Johnson's terrific stretch from 1998-2004 (one of the most dominating stretchs in modern times) his BAPIP ranged from .283-.336 (excluding 2003 where injuries occurred). If there was ever a time that showed a discrepancy in BAPIPs, that stretch would have basically showed it.

These guys were just off the top of my head and they basically (except Dave Williams???) all fit the theory. And this is really from opposite sides of the scale. Cy Young calibre pitchers vs. guys mostly on past/present Reds teams.

With that said, I don't think Ryan Wagner's BAPIP is a reflection of his skill level. I could be wrong, but everything I know suggests otherwise. The odds suggest that Wagner's BAPIP will come down into the .285-.300 range depending on his luck and the skill of the fielding on his teams.

oregonred
09-05-2006, 07:51 PM
The Rickey way, drain all the resources out of him that you can and move on... that's what I'd do with a guy with his motion.... it's been done before by Bowden and crew, Scott Williamson once again is on the DL with arm troubles. 76% of Willy's IP were with the Reds and they traded him in 2003.


Yep, but one could argue small/mid market frnachises should be sucking the best years out of their talent, every last ounce -- especially for talented guys that won't change their ways. Play the convoluted service time system for the best of the small/mid market franchise (which is not necessarily in the best interest of the player).

Let them shine and get hyped, trade them or let them go other places when they get expensive and before they start to break down... Didn't work in Cinci since Bowden gets too attached to his toolset and never seemed to get rid of these kind of guys before they started to regress and/or break down

Doc. Scott
09-05-2006, 08:09 PM
Wagner is still a mess, throwing across his body, sloppy mechanics, if he ever pops it's more likley to be his arm then his career.


Well, hey, Genius said publicly he wanted Ryan to "go back to pitching like he did at Houston". It sounds like the mission's accomplished.


The Rickey way, drain all the resources out of him that you can and move on... that's what I'd do with a guy with his motion.... it's been done before by Bowden and crew, Scott Williamson once again is on the DL with arm troubles. 76% of Willy's IP were with the Reds and they traded him in 2003.


Excellent point. Scott Sullivan, Gabe White, Danny Graves and Felix Heredia all say "Hi" too. :wave:

So all of this is leading to a question:

Why in the name of Scott Scudder did Bowden pick a guy like Wagner in the first round and pay him a bonus of $1.4 million?

dfs
09-06-2006, 01:28 AM
Why in the name of Scott Scudder did Bowden pick a guy like Wagner in the first round and pay him a bonus of $1.4 million?

That was the season Bowden and Boone were pretty much told produce NOW or get out of town. Long term planning took a back seat to getting help right now. The quickest way to the majors is to draft a college closer and run him into your bullpen.

It was a desperate move that backfired. The fact that Bowden felt he needed to do something like that should be layed squarely at the feet of the former owner.

For all the crap Marge got, Linder was much worse for the franchise.

Aronchis
09-06-2006, 02:49 AM
That was the season Bowden and Boone were pretty much told produce NOW or get out of town. Long term planning took a back seat to getting help right now. The quickest way to the majors is to draft a college closer and run him into your bullpen.

It was a desperate move that backfired. The fact that Bowden felt he needed to do something like that should be layed squarely at the feet of the former owner.

For all the crap Marge got, Linder was much worse for the franchise.

In 2003? Lindner wasn't even around much. He existed as a transition figure for the Limiteds, and that is something Reds fans will have to accept.

Bowden drafted Wagner because the pen was on the verge of collapse as the "99 boys" were about toast going into the future. The problem is, he picked the wrong guy, with bad mechanics, seems to be a Bowden staple.

Doc. Scott
09-06-2006, 03:19 AM
In 2003? Lindner wasn't even around much. He existed as a transition figure for the Limiteds, and that is something Reds fans will have to accept.

Bowden drafted Wagner because the pen was on the verge of collapse as the "99 boys" were about toast going into the future. The problem is, he picked the wrong guy, with bad mechanics, seems to be a Bowden staple.

So then it makes a little more sense: acquiring the guy that made you look less than genius as a throw-in, you exhort him to "throw like you did in college" in order to get some return in the short-term (before he tears every muscle group God gave him) since all efforts to fix the guy since the whole "get people to chase that carrot-on-a-stick slider and not sit on the average fastball" window was closed...?

Excellent. Just checking, I was.

westofyou
09-06-2006, 03:23 AM
For all the crap Marge got, Linder was much worse for the franchise.No way, no how, Marge destroyed the infrastructure, Lindner ushered in a new building and the HOF at least, all Marge did was limit revenue, cut scouts and launder money from her car dealership.

You could write a book on how to destroy a brand by just tracing her steps from her emergence in 84 until they ushered her crass visage out of the game.

M2
09-06-2006, 10:40 AM
No way, no how, Marge destroyed the infrastructure, Lindner ushered in a new building and the HOF at least, all Marge did was limit revenue, cut scouts and launder money from her car dealership.

You could write a book on how to destroy a brand by just tracing her steps from her emergence in 84 until they ushered her crass visage out of the game.

I shed no tears for Marge, but she did one thing that preserved brand image pretty well -- field generally competitive teams. And as much as you can rightfully note that she ravaged the farm system, the club produced a goodly number of young players during her regime (and even a decent number from the final drafts of the Marge era).

Marge's hideous final years didn't sour fans on the product. They came back in late 1999 and early in 2000. Look at what Castellini's up against now after Lindner's turn at the helm. The Reds spent most of the summer clinging to a playoff position, made trades out the ying-yang in the name of winning this year and fans still didn't come back. I don't think we can overestimate the damage done by five years in the abyss.

dfs
09-06-2006, 11:51 AM
I shed no tears for Marge, but she did one thing that preserved brand image pretty well -- field generally competitive teams. And as much as you can rightfully note that she ravaged the farm system, the club produced a goodly number of young players during her regime (and even a decent number from the final drafts of the Marge era).

Right. Think of what Brian Sabean does in San Francisco. Compared with what we think GM's should be doing, Sabean's franchise should be ground to dirt by now. Instead he fields a reasonably competitive team every year. Some years are better than others. He's not doing it developmentally through draft picks, but it gets done just the same by getting mid-career players nobody else wants. Marge's franchise was on that page. Things got done and the team played decent ball. Well, till they put Ray Knight in charge, but Marge certainly wasn't the first or only owner to have a fool as a manager.

westofyou
09-06-2006, 12:00 PM
Right. Think of what Brian Sabean does in San Francisco. Compared with what we think GM's should be doing, Sabean's franchise should be ground to dirt by now. Instead he fields a reasonably competitive team every year. Some years are better than others. He's not doing it developmentally through draft picks, but it gets done just the same by getting mid-career players nobody else wants. Marge's franchise was on that page. Things got done and the team played decent ball. Well, till they put Ray Knight in charge, but Marge certainly wasn't the first or only owner to have a fool as a manager.

The Giants OWN their park and when Bonds leaves the drain will be circling with all sorts of 40 year olds, and they'll still have scouting and money, with Marge the Reds had neither.

I lived in the Bay Area, the Giants over the past decade are no comparison to the small time operation that Marge ran in the 80's, and her teams were only on the page because they were still reaping the beneifits of Howsams second apperance... Marge gave you these Reds 1996-2005 .479 winning percentage.

I 've seen Peter McGowan in action and Marge was no Peter McGowan.

M2
09-06-2006, 12:16 PM
The Giants OWN their park and when Bonds leaves the drain will be circling with all sorts of 40 year olds, and they'll still have scouting and money, with Marge the Reds had neither.

I lived in the Bay Area, the Giants over the past decade are no comparison to the small time operation that Marge ran in the 80's, and her teams were only on the page because they were still reaping the beneifits of Howsams second apperance... Marge gave you these Reds 1996-2005 .479 winning percentage.

I 've seen Peter McGowan in action and Marge was no Peter McGowan.

I don't think you can lump any year that begins with a 2 on Marge. Yes she dug plenty of holes, but the franchise was in a pretty good talent position when she got the final ax. I certainly don't think she'd have prevented the horror show that occurred, but I also don't think you can list her as more than a minor actor in that drama. The regime that succeeded Marge's didn't need any help in being wretched.

dfs
09-06-2006, 12:23 PM
I must have expressed myself poorly, because you missed my point.

From a fans' perspective the financials of the park don't matter. That's an excuse. Marge fielded competitive teams. She didn't do it in a way that most of us would expect a "small market" team to go about operating. That's pretty much what the giants have done. Their path has not been what we would expect a non-media outlet franchise to do, but at the end of the season, they are competitive.

Marge was gone in 99. You are welcome to blame her for the 05 team, but since she died in March of 04, I think you're just being uncharitable. I don't think anybody else holds her responsible for the state of the franchise 6 years after MLB took her down.

westofyou
09-06-2006, 12:32 PM
we would expect a non-media outlet franchise

Non media?

The Giants have 6 straight seasons with 3 million or more fans, the Reds haven't sniffed a half a million near that in 30 years. The Giants used to be an afterthought in the Bay Area, now they own the baseball landscape in an area with about 8 million people milling about, meanwhile the Reds are an afterthought in their own city, drawing 24K on Labor Day, that's their legacy now... and a legacy isn't built in a couple of years.


I don't think anybody else holds her responsible for the state of the franchise 6 years after MLB took her down.

I do.

Baseball is a game that falls out of the past, if your past has been half assed and poor then down the road you'll see it peaking around every corner, which has been the Reds case since Marge popped up, I sure can blame the Reds woes on what Marge didn't do ten years ago, just as I can give the A's credibility for what Billy Beane did 10 years ago and how it affects the A's now.

westofyou
09-06-2006, 12:36 PM
I don't think you can lump any year that begins with a 2 on Marge. No assets acquired from 1990-1997, thus nothing to trade or generate income off of. In the meantime the Reds shrunk their scope in the surrounding states, shrinking their cash opportunities.

Sure the last regime smelled like rotton fish, but teetering on a unstable base has to be Marges fault, because all she did was take, take, take when she ran the show.. she's the Reds own William Baker.

REDREAD
09-06-2006, 12:43 PM
I've done a lot of reading on BAPIP this year, and although what you say sounds like it's true, every result I have seen suggests other wise.
.

But I recall another story saying that some pitchers do deviate from BABIP.

Sinkerball pitchers can have a lower BABIP. I don't know where to look it up, but I bet Maraino Rivera has a lower BABIP, because he gets so many popups.

Here's my point. If a pitcher is having a bad year, and has a high BABIP, that might be because he stinks, not because he's "unlucky". If they sent me to the mound, I can guarantee that I'd give up a much higher than .300 BABIP. That's because I am not a major league pitcher. Why is it then a stretch to say that the worst 10% pitchers in MLB might have a bad BABIP simply because they stink?

Another point is that when a pitcher is having a good year, but has a low BABIP, he's called "lucky".. Maybe he's just making pitches that year that are more difficult to get hits on. Then the argument is: how come the next year,
"the law of averages catches up to him". Well, maybe that's because the players have watched tape of him or he's simply not performing as well this year.

If you can show me where to look up BABIP, I will look into it further.

REDREAD
09-06-2006, 01:01 PM
That was the season Bowden and Boone were pretty much told produce NOW or get out of town. Long term planning took a back seat to getting help right now. The quickest way to the majors is to draft a college closer and run him into your bullpen.

It was a desperate move that backfired. The fact that Bowden felt he needed to do something like that should be layed squarely at the feet of the former owner.

For all the crap Marge got, Linder was much worse for the franchise.

Yep, you are exactly right. Bowden knew if he didn't beat all odds and put a contender on the field in 2003, he'd be fired. Allen did his best to stack the deck against Bowden. Allen let Bowden sign Haynes, but didn't allow him to trade Hudson for Penny. Allen wanted to resign familiar faces to sell tickets, and then try to trade them (Allen wanted Graves and Casey traded in 2003, but there were no takers).

Allen wanted the 2003 team to collapse so he could have a fire sale. Recall the reports that he ordered Bowden to trade Sullivan and White before the season even started, but Bowden refused. Bowden's refusal to do the fire sale resulted in Bowden getting fired before the year ended.

REDREAD
09-06-2006, 01:05 PM
So then it makes a little more sense: acquiring the guy that made you look less than genius as a throw-in, you exhort him to "throw like you did in college" in order to get some return in the short-term (before he tears every muscle group God gave him) since all efforts to fix the guy since the whole "get people to chase that carrot-on-a-stick slider and not sit on the average fastball" window was closed...?.

And what's wrong with that? The Reds tried to tweak Wagner and it didn't work. What's wrong with telling him to throw as he did in college, and maybe get at least a couple average years out of him? Even if Doc Hollywood ends up operating on Wagner, I'm sure he'll be glad to have a few years of a major league career, as opposed to rotting in AAA forever.

Do you think Scott Williamson has any regrets? I doubt it.

Look at the Reds.. They ran Mercker out there when they knew he was hurt and his arm got torn up. It happens all the time. I don't get the "holier than thou" attitude you have here. Let's face it, to ALL teams, these players are simply cattle to do a job. The Reds could've told Mercker to get an early retirement to save his arm instead of running him out there until his elbow snapped.

REDREAD
09-06-2006, 01:10 PM
No way, no how, Marge destroyed the infrastructure, Lindner ushered in a new building and the HOF at least, all Marge did was limit revenue, cut scouts and launder money from her car dealership.


So Carl gets kudos for simply accepting a gift from the taxpayers. And what did Carl do with this opportunity? He squandered it, just like he squandered the huge revenue increase from 2000 when Jr came on board.

Either one of those events could've been a springboard to take the team to the next level of competitiveness. Carl had two momumental opportunities (new park and a year of historic attendence) and his plan was to continue to pinch pennies and alienate fans.

Marge cut scouts, but she did give her GM the money to sign all the #1 draft picks.. Meanwhile, under Carl, there were two years when the Reds did not fund their #1 pick. Also, we had Mosely have to wait to sign until the next fiscal year. Allen and Lindner neglected the farm WORSE than Marge, and that's a pretty strong condemnation.

REDREAD
09-06-2006, 01:17 PM
The Giants OWN their park and when Bonds leaves the drain will be circling with all sorts of 40 year olds, and they'll still have scouting and money, with Marge the Reds had neither.

I lived in the Bay Area, the Giants over the past decade are no comparison to the small time operation that Marge ran in the 80's, and her teams were only on the page because they were still reaping the beneifits of Howsams second apperance... Marge gave you these Reds 1996-2005 .479 winning percentage.

I 've seen Peter McGowan in action and Marge was no Peter McGowan.

The Giants are going to have an obscene amount of payflex this year. I heard one media guy say around 60 million from not signing Bonds, Alou, Hillandbrand, etc.

So the Giants will have a lot of flexiblity to add talent or fund their farm system. They'll be just fine.

In spite of the flack the Giants take for giving up draft picks by signing the Michael Tuckers and Omar Visquels, they've done a much better job developing good young pitching than the Reds have done (particularly in the Lindner era). As M2 said, during the Marge era, the Reds still managed to crank out some young talent. During the Allen-Lindner era, it has been truly pathetic, particularly if you believe some people about how bad Kearns is. :)
Other than Dunn and Kearns, (ironically one of many nice OF pickups Bowden made, although he was ragged on for having an OF fetish) there really isn't a success story under the Lindner era. Maybe we'll see Homer or someone from the DanO period come up, but Lindner still did much worse than Marge.

REDREAD
09-06-2006, 01:19 PM
Non media?

The Giants have 6 straight seasons with 3 million or more fans, the Reds haven't sniffed a half a million near that in 30 years.

Yes, they have. I forget the exact attendence, but in 2000, it was at least 2.6 million, again, IIRC.

What was Carl's response to the great fan turnout? CUT PAYROLL. Yes, it was a modest cut, but it was still a cut in payroll.

westofyou
09-06-2006, 01:19 PM
Allen and Lindner neglected the farm WORSE than Marge, and that's a pretty strong condemnation.

How?

Did they cut scouts?

In 1990 the Reds had 23 scouts, the Astros had 51, ten years prior the Reds had 17 and the Astros 16.

The world isn't just #1 picks when it comes to ML baseball, but go on with that belief and I'll go on with mine.

westofyou
09-06-2006, 01:26 PM
Yes, they have. I forget the exact attendence, but in 2000, it was at least 2.6 million, again, IIRC.

So what?

The Reds can't touch what the Giants have done attendance wise, and if they did they'd have to restablish ties that Marge cut years ago in the 80's when she shrunk the affilates.

BTW the payroll difference in 2001 was about 1.5 million less, hardly worth the noise you are making it out to be,

REDREAD
09-06-2006, 01:29 PM
How?

Did they cut scouts?

In 1990 the Reds had 23 scouts, the Astros had 51, ten years prior the Reds had 17 and the Astros 16.

The world isn't just #1 picks when it comes to ML baseball, but go on with that belief and I'll go on with mine.

Ok, what did Allen and Carl do to remedy that when they took over? There was a lot of talk about fixing the farm system, going into Latin America, etc.

What happened in reality? Allen abandoned that philosphy after Howington washed out. Allen publicly called Howington "a waste of money" before he washed out. The Reds cut out of Rijo's academy and made no attempt to find something better. As princeton said, their Latin operations was basically one guy riding around in a jeep.

Tell me what Allen and Linder did to improve on what Marge did. If Marge totally destroyed the farm system/infrastructure, it shouldn't have be that difficult to improve it. Yet, they were actually worse. Even if Allen did hire more scouts (doubtful they were kept longterm), they didn't produce results.

I find it laughable that you can dismiss not funding two entire drafts as "there's more to #1 picks"... If Carl and Allen truly believed in the farm system, we'd have Markalis, Sowers, and Kazmir in the system right now. That would've probably helped us contend this year. Maybe Allen did hire more scouts (or better ones), because the Reds certainly wanted to pick those guys (or did pick them). But when ownership is unwilling to sign those guys, what good is it? It's a worse sin when people in the organization have the solution, but ownership is too stupid and cheap to listen to them.

The truth is that Allen and Lindner cared less about the farm than Marge did. At least Marge recognized that her "minor leaguers" could be swapped or developed into major league talent. At least she gave her scouting director money to sign picks, unlike Allen.

So, tell me, what did Allen do to improve the farm. What's a tangible result of what he did? Because he sure produced LESS talent than Marge. The only good draft year the Reds had (Dunn and Kearns) was due to Bowden pursuing Dunn, convincing him to give up football, etc when all other teams gave up on him. I guess we can't use Kearns as an example of a good player, since you don't like his game.

REDREAD
09-06-2006, 01:31 PM
I do.
.


And you'll continue to blame Marge when the Reds fail to contend for the division in 2030. :laugh:

REDREAD
09-06-2006, 01:32 PM
No assets acquired from 1990-1997, thus nothing to trade or generate income off of. In the meantime the Reds shrunk their scope in the surrounding states, shrinking their cash opportunities.
.


That's total balony and you know it. Marge had enough assets in 1997 to trade up for the 1999 team that almost made the playoffs. Come on, now. You're really reaching here.

westofyou
09-06-2006, 01:34 PM
I find it laughable that you can dismiss not funding two entire drafts as "there's more to #1 picks".

Actually I didn't dismiss it, I said that there was more to the ML system then #1 picks, but continue to misrepresent that please.

Actually I have way better things to do then debate this point, I never said that Allen was great, nor Lindner, I happen to believ that marge did more damage.

So be it.. but I also don't wish none of them death bed remorse over the running of a baseball franchise either.

BTW the only thing "Marge" recognized was the celebrity that owning a team gave her, otherwise painting her as a champion of the ML system is utter ridiculousness and revisionist garbage.

REDREAD
09-06-2006, 01:36 PM
So what?

The Reds can't touch what the Giants have done attendance wise, and if they did they'd have to restablish ties that Marge cut years ago in the 80's when she shrunk the affilates.

BTW the payroll difference in 2001 was about 1.5 million less, hardly worth the noise you are making it out to be,


I was just correcting your incorrect statement. You said the Reds never reached 2.5 million. Did I ever say the Reds drew as many fans as the Giants? No. I was correcting what you said.
Did I ever compare the Giants payroll to ours? No, I just said the Giants are running a good system and they will be fine. You said they were circling the drain with Bonds about to leave.

But, look at what the Giants have done with their new park. They used the revenues to build up a good team and thus get their 3 million fans. What did Carl do with his new park? He and Allen sold tickets, promised a contender, and then tore down the team as soon as possible after most of the tickets were sold. They conned the city, and that's a big reason why the fans did not come back this year.

Allen and Linder dug a big hole for Cast to get out of. The Reds are going to have to field a LEGITIMATE contender, not a .500 team. Like a 92+ win team in order to start winning the fans back. Carl and Allen destroyed a lot of the fan goodwill here.

westofyou
09-06-2006, 01:39 PM
I was just correcting your incorrect statement. You said the Reds never reached 2.5 million.
Ok... 2,577,371 in 2000 and the Giants over 3.125 every year since 2000.

If you want to pick nits.

REDREAD
09-06-2006, 01:40 PM
Actually I didn't dismiss it, I said that there was more to the ML system then #1 picks, but continue to misrepresent that please..

No.. I used failure to fund two #1 picks as evidence that Allen was worse to the farm than Marge. You dismissed that by saying the number of scouts on the payroll was your metric and "there's more than #1 picks".



Actually I have way better things to do then debate this point, I never said that Allen was great, nor Lindner, I happen to believ that marge did more damage. ..

But you have no evidence to support your opinion. That's why you're leaving. Whenever you have good ammo for the debate, you stay in there. (Which I respect). When you're beaten, you pull this "I have no time" excuse.
I'm just asking for ONE thing that the Allen admisistration did better than Marge on the farm system that actually produced results. Surely, you can come up with one thing to support your opinion that Marge was worse.

REDREAD
09-06-2006, 01:44 PM
Ok... 2,577,371 in 2000 and the Giants over 3.125 every year since 2000.

If you want to pick nits.


Ok, thanks for the numbers.

westofyou
09-06-2006, 01:58 PM
When you're beaten, you pull this "I have no time" excuse

Yeah, my project and database migration has little to do with my choice to pick nits with you.


I'm just asking for ONE thing that the Allen admisistration did better than Marge on the farm system that actually produced results. Surely, you can come up with one thing to support your opinion that Marge was worse.


Well they added another Rookie team after years of Marge not wanting one.


1999

* Indianapolis Indians, International League (AAA)
* Chattanooga Lookouts, Southern League (AA)
* Clinton Lumber Kings, Midwest League (A)
* Rockford Reds, Midwest League (A)
* Billings Mustangs, Pioneer League (Rookie-Advanced)
* GCL Reds, Gulf Coast League (Rookie)


1998

* Indianapolis Indians, International League (AAA)
* Chattanooga Lookouts, Southern League (AA)
* Burlington Bees, Midwest League (A)
* Charleston AlleyCats, South Atlantic League (A)
* Billings Mustangs, Pioneer League (Rookie-Advanced)


http://www.cincypost.com/sports/1998/reds021198.html

Reds rebuilding ravaged system




The Reds announced a rebuilding project in the middle of the 1997 season knowing theirs was not to be an ordinary rebuilding project.

It would have to be an overhaul from top to bottom, for the Reds not only were strapped for young major league talent, but their minor league operation had grown unproductive.

Last year, for example, the Reds were well below the major league average in generating major league players. Of 588 players who appeared in the American League and 588 who appeared in the National League, only 26 were originally signed and developed by the Reds. The average team contributed 42, and even that number is low because two clubs, the Colorado Rockies and Florida Marlins, were only 5 years old.

To underscore the Reds' lack of productivity and illustrate the decline of a once-great organization, only 14 of those 26 major leaguers originally signed by the Reds had been signed over the last 10 years, beginning with the 1988 draft.

As it happens, the 1987 draft was the last for former scouting director Larry Doughty, who resigned that summer because of owner Marge Schott's cutbacks in the scouting infrastructure. Several other top scouts left around the same time, taking out the backbone of the organization.

The difference since then isn't simply a matter of quantity, but quality. Among the dozen 1997 major leaguers originally signed by the Reds before 1988 were Barry Larkin, Reggie Sanders, Joe Oliver, Eric Davis and Paul O'Neill. The top major leaguers signed by the Reds in the last 10 years include Brett Tomko, Scott Sullivan, Pokey Reese, Trevor Hoffman and Jeff Branson. Notice the difference?

The organization so proudly designed by Big Red Machine architect Bob Howsam in the 1970s has never been revitalized. Instead, the scouting legacy has been dispersed to higher capacities throughout baseball.

One expansion club, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, is led by general manager Chuck LaMar and manager Larry Rothschild, both with roots deep in the Reds system. Another former Reds scouting supervisor, Cam Bonifay, was the darling of baseball last year as GM for the Pittsburgh Pirates. Examples are numerous.

''We were a model organization from top to bottom in the 1970s, without argument,'' said Reds assistant general manager Darrell (Doc) Rodgers. ''You get there by scouting and developing good players. We also had an influence in Latin America. You can see the Reds influence everywhere, but they're not with the Reds. So, we have to get some of that back.''

Last season, the Reds brought Tomko, Reese and Sullivan to the major leagues to rousing success. But there was little in front of them and there remains little behind them in the high minors. Among players who spent most of last season at Indianapolis or Chattanooga, only third baseman Aaron Boone and outfielder Pat Watkins are even close to being ready.

''We're a couple years away,'' said new Reds player development director Muzzy Jackson. ''We have to start at the low levels to start this youth movement. At the Class AAA and AA levels, we have a couple of older kids, but the majority of them are in 'A' ball.''

Following is an outline of problems facing the Reds scouting and player development operations, along with solutions the organization is trying to implement.

PROBLEM: In addition to damaging losses in scouting talent, the Reds have been hurt by a lack of administrative support for player development.

Under Schott, the Reds pulled scouts off the road for several months in 1994 and 1995. They also went two years without taking part in the Florida Instructional League or even holding organizational meetings so all the scouts and administrators could get on the same page.

SOLUTION: While the Reds have in recent years often announced improvements in their minor league operation, they now are putting real money behind it. As managing executive John Allen has cut major league player payroll to $23 million, he is spending more money on scouting and player development.

Throughout the 1990s, the Reds have operated with budgets of $5 million-$7 million to cover both areas. Rodgers said the budget probably will increase $3 million-$4 million, giving the organization access to more resources and the opportunity to sign better prospects.

PROBLEM: The baseball operation also has made its fair share of blunders. Before the 1995 season, Reds general man ager Jim Bowden signed reserve catcher Damon Berryhill as a free agent, costing the club its first-round draft pick. Then, with its first-round pick in 1996, the club took high school outfielder John Oliver, whose development has been halted by poor night vision and an assortment of injuries.

SOLUTION: Be more careful.

PROBLEM: The Reds have for years scouted on the old Branch Rickey theory, which says you can teach a kid to hit and field, but you can't teach him to run or throw; therefore, draft kids who can run and throw. As a result, the Reds haven't brought through a big-time hitter since Reggie Sanders came up in 1992.

SOLUTION: The Reds are beginning to take the attitude that great hitters are born, not made. Bowden has instructed Reds scouts at recent organizational meetings to find hitters. In today's baseball, the players who can hit are the ones who play.

''Ideally, you want a five-tool guy,'' said Rodgers. ''But the run-and-throw guys get left by the wayside while the hitters keep going. We don't want to ignore run-and-throwers, but if there is a choice to be made and we think the guy is going to play in the major leagues, we're going to go with the hitter. We're going to have to change a little bit. We're going to have to emphasize hitting more.''

PROBLEM: Before leaving the Reds, LaMar had negotiated the first working agreement between a major league club and the Mexican League. Bonifay supervised the Reds' Latin American scouting operation before he left. With Schott's cutbacks, the Reds abandoned their Latin American presence that had produced players like Tony Perez, Dave Concepcion and Mario Soto.

SOLUTION: Start scouting the world again. This summer, the Reds are opening an academy in the Dominican Republic, which will field a team in the Dominican summer league. Jackson also wants to establish at least co-op presences in the next year in Venezuela and Mexico.

''You look at the guy who won the Cy Young Award last year (the Montreal Expos' Pedro Martinez),'' said new Reds scouting director DeJon Watson. ''You look at the Sammy Sosas and Moises Alous. We have to get down there and be aggressive and get after it and get some of these guys.''

PROBLEM: The structure of the Reds' farm system is less than ideal, particularly for the development of younger players. As a partial result, the Reds have been inclined to take players who could fit the system, older players who have proven to top out at the Class AA level.

''There has been a scouting philosophy that we were going to take guys who we knew we could sign and who we knew could play in Class A or Class AA,'' said Rodgers. ''But we weren't going to take a chance on a guy who was a little raw, a little younger. They kind of work together. You have to draft kids who fit the player development philosophy. They have to be step-in-step.''

SOLUTION: Now that the Reds have a training agreement in Sarasota, Fla., they are hoping to establish a team in the Gulf Coast League, a developmental league geared toward younger players. That would not only give them a suitable place to put high-school draftees, thereby making high school draftees more tenable, but it also would be the next stop for players who graduate from their new Latin American operations at age 18.

The Reds also want to put a team in a ''fast A'' league, preferably the Florida State League. That way, a player who starts at the very bottom could be taken out of high school and moved through the Gulf Coast League to Billings of the Pioneer League (which is geared toward college players) or a ''low A'' team, then a ''high A'' team before progressing to Class AA Chattanooga.

''We're trying to reorganize some of our classes,'' said Watson. ''You have some separation now because the move from the Midwest League or the South Atlantic League to the Southern League is a big jump. We're trying to put some ground in so these guys can make these levels more easily.''

Jackson also looks to identifying the best prospects in the minor leagues, with hopes that the players who make it through to the majors will make the greatest possible impact.

''Our money in development is made on who we can get to the big leagues,'' said Jackson. ''It's knowing the top guys in the organization who have the ability physically and mentally to get to the big leagues. You identify the top 25 or 30 guys, then identify specific strengths and weaknesses and give them drills to improve.''

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/bp/1588474.html



Every ballclub has its share of Things It Cannot Change, and the Reds are no exception:

# The farm system is average at best, still suffering from years of neglect during the Marge Schott years. Just one Reds prospect ranked in our preseason Top 40 list (that player, pitcher Bobby Basham, is struggling in Double-A this year). In a perfect world, rebuilding would be a simple matter of jettisoning the veterans and giving the kids a chance, but given the Reds' reality, that could lead to a 100-loss season or two.

MaineRed
09-06-2006, 02:21 PM
That post will probably just get ignored westofyou. That is what REDREAD does when he is beaten.

REDREAD
09-06-2006, 05:24 PM
That post will probably just get ignored westofyou. That is what REDREAD does when he is beaten.

No I will respond to it. I ignored some of your posts for awhile because they were simple trolling. WOY is not a troll.

Mutaman
09-06-2006, 05:43 PM
" Lindner ushered in a new building and the HOF at least"


Carl did a heckofa job. Thank God for the HOF.

REDREAD
09-06-2006, 05:55 PM
Ok, they added a rookie league team. I do recall that. Too bad they didn't supply the resources to stock it after the Howington draft. IIRC, MLB mandated that every franchise have the same number of minor league teams. If you recall, some teams had to give up franchises because they had too many, and some teams had to add franchises. IIRC, the Rockies at one time had at least two AA teams. Several teams had multiple high A teams. It's reasonable to assume that Allen knew this change was coming and had no choice in the matter.

I read the entire 1998 article, and will address what you bolded. First of all, I will say that initially Allen appeared to try to rebuild the farm. As I said, it was after Howington was drafted that things went bad. Allen paid up for Larson. Even though Larson flopped, he still paid up for him. The Dunn/Kearns draft was good. The Reds paid up for Howington and that Japaneese free agent that flopped.

Then things went downhill.


PROBLEM: In addition to damaging losses in scouting talent, the Reds have been hurt by a lack of administrative support for player development.

Apparently Allen did not fix this, as another post said that Cast has basically quadrupled the front office staff. So this one looks to be a push between Allen/Carl and Marge. Both had inadequate scouting and front office staff.
According to Team Clark, the Reds still have bad scouts held over from the Allen era. Hopefully Cast will address this.


Throughout the 1990s, the Reds have operated with budgets of $5 million-$7 million to cover both areas. Rodgers said the budget probably will increase $3 million-$4 million, giving the organization access to more resources and the opportunity to sign better prospects.

Yes, initially Allen did add money to minor league development. Then he cut it. If you dispute that funding was cut (Cutting ties with Rijo, fewer Latin players signed, no money for #1 picks), then we can look at the results of this increased spending and say it was not spent wisely. Again, other than Dunn/Kearns (the preHowington era), there has been very little talent signed under the Allen era.
We do know of several cases (Markalis, Sowers, Kazmir) where the Reds identified the right talent but had to pass due to cash. We also know that the Reds refused to pay Jason Arnold (who was eventually traded in the Lopez-Elmer trade as an equal) 60k to sign. We know that Mosely was required to sit out 1/2 of a year, because the Reds wouldn't sign him until the next fiscal year. We know the Reds picked Sowers with no intention of signing him. Does this sound like an organization with a well funded player development budget? Does any other [good] franchise operate like this?


With Schott's cutbacks, the Reds abandoned their Latin American presence that had produced players like Tony Perez, Dave Concepcion and Mario Soto.

And under Allen, the Reds continued to fail to sign Latin players into the pipeline. I can't recall any Latin players signed under the Allen era that even made it to the big leagues. I believe Sequoia (part of the Guzman trade) was signed under Marge, but maybe I'm wrong on that. The other guy I can think of is Acevado, but he washed out (I can't recall if he was a Marge or Allen era guy)..

For me, the defining moment in Allen/Lindner era was when Allen refused to modestly raise payroll to add Guzman. When that happened in 1999, I predicted the Reds would not finish .500 in 2003, because I could tell that this ownership had zero commitment to winning.

In contrast, Cast has let Wayne try to cobble together a winning team this year. He's taken on salary with Lohse and Cormier. I expect Lohse to be back next year. He took on salary with Schoweisis. I would've liked them to pick up an OF bat like Jenkins (would've been an upgrade from Freel, or at least given Narron a better #1 RH pinch hitter than Castro). Wayne disagreed, but I bet Cast would've approved 1.3 million or whatever for Jenkins. That's the difference between this ownership and Carl Loser Lindner and his hatchetman Allen.

REDREAD
09-06-2006, 05:57 PM
" Lindner ushered in a new building and the HOF at least"


Carl did a heckofa job. Thank God for the HOF.

Remember when Allen tried to put off building the HOF (probably until after the club was sold).

It was nice of Carl to kick Allen in the butt and tell him to get it done. But it further illustrates what a weasal Allen was. I remember Allen saying "The Reds HOF isn't a big revenue generator, so we're in no hurry to build it".

Although I don't give Carl big kudos for forcing Allen to do what he agreed to do when the Reds negotiated the stadium deal. You don't get praise for simply honoring your commitments. That should be expected.

westofyou
09-06-2006, 05:58 PM
That's the difference between this ownership and Carl Loser Lindner and his hatchetman Allen.

I thought we were talking about Marge?

Ah well, I'm going on a ride, my workday is ending early.

REDREAD
09-06-2006, 06:00 PM
I thought we were talking about Marge?

Ah well, I'm going on a ride, my workday is ending early.

We are.. After refuting your evidence that Allen turned the farm system around, I praised Cast.
My position is that Allen was just as bad or worse than Marge. The simple evidence is to look at the talent the farm produced under Marge and compare it to what came out during Allen's reign of terror. Also, Marge always signed her #1 picks, and signed other picks at a reasonable rate. Allen didn't support the farm financially after the Howington debacle

Oh well my praise of Cast gave you your out. Have a nice ride.

Ltlabner
09-06-2006, 06:12 PM
Wow....it's a sad state of affairs when people will have an all day pissing match over who was worse for the Reds: Marge or Allen/Linder.

That's not a commentary on the posters involved. It's a sad commentary on the state of the franchise.

I just can't believe that BCast and Kriv haven't been able to unravel 20 years of damage in 8 months. I mean, what the heck is their problem?

Patrick Bateman
09-06-2006, 06:21 PM
Sinkerball pitchers can have a lower BABIP. I don't know where to look it up, but I bet Maraino Rivera has a lower BABIP, because he gets so many popups.

I checked out Rivera, and his career BAPIP is .274 which is well below the average. I found an article talking about this from The Hardball Times: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pictures-of-batted-balls/ (scroll down towards the bottom). It seems to imply that Rivera's DER (defensive efficiency ratio) is higher when he pitches. That implys that the Yankees fielding is not the reason for his low BAPIP, but maybe your suggestion of popups is the reason. I'm not sure the exact reason, maybe batters go up to plate with a different approach because it's the 9th inning or because of Rivera's reputation, but it's an interesting point if closers really are "anti-DIPS" as the article suggests.



Here's my point. If a pitcher is having a bad year, and has a high BABIP, that might be because he stinks, not because he's "unlucky". If they sent me to the mound, I can guarantee that I'd give up a much higher than .300 BABIP. That's because I am not a major league pitcher. Why is it then a stretch to say that the worst 10% pitchers in MLB might have a bad BABIP simply because they stink?

Possibly for the reason I suggested earlier. That all sounds like it should make good sense, but then why do Randy Johnson and Joe Mays have the same career BAPIP? You would think that because Randy Johnson throws hard with lots of movement that he of all people would be the poster child for having a low BAPIP, and Joe Mays, a soft tosser with limited stuff would be BAPIP'd all over the place, however, it doesn't work that way. That's just one example, but it's like that all over baseball.



Another point is that when a pitcher is having a good year, but has a low BABIP, he's called "lucky".. Maybe he's just making pitches that year that are more difficult to get hits on.

If that were true wouldn't we consistently see great variencies in BAPIP between good pitchers and bad? Even bad pitchers have good BAPIPs that can disguise them as being not so bad. That theory has killed the Reds in recent years. Guys like Rheal Cormier, Dave Williams, Gary Majewski and Eric Milton appeared as somewhat attractive players because their ERAs weren't so bad. Once these guys start getting some bad luck, their ERA's sky rocket. Case in point Gary Majewski. He has great BAPIP in Washington that made him look like a top set-up man, but his BAPIP goes through the roof in Cincy, and he's the most hated man in Cincy.


Then the argument is: how come the next year,
"the law of averages catches up to him". Well, maybe that's because the players have watched tape of him or he's simply not performing as well this year.

That doesn't make much sense to me. Players are always watching tapes of upcoming pitchers they are facing. During pitchers good years and bad years, batters watch tpae of pitchers, so that doesn't seem to be a valid reason for why a pitcher suddenly starts pitching worse.



If you can show me where to look up BABIP, I will look into it further.


A good site for finding BAPIPs of recent players is: http://www.fangraphs.com/

You can search for good articles here: http://www.hardballtimes.com/

The original article by the founder Voros McCracken himself: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=878

And Tango Tiger also has very insiteful articles: http://www.tangotiger.net/#Dips


Anyways, I recommend looking in to it, I'm no expert on the whole theory as I've really only gotten into it this season, but what I have found is that it's pretty reliable in predicting future success of pitchers. The theory explains how Reds pitchers that looked promising in the past can drop off so easily.

westofyou
09-06-2006, 08:44 PM
The simple evidence is to look at the talent the farm produced under Marge and compare it to what came out during Allen's reign of terror.

Let's see, Marge had Howsams team to work with scouts, talent drafted etc.. and Allen had Marges.... gee I wonder why Marge looks so good in retrospect?

westofyou
09-06-2006, 09:21 PM
BTW Here's Marge's legacy in town.

http://www.cincypost.com/living/1999/schott120999.html


even as she was expecting Hamilton County voters to approve a half-cent sales tax to toss $225 million or so her way to build a new ball park, it came out that she had stiffed the city on $6 million in back rent at Riverfront Stadium


After the city passed a no-smoking ordinance for the stadium, she lit up in her blue field-level box seat behind the Reds dugout - before finally retreating to her private suite.

And when the home plate umpire collapsed and died seven pitches into the 1996 season, the reaction of Mrs. Schott - who saw no reason why a corpse on the field should derail Opening Day - was, ''Can't they play with two umpires?''

That's just a taste, BTW comparing 1st round pick signings between era's is a bit unfair, considering the Brien Taylor affair really swung that into the players court. Post strike MLB is a lot diffrent then pre strike and Marge was a small fish who got washed away by big fish like the Tribune Company and Ted Turner, two teams that stole part of the fanbase of the Reds, the ones that Allen and company could have used during the lean years in the late 90's.

Anyway, you'll never see it my way and I certainly ain't going to see it yours.

REDREAD
09-06-2006, 11:56 PM
I checked out Rivera, and his career BAPIP is .274 which is well below the average. I found an article talking about this from The Hardball Times: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pictures-of-batted-balls/ (scroll down towards the bottom). It seems to imply that Rivera's DER (defensive efficiency ratio) is higher when he pitches. That implys that the Yankees fielding is not the reason for his low BAPIP, but maybe your suggestion of popups is the reason. I'm not sure the exact reason, maybe batters go up to plate with a different approach because it's the 9th inning or because of Rivera's reputation, but it's an interesting point if closers really are "anti-DIPS" as the article suggests.


I probably haven't seen Rivera pitch as much as some people have, but the nature of the way he pitches lends himself to a lot of popups. That fastball (or whatever he calls it) that runs inside gets a lot of people to pop up.
I'm not sure that it's universal to all closers though. I'm sure there's bad closers that give up a higher than average BABIP. Anyhow, Rivera is the quickest exception that I can think of to disprove the "rule" that a pitcher can't control his BABIP. At least some can (IMO, of course).






Possibly for the reason I suggested earlier. That all sounds like it should make good sense, but then why do Randy Johnson and Joe Mays have the same career BAPIP? You would think that because Randy Johnson throws hard with lots of movement that he of all people would be the poster child for having a low BAPIP, and Joe Mays, a soft tosser with limited stuff would be BAPIP'd all over the place, however, it doesn't work that way. That's just one example, but it's like that all over baseball.



But here's another example. Jimmy Anderson had a horrible year in 2003 with the Reds. I don't think anyone will dispute that. :laugh: His BABIP was .351.
Now was that because he was unlucky, or was it because he sucked? I'm sure if he had the 1999 Reds defense behind him, it would be lower, but isn't the root cause of his high BABIP that year because he was simply washed up?

As far as comparing Randy Johnson and Joe Mays.. Mays sucked this year. He had a .362 BABIP. Mays best year was in 2001, when he posted a 3.16 ERA. His BABIP that year was .251. Now I didn't watch Mays that year, so I don't know if he had amazing defense behind him or was incredibly lucky. But I suspect at least part of the reason was that Mays was pitching better than year. Again, I know very little of Mays, but I thought he had some kind of major injury that caused him to become a lot less effective. So, we can see the correlation between a high BABIP and a bad year. However, do you think Joe Mays was unlucky this year? I'm not accusing you of stacking your example (I know you just picked guys off the top of your head), but Mays may not be the best example to compare career BABIP, because he actually had about 400 IP of above average pitching (1999 + 2001). His 2000 and 2002 years were nothing to brag about, but weren't completely horrible when compared to how bad he is today.

I looked at Randy Johnson. His career BABIP is .300. When I look at the graphs, I see that he's either average or above average throughout his career. He's obviously successful because he can rack up the strikeouts.
But instead of saying that is evidence that an ace and a journeyman have the same BABIP, and thus it's kind of random, how about this theory? When people make contact on Johnson's pitches, they have a good chance to get a hit. Johnson's ability to strike out batters makes up for it. I know this is close to the normal "BABIP is equal to everyone".. However, isn't it also possible that a pitcher that doesn't strike out people could also be successful by having the ablility to lower his BABIP? (Again, Rivera comes to mind).

I looked up Danny Graves, just for laughs. 1999 was his best BABIP season. That sinker was really working well, and he had a great defense behind him. His BABIP that year was .247. In 2003, he was a starter. I couldn't cut and paste it and have it look nice, but his WHIP, BAA, BB/9, HR/9 all increased. His K/9 stayed about the same (marginal improvement). His BABIP went up from 1999, but was only 295, about the same as Johnson's career.
So, when we look at why Graves was less effective in 2003, we can say he was less lucky due to his BABIP, but that's not true. All his other metrics (except HR/9) worsened. By observation (my memory), his sinker simply wasn't working as good. I think that's why his BABIP went up, he simply wasn't as good of a pitcher. In 1999, Graves, when his sinker was humming (and he had better defense), he had a .247 BABIP. Interestingly, in 2002, Graves had a pretty nice year (1.26 WHIP) he also had a .295 BABIP..
So his ERA went up 2 runs, despite having an identical BABIP from year to year. Ok.. so this is turning out to be a long ramble, but my point is that I think BABIP is way overemphasized in statistical analysis. I think it would be most useful when comparing a player to his own historical norms. If the guy suddenly has a lower BABIP without a change like adding a new pitch, better defense, etc.. then yes, I can believe he might not be able to maintain it.

But when one says a player has a better than league average BABIP, and thus he's due for a correction without looking at everything else, I don't find that a convincing arguement.







If that were true wouldn't we consistently see great variencies in BAPIP between good pitchers and bad?

But BABIP isn't the true measure of a pitchers' effectiveness. I assume balls caught in foul ground don't count. Obviously K's don't count. I assume a HR is considered "in play", but I don't know if that's counted in BABIP. I'd prefer to rely on WHIP, K/9, BB/9, HR/9. That will tell you if a guy is lucky on his ERA better than BABIP will, IMO.

We've seen that some pitchers that are good have great BABIP (Rivera, Graves in 1999). We've seen that some pitchers that are bad have horrible BABIP (and other metrics support they are bad).

We've also seen that some pitchers like Randy Johnson can compensate for their inability to "control" their BABIP by striking out guys.







Guys like Rheal Cormier, Dave Williams, Gary Majewski and Eric Milton appeared as somewhat attractive players because their ERAs weren't so bad.

Cormier was used in very small appearances. Like one or two batters. For a situational reliever like that, I think ERA is useless. Too much of the reliever's ERA is not in his hands.

Thanks for the link.. I've got to cut this short. Going to reply to WOY, then I have to get back to work. :)

REDREAD
09-07-2006, 12:06 AM
Let's see, Marge had Howsams team to work with scouts, talent drafted etc.. and Allen had Marges.... gee I wonder why Marge looks so good in retrospect?

Ok, I thought your previous argument was that Marge canned all the scouts :confused: Did she keep the good scouts or toss them?

I don't know when you consider the start of the Allen era.. I consider it when Marge was suspended, Some consider the Allen era to start when Allen bought the team. In any event, Allen had between 7-9 years to hire good scouts, if Marge left him with stinky scouts. But that obviously wasn't a priority to Allen. I do remember the pledge the Reds gave us in 1998 (which your article is about) that the Reds were going to rebuild top to bottom, do things right, etc. Well, the 1998 team had an absurdly low payroll. It was about 25 million, I think. It's the only year that Allen claimed the team made any profit. He said they made a "modest" profit that year. So maybe Allen did dump a couple extra million in the farm that year. Kearns and Dunn kind of give credience to that theory. But after that, support for the farm started to dry up. Howington and that Japaneese FA flopping caused Allen to throw up his hands and give up on the farm.

Ironically, the only real good draft under Allen was in 1998 which was more likely to have Marge's holdovers. The jury is still out on some of DanO's picks, but even if Homer, Bruce, and Wood pan out, Allen/Lindner still fall way behind the talent Marge produced.

Look, I'm not saying Marge was the greatest owner ever. I'm just saying that Allen and Lindner neglected the farm far worse than she did. My whole premise is that after Howington flopped, Allen cut resources DRAMATICALLY, and the results were evident. I don't think we can find a glowing article about the Reds' drafts after 1999. Their farm was rated high for awhile due to the 1997-1999 drafts, but once those guys graduated to the big leagues, the Reds farm system became very barren (other than talent obtained in trades, like EdE).

Patrick Bateman
09-07-2006, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by REDREAD:


But here's another example. Jimmy Anderson had a horrible year in 2003 with the Reds. I don't think anyone will dispute that. :laugh: His BABIP was .351.
Now was that because he was unlucky, or was it because he sucked? I'm sure if he had the 1999 Reds defense behind him, it would be lower, but isn't the root cause of his high BABIP that year because he was simply washed up?

Let's be honest, it was probably a combination. That season Jimmy Anderson was repulsively bad, we all know that. But with that .351 BAPIP he also had a DIPS of 6.30, so he would have stunk even with league average luck. Jimmy Anderson's career BAPIP of .308 seems to imply that he's been slightly unlucky in his career, and with not that many innings, there's many reasons for a small difference from average.



So, we can see the correlation between a high BABIP and a bad year. However, do you think Joe Mays was unlucky this year?

Obviously BAPIP is going to correlate to success, because a lower BAPIP is going to lead to less baserunners and in turn less runs. But that doesn't neccessarily mean that BAPIP is the result of successful pitching, otherwise good pitchers would consistently post better BAPIPs then poor pitchers.

Mays has never really had anything more than an average year in my opinion. The lowest DIPS he ever had in his career was 4.42 which was during his 3.16 year. I attribute that mostly to BAPIP luck. The year before that he posted a DIPS of 4.82 which isn't terribly far off his 4.42, but his BAPIP was .331 that year leading to an ERA of 5.56. I argue that he didn't really pitch that much differently in the 2 seasons, except for luck. His "good" year seems to be the outlier in the sample which leads me to believer that his success was mostly BAPIP driven.

And like Jimmy Anderson, I think Joe Mays' putrid pitching was due to mostly awful skill level mixed in with some unfortunate luck.




Johnson's ability to strike out batters makes up for it. I know this is close to the normal "BABIP is equal to everyone".. However, isn't it also possible that a pitcher that doesn't strike out people could also be successful by having the ablility to lower his BABIP? (Again, Rivera comes to mind).

That's really the question. I don't know the reason why Rivera's BAPIP is so low, but BAPIP does not seem to be a skill that only good pitchers have. Based on Rivera it may be possible to do so for a good pitcher, but poor pitchers might be just as likely.




I assume a HR is considered "in play", but I don't know if that's counted in BABIP

It does not count for BAPIP, otherwise pitchers that can limit their HRs would have a clear BAPIP advantage.


Good discussion, REDREAD.

westofyou
09-07-2006, 01:51 AM
Ok, I thought your previous argument was that Marge canned all the scouts Did she keep the good scouts or toss them?The core of Marges teams were all drafted by the Howsam regime, development takes say 5-6 years that means that the well was dry by 1994.

REDREAD
09-07-2006, 05:16 AM
The core of Marges teams were all drafted by the Howsam regime, development takes say 5-6 years that means that the well was dry by 1994.

I agree that the players drafted before Marge arrived should not count towards her, just as the players drafted before Allen arrived should not count towards him.

However, you could make the arguement that Dunn and Kearns were picked by "Marge's guys", since Marge was suspended in 97, and Carl had not yet bought the team. I disagree with that.

The well was not dry by 94. It wasn't great, but it was still better than Allen.
LaRue, Dan Wilson, Sully, Williamson, Tomko, Reese, Ray King, Aaron Boone, Riedling, Luebbers :) , Brady Clark, Sexton, Chad Fox, Branson (? might be too early), and Bill Risley, Acevedo.

Those are just some players drafted in the later Marge era that I can think of off the top of my head. Some might've debuted before 94. Naturally, they weren't all superstars (in fact, some stunk), but it shows the system was more productive than under Allen. And if you include players that were drafted in the early Marge era (and I think Marge should get credit for keeping what worked for awhile), it's a total landslide.

Let's see a similiar list for Allen, and if you want to exclude all pre-1994 players from Marge, how about excluding all pre-1999 draft guys from Allen.. What is left? not much (if anything). I am sure this is not a complete list: but I will try: Coffey, Wagner, maybe Olmedo, and I honestly can't think of any others. Shackleford doesn't count because he came over with Jeff Austin in a trade. Of course, there's still a good chance Bailey, Bruce, or maybe someone else will arrive, but even if they do, that's a poor showing for the Allen era.

Even if you exclude everyone drafted before 1994 (which seems ridiculous in my opinion, Marge should get credit for keeping those guys around and not breaking the system immediately), Marge still comes out ahead. And, if you want to wipe those from Marge, then Marge gets credit for Kearns and Dunn because her scouts found them (after all, they were drafted only 1 year after she was suspended. I'm not sure the sale was finalized by the time of the 98 draft or not), just like Howsam's scouts get credit for Reggie Sanders, et al.

REDREAD
09-07-2006, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by REDREAD:
Let's be honest, it was probably a combination. That season Jimmy Anderson was repulsively bad, we all know that. But with that .351 BAPIP he also had a DIPS of 6.30, so he would have stunk even with league average luck. Jimmy Anderson's career BAPIP of .308 seems to imply that he's been slightly unlucky in his career, and with not that many innings, there's many reasons for a small difference from average.


Jimmy Anderson also had a bad BABIP in 2004 (.332)

I agree that luck may cause BABIP to fluctuate a small amount. But I think in the case of someone like Anderson, lack of talent is the primary reason his BABIP explodes. Same with Graves. His BABIP (and other peripherals) jumped because his sinker just wasn't as good as it used to be.






Obviously BAPIP is going to correlate to success, because a lower BAPIP is going to lead to less baserunners and in turn less runs. But that doesn't neccessarily mean that BAPIP is the result of successful pitching, otherwise good pitchers would consistently post better BAPIPs then poor pitchers.


Not necessarily. One way to be a good pitcher is to have a lower BABIP.
Another way is to not let balls get into play. That's two ways to succeed.
A high K guy like Johnson can get away with a higher BABIP, because he Ks a lot of guys. For example, let's say a pitcher Ks 200 guys. Well, if those Ks were instead put in play, you'd expect 60 more hits per year if the BABIP was .300... Add 60 Hits to Randy Johnson per year, and obviously he's not that good of a pitcher any more.





That's really the question. I don't know the reason why Rivera's BAPIP is so low, but BAPIP does not seem to be a skill that only good pitchers have. Based on Rivera it may be possible to do so for a good pitcher, but poor pitchers might be just as likely.


Again, I think it's clear in Rivera's case that he has a skill to lower his BABIP. I'm not bragging, but note that I pulled Rivera out as an example without even knowing how to look up his numbers. Instead of striking guys out, he gets tons of outs on popups. Both ways are effective, but only one helps BABIP. When Graves sinker was humming, he had a skill to reduce BABIP. As his skills declined, the sinker became very hittable and his BABIP increased (along with other peripherals).

I won't say this is true in all cases, but in some cases, BABIP is clearly a result of a pitcher's talent or lack thereof.

Let me ask you this. BABIP is correlated to success (we seem to agree with that). If BABIP is primarily randomly driven by luck, how come we don't have more pitchers like Jack Armstrong that are dominant for 1/2 a season and then fall off the edge of the earth. If BABIP was truly luck driven, you'd think that every year, you'd have about a dozen Steve Parris types get lucky and be among the league leaders in ERA.. I see the logic expressed here that you should only get pitchers that can K people because anyone that's not a strikeout pitcher is too vulnerable to fluctations in BABIP. To me, that's far too extreme thinking. Unfortunately, it's impossible to have a pitching staff built entirely of high K guys. So you have to fill in with guys. Is it not worth at least being open to the fact that maybe some guys can control BABIP. It seems apparent to me that some guys can impact it negatively. Do you at least agree with that? That a bad pitcher can get a very high BABIP solely due to lack of talent?

By the way, I found something interesting while poking around. Harang is having the best season of his career this year, yet he has by far the highest BABIP of his career (.334). However, his K/9 has also risen by about 1.5
That could mean that he's better this year at finishing off batters that he's ahead in the count. Maybe last year, more guys were able to make some weak contact (like a popup/ground ball on a waste pitch) when they were down in the count. This year, perhaps he's striking out more guys when he's ahead in the count. That's just a theory, but it seems consistent with the numbers. But if one did a blind BABIP analysis, one could [possibly] incorrectly conclude that Harang is very unlucky this year and should be in line to have a monster year. I mean, if he could maintain the rate he prevents balls from coming into play and lower his BABIP to only .300, that's 10% fewer hits. That's huge. Harang's WHIP this year is actually slightly higher, but that's probably because his BB/9 has risen slightly.











It does not count for BAPIP, otherwise pitchers that can limit their HRs would have a clear BAPIP advantage.


Good discussion, REDREAD.

So HRs don't count toward BABIP? Am I understanding that right?

Likewise, I liked this discussion with you. I learned a lot about BABIP.

MrCinatit
09-07-2006, 08:26 AM
Wow....it's a sad state of affairs when people will have an all day pissing match over who was worse for the Reds: Marge or Allen/Linder.

That's not a commentary on the posters involved. It's a sad commentary on the state of the franchise.

I just can't believe Krivsky and BCast haven't been able to get it all turned around in 8 months. What the heck is wrong with them?

I could not have said it better.
This ballclub has gone through roughly 20 years of absolutely miserable ownership.
We had an owner who was so full of herself, she replaced the players pictures with pictures of her freaking dog on one team calender (if I racall correctly). We had an owner who was a freaking embarassment everytime she opened her mouth.
She was replaced by an owner who promised a change - unfortunately, he followed his word. But it was not for the better.
I have high hopes that Cast will be thousands times better than Marge and Carl.

M2
09-07-2006, 10:46 AM
No assets acquired from 1990-1997, thus nothing to trade or generate income off of. In the meantime the Reds shrunk their scope in the surrounding states, shrinking their cash opportunities.

Sure the last regime smelled like rotton fish, but teetering on a unstable base has to be Marges fault, because all she did was take, take, take when she ran the show.. she's the Reds own William Baker.

The Reds acquired plenty of player assets in those years and I think you need to include 1998 because I don't for a second think Marge was completely out of the loop at that time (particularly in terms of budget).

I'll say it again, the Reds were in a much better talent position when Marge left than when Lindner left and the name brand was in vastly better shape. Your argument is a bit like the Spinal Tap excuse that the opener was so bad it was still getting booed when they were on stage.

Yes Marge cut scouts and affiliates, ignored marketing and the power of media, and chased away talent at every level of the business. Yet there was nothing stopping Carl Lindner from fixing the scouting department and adding affiliates, revamping the marketing, leveraging the media and brining in talent. He just didn't do it. Pretty much every problem Marge created he allowed to fester and then he added his own hideously bad judgment on all things pertaining to the game of baseball to the mix. Marge at least had a core belief that you needed to put a good team on the field and make the game affordable for families acting as a safety net. Lindner's guiding principle seems to have been that you need to hold the team until your tax break disappears and then sell.

westofyou
09-07-2006, 10:56 AM
Your argument is a bit like the Spinal Tap excuse that the opener was so bad it was still getting booed when they were on stage.Or they were so bad they started going to see the band Howard Hessemen represented.

Marge is Nero, and Lindner Vitellius, neither was any good. But when the city burns and all you do is launder auto sales and squeeze out competing dealerships from marketing in the stadium and in the Reds publications then the memory of flames and smoke are pretty strong.

Query the residents of Cincinnati and you'll get my drift.

M2
09-07-2006, 11:08 AM
Or they were so bad they started going to see the band Howard Hessemen represented.

Marge is Nero, and Lindner Vitellius, neither was any good. But when the city burns and all you do is launder auto sales and squeeze out competing dealerships from marketing in the stadium and in the Reds publications then the memory of flames and smoke are pretty strong.

Query the residents of Cincinnati and you'll get my drift.

I get all of that, but there was a day when Marge stopped having any say over the team and it came before we all partied like it was 1999. The damage she did was fairly obvious, folks around here spotted it without too much trouble. Carl Lindner not fixing it isn't Marge's fault. You can fix the marketing in the course of a few months. You can start to rebuild your affiliate network and revamp your scouting almost immediately.

What you seemingly can't do in rapid fashion is win back all the fans who decided the club was largely irrelevant after a gruesome five-year slide.

Patrick Bateman
09-07-2006, 01:34 PM
originally posted by REDREAD:


I agree that luck may cause BABIP to fluctuate a small amount. But I think in the case of someone like Anderson, lack of talent is the primary reason his BABIP explodes. Same with Graves. His BABIP (and other peripherals) jumped because his sinker just wasn't as good as it used to be.

But Jimmy Anderson has been bad his whole life, so if that were true, his BAPIP would have been bad his whole career, which simply isn't the case.

In Graves' case, it's much easier for relievers to have a really good ERA (or the opposite) because of their BAPIP. It's more likely to maintain a low BAPIP as a reliever because of less innings. He was obviously pitching much worse at the end of the line, but his BAPIP was only "out of whack" based on a 40 inning sample size.




Another way is to not let balls get into play. That's two ways to succeed.A high K guy like Johnson can get away with a higher BABIP, because he Ks a lot of guys.

That's the whole theory of DIPS. Depending on how you control your Ks, BBs, and HRs will decide how good of a pitcher you are. Basically everything else will be luck dependent. Rivera seems to be an exception to the rule (and if he is then there are likely others) that he can control his BAPIP a little better than average while maintaining great peripherals. His BAPIP is .275, but is it possible that it's been a factor of luck his whole life? Based on the averages, there should be a few guys who simply get lucky in regards to BAPIP to some degree. Based on the whole history of baseball, the odds are that it will happen to some people based on the high amount of pitchers in the history. I'm not sure what the reason for Rivera is, but there are many possibilities. Not to take anything away from Rivera, he's arguably the best closer of all time regardless of the BAPIP debate.


Let me ask you this. BABIP is correlated to success (we seem to agree with that). If BABIP is primarily randomly driven by luck, how come we don't have more pitchers like Jack Armstrong that are dominant for 1/2 a season and then fall off the edge of the earth.

We do see it quite often actually. Remember when Elmer Dessens posted an ERA really close to 3.00. The only significant difference between that your and his more average ones is BAPIP. Remember Luke Hudson. He went from looking like our best pitcher to our worst in between seasons, much of that was based on BAPIP. Lance Davis looked solid for a half season and was never heard of again. Ryan Wagner went from future closer to AAA reject (partly because of BAPIP, he wasn't as good as he looked in his first callup), Tomko got progressively worse from his good rookie season without huge changes in peripherals, the list goes on.



So HRs don't count toward BABIP? Am I understanding that right?

Right, HRs have nothing to do with BAPIP.

REDREAD
09-07-2006, 06:10 PM
originally posted by REDREAD:
That's the whole theory of DIPS. Depending on how you control your Ks, BBs, and HRs will decide how good of a pitcher you are. Basically everything else will be luck dependent. .

Let's analyse Randy Johnson. He strikes out roughly 1/3 of the batters he faces. He has a BABIP of .300. Therefore, if he struck out nobody, and all the batters he previously struck out actually put the ball in play (kind of a worse case scenerio, since some would foul out, etc).. Anyhow, in that worse case scenerio, Johnson would give up roughly 10% more hits.

I guess this is the part I have trouble believing. Let's extend that theory to an extreme example. The Reds sign me to pitch a game. Let's say it's a road game at RFK, and for the game, the Nats decided to raise their fences up to 400 feet high. Let's say that the walls are high enough that even I won't give up a HR. If BABIP is truely luck driven, there's a chance I could also post a .300 BABIP (just like Randy Johnson). There would be a good chance that I could actually pitch BETTER than Johnson under that theory, because I'm not giving up any BB or any HR, that should more than balance out the extra 10% hits I would give up for not striking out anybody.

See where I'm going with this? If you believe BABIP is truely luck based, and all a pitcher can control is BB, K, and HR, there wouldn't be such a wide desperitity in talent in pitching staffs. Ground ball pitchers (even no talent ones like Anderson) that walk nobody could have Cy Young years if Luck fell their way. How often does that really happen?

Also, if luck is such a huge factor in pitching performance, then how come guys that keep their BB/9, K/9, and HR/9 relatively constant throughout their careers don't have their performance flucuate wildly from year to year based on what lady luck gives them in BABIP.

IMO, DIPs is missing OBP allowed and Slugging allowed. Some element of slugging is in HR allowed and BB allowed, but not enough. It just does not seem logical that a pitcher can not control his hits allowed (which BABIP suggests). There's plenty of pitchers that didn't K a lot of batters that had very solid careers. To me, emphasizing BABIP and luck is an admission by the stats people that they haven't quite figured out everything yet.

We've seen in these examples that it's possible for a bad pitcher to have a bad year, but his BABIP is still within the median range. To me, that says that BABIP isn't that valuable. I'm not denying there's plenty of cases where a pitcher gets a super defense which lowers his BABIP and thus makes him look better than he really is. Steve Parris in 1999 is the poster child for that. That guy was on the ropes in almost every start he had that year, but then Pokey or Barry would bail him out with an outstanding play. I just looked it up, and in 1999, Parris had a 281 BABIP, which was the lowest in his career. So that confirms my observation that he was helped out by the defense a lot. Maybe a little bit of it was luck, but I think a lot of it was the amazing defense that team had (particularly when Young was on the bench and Tucker or Hammonds played). That's something I hope Wayne will changet his winter -- the defense.

REDREAD
09-07-2006, 06:23 PM
Right, HRs have nothing to do with BAPIP.

This is another thing that puzzles me. If you don't consider a HR to be in play, doesn't that make a guy like Milton seem "lucky" when he really isn't?

I know they intend to make BABIP a partial measure of the defense, and the defense rarely has a chance to catch a HR, but to me, that obscures the fact of whether a pitcher is "lucky" or not.

Last year Milton gave up 237 hits. 40 of those hits were HR which didn't count towards his BABIP. His BABIP was 329. If we add those 40 hits back in, his BABIP with HR jumps to about 395, which gives a much truer picture of his suckiness last year, because his hits allowed jumps roughly 40% when you add the HR back in.

[I did a simple ratio to estimate (237 - 40) hits/ 329 BABIP = 237 hits/x , the real answer is slightly smaller]

REDREAD
09-07-2006, 06:37 PM
originally posted by REDREAD:

We do see it quite often actually. Remember when Elmer Dessens posted an ERA really close to 3.00. The only significant difference between that your and his more average ones is BAPIP. Remember Luke Hudson. He went from looking like our best pitcher to our worst in between seasons, much of that was based on BAPIP. Lance Davis looked solid for a half season and was never heard of again. Ryan Wagner went from future closer to AAA reject (partly because of BAPIP, he wasn't as good as he looked in his first callup), Tomko got progressively worse from his good rookie season without huge changes in peripherals, the list goes on.
.

But I think you are giving BABIP/luck far too much credit in those examples.
A pitcher like Lance Davis (or for a more recent example, the Lizard) can sometimes come up and pitch a 4-8 good starts. After that time, there's enough film on the guy for the hitters to make adjustments. Also, after that time, teams start to realize that a guy like the Lizard is going to be a semi-permanent guy in the rotation, so they start scouting him better.

Tomko is actually an interesting example. His best BABIP year was 97 which was also his best ERA year. He had a 261 BABIP that year. The rest of his career, his BABIP has been fairly constant at between 289-304, with the exception of 2003. When he was a Cardinal in 2003, he posted a 322 BABIP.
That was also his worse ERA year (2003). I find it ironic that he had his worst BABIP year on a team that had a reputation for great defense.

The quesiton is: Did his BABIP increase due to bad luck, or do to his "I could care less" attitude. There were always articles about how baseball was basically just a job to Tomko, and that he'd rather do his charcoal drawings than play. The guy really got complacent once he made the bigs. He was happy to hit his big payday and be a journeyman. A lot of folks blame him for not making the playoffs in 1999, and they have a good case. This was a guy that told the press that if he would deliberately groove a pitch to McGwire if he was facing McGwire with McGwire at 61 HR.

I think we are at a chicken and egg debate. I say that BABIP can increase due to declining talent/declining peripherals.. I think you are saying that luck is the primary driver of BABIP and can drag down someone's peripherals. (Correct me if I'm wrong).

I think if you study the bad pitchers, you could come up with thousands of examples of guys that got worse as they got older/less talented and that loss of ability is reflected in BABIP, not caused by bad luck.

Jimmy Anderson never was a good pitcher, but he was at his worse in Cincy, and his BABIP reflected that. I don't think it was due to luck. The guy was terribly out of shape and knew he was on the tail end of his career. He just plain stunk. He didn't need luck to help him stink. It's going to be hard to convince me that his failures were largely due to bad luck. He was just plain putrid.