PDA

View Full Version : Bullpen Since THE Trade



D-Man
08-05-2006, 06:32 PM
3.64 ERA (4.25 RA)
9.71 H/9
0.76 HR/9 (!!)
3.19 BB/9
6.98 K/9
1.43 WHIP

Nice ERA. . . Over the course of the season, that would probably make this bullpen one of the handful of best bullpens in the league, assuming my math is correct. The WHIP is a little high, but I suspect that is because of a high BABIP and a rather poor defense.

The key takeaways from this new bullpen have been its amazing ability to keep the ball in the park and its much-improved K rate. That's especially crucial in a park like GABP which inflates HRs by 24% vs. league average.

Moreover, there are far fewer duds in the bullpen--Weathers and Cormier are the only two that scare the daylights out of me when the pitch.

What was the bullpen ERA before the trade--something like 5.15 or 5.20?

Falls City Beer
08-05-2006, 06:42 PM
What are the new guys' numbers? Including Guardado.

Ravenlord
08-05-2006, 06:56 PM
What are the new guys' numbers? Including Guardado.


Pitcher ERA IP K BB H HR BABIP
Bray 2.00 9 5 4 9 0 290
Cormier 6.75 2.2 0 2 5 1 333
Guardado 0.93 9.2 9 2 8 1 292
Lohse 9.00 1 1 0 4 0 800
Majewski 10.13 8 7 3 17 0 531
Total 4.45 30.1 22 11 43 2 390

D-Man
08-05-2006, 06:59 PM
What are the new guys' numbers? Including Guardado.



NAME IP H ER R HR BB SO HR/9 BB/9 K/9
Kent Mercker 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.00 0.00 4.50
Brian Shacklfrd 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00 0.00 13.85
Eddie Guardado 8.7 8 1 1 1 2 8 1.03 2.07 8.28
David Weathers 11.3 5 2 2 1 6 7 0.80 4.78 5.58
Bill Bray 9 9 2 5 0 4 5 0.00 4.00 5.00
Todd Coffey 7.7 9 3 3 1 1 7 1.17 1.17 8.18
Jason Standrid 7.7 6 4 5 1 3 8 1.17 3.51 9.35
Kyle Lohse 1 4 1 1 0 0 1 0.00 0.00 9.00
Gary Majewski 8 17 9 9 0 3 7 0.00 3.38 7.88
Rheal Cormier 2.7 5 2 2 1 2 0 3.33 6.67 0.00

Tony Cloninger
08-05-2006, 07:00 PM
I said this on the game thread.......and i realize that Weathers can be scary. Even when he is pitching good.....you keep wondering when it's going to suddenly stop...instead of enjoying it for the time it is happening, or maybe he is just more rested and pitches better this way.

BUT people get on jerry for not looking at the numbers when it comes to certain matchups.... yet Weathers has an ERA of way under 3.00 since the end of June..... and he scares people more than Magic and Coffey?

Falls City Beer
08-05-2006, 07:31 PM
yet Weathers has an ERA of way under 3.00 since the end of June..... and he scares people more than Magic and Coffey?

Not me.

redsandrails
08-05-2006, 07:40 PM
Well some guys like Weathers, Belisle, Merker, Coffey, etc. will pitch a lot better with the new additions because 1. they will be less overworked and 2. with guys like Cormier, Bray, and Guardado higher on the toteem pole, they will be used in less pressure situations.

Falls City Beer
08-05-2006, 07:41 PM
Well some guys like Weathers, Belisle, Merker, Coffey, etc. will pitch a lot better with the new additions because 1. they will be less overworked and 2. with guys like Cormier, Bray, and Guardado higher on the toteem pole, they will be used in less pressure situations.

Weathers and Coffey were both put in high pressure positions today.

D-Man
08-05-2006, 07:42 PM
3.64 ERA (4.25 RA)
9.71 H/9
0.76 HR/9 (!!)
3.19 BB/9
6.98 K/9
1.43 WHIP

What was the bullpen ERA before the trade--something like 5.15 or 5.20?

Before the trade, this is how the bullpen was lookin':

5.09 ERA (5.64 RA!!)
10.39 H/9
1.60 HR/9 (!!!)
3.38 BB/9
6.03 K/9

So the new-and-improved bullpen has cut the HR/9 rate in half. Wow. Let's hope they keep that up.

Overall, the new bullpen (relative to the old one) has saved the Reds ~9-10 runs since the trade (in about 60 innings of work).

I don't have access to BP's inherited runs prevented, but that might provide an interesting before and after snapshot.

Falls City Beer
08-05-2006, 07:46 PM
Before the trade, this is how the bullpen was lookin':

5.09 ERA (5.64 RA!!)
10.39 H/9
1.60 HR/9 (!!!)
3.38 BB/9
6.03 K/9

So the new-and-improved bullpen has cut the HR/9 rate in half. Wow. Let's hope they keep that up.

Overall, the new bullpen (relative to the old one) has saved the Reds ~9-10 runs since the trade (in about 60 innings of work).

I guess Wayne doesn't mind playing a little Whack-a-Mole then because the starters numbers have been godawful for the last month +.

I really wish Narron would lean on the improved pen A LOT more than he does.

MWM
08-05-2006, 08:00 PM
D-Man, are you implying causation here? It might very well be the result of the trade, but it seems to me the new guys (other than Guradado) aren't the ones ptiching well. Weathers and Coffey have both pitched better, and guardado has been really good. Bray has a good ERA, but has allowed a lot of baserunners, and Majewski has been god-awful (20 baserunners in 8 innings. WOW). Now I've heard some say he's been blooped to death, but I can't confirm nor deny that because up until Thursday I hadn't been able to watch any games since early June. I'm sure he's better than what he's shown, so luck has to have had some influence on his performance to date.

I've also heard the argument that Coffey and Weathers are better because they aren't being used as much. Maybe that's true. Or maybe they're just out of their respective pitching slumps and were going to pitch better at some piont anyway.

I don't doubt that the bully is somehwat improved as a result of the big trade, but how much better I just don't know. How much of the improved numbers are because of the trade? I know it's not all of it.

D-Man
08-05-2006, 08:05 PM
I guess Wayne doesn't mind playing a little Whack-a-Mole then because the starters numbers have been godawful for the last month +.

I really wish Narron would lean on the improved pen A LOT more than he does.

Yep, totally agree re: Narron. I wish the Reds had a pitching coach that could influence him and say, "Hey look!! We have a good bullpen now, so use it!"

In any case, this is how the starters have looked since the trade:

4.80 ERA (4.95 RA)
9.61 H/9
7.43 K/9
1.20 HR/9
2.7 BB/9

Not *that* bad, and the K/9 rate has been very good. I expect them to regress quite a bit because of the ensuing "dog days" and Arroyo's/Harang's collective "hitting the wall."

PuffyPig
08-05-2006, 10:08 PM
It's amazing that the news guys could ahve an ERA of 4.45 with a BABIP of
.390 against. THat ERA will come down if they just continue to pitch like they have.

PuffyPig
08-05-2006, 10:15 PM
Now I've heard some say he's been blooped to death, but I can't confirm nor deny that because up until Thursday I hadn't been able to watch any games since early June. I'm sure he's better than what he's shown, so luck has to have had some influence on his performance to date.



THe BABIP against of .531 since the trade tells you all you need to know. His DIPS ERA since the trade is 2.13.

He's actually pitched much with us than he did for the Nationals, but bad luck is not allowing him to show that.

He'll be just fine.

MWM
08-05-2006, 10:29 PM
I'm a BABIP and DIPS ERA skeptic. Always have been. I haven't seen Majewski pitch yet, so I can't say whether I agree or disagree with how much luck is involved. Besides, Majewski hasn't pitched enough innings for BABIP to tell us anything. If a pitcher goes out and gets hammered for a couple of outings because he's not pitching well and guys are teeing off on them, but they don't give up the long ball, their BABIP is going to be high. I've never bought into the idea that a pitcher has no control over events other than HR, K, or walk.

pedro
08-05-2006, 10:35 PM
He's been getting dinked to death IMO.

Falls City Beer
08-05-2006, 10:42 PM
I'm a BABIP and DIPS ERA skeptic. Always have been. I haven't seen Majewski pitch yet, so I can't say whether I agree or disagree with how much luck is involved. Besides, Majewski hasn't pitched enough innings for BABIP to tell us anything. If a pitcher goes out and gets hammered for a couple of outings because he's not pitching well and guys are teeing off on them, but they don't give up the long ball, their BABIP is going to be high. I've never bought into the idea that a pitcher has no control over events other than HR, K, or walk.

When a guy can be BABIP-lucky or "unlucky" for 6 months at a time? Then it's not a reliable stat.

Wholeheartedly agree.

Most of "luck" is good pitching; most of "bad luck" is bad or hittable pitching. I'm afraid I just can't see it any other way. My intuition (empirical) and my sense of the numbers just don't square up enough for me to pour my faith into BABIP and DIPS ERA.

MWM
08-05-2006, 10:45 PM
Most of "luck" is good pitching; most of "bad luck" is bad or hittable pitching. I'm afraid I just can't see it any other way. My intuition (empirical) and my sense of the numbers just don't square up enough for me to pour my faith into BABIP and DIPS ERA.

I agree and I'm supposedly a "stat guy." I think there is some value to it in some instances, but it's not like most of the good offensive metrics in reliability. I know I'd never make a risky decision based on BABIP or DIPS ERA.

Falls City Beer
08-05-2006, 10:50 PM
I agree and I'm supposedly a "stat guy." I think there is some value to it in some instances, but it's not like most of the good offensive metrics in reliability.

Even the "statiest" of stat guys (and I'm a middle of the road stat guy) has some internal, intuitive gauge against which he or she measures what the numbers are saying. The weird gap between bald, plain figures and what those figures tell or reveal to us closes and widens depending upon the statistic used. For me BABIP and DIPS ERA demand too much faith on my part, and should therefore be approached with the greatest skepticism. (For myself).

MWM
08-05-2006, 10:53 PM
That sums it up for me. Plus, there are too many exceptions in the historical data. It's not consistent enough for me. Like I said before, I'd never make an important personnel decision based on BABIP.

edabbs44
08-05-2006, 11:04 PM
3.64 ERA (4.25 RA)
9.71 H/9
0.76 HR/9 (!!)
3.19 BB/9
6.98 K/9
1.43 WHIP

Nice ERA. . . Over the course of the season, that would probably make this bullpen one of the handful of best bullpens in the league, assuming my math is correct. The WHIP is a little high, but I suspect that is because of a high BABIP and a rather poor defense.

The key takeaways from this new bullpen have been its amazing ability to keep the ball in the park and its much-improved K rate. That's especially crucial in a park like GABP which inflates HRs by 24% vs. league average.

Moreover, there are far fewer duds in the bullpen--Weathers and Cormier are the only two that scare the daylights out of me when the pitch.

What was the bullpen ERA before the trade--something like 5.15 or 5.20?
Just a few things about this...

1) Weathers' nice stretch is responsible for a good portion of those numbers.
2) Only 2 pitchers acquired (Bray and Guardado) have been an improvement for the BP.
3) Everyone knew Wayne needed to do somehting about the bullpen, my only problem was the overkill which took place.

D-Man
08-06-2006, 12:13 AM
D-Man, are you implying causation here? It might very well be the result of the trade, but it seems to me the new guys (other than Guradado) aren't the ones ptiching well. Weathers and Coffey have both pitched better, and guardado has been really good. Bray has a good ERA, but has allowed a lot of baserunners, and Majewski has been god-awful (20 baserunners in 8 innings. WOW). Now I've heard some say he's been blooped to death, but I can't confirm nor deny that because up until Thursday I hadn't been able to watch any games since early June. I'm sure he's better than what he's shown, so luck has to have had some influence on his performance to date.

I've also heard the argument that Coffey and Weathers are better because they aren't being used as much. Maybe that's true. Or maybe they're just out of their respective pitching slumps and were going to pitch better at some piont anyway.

I don't doubt that the bully is somehwat improved as a result of the big trade, but how much better I just don't know. How much of the improved numbers are because of the trade? I know it's not all of it.

No implication at all, just tracking the before and after. Do I like the bullpen better after the trade? Absolutely, in a big way. Did the Reds overpaid for Bray and Majewski? Very much so.

But do I think there is relationship between the bullpen before and after the trade? Yes. There were some scary suspects in the bullpen before the trade. The Hr/9, at least so far, has been the key difference. Moreover, that was identified as the key differentiating point between the old corps and the new guys. And so far, that has made a HUGE difference in the output of the relievers.

SteelSD
08-06-2006, 01:26 AM
I'm a BABIP and DIPS ERA skeptic. Always have been. I haven't seen Majewski pitch yet, so I can't say whether I agree or disagree with how much luck is involved. Besides, Majewski hasn't pitched enough innings for BABIP to tell us anything. If a pitcher goes out and gets hammered for a couple of outings because he's not pitching well and guys are teeing off on them, but they don't give up the long ball, their BABIP is going to be high. I've never bought into the idea that a pitcher has no control over events other than HR, K, or walk.

Here's something interesting. In 2005, 17 NL Starting Pitchers who qualified for the ERA title produced DIPS Rates above 110% (DIPS being 110% or more of actual ERA). Here's the list with associated DIPS rates:

Roger Clemens (1.61)
Andy Pettite (1.37)
Jeff Suppan (1.31)
Tim Hudson (1.26)
Mark Mulder (1.24)
Jason Marquis (1.24)
Dontrelle Willis (1.22)
Derek Lowe (1.18)
Horacio Ramirez (1.17)
Chris Capuano (1.17)
Carlos Zambrano (1.17)
Kris Benson (1.13)
Tomo Ohka (1.13)
Roy Oswalt (1.13)
John Smoltz (1.11)
Brett Myers (1.10)
John Patterson (1.10)

The average 2005 DIPS Rate on the list above is 1.214.

From that list, three pitchers have posted lower 2006 ERA's versus their 2005 numbers (Horacio Ramirez, Capuano, Ohka). The remaining 14 have all put up higher ERA numbers this year. 82% is enough to be a bit suggestive.

The average 2006 ERA increase from that 17 pitcher sample is 0.82. The average 2006 ERA increase from those who posted DIPS Rates of 1.20 or more was 1.63.

Even more interesting was this:

I wanted to see if the 2006 ERA numbers thusfar might represent a "snapback" effect. So I divided their 2005 DIPS by their 2006 ERA. The resulting average was 1.002; meaning that the group has almost exactly matched their 2005 DIPS thusfar in 2006. Scary.

I replicated the study for 2004 versus 2005. The result? The 19 NL ERA qualifiers who produced DIPS Rates of 1.10 or higher in 2004 ended up at an average of 0.996. Of those 19 pitchers, only three produce a lower 2005 ERA than their 2004 numbers. 84% of that sample trended up from an ERA perspective.

I've done a great deal of study on DIPS and, more importantly, DIPS Rates and McCracken's research has a great deal of predictive value. Low BABIP rates tend to translate into high DIPS Rates and unless we consider a pitcher sporting a low BABIP rate to be the vary rare instance of someone who can consistently produce low-quality balls in play, the DIPS Rate is going to be a pretty darn good red flag. As FCB noted, we need to be skeptical, but I've played that role and have identified merit.

Of course, DIPS Rate shouldn't necessarily be used in isolation. And considering the number of times Carlos Zambrano shows up on the high DIPS Rate list, he might actually be the one guy in the NL who can really truly bear down when he needs to. Brandon Webb may be another who can transend defense due to his absolutely ridiculous ground ball rates (career 3.80, capable of 4.00+). If we're looking at one NL guy whose stuff a hitter just can't do much with, it's Webb.

BTW, Gary Majewski's current ERA is 4.41 versus a DIPS ERA of 4.05. That's a two Earned Run difference over 63.1 IP. When he actually starts pitching real well that DIPS ERA is going to go down. But contrary to PuffyPig's protestations, he's really not the recipient of awful luck as much as he's seen a "snapback" from being the recipient of really good luck.

MWM
08-06-2006, 01:38 AM
Hmmm, interesting. Tough to argue. Admittedly, DIPS is not something I've given a lot of time diving into the numbers (I just don't have the time I use to a couple of years ago to devote to this stuff). But I'm also not in the habit of summarily dismissing something because it goes against my intuition, so I'll have to reconsider. But that's why I used the work skeptical, and still am. As FCB noted, it's something I struggle grapsing at the intuitive level. With most offensive metrics, what they measure makes perfect sense even before the numbers confirm it. With DIPS, you're putting faith into what the numbers tell you without the accompanying untuition.

Team Clark
08-06-2006, 01:46 AM
He's been getting dinked to death IMO.

Well, I guess that is better than being boinked to death..:laugh: or is it?

SteelSD
08-06-2006, 02:14 AM
Hmmm, interesting. Tough to argue. Admittedly, DIPS is not something I've given a lot of time diving into the numbers (I just don't have the time I use to a couple of years ago to devote to this stuff). But I'm also not in the habit of summarily dismissing something because it goes against my intuition, so I'll have to reconsider. But that's why I used the work skeptical, and still am. As FCB noted, it's something I struggle grapsing at the intuitive level. With most offensive metrics, what they measure makes perfect sense even before the numbers confirm it. With DIPS, you're putting faith into what the numbers tell you without the accompanying untuition.

The way I look at DIPS Rate is that it's the pitching version of Runs Created- but with better predictive value. What's most interesting to me is that, from the players I've looked at, very few end up producing lower ERA's the year following a 1.10 DIPS Rate. Isolate it to 1.20+ DIPS rate, and we find that only two pitchers of twenty four since 2003 have improved their ERA versus the prior year (Jake Peavy- 2004, Brandon Webb- 2005).

Those two players have significant skill sets. Peavy is a high-K pitcher and, as such, can be prone to random BABIP fluctuations because he's going to produce a lower sample size of balls in play on a yearly basis. Webb is a ground ball demon who also produces a reasonable K rate. Combine the two and Webb might end up as the best there ever was in that respect regardless of defense. Folks talk about ground ball pitchers, but a near 4-to-1 rate is simply beyond ridiculous and it might just be enough to trump BABIP because Webb controls the vertical plane better than anyone I've ever seen.

GAC
08-06-2006, 06:01 AM
ESPN last night said that prior to the AS break, the Reds BP save rate was 59%. Since the trades/AS break - 80%.

redsmetz
08-06-2006, 07:22 AM
Yep, totally agree re: Narron. I wish the Reds had a pitching coach that could influence him and say, "Hey look!! We have a good bullpen now, so use it!"

I've been thinking about this and might start a seperate thread on the question, but I have to wonder how next year's pitching coach outlook might play out viz Vern Ruehle and Tommy Hume. There are some who say Hume is a great bullpen coach, others have commented he's doing a decent job as pitching coach, but's he's interim and I don't know how much he can put his mark there. Is he best suited back working with the pen or can he come into his own as the pitching coach. I don't know the answer to that.

RFS62
08-06-2006, 09:02 AM
Hmmm, interesting. Tough to argue. Admittedly, DIPS is not something I've given a lot of time diving into the numbers (I just don't have the time I use to a couple of years ago to devote to this stuff). But I'm also not in the habit of summarily dismissing something because it goes against my intuition, so I'll have to reconsider. But that's why I used the work skeptical, and still am. As FCB noted, it's something I struggle grapsing at the intuitive level. With most offensive metrics, what they measure makes perfect sense even before the numbers confirm it. With DIPS, you're putting faith into what the numbers tell you without the accompanying untuition.


I'll admit that my intuitive nature is skeptical of BABIP. It seems to ignore shades of difference in balls hit.

A hitter is trying to "square it up", or hit the ball hard with a solid blow, as opposed to a glancing blow. There's a world of difference in that tiny measurement.

And a pitcher is trying to keep him from squaring it up. That's the essence of "pitch to contact", by the way. You can't try to strike everyone out, but "missing bats" comes in degrees.

The players and coaches and advance scouts judge a players short term performance with terms like "he's hitting the ball hard but not having any luck". Stats which require large sample sizes aren't helpful in this regard if you're preparing a game plan to pitch to a hitter.

You want to know what kind of performance he's producing in the very short term for that decision making.

Falls City Beer
08-06-2006, 12:11 PM
The way I look at DIPS Rate is that it's the pitching version of Runs Created- but with better predictive value. What's most interesting to me is that, from the players I've looked at, very few end up producing lower ERA's the year following a 1.10 DIPS Rate. Isolate it to 1.20+ DIPS rate, and we find that only two pitchers of twenty four since 2003 have improved their ERA versus the prior year (Jake Peavy- 2004, Brandon Webb- 2005).

Those two players have significant skill sets. Peavy is a high-K pitcher and, as such, can be prone to random BABIP fluctuations because he's going to produce a lower sample size of balls in play on a yearly basis. Webb is a ground ball demon who also produces a reasonable K rate. Combine the two and Webb might end up as the best there ever was in that respect regardless of defense. Folks talk about ground ball pitchers, but a near 4-to-1 rate is simply beyond ridiculous and it might just be enough to trump BABIP because Webb controls the vertical plane better than anyone I've ever seen.

But it's interesting that what one ends up with as the "ends" to the BABIP/DIPS "means" is the prediction of a pitcher's ERA, a statistic that is eminently flawed and unreliable. What about OPSA?

Also, DIPS ERA seems (and I say that because I have extensively looked into it) to work far better with starters than relievers. I assume this is correct? So is DIPS an effective predictive tool when gauging a reliever? If not, then one must move with even greater caution through those woods.

SteelSD
08-06-2006, 01:31 PM
I'll admit that my intuitive nature is skeptical of BABIP. It seems to ignore shades of difference in balls hit.

A hitter is trying to "square it up", or hit the ball hard with a solid blow, as opposed to a glancing blow. There's a world of difference in that tiny measurement.

You might be interested in Line Drive Rate then. About 75% of line drives drop for hits across the board.

From 2004 to current, 266 ERA title qualifying seasons have been pitched (or are being pitched) by MLB starters. From that sample, median Line Drive Rate was 19.6% (0.196).

Here's a list of MLB ERA qualifiers who posted to or more seasons of 90% or less of the median LD% over that span.

Player (#seasons at =<90% of median LD Rate)

Bartolo Colon (2)
Kelvim Escobar (2)
Randy Johnson (2)
John Lackey (2)
Derek Lowe (3)
Jason Marquis (2)
Johan Santana (2)
Tim Wakefield (3)
Jake Westbrook (2)
Brandon Webb (2)

Now let's whittle that list down a bit by excluding pitchers who have, during that time, allowed a higher single-season LD Rate versus the median. That moves out only Santana (0.213 LD%- 2006) and Lackey (0.228 LD%- 2005).

If we're suggesting that pitchers are able to control their rate of pitches being "squared up" against, we need to look at HR rate as well. Median HR rate for that sample is 1.04 per game. The results thusfar have indicated that there may be pitchers who might be able to exert a modicum of control over BIP quality, but that becomes less important if they give up bombs when they do get hit. Here's the new list after excluding anyone who's posted a season above the median HR/G rate from our sample:

Kelvim Escobar (2)
Brandon Webb (2)
Jake Westbrook (2)

Escobar is a suprising inclusion in our final short list of possible low-quality contact pitchers. But he's The other two aren't surprises, considering that they're true ground ball demons. Derek Lowe, another ground ball demon, barely misses the list due to a 1.15 HR/G rate in 2005, but I'd suggest that his pattern is probably solid enough to warrant inclusion. John Lackey is another guy who might be very close to a pitcher who can exert a modicum of low-quality ball control over time. Johan Santana is interesting as well due to what might be a consistent ability to induce pop-ups.

All that being said, the real question is whether or not a low-quality contact skill set actually allows pitchers to outperform their DIPS.

DIPS Rates 2004-2006:

Escobar 2006: 1.02
Escobar 2004: 0.97

Westbrook 2006: 0.93
Westbrook 2005: 0.92
Westbrook 2004: 1.24

Webb 2006: 1.17
Webb 2005: 1.03
Webb 2004: 1.23

High DIPS Rates mean that the player produced a season ERA lower than their DIPS ERA. Escobar and Westbrook haven't consistently done that over time. Webb has and if we're going to look for a guy who might be able to translate a "low contact quality" skill set into meaningful results, I'd suggest he may be taking the mound every fifth day for the D'Backs.

Matt700wlw
08-06-2006, 01:41 PM
ESPN last night said that prior to the AS break, the Reds BP save rate was 59%. Since the trades/AS break - 80%.

But the trades stink, how's that possible?

Falls City Beer
08-06-2006, 04:02 PM
Somebody run those BP numbers after today. :devil:

RedFanAlways1966
08-07-2006, 08:04 AM
Somebody run those BP numbers after today. :devil:

Sure.

Since the All-Star Break the bullpen has saved 9 games and blown 3 games. 9-for-12... 75.0%. Still sounds better than 59.0%... but I'd expect some people to call it "fuzzy-math". Looks to me like the bullpen is BETTER than it was before the All-Star Break. We can look at things like ERA too, but it will give us the same "fuzzy math" situation that some do not want to accept or hear.

Face it... the bullpen has been better after the Break than before the Break. No one said the bullpen is perfect or fail-proof, but it has gotten BETTER. Would it have gotten this much better w/ Burns, Yan, White, etc? Would it have stayed the same or gotten worse? No one knows, but I am sure professional gamblers would know where to put there money on that bet. The BULLPEN is better since the break and THE TRADE.

The team? 12-10 (.545) since the Break. Before the Break? 45-44 (.506).

registerthis
08-07-2006, 09:29 AM
The BULLPEN is better since the break and THE TRADE.

Nominally so.

Did we trade Lopez and Kearns away in order to make a slight upgrade in the bullpen? I certainly hope not. But Bray has been good but by no means "great," and Majewski has, thus far, been nothing but a complete failure. The only player we've picked up in the flurry of BP moves that has had any appreciable effect on the success of the bullpen has been Guardado, who was acquired for minor league fodder.

I'm quite certain that Krivsky didn't intend to trade away 25% of the starting lineup and a sizeable portion of this team's run production in order to *slightly* improve the bullpen. At that price, the bullpen should have been as shored up as one could be, not barely treading water.

I find it telling that the most consistently reliable member of this pen was the guy who was here before all of the moves were made - Todd Coffey.

RedFanAlways1966
08-07-2006, 10:02 AM
Did we trade Lopez and Kearns away in order to make a slight upgrade in the bullpen? I certainly hope not.

I'm quite certain that Krivsky didn't intend to trade away 25% of the starting lineup and a sizeable portion of this team's run production in order to *slightly* improve the bullpen. At that price, the bullpen should have been as shored up as one could be, not barely treading water.

The team has a better record after the Break than before the break. Not sure how that is being missed by some members here. The team is not 22-0 since the Break as some seem to expect, but the winning pct. is better. Whether it is nominally better or just better is semantics... reality is that it is better.

REDS Bullpen
Before Break: 5.15 ERA
After Break: 4.04 ERA

Over a run lower!! Slightly better? Not in my world. :) But a bad outing by one of the key players in THE TRADE makes people say and distort things. People can rip away at Gary Majewski (w/in the rules here) and get no argument from me. But when the whole bullpen is dragged through the mud, I have to point out THETRUTH. A run lower since THE TRADE.

registerthis
08-07-2006, 10:37 AM
The team has a better record after the Break than before the break. Not sure how that is being missed by some members here.

It's not being missed, but nor is it being overly applauded. The Reds had a better record in April than they did in July, and that was with the clunker of a bullpen.


Over a run lower!! Slightly better? Not in my world. :)

Oh, it's better. It *had* to be better, and if your litmus test for how good the bullpen is is how well itstacks up against what we had before, then you're guaranteed not to be disappointed. But about those ERAs: 12.54 and 6.75. That would be Majewski and Cormier's ERAs since coming to Cincinnati. Small sample sizes work both ways, you know. Both of those players--key acquisitions who will be with the Reds through this year and next year--are blowing up in Cincinnati thus far.

So, yes, Bray and Guardado have been good (though I have the sinking feeling that the bottom due's to fall out on Guardado at any moment.) Majewski and Cormier have been terrible. And the jury is out on Lohse.

Do we consider that a success? Is this what we were expecting Krivsky to accomplish? Perhaps we're happy with a *serviceable* bullpen (which still has a collective ERA of 4.90, FWIW), but I'm not convinced that's going to get it done.

And, like I mentioned before, in spite of all of the moves krivsky has made to shore up the pen, Coffey remains the most effective pitcher out there, and that's saying something.

westofyou
08-07-2006, 10:42 AM
The Reds had a better record in April than they did in July, and that was with the clunker of a bullpen.

And a BP in April is fresh, the Reds in April had 3 relievers with an ERA under 4.35, and both are the only 3 with the team in August and that was only 15% of the IP that month. That speaks volumns about how bad the rest of the BP was, even during the Reds plastering of teh rest of the league.

Attrition is the enemy of a BP and the Reds have been battling attrition since May 1st.

SteelSD
08-07-2006, 11:18 AM
The team has a better record after the Break than before the break. Not sure how that is being missed by some members here. The team is not 22-0 since the Break as some seem to expect, but the winning pct. is better. Whether it is nominally better or just better is semantics... reality is that it is better.

REDS Bullpen
Before Break: 5.15 ERA
After Break: 4.04 ERA

Over a run lower!! Slightly better? Not in my world. :) But a bad outing by one of the key players in THE TRADE makes people say and distort things. People can rip away at Gary Majewski (w/in the rules here) and get no argument from me. But when the whole bullpen is dragged through the mud, I have to point out THETRUTH. A run lower since THE TRADE.

Correlation does not equal causality.

Causality is Eddie Guardado and David Weathers. Both are pitchers who were already in Reds uniforms before the trade. That's a collective ERA of 1.35. Unfortunately, it appears Guardado's left arm may soon fall off and we all know that Weathers isn't a .97 WHIP, 1.59 ERA pitcher over the long haul.

Remove those Innings and the rest of the pen has combined for an ERA of 5.63 post-ASB.

And that includes the performance of the current luckiest dude in the pen- Bill Bray. Bray is walking the ERA razor's edge with a WHIP of 1.55 and a .774 OPSA in a Reds uniform. He's required another bullpen arm to bail him out of trouble multiple times. And if he continues to allow baserunners at that clip, he's a problem because then he's a fractional-inning pitcher who can't be counted on to consistently finish an inning he starts. That's a workload drag on a pen because it requires that someone else be warming up every time Bray is scheduled to enter a game.

Johnny Footstool
08-07-2006, 11:52 AM
The team has a better record after the Break than before the break. Not sure how that is being missed by some members here. The team is not 22-0 since the Break as some seem to expect, but the winning pct. is better. Whether it is nominally better or just better is semantics... reality is that it is better.

Is 12-10 really that much better than the pre-trade 45-44 W-L record? We're talking one game's difference.

If anything, it supports what many of us anti-trade-ers have been saying all along -- the bullpen may have improved, but the TEAM didn't.

westofyou
08-07-2006, 12:11 PM
Is 12-10 really that much better than the pre-trade 45-44 W-L record?

It's better then the 40-46 since May 1st or the 9-20 leading up to the AS game.


the bullpen may have improved, but the TEAM didn't.
Yet 12-10 is better then 9-20 isn't it?

Puffy
08-07-2006, 12:27 PM
The team has a better record after the Break than before the break. Not sure how that is being missed by some members here. The team is not 22-0 since the Break as some seem to expect, but the winning pct. is better. Whether it is nominally better or just better is semantics... reality is that it is better.



I'm not sure what "better record" has to do wth anything. You are comparing 22 games to 91 games and, thereby, coming up with a false premise.

For instance, after 60 games the Reds were 36-24 for a win percentage of .600. Therefore they are worse since the trade because their win percentage since the trade is .545.

See how I can skew numbers as well.

Johnny Footstool
08-07-2006, 12:28 PM
It's better then the 40-46 since May 1st or the 9-20 leading up to the AS game.


Yet 12-10 is better then 9-20 isn't it?

Why don't you just restrict your sample size to the 10 games prior to the ASB and the 10 games after it?

Or why don't I just restrict my sample size to the last 10 games (in which the Reds are 4-6)?

RFA66 quoted the Reds overall record prior to the trade and following the trade. I just pointed out that 12-10 is hardly better than 45-44.

Puffy seems to understand what I'm talking about.

pedro
08-07-2006, 12:40 PM
Is 12-10 really that much better than the pre-trade 45-44 W-L record? We're talking one game's difference.

If anything, it supports what many of us anti-trade-ers have been saying all along -- the bullpen may have improved, but the TEAM didn't.

Johnny, you may be right, you may be wrong, but it's going to take the rest of the season to find out if you want large enough sample sizes to justify a particular viewpoint.

What I don't see anyone admitting to is the possibility that the Reds pitching staff was way overachieving through the middle of June and that the Reds weren't going to be able to keep up the pace with that pitching staff. A fact which I find very surprising considering that the Reds have gone through the same mid season wilting several times in the last 5 years.

princeton
08-07-2006, 12:40 PM
I believe that with a better manager and GM, the Reds would be undefeated right now

and even if they weren't, I'd rather lose with great statistics than win with improbable plays. Numbers rock :thumbup:

westofyou
08-07-2006, 12:41 PM
Puffy seems to understand what I'm talking about.

Yeah, I'm just an idiot... what you're saying is the Reds stink and the trade didn't do crap, I'm saying they stunk before hand and the trade is still being flushed out.

Johnny Footstool
08-07-2006, 01:03 PM
Yeah, I'm just an idiot...

I never said you were.


what you're saying is the Reds stink and the trade didn't do crap, I'm saying they stunk before hand and the trade is still being flushed out.

I agree -- the trade does warrant flushing.

pedro
08-07-2006, 01:05 PM
I agree -- the trade does warrant flushing.

way to get that last dig in. I'm sure you're very proud.

Johnny Footstool
08-07-2006, 01:05 PM
I believe that with a better manager and GM, the Reds would be undefeated right now

and even if they weren't, I'd rather lose with great statistics than win with improbable plays. Numbers rock :thumbup:

Is this on-topic at all?

Johnny Footstool
08-07-2006, 01:06 PM
way to get that last dig in. I'm sure you're very proud.

It was a soft toss that I had to swing at.

RedFanAlways1966
08-07-2006, 01:06 PM
I'm not sure what "better record" has to do wth anything. You are comparing 22 games to 91 games and, thereby, coming up with a false premise.

For instance, after 60 games the Reds were 36-24 for a win percentage of .600. Therefore they are worse since the trade because their win percentage since the trade is .545.

See how I can skew numbers as well.

Good point and I understand your point. However, why do GMs of all teams see it differently? Do they see it in a skewed fashion too? They tend to look at the record at the Break (90 games this year) and make decisions.

I guess the only fair to judge this team in regard to moves made would be to wait until the end of the season. Not after each game Majewski gives up a run or two.

Johnny Footstool
08-07-2006, 01:09 PM
I guess the only fair to judge this team in regard to moves made would be to wait until the end of the season. Not after each game Majewski gives up a run or two.

I will agree with that. We need adequate sample sizes.

westofyou
08-07-2006, 01:09 PM
I agree -- the trade does warrant flushing.Too bad the big turd of the 21st century Reds is blocking the pipes... boy that was fun, wish we had more of that.

pedro
08-07-2006, 01:09 PM
It was a soft toss that I had to swing at.

lots of people swinging things around here lately.

Puffy
08-07-2006, 01:10 PM
Good point and I understand your point. However, why do GMs of all teams see it differently? Do they see it in a skewed fashion too? They tend to look at the record at the Break (90 games this year) and make decisions.

I guess the only fair to judge this team in regard to moves made would be to wait until the end of the season. Not after each game Majewski gives up a run or two.

Thats what I think - at least with regard to the record.

Now, looking at ERA, WHIP, holds, save percentage - those I would attribute (even at lesser intervals) to the new people.

But I think win percentage needs to be gauged at closer intervals to equality (number of games).

westofyou
08-07-2006, 01:12 PM
lots of people swinging things around here lately.
I'm waiting for the jester with his exaggerated phallus to pop up and hit me in a head with a stick next.

princeton
08-07-2006, 01:18 PM
Is this on-topic at all?

sure, I'm going with the flow. Win every trade, lose every game. I'm there

Ltlabner
08-07-2006, 01:26 PM
Too bad the big turd of the 21st century Reds is blocking the pipes... boy that was fun, wish we had more of that.

No kidding. I mean, the way things were being done since the turn of the century were working out so great. We better not deviate from that.

I'm currious where this flood of fantastic bullpen arms that would be available on the cheep were at the trade deadline? I mean, everybody slammed Kriv for overpaying but where is the laundry list of teams that picked up young, solid, good bullpen arms and only had to give up a hot-dog vendor to get them?

I don't want to get into the nuts and bolts of "the trade" again as it's been hashed to death and there isn't anything any of us arm-chair GM's can do about it. Those who hate it will continue to hate it short of winning the world serries in 4 straight. Those who understand the rationale of the trade will continue to understand the rationale of the trade even if the mechanics were horrible.

registerthis
08-07-2006, 01:38 PM
Well I see talk being bandied about of sending Majewski down to AAA, and whether or not it actually happens the fact is he is certainly pitching awful enough to warrant a demotion.

I am just not seeing any way that the Kearns/Lopez deal is defensible. The argument was that the Reds had nothing in their minor league system capable of providing what a pitcher like Majewski could provide, but I'm fairly certain the Reds could have pulled any random pitcher off the minor league scrap heap, thrown him on the mound, and watched him get torched for a 12 ERA for a few weeks. And they wouldn't have had to give up kearns/Lopez to do it.

registerthis
08-07-2006, 01:41 PM
I don't want to get into the nuts and bolts of "the trade" again as it's been hashed to death and there isn't anything any of us arm-chair GM's can do about it. Those who hate it will continue to hate it short of winning the world serries in 4 straight. Those who understand the rationale of the trade will continue to understand the rationale of the trade even if the mechanics were horrible.

That's a polite way of saying that those of us who dislike the trade merely haven't caught on to what the trade-supporters know to be true. Believe me, I've heard the rationale for the trade, I understand WHY it was done...and I happen to think that it was a terrible decision.

But I understand the rationale just fine. "Lack of understanding" isn't what's driving my intense dislike of this move, the disproportionate loss of talent is.

Ltlabner
08-07-2006, 01:44 PM
That's a polite way of saying that those of us who dislike the trade merely haven't caught on to what the trade-supporters know to be true. Believe me, I've heard the rationale for the trade, I understand WHY it was done...and I happen to think that it was a terrible decision.

But I understand the rationale just fine. "Lack of understanding" isn't what's driving my intense dislike of this move, the disproportionate loss of talent is.

That was not at all my intent nor the message I wanted to convey. I was just trying to touch on the idea that the "anti-trade" folks tend to hate it because of the lost talent perspective. The "pro-trade" folks tend to like it because (1) they don't value AK and Lopez as highly and (B) the rationale of the trade and the impact in the long-term outweighs any short-term impact of the tallent swap.

But again, I wasn't trying to embed a hidden swipe at anybody. Sorry if it was taken that way.

registerthis
08-07-2006, 02:02 PM
The "pro-trade" folks tend to like it because ... (B) the rationale of the trade and the impact in the long-term outweighs any short-term impact of the tallent swap.

What is the "long term impact" of the trade if majewski is the type of pitcher many said we were getting--BABIP-deflated ERA, not a high K rate, high WHIP? I'd say not good. In fact, I'd just as soon *not* have a pitcher like that signed to a LT deal.

I'm trying to look at this deal from the "long term", and it's not looking any better from that perspective as it looks right now. Majewski is still a below-average pitcher. Bray might become something special, or not. And Kearns/Lopez will likely continue posting solid offensive numbers, similar to what they're doing now.

Why the long term outlook for the club looks rosier with Bray and majewski in the picture than it would with kearns and lopez here, I'm not entirely certain.

Ltlabner
08-07-2006, 02:09 PM
And Kearns/Lopez will likely continue posting solid offensive numbers, similar to what they're doing now.

I don't want to get into the billionth rehash of the trade. I don't think Lopez will be a long-term solid anything for any team. AK is a good solid player, without a doubt. And what has that done for the Reds in the past 5 years. Zero. Zip. Nada. So the long term impact of an improvment to the bullpen is actually being comptetitive and not repeeting the same cycle of good & streaky offense and horrible pitching again and again and again.

If you want to wait around for the magic trade that meets all of the "value trade propostion criteron" be my guest. When the Reds are still in 5th place in 2010 let me know how that works out.

And lets continue to assume that Majic stays mediocre over the next 2 years. That is, without a doubt, better than anything we could have hoped for from Yan, Merker, Mayes, White, Burns, etc. How is that not an improvement?

Of course I'd like to have bull-pen made up of nothing other than 22 year old flamethrowers. But what team in all of MLB has a bullpen like that? This is a work in progress to build a team that is competitive in the now and more competitive in the long term.

Before someone says we gave away our only valuable trading chips, don't waste your time. I guess that means that LaRue, Valentine, Ross, Aurila, Hatteburg, Denorfia, Wise, and a host of other players have ZERO trade value? Don't think so.

westofyou
08-07-2006, 02:15 PM
And Kearns/Lopez will likely continue posting solid offensive numbers, similar to what they're doing now.

But of course we'll gloss over defense, pay scale and all that rot.

See... we could go back and forth all day.

Yippee!!

Roy Tucker
08-07-2006, 02:21 PM
But of course we'll gloss over defense, pay scale and all that rot.

See... we could go back and forth all day.

Yippee!!
http://www.linux-france.org/prj/jargonf/fig/pong.png

Ltlabner
08-07-2006, 02:22 PM
But of course we'll gloss over defense, pay scale and all that rot.

Agree 100%. Some people believe that you have to "win" each trade on a tallent to tallent basis and by doing so you will eventually build a solid team (or that is my understanding of their position, perhaps I am over-simplifying it).

While the idea of "winning each trade" is sound and makes sense on the surface, it overlooks (1) that no trade takes place in a vacume (2) there is more to building a team than purely plugging in the players with the best stats (3) that reality is that no team can afford to have all HOF players at every postion so you have to mix & match and build a team around the best players you can afford.

Before people jump on this, I'm not talking specifically about "the trade" with the above comments. But some want to ignore these other factors in regards to trades, or "the trade" and you just can't do that.

registerthis
08-07-2006, 02:26 PM
I don't want to get into the billionth rehash of the trade. I don't think Lopez will be a long-term solid anything for any team. AK is a good solid player, without a doubt. And what has that done for the Reds in the past 5 years. Zero. Zip. Nada. So the long term impact of an improvment to the bullpen is actually being comptetitive and not repeeting the same cycle of good & streaky offense and horrible pitching again and again and again.

Sorry, but I just don't buy into this line of reasoning. You say that 5 years of solid play by AK has given us nothing, but in that time to say the Reds had a putrid pitching rotation would be an insult to all things putrid. AK's solid performances were not a cause of any of the Reds failings. Now, I happen to believe that the Reds don't lose much by having Freel/Deno there in place of Kearns.

And the long-term impact of an improved bullpen is only positive if 1) the Reds are able to remain consistent on offense, and 2) the bullpen is more than "slighly" improved. This bullpen was godawful for the first four months of this season, so improving on that isn't difficult. But Majewski has blown up, Guardado's likely not long for this world, Cormier isn't going to provide much, Lohse is a tremendous question mark, Franklin's not worth a Single-A prospect, and Bray might or might not turn out to be legitimately good.

So, yes, this bullpen is better than it was--but it's still not great. Shoot, the way it's performed thus far you'd be hard-pressed to qualify it as "good."


If you want to wait around for the magic trade that meets all of the "value trade propostion criteron" be my guest. When the Reds are still in 5th place in 2010 let me know how that works out.

The Pena/Arroyo deal was that. The value given up to acquire Guardado and Cormier was proportionate. There's no "magic formula" involved, merely a good understanding of talent indicators.


And lets continue to assume that Majic stays mediocre over the next 2 years. That is, without a doubt, better than anything we could have hoped for from Yan, Merker, Mayes, White, Burns, etc. How is that not an improvement?

I certainly don't think majewski will stay as awful as he's been for the next 2 years, but I'm also not expecting anything close to his 2005 numbers. And that is nothing special at all--certainly not someone who's going to be the glue of your bullpen.


Before someone says we gave away our only valuable trading chips, don't waste your time. I guess that means that LaRue, Valentine, Ross, Aurila, Hatteburg, Denorfia, Wise, and a host of other players have ZERO trade value? Don't think so.

Of those players you listed, perhaps only Hatteberg and Aurilia had a trade value as high as Lopez, and none of them were higher than Kearns. And if, as some have posited, the return we received for Kearns and Lopez truly was the market value, then don't even bother with any further trades--they're not worth it. So, no, the Reds didn't trade away ALL of their trading chips, they simply traded away their most valuable ones (minor league prospects notwithstanding.)

pedro
08-07-2006, 02:27 PM
http://www.linux-france.org/prj/jargonf/fig/pong.png


hey Roy, do you have the overlay to put on your TV that turns table tennis into being a major league general manager? Because that'd be cool.

registerthis
08-07-2006, 02:29 PM
But of course we'll gloss over defense, pay scale and all that rot.

Not at all. Perhaps--PERHAPS--you could make the argument that Kearns-Bray is fair. But Lopez or Kearns for Majewski is an absolute waste, pay scales and defense and all.

pedro
08-07-2006, 02:30 PM
Not at all. Perhaps--PERHAPS--you could make the argument that Kearns-Bray is fair. But Lopez or Kearns for Majewski is an absolute waste, pay scales and defense and all.

perhaps they actually valued Harris and Thompson? The Reds did get them too.

Ltlabner
08-07-2006, 02:44 PM
My responses in bold....


Sorry, but I just don't buy into this line of reasoning. You say that 5 years of solid play by AK has given us nothing well, AK hasn't yet given us 5 solid years of play so I don't think we can make too many asumptions about him. ,

AK's solid performances were not a cause of any of the Reds failings. Nor were they enough to overcome the failings of the bullpen, so in terms of winning what good were they?

Now, I happen to believe that the Reds don't lose much by having Freel/Deno there in place of Kearns. I'd agree with this. But, just to be clear, I'm not dogging AK. I like him as a player and think he will be a solid contributor over the long-haul.

And the long-term impact of an improved bullpen is only positive if 1) the Reds are able to remain consistent on offense but the offsense was very inconsistant with Lopez and Kearns so I don't see how removing them is a bad thing, other than total output. And that total output was carried mostly by Kearns.

But Majewski has blown up, Guardado's likely not long for this world, Cormier isn't going to provide much, Lohse is a tremendous question mark, Franklin's not worth a Single-A prospect, and Bray might or might not turn out to be legitimately good. These are very legitimate concerns and I can't argue with them. But you also can't say with certinaty that AK and Lopez would continue to contribute long into the future. AK has 1/2 season of owning LF and has done well. But also don't forget that he was sent down to Louisville just last year to get his head on straight. And after 1 good year Lopez seems to be "regressing to his mean". And throw in that these players will only become more expensive and you have to serriously wonder if their controbutions on offense AND defense will be a value compared to their cost.

So, yes, this bullpen is better than it was--but it's still not great. Baby steps, Bob, baby steps. A solid team is not built in the 6 months following as many as 10 years of abuse and neglect.

The Pena/Arroyo deal was that. The value given up to acquire Guardado and Cormier was proportionate. And how often do those trades come along? You yourself said Eddie and Cromier were useless due to age and other factors. So that leaves one whole trade made in a year of frenzied trading. One. BA has been pretty good but I don't think we'll get anywhere at all if we make 1 trade a year while we sit around waiting for the next magic trade.

I certainly don't think majewski will stay as awful as he's been for the next 2 years, but I'm also not expecting anything close to his 2005 numbers. I must say, I do appreicate your objectivity. It would be easy to say "see, I told you he sucked" and not be objective. I wish more had your class and intellect on the subject.

registerthis
08-07-2006, 02:48 PM
perhaps they actually valued Harris and Thompson? The Reds did get them too.

Yeah, and the Nats got Wagner. Seems about right to me.

Johnny Footstool
08-07-2006, 02:53 PM
Good Lord.

registerthis
08-07-2006, 02:56 PM
well, AK hasn't yet given us 5 solid years of play so I don't think we can make too many asumptions about him. ...Nor were they enough to overcome the failings of the bullpen, so in terms of winning what good were they?


And what has that done for the Reds in the past 5 years.QUOTE]

I was only referring to this quote, that's all.

[quote]And how often do those trades come along? You yourself said Eddie and Cromier were useless due to age and other factors. So that leaves one whole trade made in a year of frenzied trading. One. BA has been pretty good but I don't think we'll get anywhere at all if we make 1 trade a year while we sit around waiting for the next magic trade.

Well, I left out the deals that led to our acquisitions of Phillips and Ross, and signing Hatteberg and Aurilia has been a very good use of cash. So that's six transactions right there where what was given up was equal or below to what was received in return. If you can do that every year, and draft wisely, you'll have the makings of a serious contender in a relatively short period of time. Kearns/Lopez deal was two steps backwards, though. A baby step improvement in our bullpen, a full step backwards for the offense.


I must say, I do appreicate your objectivity. It would be easy to say "see, I told you he sucked" and not be objective. I wish more had your class and intellect on the subject.

Intellect? You flatter me. :) Seriously, though, I am trying to find a reason to like this trade, and I simply can't. And, no, Majewski's not going to continue to post an astronomical ERA, he'll be a serviceable--but not great--reliever for this team, IMO. But there are plenty of "serviceable" relievers out there, I don't see why we had to trade 25% of our starting lineup to acquire it.

pedro
08-07-2006, 02:58 PM
Thompson has pitched well so far. Although it is for GCL and it's only been 9 innings.

Funny how so many folks who aren't actually scouts want to write off guys they've never seen play.

But hey, we're all on an internet chat board so our creditials are obvious.

pedro
08-07-2006, 03:00 PM
nm

registerthis
08-07-2006, 03:00 PM
Funny how so many folks who aren't actually scouts want to write off guys they've never seen play.

I'm not writing Thompson off, but if he ever contributes positively for the Reds at the major league level, he'll have overcome the odds. I'll view it as a bonus to this deal, much the same way that I'm viewing Clayton's HRs.

pedro
08-07-2006, 03:01 PM
I'm not writing Thompson off, but if he ever contributes positively for the Reds at the major league level, he'll have overcome the odds. I'll view it as a bonus to this deal, much the same way that I'm viewing Clayton's HRs.

I understand that. I really do.

Johnny Footstool
08-07-2006, 03:02 PM
talk about pretentious.

Really?

Ltlabner
08-07-2006, 03:05 PM
Intellect? You flatter me. Seriously, though, I am trying to find a reason to like this trade, and I simply can't. And, no, Majewski's not going to continue to post an astronomical ERA, he'll be a serviceable--but not great--reliever for this team, IMO. But there are plenty of "serviceable" relievers out there, I don't see why we had to trade 25% of our starting lineup to acquire it.

And we seem to come full circle to where we started. Hahahaha

I don't agree that we gave up 25% of our lineup/offense because I don't value Lopez all that highly, but that will open a whole new can of worms.


Well, I left out the deals that led to our acquisitions of Phillips and Ross, and signing Hatteberg and Aurilia has been a very good use of cash. So that's six transactions right there where what was given up was equal or below to what was received in return. If you can do that every year, and draft wisely, you'll have the makings of a serious contender in a relatively short period of time. Kearns/Lopez deal was two steps backwards, though. A baby step improvement in our bullpen, a full step backwards for the offense.

Those are very good points. Yet, despite all of these moves we were going nowhere fast. And at the time, that was what Kriv thought he could get for AK/Lopez. He didn't want to risk waiting till the last minute and either having no arms to choose from, or having the price be even higher. And waiting till the dead line would have let another 19 (I think) more games go by. With the bullpen at the time we would have slowly slide further out that we are now.

And despite the irrational hatred of RA I agree that those were all good pickups. Yet, Philips and Ross were consdiered "steals" because nobody else thought they had anything to offer and their stats certinally didn't support them every being anything of value. The mere fact that people were so astonished by them indicates that they are rare, not often acomplished moves. So I don't think it's realistic to plan on that many good moves per year. Hopefully, I'll be wrong.

westofyou
08-07-2006, 03:07 PM
I'm not writing Thompson off, but if he ever contributes positively for the Reds at the major league level, he'll have overcome the odds.

Wagner too eh?

Puffy
08-07-2006, 03:28 PM
Those are very good points. Yet, despite all of these moves we were going nowhere fast. And at the time, that was what Kriv thought he could get for AK/Lopez. He didn't want to risk waiting till the last minute and either having no arms to choose from, or having the price be even higher. And waiting till the dead line would have let another 19 (I think) more games go by. With the bullpen at the time we would have slowly slide further out that we are now.



How do you know? How do you know the Reds were going to continue to go no where fast? How do you know that the 9-20 version of the Reds was the true team and the 37-25 Reds was the hallucination? How do you know that without the trades the Reds would be further out than they are now?

I'm curious because I seem to remember that after the trade you repeatedly asked poster after poster those type questions when they projected Kearns and Lopez's stats - how do you know they would keep up their pace, how did you know they won't bomb, how do you know Majik won't keep it up, etc.

I guess you are allowed to make absolutions while at the same time you are also allowed to challenge any and all who somewhat disagree with you to play the "how do you know" game.

registerthis
08-07-2006, 03:36 PM
Wagner too eh?

i'd say the odds of Ryan Wagner having any type of prolonged success in the majors is about as high as Thompson even making it here.

Ltlabner
08-07-2006, 03:42 PM
Well Puffy, the comment about slowly sliding out of contention was in the context of Kriv's reasoning for the trade. I guess I assumed the sentances "and at the time, that was what Kriv thought he could get for AK/Lopez. He didn't want to risk waiting till the last minute and either having no arms to choose from, or having the price be even higher" made it pretty clear that what followed was what Kriv was saying. I guess maybe I should have started every sentence in the paragraph with "Wayne Krivsky, GM of the Cincinnati Reds, said......" so people wouldn't get confused.

And yes, I did challenge people on their projections. Projections based on AK never playing a full season in RF whether due to injury or platoon. Projections based on a player that as reciently as last year had to be sent to Louisville to get his head back together. Projections on Lopez who had exactly one good season and was apprently showing his true(r) colors this year.

So while AK/Lopez had a limited track record of success they were projected out to near-superstar status (by some). Yet Majic and Bray, both with limited service times were doomed to horrific failure by some because of their projected stats.

So yea, I did challenge people as to how confident they were in projections based on very limited service times. I also challenged people as to why one group had unlimited room for improvement while the other could only stay the same over time.

Are you suggesting that challenging others reasoning and opinions should not be done on RZ?

westofyou
08-07-2006, 03:47 PM
i'd say the odds of Ryan Wagner having any type of prolonged success in the majors is about as high as Thompson even making it here.
Perhaps, and Harris might turn into a Freel too... who was a FA pickup off the Devil Rays. Both however represent "bodies" and thus are currently assets. Each pitch Wagner throws this year seems to diminish that quality from his game.

You may see never wases or maybes in Thompson and Harris, but in the end to a organization like the Reds with little ML depth that trumps the failed first round pick who only throws 6 innings a week for the AAA team.

KronoRed
08-07-2006, 03:52 PM
Well for nothing I guess this isn't a bad deal.

What's the record of guys put in a teams BP in one year? ;)

Puffy
08-07-2006, 05:07 PM
Are you suggesting that challenging others reasoning and opinions should not be done on RZ?


Yes, thats what I do. I go around and stomp on any who challenge, any who try to promote discussion. Yup, thats me.

What I'm saying is your whole paragraph I quoted was an absolution - if the Reds didn't make the trade then they would have fallen farther back. How did you know this?

My point is that you challenged people based on them making absolutions (on Kearns and Lopez) and then you proceed to make absolutions. You can couch it in "at the time, Krivsky thought" and then my question becomes (and this is another of your tricks) how do you know what Krivsky was thinking?

So, its either (a) you are making an absolution based on what you believe the Reds did (and with your wording you are leaving no room for the other side since you have stated the words "Yet, despite all of these moves we were going nowhere fast" and "With the bullpen at the time we would have slowly slide further out that we are now" or (b) you know what Krivsky was thinking and were articulating his gameplan (when you weren't in the room for the trades, nor on the phone, nor spoken to anyone within the orgainization who knows the exact motives).

Ltlabner
08-07-2006, 05:46 PM
My point is that you challenged people based on them making absolutions (on Kearns and Lopez) and then you proceed to make absolutions. You can couch it in "at the time, Krivsky thought" and then my question becomes (and this is another of your tricks) how do you know what Krivsky was thinking?

Well no, I wasn't in his office. The Kriv and I usually communicate via Blackberry because it's much more trendy and fashionable.

I know this was "what Krivsky was thinking" because he articulated that as one of his reasons for making the trade. That he didn't want to wait till the trade deadline and have something like 1/9th of the season be behind the team and risk being even further behind, and possibly out of contention. He voiced this during his press conference, on the air seperatley with Marty and George Grande, and in several written news stories. So yes, based on what Kriv himself said, from several sources at several times, I feal pretty confident that was what he had in mind.

See, no trickery needed at all.