PDA

View Full Version : Top Free Agent Hitters by Slugging %



Joseph
10-10-2006, 07:57 PM
Moises Alou - .571
Aramis Ramirez - .561
Alfonso Soriano - .560
Barry Bonds - .545
Frank Thomas - .545
Carlos Lee - .540
Ray Durham - .538
David Dellucci - .530
Greg Norton - .520
Rich Aurilia - .518
Nomar Garciaparra - .505

Not an overly exciting list there is it?

It brings up something in my head. If Ramirez options out of his contract with the Cubs, should we make a run at him and move EE to 1B? I know he'd be another 12+ a year type guy, but he's solid. Particularly if we moved Dunner.

I know Richie showing up in there will elicit calls for his return, but isn't he enough on the decline like most on that list to over ride the plus of the numbers?

Anyone else on the list excite anyone? Not me really. Sadly enough maybe Ray Durham, but not at his asking price I'm sure, and speaking of money, don't bother on Soriano, we all know there's no place for another no defense player here. We've got enough guys who can't field already.

Aronchis
10-10-2006, 08:03 PM
That you even mentioned EE at 1st base made this post painfull to read.

Joseph
10-10-2006, 08:13 PM
I'm glad I could contribute. :)

reds44
10-10-2006, 08:14 PM
You don't move Edwin to 1B after 1 year. He gets AT LEAST 2 more years.

Patrick Bateman
10-10-2006, 08:17 PM
It brings up something in my head. If Ramirez options out of his contract with the Cubs, should we make a run at him and move EE to 1B? I know he'd be another 12+ a year type guy, but he's solid. Particularly if we moved Dunner.




I think we could allocate our resources better than that. Spending 3-5M at 1st base and keeping EE at 3rd while spending money on other things like OF and pitching would be a better option IMO. We wouldn't lose too much production with a much cheaper cost.

Aronchis
10-10-2006, 08:19 PM
I think we could allocate our resources better than that. Spending 3-5M at 1st base and keeping EE at 3rd while spending money on other things like OF and pitching would be a better option IMO. We wouldn't lose too much production with a much cheaper cost.


The Reds don't need to spend anything at 1st. Hatt is already signed and Votto is close. Why people are even talking about surprises me. Not a position in need.

OnBaseMachine
10-10-2006, 08:23 PM
I don't really like anyone on that list other than Soriano, and he ain't coming to Cincinnati. And I don't want Aramis Ramirez; Edwin Encarnacion is going to be a superstar, and Joey Votto will be a very, very good first baseman. Rather than sign Ramirez, I want the Reds to use that money on a Ted Lilly/Schmidt(unlikely, I know) and a good reliever like Justin Speier and/or Damaso Marte. If there is any money left over for an OF, then Mike Cameron is my first choice.

Patrick Bateman
10-10-2006, 08:25 PM
The Reds don't need to spend anything at 1st. Hatt is already signed and Votto is close. Why people are even talking about surprises me. Not a position in need.

Ya I know. I was talking about a year to year thing. Votto is far from a guarantee to be a decent starting 1st base by next year. Go with Hatteberg next year, and if Votto isn't ready by 2008, sign a stop gap for 3-5M instead of signing a guy like Ramirez to a 5 year contract.

Matt700wlw
10-10-2006, 08:33 PM
That you even mentioned EE at 1st base made this post painfull to read.

Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base Edwin at 1st base

:D

M2
10-11-2006, 01:52 AM
If you want some pop at 1B, I'd suggest Aubrey Huff. He could be a steal this offseason. Ryan Klesko might be worth a flyer too.

GAC
10-11-2006, 08:00 AM
The Reds don't need to spend anything at 1st. Hatt is already signed and Votto is close. Why people are even talking about surprises me. Not a position in need.

Thoroughly agree there. It's not an immediate and pressing need.

#1 is obviously pitching.

#2 - I'd really like to see them pursue a SS and leave BP at 2B. But it may end up being visa-versa.

I doubt RA comes back.

It looks like Jr is not gonna move position-wise. At least he recently hinted in the media that until they can find someone on this roster who can play CF better then he has been doing he doesn't see the need.

Unless they make a mid-season trade of Hatte, then Dunn stays in LF.

We could see a RF platoon of Freel and Deno in '07. Whoever is playing the hot hand.

After the '07 season, the Reds really free themselves up from some burdensome contracts...

Milton 9 Mil
LaRue 5.2 Mil
Wilson 5.1 Mil (not sure if insurance is helping here or not)

That's 19.3 Mil.

Then, after '08, they have a club option w/ a 4 Mil buyout on Griffey.

I really haven't done much investigation at who all is available, that would fill the Red's pressing needs, in this off-season.

I just hope this FO shows some patience, if that market is "depressed", and not throw money at someone simply because that is all that is available and they feel they need to do something.

Also... I don't know how much extra revenue was generated, and how much Cast is gonna increase the payroll for '07. I've heard anywhere from 10-12 Mil.

But would it be a wise decision, knowing the amount of money that is coming off the books after the '07 season and if a particular player(s) are available that could fill dire needs, do you "borrow" on that money, coupled with the revenue you plan on throwing in, in order to make that bold move and sign them?

Is it risky? And I'm talking about going after an established player who has shown consistent production. Not a Hatte, Aurilia, or Phillips signing.

dfs
10-11-2006, 10:51 AM
You know...if the money works....I wouldn't mind swapping middle infield types with the giants. Put Durham at 2nd and move Phillips back to short.

It's not gonna happen, but it's interesting. The reds need a middle infield type and he's the only guy there on that list. I guess Alfonso is there, but the reds won't be able to pay him.

TOBTTReds
10-11-2006, 11:12 AM
After the '07 season, the Reds really free themselves up from some burdensome contracts...

Wilson 5.1 Mil (not sure if insurance is helping here or not)


Paul Wilson is not signed for next year.

GAC
10-11-2006, 12:10 PM
Paul Wilson is not signed for next year.

You're right. I was simply going by Jax's website....

http://redsinsite.com/cms/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=8


But I found this....

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/reds/2004-11-30-wilson_x.htm

Reds re-sign Wilson to two-year deal

CINCINNATI (AP) The Reds accomplished one of their top offseason priorities Tuesday by agreeing to an $8.2 million, two-year contract with right-hander Paul Wilson. Paul Wilson had a breakthrough season in 2004, winning a career-high 11 games and finishing with a 4.36 ERA.

Wilson, 31, was the most dependable starter on the worst pitching staff in franchise history. The Reds set club records for highest staff earned run average (5.19), most runs allowed (907) and homers given up 236, only three shy of the NL record.

Wilson went 11-8 with a 4.36 ERA last season, making $3.5 million. He became a free agent after the season but made it clear he preferred to stay in Cincinnati if a deal could be worked out.

Wilson's contract includes base salaries of $3.6 million for 2005 and $3.75 million for 2006. There's a team option for 2007 at $3.75 million with an $850,000 buyout. The option can become guaranteed at $4 million to $5.1 million, depending upon innings pitched in the first two years.

westofyou
10-11-2006, 12:17 PM
Paul Wilson is not signed for next year.

Paul Wilson p
2 years/$8.2M (2005-06)

* 05:$3.6M, 06:$3.75M, 07:$5.15M club option ($0.85M buyout)
* escalators may increase option
* re-signed as a free agent 11/04
* 2 years/$4M (2003-04), signed as a free agent 1/03
* 1 year/$1M (2002), plus incentives; avoided arbitration 1 /02
* 1 year/$0.35M (2001)
* agents: Hendricks Sports Management
* ML service: 8.008

Ughhh 850 K to go away?

Dan O... the gift that keeps on giving.

Falls City Beer
10-11-2006, 04:43 PM
If you want some pop at 1B, I'd suggest Aubrey Huff. He could be a steal this offseason. Ryan Klesko might be worth a flyer too.

I'd target the hell out of both of those players. I've always had a minor Huff yen. But good eye on the Klesko.

BRM
10-11-2006, 04:44 PM
I'd target the hell out of both of those players. I've always had a minor Huff yen. But good eye on the Klesko.

The Reds don't need either of those guys. They have Scott Hatteberg...

RedsManRick
10-11-2006, 05:20 PM
Neither Huff nor Klesko are any better versus lefties and Hatteberg is good enough vs. Righties. We'd be just as well off with the Aurilia/Hatty platoon than paying a few million (minimum) for the upgrade and roster reptition.

M2
10-11-2006, 05:24 PM
Huff (.477 career SLG) and Klesko (.507) both have power. Hatteberg (.407) doesn't.

1B should be far from a priority for this team, but if it wants to add some relatively cheap thunder to the middle of the batting order, that's the place to do it.

BRM
10-11-2006, 05:25 PM
Neither Huff nor Klesko are any better versus lefties and Hatteberg is good enough vs. Righties. We'd be just as well off with the Aurilia/Hatty platoon than paying a few million (minimum) for the upgrade and roster reptition.

I don't think you'll be getting the Aurilia/Hat platoon next season. The Reds need to find a RH bat to go with Hatteberg but I doubt Rich will be the guy.

RedsManRick
10-11-2006, 05:36 PM
I don't think you'll be getting the Aurilia/Hat platoon next season. The Reds need to find a RH bat to go with Hatteberg but I doubt Rich will be the guy.

And there's my point. Getting another LH 1B is probably not the best use of our resources. Both those guys will get at least 4 mil from somebody.

M2
10-11-2006, 05:46 PM
Eduardo Perez has always been solid against southpaws and he's a free agent. Though I'd rather find a way to get Robb Quinlan from the Angels. He's sneaky good vs. LHPs (.900+ OPS against them for his career).

RedsManRick
10-11-2006, 07:19 PM
Good call M2. Quinlan would be a solid pickup as a platoon guy at 1B, bat off the bench and utility guy. He's got decent pop and can play 3B and the corner OF positions if necessary. But he's not a FA is he? Seems like he would still be arb eligible.

M2
10-11-2006, 07:29 PM
Good call M2. Quinlan would be a solid pickup as a platoon guy at 1B, bat off the bench and utility guy. He's got decent pop and can play 3B and the corner OF positions if necessary. But he's not a FA is he? Seems like he would still be arb eligible.

He would be, but the Angels might be doing a major position player shuffle this offseason and Quinlan could easily get lost in it. Dependent on who they bring in, the Halos might be willing to part with Quinlan for a minimal return.

Strikes Out Looking
10-11-2006, 07:30 PM
Starting pitching, starting pitching, starting pitching, starting pitching, starting pitching, starting pitching.

If the Reds had 3 decent starters this year instead of 2 they'd have been in the playoffs, notwithstanding every other problem they had. So the major need this offseason is starting pitching.

Falls City Beer
10-11-2006, 07:56 PM
And there's my point. Getting another LH 1B is probably not the best use of our resources. Both those guys will get at least 4 mil from somebody.

Huff can play left when Griffey misses 5 months. And Dunn can play first.

And Hatte can be what he should be at 37: coming off the pine.

M2
10-11-2006, 09:42 PM
And there's my point. Getting another LH 1B is probably not the best use of our resources. Both those guys will get at least 4 mil from somebody.

Don't know what they'll get. My guess is Klesko will do well to get $2 million. As for resources, the Reds may not have the money to buy the pitching they need in the free agent market. They might only have enough to overpay for a wrong direction free agent pitcher (like Eric Milton). Harang and Arroyo came via trade and my guess is that's where the Reds need to go fishing again. Obviously cash can help make a trade, particularly when you're buying distressed inventory (aka players who are making too much for their penurious owners).

Yet the Reds have their offensive problems to contend with as well and if they can find some good value out there, they'd be well-served to jump on it. In particular the club could use left-handed help. You can't count on Jr. being healthy or on Hatteberg being an effective regular. If those two don't deliver, the Reds' left-handed offense consists of Adam Dunn. And who knows how many of those guys will open the season with the Reds? Only Hatteberg seems like a safe bet and he's the one who most needs to be upgraded.

Anyway, with the GAB being what it is, I'd keep an eye open for left-handed power.

edabbs44
10-12-2006, 12:15 AM
Wilson's contract includes base salaries of $3.6 million for 2005 and $3.75 million for 2006. There's a team option for 2007 at $3.75 million with an $850,000 buyout. The option can become guaranteed at $4 million to $5.1 million, depending upon innings pitched in the first two years.
I hope that option doesn't kick in at 45 innings...

johngalt
10-12-2006, 01:32 AM
Despite his injury history, I wouldn't mind seeing the Reds go after Trot Nixon for a year. He'd be a good lefthanded bat to have in there at times and have available off the bench. He plays decent defense and might help Arroyo feel a little more at home.

GAC
10-12-2006, 08:22 AM
1B should be far from a priority for this team, but if it wants to add some relatively cheap thunder to the middle of the batting order, that's the place to do it.

Relatively cheap? Unless it's negotiable....

Huff = 7 Mil/yr
Klesko = 9 Mil/yr (age 35)

But maybe they should go after Klesko, who ESPN shows has a .833 OB% :lol:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?statsId=4953&type=batting3

I hope Hatte really does well in 07, and increases his trade value even more come the trading deadline. Very tradeable contract.

I hope Votto turns into the real deal (and so does Adam Dunn).

GAC
10-12-2006, 08:24 AM
Starting pitching, starting pitching, starting pitching, starting pitching, starting pitching, starting pitching.

If the Reds had 3 decent starters this year instead of 2 they'd have been in the playoffs, notwithstanding every other problem they had. So the major need this offseason is starting pitching.

I think everyone is in agreement with you on that.

But that doesn't mean we should ignore, or be oblivious to our other needs. Especially if a player(s) becomes available and is attainable.

Highlifeman21
10-12-2006, 10:03 AM
Maybe I'm in the minority with this thought, but why should we spend money just to spend money in the offseason? Sure, we do have some holes, but throwing money at the problems won't magically solve all of them. We need to change the culture of the organization first, and then worry about addressing all of our player personnel woes.

My offseason checklist (in random order of appearance):

1. Get butts in seats in 2007.
2. Hire upper eschelon coaches, specifically manager, hitting coach, pitching coach
3. Address our weak farm system, both with management and talent

These are the big 3 that I think we need to address before we start throwing millons of dollars at players that may or may not help our team. Unless we have a winning culture/attitude in the Queen City, future FA won't want anything to do with our ballclub. Now I don't have the answer how to fix any of those 3, but I think if we start with this small list, by 2008 Cincinnati may start to look like an intriguing place for FA to go.

My 1 item list of how to improve the current team we have is very simple:
1. Maximize roster production by having players play in their correct positions, ie Dunn to 1B, Jr to a COF, Phillips to SS, Denorfia to CF.

As long as we have players playing out of position, we have zero chance to improve this club internally.

GAC
10-12-2006, 10:52 AM
Very good points.


Maybe I'm in the minority with this thought, but why should we spend money just to spend money in the offseason?

Agree. It's exactly what we don't want to do. Let teams like the Orioles do that. ;)


My offseason checklist (in random order of appearance):

1. Get butts in seats in 2007.

But winning is probably the only thing that will do that. Slick marketing might help for a bit; but sooner or later the fans will be wise when they see the talent (or lack thereof) on that field. Especially in Cincy. They have been losing for quite some time, and there has been such a mistrust of FO management that it has made fans impatient. And rightly so.


2. Hire upper eschelon coaches, specifically manager, hitting coach, pitching coach

But define what a "upper eschelon" coach is?

Coaching is made rather easy when you have talent.

It's going to first BEGIN with your owner and/or whoever he trusts/puts in charge - if not himself. The people he "bounces" his ideas off of.

What is their philosophy/approach to winning and building a competitive organization? That is where it begins.


3. Address our weak farm system, both with management and talent

Agree. But most believe that it takes anywhere from 3-5 years in the system to develop a young talent once they are scouted/drafted. Pitchers sometimes longer. Which is why I am confounded as to why some want to rush 20 yr old Bailey up here, who has only been in our system 2 years, yet think he has nothing else left to learn or prove.

Again - do Cincy fans have that type of patience (and also trust)?


My 1 item list of how to improve the current team we have is very simple:
1. Maximize roster production by having players play in their correct positions, ie Dunn to 1B, Jr to a COF, Phillips to SS, Denorfia to CF.

This organization is no different then any other organization when it comes to coddling their "superstars". I actually respected the Nat's FO for telling Soriano, and sticking to their guns when he threw his hissy fit, that he was moving to LF.

Dunn has made it clear (maybe not via the media) that he has no desire to play 1B. Jr stated recently that until they find someone else on this roster that can man the CF position as well as him, then why should he be asked to move?

While I think Jr should be moved, he does make a very valid point. There is no one on this roster that has proven on a consistent basis that they can be productive in CF. Try Deno? I'm all for it. But he is an unproven. Freel? Sorry, but there is a durabilty issue there with me, and his inconsistent numbers, regardless of his ESPN highlight catches that makes everyone go ga-ga, gives validity to that question. And he does not have a very strong and accurate throwing arm.

Dunn. If it is best for the team, then he should be told he is going to move. The problem is you are then forcing yourselves to rely on an OF of Jr, Deno, and Freel. Did we really make improvements there? Hard to tell IMHO.

And who do you have manning the bench? Hopper and Watson? Or go out and get a veteran guy like a Hollandsworth?

While pitching is an obvious, this organization needs to heavily emphasize (and quit screwing around with their experimentation... Womack, Clayton, Castro) their middle INF defense. They need to get serious, and quit hoping that guys like Olmedo or Harris are gonna somehow pan out.

We may have one piece in Brandon Phillips. Go out and get the other piece.

M2
10-12-2006, 12:31 PM
My 1 item list of how to improve the current team we have is very simple:
1. Maximize roster production by having players play in their correct positions, ie Dunn to 1B, Jr to a COF, Phillips to SS, Denorfia to CF.

As long as we have players playing out of position, we have zero chance to improve this club internally.

Excellent point. I'd debate whether Phillips should be a SS or a 2B, I lean toward 2B with him, but the Reds have got to deal with the current roster. The defense isn't getting any better until Jr. moves out of CF and the club decides on where Phillips plays long-term. Sensible additions are hostage to those two calls. IMO the club can delay the call on whether Dunn plays LF or 1B dependent on how the offseason shakes out.

BRM
10-12-2006, 12:37 PM
IMO the club can delay the call on whether Dunn plays LF or 1B dependent on how the offseason shakes out.

I just can't see Dunn playing 1B for Cincinnati. Resigning Hat was the writing on the wall for me. Dunn will be in LF or traded. I'm not even convinced Junior will get moved out of CF next year.

dfs
10-12-2006, 12:44 PM
I just can't see Dunn playing 1B for Cincinnati. Resigning Hat was the writing on the wall for me. Dunn will be in LF or traded. I'm not even convinced Junior will get moved out of CF next year.

Agreed. With Votto knocking on the door and Hat already there and people whining about moving EE there...it will get pretty crowded if Dunn moves as well.

Here's a question about Dunn's future. Has there ever been a player as large as Adam Dunn that went on to be a successfull outfielder? Frank Howard got moved to first. McCovey was actually smaller than Dunn. .... Anybody? For all the comments about what a great athelete Dunn is, you sure don't see it on the field. (that's not meant as a knock against Dunn as a baseball player) Even at the plate, his power seems more driven by his approach and size more so than any see the ball hit the ball athletic approach. It may be that Dunn is just too big to play in the outfield.

M2
10-12-2006, 12:46 PM
I'm not even convinced Junior will get moved out of CF next year.

If he isn't, then I'm not bothering much with the team next year. This team needs to get out of its own way.

westofyou
10-12-2006, 12:47 PM
Has there ever been a player as large as Adam Dunn that went on to be a successfull outfielder?

Von Hayes and Dave Winfield, they had Dunns height, but were more slender.

M2
10-12-2006, 12:48 PM
Here's a question about Dunn's future. Has there ever been a player as large as Adam Dunn that went on to be a successfull outfielder?

Dave Winfield

RANDY IN INDY
10-12-2006, 12:57 PM
I think Winfield was a much better "athlete" than Dunn. Not even close.

BRM
10-12-2006, 12:57 PM
If he isn't, then I'm not bothering much with the team next year. This team needs to get out of its own way.

I know what you are saying and I agree 100%. Griffey must move. I'm not convinced Wayne and/or Jerry has the nerve to make it happen though. I really hope I'm wrong. Otherwise, "upgrading the defense" is nothing but lip service.

M2
10-12-2006, 12:59 PM
I think Winfield was a much better "athlete" than Dunn. Not even close.

Well, yeah. He was a much better athlete than most everyone on the planet.

BRM
10-12-2006, 12:59 PM
I think Dunn's future is eventually at 1B. It just won't be with the Reds.

RANDY IN INDY
10-12-2006, 01:16 PM
Winfield is an anomaly.

westofyou
10-12-2006, 01:18 PM
Winfield is an anomaly.

So is Dunn,

RANDY IN INDY
10-12-2006, 01:21 PM
Winfield is a Hall of Fame anomaly.

westofyou
10-12-2006, 01:28 PM
Winfield is a Hall of Fame anomaly.

Well, if Dunn ends up with 500 Hr's and 1500 runs scored I'd say he'd be entering that territory as well.

M2
10-12-2006, 01:45 PM
Winfield is a Hall of Fame anomaly.

Everyone in the HOF is an anomaly. They could call it the Hall of Baseball Anomalies if they so desired.

I need no convincing that Winfield was a superior athlete to Dunn. Winfield was a superior athlete to pretty much everyone in the HOF too. So Dunn won't be winning seven Gold Glove awards (or even one). Yet I'm going out on a limb here and suggesting that maybe there's some middle ground between being a Dave Winfield and, say, a Frank Thomas when it comes to defensive prowess.

FWIW, I'm extremely disappointed Dunn's fielding hasn't improved over the years (there's no good excuse for it) and I think the guy needs to take conditioning and athleticism a lot more seriously (partially to turn himself into a better rounded ballplayer today and partially to ensure his career doesn't tank once he hits age 30).

The_jbh
10-12-2006, 03:34 PM
If you think edwin is bad at 3B try watching Ramirez...

EE will stay at 3B, he has the tools to be atleast superior to Ramirez at 3b and Ramirez has played 3b in the league for what, 8 yrs or so now (i dont care enough to look it up)


I dont want dunn going to 1st bc i think Votto is going to be an impact hitter by June and dunn would put a large roadblock there. I dont have a problem with Dunn in LF aslong as we have to above average fielders at the other 2 spots. I think Griffey would be a good RF, reduces range problems still has a good arm, runs good routes to balls. Deno and Freel platoon in CF


I think we should leave the OF alone FA wise... If we are gonna spend money on a position player it needs to be a 2Bman or SS with Phillips playing the other position

dfs
10-12-2006, 04:47 PM
Von Hayes and Dave Winfield (were as big as Dunn)
Baseball Reference says Dunn has 20 pounds on Windfield and an inch + weight on Hayes. Not that Sean is always right, but I think it may be that Dunn is just too big to play out there. It's an interesting thought.

I agree btw that the single biggest litmus to find out if the reds are serious this off season is what they do in center field. If the opening day starter out there is still junior, we might as well be rooting for somebody else, because it means they are not trying.

westofyou
10-12-2006, 05:01 PM
Baseball Reference says Dunn has 20 pounds on Windfield and an inch + weight on Hayes. Not that Sean is always right, but I think it may be that Dunn is just too big to play out there. It's an interesting thought.

I agree btw that the single biggest litmus to find out if the reds are serious this off season is what they do in center field. If the opening day starter out there is still junior, we might as well be rooting for somebody else, because it means they are not trying.

Yeah, Dunn is bigger and Hayes is 6'5"

Tallest batters prior to this past season


CAREER
HEIGHT >= 78
WEIGHT displayed only--not a sorting criteria
OPS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

AT BATS AB WT OPS
1 Dave Winfield 11003 220 .099
2 Dave Kingman 6677 210 .058
3 Frank Howard 6488 255 .144
4 Darryl Strawberry 5418 190 .134
5 Tony Clark 3962 240 .062
6 Richie Sexson 3623 206 .107
7 Adam Dunn 2271 240 .131
8 Howie Schultz 1588 200 -.093
9 Walt Bond 1199 228 .015

Cooper
10-13-2006, 01:28 AM
I really don't believe they have the organizational will to move Griffey. They'll say things like "he may not move as well, but over the years he's learned to position himself better"....that statement is always cover for a veteren that's lost a step or 4.

You could make a case thay have not 1 position that is settled. think about that....not one...

catcher: stillup in the air
1st: ditto
2nd: same
SS: yep
3rd: up in air
RF: yeah
CF: they feel it's solid --is it?
LF: uh...

They have players --they ain't got nothing solid. That's kinda amazing.

That's waht scares me about Wayne K. -there's alot of movement and energy -but there seems to be a real lack of a plan -

Maybe that's what had to happen this year -cause he started so late --but good lord --he shoulda figured out somethign and got some stakes in the ground.

2nd fear is he'll attempt to get stakes in the gound at a silly exspense (he'll pay 3 times the amount for a SS cause he feels he needs one to get a stake in the ground).

To be fair -he has shown the ability to get players on the cheap and turn them into something --but i fear there's not a real cogent plan. He's a dang good parts collector....can he build a car that runs?

jimbo
10-13-2006, 02:30 AM
I really don't believe they have the organizational will to move Griffey. They'll say things like "he may not move as well, but over the years he's learned to position himself better"....that statement is always cover for a veteren that's lost a step or 4.


I don't think there is any question that Griffey has lost a step. The question is whether or not his experience as far his knowledge on positioning hitters, getting good jumps on the ball, not making ill-advised dives with guys on base, etc., makes up for losing that step. Most here at Redszone believe that it doesn't. I for one am not really sure. I'm sure I will get chastised and riduculed for saying it, but I don't think Griffey is as bad as many here make him up to be with all the stats and zone ratings they say prove it. I played the outfield all through high school and college and I'm living proof that speed isn't what entirely makes up a good outfielder. I had guys on my team that were twice as fast as me but weren't nearly as good of an outfielder because I was better at the other aspects of the postion. Those are the things that zone ratings and such cannot measure.

Falls City Beer
10-13-2006, 09:52 AM
To be fair -he has shown the ability to get players on the cheap and turn them into something --but i fear there's not a real cogent plan. He's a dang good parts collector....can he build a car that runs?

I've been saying it for 9 months: Krivsky's a well-mannered Jim Bowden. Bowden and Krivsky would be a blast to watch rummaging through Goodwill, but other than that....

Jpup
10-13-2006, 10:00 AM
Dellucci.

M2
10-13-2006, 10:46 AM
I don't think there is any question that Griffey has lost a step. The question is whether or not his experience as far his knowledge on positioning hitters, getting good jumps on the ball, not making ill-advised dives with guys on base, etc., makes up for losing that step. Most here at Redszone believe that it doesn't. I for one am not really sure. I'm sure I will get chastised and riduculed for saying it, but I don't think Griffey is as bad as many here make him up to be with all the stats and zone ratings they say prove it. I played the outfield all through high school and college and I'm living proof that speed isn't what entirely makes up a good outfielder. I had guys on my team that were twice as fast as me but weren't nearly as good of an outfielder because I was better at the other aspects of the postion. Those are the things that zone ratings and such cannot measure.

Unfortunately for Jr. EVERY defensive measure shows him to be awful in CF. Not bad, awful. Beyond that, I'm not sure how anyone can watch that guy play the position and not cringe at this point. I'm routinely in shock over the balls he doesn't even get near. Never seen anything like it. Never imagined a team would allow something like it to happen for a week let alone five years. He's got good technique when he's near a ball, but the lack of range (and his slowness of foot) is blatant. I don't care whether you use eyeballs or numbers, Jr. at this point is as bad a defensive CF as you'll ever see take the field on a consistent basis.

GAC
10-13-2006, 12:22 PM
But are those defensive measures that reliable to deem the guy AWFUL?

Moved from CF? Absolutely. But awful? I question that assessment.

BRM
10-13-2006, 12:27 PM
But are those defensive measures that reliable to deem the guy AWFUL?

Moved from CF? Absolutely. But awful? I question that assessment.

Nearly every defensive metric lists him as the one of the worst in baseball, most have him as the worst. It's pretty telling when they all say the same thing.

dabvu2498
10-13-2006, 12:36 PM
But are those defensive measures that reliable to deem the guy AWFUL?

Moved from CF? Absolutely. But awful? I question that assessment.

After reading this guy from BBTF's methodology; I think it's pretty solid. Of course, I tend to agree with most of his rankings/ratings. Here's how he ranked NL CF's as of Aug. 27:


Center Field

Pos NAME Last Team GP INN RSpt RS/150
8 Juan Pierre, ChC 129 1137.0 12 15
8 Carlos Beltran, NYM 112 983.7 12 16
8 Eric Byrnes, Ari 102 875.0 8 12
8 Reggie Abercrombie, Fla 84 586.0 7 15
8 Mike Cameron, SD 108 970.3 6 8
8 Willy Taveras, Hou 113 916.3 5 8
8 Jim Edmonds, StL 95 763.3 5 9
8 Steve Finley, SF 108 828.0 4 7
8 Cory Sullivan, Col 95 739.3 -1 -2
8 Kenny Lofton, LA 92 740.3 -2 -4
8 Aaron Rowand, Phi 107 901.7 -3 -5
8 Brady Clark, Mil 101 800.0 -4 -6
8 Andruw Jones, Atl 120 1037.0 -6 -8
8 Ken GriffeyJr Cin 93 807.7 -11 -18

Carlos Beltran is the MVP. Griffey is struggling again.

If his methods are even close to correct, he's the worst CF in the NL. Ain't that ain't good.

Complete NL rankings are here: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/defensive_rankings_by_position_nl_aug_27/

M2
10-13-2006, 12:46 PM
Nearly every defensive metric lists him as the one of the worst in baseball, most have him as the worst. It's pretty telling when they all say the same thing.

And they've had him consistently ranked as the worst for years now.

Though I'd figure Reds fans wouldn't need numbers to tell them what's been in front of their faces for years now. Most of us have seen Eric Davis in his prime and a year of Mike Cameron with a brief glimpse of Darren Lewis thrown in. The die-hards who stuck with the team through the early '80s saw Eddie Milner patrol CF. A sizable chunk of us saw Cesar Geronimo and many can recall Bobby Tolan, Vada Pinson and Gus Bell.

We've seen enough CF defense to be able to spot Jr.'s glaring deficiencies. I don't doubt for a second there isn't a Reds fan who'd be calling for hitters to "hit it out towards that guy" if Jr. were in CF for the opposition.

westofyou
10-13-2006, 12:51 PM
Centerfield and age doesn't mix well, it's like a bases and acids, just in the expansion era only 8 guys have had 400 PA's and 100 games in CF and Finley and Mays are 6 of those slots.

It's a natural progression and the fact that Griffey is 37 next season should drive the bus on CF, not his "will", "legacy" or any other intangible. As a CF he's done, it's painful to watch, 1973 Mays painful.


GAMES YEAR G PA RC/G
1 Steve Finley 2004 162 706 0.20
2 Craig Biggio 2003 153 717 0.25
3 Steve Finley 2002 150 577 1.76
4 Willie Mays 1968 148 573 2.67
5 Steve Finley 2003 147 582 1.51
T6 Otis Nixon 1997 145 655 -.97
T6 Marquis Grissom 2004 145 606 -.59
T6 Bill Bruton 1963 145 594 -.01
9 Willie Mays 1970 139 566 2.78
10 Willie Mays 1971 136 537 3.91
11 Brett Butler 1995 129 596 0.65
12 Robin Yount 1993 127 514 -.61
13 Otis Nixon 1996 125 575 -.54
14 Brett Butler 1994 111 496 2.45

dfs
10-13-2006, 12:52 PM
After reading this guy from BBTF's methodology; I think it's pretty solid. Of course, I tend to agree with most of his rankings/ratings.

Interesting that she ranked all of Junior, Dunn, Lopez, and Edwin as near the bottom of the league. That's the most visable thing to me watching the ALCS. "Oh, yeah, that's what team defense looks like."

Cooper
10-13-2006, 12:56 PM
He's awful....when you factor in Rich A lack of range to go field a pop up in short CF --well, if it was hit that way ya knew it was gonna be a hit.

He can't get started....and at this point, he can't even get himself stopped. I think he has a decent arm, but very often on throws that might be close -he makes a bobble that costs him an assist (he looks up at runner to see where he is before he has control of ball).

I've said it before --relative to his peers -he was the worst performing regular (semi-regular) on the team.

Agreed that he's the linchpin in figuring out where people play. M2 makes a great point, if they don't have the will to solve the CF problem then there's really no point in following the rest. Herzog would've solved it in spring training of 06.

M2
10-13-2006, 12:58 PM
Interesting that she ranked all of Junior, Dunn, Lopez, and Edwin as near the bottom of the league. That's the most visable thing to me watching the ALCS. "Oh, yeah, that's what team defense looks like."

They're playing it in the NLCS too, but good point. For 30 years as a Reds fan I took defense for granted. The team pretty much always played it well, often great. I miss it.

BTW, Juan Castro would rank just about dead even with Lopez on that list had he played the same number of innings. The need for defense up the middle (something that's been at the core of every Reds championship in team history) with this team is beyond glaring.

westofyou
10-13-2006, 01:00 PM
"Oh, yeah, that's what team defense looks like."

Good defense instills confidence in the pitcher as well, bad defense leads them to spend more time worrying about placement of their pitches for fear of where it might end up traveling.

I don't like a pitcher who has to worry all the time.

Not that I think that their will always be a GG OF at every position, but the ones that get the most balls need to be upgraded.

BRM
10-13-2006, 01:04 PM
Did the Reds rank above average defensively at any position in 2006? I thought I read Phillips was right around average. I'd guess RF defense was probably above average between Kearns and Freel/Deno manning it for the year.

Cooper
10-13-2006, 01:08 PM
Hatteburg played an above average 1st base.

LaRue played well.

Freel played above average in RF.

M2
10-13-2006, 01:14 PM
Did the Reds rank above average defensively at any position in 2006? I thought I read Phillips was right around average. I'd guess RF defense was probably above average between Kearns and Freel/Deno manning it for the year.

RF, catcher and 1B were only spots that ranked above average on the list dabvu provided. Obviously your mileage may vary using other stats, but that's just about right.

Phillips and Encarnacion are young and have good defensive tools, so I think we can have some confidence that both will improve in the coming years. A slick SS between them would probably do wonder in terms of them realizing that potential, though.


Centerfield and age doesn't mix well

And when you add notoriously bad legs on top of that you get a toxic reaction.

BRM
10-13-2006, 01:20 PM
RF, catcher and 1B were only spots that ranked above average on the list dabvu provided.

I thought Ross was considered a below-average defender? I assume C is only considered a plus on the defensive side when LaRue is there.

dabvu2498
10-13-2006, 01:24 PM
I thought Ross was considered a below-average defender? I assume C is only considered a plus on the defensive side when LaRue is there.

Actually...

Catcher

Pos NAME LAST TEAM GP INN RSpt RS/150
2 Yadier Molina, StL 98 831.7 5 8
2 Miguel Olivo, Fla 97 752.0 5 8
2 Yorvit Torrealba, Col 57 480.3 4 10
2 Ronny Paulino, Pit 101 841.0 3 5
2 Johnny Estrada, Ari 94 799.3 3 5
2 Jason LaRue, Cin 54 450.3 3 8
2 Damian Miller, Mil 87 748.3 2 4
2 David Ross, Cin 55 455.3 2 6
2 Brian Schneider, Was 98 798.3 1 2
2 Russell Martin, LA 87 760.3 1 2
2 Eliezer Alfonzo, SF 60 509.0 0 1
2 Brad Ausmus, Hou 109 893.0 -1 -1
2 Brian McCann, Atl 93 767.0 -1 -2
2 Paul LoDuca NYM 94 826.3 -4 -7
2 Michael Barrett, ChC 96 803.3 -7 -11
2 Mike Piazza, SD 77 560.0 -11 -28


I think our perception of Ross' defense might arise because of the timing of his misplays. Blocking and throwing, he's pretty decent.

jimbo
10-13-2006, 01:29 PM
Unfortunately for Jr. EVERY defensive measure shows him to be awful in CF.

Like I said, there are aspects to playing the outfield that cannot be measured by defensive ratings. A lot of people will laugh at the notion that Griffey's experience and knowledge of his position make up for the steps he has lost, but it is a valid point. Knowing how to play certain hitters, how to judge the ball off the bat, and getting good jumps on the ball cannot be measured in ratings or stats yet they are very important aspects of a good outfielder.

I'm not saying Griffey is anywhere near the outfielder he used to be, but I don't think he is nearly as terrible and some of you make him up to be.

Johnny Footstool
10-13-2006, 01:47 PM
Like I said, there are aspects to playing the outfield that cannot be measured by defensive ratings. A lot of people will laugh at the notion that Griffey's experience and knowledge of his position make up for the steps he has lost, but it is a valid point. Knowing how to play certain hitters, how to judge the ball off the bat, and getting good jumps on the ball cannot be measured in ratings or stats yet they are very important aspects of a good outfielder.

I'm not saying Griffey is anywhere near the outfielder he used to be, but I don't think he is nearly as terrible and some of you make him up to be.

It's not us making him out to be terrible. It's the objective data.

Many say that there are aspects of his game that cannot be measured, but some of the newer methodology for measuring defense does take these things into account.

People review every single play in every single game. They look at every ball hit to every CF in every game. They measure the angle and the velocity of the hit. They measure where the fielder was positioned prior to the hit and how far they had to run to get to the ball. They take innumberable factors into account.

And Junior still comes out at the bottom of every list.

M2
10-13-2006, 02:11 PM
Like I said, there are aspects to playing the outfield that cannot be measured by defensive ratings. A lot of people will laugh at the notion that Griffey's experience and knowledge of his position make up for the steps he has lost, but it is a valid point. Knowing how to play certain hitters, how to judge the ball off the bat, and getting good jumps on the ball cannot be measured in ratings or stats yet they are very important aspects of a good outfielder.

I'm not saying Griffey is anywhere near the outfielder he used to be, but I don't think he is nearly as terrible and some of you make him up to be.

Like I said, you've got a pair of eyes to tell you the guy can't make plays that are routine for others. You've seen the hits dropping in front of him and all of the balls that get to the wall. His slow first steps and awkward stops are on display everytime a ball gets hit to the OF. The ponderous turnover of his legs is right there for you to witness. Watch a good CF and notice how many plays he backs up then watch Jr. ambling around trying to back up those same plays and never getting there. He tries, he cares, he's still got good coordination and an accurate (though not terribly strong) arm. It isn't enough to overcome what his legs can't do.

As for aspects that can't be measured by defensive statics, I fully agree those are out there. However, I'd submit that defensive statistics are only grazing the surface of how bad Jr. is, not failing to capture his hidden excellence. The numbers acrosss the board positively scream that he's the worst CF in baseball and it all revolves the simple, inarguable fact that the guy doesn't make plays. What the numbers aren't capturing, IMO, is the full impact of the plays he's not making.

jimbo
10-13-2006, 03:29 PM
It's not us making him out to be terrible. It's the objective data.


Actually, a lot of the data being used is subjective.

penantboundreds
10-13-2006, 03:33 PM
I think the problem is we are always looking for power...we need and i know this board hates this, but we need table setters so dunn doesn't look like a jack*** when he continually hits solo home runs and people are on when he hits them..

Johnny Footstool
10-13-2006, 05:47 PM
Actually, a lot of the data being used is subjective.

It's as objective as it can be. Ultimately, it's still a judgement call, but when literally every educated judgement points to the same answer, it's probably pretty close to the truth.

Highlifeman21
10-13-2006, 05:51 PM
But define what a "upper eschelon" coach is?

Coaching is made rather easy when you have talent.

It's going to first BEGIN with your owner and/or whoever he trusts/puts in charge - if not himself. The people he "bounces" his ideas off of.



Upper eschelon manager to me is Lou P, Joe Torre, Terry Francona, Ozzie Guillen, Jim Leyland, Willie Randolph, Buck Showalter.

Two of those guys don't have jobs. We should get either Lou or Buck. Too bad I don't see either guy being hired.

As for pitching coaches, I would love to have Mel Stottlemeyer.

As for hitting coaches, Eddie Murray.

I just think we need to get a better quality staff, and that will maximize the results of our personnel.

GAC
10-14-2006, 09:24 AM
Upper eschelon manager to me is Lou P, Joe Torre, Terry Francona, Ozzie Guillen, Jim Leyland, Willie Randolph, Buck Showalter.

Two of those guys don't have jobs. We should get either Lou or Buck. Too bad I don't see either guy being hired.

As for pitching coaches, I would love to have Mel Stottlemeyer.

As for hitting coaches, Eddie Murray.

I just think we need to get a better quality staff, and that will maximize the results of our personnel.

While I tend to agree somewhat with what you are saying.... do we really need a better STAFF? Is that really where the problem lies? Or is it better TALENT?

I really don't think any of the above (with maybe the exception of Leyland - I've always liked Jim) could squeeze any more wins out of this team, which had such HUGE holes and a lack of talent in key positions.

Is Torre really that great of a manager? Or is it the $200 Mil payroll and talent acquired?

And IMO, it's way too early to place Randolph in that category. He's just now finishing up his 2nd year as a manager. Or does it go to Omar Minaya. The Mets, with a 101 Mil payroll in '06, actually spent around $200,000 less then last year. It still comes down to a matter of how you spend the money. And, to his credit, in all of Minaya's trades and signings, the money has been spent on better players than what he had.

Good article on Omar...

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/450944p-379565c.html

I have never been a huge fan of Lou's. I don't think the man is a terrible manager, just one who has happened to be in the right place at the right time.

I don't discount the contributions that a manager and good coaching staff can do/add. I just believe that it's more the team (talent) that makes a manager, then the other way around.

Stengel once said that when you have a talented roster, a manager's easiest job is making out the daily lineup.

Highlifeman21
10-14-2006, 12:33 PM
While I tend to agree somewhat with what you are saying.... do we really need a better STAFF? Is that really where the problem lies? Or is it better TALENT?

I really don't think any of the above (with maybe the exception of Leyland - I've always liked Jim) could squeeze any more wins out of this team, which had such HUGE holes and a lack of talent in key positions.

Is Torre really that great of a manager? Or is it the $200 Mil payroll and talent acquired?

And IMO, it's way too early to place Randolph in that category. He's just now finishing up his 2nd year as a manager. Or does it go to Omar Minaya. The Mets, with a 101 Mil payroll in '06, actually spent around $200,000 less then last year. It still comes down to a matter of how you spend the money. And, to his credit, in all of Minaya's trades and signings, the money has been spent on better players than what he had.

Good article on Omar...

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/450944p-379565c.html

I have never been a huge fan of Lou's. I don't think the man is a terrible manager, just one who has happened to be in the right place at the right time.

I don't discount the contributions that a manager and good coaching staff can do/add. I just believe that it's more the team (talent) that makes a manager, then the other way around.

Stengel once said that when you have a talented roster, a manager's easiest job is making out the daily lineup.


I just have a very firm belief that any number of a handful of skippers could have gotten us over .500 with what we had, rather than the 80-82 that Narron gave us. Not playing EE for that extended period of time was criminal, and when we went out West and got our butts handed to us, I find it hard to believe a different manager couldn't have kept the house of cards upright for a better result than 2-8.

Jerry Narron's never had a winning record. That bothers, annoys, frustrates the hell out of me, b/c he won't do it in Cincinnati either. While our team does have some holes, at various times last year we did compete for the division and wild card. We won in spite of the lineups Jerry Narron penned. After the Kearns/Lopez trade, giving Royce freakin Clayton substantial playing time was an act of lunacy. Not playing Denorfia after the trade was also madness. We traded Kearns to assumingly pave the OF way for Denorfia, then he never gets the PAs. After we got Ryan Franklin, Narron fell in love with him and gave him the ball in every possible scenario and situation. Bottomline, Jerry Narron is an awfully bad manager, and in order to maximize the production of what's on our roster, we need a new manager.

GAC
10-14-2006, 02:25 PM
I'm not the biggest Narron fan, though I am also not a Narron-basher.

He only had one other coaching stint prior to Cincy, and it was with a pretty bad Texas team (the owner ain't too smart either).

Give the guy the talent.... then if he screws it up..... FIRE HIM.

But I'm not gonna judge or evaluate a guy who can't get orange juice out of a lemon. ;)

And I don't want to get into another long "Why EE Didn't Play" discussion again after he injured the ankle (been there, done that).

But on that one particular thread on that subject, it was shown that Narron had nothing to do with the decision to leave EE at AAA for an extended rehab.

It was totally Kriv's call (his own words), based on the advice of the medical staff and coaches at AAA monitoring his rehab.

And I knew going into that west coast swing that it could screw us. We historically, even with the BRM, got our butts handed to us whenever we went out there.

Firing Narron may bring some comfort; but it still doesn't explain why guys like Dunn, Hatte, Freel, and EE tanked it over the last 2 months.

But I agree with you wholeheartedly on Deno. ;)

Ltlabner
10-14-2006, 04:38 PM
And I don't want to get into another long "Why EE Didn't Play" discussion again after he injured the ankle (been there, done that).

But on that one particular thread on that subject, it was shown that Narron had nothing to do with the decision to leave EE at AAA for an extended rehab.

It was totally Kriv's call (his own words), based on the advice of the medical staff and coaches at AAA monitoring his rehab.

The general line of reasoning about Homer B is that he shouldn't be rushed and be allowed to progress at his pace. No reason to rush him because 2006 wasn't the Reds year to compete. Any part of being in the race was luck and the rest of the division stinking

One line of reasoning about the trade is that Kriv shouldn't have traded AK and Lopez for such weak return because he should have waited till the offseason when he could have gotten more. This really wasn't our year to compete so why "panic" and give away so much.

But with EE. We should have rushed him. Without EE we gave up games that led to us not competing. Narron is a bumbling idiot for not pushing him harder dispite medical staff warnings and the nagging nature of the injury.

Just seems odd that we'd be foolish to rush the first two scenarios but Narron is a dolt for not rushing the third especially when this wasn't our year to compete and EE is the kind of guy you want around for a while.

GAC
10-15-2006, 08:29 AM
One line of reasoning about the trade is that Kriv shouldn't have traded AK and Lopez for such weak return because he should have waited till the offseason when he could have gotten more. This really wasn't our year to compete so why "panic" and give away so much.

And before that trade went down, and we were talking on here about how bad/tight the pitching market was this year and what Kriv should do - remember the screams on here at Kriv towards the end of the 1st half when our BP was imploding?... "Do something with this BP! Anything!"

I, and I know ochre did too, said the very same thing you mention above - it may be more expedient to wait till the off-season. ;)


But with EE. We should have rushed him. Without EE we gave up games that led to us not competing. Narron is a bumbling idiot for not pushing him harder dispite medical staff warnings and the nagging nature of the injury.

And when he injured that ankle I followed every report that was coming out of Louisville by the med staff and coaches following his situation/rehab. Those are the only reliable reports we can go by. If some chose not to believe them, then that is their business.

Anyone who has had a severe ankle sprain knows that you come back/heal pretty fast to a certain level (75-80%), and the remainder comes around much slower (nagging). That is what they, those in Lousiville, said was the prognosis with EE. Sure, he was hitting OK; but he was still having difficulty pivoting and running the bases on that ankle. It was giving him problems.

And no one, while he was up with the team, could fault his offensive production during the 1st half. It was his defense that was suffering, still developing.

And we were suppose to compound that by bringing him back up here on an ankle that wasn't 100%?

And when some said they'd rather have EE up here playing 3B, even at less then 100%, over Aurilia, then I don't think they were taking tha above into consideration, that it could compound his defensive development/play at 3B.

Their only logic was- "We need his bat in the lineup."

rfs made a statement about a couple weeks ago on the thread "Narron On Edwin Playing 1st", and his improved defense in the 2nd half... 25 errors in 54 games before the break, and 10 errors in 62 games after the break... and that maybe that improvement came from them showing caution with him after the injury, and the intense workouts he he went through while he was on the bench.

And on that same thread, Narron said Edwin was his 3bman. And I believe he was all along. Just a young player, still in development, that hit a "bump in the road". ;)

mth123
10-15-2006, 08:53 AM
And when he injured that ankle I followed every report that was coming out of Louisville by the med staff and coaches following his situation/rehab. Those are the only reliable reports we can go by. If some chose not to believe them, then that is their business.

Anyone who has had a severe ankle sprain knows that you come back/heal pretty fast to a certain level (75-80%), and the remainder comes around much slower (nagging). That is what they, those in Lousiville, said was the prognosis with EE. Sure, he was hitting OK; but he was still having difficulty pivoting and running the bases on that ankle. It was giving him problems.

And no one, while he was up with the team, could fault his offensive production during the 1st half. It was his defense that was suffering, still developing.

And we were suppose to compound that by bringing him back up here on an ankle that wasn't 100%?

And when some said they'd rather have EE up here playing 3B, even at less then 100%, over Aurilia, then I don't think they were taking tha above into consideration, that it could compound his defensive development/play at 3B.

Their only logic was- "We need his bat in the lineup."

rfs made a statement about a couple weeks ago on the thread "Narron On Edwin Playing 1st", and his improved defense in the 2nd half... 25 errors in 54 games before the break, and 10 errors in 62 games after the break... and that maybe that improvement came from them showing caution with him after the injury, and the intense workouts he he went through while he was on the bench.

And on that same thread, Narron said Edwin was his 3bman. And I believe he was all along. Just a young player, still in development, that hit a "bump in the road". ;)


I don't completely disagree with this logic but I still have to wonder:

1. Why was he "healthy" enough to have played for about a week straight on rehab prior to being activated?

2. If he wasn't "healthy" enough to play, why was he even activated?

The fact that he was activated make this seem more like a benching than nursing a guy along with an injury. I can certainly see why people drew some conclusions about it.

3. If it was a benching, then why not just leave him on rehab and let him improve his defense w/o taking up a roster spot?

The treatment was puzzling and contradictory. It seems as though he shouldn't have been activated whether this was a health issue or a benching issue. In either event, leaving EE on rehab a while longer was the way to go.

EE is one of the few long term answers on this roster. I can really understand people questioning this episode.

GAC
10-15-2006, 09:28 AM
I don't completely disagree with this logic but I still have to wonder:

1. Why was he "healthy" enough to have played for about a week straight on rehab prior to being activated?

It depends on the rehab. Rehab assignments are meant to serve duel purposes.... rehab and playing time work in conjunction with one another while the med staff and coaches observe/monitor the progress. In the situation with an ankle injury, you really don't know how well it really is progressing until you try to play on it.

Would you rather they found that out at Louisville or with the Red? Which was the best scenario?


2. If he wasn't "healthy" enough to play, why was he even activated?

Once he was activated, they felt he was healthy enough to play, but still on a limited basis. In other words - he progressed enough that they felt there was nothing more to really be accomplished in Louisville, and that by rejoining the team the coaches there could work with him more closely while also getting limited playing time.


The fact that he was activated make this seem more like a benching than nursing a guy along with an injury. I can certainly see why people drew some conclusions about it.

I just think they were taking precautions with a young kid who prior to the injury was struggling defensively, and they wanted to insure he was 100% before throwing him fulltime back at 3B.

He did end up playing an everyday 3B for the remainder of the season, and that extra work the coaching staff was giving him obviously paid off.



EE is one of the few long term answers on this roster. I can really understand people questioning this episode.

I really had no problem with people asking questions. It was just some of the absurb "conspiracy theories" - Narron had it in for EE and was looking for an excuse to bench him - that I disagreed with.

That's opinion obviously, yet it could not be supported with anything substantial.

None of us are sport medicine experts. So we had to rely on what they, in conjunction with those coaches overseeing his rehab, were saying.

If EE playing could have helped squeeze more wins out by being in there.... and there is no way we would know/project that.... then I think this management would have had him in there. I simply think they were erring on the side of caution.

mth123
10-15-2006, 09:49 AM
Would you rather they found that out at Louisville or with the Red? Which was the best scenario?

Louisville.


Once he was activated, they felt he was healthy enough to play, but still on a limited basis. In other words - he progressed enough that they felt there was nothing more to really be accomplished in Louisville, and that by rejoining the team the coaches there could work with him more closely while also getting limited playing time.

This is either a ringing endorsement of the Reds coaching staff (who had worked with him all year and gotten nothing accomplished) or a total lack of confidence in the minor league coaching staff.




I just think they were taking precautions with a young kid who prior to the injury was struggling defensively, and they wanted to insure he was 100% before throwing him fulltime back at 3B.

That is what rehab is for.


He did end up playing an everyday 3B for the remainder of the season, and that extra work the coaching staff was giving him obviously paid off.

He did improve. I guess I'm just not a believer that the major league staff is a bunch of miracle workers and if they are what took them so long? They have minor league instructors that could have done the same while treating his ankle. Meanwhile, the major league roster wouldn't have had to play in a shortage situation. I guess he did play a bench role and maybe he was as useful as some one else. IMO if they were as concerned about the ankle as they were saying, staying on the DL seemed like a better, less distracting move.

For that matter, there is no reason he couldn't have worked with the major league coaches at GABP while still on the DL. He doesn't have to be in Louisville while on the DL.


I really had no problem with people asking questions. It was just some of the absurb "conspiracy theories" - Narron had it in for EE and was looking for an excuse to bench him - that I disagreed with.

Totally agree there. I don't think it was a conspiracy.

GAC
10-15-2006, 10:29 AM
Once he was activated, they felt he was healthy enough to play, but still on a limited basis. In other words - he progressed enough that they felt there was nothing more to really be accomplished in Louisville, and that by rejoining the team the coaches there could work with him more closely while also getting limited playing time.


This is either a ringing endorsement of the Reds coaching staff (who had worked with him all year and gotten nothing accomplished) or a total lack of confidence in the minor league coaching staff.

I don't know what you mean by a "ringing endorsement". I've had plenty of criticism with this coaching staff this year - when I felt it was justified.

It was the coaching staff simply doing their job and what they are paid to do - monitor a player's rehab/development, and when THEY FEEL it's time to bring him back, they make the call.

And they made that decision working in conjunction with, and on the input of, that minor league staff, and the team doctors. The goal of both staffs was to get EE back to the Reds, not leave him at AAA. They knew that.


I just think they were taking precautions with a young kid who prior to the injury was struggling defensively, and they wanted to insure he was 100% before throwing him fulltime back at 3B.


That is what rehab is for.

Taking precautions? Sure. Rehab is all about precautions. If the kid was struggling before at 3B defensively, then why would you attempt to rush him back to play such a key defensive position if you weren't sure he was 100%?

If they did, and he struggled - and the evidence pointed to his ankle not being 100%, then what would people say? They shouldn't have rushed him back?


He did end up playing an everyday 3B for the remainder of the season, and that extra work the coaching staff was giving him obviously paid off.


He did improve. I guess I'm just not a believer that the major league staff is a bunch of miracle workers and if they are what took them so long?

No one has said they are miracle workers. And the time length (took so long) is dependent upon the player's recovery/healing, and a competent coaching/medical staff being able to assess that and make the appropriate adjustments.

If some want to say that they overstepped somewhat with the precautionary approach, then I have no problem with that. But I'd rather be safe then sorry when dealing with a young player.


They have minor league instructors that could have done the same while treating his ankle.

True. And they did do that up to a point. But I think the major league club wanted him back in Cincy, and with the team, so they could work with him, and monitor his progress first hand, and not via reports from Louisville. I see nothing wrong with that.

In fact, that tells me that they did value and deem this kid an important "cog" on this team - to bring him back and work with him like they did. He wasn't someone Narron was trying to discard.


For that matter, there is no reason he couldn't have worked with the major league coaches at GABP while still on the DL. He doesn't have to be in Louisville while on the DL.

But while on the DL, what was he contributing to the team by being with them? I'll admit, that they should have acted a little more decisively when this occurred. But I think they were playing a "wait and see" over the next few days to see just how severe the ankle was before retroactively DLing him and sending him to Louisville. And while my mind is cloudy on some of the invents then, I don't think they recalled anyone to fill the roster spot for EE did they? That kind of confounded me, until I heard Krivsky say they didn't think he'd be off that long, and could get by without him until he returned. But still, you cover all your bases and bring up a body.

But at Louisville he was able get rehab playing time. And if you'll notice, due to the ankle, they played him at other positions also (OF, 1B), that puts less strain on the ankle, while still allowing him to get work in.

That is an acceptable risk at Louisville. But would you have wanted them to do that with the Reds, and where every game counts?

mth123
10-15-2006, 10:57 AM
I don't know what you mean by a "ringing endorsement". I've had plenty of criticism with this coaching staff this year - when I felt it was justified.

It was the coaching staff simply doing their job and what they are paid to do - monitor a player's rehab/development, and when THEY FEEL it's time to bring him back, they make the call.

And they made that decision working in conjunction with, and on the input of, that minor league staff, and the team doctors. The goal of both staffs was to get EE back to the Reds, not leave him at AAA. They knew that.

I'm not taking a shot at you with that remark. I'm saying I kind of think your right and that it seems pretty arrogant of the manager and the coaching staff to think that only the major league coaches were able to work with EE and help him improve his defense. If they really activated him because they wanted the major league staff working with him, that tells me they think pretty highly of the major league staff or not much of the minor league guys.

Since the major league staff worked with him in spring and for half a season, with no real improvement, what was the basis for the belief that they were the only ones that could help him suddenly over a couple of weeks while his ankle improved? It makes you wonder if they really know what they're doing as an organization thats all.

In the scheme of things this really isn't that important anyway. EE is the man now and I'm glad he seemed to improve. There just isn't much else to talk about right now. I guess we could make up hypothetical Adam Dunn trades. :beerme:

GAC
10-15-2006, 11:38 AM
I'm not taking a shot at you with that remark. I'm saying I kind of think your right and that it seems pretty arrogant of the manager and the coaching staff to think that only the major league coaches were able to work with EE and help him improve his defense.

Oh, I know you' weren't taking a shot at me. No problem. Just a discussion.

But if arrogance was the reason, then they would have never sent him to AAA to begin with, if they felt that Louisville couldn't do the job they deemed needed done.

Louisville was the perfect place for him to be until he reached that certain point where it would be more beneficial, in the eyes of both coaching staffs, for him to be back with the club.


If they really activated him because they wanted the major league staff working with him, that tells me they think pretty highly of the major league staff or not much of the minor league guys.

Why? I bet if you could ask that minor league staff they wouldn't agree with you (as far as being slighted). Their job was to get him back to a level where he could be called back up and prove to be beneficial/contributing to the big league club.... spot starts, pinch hit.... while all the while working with Dent and others on his fielding.

I see rehab as progressive in nature.


Since the major league staff worked with him in spring and for half a season, with no real improvement, what was the basis for the belief that they were the only ones that could help him suddenly over a couple of weeks while his ankle improved?

Who else was suppose to help him? What would be the reasoning for leaving him in Louisville any longer then what was not necessary? Improvement comes gradually, and with much patience. And the point is they saw results, defensively, from that investment during the 2nd half. His errors went down drastically.

Why?

That's the bottomline as far as I see it.

Cyclone792
10-15-2006, 11:59 AM
If EE playing could have helped squeeze more wins out by being in there.... and there is no way we would know/project that.... then I think this management would have had him in there. I simply think they were erring on the side of caution.

There was no way to project that Encarnacion could have helped this team in July? C'mon GAC, you know better than this.

Edwin Encarnacion went on the disabled list after leaving the June 6th game against St. Louis. Through the end of June and into early July, Encarnacion played 10 rehab games down in Louisville, and in those 10 games he racked up 38 plate appearances. If management is erring on the side of caution with an injury, you don't give a guy who was arguably our best right-handed hitter at the time 38 plate appearances on your AAA club.

But that's not all ...

Encarnacion's first appearance back with the Reds was on July 6th at Atlanta, and he proceeded to go 1-5 in that first game back. Not surprisingly, he's benched the remainder of that series leading up to the All-Star Break.

The ridiculous trade then happens over the All-Star Break, and in that trade we're graced with the new services of one Royce Clayton. In classic Jerry Narron sense, the young slugger Encarnacion is benched more often than not throughout the entire month of July while the guy who "plays the game the right way" in Royce Clayton is playing almost every night. Encarnacion doesn't even become a regular again in the lineup until August 2nd. That's more than three weeks where he receives spotty playing time.

Here's what happened in July after the Clayton trade ...

Encarnacion hits .407/.500/.593 over 32 plate appearances, and that's good for a 1.093 OPS from the All-Star Break until August 1st, all of which comes after Encarnacion played in 10 games and accumulated 38 plate appearances in Louisville on a rehab assignment.
Clayton hits .261/.333/.304 over 51 plate appearances with the Reds until August 1st, and that's good for a .637 OPS.

Edwin Encarnacion's ankle must have really been bothering him so much that he only put up a 1.093 OPS in the three plus weeks following his return from the disabled list. Fortunately for the Reds, we had a high caliber fill-in with Royce Clayton and his .637 OPS.

Oh, and here's a quality clip from a July 25th article reminding us that Encarnacion had no idea what in the world was going on after his return from the disabled list:

In recent days and weeks, Internet bloggers have taken to posting "Free Edwin Encarnacion" messages. Some fan blogs have even displayed a picture of the Reds third baseman behind bars. Many more fans have wondered why Encarnacion hasn't played more lately.

But no one has wondered more than Encarnacion himself.

"Yeah, it's tough. I don't know what's going on," Encarnacion said.

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060725&content_id=1574747&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

Jerry Narron sure did a wonderful job managing Edwin Encarnacion during the month of July. Not only was Encarnacion benched far too frequently, but Edwin had no idea what was going on throughout the duration of the benching. That doesn't exactly sound like the type of manager I'd want nurturing one of the franchise's most important young players, but then again that's just me.

GAC
10-15-2006, 09:54 PM
There was no way to project that Encarnacion could have helped this team in July? C'mon GAC, you know better than this.

I never said he wouldn't/couldn't have helped Cyclone. But you do not know how many games we would have won or lost if EE had been in there in July. You can take calculated guesses and that is about it.

And any calculations you give are gonna be based on a healthy EE, not an injured or less then 100% EE. So explain how you figure in what an EE, not at 100%, would do offensively and defensively? And yes, according to the medical staff and coaches monitoring him, his ankle was still bothering him and preventing him from having a full range of motion and running the bases.

Now if you say you don't believe them, then that is your perogative. You or I never personally got to examine his ankle to form our own conclusions.


Edwin Encarnacion went on the disabled list after leaving the June 6th game against St. Louis. Through the end of June and into early July, Encarnacion played 10 rehab games down in Louisville, and in those 10 games he racked up 38 plate appearances. If management is erring on the side of caution with an injury, you don't give a guy who was arguably our best right-handed hitter at the time 38 plate appearances on your AAA club.

The kid missed 27 games with the Reds. So in over a month He appeared in 10 rehab games, inwhich he didn't always play a full 9 innings either, and also played other positions (LF, 1B) because they (the medical staff) felt getting limited playing time was important to his rehab AND maintaining some level of physical playing condition. Yet playing 3B regularly would not have been good for the ankle. Now that was the medical team's assessment. So his playing time was limited. So No, 38 PAs was not that much, nor not that big of a deal.

You say we needed his bat. How do you know he would have performed as well offensively on a ginger ankle and put up equitable numbers? Because he was hitting well at AAA? Are you going to say that AAA pitching is on par with ML level?

And besides - his hitting was not the main issue. It was being able to field such a key defensive position (3B), and do it without difficulty and also possibly costing us games. Are you gonna contend that that wouldn't have happened?



The ridiculous trade then happens over the All-Star Break, and in that trade we're graced with the new services of one Royce Clayton. In classic Jerry Narron sense, the young slugger Encarnacion is benched more often than not throughout the entire month of July while the guy who "plays the game the right way" in Royce Clayton is playing almost every night. Encarnacion doesn't even become a regular again in the lineup until August 2nd. That's more than three weeks where he receives spotty playing time.

Here's what happened in July after the Clayton trade ...

Encarnacion hits .407/.500/.593 over 32 plate appearances, and that's good for a 1.093 OPS from the All-Star Break until August 1st, all of which comes after Encarnacion played in 10 games and accumulated 38 plate appearances in Louisville on a rehab assignment.
Clayton hits .261/.333/.304 over 51 plate appearances with the Reds until August 1st, and that's good for a .637 OPS.

Edwin Encarnacion's ankle must have really been bothering him so much that he only put up a 1.093 OPS in the three plus weeks following his return from the disabled list. Fortunately for the Reds, we had a high caliber fill-in with Royce Clayton and his .637 OPS.

I have already stated Cyclone - so you're preaching to the choir here - that Clayton (whom I hate) should have never gotten playing time over EE once EE came back.

This discussion (above) was solely on EE's time on the DL, from early June till early July, and the "how and whys".

EE should have gotten more playing time in the remaining 3 weeks of July when he returned.

But Narron played him full time at 3B in August and September.

What were his September numbers again?.... .299 OB% .286 SLG% .585 OPS



Jerry Narron sure did a wonderful job managing Edwin Encarnacion during the month of July. Not only was Encarnacion benched far too frequently, but Edwin had no idea what was going on throughout the duration of the benching. That doesn't exactly sound like the type of manager I'd want nurturing one of the franchise's most important young players, but then again that's just me.

EE will recover emotionally (and he obviously did). He was our regular 3B the last 2 months of the season, and according to Narron is HIS 3Bman of the future. ;)

Cyclone792
10-15-2006, 10:57 PM
I never said he wouldn't/couldn't have helped Cyclone. But you do not know how many games we would have won or lost if EE had been in there in July. You can take calculated guesses and that is about it.

And any calculations you give are gonna be based on a healthy EE, not an injured or less then 100% EE. So explain how you figure in what an EE, not at 100%, would do offensively and defensively? And yes, according to the medical staff and coaches monitoring him, his ankle was still bothering him and preventing him from having a full range of motion and running the bases.

Now if you say you don't believe them, then that is your perogative. You or I never personally got to examine his ankle to form our own conclusions.

The kid missed 27 games with the Reds. So in over a month He appeared in 10 rehab games, inwhich he didn't always play a full 9 innings either, and also played other positions (LF, 1B) because they (the medical staff) felt getting limited playing time was important to his rehab AND maintaining some level of physical playing condition. Yet playing 3B regularly would not have been good for the ankle. Now that was the medical team's assessment. So his playing time was limited. So No, 38 PAs was not that much, nor not that big of a deal.

You say we needed his bat. How do you know he would have performed as well offensively on a ginger ankle and put up equitable numbers? Because he was hitting well at AAA? Are you going to say that AAA pitching is on par with ML level?

And besides - his hitting was not the main issue. It was being able to field such a key defensive position (3B), and do it without difficulty and also possibly costing us games. Are you gonna contend that that wouldn't have happened?

Where are all these sources detailing the team's medical assessment of Encarnacion during the latter part of July? I'd love to see these, because if they exist then it just shows me that this team doesn't have much of a clue on how to manage a 25-man roster.

If he's activated off the disabled list and placed on the active roster, then he should be healthy enough to play regularly. You don't bring players off the disabled list who are not yet healthy enough to play. That's extremely poor roster management and is nothing like a situation where a guy is day-to-day and hasn't suffered an injury warranting the disabled list.

One of two situations took place with EE, and neither are pretty. It's either 1) Encarnacion was healthy enough to be activated, got activated and then sat on the bench far too often once activated, or 2) the team was executing lousy roster management by activating a player off the disabled list who was not yet ready to play regularly.

No matter which situation occurred, the Reds simply screwed up. There's no two ways about it.

BTW, 10 rehab games with 38 plate appearances comes out to average of 3.8 plate appearances per game. That's averaging a full game's worth of plate appearances. He's healthy enough to play 10 full games in AAA in late June, but apparently four weeks later after he's been activated off the disabled list and placed on the active roster, he's still not able to play every day in the majors?

That's a case of roster management that makes absolutely zero sense.

Oh, and those July statistics I supplied for you are his MLB July statistics, not his AAA stats. We know A) what Encarnacion is capable of putting up over an extended period of time, and B) what he did put up during the time he was primarily riding the bench. Both levels of production are far superior to what the Reds were replacing in the lineup during the time he sat on the bench.

Now defensively, here's a very simple exercise:

1) Determine approximately how many total chances a third baseman would receive over roughly 20 games.
2) Determine approximately how many more errors - based on lifetime fielding percentages - Encarnacion could be figured to make over those total chances in 20 games compared to his replacements.
3) Determine the run value of the error differential.

It's a very simple exercise one can use to determine the approximate run value loss of Encarnacion's error problems, and in using that exercise it's easy to see that the run value loss is what ... perhaps one run? This is just errors and doesn't even factor in EE's additional range.

These are amazingly the same type of wild explanations we're seeing from this organization that defends the use of Griffey in center field instead of moving him to a much less important defensive position. But hey, when decisions are made that cost the team runs, I'm never surprised at the types of wild explanations that are made to defend those ridiculous decisions.

GAC
10-16-2006, 09:21 AM
Where are all these sources detailing the team's medical assessment of Encarnacion during the latter part of July?

Again - I'm not talking about July! :lol:

I have already agreed with you that once he returned, after the first week of July he should have been playing more regularly.



If he's activated off the disabled list and placed on the active roster, then he should be healthy enough to play regularly. You don't bring players off the disabled list who are not yet healthy enough to play.

That is not always true and you know it. We have all seen situations where guys were activated when not completely 100%, yet they could still contribute in other ways (.i.e. PHing, late inning replacement, etc). You wanted that bat available off the bench. It happens all the time.

And I believe the reason he was activated and brought back to Cincy was so the coaching staff could work with him more closely and one on one helping him to improve his fielding.

If they didn't have any faith inthe kid, or that he wouldn't pan out, then they'd have left his but in AAA.

They didn't.

Not just Narron, but the rest of the coaching staff, expressed concern and frustration with EE's erractic defensive play in the first half. You don't think 25 errors in 54 games (the first half of the season) is that big of a deal, then that is your opinion. I believe it is cause for concern and raised eyebrows.

It doesn't mean you give up on the kid, and Narron and the coaching staff obviosly did not, because during the month of July, after he returned, they showed their COMMITMENT to this kid, and that they feel he is our 3bman of the future, by the investment they made in the time/daily practices he was getting from Dent & Co. to improve his defense. They were some pretty heavy daily regimens.

IMO (and others), that is not the actions of an inept coaching staff.

Up until the ankle injury, who was our regular 3bman? Seems to me that Narron, while frustrated, was sticking with the kid.

One of two situations took place with EE, and neither are pretty. It's either 1) Encarnacion was healthy enough to be activated, got activated and then sat on the bench far too often once activated, or 2) the team was executing lousy roster management by activating a player off the disabled list who was not yet ready to play regularly.

No matter which situation occurred, the Reds simply screwed up. There's no two ways about it.

That is your opinion.

The entire coaching staff, expressed concern and frustration with EE's erractic defensive play in the first half. There is no denying that. You don't think 25 errors in 54 games (the first half of the season) is that big of a deal, then that is your opinion. I believe it is cause for concern and raised eyebrows with a young player.

It doesn't mean you give up on the kid, and Narron and the coaching staff obviosly did not, because during the month of July, after he returned, they showed their COMMITMENT to this kid - maybe not in playing time - but that they felt so strongly he is our 3bman of the future, by the investment they made in the time/daily practices he was getting from Dent & Co. to improve his defense. They were some pretty heavy daily regimens. And even EE acknowledged that they helped immensely. Did his fielding/defense improve in the second half?

Does the coaching staff get any credit at all for that? With some I doubt it.

IMO (and others), that is not the actions of an inept coaching staff. Perfect? Obviously not. But not inept.

So they didn't just cast this kid aside.


BTW, 10 rehab games with 38 plate appearances comes out to average of 3.8 plate appearances per game. That's averaging a full game's worth of plate appearances. He's healthy enough to play 10 full games in AAA in late June, but apparently four weeks later after he's been activated off the disabled list and placed on the active roster, he's still not able to play every day in the majors?

I don't care what it averages out to. The truth of the matter is he did not play in 10 full games. He was pulled early in a few of those games, and also had PHing appearances when he didn't play at all. Check it out. ;)

Look - if you don't think the kid was injured, or wasn't injured as severely as they said, then again, that is your perogative. While he was at AAA I followed the situation as best anyone could via the media reports (Enquirer, Cincy Post, etc), daily interviews and pre-game reports with the medical staff and Krivsky (who gave continual updates).

If you think these guys were all lying and had ulterior motives up their sleeves, then that is your business.

People were screaming and blaming Narron when he was DL'd and sent to AAA, and it wasn't even Narron's decision to make. Krivsky publically stated that it was solely his decision in conjunction with the medical staff. I heard him say that during a pre-game interview when asked about it.



Now defensively, here's a very simple exercise:

1) Determine approximately how many total chances a third baseman would receive over roughly 20 games.
2) Determine approximately how many more errors - based on lifetime fielding percentages - Encarnacion could be figured to make over those total chances in 20 games compared to his replacements.
3) Determine the run value of the error differential.

It's a very simple exercise one can use to determine the approximate run value loss of Encarnacion's error problems, and in using that exercise it's easy to see that the run value loss is what ... perhaps one run? This is just errors and doesn't even factor in EE's additional range.

You use that word "approximately" alot.

Look Cyclone - I deeply respect the fact that you (and others) are heavily into statistical analysis and the "science of numbers". But I refuse to get into a discussion over Pythagorean theorem. If you want to take the time to look up all those variables that enable you to inequivocably predict EE's (or anyone's) future performance as if it's set in stone and undeniable, then, respectfully, go for it.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But it is fun to look at. And when it doesn't, all I hear is... "career year"... "playing over their head"... "they'll regress".

All that study may get you in the "ball park"; but it's not a certainty as far as outcome.

And you keep comparing EE to Clayton. Yet it wasn't Clayton, but Rich Aurilia, that people were screaming was taking playing time from Edwin at 3B.

They wanted RA out and EE at 3B. So Clayton, who was playing SS, would have been playing regardless. And during the month of July, RA put up these numbers....

.342 BA .402 OB% .582 SLG% .985 OPS

Cyclone792
10-16-2006, 11:29 PM
You use that word "approximately" alot.

Look Cyclone - I deeply respect the fact that you (and others) are heavily into statistical analysis and the "science of numbers". But I refuse to get into a discussion over Pythagorean theorem. If you want to take the time to look up all those variables that enable you to inequivocably predict EE's (or anyone's) future performance as if it's set in stone and undeniable, then, respectfully, go for it.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But it is fun to look at. And when it doesn't, all I hear is... "career year"... "playing over their head"... "they'll regress".

All that study may get you in the "ball park"; but it's not a certainty as far as outcome.

And right here is the absolute philosophical crux of the disagreement. You're confusing probability with absolute. You may not think you are, but trust me, you are when you make statements such as, "All that study may get you in the 'ball park'; but it's not a certainty as far as outcome."

I want good decisions to be made on a routine basis in the Reds front office. For this team to win, good decisions are going to have to be the norm, and bad decisions are going to have be eliminated as much as possible. Can bad decisions be eliminated entirely? Of course not, but they can be cut down drastically.

Bad teams are bad teams largely because of too few good decisions and too many bad decisions, and that's plainly self-evident. Ignoring mountains of statistical evidence is ignoring highly useful data at hand that can help an organization make good decisions. Likewise, ignoring mountains of statistical evidence will also lead to many more bad decisions.

What you may call "getting in the ballpark" is what I may call the "best odds," and it's the best odds that I want.

I don't want this team going out and extending another Jimmy Haynes. I don't want this team going out and extending another Paul Wilson. I don't want this team going out and burning a pile of cash for Eric Milton. I don't want this team trading for Tony Womack and giving him playing time. I don't want this team blowing two nice chunks of offense in Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez for a miserable return. I don't want this team extending Juan Castro. I don't want this team to be costing itself multiple wins in run value because of its inability to analyze the defensive value of one Ken Griffey, Jr.

All the above are bad decisions with some of them holding the organization back, and in other cases, will continue to hold this organization back. What they have in common is they were all decisions that should have been avoided because of the mountain of evidence at hand. No, it's not an absolute that the Kearns/Lopez return will be a fiasco, but you know what? It's a pretty darn good bet the return will be a fiasco, and it's a bet that baseball organizations such as the Reds absolutely cannot afford to make.

Outlooks that confuse probability with absolutes mix up those situations. As another example, it leads to a team signing Eric Milton, because instead of having the outlook that Milton is likely to be lousy, they instead have the outlook that Milton's a veteran that somehow knows how to win with it not being guaranteed that he'll be lousy.

If probability continues to be ignored in the Reds front office because it isn't an absolute, then this organization is in a heap of trouble moving forward.

Jim Bowden and Dan O'Brien lived in the mindset of ignoring probability in regards to statistical evidence far too often, and it's clear what the results were. For good or for bad, we sure will find out much more about Wayne Krivsky and where he stands on the issue. For our sake, I hope it's the correct side of the issue.

GAC
10-17-2006, 11:09 AM
And right here is the absolute philosophical crux of the disagreement. You're confusing probability with absolute.

No I am not Cyclone. But I sometimes thing you (and others) are. I see probabilities exactly for what they are .... probable (or possible) outcomes.

Yet when I get in similar discussions on here, you (and others) present those probabilites as absolutes that are irrefutable and cannot be argued. Now maybe you don't do so intentionally, but that is the way it is received by many on here - that you can't argue with it.


You may not think you are, but trust me, you are when you make statements such as, "All that study may get you in the 'ball park'; but it's not a certainty as far as outcome."

And I stand unequivocably by the above statement. Projections and probabilities will get you into the ballpark or general area as far as outcome. It is as you say below "going with the odds". No one denies that. But it is not an absolute.

Again, how do you factor in such issues as injury when trying to come to a result/outcome? I had this discussion/disagreement in the past when it came to Casey, and then Aurilia. People were looking ON PAPER at certain years, the fact that their numbers/production wasn't there, and therefore, they were on the downhill side, and this is what you could expect out of them as far as future performance/outcome.

Yet what was the reason they struggled during those particular years? It was struggling with injuries.

Yet all some see are numbers on a paper, and they either ignore and/or discount those other variables that can effect a player's performance.

When Casey and Aurilia bounced back, then the reasoning (or excuse) is offered.... "well, uh, uh, they're just having career years. They'll regress."

You mean regress to playing like they were injured and not 100%?


I want good decisions to be made on a routine basis in the Reds front office. For this team to win, good decisions are going to have to be the norm, and bad decisions are going to have be eliminated as much as possible. Can bad decisions be eliminated entirely? Of course not, but they can be cut down drastically.

Bad teams are bad teams largely because of too few good decisions and too many bad decisions, and that's plainly self-evident. Ignoring mountains of statistical evidence is ignoring highly useful data at hand that can help an organization make good decisions.

I wholeheartedly agree Cyclone. But as you've said - bad decisions cannot be eliminated entirely. You only try to minimize them.

Are you then saying that the bad decisions made by Krivsky/Narron far outway the good ones? Or have they made any good ones?

And IMO, I believe it is yet to be determined. A vast majority of the trades we made this year (and pickups, DFAs, etc) were not the TYPE of trades that will prove harmful/detrimental to any plans this FO has longterm. Nor does it really give us a "birds eye view" of what Cast/Kriv's plans are.

And I'm referring to some of the young arms we acquired, as well as a couple of the position player pickups. No huge investment there. It hasn't saddled us, as far as money and contracts. Dumped, if needed, in a heartbeat... hope lesson was learned, and move on.



Jim Bowden and Dan O'Brien lived in the mindset of ignoring probability in regards to statistical evidence far too often, and it's clear what the results were. For good or for bad, we sure will find out much more about Wayne Krivsky and where he stands on the issue. For our sake, I hope it's the correct side of the issue.

And all I have stated is allow this new management the time to do so when they inherited and walked into chaos. They didn't create the chaos. Yet some expect them to be a miracle workers in the first 8 months on the job.

Some have put them under the microscope, and any perceived wrong move they are labelled inept, incompetent, and reigning over chaos.

Totally unfair in my judgment.

gonelong
10-17-2006, 12:02 PM
Yet when I get in similar discussions on here, you (and others) present those probabilites as absolutes that are irrefutable and cannot be argued. Now maybe you don't do so intentionally, but that is the way it is received by many on here - that you can't argue with it.


Vegas winning is an absolute, even when some of the people win money on their trip there. You can lose a battle here and there and still handily win the war.

Using a fair, six-sided die (dice) you have the probability of rolling a six roughly 16.7% of the time. That is absolute, is it not? Is this arguable? Should it be presented as arguable?

Now, how wise it is to bet on getting a six if the payout is even-odds? It's not a wise thing to do, even though you will win a few of them.

Obviously we have a lot more variables in play when discussing some of the things we do here, but I think the principle is the same.

I understand when Cyclone or Steel post something that they realize it isn't an absolute. They have both gone well out of their way on many occassions to clarify. Short of posting a disclaimer on every post, I am not sure what more can be expected of them. If people can't understand the difference between absolutes and probability than that is their shortcoming.

I don't see anyone posing anything as an absolute, in fact, I see most of the people go out of their way to show quite the opposite.

GL

RedsManRick
10-17-2006, 12:49 PM
GAC, I'm not sure that you and Cyclone are even really disagreeing.

Cyclone seems only absolute about one thing; Decisions should be made such that they maximize the likelihood of success. There's no promise of any outcome, but when you can measure likelihood, there's no reason to make decisions that fly in the face of it.

There was little doubt that trading for Tony Womack was not a good call. There is little doubt that extending a dangerously unhealthy and barely effective Paul Wilson was a bad move. There is little doubt that Eric Milton was not a good fit for this park, and not worth 8M per. Could these things have possibly worked out? Sure, anything is possible. However, when all of the evidence suggests that they are likely bad decisions and then they do in fact turn out to be bad decisions, well, maybe the evidence was on to something.

You have to base your decision making on something. Given all the available information, I too would want Reds leadership to make decisions that, according to ALL the available evidence (not only stats, but scouting, experience, etc.) suggest is likely to work out well. The problem with "Gut" and "feel" is that it's hard to hold somebody accountable for making a decision that fails when they do so on their "gut" or some other undefinable reason such as "veteran presence".

To me, using those sorts of explanations for your decision making is a cop out, that lets the blame fall elsewhere when things fail. The thought process for making decisions should be documented so that if things don't work out, you can avoid making the same mistake twice. Unfortunately, I'm not yet convinced that there is a decision making process in place which holds the decision makers accountable.

Sometimes, good decisions fail. Sometimes bad decisions work out. That's chance for you. But more often than not, in the long run, good decisions work out and bad decisions fail. You don't want to judge every decision solely on the outcome. You have to consider the reasoning for making the decision. Did you fail to consider something? Did you weight the probable outcomes incorrectly? Did you get bad advice from a scout? Was there an injury or something else hidden that you didn't know about? Or, did the player just lay an egg?

Can Dan O'Brien honestly say "Well, I really thought Milton was gonna give us 3 years of a 4.00 ERA and 14 wins? I simply couldn't forsee these problems with the long ball..." Now maybe it's a different explanation; "I had to get a pitcher and I had 8 Million to spend and Milton was the only one who would take it. I knew his extreme flyball tendencies suggested he'd have trouble here, but there was some upside and it was a risk I unfortunately felt I needed to take. It just didn't work out."

It's one thing when decisions are made that are the product of a given set of circumstances. You obviously can't just look at the stats in a bubble. But Krivsky has yet to really communicate what his calculus is. There are no absolutes in this game. Nobody thinks they know everything. But when you have evidence that suggests a strong likelihood of a given outcome, and you ignore it, you should have an explanation for why you feel the stats don't tell the whole story. Simply tearing down the stats as being "incomplete" doesn't build the case for a different decision. They may be incomplete, but I for one feel more comfortable using stats than my gut as the reasoning for making a decision and assessing the likelihood of a given outcome.

GAC
10-17-2006, 02:49 PM
GAC, I'm not sure that you and Cyclone are even really disagreeing.

Cyclone seems only absolute about one thing; Decisions should be made such that they maximize the likelihood of success. There's no promise of any outcome, but when you can measure likelihood, there's no reason to make decisions that fly in the face of it.

And I agree with that 100%.... when it comes to making decisions. If I was told that, according to all available collected data, I have a 60% probability of having an accident taking road "A" home, as compared to only a 15% probability with road "B". Then I am most certainly not going to reject that data, thumb my nose at it, and take road "A".

I fully understand and comprehend how projections and probabilties work, and what their objective is. If the objective data shows me that the probabilty rate of success is 60%, then I will obviously accept those "odds", not ignore them, and follow the 40%.

This is the difference that I see.... while accepting that 60%, and obviously choosing to follow that "path", I still don't ignore or deny the existence of the 40%, and therefore, because of it's existence, it does not make that 60% an absolute in the sense of a "certainty, free from imperfection".

And that is all I have ever been saying.... and it has had nothing to do with decision making.... no argument there from me at all.

We are talking about two different "animals".

I am referring to trying to plot out/predict future player performance. I fully understand that you look at a players past performance/history (data), and from that attempt to "project", in all probability, what future performance will be.

And I am not saying there is anything wrong with doing that.

It's the fact that the end results are presented as an absolute - again meaning a "certainty". When simply, it is not a certainty.

So I know/understand the difference (as many do). It's simply the way it is presented on here.

And my one problem with the "science", as helpful as it is, is that it does not take into consideration various intangible elements (battling injury, personal problems w/drugs, alcohol, etc). Anything that has nothing to do with inherent talent, but are external forces, some out of their control, that obviously affect performance. All one sees are numbers on a page/graph, and numbers, obviously, can't lie. They may not lie, but they don't always "paint" an accurate picture because it does not, nor can it, take into account all those elements that affected areas of past performance, and therefore, could lead to an inaccurate "projection" of future performance.

Is that not possible?


There was little doubt that trading for Tony Womack was not a good call.

You mean Clayton right? And they didn't trade FOR Clayton... meaning he wasn't the crux of the deal.... he was fodder thrown in at the end. And after July, Clayton saw very limited playing time, and will not be back in '07.

And Womack was cast aside pretty quickly (low risk).


There is little doubt that extending a dangerously unhealthy and barely effective Paul Wilson was a bad move. There is little doubt that Eric Milton was not a good fit for this park, and not worth 8M per.

Absolutely true. But those weren't actions of this new management. I bet you money that if this current management could find a way to get out from under the contracts (mistakes) of the previous FO (Milton, Wilson, and Jr), they'd do it in a heartbeat. They came in saddled with these contracts.

And that is what I am saying. The players Krivsky acquired/picked up this year, including even the extensions he gave to Hatte, Valentin, and Castro, are nothing in comparison to the burdensome financial contracts of a Wilson, Jr, Casey, Graves, and Milton. That was ineptness at it's finest IMO.

One of Krivsky's first order of business was to do what? Resign Adam Dunn. And he did it.

I have no problem with the Castro and Valentin extensions because it didn't involve a huge amounts of money, they both are backups, and they did contribute. But they are easily expendable if need be with no major damage/cost.

In 2006...

Castro .741 OPS 1 Mil/yr
Lopez .738 OPS 2.7 Mil/yr (and counting)

[Sorry - I wasn't a big fan of Lopez. I don't think he will be missed that much.]

But the same thing with Hatteberg. His contract is very tradeable too IMO.

This current FO has the room/flexibility to make some profound changes in the off-season.

I simply want to give them that chance. I don't beleive, as the one thread suggests, that they are in chaos or throwing things up against the wall to see if they will stick.

RedsManRick
10-17-2006, 03:11 PM
Fair enough GAC. Perhaps I'm just missing your citation of Cyclone, Steel, etc. claiming future player performance in the absolute. Even then, I can't absolutely guarantee that Castro won't hit .400 and smack 40 homers, but I'm pretty confident in it.

I was specifically referring to Womack, but the Clayton comp is a fair one. I do realize that Krivsky didn't give Clayton 100 at bats, merely put him on the roster, but that doesn't absolve him. I wasn't commenting solely on the Krivsky administration. In terms of judging outcomes of his decisions, there's a lot still yet to occur. How do Lopez and Kearns play over the next few years compared to Bray and Majewski? Do Harris or Thompson ever do anythign?

You do make a good point that while the trade of Womack and extention of Castro are minor considerations from a money & roster space perspect, they are perhaps enlightening in to the decision making process. In this regard, the size of the decision is less important than the direction (positive or negative) because it begins to reveal his logic. Sure, he hasn't given Larkin, Casey, Graves, Wilson, or Milton more money than they derserve yet. But his valuation is curious.

He did arguably trade a dollar for two quarters because he was thirsty and the soda machine wasn't taking bills. Though perhaps the jury is still out on that one. But if he's willing to give Castro, who is quite replacable for less money, an extention, who's to say we don't see a similar choice made on a larger scale? Again, time will tell. However, some of the choices he has made, while perhaps not real painful in and of themselves, do not exactly inspire confidence in the overall strategy and logic moving forward.

Cyclone792
10-17-2006, 05:27 PM
This is the difference that I see.... while accepting that 60%, and obviously choosing to follow that "path", I still don't ignore or deny the existence of the 40%, and therefore, because of it's existence, it does not make that 60% an absolute in the sense of a "certainty, free from imperfection".

And that is all I have ever been saying.... and it has had nothing to do with decision making.... no argument there from me at all.

Here's a very simple scenario, and this may explain the fault with your logic here.

Let's say you analyze risk for a lending institution. One day a person walks in and applies for a $200,000 loan for a property that appraised at $205,000, and with them they've got about a 550 credit score, a plethora of liabilities and unpaid debts, minimal assets, not even a high school diploma, and an income of about $1,200 a month. I know there's other factors at work here, but those are the big ones.

Now by law, you cannot turn them down without analyzing their financial status, and you have to either approve or reject their loan after this analysis. Understand this is far from a nice, low risk customer. However, also understand that there is no absolute that this customer will default on the loan. Who knows, despite everything being against them, there's some low chance out there that they may make every payment on time and in full. It's a very lousy chance, but it exists. I know this, and you know this.

But now it's a pure business decision for you. You claim that you do not deny the existence of the low chance that they will pay you back. But you have a yes or no decision to make. Will you approve or reject this loan based on all the available financial data at hand, and why?

Multiply that person by about 2,500. Instead of one application with those credentials, you've got a stack of 2,500 sitting on your desk. What do you think is going to happen if you approve all or most of those people, and what do you think is going to happen if you reject all or most of those people?

If you're willing to say that you're not denying the existence of the low odds, then are you also claiming that you're willing to take on the risk of the low odds? If you start taking on the risk of those low odds several times, what do you think is likely to happen to your financial institution in the near future?

Therein lies the problem with allowing the mindset of not denying the low risk odds to actually alter the outcome of an otherwise good decision. No, you should not deny the existence of the low odds, however, when you start making final decisions based primarily on those low odds because of a gut feeling or whatever, then you're making decisions that put yourself and your organization at an extremely huge risk. Those are poor decisions, and they're decisions that need to not be made.

I hate to say it, but everyone knows this because it's plainly clear to see, and that is that the Reds have made a number of poor decisions over the past several seasons, and the results have been right in front of our faces. This team has not had a winning season since 2000, and from 2001-2006 has a cumulative winning percentage of .455. This team's pythag winning percentage during that same time period is .438.

It's time for progress to be made in the right direction. It's time for bad decisions to be eliminated as much as they possibly can. It's time for good decisions to start taking the controls. Does Wayne Krivsky make enough good decisions? Has he avoided enough bad decisions? Well, up until the middle of July, both answers showed him in a favorable light. Since the middle of July, it's been a clear opposite.

Where will he go from here? As I said, I hope it's in a direction that's good for the organization, but with what he's shown so far that's a toss-up at best. If he continues to make bad decisions in this organization - similar to the Kearns/Lopez trade fiasco - then the organization is not going to improve. If he continues to make key decisions that go against the odds and probabilities - or because he's not denying the low probability of that decision - then the odds for this franchise to start succeeding start crumbling.

RedsManRick and gonelong have expanded on this in their own way too, and my stance parallels their stance.

Understand that nobody should be denying the existence of the low probability outcome. However, definitely understand that if actual final decisions are altered toward that low probability outcome because of its existence, then we're going to start having a ton of bad decisions continuing to bite this organization in the rear end. These are the types of decisions this organization needs to avoid at all costs.

Ltlabner
10-17-2006, 05:43 PM
Cyclone,

While I generally agree with your reasoning and the credit loan decision making example I think there can be exceptions to the "always go with the highest percentage chance of success" decision making process.

Consider that the loan officer in your example knows the person asking for a loan. The applicants credit rating, income to debt ratios and other numbers stink so it's a slam dunk - deny the loan and move on with the satisfaction of knowing you saved the company from a horible outcome.

But what isn't on the loan application is that this is a newly divorced woman. The debts were run up by a louse husband and she got stuck with the tab. She's a hardworking woman who is both holding down a full time job and going back to school to advance her education. She's already been in contact with all the creditors and has worked out repayment plans.

Reject her, avoid the risk and move on? Or take an educated risk and possiby have a customer for life that generates far more business than that original loan?

9 times out of 10 the right course of action is playing the odds. You can't buck the odds all over the place in the loan officer example without expecting that defaulted loans will increase. However, if you use your experience (which is all a "gut feeling" is) wisely in conjuction with the raw facts of the case you stand to reap great rewards along with your risk.

In baseball, as in life, sometimes there are facts in play that are not evident on paper or available to the general public. It's these gray areas that are often the source of the most number of posts and debate here in the happy land of RZ.

BTW: I know that you realize this and you have commented on it in various posts.

Cyclone792
10-17-2006, 05:53 PM
Cyclone,

While I generally agree with your reasoning and the credit loan decision making example I think there can be exceptions to the "always go with the highest percentage chance of success" decision making process.

Consider that the loan officer in your example knows the person asking for a loan. The applicants credit rating, income to debt ratios and other numbers stink so it's a slam dunk - deny the loan and move on knowing with the satisfaction of knowing you saved the company from a horible outcome.

But what isn't on the loan application is that this is a newly divorced woman. The debts were run up by a louse husband and she got stuck with the tab. She's a hardworking woman who is both holding down a full time job and going back to school to advance her education. She's already been in contact with all the creditors and has worked out repayment plans.

Reject her, avoid the risk and move on? Or take an educated risk and possiby have a customer for life that generates far more business than that original loan?

Admidtley, 9 times out of 10 the right course of action is playing the odds. But, in baseball, as in life, sometimes there are facts in play that are not evident on paper or available to the general public.

BTW: I know that you realize this and have commented on it in various posts.

I didn't include all of the above because that person doesn't qualify for the above. If they did, I'd have included it. :)

But I'm glad you understand my point nonetheless. Reject the loan, move on with business, and avoid the likely foreclosure business that would later ensue. I'm sure you understand that if you approved 2,500 of those loans, your business is likely to lose a ton of money.

Baseball organizations are also business models themselves. Risk applies heavily. Too much bad risk, and you're going to sink. Lots of low risk, good decisions, and you're swimming near the top of the pack.

No, not everything is public, but the final results (runs and wins) are public, and a great deal of the information at hand is also public. Apathy and defense of bad moves based on the uncertainty of "well they probably know something we didn't," allows a baseball organization a continual free pass to make poor decisions.

When that free pass gets revoked, bad decisions tend to cease and good decisions tend to become more common.

Me? I want that free pass revoked.

Ltlabner
10-17-2006, 06:01 PM
Baseball organizations are also business models themselves. Risk applies heavily. Too much bad risk, and you're going to sink. Lots of low risk, good decisions, and you're swimming near the top of the pack.

No, not everything is public, but the final results (runs and wins) are public, and a great deal of the information at hand is also public. Apathy and defense of bad moves based on the uncertainty of "well they probably know something we didn't," allows a baseball organization a continual free pass to make poor decisions.

Me? I want that free pass revoked.

When I think low risk, I also think low reward. I don't mean that GM's should make decisions willy nilly and take silly gambles (ie. lets trade for Sidney Ponsone because I just know he's going to be great!). But I do expect a GM to meld his experience with a read of the cold data. For someone like Krivsky he should be about 98% data and 2% gut since he has no real experience. For someone who's been around a while (and successfull) the percentage of gut decisions can increase.

So when I read "lots of low risk, good decisions" I mentally translate that into "medicore baseball".

Not say that is right or correct, but would be interested in your comments.

GAC
10-17-2006, 06:14 PM
Fair enough GAC. Perhaps I'm just missing your citation of Cyclone, Steel, etc. claiming future player performance in the absolute. Even then, I can't absolutely guarantee that Castro won't hit .400 and smack 40 homers, but I'm pretty confident in it.

I was specifically referring to Womack, but the Clayton comp is a fair one. I do realize that Krivsky didn't give Clayton 100 at bats, merely put him on the roster, but that doesn't absolve him. I wasn't commenting solely on the Krivsky administration. In terms of judging outcomes of his decisions, there's a lot still yet to occur. How do Lopez and Kearns play over the next few years compared to Bray and Majewski? Do Harris or Thompson ever do anythign?

You do make a good point that while the trade of Womack and extention of Castro are minor considerations from a money & roster space perspect, they are perhaps enlightening in to the decision making process. In this regard, the size of the decision is less important than the direction (positive or negative) because it begins to reveal his logic. Sure, he hasn't given Larkin, Casey, Graves, Wilson, or Milton more money than they derserve yet. But his valuation is curious.

He did arguably trade a dollar for two quarters because he was thirsty and the soda machine wasn't taking bills. Though perhaps the jury is still out on that one. But if he's willing to give Castro, who is quite replacable for less money, an extention, who's to say we don't see a similar choice made on a larger scale? Again, time will tell. However, some of the choices he has made, while perhaps not real painful in and of themselves, do not exactly inspire confidence in the overall strategy and logic moving forward.

Here's my reasoning as to why Kriv picked up guys like Womack, Castro, and Clayton.

They are all similar players with common "traits"....

Weak offensively, with their fielding/defense as their only "positive".

Going into the season, and I'm sure Krivsky saw this, our INF defense was nothing to get excited about. It was painful to watch the year before, and now, even with the exit of Casey, it wasn't looking any better.

You got an unproven youngster at 3B (with an upside); but still unproven.

Lopez at SS, whose defense was still questionable/erratic. Would he get better?

2B options? Freel, Aurilia

1B - Hatteberg, Aurilia

From a defensive perspective, it would make grown men cry, drink heavily, and want to abuse neighboring farm animals.

Not a pretty picture.

He picks up Womack for practically nothing.

But it's obvious he is not completely satisfied, and is still hitting the phones, because he comes up with one of his "gems" in Phillips. Womack benched, and then gone.

But still, the INF defense situation is not much better.

Now some suggest that you need to have patience, stick to your guns, and allow EE and Lopez the time. EE I fully agree and understand. Lopez' schtick was wearing thin IMO.

Clayton was thrown in as fodder, and Castro was simply available.

They came at very little risk/cost. They were something. I don't believe for a second that Kriv saw them as the answer, and especially even as longterm solutions. But looking at what we had, and our options, something needed to be done. Again, they were cheap, low-risk acquisitions that, if needed, and like Womack, could be jettisoned in a heartbeat. And Clayton already is.

If I believed for a second that I thought Krivsky felt any of these guys could be every day starters whom they could build around, then I'd be storming the castle with everyone else.

I believe it is one very important issue (INF defense) that Krivsky is seriously going to try and address in the off-season. He has to.

Patrick Bateman
10-17-2006, 06:19 PM
DanO got Womack. And it was indefensible.

Cyclone792
10-17-2006, 06:31 PM
When I think low risk, I also think low reward. I don't mean that GM's should make decisions willy nilly and take silly gambles (ie. lets trade for Sidney Ponsone because I just know he's going to be great!). But I do expect a GM to meld his experience with a read of the cold data. For someone like Krivsky he should be about 98% data and 2% gut since he has no real experience. For someone who's been around a while (and successfull) the percentage of gut decisions can increase.

So when I read "lots of low risk, good decisions" I mentally translate that into "medicore baseball".

Not say that is right or correct, but would be interested in your comments.

Step one is actually avoid the terrible, incompetent decisions. Here's an example ...


Player 2005 Salary 2005 VORP

Graves $6.25 million -6.8
Ortiz $3.55 million -3.3
Milton $5.33 million -25.0
Wilson $3.60 million -12.2

Total $18.73 million -47.3

No, Wayne Krivsky did not make these decisions. But they were decisions that absolutely should not have been made, and some of them are decisions that are still hurting the club right now. If this organization can stop making similar bad decisions like those above, we benefit.

There's always risk involved in a baseball decision, specifically a transaction, contract extension, free agent signing, etc. It's unavoidable. What's very avoidable is making the idiotic decisions based on horrible risk and not much reward.

The second key - after eliminating most poor decisions - is to make the best decisions possible with the lowest amount of risk. Some are going to blow up. Some are going to work out. This doesn't mean eliminate high risk decisions. But if you make high risk decisions, at least make darn sure that you're likely to get a high reward for it and that it's the best decision possible. This also doesn't mean low risk decisions cannot provide nice rewards. Here's some examples:

Milton Signing: Huge Risk/Low Reward (i.e. not likely to help).
Arroyo/Pena Trade: High Risk/High Reward (i.e. may burn the team, but also may really help).
Kearns/Lopez/Bray/Majewski Trade: High Risk/Low Reward (i.e. even if Bray/Majewski contribute, we still got burned on run value).
Failure to move Griffey out of CF: Huge Risk/No Reward (i.e. it's 99.9 percent likely Griffey's going to kill the team defensively in CF).
Denorfia to CF: Low Risk/Moderate Reward (i.e. easy, inexpensive alternative with a nice chance to provide average CF offense and excellent CF defense).
Juan Castro Extension: Low Risk/No Reward (i.e. dollars and roster spot doesn't hurt too bad, but he's really not going to help at all so what's spent on him was wasted).

That's a very basic level to view transactions, but it's easy to pinpoint which of those decisions have the best chance at helping us and which have the lowest chance of helping us. Signing Eric Milton hurt us. Not moving Griffey out of center field will hurt us. Moving Denorfia into center field has a good chance to help us. The infamous trade ... well ... it has a chance to help us, but it's miniscule.

Just like good decisions may blow up, poor decisions may be beneficial. Drafting Homer Bailey was a huge risk/high reward. It's been discussed here plenty, but my stance has always been to avoid high school pitchers like Bailey. Now, they've got a chance to blossom (and Bailey has thus far), but research has shown that it's not a very good chance.

However, the fact that Bailey has blossomed thus far does not necessarily mean it's a good decision to constantly draft high school pitchers in that area of the first round ... unless Wayne Krivsky unlocked a magic formula for developing high school pitching while in Minnesota (off topic, but IMO, I think his strongest asset is developing young pitching). Still, what we should do is be happy that we seem to be getting away with a low probability decision O'Brien made in drafting Bailey, but then move on to try to make better draft decisions in the future.

Ltlabner
10-17-2006, 06:38 PM
Step one is actually avoid the terrible, incompetent decisions.


Without a doubt. No argument there.

But what is your stance on moves that "the numbers" say are iffy but the GM's experience tells him will work based on the myrid of factors involved in player moves?

I got the impression from your previous post that you'd say that by default that is a bad decision.

The reason I ask is this: If by default all decisions that look good acording to the metrics are automatically deemed good decisions then the measuring sticks used dang well better be the right ones. Since even the experts seem to argue over which metrics are the right ones doesn't that shift the argument from making good/bad decisions to which metrics are the right ones?

Cyclone792
10-17-2006, 06:51 PM
Without a doubt. No argument there.

But what is your stance on moves that "the numbers" say are iffy but the GM's experience tells him will work based on the myrid of factors involved in player moves?

I got the impression from your previous post that you'd say that by default that is a bad decision.

Depends on specifics. If the numbers are iffy, then it's nowhere near as bad as it could be, and it has a decent chance to work out well. I would call the Arroyo/Pena trade a "numbers iffy" type of trade, and it was a trade I've supported from day one.

My main beef is when the numbers aren't iffy, but instead just plain out bad. The Milton signing, Royce Clayton playing as often as he did, Griffey still in center field, etc. are not merely numbers iffy propositions; they're just horrible propositions.

EDIT: Just saw your edit, and yes, the metrics used are vital. If metrics such as pitcher wins, RBI, batting average and strikeouts are incorrectly valued - which usually means overvalued in the specific cases of those four - then bad decisions are going to be much more commonplace.

SteelSD
10-18-2006, 03:37 AM
No I am not Cyclone. But I sometimes thing you (and others) are. I see probabilities exactly for what they are .... probable (or possible) outcomes.

Yet when I get in similar discussions on here, you (and others) present those probabilites as absolutes that are irrefutable and cannot be argued. Now maybe you don't do so intentionally, but that is the way it is received by many on here - that you can't argue with it.

I can't count how many times I've had to explain the meaning of "probability" on this board. Anyone's inability to understand the difference between "probability" and "absolute" is their own issue and I'm dead tired of hearing about it.

If a probability-based argument is perceived by someone as being "absolute", that's not a "me" issue. It's a reader issue.

GAC
10-18-2006, 06:04 AM
I can't count how many times I've had to explain the meaning of "probability" on this board. Anyone's inability to understand the difference between "probability" and "absolute" is their own issue and I'm dead tired of hearing about it.

If a probability-based argument is perceived by someone as being "absolute", that's not a "me" issue. It's a reader issue.

And I don't know how many times I've explained that I understand what the difference is also. I know that you know. And I know that I know. But it's obvious that you don't know that I know that you know I know. :evil:

I have simply said that in the course of a discusssion those probabilities (whether intentional or unintentional) begin to be talked up as, and evolve into, future absolutes (certainty), with no room for disagreement.

But in the future I'll make sure to seek greater clarity, and maybe even a disclaimer. :D