PDA

View Full Version : Reds acquire Saarloos, sign Bellhorn



BrooklynRedz
01-23-2007, 03:21 PM
Acquired RHP Kirk Saarloos and a PTBNL from the A's for David Shafer and a PTBNL.

And Mark Bellhorn agreed to terms on a Minor League deal with an invitation to Spring Training.

Red Leader
01-23-2007, 03:23 PM
Interesting. I wonder if Saarloos was acquired for the bullpen or the rotation.

There goes RZ's 12th rated Red's prospect...

Dracodave
01-23-2007, 03:24 PM
Acquired RHP Kirk Saarloos and a PTBNL from the A's for David Shafer and a PTBNL.

And Mark Bellhorn agreed to terms on a Minor League deal with an invitation to Spring Training.

Saarloos?? If he is insterted into our rotation he easily becomes a number 3/4 without a doubt. He's better than both Milton and Loshe.
I am AMAZED. I like this trade!!!

Matt700wlw
01-23-2007, 03:30 PM
Interesting.

forfreelin04
01-23-2007, 03:33 PM
Saarlos I know nothing about, but Bellhorn... I thought WayneK wanted to cut down on the strikeouts!!

Joseph
01-23-2007, 03:33 PM
I'll have to see this kids stats. Very interesting. I don't hate trading the unknown for the unproven.

dunner13
01-23-2007, 03:33 PM
W.K quietly makes another nice move.

Red Leader
01-23-2007, 03:34 PM
Year Ag Tm Lg W L G GS CG SHO GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO HBP WP BFP IBB BK ERA *lgERA *ERA+ WHIP
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+------+----+----+----+---+----+----+---+---+-----+---+---+-----+-----+----+-----+
2002 23 HOU NL 6 7 17 17 1 1 0 0 85.3 100 59 57 12 27 54 6 1 372 5 0 6.01 4.28 71 1.488
2003 24 HOU NL 2 1 36 4 0 0 11 0 49.3 55 31 27 4 17 43 3 0 218 3 0 4.93 4.41 90 1.459
2004 25 OAK AL 2 1 6 5 0 0 1 0 24.3 27 13 12 4 12 10 2 0 112 0 0 4.44 4.68 106 1.603
2005 26 OAK AL 10 9 29 27 2 1 0 0 159.7 170 75 74 11 54 53 11 1 682 8 0 4.17 4.49 108 1.403
2006 27 OAK AL 7 7 35 16 0 0 7 2 121.3 149 70 64 19 53 52 3 3 548 3 0 4.75 4.43 93 1.665
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+------+----+----+----+---+----+----+---+---+-----+---+---+-----+-----+----+-----+
5 Yr WL% .519 27 25 123 69 3 2 19 2 440.0 501 248 234 50 163 212 25 5 1932 19 0 4.79 4.43 93 1.509


Saarloos isn't a strikeout pitcher and his WHIP indicates that he does allow a lot of baserunners. We'll have to see how this one turns out. Saarloos is the kind of pitcher that needs a good defense behind him to be truly effective.

RichRed
01-23-2007, 03:34 PM
Saarloos career numbers:

3.33 BB/9
4.34 K/9
1.509 WHIP
4.79 ERA (vs. league avg.: 4.43)

He's only 27 so there's room for improvement but I don't see much to get excited about.

Tom Servo
01-23-2007, 03:35 PM
I like this, quite a bit.

Contract status for those wondering: Saarloos signed a one-year, $1.2 million contract with the A's a few days ago to avoid arbitration, and isn't eligible for free agency until after the 2009 season.

Gallen5862
01-23-2007, 03:37 PM
Could the ptbnl from the A's be the Rule V pick Burton that was selected from the A's?

Redus
01-23-2007, 03:38 PM
I like Saarloos alot. The A's yanked him back and forth from the pen to starting a ton which never let him settle in. I like this trade alot.

Kc61
01-23-2007, 03:40 PM
Saarloos is a ground ball pitcher, so I understand the thinking. He'll be the fifth starter coming out of camp, no doubt.

To me, Bellhorn is very interesting. I would expect him to make the team with Castro as extra infielders. That doesn't leave a lot of room for other bench players. Deno, Valentin, Hamilton, Conine? One too many.

Either they don't expect Deno to make it, or they don't expect Hamilton to make it, or they have something else brewing.

dunner13
01-23-2007, 03:40 PM
I think its a very nice pickup. He wont ever be as good as Harang or Arroyo but in the NL he could be a solid #3.

IslandRed
01-23-2007, 03:42 PM
Just caught that on Trent's blog.

I'm not a fan of Saarloos. I don't understand how the guy can survive striking out so few hitters. But in an environment where Ramon Ortiz just signed for $3 million, Shafer's not too much to pay for another plausible rotation option.

Hey Meat
01-23-2007, 03:49 PM
Saarloos is a ground ball pitcher, so I understand the thinking. He'll be the fifth starter coming out of camp, no doubt.

To me, Bellhorn is very interesting. I would expect him to make the team with Castro as extra infielders. That doesn't leave a lot of room for other bench players. Deno, Valentin, Hamilton, Conine? One too many.

Either they don't expect Deno to make it, or they don't expect Hamilton to make it, or they have something else brewing.

I think they have something else brewing. Could it possibly be Phillips being dealt?

Red Leader
01-23-2007, 03:51 PM
Rotoworld.com:


Reds acquired RHP Kirk Saarloos and a player to be named from the Athletics for RHP David Shafer and a player to be named.

Saarloos went 7-7 with a 4.75 ERA and a 52/53 K/BB ratio in 121 1/3 innings while splitting time between the rotation and the pen for the A's last season. He has a much better chance of continuing to survive in the majors as a National Leaguer, and he could be the favorite to begin the season as Cincinnati's fifth starter. Since he's only going to make $1.2 million this year, it's not a bad pickup for the Reds.

cincy09
01-23-2007, 03:51 PM
CINCINNATI (AP) —


The Oakland Athletics traded pitcher Kirk Saarloos to the Cincinnati Reds on Tuesday for minor league reliever David Shafer.

Each team also received a player to be named.

The 27-year-old Saarloos went 7-7 with two saves and a 4.75 ERA last season for the AL West champions. After being Oakland’s No. 5 starter in 2005, he made 16 starts and 19 relief appearances last year.

Saarloos had a chance to rejoin the rotation full-time this year under new A’s manager Bob Geren. Last week, Saarloos and the Athletics avoided salary arbitration when they agreed on a one-year contract worth $1.2 million.

Shafer, a 24-year-old righty, had 26 saves and a 2.36 ERA for Double-A Chattanooga last year.

dsmith421
01-23-2007, 03:52 PM
Bellhorn is interesting although he was brutal in both New York and San Diego after the Red Sox gave up on him.

Saarloos...hmmm...I don't know if he's even got as much upside as Lohse. I suppose, if nothing else, it means we have an actual major leaguer as the #5 starter instead of Belisle/Ramirez/etc.

Gallen5862
01-23-2007, 04:04 PM
http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASAp...3/c1784694.jsp
Reds acquire Saarloos, sign Bellhorn
01/23/2007 3:36 PM ET
MLB.com

The Reds acquired RHP Kirk Saarloos (pronounced SAHR-lohs) and a player to be named in exchange for RHP David Shafer and a player to be named from the Oakland Athletics today.
Saarloos, 27, last season for the A's went 7-7, 4.75 with 2 saves in 16 starts and 19 relief appearances. In his 5-year Major League career he is 27-25, 4.79 with 3 complete games, 2 shutouts and 2 saves in 123 appearances, including 69 starts, for the Astros and the A's. Shafer, 24, last season at Class AA Chattanooga posted a 2.36era with 26 saves in 44 relief appearances. In November he was added to the Reds' 40-man roster.

Versatile veteran IF Mark Bellhorn has agreed to terms on a minor league contract with an invitation to Major League Spring Training camp. Bellhorn, 32, spent last season with the National League West Division champion Padres. He has more than 200 career appearances at both 2B and 3B and also has played 1B (41g) and SS (31g). He was a member of the 2004 World Series champion Red Sox, and also has played for the Athletics, Cubs, Rockies, Yankees and Padres.

This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

remdog
01-23-2007, 04:20 PM
I think its a very nice pickup. He wont ever be as good as Harang or Arroyo but in the NL he could be a solid #3.

A #3? On this staff---possibly. Solid? Ummmm,.......no.

Rem

flyer85
01-23-2007, 04:28 PM
Interesting. I wonder if Saarloos was acquired for the bullpen or the rotation.

There goes RZ's 12th rated Red's prospect...I see him as a #5 starter. His stuff really doesn't translate that well to the pen.

flyer85
01-23-2007, 04:30 PM
Interesting signing of Bellhorn, he Ks at a higher rate than Dunn. He is right behind him(less BBs and HRs) as the king of TTO.

Gallen5862
01-23-2007, 04:55 PM
Does anyone think its possible that Jared Burton the rule v pick from The A's could be the ptbnl? This way if he doesn't stay on the 25 man roster the Reds keep him on 40 man roster but option him to AAA. If Burton stays on 25 man roster all year then Reds choose someone else from the A's?

Joseph
01-23-2007, 05:05 PM
Does anyone think its possible that Jared Burton the rule v pick from The A's could be the ptbnl? This way if he doesn't stay on the 25 man roster the Reds keep him on 40 man roster but option him to AAA. If Burton stays on 25 man roster all year then Reds choose someone else from the A's?

I'd say thats a highly possible scenario.

Red Daddy
01-23-2007, 05:06 PM
The Sporting News says, "Saarloos is a control pitcher who gets a tone of grounders with his sinker."

That sounds so much better than them saying he gives up 40 homers a year!!

Matt700wlw
01-23-2007, 05:07 PM
The Sporting News says, "Saarloos is a control pitcher who gets a tone of grounders with his sinker."



That's what we've all been clamoring for, isn't it?

dfs
01-23-2007, 05:23 PM
My first thought was "well, there's your number 5 starter. You don't trade Shafer for a guy you want to slip through waivers." and then I thought a bit and looked.

From Baseball reference.

I Split G GS GF W L S CG SHO IP ERA
+-+------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+------+-
as Starter 69 69 0 24 23 0 3 2 368 5.04 427
as Reliever 54 0 19 3 2 2 0 0 72 3.50 74

I wonder if Wayne just got his closer. As a reliever his K/9 is around 7.

Degenerate39
01-23-2007, 05:42 PM
Never heard of the kid but hopefully he'll be some help in the rotation.

Redsland
01-23-2007, 05:42 PM
Does anyone think its possible that Jared Burton the rule v pick from The A's could be the ptbnl? This way if he doesn't stay on the 25 man roster the Reds keep him on 40 man roster but option him to AAA. If Burton stays on 25 man roster all year then Reds choose someone else from the A's?
If a player who is selected in the Rule V draft doesn't stick on his new team's 25-man, not only does he have to be offered back to his old team, but if the old team declines to take him back, then the player has to be exposed to waivers before he can be sent down.

Therefore we'd essentially need 30 teams' permission to send him to AAA.

Danny Serafini
01-23-2007, 05:48 PM
Only if they try and take him off the 40 man. If he's got options they can send him down.

Joseph
01-23-2007, 05:52 PM
The Sporting News says, "Saarloos is a control pitcher who gets a tone of grounders with his sinker."

That sounds so much better than them saying he gives up 40 homers a year!!

Didn't someone say that about Dave Williams too?

AdamDunn
01-23-2007, 06:00 PM
As of now, I don't like it... I think Shafer was going to be pretty good for us in the future. Having Saarloos takes up a spot in our rotation that could have gone to EZ, Wilson, or Belisle could have taken. I think one of those guys would have stepped up (probably EZ) and been better what Saarloos is going to give us. But we'll see.

jbran1114
01-23-2007, 06:03 PM
I'd like to see the Reds give Saarloos a definitive role and see what he can do. I like the pickup as long as they use him correctly. I've can't think of a pitcher who was shuttled from the pen to the rotation, throughout the same season, ever consistantly doing well. Maybe a closer? with the 9th inning defense the Reds could put on the field, I like his sinker.

paulrichjr
01-23-2007, 06:37 PM
Ok with this guy who gets the boot?

Arroyo, Harang, Lohse, Milton, Coffey, Cormier, Majewski, Stanton, and Weathers are locks for the staff. - 9

Saarloos, Belisle, Bray, Ramirez and Shack all seem to be out of options or likely to be on the staff...That is 2 over...

I think Bray is going down but who is the other one (Shack?) and what about Dumatrait? Is he out of options? What about the Rule V guy? Don't we have a pitcher there (rule V)?

Bowden use to invite 20 pitchers to camp and hope that one sticks but they would be non-roster. WayneK signs them as free agents and or trades for guys with ML contracts. I guess produce man has more money than banana man and Marge...

Danny Serafini
01-23-2007, 06:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Shackelford has an option left, and even if he didn't I don't see him making the Opening Day roster. If I had to guess now I'd say Belisle and Bray to the pen, Saarloos as the 5th starter and the rest on the bus to Louisville.

redsmetz
01-23-2007, 06:51 PM
Ok with this guy who gets the boot?

Arroyo, Harang, Lohse, Milton, Coffey, Cormier, Majewski, Stanton, and Weathers are locks for the staff. - 9

Saarloos, Belisle, Bray, Ramirez and Shack all seem to be out of options or likely to be on the staff...That is 2 over...

I think Bray is going down but who is the other one (Shack?) and what about Dumatrait? Is he out of options? What about the Rule V guy? Don't we have a pitcher there (rule V)?

Bowden use to invite 20 pitchers to camp and hope that one sticks but they would be non-roster. WayneK signs them as free agents and or trades for guys with ML contracts. I guess produce man has more money than banana man and Marge...

Is it a new week? Okay, here it is for this week :) - I think Cormier will be moved before the start of the season. I would agree, too, with those who suggest that Livingston will be the PTBNL coming from the A's) which should allow us to send him down to the minors (assuming that he still has options; I'm guessing he does).

fearofpopvol1
01-23-2007, 07:17 PM
My first thought was "well, there's your number 5 starter. You don't trade Shafer for a guy you want to slip through waivers." and then I thought a bit and looked.

From Baseball reference.

I Split G GS GF W L S CG SHO IP ERA
+-+------------+----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+------+-
as Starter 69 69 0 24 23 0 3 2 368 5.04 427
as Reliever 54 0 19 3 2 2 0 0 72 3.50 74

I wonder if Wayne just got his closer. As a reliever his K/9 is around 7.

Very interesting point. Not sure if that will be the case, but it's certainly an interesting thought/idea.

Also, nobody should overlook the fact that he's coming over from the AL. Surely he should see some sort of drop in ERA. I see this as a pretty low risk, possibly high return move. You can't blame Wayne for trying to make one of those under the radar deals. That is where he has traditionally shined.

noskill27
01-23-2007, 07:24 PM
I like the trade. We got a #5 starter who should play well to our improved infield defense for a minor league reliever.

jmac
01-23-2007, 07:25 PM
For lilly, meche, and marquis:eek: money....I would take Saarloos any day.
Wouldnt it be nice if kirk is this year's version of Bronson ?

vaticanplum
01-23-2007, 07:26 PM
Interesting signing of Bellhorn, he Ks at a higher rate than Dunn. He is right behind him(less BBs and HRs) as the king of TTO.

I honestly don't believe that strikeouts are a serious concern of Krivsky's if they're balanced by other things...any idea otherwise is an assumption a lot of people have made, i think. I've never heard him say a negative word about strikeouts, and on two occasions that I can remember off the top of my head he's told people to ignore strikeouts. Narron may be a different story, but this is the guy making the trades.

So we have Lohse and 'Loos. One step closer to Loss! (Kidding.)

redsmetz
01-23-2007, 07:44 PM
I honestly don't believe that strikeouts are a serious concern of Krivsky's if they're balanced by other things...any idea otherwise is an assumption a lot of people have made, i think. I've never heard him say a negative word about strikeouts, and on two occasions that I can remember off the top of my head he's told people to ignore strikeouts. Narron may be a different story, but this is the guy making the trades.

So we have Lohse and 'Loos. One step closer to Loss! (Kidding.)

Okay, let's not bring any bad karma around - you may be required to say a Novena to undo that!

jojo
01-23-2007, 07:59 PM
Saarloos?? If he is insterted into our rotation he easily becomes a number 3/4 without a doubt. He's better than both Milton and Loshe.
I am AMAZED. I like this trade!!!


************cough*************

Handofdeath
01-23-2007, 08:02 PM
I absolutely love this trade. This is going to make the AGon signing look even better. Instead of using his 2006 stats when he went back and forth between starting and relief let's look at his 2005 stats when he was almost exclusively a starter. 10-9 4.17 ERA and 2 complete games. When you translate that into NL numbers where you don't have the DH, you are looking at a 12 game winner with a sub 4.00 ERA. Gil Meche had almost the same numbers this past season and he's getting paid 10 times what Saarloos will get. That is why it was a good idea for WK to not be jumping into the Free Agent market. When I look at his stats his K/9 numbers are interesting. He was a strikeout pitcher at Cal-State Fullerton and he was in the Houston organization including the times he spent with the Astros. It was only when he started pitching for the A's that his K numbers went down. It might have been a coaching/philosophical thing. It might have been what the A's wanted him to do. Just induce the groundball and let the defense do their jobs and it worked pretty well in Oakland. He had success as both kinds of pitchers so it will interesting to see what Pole has him do. To give up a good, but not great prospect who's never pitched above AA for one of the better bottom of the rotation pitchers in the AL is a steal. Congrats to WK on this one.

jojo
01-23-2007, 08:27 PM
I absolutely love this trade. This is going to make the AGon signing look even better. Instead of using his 2006 stats when he went back and forth between starting and relief let's look at his 2005 stats when he was almost exclusively a starter. 10-9 4.17 ERA and 2 complete games. When you translate that into NL numbers where you don't have the DH, you are looking at a 12 game winner with a sub 4.00 ERA. Gil Meche had almost the same numbers this past season and he's getting paid 10 times what Saarloos will get. That is why it was a good idea for WK to not be jumping into the Free Agent market. When I look at his stats his K/9 numbers are interesting. He was a strikeout pitcher at Cal-State Fullerton and he was in the Houston organization including the times he spent with the Astros. It was only when he started pitching for the A's that his K numbers went down. It might have been a coaching/philosophical thing. It might have been what the A's wanted him to do. Just induce the groundball and let the defense do their jobs and it worked pretty well in Oakland. He had success as both kinds of pitchers so it will interesting to see what Pole has him do. To give up a good, but not great prospect who's never pitched above AA for one of the better bottom of the rotation pitchers in the AL is a steal. Congrats to WK on this one.

I'm as stoked about this as its humanly possible to be stoked about a guy who has walked more guys than he's struck out over his last three years as a pro while posting stellar xFIPS as 6.19 and 5.75..... woohoooo!!!!!!!!!!

wow! cool! yaaaaaahhhhhhh! Get ready for a cartwheel.....


DH, you are looking at a 12 game winner with a sub 4.00 ERA.

Ouch! (bottom jaw just hit the floor)......

Yep, there was a whole chapter in Moneyball devoted to how Beane gives away quality starters... :rolleyes:

Seriously, he's much closer to back end fodder that will be sweating to beat out Elizardo as the number 5 placeholder until Homer shows up in July. This gives the Reds some depth...think Linvingston, Elizardo....Saarloos....

Handofdeath
01-23-2007, 08:57 PM
Yep, there was a whole chapter in Moneyball devoted to how Beane gives away quality starters... :rolleyes:

In 9 seasons under Beane's leadership the A's have won exactly one playoff series. That is the same number as the Twins under GM Terry Ryan and they have the same number of Division Titles as the Twins do too. No World Series wins or even appearances for Billy Beane. Billy Beane can compete pretty well with the higher payroll teams but winning is another story. He is also not doing anything that other teams aren't doing. There are other mid to lower payroll teams that are competing as well as the A's. I guess what I'm trying to say is until Billy Beane actually wins something I don't much care what he has to say. Terry Ryan is every bit as good a GM as Beane.

RANDY IN INDY
01-23-2007, 09:00 PM
I think a lot of his success, or lack of, will be a result of who he follows in the rotation if, indeed, he does win a starting job.

Wheelhouse
01-23-2007, 09:03 PM
I'm as stoked about this as its humanly possible to be stoked about a guy who has walked more guys than he's struck out over his last three years as a pro while posting stellar xFIPS as 6.19 and 5.75..... woohoooo!!!!!!!!!!

wow! cool! yaaaaaahhhhhhh! Get ready for a cartwheel.....



Ouch! (bottom jaw just hit the floor)......

Yep, there was a whole chapter in Moneyball devoted to how Beane gives away quality starters... :rolleyes:

Seriously, he's much closer to back end fodder that will be sweating to beat out Elizardo as the number 5 placeholder until Homer shows up in July. This gives the Reds some depth...think Linvingston, Elizardo....Saarloos....

Opp!!! Use of the rolleyes!!! Jojo sarcasm is a phase, not a way of life.

Tom Servo
01-23-2007, 09:09 PM
Yep, there was a whole chapter in Moneyball devoted to how Beane gives away quality starters... :rolleyes:
:wave: :harang: :wave:

Ltlabner
01-23-2007, 09:12 PM
Yep, there was a whole chapter in Moneyball devoted to how Beane gives away quality starters... :rolleyes:

Didn't he let Harrang and Bonderman slip through his fingers?

And no, I'm not saying Saarloos is either one of them. But Beene hasn't been perfect in deciding which pitchers to let walk.

jojo
01-23-2007, 09:17 PM
In 9 seasons under Beane's leadership the A's have won exactly one playoff series. That is the same number as the Twins under GM Terry Ryan and they have the same number of Division Titles as the Twins do too. No World Series wins or even appearances for Billy Beane. Billy Beane can compete pretty well with the higher payroll teams but winning is another story. He is also not doing anything that other teams aren't doing. There are other mid to lower payroll teams that are competing as well as the A's. I guess what I'm trying to say is until Billy Beane actually wins something I don't much care what he has to say. Terry Ryan is every bit as good a GM as Beane.

Thats an interesting take.... 825 wins in 9 yrs is the picture of overrated...

mth123
01-23-2007, 09:19 PM
I'm all for picking up cheap longshots like Saarloos. But he walks too many (3.93/9 last year), gives-up too many HR (1.41/9 in Oakland's pitching paradise), doesn't K enough (3.86/9 last year) and allows too many baserunners (WHIPs of 1.60, 1.40 and 1.66 the last 3 years running).

If they could have gotten Saarloos for DFAs like Harris or Olmedo ok, or a minor league journeyman like Michael Gosling or Eric Junge ok, or as a token return in a Salary Dump for say a Milton or Cormier ok. But for this team to trade a young cheap minor leaguer with options and a chance to play a role for cheap for a few years is too much to pay.

Saarloos will struggle to make the team IMO. Bad Deal.

Dracodave
01-23-2007, 09:31 PM
Does anyone outside of me think this is a precursor to a bigger move? Saarloos was supposively Oaklands numbers five starter, or a very good case at making this..

Something about this move screams "more to come", excuse me for being pumped before but if Saarloos comes back to the NL (He original pitched for Houston) and knocks half a run or a full run off his era due to the pretty timid division he'd be pitching in.. Doesn't this still qualify as a good trade for the Reds? We got a young, decent arm for 1.2 million dollars. He might not be Pedro circa 2000, but is he better than running out a under-devolped Bailey, an always injured Belisle or Victor "Please hit me" Santos?

So he's failed in the american league, don't you think switching back and facing weaker competition might help him? Im not saying he's going to perform a miracle and win the Cy young, but league average is a plus expecially for 1.2 mill in todays market?

But hey, we can always sign more over-aged relievers and Conine.

jojo
01-23-2007, 09:33 PM
Didn't he let Harrang and Bonderman slip through his fingers?

Harang was sent to Cincy for Guillen who helped Oakland to 103 wins that year where he had an OPS of 1.116 for them in the postseason....

As for Bonderman, several teams have been fooled by Pena and it's not exactly like they let him go at a time pitching was a weakenss in their organisation. If a GM can go 9 years and only be criticized for 1 arm that got away, I bet he sleeps well at night.

Handofdeath
01-23-2007, 09:35 PM
Thats an interesting take.... 825 wins in 9 yrs is the picture of overrated...

I don't recall using the "overrated." Moneyball is a great read but to treat him as some genius that has accomplished more than he actually has is wrong. I have no problem with his methods or anything like that but the fact is he has not made it to the World Series and doesn't deserve the worship that some give him.

jojo
01-23-2007, 09:39 PM
I don't recall using the "overrated." Moneyball is a great read but to treat him as some genius that has accomplished more than he actually has is wrong. I have no problem with his methods or anything like that but the fact is he has not made it to the World Series and doesn't deserve the worship that some give him.

paraphrased: "I'm not saying he's overrated, it's just that people who don't think he's overrated, think too highly of him." :cool:

:beerme:

IslandRed
01-23-2007, 09:44 PM
If they could have gotten Saarloos for DFAs like Harris or Olmedo ok, or a minor league journeyman like Michael Gosling or Eric Junge ok, or as a token return in a Salary Dump for say a Milton or Cormier ok. But for this team to trade a young cheap minor leaguer with options and a chance to play a role for cheap for a few years is too much to pay.

Now, I'm not all that impressed with Saarloos either, but I disagree with your premise here. Shafer's probably just as long a shot to be anything more than Just Another Bullpen Guy as Saarloos is to hold down a rotation spot on merit, and if I'm going to roll the dice, I'll take the starter at $1.2 million over the reliever at $400,000 every time. The marginal cost of finding starting pitchers is just so much higher.

dsmith421
01-23-2007, 09:45 PM
Does anyone outside of me think this is a precursor to a bigger move?

Everything Krivsky does is a precursor to a bigger move. Until he goes dumpster-diving again. And again. And again.

Aronchis
01-23-2007, 09:47 PM
Yeah, Shafer is overvalued on these boards while Medlock is undervalued. Medlock has a better physical upside in the pen(why he was moved there) and a better breaking pitch. Shafer is just a spare part that figures to be a long reliever if he makes it while Medlock may be a setup man at some point.

jojo
01-23-2007, 09:49 PM
Now, I'm not all that impressed with Saarloos either, but I disagree with your premise here. Shafer's probably just as long a shot to be anything more than Just Another Bullpen Guy as Saarloos is to hold down a rotation spot on merit, and if I'm going to roll the dice, I'll take the starter at $1.2 million over the reliever at $400,000 every time. The marginal cost of finding starting pitchers is just so much higher.

#5 starters aren't that rare or difficult to pick up.....

Handofdeath
01-23-2007, 09:56 PM
#5 starters aren't that rare or difficult to pick up.....

But good ones are.

Superdude
01-23-2007, 09:57 PM
I'm kind of indifferent about this. I've never heard anything about Shafer's stuff, so while he was good last year, he probably won't be anything more than a decent middle reliever. Saarloos might be able to hold down the #5 spot or eat some innings in a mop up role next season, but I could say that about a lot of guys. His HR rate last year in pitcher friendly Oakland frightens me a little. Whatever Wayne. I'm getting to the point where as long as his mind boggling moves don't involve key organizational players, I'm happy.

mth123
01-23-2007, 09:57 PM
Now, I'm not all that impressed with Saarloos either, but I disagree with your premise here. Shafer's probably just as long a shot to be anything more than Just Another Bullpen Guy as Saarloos is to hold down a rotation spot on merit, and if I'm going to roll the dice, I'll take the starter at $1.2 million over the reliever at $400,000 every time. The marginal cost of finding starting pitchers is just so much higher.

That's a fair point. But with Dumatrait out of options and guys like Ramirez and Belisle around with guys like Santos and Livingston also competing, keeping Saarloos will probably lead to losing another starter (maybe 2) by the time its all over. So the team loses a potentially useful bullpen guy it can stash at AAA for a while and basically swaps interchangeable parts for the rotation when whichever of these guys who Saarloos pushes aside is claimed on waivers or asks for his release.

Personally, I think Belisle, Ramirez and Santos are all better options for the #5 slot and were already here w/o giving up Shafer.

Some one suggested another move off of this one. I hope so, because by itself this move makes no sense to me.

jojo
01-23-2007, 10:02 PM
But good ones are.


right because good ones are called #3 starters....

paulrichjr
01-23-2007, 10:19 PM
right because good ones are called #3 starters....


Actually in Cincy they are called number 1s

Handofdeath
01-23-2007, 10:19 PM
Last thing I'll say on the matter. In 2005 Saarloos had 159 IP. So he didn't have enough IP to qualify for awards and such. There were still only 34 pitchers who had more wins. Had he had enough IP to qualify he would have been 25th in ERA. This is in a 14 team league. Don't be fooled by the 2006 season. Pitching relief and starting are two completely different things. Saarloos is a damn good pitcher. The Reds needed a #3-5 starter and got him cheap.

mth123
01-23-2007, 10:36 PM
Last thing I'll say on the matter. In 2005 Saarloos had 159 IP. So he didn't have enough IP to qualify for awards and such. There were still only 34 pitchers who had more wins. Had he had enough IP to qualify he would have been 25th in ERA. This is in a 14 team league. Don't be fooled by the 2006 season. Pitching relief and starting are two completely different things. Saarloos is a damn good pitcher. The Reds needed a #3-5 starter and got him cheap.

He was ok in 2005 and his BABIP was .291 which was not exceptionally low. That is hopeful but 2005 looks like the unusual year not 2006. Pecota projects a 2007 ERA of 5.57 and that doesn't take going to Cincy's launching pad into consideration.

I don't see an upgrade.




Name ERA K/9 BB/9 HR/9 WHIP BABIP
Saarloos 4.75 3.86 3.93 1.41 1.66 0.315
Santos 5.70 6.32 3.28 1.25 1.66 0.362
Ramirez 5.37 5.97 2.51 1.21 1.46 0.323
Belisle 3.60 5.85 4.28 1.13 1.55 0.306

Betterread
01-23-2007, 10:42 PM
I like the move. I remember when Saarloos went against Gosling in the Pac-10 and I thought I was watching future major leaguers. Who would have thought they would be in Reds organization. Saarloos can pitch, and if he is healthy, he will earn fans' respect here.

IslandRed
01-23-2007, 10:52 PM
#5 starters aren't that rare or difficult to pick up.....

That's a tricky proposition. Based on numbers that have been posted by Cyclone, RMR and others, and just general observation, the #5 starter is largely a mythical creature. It's very easy to find a #5 starter if you're talking about the MLB average #5 starter, i.e. someone who puts up an ERA in the high fives or six-something and loses his job. Almost by definition, if a guy like Saarloos can pitch well enough to stay in the rotation, he's pitching closer to a #4. Those aren't so easy to find, at least not for $1.2 million and a middling prospect.

DoogMinAmo
01-23-2007, 11:02 PM
Sarloos seems like a stopgap to bide time until someone in the minors is ready. Then he will be flipped in a pitching starved market for propsects if the Reds are out, or for a hitter to put the Reds over the edge.

IslandRed
01-23-2007, 11:03 PM
That's a fair point. But with Dumatrait out of options and guys like Ramirez and Belisle around with guys like Santos and Livingston also competing, keeping Saarloos will probably lead to losing another starter (maybe 2) by the time its all over.

Saarloos can pitch out of the pen, so I don't see the Reds as being locked into using him in the rotation. If someone outpitches him then go with that. As for losing guys, that will be unfortunate if it happens, but whether I care depends on which guy it is. :p:

Gallen5862
01-23-2007, 11:12 PM
This seems like a decent review of the trade.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today...int263178.html
Reds Add Saarloos To Staff
By Jim Callis
January 23, 2007

The Deal
The Reds can use some help at the back of their rotation and in middle relief, and they found some Tuesday. Cincinnati acquired Kirk Saarloos from the Athletics in exchange for Double-A reliever David Shafer. Both teams also will receive a player to be named later.
The Big Leaguers
A 27-year-old righthander, Saarloos has split his big league career between starting and relieving. He served both roles for Oakland last year, going 7-7, 4.75 with two saves in 35 games (16 starts). Opponents batted .308 with 15 homers against him, and he had more walks (53) than strikeouts (52) in 121 innings of work. He's a finesse guy without a put-away pitch, and he has to throw strikes and keep the ball down to succeed. He avoided arbitration by signing a one-year, $1.2 million contract earlier this month.
The Prospects
Shafer, a 24-year-old righty, went in the 31st round in 2001 and signed as a draft-and-follow out of Central Arizona JC the following spring. He has an average fastball (88-92 mph) and slider, and he commands both pitches well. He spent 2006 as the closer at Double-A Chattanooga, going 1-2, 2.36 with 26 saves in 44 appearances. He had a 52-16 K-BB ratio and held hitters to a .204 average with two homers. He projects as a sixth/seventh-inning reliever in the majors.
Quick Take
Saarloos doesn't have a high ceiling, but he can eat some innings and didn't cost the Reds a top prospect.


« Trade Central 2007

mth123
01-23-2007, 11:14 PM
Saarloos can pitch out of the pen, so I don't see the Reds as being locked into using him in the rotation. If someone outpitches him then go with that. As for losing guys, that will be unfortunate if it happens, but whether I care depends on which guy it is. :p:

Agree, but the pen is full of WK's other junk. I can't see Saarloos fitting there. I just don't understand trading Shafer to swap Saarloos for one of the others. I think this move makes most sense if Ramirez is more seriously hurt than advertised and Belisle's back is still a huge question, because as pitchers Belisle and Ramirez look better to me. In fact, Saarloos seems like he was Oakland's slightly older version of Belisle (wth a lot less stuff).

Betterread
01-23-2007, 11:27 PM
Agree, but the pen is full of WK's other junk. I can't see Saarloos fitting there. I just don't understand trading Shafer to swap Saarloos for one of the others. I think this move makes most sense if Ramirez is more seriously hurt than advertised and Belisle's back is still a huge question, because as pitchers Belisle and Ramirez look better to me. In fact, Saarloos seems like he was Oakland's slightly older version of Belisle (wth a lot less stuff).

Belisle is not an effective ML starter, his stuff is maximized in relief. I think you may be on to something regarding Ramirez, though. He must be diagnosed with a major arm injury.

IslandRed
01-23-2007, 11:28 PM
Agree, but the pen is full of WK's other junk. I can't see Saarloos fitting there. I just don't understand trading Shafer to swap Saarloos for one of the others. I think this move makes most sense if Ramirez is more seriously hurt than advertised and Belisle's back is still a huge question, because as pitchers Belisle and Ramirez look better to me. In fact, Saarloos seems like he was Oakland's slightly older version of Belisle (wth a lot less stuff).

Belisle's probably a decent comp for the role Saarloos is going for. Assuming the Reds carry a 12-man staff as usual, that means a seven-man bullpen. One of them is probably going to be a long-man type; the six guys that are probably locks barring trades (Stanton, Weathers, Coffey, Bray, Majewski, Cormier) don't fit that profile.

Anyway, going back to the issue, Belisle and Ramirez and the other guys could hold down a rotation spot but the acquisition of Saarloos doesn't say much for the front office's confidence that they will. Maybe it's health-related, maybe something else, I don't know.

GridironGrace
01-23-2007, 11:34 PM
he's solid far as ive heard from my A's fan buddy..

nice sinker.. good change up... and is good as a starter or out of the pen.. love the trade and ill talk to my freind and find out if theres anything else i can add for you guys.

Cedric
01-24-2007, 12:01 AM
Agree, but the pen is full of WK's other junk. I can't see Saarloos fitting there. I just don't understand trading Shafer to swap Saarloos for one of the others. I think this move makes most sense if Ramirez is more seriously hurt than advertised and Belisle's back is still a huge question, because as pitchers Belisle and Ramirez look better to me. In fact, Saarloos seems like he was Oakland's slightly older version of Belisle (wth a lot less stuff).

They might look better, but they aren't better. Elizardo has plenty of fans on this site, reminds me of the great Jose Acevado. The guy is nothing, he's not got a chance in this league. Look at his BABIP and instead of seeing someone truly unlucky you might see someone that is just truly bad. Bad pitchers sustain bad babip because that is what they are, a bad pitcher.

Saarloos is by no means a savior, he's just proven to be more a little more effective with a longer track record than anything we had right now. Elizardo or Belisle don't have anything that makes me think they could sustain success for another long period of time.

Patrick Bateman
01-24-2007, 12:16 AM
They might look better, but they aren't better. Elizardo has plenty of fans on this site, reminds me of the great Jose Acevado. The guy is nothing, he's not got a chance in this league. Look at his BABIP and instead of seeing someone truly unlucky you might see someone that is just truly bad. Bad pitchers sustain bad babip because that is what they are, a bad pitcher.

Saarloos is by no means a savior, he's just proven to be more a little more effective with a longer track record than anything we had right now. Elizardo or Belisle don't have anything that makes me think they could sustain success for another long period of time.

I know we have argued this point before so I wont go into this very far, but there is no evidence to support that bad pitchers sustain bad BAPIP's. We can all agree that Eric Milton is a very bad picther (mostly the last 3 years), but in that span he has had around a league average BAPIP. Even this last season Milton maintained a far lower BAPIP than Harang. There are tons of these examples, and when you look past the small sample sizes the BAPIP's tend to vary year to year and even out regardless of the pitcher's skill.

savafan
01-24-2007, 12:29 AM
Man, I've been calling for the Reds to acquire Bellhorn for years now...

Cedric
01-24-2007, 12:33 AM
I know we have argued this point before so I wont go into this very far, but there is no evidence to support that bad pitchers sustain bad BAPIP's. We can all agree that Eric Milton is a very bad picther (mostly the last 3 years), but in that span he has had around a league average BAPIP. Even this last season Milton maintained a far lower BAPIP than Harang. There are tons of these examples, and when you look past the small sample sizes the BAPIP's tend to vary year to year and even out regardless of the pitcher's skill.

There is plenty of reason that Tom Glavine, Jamie Moyer and knuckle ball type pitchers have had long, great careers. They didn't get that way by striking out batters.

Bad pitchers are going to get hit harder than good pitchers, it's not rocket science. Those balls aren't as easy to be played. Line drive factor is very important, IMO.

Bill James did a long study and while he agreed with using McCracken's work as a tool for weeding out seasons like Joe Mays in 2002, he doesn't agree that it's going to guarantee a change in babip success for truly poor pitchers.

At some point you have to watch with your own eyes and see someone's stuff. Elizardo has no movement on his pitches and definately no late movement. He has little chance to improve his babip without a total change in his arsenal, IMO.
I don't wanna hijack the thread anymore though, so on with the Bellhorn is hot discussion :)

Jim
01-24-2007, 01:36 AM
Gotta like Saarloos' groundball to flyball ratios. Beats Milton who's average G/F is about 0.5



SEASON TEAM G/F
2002 Hou 2.45
2003 Hou 2.02
2004 Oak 1.92
2005 Oak 2.34
2006 Oak 2.00
----------------------
Total -- 2.19

bianchiveloce
01-24-2007, 03:29 AM
I like the acquisition of Kirk Saarloos since he is a groundball pitcher.

In looking up his Groundball Percentages (GB%) on The Hardball Times site, I noticed that he has had GB% of 54.0% in 2006, 56.6% in 2005, and 52.9% in 2004. Those are excellent rates and very consistent. In 2006, according to The Hardball Times 2007 Annual, Saarloos was the 10th best pitcher in GB% with a minimum of 502 Batters Faced in the Major Leagues. I don't mind a low Strike Out pitcher if his GB% is high.

Along with acquiring Ground Ball pitchers, we need to have the outstanding defense to go after all those ground balls. After all, if the ground balls get by our fielders, what good is it to have Ground Ball pitchers?

Looking at the positions up the middle in the form of Shortstop(SS) and Secondbaseman(2B), the Reds are in a little trouble.

For all of Alex Gonzalez's reputation as a good fielder, the numbers don't bear it out. In the 2007 Bill James Handbook (BJH), Gonzalez was ranked 20th out of 30 Regular SS in Range Factor (Rng). Rng is defined as the number of successful chances (Putouts plus Assists) times nine, divided by the number of Defensive Innings played. Looking up Fielding Runs Above Average (FRAA) in Baseball Prospectus (BP), Gonzalez has had FRAA of -5 in 2006, -3 in 2005, and -6 in 2004.

In the case of Brandon Phillips at 2B, the 2007 BJH has him ranked 17th in Rng out of 29 Regular 2B. And, BP has him at -15 in FRAA for 2006. Phillips didn't spend enough time in 2005 and 2004 at the Major League level to warrant his fielding statistics as significant for those years.

In summation, I like that Mr. Krivsky has went after a Ground Ball pitcher, but now we need to improve the defense to go along with that type of pitcher as I don't have much confidence in Gonzalez's and Phillips' defense.

For those that may be interested in the relationship between Batted Ball types and Strikeout Rates, here is a link to an interesting artlicle from Rich Lederer at Baseball Analysts: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2007/01/categorizing_pi.php

Handofdeath
01-24-2007, 04:30 AM
I like the acquisition of Kirk Saarloos since he is a groundball pitcher.

In looking up his Groundball Percentages (GB%) on The Hardball Times site, I noticed that he has had GB% of 54.0% in 2006, 56.6% in 2005, and 52.9% in 2004. Those are excellent rates and very consistent. In 2006, according to The Hardball Times 2007 Annual, Saarloos was the 10th best pitcher in GB% with a minimum of 502 Batters Faced in the Major Leagues. I don't mind a low Strike Out pitcher if his GB% is high.

Along with acquiring Ground Ball pitchers, we need to have the outstanding defense to go after all those ground balls. After all, if the ground balls get by our fielders, what good is it to have Ground Ball pitchers?

Looking at the positions up the middle in the form of Shortstop(SS) and Secondbaseman(2B), the Reds are in a little trouble.

For all of Alex Gonzalez's reputation as a good fielder, the numbers don't bear it out. In the 2007 Bill James Handbook (BJH), Gonzalez was ranked 20th out of 30 Regular SS in Range Factor (Rng). Rng is defined as the number of successful chances (Putouts plus Assists) times nine, divided by the number of Defensive Innings played. Looking up Fielding Runs Above Average (FRAA) in Baseball Prospectus (BP), Gonzalez has had FRAA of -5 in 2006, -3 in 2005, and -6 in 2004.

In the case of Brandon Phillips at 2B, the 2007 BJH has him ranked 17th in Rng out of 29 Regular 2B. And, BP has him at -15 in FRAA for 2006. Phillips didn't spend enough time in 2005 and 2004 at the Major League level to warrant his fielding statistics as significant for those years.

In summation, I like that Mr. Krivsky has went after a Ground Ball pitcher, but now we need to improve the defense to go along with that type of pitcher as I don't have much confidence in Gonzalez's and Phillips' defense.

For those that may be interested in the relationship between Batted Ball types and Strikeout Rates, here is a link to an interesting artlicle from Rich Lederer at Baseball Analysts: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2007/01/categorizing_pi.php

There is plenty of people out there who have a problem with AGon's offensive numbers but there are very few that doubt his defense. Most would say he deserved the Gold Glove over Jeter this past season. Many would also say that with the exception of Omar Vizquel he just might be the best defensive SS in baseball. This is one of those occasions where the numbers don't necessarily tell the true story.

Dunner44
01-24-2007, 07:59 AM
Well I guess this means that the Reds weren't in on the Tomo Okha talks after all (or else knew they couldn't get him and so they went after a lower priced alternative)

By the way, I love that his GO/FO ratio is close to 2.... I cringe whenever I pull up that stat for Uncle Milt. If you are going to be a successful pitcher in GABP you either need to K a lot or else get a lot of GOs.

UK Reds Fan
01-24-2007, 08:17 AM
Name ERA K/9 BB/9 HR/9 WHIP BABIP
Saarloos 4.75 3.86 3.93 1.41 1.66 0.315
Santos 5.70 6.32 3.28 1.25 1.66 0.362
Ramirez 5.37 5.97 2.51 1.21 1.46 0.323
Belisle 3.60 5.85 4.28 1.13 1.55 0.306




I am struggling to look at the same numbers and not see a better pitcher?
ERA is by far the most important number in this scenario and only Belisle is better, but with only 50 Innings and all of this in relief.

Also, Sarloos has an American League ERA which would come down a bit in the National league w.o the DH to contend with. Sarloos isn't old or on the downside of his career.

The only thing working against Sarloos is he is moving to a ballpark that is less pitcher friendly than whence he came. Shafter isn't a prospect by any opinion and we've got tons of BP options better than he, so we don't really even lose a prospect to speak of. Outside of the ballpark Sarloos is leaving, at I am struggling to see the issue on how this guy doesn't improve the roster atleast incrementally.

jojo
01-24-2007, 09:21 AM
ERA is by far the most important number in this scenario

ERA is the least important number in that scenario. A pitcher's peripherals are always much more informative than his ERA.


The only thing working against Sarloos is he is moving to a ballpark that is less pitcher friendly than whence he came.

On the surface it seems that simple but you have to remember he's moving from a division where three out of the four teams have extreme pitcher's parks to a division that has GABP, Wrigley field, Houstan's short porch, the Cards' new launching pad..... well you get the idea... He'll be battling more than the dramatically altered influence of just his own home park.


I am struggling to see the issue on how this guy doesn't improve the roster atleast incrementally.

He improves the roster as much as a soft-tossing guy with no upside or out pitch who relies upon control to be effective yet walks as many as he strikes out possibly can improve the roster...

Here' a comparison of guys on the Reds roster based upon Pecota projections for '07:

Belisle: GB%: 53% ; PERA: 4.60;
E. Ramirez: GB%: 46% ; PERA: 5.06;
Lohse: GB%: 45%; PERA: 5.05;
Saarloos: GB%: 53%; PERA: 5.15;
Livingston: GB%: 46%; PERA: 5.16;
Milton: GB%: 37%; PERA: 5.50;

Saarloos is roster fodder projected to give innings at below league average quality. He basically fits right in with the back end guys adding depth to the dregs fighting it out for the #5 slot/mop up guy role. I really don't mean to be beating him up like it probably appears that I am... but really Saarloos doesn't bring a ton to the team. It was a trade of spare parts by both GM's where each get to spend less on the new part than they would've had to have spent on the alternative. It's a move with no real downside for either team but it's also one with not a lot of upside. The Reds didn't acquire a #3. They got competition for the #5 spot/bullpen.

bottom_feeder
01-24-2007, 09:24 AM
Does anyone outside of me think this is a precursor to a bigger move? .

I like this trade. Sarloos isn't going to win 20 games, but he's not going to be as bad as the Lizard and Belisile. Sarloos makes this team less painful to watch.

My fear is that the Reds are setting up a midseason trade of Arroyo or Harang. I do not trust WayneK to make a big move like that. On the other hand, since Milton is gone after this season, and Lohse is unlikely to be here next year, maybe Sarloos isn't setting up anything. Maybe WayneK realizes he needs bodies to man the rotation longterm.

jojo
01-24-2007, 09:27 AM
My fear is that the Reds are setting up a midseason trade of Arroyo or Harang.


That may happen but adding Saarloos isn't the transaction that would precipitate it...

bottom_feeder
01-24-2007, 09:31 AM
That may happen but adding Saarloos isn't the transaction that would precipitate it...

The point is that if WayneK plans to trade a starter, it's prudent to grab a body now to replace him, so he's not forced to call up Homer just to have a replacement body.

I guess we can dream and hope this is setting up a Milton or Lohse trade.

jojo
01-24-2007, 09:34 AM
The point is that if WayneK plans to trade a starter, it's prudent to grab a body now to replace him, so he's not forced to call up Homer just to have a replacement body.

I guess we can dream and hope this is setting up a Milton or Lohse trade.


Yes but pick a body: Belisle, E. Ramirez, Lohse, Livingston, Milton.

He didn't need to add Saarloos to the mix to have a replacement body....he's already got several whose pictures appear in the webster's definition of replacement level pitcher...

MississippiRed
01-24-2007, 09:38 AM
So he's failed in the american league, don't you think switching back and facing weaker competition might help him? Im not saying he's going to perform a miracle and win the Cy young, but league average is a plus expecially for 1.2 mill in todays market?

But hey, we can always sign more over-aged relievers and Conine.

Really, I don't know if Saarloos is the answer, but I think this is at least the direction the Reds should be going with their pitching. Any pitcher in GABP that gets the ball up will give up a lot of home runs. We signed an excellent defensive SS, let's give him a chance to earn his money. I said in a post a couple of months ago that I would be scouring the AL rosters (looking for the bump in ERA from the switch) for pitchers who throw a lot of ground balls. This is the best chance the Reds have without paying $10M to $15M for a pitcher that can strike out a lot of batters. Saarloos is obviously not a big K guy, but ground balls to SS are about as good as a K, I think.

Now, if Krivsky really wants to get back in my good graces, he would trade Milton for another guy with Saarloos' groundball tendencies and save some payroll to sign Harang to a long-term contract.

Michael

IslandRed
01-24-2007, 10:35 AM
For all of Alex Gonzalez's reputation as a good fielder, the numbers don't bear it out. In the 2007 Bill James Handbook (BJH), Gonzalez was ranked 20th out of 30 Regular SS in Range Factor (Rng). Rng is defined as the number of successful chances (Putouts plus Assists) times nine, divided by the number of Defensive Innings played. Looking up Fielding Runs Above Average (FRAA) in Baseball Prospectus (BP), Gonzalez has had FRAA of -5 in 2006, -3 in 2005, and -6 in 2004.

There are other sets of defensive metrics that show Gonzalez as very good. So it's not cut and dried. Range Factor itself is a pretty old and crude metric, I don't think most people take it as proof of anything anymore.

Patrick Bateman
01-24-2007, 10:56 AM
There is plenty of reason that Tom Glavine, Jamie Moyer and knuckle ball type pitchers have had long, great careers. They didn't get that way by striking out batters.



Yet Glavine and Moyer had career BAPIPs of .286 and .291 respectively, well within the norms for BAPIP. Those 2 pitchers were mainly successful because of low BB and HR rtaes. Not because of BAPIP.

dunner13
01-24-2007, 11:13 AM
Its interesting that this trade happened right around the same time that ohka signed. Makes me think we were the mystery team trying to get ohka but he turned us down so Wayne went with plan B which was sarloos. I could be completly wrong but its fun to guess at what might have happened.

Dracodave
01-24-2007, 11:14 AM
With no offense to either side of the agruement of saarloos being good or just plain crap. We really need to sit back and realize we all asked for starting pitching, cheap and atleast league average. We may have gotten that on both fronts for a prospect who's going to take atleast two years be a force for the A's.

In that same light, if Kirk comes in and lowers his era by half a point or even .40 to have a 4.00 era does that still not keep us in games? That's all we need. A pitcher to keep us in games.

jojo
01-24-2007, 03:02 PM
In that same light, if Kirk comes in and lowers his era by half a point or even .40 to have a 4.00 era does that still not keep us in games? That's all we need. A pitcher to keep us in games.


Yes, but isn't that kind of like arguing the Reds should've signed Ryan Franklin because if he repeats his '03 season, he'd be the reds #3?????????????

Dracodave
01-24-2007, 03:11 PM
Yes, but isn't that kind of like arguing the Reds should've signed Ryan Franklin because if he repeats his '03 season, he'd be the reds #3?????????????

No, my agruement is Kirk is 27, can he get much worse? Harrang was close to 26/27 when he started putting it together for the Reds. Franklin (whos what 33/34?) repeating anything won't happen. My point is this will surely be a test for Pole to see if he can turn Kirk around.

Before this guy has even thrown a pitch for the Reds, half of us have labeled him Milton JR. See what he does for us first, we're playing in a weaker division than Oakland plays in and the fact that even if we play in a Homerun hitters park, he has the GB/FB ratio to still excell here.

Cigar2
01-24-2007, 03:21 PM
Well with this trade I'm indifferent it could workout with catching lighting in a bottle or it could not workout.
But at least it's not costing us much a lot of the the pitching moves Wayne makes in the area of startin are purely stop gaps until Homer is ready mid season at the latest this season.
And even then will still want to ease Homer in to the full time job.

jojo
01-24-2007, 03:47 PM
No, my agruement is Kirk is 27, can he get much worse? Harrang was close to 26/27 when he started putting it together for the Reds. Franklin (whos what 33/34?) repeating anything won't happen. My point is this will surely be a test for Pole to see if he can turn Kirk around.

Before this guy has even thrown a pitch for the Reds, half of us have labeled him Milton JR. See what he does for us first, we're playing in a weaker division than Oakland plays in and the fact that even if we play in a Homerun hitters park, he has the GB/FB ratio to still excell here.

Well yes... Pecota thinks this guy is all downside (attrition and collapse are both higher than his improve).

His list of comparibles is basically comprised of a bunch of guys whose arms fell off (looking at some of their careers, literally, some of them must have had an arm severed off)....

redsmetz
01-24-2007, 03:50 PM
Well yes... Pecota thinks this guy is all downside (attrition and collapse are both higher than his improve).

His list of comparibles is basically comprised of a bunch of guys whose arms fell off (looking at some of their careers, literally, some of them must have had an arm severed off)....

That strikes me as such an absurd statement. It's why sometimes I just pull out what little hair I have left because some of this statistical analysis seems completely devoid of any human element. I know that's heresy around here, but this pitcher seems to have some modicum of talent. We'll see how well he does, but I think it will be better than someone whose completely broken down.

bucksfan2
01-24-2007, 04:34 PM
I dont understand why some people are upset with this move. Shafer was more than likely a guy who would do nothing more than pitch middle relief a few years down the road. In return the reds got a guy who will probably be used as a starter his year and who they will control for a few more. Is Saarloos becomes a guy who will go .500 and have an era around 4.00 isnt this deal one heck of a deal???

Patrick Bateman
01-24-2007, 04:42 PM
I think what a lot of people ar missing is the fact that Saarloos was a very bad pitcher last season. If he doesn't imrove on his peripherals, he is likely to have a Milton like explosion.

Still being young, I hope Saarloos can rebound to his 2005 form where his HR rate was quite low. If he can do that, Saarloos can be an effective pitcher for us and potentially be our 3rd best starter. And maybe he can improve on his K:BB ratio. If he pitches the way he did when he struck out 11 guys in 5 innings which prompted him to say that he had the ability to do that, but it wasn't very economical, then he could improve on that. I'd rather have 5-6 innings of good pitching, than an economical 7 innings when he isn't particualrly effective. It does seem like there may be a bit of hidden talent here.

Overall, this move isn't bad. A million bucks and a fringe prospect aren't worth a whole lot. He's going to have to pitch a lot better than he did last season in order to be an asset, but I think he has the talent to do so as shown in 2005. He has a better chance of being rotation material than the alternatives for the last spot (and Milton) so hopefully he can produce.

UK Reds Fan
01-24-2007, 05:20 PM
ERA is the least important number in that scenario. A pitcher's peripherals are always much more informative than his ERA.
.

Baseball is full of millions of stats, but isn't the goal in the end for a pitcher to eliminate as many runs as possible to give his team a best chance to win? Stats such as k/bb, k/9, BABIP, Wins/Losses, etc..all are fine stats but at the end of a game for starting pitchers how many runs you give up is what matters as this is what you have most control over. ERA gives a solid perspective of this. Sarloos has a bit above mediocre ERA, which for 1.2M and a no prospect for the Reds is an improvement.

If periphals were all so important, guys like Maddux, Glavine, Moyer, etc..would appear as mortal to below average pitchers.

IslandRed
01-24-2007, 05:28 PM
If periphals were all so important, guys like Maddux, Glavine, Moyer, etc..would appear as mortal to below average pitchers.

Only with respect to strikeout rates. And even then, just to use Maddux as an example, at his peak he didn't have a great K/9 but it was still good. And his other key defense-independent ratios -- BB/9, K/BB and HR/9 -- were absurdly good.

Now, Glavine is a guy who has a track record of outperforming his peripherals. Those guys do exist, and it always intrigues me to figure out what it is those guys do that allows it. But we're still talking about degrees. Getting back to Saarloos, I pointed out in another thread that he seemed to outperform his peripherals consistently and maybe it had to do with him getting better with runners on base, which is atypical. But we're still talking about, at most, half a run a game. If his peripherals don't improve, that half a run a game isn't going to save his rotation spot.

Patrick Bateman
01-24-2007, 05:50 PM
Baseball is full of millions of stats, but isn't the goal in the end for a pitcher to eliminate as many runs as possible to give his team a best chance to win? Stats such as k/bb, k/9, BABIP, Wins/Losses, etc..all are fine stats but at the end of a game for starting pitchers how many runs you give up is what matters as this is what you have most control over. ERA gives a solid perspective of this. Sarloos has a bit above mediocre ERA, which for 1.2M and a no prospect for the Reds is an improvement.

But ERA is not particularly great at predicting future outcomes. Peripheral stats are better indicators. If you want to find someone likely to post a good ERA, the peripherals give a better indication than ERA does. ERA is far too volatile to put a great deal of emphasis on.


If periphals were all so important, guys like Maddux, Glavine, Moyer, etc..would appear as mortal to below average pitchers.

But those guys have good peripherals. That's why they have continued success. If they had bad peripherals they would eventually run into trouble. There are no stats that will tell you those pitchers have been below average.

jojo
01-24-2007, 08:46 PM
If periphals were all so important, guys like Maddux, Glavine, Moyer, etc..would appear as mortal to below average pitchers.

Maybe this is the way I should have stated it..... ERA can lie....there are many components that are completely out of the pitchers control-including plain old luck-which can influence ERA. A pitcher's peripherals are much more indicative of his true skillset and tend to vary to a much lesser degree without an underlying cause.

forfreelin04
01-24-2007, 11:49 PM
Maybe this is the way I should have stated it..... ERA can lie....there are many components that are completely out of the pitchers control-including plain old luck-which can influence ERA. A pitcher's peripherals are much more indicative of his true skillset and tend to vary to a much lesser degree without an underlying cause.

Just out of curiosity, what pitching stat comprises the most non luck? Or the one that is most closely associated to the pitchers own strengths and weaknesses?

jojo
01-25-2007, 07:36 AM
Just out of curiosity, what pitching stat comprises the most non luck? Or the one that is most closely associated to the pitchers own strengths and weaknesses?


Here's just a quick and dirty synopsis. Maybe other zoners can chime in and fill in the gaps that I may have ignored.

Here's a short list of things a pitcher can generally control-often people refer to things like this as the pitcher's "peripherals" (i.e. things that have nothing to do with the defense behind him and are indicative of the pitcher's skill set which shouldn't vary dramatically without an underlying reason such as age effects, addition/mastery of a pitch, or injury):

1. strikeouts
2. walks
3. batted ball type (i.e. fly ball tendencies vs ground ball tendencies)
4. homeruns (to a degree)
5. hit batters

Here's a short list of things pitchers generally have no control over (these things generally can vary wildly from season to season without cause):

1. whether the batted ball is a hit or an out (BABIP)
2. HR/FB rate (i.e. whether a fly ball leaves the park or not)
3. strand rate (or LOB%)

Many of the items on both lists can be affected further by environment (i.e. park effects) and league.

So ERA is very blunt because it doesn't account for any of these issues (and thus any or all of those issues could dramatically skew evaluation of the pitcher's true performance). FIP, attempts to remove the effects of defense upon ERA and it can be park adjusted. xFIP further removes variation do to fluctuating HR/FB rate. Currently xFIP is about the best predictor of future performance for pitchers. However, even it has flaws since it still assumes strand rate is a skill (or to put it another way, it doesn't normalize for strand rate) and it doesn't predict relievers as well as starters for the fairly obvious reasons.

Anywhere here's a recent thread (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54059&highlight=jojo+pitcher) that talked about these issues in more detail....

RedsManRick
01-25-2007, 08:55 AM
K/9 is more strongly correlated with future ERA than is present ERA. That is, if you want to know what a guy's ERA is going to be in 2007, you're better off looking at his 2006 K/9 than his 2006 ERA. Saarloos doesn't miss bats, doesn't have exceptional control, and has hittable stuff. In Oakland, a team with a big park and very good defense, he still was pretty bad.

Despite a 2.0 GB/FB, he gave up 1.4 HR/9 -- that's Miltonesque. I don't have a problem with the deal in theory as we have a lot of bullpen options and fewer rotation options. I'm just not convinced that Saarloos is going to add anything that Elizardo Ramirez et.al. don't already give us.

UK Reds Fan
01-25-2007, 10:04 AM
K/9 is more strongly correlated with future ERA than is present ERA. That is, if you want to know what a guy's ERA is going to be in 2007, you're better off looking at his 2006 K/9 than his 2006 ERA. Saarloos doesn't miss bats, doesn't have exceptional control, and has hittable stuff. In Oakland, a team with a big park and very good defense, he still was pretty bad.

Despite a 2.0 GB/FB, he gave up 1.4 HR/9 -- that's Miltonesque. I don't have a problem with the deal in theory as we have a lot of bullpen options and fewer rotation options. I'm just not convinced that Saarloos is going to add anything that Elizardo Ramirez et.al. don't already give us.

Top 10 guys by k/9

1 Jake Peavy
2 Johan Santana
3 Carlos Zambrano
4 Brett Myers
5 Jeremy Bonderman
6 Matt Cain
7 Aaron Harang CIN
8 Felix Hernandez
9 Scott Olsen
10 Chris Young

Top 10 guys by ERA

1 Johan Santana MIN 34 34 233.2 186 79 72 47 245 19 6 0 0 2.77
2 Roy Oswalt HOU 33 32 220.2 220 76 73 38 166 15 8 0 0 2.98
3 Chris Carpenter STL 32 32 221.2 194 81 76 43 184 15 8 0 0 3.09
4 Brandon Webb ARI 33 33 235.0 216 91 81 50 178 16 8 0 0 3.10
5 Roy Halladay TOR 32 32 220.0 208 82 78 34 132 16 5 0 0 3.19
6 C.C. Sabathia CLE 28 28 192.2 182 83 69 44 172 12 11 0 0 3.22
7 Bronson Arroyo CIN 35 35 240.2 222 98 88 64 184 14 11 0 0 3.29
8 Carlos Zambrano CHC 33 33 214.0 162 91 81 115 210 16 7 0 0 3.41
9 Chris Young SDG 31 31 179.1 134 72 69 69 164 11 5 0 0 3.46
10 John Smoltz ATL

Which list represents the best pitchers you would want for 2007? I think sometimes we lose focus on the end result...give up as few runs as possible. Strikeouts certainly help, not walking guys is key as is being able to throw strikes early in the count to keep from getting into a hitters count, but the best measure is runs given up.

Handofdeath
01-25-2007, 01:41 PM
I think what a lot of people ar missing is the fact that Saarloos was a very bad pitcher last season. If he doesn't imrove on his peripherals, he is likely to have a Milton like explosion.

Still being young, I hope Saarloos can rebound to his 2005 form where his HR rate was quite low. If he can do that, Saarloos can be an effective pitcher for us and potentially be our 3rd best starter. And maybe he can improve on his K:BB ratio. If he pitches the way he did when he struck out 11 guys in 5 innings which prompted him to say that he had the ability to do that, but it wasn't very economical, then he could improve on that. I'd rather have 5-6 innings of good pitching, than an economical 7 innings when he isn't particualrly effective. It does seem like there may be a bit of hidden talent here.

Overall, this move isn't bad. A million bucks and a fringe prospect aren't worth a whole lot. He's going to have to pitch a lot better than he did last season in order to be an asset, but I think he has the talent to do so as shown in 2005. He has a better chance of being rotation material than the alternatives for the last spot (and Milton) so hopefully he can produce.

One thing that should be mentioned is that he went back and forth between starting and relieving last season. It's very hard to find a groove when you're pitching in that situation. The preparation is not the same and the way you pitch is not the same.

Eric_Davis
01-25-2007, 04:09 PM
I absolutely love this trade. This is going to make the AGon signing look even better. Instead of using his 2006 stats when he went back and forth between starting and relief let's look at his 2005 stats when he was almost exclusively a starter. 10-9 4.17 ERA and 2 complete games. When you translate that into NL numbers where you don't have the DH, you are looking at a 12 game winner with a sub 4.00 ERA. Gil Meche had almost the same numbers this past season and he's getting paid 10 times what Saarloos will get. That is why it was a good idea for WK to not be jumping into the Free Agent market. When I look at his stats his K/9 numbers are interesting. He was a strikeout pitcher at Cal-State Fullerton and he was in the Houston organization including the times he spent with the Astros. It was only when he started pitching for the A's that his K numbers went down. It might have been a coaching/philosophical thing. It might have been what the A's wanted him to do. Just induce the groundball and let the defense do their jobs and it worked pretty well in Oakland. He had success as both kinds of pitchers so it will interesting to see what Pole has him do. To give up a good, but not great prospect who's never pitched above AA for one of the better bottom of the rotation pitchers in the AL is a steal. Congrats to WK on this one.

Hear! Hear! Excellent post!

Eric_Davis
01-25-2007, 04:16 PM
Does anyone outside of me think this is a precursor to a bigger move? Saarloos was supposively Oaklands numbers five starter, or a very good case at making this..

Something about this move screams "more to come", excuse me for being pumped before but if Saarloos comes back to the NL (He original pitched for Houston) and knocks half a run or a full run off his era due to the pretty timid division he'd be pitching in.. Doesn't this still qualify as a good trade for the Reds? We got a young, decent arm for 1.2 million dollars. He might not be Pedro circa 2000, but is he better than running out a under-devolped Bailey, an always injured Belisle or Victor "Please hit me" Santos?

So he's failed in the american league, don't you think switching back and facing weaker competition might help him? Im not saying he's going to perform a miracle and win the Cy young, but league average is a plus expecially for 1.2 mill in todays market?

But hey, we can always sign more over-aged relievers and Conine.


Exactly. We're much more likely of finding wins through Saarloos and his OPS than Elizardo Ramirez, who's OPS against will probably be 75-100 points higher in 2007.

Eric_Davis
01-25-2007, 04:19 PM
One FACT that is totally being ignored is that any pitcher who's only 27 still has upside, especially one with the right personality that Saarloos has inhis makeup.

Eric_Davis
01-25-2007, 04:26 PM
Last thing I'll say on the matter. In 2005 Saarloos had 159 IP. So he didn't have enough IP to qualify for awards and such. There were still only 34 pitchers who had more wins. Had he had enough IP to qualify he would have been 25th in ERA. This is in a 14 team league. Don't be fooled by the 2006 season. Pitching relief and starting are two completely different things. Saarloos is a damn good pitcher. The Reds needed a #3-5 starter and got him cheap.

You're absolutely right. This is the Saarloos that we got...and he still has upside capability and probability over his 2005 season as he's only 27 years old.

Dracodave
01-25-2007, 04:27 PM
One FACT that is totally being ignored is that any pitcher who's only 27 still has upside, especially one with the right personality that Saarloos has inhis makeup.

I've been clamoring that fact for days.

Saarlos is 27, which is roughly the age Harrang put it together. Am I saying we're looking at 3.76 era from Kirk this year? No, but what I am saying is can Kirk better himself for us? Yes, will he? Thats (the now infamous) Mr. Poles job to help with.

Eric_Davis
01-25-2007, 04:48 PM
He was ok in 2005 and his BABIP was .291 which was not exceptionally low. That is hopeful but 2005 looks like the unusual year not 2006. Pecota projects a 2007 ERA of 5.57 and that doesn't take going to Cincy's launching pad into consideration.

I don't see an upgrade.




Name ERA K/9 BB/9 HR/9 WHIP BABIP
Saarloos 4.75 3.86 3.93 1.41 1.66 0.315
Santos 5.70 6.32 3.28 1.25 1.66 0.362
Ramirez 5.37 5.97 2.51 1.21 1.46 0.323
Belisle 3.60 5.85 4.28 1.13 1.55 0.306



Pecota's dead wrong in this case, as is your assessment that he was "ok" in 2005. He was "very good" in 2005. To be ranked as high as he was in wins when he was pulled from most games after 5+ innings was an excellent number.

Who cares about strikeouts? They're so overated. A lot of good they did Randy Johnson last year.

Here's a great stat that show true pitching production:

Of the top 50 pitchers in the American League in 2005 for innings pitched (152 and above), Kirk Saarloos had the 23rd best On-Base-Percentage against! That's huge!

And he still has upside.

He was limited to 159 innings pitched that year as he hadn't pitched that many innings in years.

Saarloos could easily repeat that performance and add 25 innings to his total.

Eric_Davis
01-25-2007, 04:53 PM
Saarloos can pitch out of the pen, so I don't see the Reds as being locked into using him in the rotation. If someone outpitches him then go with that. As for losing guys, that will be unfortunate if it happens, but whether I care depends on which guy it is. :p:

...and when the pitching is as poor as it is, what value could we possibly be talking about losing when it's a pitcher who can't make THIS staff?

RedsManRick
01-25-2007, 04:59 PM
Top 10 guys by k/9

1 Jake Peavy
2 Johan Santana
3 Carlos Zambrano
4 Brett Myers
5 Jeremy Bonderman
6 Matt Cain
7 Aaron Harang CIN
8 Felix Hernandez
9 Scott Olsen
10 Chris Young

Top 10 guys by ERA

1 Johan Santana MIN 34 34 233.2 186 79 72 47 245 19 6 0 0 2.77
2 Roy Oswalt HOU 33 32 220.2 220 76 73 38 166 15 8 0 0 2.98
3 Chris Carpenter STL 32 32 221.2 194 81 76 43 184 15 8 0 0 3.09
4 Brandon Webb ARI 33 33 235.0 216 91 81 50 178 16 8 0 0 3.10
5 Roy Halladay TOR 32 32 220.0 208 82 78 34 132 16 5 0 0 3.19
6 C.C. Sabathia CLE 28 28 192.2 182 83 69 44 172 12 11 0 0 3.22
7 Bronson Arroyo CIN 35 35 240.2 222 98 88 64 184 14 11 0 0 3.29
8 Carlos Zambrano CHC 33 33 214.0 162 91 81 115 210 16 7 0 0 3.41
9 Chris Young SDG 31 31 179.1 134 72 69 69 164 11 5 0 0 3.46
10 John Smoltz ATL

Which list represents the best pitchers you would want for 2007? I think sometimes we lose focus on the end result...give up as few runs as possible. Strikeouts certainly help, not walking guys is key as is being able to throw strikes early in the count to keep from getting into a hitters count, but the best measure is runs given up.

I think you missed the word future. I'm not saying you can't be effective from year to year. Rather, that any given year's ERA is not nearly as predictive of the next year's ERA as people tend to think.

If you tell me two things about a pitcher's 2006 performance, his K/9 and his ERA, and you want me to make a guess based on each of those what his ERA in 2007 is going to be, my K/9 guess will tend to be more accurate. That's my point.

Can you strike a lot of people out and still have a bad ERA in any given year? You sure can. can you strike a lot of people out and still have a bad ERA over time. You sure can. But if you want me try and predict how good a guy's 2007 ERA is going to be, I'm not going to look at his 2006 ERA as the basis for my prediction.

Eric_Davis
01-25-2007, 05:14 PM
I know we have argued this point before so I wont go into this very far, but there is no evidence to support that bad pitchers sustain bad BAPIP's. We can all agree that Eric Milton is a very bad picther (mostly the last 3 years), but in that span he has had around a league average BAPIP. Even this last season Milton maintained a far lower BAPIP than Harang. There are tons of these examples, and when you look past the small sample sizes the BAPIP's tend to vary year to year and even out regardless of the pitcher's skill.

First, we can't all agree that Eric Milton is a bad pitcher.

Second, the reason Milton has held a league average BAPIP is because he pitches many, many, many quality games. In 2006, he tied for 34th in the National League in Quality Starts. Assuming everyone's #1 and #2 startes should do better that would place him as the #2 (33rd through 48th pitchers) overall #3 starter. Too many REDSZONE posters lover to hate on this guy ....undeservedly. You know how hard it is to pitch 14 quality starts? Most of the projected starters at the beginning of the 2006 season failed to do it.

Well, if you want to argue that, "That's not good for a $7M pitcher", then consider this: Milton looks a lot better when you consider that he had as many quality starts as Randy Johnson, Tim Hudson, Matt Cain, Javier Vasquez, and one more than Pedro Martinez, Brad Radke, and Felix Hernandez. He also had two more than A. J. Burnett, three more than Ben Sheets, and nine more than Bartolo Colon.

Also, Jeff Weaver had fewer quality starts than Milton last year, and Pittsburgh is considering upping the offer that St. Louis made to him this week to possibly three years @ $7M per year...and now the Mariners are considering doing as much as well (not that this means anything as I think the M's have one of the worst G.M.'s in all of baseball, but the point is that guys like this get paid a lot of money still). I hope a healthy Milton can increase his quality starts to closer to 20, which would make every bit of his $9M for 2007 worth it.

Eric_Davis
01-25-2007, 05:36 PM
Yet Glavine and Moyer had career BAPIPs of .286 and .291 respectively, well within the norms for BAPIP. Those 2 pitchers were mainly successful because of low BB and HR rtaes. Not because of BAPIP.

Moyer never had a low homerun rate. Quite the opposite. He just gave them up when no one was on.

Moyer's greatness is his change of speed. He won over 200 games throwing the ball 65 MPH.

Who cares if you throw a ball 98 MPH? If your changeup is 90, it's not going to do you a lot of good. It's not that important or Rob Dibble and others like him would have had longer careers.

RedsManRick
01-25-2007, 05:48 PM
re: Milton:

1.) He's making 9 million in 2007, not 7. I get the basic point, 9 million couldn't buy you Gil Meche.

2.) While I have no real problem with the assumption that a quality start gives your team a chance to win and is thus a decent proxy for consistency, the "quality" of your non-"quality starts" is still very relevant. If Milton goes out and gives 7 innings of 4 run ball, that's not a great outing -- but it still gives us a shot to win. If he goes out and gives us 4 innings of 5 run ball, we're pretty much screwed.

3.) Not all quality starts are created equal. A complete game shutout and 6 innings of 3 run ball (4.50 ERA) both count the same -- yet the chance for your team to win is drastically different.

I would be interested to see games started broken down in to more categories than just "quality start". Perhaps:

Exceptional (gives team a strong likelihood to win)
Quality (gives team a solid opportunity to win)
Poor (team likely to lose without strong offensive performance)
Disaster (team is unlikely to win without superb offensive performance)

Where an Eric Milton may have a decent percentage of Quality starts, he doesn't have the Exceptional starts and has too many Poor/Disaster level starts. Meanwhile, Harang has the same amount of Quality starts, but has more Exceptional ones and fewer poor/disaster ones.

Eric_Davis
01-25-2007, 05:57 PM
Top 10 guys by k/9

1 Jake Peavy
2 Johan Santana
3 Carlos Zambrano
4 Brett Myers
5 Jeremy Bonderman
6 Matt Cain
7 Aaron Harang CIN
8 Felix Hernandez
9 Scott Olsen
10 Chris Young

Top 10 guys by ERA

1 Johan Santana MIN 34 34 233.2 186 79 72 47 245 19 6 0 0 2.77
2 Roy Oswalt HOU 33 32 220.2 220 76 73 38 166 15 8 0 0 2.98
3 Chris Carpenter STL 32 32 221.2 194 81 76 43 184 15 8 0 0 3.09
4 Brandon Webb ARI 33 33 235.0 216 91 81 50 178 16 8 0 0 3.10
5 Roy Halladay TOR 32 32 220.0 208 82 78 34 132 16 5 0 0 3.19
6 C.C. Sabathia CLE 28 28 192.2 182 83 69 44 172 12 11 0 0 3.22
7 Bronson Arroyo CIN 35 35 240.2 222 98 88 64 184 14 11 0 0 3.29
8 Carlos Zambrano CHC 33 33 214.0 162 91 81 115 210 16 7 0 0 3.41
9 Chris Young SDG 31 31 179.1 134 72 69 69 164 11 5 0 0 3.46
10 John Smoltz ATL

Which list represents the best pitchers you would want for 2007? I think sometimes we lose focus on the end result...give up as few runs as possible. Strikeouts certainly help, not walking guys is key as is being able to throw strikes early in the count to keep from getting into a hitters count, but the best measure is runs given up.


It's no contest. Easily I would want the guys on the ERA list, as they far outperformed the ones on the strikeout list. Matt Cain and Felix Hernandez didn't even outperform your hated Eric Milton last year as Milton threw more quality starts than either of them.

red-in-la
01-25-2007, 06:18 PM
Who cares if you throw a ball 98 MPH? If your changeup is 90, it's not going to do you a lot of good. It's not that important or Rob Dibble and others like him would have had longer careers.

Rob Dibble threw a 98 mph fastball, that he could spot, along with a 92 mph slider, that he could spot. I do not recall ever seeing Dibble throw a change-up.

His career ended because he blew out his arm and his fastball dropped to 89.

The poster child for success while giving up lots of HR's was Tom Browning.

Patrick Bateman
01-25-2007, 06:25 PM
Moyer's greatness is his change of speed. He won over 200 games throwing the ball 65 MPH.

Who cares if you throw a ball 98 MPH? If your changeup is 90, it's not going to do you a lot of good.

Exactly. Despite not being a flmaethrower and having an inability to K guys at huge rates he was still able to be a solid pitcher thanks in part to great control and decent HR rates, but nothing to do with controlling BAPIP.

Patrick Bateman
01-25-2007, 06:32 PM
First, we can't all agree that Eric Milton is a bad pitcher.

Second, the reason Milton has held a league average BAPIP is because he pitches many, many, many quality games. In 2006, he tied for 34th in the National League in Quality Starts. Assuming everyone's #1 and #2 startes should do better that would place him as the #2 (33rd through 48th pitchers) overall #3 starter. Too many REDSZONE posters lover to hate on this guy ....undeservedly. You know how hard it is to pitch 14 quality starts? Most of the projected starters at the beginning of the 2006 season failed to do it.



Why use a stat that makes a 9 inning shutout=6 innings of 3 run ball? That's a faulty way of measuring a pitcher's effectiveness. It's the same problem that we run into when we use batting average to gauge hitting prowess. We know a single isn't equal to a HR, so why use a stat that makes it so?

Milton is an awful pitcher, regardless of the stat you want to choose. For all intensive purposes, his last 3 seaons are a good enough span to judge how good he is. In those years he has an ERA of 5.47. That is awful. That doesn't translate to a good #3. That's not a good number 4. That's hardly number 5 material. That's replacement level. I'd rather give rotation spots to a combination of EZ, Belisle, Saarlos, or whoever, and there is no reason that they couldn't put up those kinds of numbers. People don't like the guy because he gives up a lot of runs and has done that for a long period of time. Plus he's getting paid about 8M more than he should be. We'd be a better team IMO with him off the team altogether.

Eric_Davis
01-25-2007, 06:58 PM
Why use a stat that makes a 9 inning shutout=6 innings of 3 run ball? That's a faulty way of measuring a pitcher's effectiveness. It's the same problem that we run into when we use batting average to gauge hitting prowess. We know a single isn't equal to a HR, so why use a stat that makes it so?

Milton is an awful pitcher, regardless of the stat you want to choose. For all intensive purposes, his last 3 seaons are a good enough span to judge how good he is. In those years he has an ERA of 5.47. That is awful. That doesn't translate to a good #3. That's not a good number 4. That's hardly number 5 material. That's replacement level. I'd rather give rotation spots to a combination of EZ, Belisle, Saarlos, or whoever, and there is no reason that they couldn't put up those kinds of numbers. People don't like the guy because he gives up a lot of runs and has done that for a long period of time. Plus he's getting paid about 8M more than he should be. We'd be a better team IMO with him off the team altogether.

I have to agree with you that we'd be better off without him. If you can figure out anyone who'd take him and Junior for a box of baseballs, we'd have $20M to spend in 2007 and have a much better chance of winning. Heck, give the $20M back to the season ticket holders who put up with so much under the helm of the Chiquita magnate.

Talk about gaining some goodwill in the Cincy area. Heck, they could probably accomplish it for $2M-$3M. Refund everyone's money who bought season tickets in the year 2003.

jojo
01-25-2007, 10:16 PM
It's no contest. Easily I would want the guys on the ERA list, as they far outperformed the ones on the strikeout list. Matt Cain and Felix Hernandez didn't even outperform your hated Eric Milton last year as Milton threw more quality starts than either of them.


Any rationale that allows you to argue that Milton is a better choice than Felix is hopelessly flawed.....Hernandez was one of the most dominant pitchers in the majors last season....

jojo
01-25-2007, 10:30 PM
Top 10 guys by k/9

1 Jake Peavy
2 Johan Santana
3 Carlos Zambrano
4 Brett Myers
5 Jeremy Bonderman
6 Matt Cain
7 Aaron Harang CIN
8 Felix Hernandez
9 Scott Olsen
10 Chris Young

Top 10 guys by ERA

1 Johan Santana MIN 34 34 233.2 186 79 72 47 245 19 6 0 0 2.77
2 Roy Oswalt HOU 33 32 220.2 220 76 73 38 166 15 8 0 0 2.98
3 Chris Carpenter STL 32 32 221.2 194 81 76 43 184 15 8 0 0 3.09
4 Brandon Webb ARI 33 33 235.0 216 91 81 50 178 16 8 0 0 3.10
5 Roy Halladay TOR 32 32 220.0 208 82 78 34 132 16 5 0 0 3.19
6 C.C. Sabathia CLE 28 28 192.2 182 83 69 44 172 12 11 0 0 3.22
7 Bronson Arroyo CIN 35 35 240.2 222 98 88 64 184 14 11 0 0 3.29
8 Carlos Zambrano CHC 33 33 214.0 162 91 81 115 210 16 7 0 0 3.41
9 Chris Young SDG 31 31 179.1 134 72 69 69 164 11 5 0 0 3.46
10 John Smoltz ATL

Which list represents the best pitchers you would want for 2007? I think sometimes we lose focus on the end result...give up as few runs as possible. Strikeouts certainly help, not walking guys is key as is being able to throw strikes early in the count to keep from getting into a hitters count, but the best measure is runs given up.


I prefer this list (top ten starters ranked by xFIP): :beerme:
1. Webb
2. Santana
3. Carpenter
4. F. Hernandez
5. Halladay
6. Bonderman
7. Smoltz
8. Oswalt
9. Schilling
10. Lowe

Cedric
01-25-2007, 10:31 PM
Felix Hernandez is gonna be a great pitcher. He wasn't dominant by any means last year though.

Quite obvious he's a better choice for the future than Eric Milton. I think some people are forgetting the word FUTURE in this discussion.

jojo
01-25-2007, 10:35 PM
Felix Hernandez is gonna be a great pitcher. He wasn't dominant by any means last year though.

Based upon what criteria?

Cedric
01-25-2007, 10:37 PM
I wouldn't call his line dominating.

195 hits in 191 innings.
ERA over 4.5
1.35 whip

I'm not arguing against the guy's potential, but that's not dominating.

jojo
01-25-2007, 10:43 PM
I wouldn't call his line dominating.

195 hits in 191 innings.
ERA over 4.5
1.35 whip

I'm not arguing against the guy's potential, but that's not dominating.

BABIP is a lousy metric to measure a pitcher by.... essentially hits/innings is basically saying the same thing in a round about way....by the same token, whip is meaningless because of the hits component and ERA....well shame on you.....

He was 4th in xFIP, 6th in GB%, and 12th in K/G....in the majors..... he is already a great pitcher.....

Cedric
01-25-2007, 10:47 PM
BABIP is a lousy metric to measure a pitcher by.... essentially hits/innings is basically saying the same thing in a round about way....by the same token, whip is meaningless because of the hits component and ERA....well shame on you.....

He was 4th in xFIP, 6th in GB%, and 12th in K/G....in the majors..... he is already a great pitcher.....

He wasn't dominant. His line is right in front of you. It's not dominant by any metric.

jojo
01-25-2007, 10:52 PM
He wasn't dominant.

Since xFIP does the best job of isolating just the pitcher's performance from the rest of the noise on the field, being ranked the 4th best qualified starter in the majors by that metric is domination.....

Cedric
01-25-2007, 10:58 PM
Since xFIP does the best job of isolating just the pitcher's performance from the rest of the noise on the field, being ranked the 4th best qualified starter in the majors by that metric is domination.....

Man you love those experimental stats.

I'll take my stats and you take yours.

We got Ian Snell as the 20th best pitcher in the majors by your metric. Was he dominant now also?

jojo
01-25-2007, 11:13 PM
Man you love those experimental stats.

I'll take my stats and you take yours.

We got Ian Snell as the 20th best pitcher in the majors by your metric. Was he dominant now also?

Ian Snell would be a GREAT addition to the Reds rotation....

Cedric
01-25-2007, 11:16 PM
Ian Snell would be a GREAT addition to the Reds rotation....

Sure. But that's not what we were discussing. I hope you didn't take it that way. I would do cart wheels for Felix Hernandez or Ian Snell considering our rotation and it's near future.

I was just disagreeing with a simple point about said pitcher. I think everyone agrees that the Reds could do well in having Felix Hernandez on this staff.

Eric_Davis
01-25-2007, 11:18 PM
Based upon what criteria?

Based on not only his poor performances (again, strikeouts do not make a good pitching performance), but also the number of quality performances he had, which was less than Milton.

Did you even watch him pitch last year other than an occasional ESPN highlight?

Eric_Davis
01-25-2007, 11:24 PM
BABIP is a lousy metric to measure a pitcher by.... essentially hits/innings is basically saying the same thing in a round about way....by the same token, whip is meaningless because of the hits component and ERA....well shame on you.....

He was 4th in xFIP, 6th in GB%, and 12th in K/G....in the majors..... he is already a great pitcher.....

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

GB% ???? Who cares? It's absolutely meaningless!!!!!!

K/G ????? Who cares? It's absolutely meaningless if you don't prevent the other batters from scoring runs.

You need to put all your stats in a bag and bury them and remember that the team that scores the most runs wins the game.

Eric_Davis
01-25-2007, 11:30 PM
Last year Felix Hernandez was ordered by management, as I'm sure you know based on how much time you seem to spend learning about these players, to eliminate one of his best pitches so that he wouldn't develop arm problems at an early age. Consequently, while he was learning to develop his location better and his change-up better, he would get shelled by poor pitching during this learning process. His fastball would still get a number of people out, but nobody's fastball can get a Major Leaguer out if that's all he has. His #1 pitch was removed from his arsenal. He had a good year for a starter, consequently, not the great one that you are saying he had. He was also much better than his ERA showed. While he's going to turn out to be one of the 10 best pitchers in baseball, possibly top 5, last year's performance was not the dominating performance that you suggest.

Eric_Davis
01-25-2007, 11:32 PM
Since xFIP does the best job of isolating just the pitcher's performance from the rest of the noise on the field, being ranked the 4th best qualified starter in the majors by that metric is domination.....


According to who? Certainly not anyone who watched Hernandez pitch last year.

jojo
01-25-2007, 11:33 PM
Sure. But that's not what we were discussing. I hope you didn't take it that way. I would do cart wheels for Felix Hernandez or Ian Snell considering our rotation and it's near future.

I was just disagreeing with a simple point about said pitcher. I think everyone agrees that the Reds could do well in having Felix Hernandez on this staff.


Concerning Hernandez vs. Snell, there's a big difference between #4 and #21 concerning "dominant". That being said, invoking Snell's name in no way invalidates xFIP... it really should actually be an eye opener for those who love ERA....

Here's Felix's company in '06:
1. Webb
2. Santana
3. Carpenter
4. F. Hernandez
5. Halladay

Here's Snell's:
18. Bedard
19. Haren
20. Westbrook
21. Snell
22. Millwood

Eric_Davis
01-25-2007, 11:41 PM
Jojo, you're right. I'll take back what I said about Milton pitching better than Hernandez, as Milton was average and Hernandez was very good (between a #1 and a #2). But, Milton did have more quality starts pulling out enough from his ability to put together 14 good outings.

jojo
01-25-2007, 11:59 PM
Jojo, you're right. I'll take back what I said about Milton pitching better than Hernandez, as Milton was average and Hernandez was very good (between a #1 and a #2). But, Milton did have more quality starts pulling out enough from his ability to put together 14 good outings.

Think about it though......QS is just as flawed as ERA....you're evaluating his performance based upon the number of runs he gives up..... it's just not very compelling to me...

jojo
01-26-2007, 12:02 AM
According to who? Certainly not anyone who watched Hernandez pitch last year.

Actually.... I haven't heard anyone who has watched a majority of his starts say anything other than he's excellent

jojo
01-26-2007, 09:53 AM
I've been clamoring that fact for days.

Saarlos is 27, which is roughly the age Harrang put it together. Am I saying we're looking at 3.76 era from Kirk this year? No, but what I am saying is can Kirk better himself for us? Yes, will he? Thats (the now infamous) Mr. Poles job to help with.

I've thought about this angle with Saarloos after you and others brought it up. I think it's a fair point to consider.

However, here's the thing about age and upside....age isn't enough, you have to be young and have a skill set that suggests there is something to *put together*... Compare Harang and Saarloos. There is an absolutely huge difference between Harang's peripherals and Saarloos' at age 26/27.

I think Pecota's projections for Saarloos really illustrates just how unlinked age and upside in and of themselves can be:

breakout (i.e. chance his performance will improve 20% or greater):13%
improve (chance his performance will improve at all): 32%
collapse (chance his performance will decrease by at least 25%): 36%
attrition (chance his playing time will decrease by at least 50% over previous levels for any reason): 39%

Pecota isnt destiny of course, but it's pretty much screaming a stint in middle relief as Saarloos makes his way to the stadium exit and then out of the league...

Saarloos has one overriding skill....he has a high GB%. That's not nearly enough to enable him to be as effective a starter as some have suggested he will be. I'm not sure that's enough to allow him to ultimately be a consistent contributor out of the bullpen.

To me, Saarloos is a less attractive starter than EZ because while EZ really has no stuff, he can K enough batters and induce enough GB while not walking many to give decent quality innings as a #5/swingman. Saarloos is probably a better bet than EZ out of the pen, because while he can't control his stuff, it does do stuff and his ability to induce grounders could be leveraged into the rally killing double play in the 6th or 7th innings.

I don't know... if the Reds need a swing man who can also be effective out of the pen, i'd give the edge to the one who's likely to be better in the part of that role which requires the most innings (i.e. EZ)

All of this being said, Saarloos probably has a better chance of making the roster.... he costs $1.2M and EZ costs <$400K. I doubt Krivsky took on payroll just to improve the depth at Louisville.