PDA

View Full Version : Coffey sent back down



Danny Serafini
06-08-2007, 12:38 PM
He's not the one I expected to go to make room for Homer, but that's the call they made.

Blimpie
06-08-2007, 12:40 PM
Talk about burning up the I-71 shuttle....

Razor Shines
06-08-2007, 12:41 PM
He's not the one I expected to go to make room for Homer, but that's the call they made.

Wow. Who reported this? I mean I'm glad that McBeth isn't going down, but I was hoping someone else would go.

RedsManRick
06-08-2007, 12:42 PM
Unreal. Coffey > Majewski. I don't care how you need to justify the trade. Salmon and Coffey are two of our top 3 relievers and they're in Louisville.

redsfan30
06-08-2007, 12:47 PM
Wow. Didn't expect it to be him at all.

Chip R
06-08-2007, 12:47 PM
So who got called up to take his place? ;)

guttle11
06-08-2007, 12:48 PM
Let's face it, other than Weathers (who can't be sent down and won't be sent out) and Stanton (who is like a pesky wart) everyone else has a case for them and a case against them.

May as well pick a name out of a hat, because anyone you choose can be justified. There's just not much talent out there.

Razor Shines
06-08-2007, 12:50 PM
From Trent's blog:

It's official

From the Reds:


The Reds selected from Louisville the contract of RHP Homer Bailey...he will wear #34 in his Major League debut as tonight's starting pitcher.

RHP Todd Coffey was optioned to Louisville.

Tickets are available for all 3 games of this weekend’s series against the Indians.

westofyou
06-08-2007, 12:51 PM
Let's face it, other than Weathers (who can't be sent down and won't be sent out) and Stanton (who is like a pesky wart) everyone else has a case for them and a case against them.

May as well pick a name out of a hat, because anyone you choose can be justified. There's just not much talent out there.

Yep, when you give up this in 24 innings .309/.396/.505 you're on the bubble if you have options.

Patrick Bateman
06-08-2007, 12:59 PM
Well Coffey can now go down and show for another 10 days why he shouldn't be pitching in the minors.

pedro
06-08-2007, 01:00 PM
Well Coffey can now go down and show for another 10 days why he shouldn't be pitching in the minors.

Hopefully he can start showing he shouldn't be pitching in the minors when he's up in the majors. I've been pretty supportive of Todd, but he just hasn't been good this year so far.

Patrick Bateman
06-08-2007, 01:04 PM
Hopefully he can start showing he shouldn't be pitching in the minors when he's up in the majors. I've been pretty supportive of Todd, but he just hasn't been good this year so far.

They didn't exactly give him much of a chance since he's been brought back up. He got to throw to a whopping 4 batters. What was the point in bringing him up in the first place, if they didn't think he can get major league hitters out?

Blimpie
06-08-2007, 01:05 PM
Homer will be wearing #34? I wonder if anybody has bothered to tell Jerry Gil...

Sounds like Gil was just offered a copy of the home game

princeton
06-08-2007, 01:07 PM
he's percolating for a while. It's a bit old-fashioned, but some folks swear by it.

pedro
06-08-2007, 01:07 PM
They didn't exactly give him much of a chance since he's been brought back up. He got to throw to a whopping 4 batters. What was the point in bringing him up in the first place, if they didn't think he can get major league hitters out?

I agree it's roster bingo but that's the way it is when you have options, aren't pitching well on a bad a team, and aren't the guy that the team wants to flip if they can get a string of semi-decent appearances out of you.

cumberlandreds
06-08-2007, 01:08 PM
Any move that doesn't include Stanton or Majewski getting waived or sent to AAA is a bad move. This is bad.

pedro
06-08-2007, 01:12 PM
Any move that doesn't include Stanton or Majewski getting waived or sent to AAA is a bad move. This is bad.

I just don't agree with that. The seasons lost, the guys are already being paid, might as well try and develop some value in them so they can be traded. I suppose that Majewski could do that in the minors but it's really six of one a half dozen of the other at this point.

dfs
06-08-2007, 01:12 PM
There's just not much talent out there.
.....Or the talent is being used poorly, or both.


They didn't exactly give him much of a chance since he's been brought back up. He got to throw to a whopping 4 batters. What was the point in bringing him up in the first place, if they didn't think he can get major league hitters out?

It's weird. I have no idea what this team is going to do on a daily basis. The way they send guys up and ship them back out is extraordinary.

Marcus McBeth...Bobby Livingston...Todd Coffey...Brad Salmon.....You would think it would be pretty important to get these guys comfortable at the major league level. Instead they have to be looking over their shoulders in the bullpen wondering what they did now.

Stanton, Santos and Weathers ....that's the "trusted" component of the bullpen. You gotta be in your 30's I guess.

pedro
06-08-2007, 01:14 PM
.....Or the talent is being used poorly, or both.



It's weird. I have no idea what this team is going to do on a daily basis. The way they send guys up and ship them back out is extraordinary.

Marcus McBeth...Bobby Livingston...Todd Coffey...Brad Salmon.....You would think it would be pretty important to get these guys comfortable at the major league level. Instead they have to be looking over their shoulders in the bullpen wondering what they did now.

Stanton, Santos and Weathers ....that's the "trusted" component of the bullpen. You gotta be in your 30's I guess.

Why wouldn't they trust weathers? He's been their only good reliever this year for the most part.

Big Klu
06-08-2007, 01:15 PM
Homer will be wearing #34? I wonder if anybody has bothered to tell Jerry Gil...

Sounds like Gil was just offered a copy of the home game

This is not an uncommon manuever, especially when the player losing his number is on the 40-man, but not a realistic candidate for the 25-man roster. (Gil is out for the year with an injury, anyway.)

Besides, #34 is a somewhat unusual number for a SS/3B, but it is the ultimate number for a Texas power pitcher. (See: Ryan, Nolan)

Patrick Bateman
06-08-2007, 01:16 PM
I just don't agree with that. The seasons lost, the guys are already being paid, might as well try and develop some value in them so they can be traded. I suppose that Majewski could do that in the minors but it's really six of one a half dozen of the other at this point.

I agree with this. Stanton is still a usable pitcher as an early guy out of the pen/middle reliever. If he strings together some decent outings, the Reds may be able to get out of 3M next season, which is worth keeping him on the roster for now.

registerthis
06-08-2007, 01:24 PM
I just don't agree with that. The seasons lost, the guys are already being paid, might as well try and develop some value in them so they can be traded. I suppose that Majewski could do that in the minors but it's really six of one a half dozen of the other at this point.

I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that Majewski is going to be here come hell or high water. He'll either stumble upon a run of success and manage to get himself traded, or he'll continue to throw soft-toss to opposing batters in Cinci.

The only hope we have is if he pulls something in his neck constantly turning around to watch the balls zoom by him.

registerthis
06-08-2007, 01:28 PM
I agree with this. Stanton is still a usable pitcher as an early guy out of the pen/middle reliever.

I guess we just have different definitions of "usable". 5.06 ERA and a 1.69 WHIP are, to me, unusable. But these are strange times we're living in.

Although he has pitched slightly better of late. FInd someone desperate for bullpen fodder and unload him pronto, I say.

Always Red
06-08-2007, 01:30 PM
...or he'll continue to throw soft-toss to opposing batters in Cinci.



Actually Majewski's been getting pounded throwing 94 mph fastballs this year (I did not remember him throwing that hard last year, but he has on two occasions I've seen him this year). Same thing goes for Coffey- he's throwing hard, and they're coming back even harder. Speed isn't everything!

KronoRed
06-08-2007, 01:33 PM
Good move, was sure it was going to be McBeth

pedro
06-08-2007, 01:35 PM
I know it puts me on the lunatic fringe around here but I still think Majewski is a fairly decent reliever who has had incredibly bad luck this year.

Always Red
06-08-2007, 01:39 PM
I know it puts me on the lunatic fringe around here but I still think Majewski is a fairly decent reliever who has had incredibly bad luck this year.

Well, I agree with you too, Pedro. I feel like a contararian around these parts sometimes! I like Majewski's movement on his FB, and I'd like to see him string together some decent outings. I think he could be useful as a 7th or 8th inning guy.

Chip R
06-08-2007, 01:39 PM
Actually Majewski's been getting pounded throwing 94 mph fastballs this year (I did not remember him throwing that hard last year, but he has on two occasions I've seen him this year). Same thing goes for Coffey- he's throwing hard, and they're coming back even harder. Speed isn't everything!


Excellent point. As much as we lament the soft tossers that the Reds throw out there Coffey and Majewski both throw hard but their results haven't been very good so far. It takes more than a straight fastball to make it in the Show. A lesson our starting pitcher for this evening hopefully will learn.

pedro
06-08-2007, 01:41 PM
Well, I agree with you too, Pedro. I feel like a contararian around these parts sometimes! I like Majewski's movement on his FB, and I'd like to see him string together some decent outings. I think he could be useful as a 7th or 8th inning guy.

I really wonder what his BAPIP is b/c it seems like every ball that has been hit off him this year has gone for a hit.

Always Red
06-08-2007, 01:47 PM
I really wonder what his BAPIP is b/c it seems like every ball that has been hit off him this year has gone for a hit.

0.444; highest on the team. That's "hitting them where they ain't."

BP states:


BABIP is mostly a function of a pitcher's defense and luck, rather than persistent skill. Thus, pitchers with abnormally high or low BABIPs are good bets to see their performances regress to the mean. A typical BABIP is about .290.

There are only 4 Reds pitchers with BABIPS under .300- Burton, Salmon, Weathers and Coutlangus.

The SP's are all well over .300

Kc61
06-08-2007, 01:51 PM
Stanton, Santos, Coffey -- really doesn't matter who they send out. Team needs a bunch of new, better relievers. Right now, the only guys who deserve to stay are Weathers and McBeth -- and the latter because he hasn't had his chance. It would be rational to send out anybody else. Actually, Santos has a pretty decent argument to stay for long relief.

As for Coffey, may be tough with that extension, but my guess is they will try to move him. As they should for most of these relievers.

RedsManRick
06-08-2007, 01:54 PM
I really wonder what his BAPIP is b/c it seems like every ball that has been hit off him this year has gone for a hit.

www.fangraphs.com -- awesome site

Majewski has a ridiculous BABIP of .438. If it were .300, he's have allowed 6 hits instead of 8 and his WHIP would be around 1.5 instead 2. Of course, he's still just struck out 1 guy in 4 IP. VERY VERY small sample size issues here.

Some interesting things: Reds relivers by FIP:

Weathers 2.41
Majewski 3.45
Stanton 3.87
Salmon 4.60
Saarloos 5.03
Santos 5.22
Coutlangus 5.34
Burton 5.74
Coffey 6.41

So allow me to eat some crow for a moment and admit that both Majewski and Stanton have been quite unlucky and that Coffey may actually have been the worst performer on the staff. I still am of the opinion however that this bullpen should be comprised of guys who need experience at the major league level to establish their value moving forward. Leave Weathers at closer as a leader and emotional anchor, but ship out Stanton and Santos as soon as you can get anything of value for them.

Of course, let's remember that BABIP is an average. If a guy throws slop up there and guys hit 50% line drives off him legitimately, his BABIP is going to be very high and stay very high. The reason .290-.300 is consistent is because guys who allow a real BABIP of higher than that don't stay in the major leagues very long. For some guys, that .380 BABIP isn't a sign of bad luck, it's a sign of bad stuff. And that bad stuff isn't going to improve with time.

Matt700wlw
06-08-2007, 02:30 PM
Well Coffey can now go down and show for another 10 days why he shouldn't be pitching in the minors.

It'd be nice if he could do that up here.

pedro
06-08-2007, 02:36 PM
www.fangraphs.com -- awesome site

Majewski has a ridiculous BABIP of .438. If it were .300, he's have allowed 6 hits instead of 8 and his WHIP would be around 1.5 instead 2. Of course, he's still just struck out 1 guy in 4 IP. VERY VERY small sample size issues here.

Some interesting things: Reds relivers by FIP:

Weathers 2.41
Majewski 3.45
Stanton 3.87
Salmon 4.60
Saarloos 5.03
Santos 5.22
Coutlangus 5.34
Burton 5.74
Coffey 6.41

So allow me to eat some crow for a moment and admit that both Majewski and Stanton have been quite unlucky and that Coffey may actually have been the worst performer on the staff. I still am of the opinion however that this bullpen should be comprised of guys who need experience at the major league level to establish their value moving forward. Leave Weathers at closer as a leader and emotional anchor, but ship out Stanton and Santos as soon as you can get anything of value for them.

Of course, let's remember that BABIP is an average. If a guy throws slop up there and guys hit 50% line drives off him legitimately, his BABIP is going to be very high and stay very high. The reason .290-.300 is consistent is because guys who allow a real BABIP of higher than that don't stay in the major leagues very long. For some guys, that .380 BABIP isn't a sign of bad luck, it's a sign of bad stuff. And that bad stuff isn't going to improve with time.

Thanks that's interesting. BTW - His BAPIP was .288 in 2005. The season lots of people like to point to as luck. I wish fangraphs showed the splits between his BAPIP in Cincinnati vs. Washington last year.

Always Red
06-08-2007, 03:09 PM
Thanks that's interesting. BTW - His BAPIP was .288 in 2005. The season lots of people like to point to as luck. I wish fangraphs showed the splits between his BAPIP in Cincinnati vs. Washington last year.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=164443

2006 Nats .262
2006 Reds .492

Majewski has been very unlucky with the Reds.

pedro
06-08-2007, 03:14 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=164443

2006 Nats .262
2006 Reds .492

Majewski has been very unlucky with the Reds.

Thanks.

registerthis
06-08-2007, 03:17 PM
Actually Majewski's been getting pounded throwing 94 mph fastballs this year (I did not remember him throwing that hard last year, but he has on two occasions I've seen him this year). Same thing goes for Coffey- he's throwing hard, and they're coming back even harder. Speed isn't everything!

My reference was more in terms of the way opponents are hitting the ball, not necessarily his velocity. I've seen plenty of flamethrowers get pounded, so I understand perfectly well that speed isn't the be-all end-all.

I have no idea what Majewski is throwing like, since I can't really watch the games. I can only go by what the statistics are telling me.

registerthis
06-08-2007, 03:24 PM
www.fangraphs.com -- awesome site

Majewski has a ridiculous BABIP of .438. If it were .300, he's have allowed 6 hits instead of 8 and his WHIP would be around 1.5 instead 2. Of course, he's still just struck out 1 guy in 4 IP. VERY VERY small sample size issues here.

How much can we expect that to "normalize", though? I know that some people view BABIP as a completely luck-driven statistic and whatnot, but I tend to think that there's more to it than that. If a pitcher is giving up a plethora of hard hit balls, it stands to reason that more of those would drop for hits than would pop flies, weak ground balls a (of course) strikeouts.

To be honest, I have no idea who the "real" Gary Majewski is. He only has one injury-free season under his belt, and he was a decent reliever that year. But whether--and to what extent--injuries have taken a toll on him, and whether his 2005 numbers truly are indicative of his potential, I don't think we know. What I *do* know is that, "hit lucky" or not, you can only run a guy with an 11+ ERA out so many times before you sit him and attempt to determine if something is wrong. Like it or not, we *need* Majewski to be a serviceable reliever, so if there is indeed something wrong with him, it would behoove the Reds to determine that sooner rather than later.

Falls City Beer
06-08-2007, 03:26 PM
I know it puts me on the lunatic fringe around here but I still think Majewski is a fairly decent reliever who has had incredibly bad luck this year.

Yep. No offense, but that's padded cell-worthy thinking. He's awful. Just watch him. He's got nothing. Unless they develop a bionic arm, he's done.

Always Red
06-08-2007, 03:31 PM
My reference was more in terms of the way opponents are hitting the ball, not necessarily his velocity. I've seen plenty of flamethrowers get pounded, so I understand perfectly well that speed isn't the be-all end-all.

I have no idea what Majewski is throwing like, since I can't really watch the games. I can only go by what the statistics are telling me.

no problem, I misunderstood when you said he'd continue to play soft-toss, and I didn't mean to be snarky about the speed comment, either. :beerme:

registerthis
06-08-2007, 03:33 PM
no problem, I misunderstood when you said he'd continue to play soft-toss, and I didn't mean to be snarky about the speed comment, either. :beerme:

No worries.

Perhaps Maj should try soft-toss? You know, since the heat doesn't seem to be working for him.

Matt700wlw
06-08-2007, 03:34 PM
Majewski to me seems like a pitcher who needs the defense behind him to succeed.

He's not going to strike out a lot guys, but will get them to put the ball in play, in which the defense behind him needs to finish the play.

This team sometimes has trouble doing that...

Always Red
06-08-2007, 03:36 PM
Yep. No offense, but that's padded cell-worthy thinking. He's awful. Just watch him. He's got nothing. Unless they develop a bionic arm, he's done.

I have watched him, he's got much more velocity and movement than he had last year with the Reds. Twice I saw him pitch and he's hitting 94 on the gun (not that speed is everything, obviously, but it helps). There's nothing wrong with his arm right now

Granted, he is getting hit, and hit hard right now. IMO his location is way off- he's leaving it out over the plate.

Falls City Beer
06-08-2007, 03:36 PM
Majewski to me seems like a pitcher who needs the defense behind him to succeed.

He's not going to strike out a lot guys, but will get them to put the ball in play, in which the defense behind him needs to finish the play.

This team sometimes has trouble doing that...

I don't know, with Hamilton and Gonzalez in the field, I think this defense isn't all too terrible. It's not great, of course, but to blame Maj's ineffectiveness on the defense is pretty suspect.

I think he gets hit because his stuff is straight and very time-able.

Falls City Beer
06-08-2007, 03:38 PM
I have watched him, he's got much more velocity and movement than he had last year with the Reds. Twice I saw him pitch and he's hitting 94 on the gun (not that speed is everything, obviously, but it helps). There's nothing wrong with his arm right now

Granted, he is getting hit, and hit hard right now. IMO his location is way off- he's leaving it out over the plate.

I've seen him both this year with the Reds, last year, and with the Nats a bunch. He used to have decent Graves-esque downward movement; not great, but not bad either. This year, he has very little movement on his fastball. It's incredibly straight, and it's what guys are teeing off on.

Always Red
06-08-2007, 03:39 PM
I think he gets hit because his stuff is straight and very time-able.

I agree with that, and I'd throw Coffey into that pot as well. If Coffey could learn how to keep a hitter off balance, he could be a closer. With Coffey and Maj, everything is the same speed.

Falls City Beer
06-08-2007, 03:39 PM
I agree with that, and I'd throw Coffey into that pot as well. If Coffey could learn how to keep a hitter off balance, he could be a closer. With Coffey and Maj, everything is the same speed.

No doubt. Coffey's been no better at all.

Matt700wlw
06-08-2007, 03:41 PM
I've seen him both this year with the Reds, last year, and with the Nats a bunch. He used to have decent Graves-esque downward movement; not great, but not bad either. This year, he has very little movement on his fastball. It's incredibly straight, and it's what guys are teeing off on.

Could be a lingering thing from the shoulder problems....and it may never get better...

Ltlabner
06-08-2007, 03:47 PM
Could be a lingering thing from the shoulder problems....and it may never get better...

I was going to suggest the same thing. I'm with Pedro. I don't think Majic is any world better by any strech of the imagination, however, he could be a semi-usefull set up sorta guy at some point.

He's got the heat, which is half the equation. That's not everything, but like Burton it's at least a good start.

jojo
06-08-2007, 03:55 PM
I don't know, with Hamilton and Gonzalez in the field, I think this defense isn't all too terrible. It's not great, of course, but to blame Maj's ineffectiveness on the defense is pretty suspect.

I think he gets hit because his stuff is straight and very time-able.

Early results are suggesting that so far, Hamilton has been one of the worst defensive centerfielders in the majors based upon UZR data. Also disappointing so far Gonzo has been somewhere around league average.

That's not saying that both wont improve with sample size but it's probably fairly safe to suggest that Hamilton isn't a centerfielder.

registerthis
06-08-2007, 04:01 PM
That's not saying that both wont improve with sample size but it's probably fairly safe to suggest that Hamilton isn't a centerfielder.

People have been loathe to pronounce Hamilton a bona fide major league star due to his hitting prowess thsu far, and rightfully so. But the train runs both ways here.

The guy essentially was away from the game for three years, do we not allow some room to grow into the position? Major league centerfield is not an easy position to play--and I don't think it's safe to say at all 40 games into his ML career that he's not a centerfielder. Cut the guy a bit of slack.

Stormy
06-08-2007, 04:01 PM
Yep. No offense, but that's padded cell-worthy thinking. He's awful. Just watch him. He's got nothing. Unless they develop a bionic arm, he's done.

You're exactly right. At his best, Majewski used to possess above average late sinking action, a very heavy ground ball inducing fastball, and a fairly nice late snap on his slider. All three of those assets have deserted him. While he can still reach 92-94 between his 2 seam and 4 seamer, there's no deviation and it's literally as straight as an arrow.

His slider has been reduced to a pitch he has to place perfectly, in order to have any success, at 84-85mph it is a hanger that is dogmeat unless it paints the outside corner. Nothing else in the arsenal, and batters know in advance that it's either a straight 92+ fastball, or an outside hanging slider. As he's always around the plate, and has no tertiary pitch to keep batters off balance, there's little hope for improvement.

I guess that one could hope that his shoulder problems are what robbed him of the sink on his fastball, and the snap to his slider, and that as he regains strength, some of that will return. Outside of that being the case, he's a lost cause who will continue to be he hit hard to all fields, and labelled "unlucky" because of a deceptive BABIP, and because of the fact that he keeps the ball in the yard.

pedro
06-08-2007, 04:17 PM
You're exactly right. At his best, Majewski used to possess above average late sinking action, a very heavy ground ball inducing fastball, and a fairly nice late snap on his slider. All three of those assets have deserted him. While he can still reach 92-94 between his 2 seam and 4 seamer, there's no deviation and it's literally as straight as an arrow.

His slider has been reduced to a pitch he has to place perfectly, in order to have any success, at 84-85mph it is a hanger that is dogmeat unless it paints the outside corner. Nothing else in the arsenal, and batters know in advance that it's either a straight 92+ fastball, or an outside hanging slider. As he's always around the plate, and has no tertiary pitch to keep batters off balance, there's little hope for improvement.

I guess that one could hope that his shoulder problems are what robbed him of the sink on his fastball, and the snap to his slider, and that as he regains strength, some of that will return. Outside of that being the case, he's a lost cause who will continue to be he hit hard to all fields, and labelled "unlucky" because of a deceptive BABIP, and because of the fact that he keeps the ball in the yard.

I don't know. I've watched him pitch every time he's been in there this year and I just don't they've hit the ball all that hard off of him. I guess we'll just have to wait and see b/c he's not going anywhere right now.

Stormy
06-08-2007, 04:49 PM
I don't know. I've watched him pitch every time he's been in there this year and I just don't they've hit the ball all that hard off of him. I guess we'll just have to wait and see b/c he's not going anywhere right now.

I've watched him pitch each outing, too, and I partly agree with you on several levels. He's not been hit as hard in his brief appearances this year, as he was last year. However, I also think that many of the hits he's surrendered have been laced, and that some of the hardest hit balls have actually been at'em balls, and been recorded as outs. I also think that by definition, Majewski is a 'death by a thousand papercuts' pitcher in his current manifestation. His fastball is still 'heavy', so he's not likely to go on a gopherball binge, and he tries to keep his slider outside, outside, outside, which makes it hard to pull those pitches into power alleys for EBH.

The problem is, that both pitches are very hittable, and the result is usually lined singles and EBH off his fastball, and batters taking his slider the other way for hits to RF. He also doesn't walk a lot of batters. This is why we see hit after hit after hit against him, and yet wonder why he isn't getting 'pounded.' There's no real out pitch, and there's not enough variety to keep opposing batters off-balance... My guess is that he keeps surrendering hits at a high clip, and will continue to fail in that method.

It's not the 'quality' of hits, it's the sheer 'quantity'... just like last season, when he surrendered 30 hits in 15IP for an 8.40ERA as a member of the Reds (he only surrendered 1HR and 4 walks). This year it's been 8 hits in 4IP, and they are of that same solid, consistent contact variety. This is his M.O. and I don't expect it to change, unless we see a vastly improved quality to his pitches consistent with his arm making a major recovery (which I don't expect at all).

Patrick Bateman
06-08-2007, 05:15 PM
I guess we just have different definitions of "usable". 5.06 ERA and a 1.69 WHIP are, to me, unusable. But these are strange times we're living in.

Although he has pitched slightly better of late. FInd someone desperate for bullpen fodder and unload him pronto, I say.

Well I was looking past some of the luck dependent stats. He's probably actually due to give up more homers, as his HR/FB rate has been abnormally low.

Still, even when that normalizes to a degree, Stanton is still usable IMO. His DIPS ERA of 3.86 suggests that his ERA should not be that high. His BAPIP of .388 is just ridiculous. He has nothing to do about that. I'm not saying Stanton is great or anything, but if you limit him to middle innings, he will probably do a decent job as long as he isn't over exposed to key innings. With a regression to the mean in some of the luck stats, his ERA will likely decrease, and I see a reasonable chance a team gets desperate (Yankees?) and be willing to pay Stanton next season. I'd be willing to give that a try as I think there is something to gain.

Falls City Beer
06-08-2007, 05:18 PM
Well I was looking past some of the luck dependent stats. He's probably actually due to give up more homers, as his HR/FB rate has been abnormally low.

Still, even when that normalizes to a degree, Stanton is still usable IMO. His DIPS ERA of 3.86 suggests that his ERA should not be that high. His BAPIP of .388 is just ridiculous. He has nothing to do about that. I'm not saying Stanton is great or anything, but if you limit him to middle innings, he will probably do a decent job as long as he isn't over exposed to key innings. With a regression to the mean in some of the luck stats, his ERA will likely decrease, and I see a reasonable chance a team gets desperate (Yankees?) and be willing to pay Stanton next season. I'd be willing to give that a try as I think there is something to gain.

I think the greater good in this circumstance is to see what the team has in terms of young relief talent than it is to give those innings to Stanton in hopes that his "luck" will reverse and that the team can conceivably save $3 million dollars by trading him.

Patrick Bateman
06-08-2007, 05:19 PM
I don't know, with Hamilton and Gonzalez in the field, I think this defense isn't all too terrible. It's not great, of course, but to blame Maj's ineffectiveness on the defense is pretty suspect.

I think he gets hit because his stuff is straight and very time-able.

The Reds DER (Defensive Efficiency Ratio) is ranked last in the major leagues. It's hardly the end all, but it's a pretty fair gauge of how well your team defense is as a whole.

IMO, the defense is so terrible, that it sheds light on why the Reds' pitching is so bad. Put an average defense on the field, and I think the Reds' pitching would overall, be somewhat reasonable. At least enough to play near .500 ball when combined with the hitting. The defense is the biggest weakness of the team IMO.

registerthis
06-08-2007, 05:20 PM
Still, even when that normalizes to a degree, Stanton is still usable IMO. His DIPS ERA of 3.86 suggests that his ERA should not be that high. His BAPIP of .388 is just ridiculous. He has nothing to do about that.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I think pitchers have more control over their BABIP than some here think. If you're tossing a lot of balls over the plate that have no movement, you're going to end up with a lot of hard hit balls. To an extent, a certain percentage will fall and a certain percentage will be caught, but I think it's a fallacy to say that simply because a pitcher's BABIP is abnormally high it is destined to plummet. That's not necessarily the case.

If I pitched to major league hitters, my BABIP would likely be huge, and it wouldn't be just because I was unlucky.

Falls City Beer
06-08-2007, 05:22 PM
The Reds DER (Defensive Efficiency Ratio) is ranked last in the major leagues. It's hardly the end all, but it's a pretty fair gauge of how well your team defense is as a whole.

IMO, the defense is so terrible, that it sheds light on why the Reds' pitching is so bad. Put an average defense on the field, and I think the Reds' pitching would overall, be somewhat reasonable. At least enough to play near .500 ball when combined with the hitting. The defense is the biggest weakness of the team IMO.

I completely disagree. But that comes with the caveat that I've never seen a defensive metric that I have found convincing. I think the Reds' biggest problem is pitching.

Patrick Bateman
06-08-2007, 05:23 PM
I think the greater good in this circumstance is to see what the team has in terms of young relief talent than it is to give those innings to Stanton in hopes that his "luck" will reverse and that the team can conceivably save $3 million dollars by trading him.

I'm not asking for the Reds to hold on for him until the contract runs out, but give him a month and see what happens. If it works, you save 3M. I think that process would be worth more than having Salmon (or whoever) pitching for a month. There's more to gain pitching Stanton IMO.

If it doesn't work, cut him, and give the chance to a young guy. There's more than enough time and spots for the young guys.

Right now, you could drop Santos and Majewski from the pen, plus you could probably trade Weathers for a decent return . With the way he's pitching, his value will never be higher. That's 3 slots you could open immediately without losing anything in the long run. There should be more than enough room for the likes of Salmon and Coffey, etc. and once the Stanton experiment ends you will have another spot.

Patrick Bateman
06-08-2007, 05:28 PM
I don't necessarily agree with that. I think pitchers have more control over their BABIP than some here think. If you're tossing a lot of balls over the plate that have no movement, you're going to end up with a lot of hard hit balls. To an extent, a certain percentage will fall and a certain percentage will be caught, but I think it's a fallacy to say that simply because a pitcher's BABIP is abnormally high it is destined to plummet. That's not necessarily the case.

If I pitched to major league hitters, my BABIP would likely be huge, and it wouldn't be just because I was unlucky.

I don't want to get into much of a discussion about BAPIP here, as it's been beaten to death IMO, but BAPIP has been under extreme statistical scrutiny, and nobody has been able to come to much of a different conclusion. At best, pitchers have an extremely small effect on batted balls in play.

When guys like Dave Williams can post just as good BAPIP's as the likes of Randy Johsnon, you have to admit that the theory has some legs.

I agree, it's not neccessarily going to plummet, but the odds are that it will decrease even with the defense behind Stanton. If he continues pitching the way he has all season, the odds are that Stanton's ERA will go down, and in turn make him more attractive to other teams especially with his playoff success.

Falls City Beer
06-08-2007, 05:29 PM
I'm not asking for the Reds to hold on for him until the contract runs out, but give him a month and see what happens. If it works, you save 3M. I think that process would be worth more than having Salmon (or whoever) pitching for a month. There's more to gain pitching Stanton IMO.

If it doesn't work, cut him, and give the chance to a young guy. There's more than enough time and spots for the young guys.

Right now, you could drop Santos and Majewski from the pen, plus you could probably trade Weathers for a decent return . With the way he's pitching, his value will never be higher. That's 3 slots you could open immediately without losing anything in the long run. There should be more than enough room for the likes of Salmon and Coffey, etc. and once the Stanton experiment ends you will have another spot.

It might work. Regardless, Stanton's going to get his innings, trade or no. I have little doubt that they'll be awful innings, putting more pressure on the rest of the bullpen to clean his messes up.

I guess what I'm saying is I have no faith he'll get better, and as such, I don't like giving up time and innings. It's the same argument I had about Milton. He won't improve, so what's the point?

registerthis
06-08-2007, 05:29 PM
I completely disagree. But that comes with the caveat that I've never seen a defensive metric that I have found convincing. I think the Reds' biggest problem is pitching.

Agree completely. Remove Weathers, and this bullpen is atrocious. And the starting pitching doesn't have a single starter with an ERA under 4.24.

Sure, perhaps the defense accounts somewhat for these numbers, but not that much. The pitching absolutely needs to be Wayne's #1 priority, particularly the bullpen. Good pitchers negate somewhat the ned for a gold glove-caliber defense. Bad pitchers, however, only serve to highlight a defense's shortcomings.

registerthis
06-08-2007, 05:38 PM
I don't want to get into much of a discussion about BAPIP here, as it's been beaten to death IMO, but BAPIP has been under extreme statistical scrutiny, and nobody has been able to come to much of a different conclusion. At best, pitchers have an extremely small effect on batted balls in play.

I don't think it's coincidental that Eric Milton maintained a BABIP of .329--what most would consider "hit unlucky"--throughout 2005, one of the all-time worst single seasons a starter has had.

There are a number other individuals that could be cited, but the question that I think is unanswered is whether bad pitching begats a high BABIP, or vice versa. I think "luck" plays less of a role than one may think--some, yes. But a bad pitcher will typically have a higher BABIP. In other words, you might expect Stanton's to come down somewhat, but i would hold my breath looking for an 80 point drop.

Patrick Bateman
06-08-2007, 05:45 PM
So allow me to eat some crow for a moment and admit that both Majewski and Stanton have been quite unlucky and that Coffey may actually have been the worst performer on the staff. I still am of the opinion however that this bullpen should be comprised of guys who need experience at the major league level to establish their value moving forward. Leave Weathers at closer as a leader and emotional anchor, but ship out Stanton and Santos as soon as you can get anything of value for them.


One thing we have to remember is that FIP has some problems to it.

Generally speaking, pitchers have little control over their HR/FB rate. For just about every pitcher, it has become more important about their GB rates. Pitchers who keep the ball on the ground will obviously give up less homers.

It's why guys like Eric Milton give up just as many HRs/FB as basically everyone else. Milton is simply a homerun king because of how easy it is for opponents to hit flyballs off him. He's not really throwing so many 'gopher balls' that hitters can hit homers on everyone. He just gives up so many homeruns because of the huge amount of flyballs against him.

Obviosuly, pitching in a homer park, Reds pitching will give up more HRs/FB than the average pitcher, but that's not really their fault.

With Todd Coffey, his 3 most important peripheral rates (K's, BB's, GB/FB) have in total been very similar to last season.

His K's have increased, but his walks have increased, but the K/BB rate hasn't changed by a huge degree. In addition, his GB/FB has been identical to last year's rate.

The only monumental change in his pitching is the amount of homeruns per flyball.

2006: 10.4%
2007: 26.1%

The 10.4% is pretty darned close to normal, and with that his DIPS ERA was 3.94. If this year's rate fell to the same level, his DIPS ERA would be in the low 4.00's. Hardly a world beating performance, but with his rubber armed tendencies, that can make him a pretty valuable reliever. It's the reason why he went down and blew away AAA hitters. it's because he has actually been a major league calibre pitcher the whole time, just with some really bad luck tendencies. Considering he's only pitched 24 innings in the majors this season, it's pretty easy top see how luck rates can fluctuate so dramatically.

These concepts are kind of backwards thinking to normal belief, but they have held up through heavy research and studies. I just don't see how a guy like Coffey can simply throw more 'gopher balls' as his HR/FB rate suggests. It just doesn't make sense how he can post more than twice the rate of the homerun king of Eric Milton without luck playing a major factor.

These are the kind of reasons that Gary Majewski looked so good to Krivsky when in fact he was a bad picther.

During his 2005 season when he posted an ERA of 2.93, he didn't succeed because of an extremely low BAPIP (it was .288 that season), it was more due to the HR/FB rate of 2.2%. Playing in RF was a huge factor for this.

That season he posted a K/BB of 1.35, which is generally related to bad pitchers with an extremely small rate in HR/9 (0.21). His actual DIPS ERA was 3.87 that season, but with the massive regression that was due to follow, his DIPS ERA really deserved to be comfortably located in the mid to high 4.00's. Something thta just isn't that valuable. Krivsky bet on the HR rate being a skill, when it was really a factor of luck.

Patrick Bateman
06-08-2007, 05:49 PM
Agree completely. Remove Weathers, and this bullpen is atrocious. And the starting pitching doesn't have a single starter with an ERA under 4.24.


But how much longer do you really expect Weathers to be a very effective reliiever?

I sure wouldn't count on it. With the Reds being far from contention, I would look to move him for prospects while the chance is still there.

In regards to the starters, as a whole, they have been prone to awful luck, makorally due to the awful defesne played behind them, but with some decent luck, I would bet that most of the starters would have lower ERA's then 4.24.

RedsManRick
06-08-2007, 06:00 PM
Every batted ball is not created equal. Grounders don't turn in to hits at the same rate as line drives do. Nor do fly balls. And of course, BABIP excludes homers, which absolutely have an effect on bottom line performance.

The mean BABIP of the population of MLB pitchers is something like .290. There is something of a bell-curve around that point with a standard deviation of about .010.

That means about 70% of pitchers are between .280 and .300. 25% are between .270 and .280 OR between .300 and .310. 4% are between .260 and .270 OR between .310 and .320. 1% are further away than that.

This is a description of a distribution of pitchers. There is no universal law that says BABIP has to revert to .290. BABIP is not a random coin flip with a by-definiton mean. Rather, it says that on balance, most major league pitchers end up in that .280-.300 range when it's all said and done. Given the level of defense, the ability of hitters, the ability of pitchers, etc. Put you or I in the majors and I can guarantee that we'd allow a much higher % over an infinite number of PA. Heck, just look at defensive effeciency. It is inverse BABIP and it shows that the Reds allow a BABIP against of 50 points higher than others and have for a number of years now.

It's not that pitchers don't have influence over BABIP, it's the relatively small amount of influence that they have. Pitchers can influence the types of balls batted against them somewhat. But even those types of balls fall in at somewhat standard rates and the differences are smaller than one would think intuitively.

However, we should not treat abnormally high BABIP the same way we would treat abnormally low. The low end of BABIP is fixed, based on the most talented pitcher in the world and the "natural" limit based on standard defensive alignments and the universe of types of batted balls. Basically, no pitcher could EVER allow a BABIP of X over a large sample.

However, on the high end of the BABIP, we have a level of performance that is manually controlled. As pitchers find themselves unable to do the things they can control that keep their BABIP in the .300 range, they get sent to AAA. If they throw nothing but flat fastballs, guys will hit more line drives which will lead to a much high BABIP. And it would be a real, non-luck based BABIP that does not regress over time. The BABIP mean isn't applicable because the types of pitches being thrown the batters is different than MLB average.

That's a long winded way of saying that if Majewski or Stanton have lost their "stuff" those BABIP figures could be completely legitimate. We should only play the luck card if the supporting evidence, be it scouting info, or batted balls types (in the form of exBABIP) bears it out.

Stormy
06-08-2007, 06:06 PM
However, on the high end of the BABIP, we have a level of performance that is manually controlled. As pitchers find themselves unable to do the things they can control that keep their BABIP in the .300 range, they get sent to AAA. If they throw nothing but flat fastballs, guys will hit more line drives which will lead to a much high BABIP. And it would be a real, non-luck based BABIP that does not regress over time. The BABIP mean isn't applicable because the types of pitches being thrown the batters is different than MLB average.

That's a long winded way of saying that if Majewski or Stanton have lost their "stuff" those BABIP figures could be completely legitimate. We should only play the luck card if the supporting evidence, be it scouting info, or batted balls types (in the form of exBABIP) bears it out.

Nothing to add, but to say that this is one exceptional post. I've enjoyed following the different analytical digressions throughout this entire thread.

Falls City Beer
06-08-2007, 06:08 PM
Nothing to add, but to say that this is one exceptional post.

An important post, too, as the regression argument is so frequently invoked.

Patrick Bateman
06-08-2007, 06:13 PM
However, on the high end of the BABIP, we have a level of performance that is manually controlled. As pitchers find themselves unable to do the things they can control that keep their BABIP in the .300 range, they get sent to AAA. If they throw nothing but flat fastballs, guys will hit more line drives which will lead to a much high BABIP. And it would be a real, non-luck based BABIP that does not regress over time. The BABIP mean isn't applicable because the types of pitches being thrown the batters is different than MLB average.


Good post RMR.

Some thoughts I have, is that if for example Stanton is indeed throwing flat fast balls, then how come he is still striking out batters at a similar rate as the last 5 years? Would it not be logical to conclude that if a guy is throwing flat pitches, that in turn, the batters would rarely be fooled and would strike out a smaller rate?

I would think that if a pitcher was throwing in the way that you are desribing, that not only would his BAPIP baloon, but his K rate would dwindle downwards and the HR rate would increase because of how easy it is to hit the ball of a guy. I would tend to believe that these things would be correlated.

RedsManRick
06-08-2007, 06:45 PM
Good post RMR.

Some thoughts I have, is that if for example Stanton is indeed throwing flat fast balls, then how come he is still striking out batters at a similar rate as the last 5 years? Would it not be logical to conclude that if a guy is throwing flat pitches, that in turn, the batters would rarely be fooled and would strike out a smaller rate?

I would think that if a pitcher was throwing in the way that you are desribing, that not only would his BAPIP baloon, but his K rate would dwindle downwards and the HR rate would increase because of how easy it is to hit the ball of a guy. I would tend to believe that these things would be correlated.

Absolutely. And that's why you can pretty much assume that anybody with a BABIP over about .320-.330 with otherwise good peripherals has been unlucky. There is (I am admittedly assuming) a strong correlation between the events which lead to a lower BABIP, reasonably low walk rates, and reasonably high strikeout rates.

Stanton's K/9 and K/BB are still decent and he's only allowed 1 HR. Those things definitely suggest that his high BABIP is somewhat luck based. Majewski however isn't striking anybody out and his G/F in limited action this year is below normal. For Majewski, everything is colored by the tiny sample size this year -- however, it does jive with scouting that suggests he's lost some sink on his fastball and action on his slider. There's rarely such thing as proof, but the more things we have that seem to correlate, the stronger the evidence gets. We'll see where he's at after another 15-20 IP.

Falls City Beer
06-08-2007, 07:01 PM
Absolutely. And that's why you can pretty much assume that anybody with a BABIP over about .320-.330 with otherwise good peripherals has been unlucky. There is (I am admittedly assuming) a strong correlation between the events which lead to a lower BABIP, reasonably low walk rates, and reasonably high strikeout rates.

Stanton's K/9 and K/BB are still decent and he's only allowed 1 HR. Those things definitely suggest that his high BABIP is somewhat luck based. Majewski however isn't striking anybody out and his G/F in limited action this year is below normal. For Majewski, everything is colored by the tiny sample size this year -- however, it does jive with scouting that suggests he's lost some sink on his fastball and action on his slider. There's rarely such thing as proof, but the more things we have that seem to correlate, the stronger the evidence gets. We'll see where he's at after another 15-20 IP.

But let's face it, not only is Majewski's sample size small, but so is Stanton's.

At some point, you just have to make the leap, and assume, at age 41, he doesn't really have what it takes in terms of stuff and ability to wrestle his ERA, OPSA, or his BABIP back to normality. You might hope for it, but I think you'd be a bit foolhardy to expect it or even gamble on it as a longshot.

Patrick Bateman
06-08-2007, 07:03 PM
Absolutely. And that's why you can pretty much assume that anybody with a BABIP over about .320-.330 with otherwise good peripherals has been unlucky. There is (I am admittedly assuming) a strong correlation between the events which lead to a lower BABIP, reasonably low walk rates, and reasonably high strikeout rates.

Stanton's K/9 and K/BB are still decent and he's only allowed 1 HR. Those things definitely suggest that his high BABIP is somewhat luck based. Majewski however isn't striking anybody out and his G/F in limited action this year is below normal. For Majewski, everything is colored by the tiny sample size this year -- however, it does jive with scouting that suggests he's lost some sink on his fastball and action on his slider. There's rarely such thing as proof, but the more things we have that seem to correlate, the stronger the evidence gets. We'll see where he's at after another 15-20 IP.

One thing to consider is that over pitcher's careers, the quality of pitching has not dictated their BAPIPs, even if there are monumental differences in things like walks and strikeouts.

I'm inclined to believe that really bad non-major league calibre pitchers (ex. Brian Reith when he came up and got pounded) will generally post high BAPIPs due to them being so hittable/predictable. I think there is some sort of a cut off line in how good you have to be capable of posting a BAPIP in the .290-.300 range with the rest being decided by luck. I doubt if I took the hill for the Reds that the only thing that would dictate my success is homers, ks, and walks. I'm assuming I would be so bad that hitters could basically aim for the holes and find them.

But where would this cut off point be? I'm guessing AA calibre pitchers would post higher BAPIP's on average than major leaguers. That would be the logical conclusion. I'm thinking that once he reach a certain point in skill, you are basically tossed in with the rest of major league calibre pitchers, and that you have enough skill to post the average BAPIP. Since below average major league pitchers can post average BAPIP's my guess is that you only have to be a fringe major league talent to post the average BAPIP over the long run.

My point is, that Majewski is still is a major league calibre pitcher (as an 11th or 12th pitcher) and that as such due to the general rule of success not dictating BAPIP's over large samples, that Majewski should not have to worry about his BAPIP being higher than everyone else due to his limited skill, as IMO, that will even out over the long run. The reason that Majewski will probably continue struggling is that he just simply isn't very good at controlling the big 3 (walks, k's, and groundballs).

Patrick Bateman
06-08-2007, 07:08 PM
But let's face it, not only is Majewski's sample size small, but so is Stanton's.

At some point, you just have to make the leap, and assume, at age 41, he doesn't really have what it takes in terms of stuff and ability to wrestle his ERA, OPSA, or his BABIP back to normality. You might hope for it, but I think you'd be a bit foolhardy to expect it or even gamble on it as a longshot.

I agree it's both unlikely, and unreasonable to expect his BAPIP to climb down towards average, but if it plays out for the remainder of the season to a normalized rate, a greater level of success is nearly guaranteed.

The more normal it becomes, the higher his trade value will likely rise, and the more likely you can salvage the contract. I really don't see the downside in giving it more time, since it shouldn't take much success to make him look decent, even if it is only artificially decent. As long as they don't let it carry on too long, I don't see the negatve effects.

IMO, both Santos and Majeswki should be off the team before Stanton, and if they go first, there will be more tha enough innings to go around for young pitchers.

jojo
06-08-2007, 07:26 PM
People have been loathe to pronounce Hamilton a bona fide major league star due to his hitting prowess thsu far, and rightfully so. But the train runs both ways here.

The guy essentially was away from the game for three years, do we not allow some room to grow into the position? Major league centerfield is not an easy position to play--and I don't think it's safe to say at all 40 games into his ML career that he's not a centerfielder. Cut the guy a bit of slack.

It's not a matter of being harsh, biased or unfair.

He simply hasn't displayed the range of a bonafide CFer...thats not really a skill that can "grow".

Ltlabner
06-08-2007, 07:28 PM
It's not a matter of being harsh, biased or unfair.

He simply hasn't displayed the range of a bonafide CFer...thats not really a skill that can "grow".

Is it a "range" issue or a "inexperienced" issue?

Not to mention I'd rather he focus on getting good at hitting before putting too much energy into playing outfield (in very general terms).

pedro
06-08-2007, 07:36 PM
It's not a matter of being harsh, biased or unfair.

He simply hasn't displayed the range of a bonafide CFer...thats not really a skill that can "grow".

statistically he's about middle of the pack in the majors so he does profile better as a corner guy but it's not like he has to be moved out of CF.

jojo
06-08-2007, 07:49 PM
statistically he's about middle of the pack in the majors so he does profile better as a corner guy but it's not like he has to be moved out of CF.

On the young season, he's the worst ranked CF via UZR....but I wouldn't move him...the Reds don't have anyone better.

pedro
06-08-2007, 08:00 PM
On the young season, he's the worst ranked CF via UZR....but I wouldn't move him...the Reds don't have anyone better.

I'm just going by RF and ZR on ESPN.com

I don't think he'll have a long career in CF either way.

BoydsOfSummer
06-09-2007, 10:26 PM
On the young season, he's the worst ranked CF via UZR....but I wouldn't move him...the Reds don't have anyone better.

Where are you finding Uzr?

Reds1
06-10-2007, 01:11 AM
saw coffey last night AAA game. I didn't even know he was back when I saw him in the pen. I was like no way. Well, in a game where no one could pitch he had two nice innings. He overmatches AAA, but having problems in the majors, but he should be there over magic even though I think Magic got hosed on a couple calls and EE at 3B. Reds would/should have won.

RedsManRick
06-10-2007, 01:13 AM
Brantley had Majewski pegged. To be an effective reliever you have to be able to locate more than one pitch. Majewski can't.

registerthis
06-12-2007, 09:57 AM
My point is, that Majewski is still is a major league calibre pitcher (as an 11th or 12th pitcher) and that as such due to the general rule of success not dictating BAPIP's over large samples, that Majewski should not have to worry about his BAPIP being higher than everyone else due to his limited skill, as IMO, that will even out over the long run.

I don't believe you can look at Majewski's place on the roster and automatically assume he still has a major league-quality-arm. There are far too many variables in play to simply look at a roster and assume that anyone who is on it is, by default, "major league quality". You mentioned Brian Rheith as an example of someone who was in the majors but shouldn't have been--that's a good assessment, but I'd argue that at this point, there are likely a number of AA pitchers who could outperform Majewski, who can't seem to locate anything. A regression to the mean by Majewski is far from a sure thing, particularly if he continues to leave fastballs right over the heart of the plate. Those types of pitches virtually guarantee a higher BABIP.