PDA

View Full Version : Ed Volquez



icehole3
03-11-2008, 05:54 AM
He made the teeth of the Yankees batting order look horrible, 8 Ks in 4 innings. That was a good trade IMO. 50 grand for Hamilton traded for the Rangers no. 1 prospect, if youre a GM youre smiling, that is how you flip prospects ladies and gentlemen.

http://www.sternfannetwork.com/forum/images/smilies/Happy/HappyWave.gif

Jpup
03-11-2008, 08:19 AM
I love what I saw of him, but remember that it's only one game and it's spring training. I've seen many, many pitchers look that good. I'm excited about the future and tonight made me feel a little better about the trade, but it's way to early to say that's the way it's done.

paintmered
03-11-2008, 08:26 AM
Be mindful of the law of sample size.

Phhhl
03-11-2008, 09:11 AM
Be mindful of the law of sample size.

That's very true. But, there is still something to be said for that kind of sample. His changeup was wicked and needs to be seen to appreciate. Can he pitch like that for 6-7 innings? Remains to be seen.

The only bad thing I can say after seeing him is that his mechanics are going to get picked apart. He might start out in the pen, in part because of concerns about him blowing out an elbow or something.

Jpup
03-11-2008, 09:12 AM
That's very true. But, there is still something to be said for that kind of sample. His changeup was wicked and needs to be seen to appreciate. Can he pitch like that for 6-7 innings? Remains to be seen.

The only bad thing I can say after seeing him is that his mechanics are going to get picked apart. He might start out in the pen, in part because of concerns about him blowing out an elbow or something.

They traded for a starter. I can't imagine him going to the pen.

PuffyPig
03-11-2008, 09:14 AM
Small sample sizes are one thing, too be sure.

But when you have a pitcher with dominate stuff, who was completely dominate at AA and AAA last year, who fans 8 regular Yankees in 4 innings it's impressive. You can't get that kind of results with BABIP luck or whatever.

The question is whether or not he can sustain that type of command. The stuff is there.

Jpup
03-11-2008, 09:16 AM
He didn't do to well last year for Texas. I hope he has improved somewhat since then. He looks great so far.

membengal
03-11-2008, 09:17 AM
Be mindful of the law of sample size.

It's at least a slightly bigger sample size than Javy Valentin's throw-away comment that generated consternation for a few on this board. (insert winky icon mentally)

Jpup
03-11-2008, 09:19 AM
It's at least a slightly bigger sample size than Javy Valentin's throw-away comment that generated consternation for a few on this board. (insert winky icon mentally)

I think Javy's comment had to be taken out of context. I think he was saying "put the guy on the team, if it's not in the rotation, he needs to be in the bullpen."

That's just a guess.

kbrake
03-11-2008, 09:57 AM
I thought people overreacted after Javy's comments and I think they are doing it again after last night. Last night was very nice to see, but its way too early to say this was a great trade for Krivsky. I liked the trade when it happened, I still like the trade, but lets get past March before we decide one way or the other.

Will M
03-11-2008, 11:09 AM
Harang
Arroyo
Belisle
Volquez
Cueto

Cordero
Burton
Affeldt (L)
Weathers
Roenike
Coffey/McBeth/Salmon/Coutlangas/?
Fogg - long relief

Looks like a real honest to goodness major league pitching staff!

Joseph
03-11-2008, 11:16 AM
Sub Stanton for Roenike.

Face it folks Stanton is making the team unless he gets hammered over and over and his last couple outings he's been decent.

I think Fogg is released if he doesn't make the rotation.

flyer85
03-11-2008, 11:30 AM
Face it folks Stanton is making the team the sad truth


unless he gets hammered over and overeven if he does he will still be on the roster. Afterall, he is a veteran getting his work in.

registerthis
03-11-2008, 11:34 AM
He didn't do to well last year for Texas.

Yeah, in 34 IP--talk about small sample size. It's not as if he imploded, either.

alexad
03-11-2008, 11:34 AM
He didn't do to well last year for Texas. I hope he has improved somewhat since then. He looks great so far.


He has two things going for him. 1) He is wearing number 36 and 2)The man who made 36 a number is also working with him in Spring Training.

Sea Ray
03-11-2008, 11:48 AM
Last night was very nice to see, but its way too early to say this was a great trade for Krivsky. I liked the trade when it happened, I still like the trade, but lets get past March before we decide one way or the other.


Let's be fair here. The Reds don't have a 30 day money back guarantee with this guy. You saw him pitch. If you're Krivsky is he worth trading Josh Hamilton?

kbrake
03-11-2008, 11:54 AM
I said I liked the trade but I think people are overreacting both ways to it. Two weeks ago the board almost had a complete meltdown because a backup catcher made some comments. Now he has 4 good innings against the Yankees and he has 10 new threads dedicated to his greatness this morning. I just think people need to slow down both ways.

WMR
03-11-2008, 12:05 PM
Last night showed why Krivsky traded for him. That FB he blew by Giambi around 97 MPH or so ain't goin' NOWHERE.

flyer85
03-11-2008, 12:10 PM
I liked the deal when it was made. It was a high risk high reward deal for both teams. Last night the electric stuff of Volquez was on display as the Reds have sorely lacked bat missing pitchers in recent years.

Last night he showed excellent command of his fastball that also had good sink(as opposed to Majewski who gets no sink) when he kept it down. He also showed a nasty change that has deception and tumble and is an out pitch. His curveball had a tendency to hang and it was the only pitch he got hurt on. It looked like he threw a couple of sliders that looked good as well. Personally I think he ought to scrap the curve and go with the slider. If he gets command of his 3rd pitch he is a front of the rotation starter.

red-in-la
03-11-2008, 12:46 PM
Well, the debate rages on. Of course, missing bats is really overrated.......you can't tell anything from things like ERA (over 4) and WHIP (1.25 I think)....which isn't bad, right?

Anyway, I was impressed to a point......but Volquez worries me in that for a power pitcher, he seems to rely solely on the trick pitch. If you don't fall for the change, or he misses with it, there seems to be a hard hit ball in your immediate future.

My point is, what happens the 2nd and 3rd time through the order? Last night was one time through. He faced Arod, Giambi and Matsui and they then left the game. By the second time through the order he was facing guys with linebacker numbers on their jerseys.

flyer85
03-11-2008, 12:49 PM
but Volquez worries me in that for a power pitcher, he seems to rely solely on the trick pitch. worked pretty well for Mario Soto, which is exactly who he reminded mo of. BTW, Volquez has two other pitches, they just need work. Even if he isn't ready to be a starter this year he could be killer at the back of the bullpen.

Screwball
03-11-2008, 01:05 PM
BTW, Volquez has two other pitches, they just need work.

I don't think his fastball needs too much work, certainly not as much as his curve (or slider if he switches to that for his 3rd pitch). From what I saw last night, his FB was painting the black of the plate, and had enough gas to really make his change-up the devastating pitch it was. In the immortal words of Mike Krukow: "Great velocity. Great location. See ya later."

I do agree with you though that he'd make a great addition to the bullpen IF he's not ready for the rotation. Him and Cordero would turn it into a 7 inning game for the opposition.

flyer85
03-11-2008, 01:11 PM
I don't think his fastball needs too much workmeant his curve and slider(a new pitch that Pole is teaching him). His fastball is just fine in terms of velocity, movement and command.

flyer85
03-11-2008, 01:15 PM
BTW, on using him in the pen there is an issue James brought up in his book.

He gives the W-L record for the team after each inning. Most teams tend to stay the course after the first inning ... sometimes teams will switch during the the 9 innings. However, in 2007, the Reds were something that James said was very rare, they switched twice in game. The started off behind, took control in the middle innings and then fell apart late. What it points out is that if the Reds had a quality pen they could make it a 6 or 7 inning game they could have been a winning team in 2007.

BRM
03-11-2008, 01:56 PM
I see the Doc is still making a case for Volquez and Cueto.



Very likely Volquez starts the year in the bullpen. Somewhat likely Cueto begins it in Louisville. Is either ready for the Reds rotation? Nope. Should it matter? Nope.

Was Jeremy Bonderman ready a few years ago in Detroit? Hardly. Was he ready a couple years later, when the Tigers made the World Series? Absolutely. By deciding not to deal kids for vets, the Reds have cast their lot with the future. Why not get it started? Put Cueto and Volquez in the rotation and leave them there. Is that any worse than winning 80 games with (pick two) Fogg, Belisle and Affeldt?

Benihana
03-11-2008, 02:00 PM
Volquez v. Cueto

Who would be better in the rotation vs. in the bullpen to start the year? It seems apparent the way things are going that both will be with the big club come Opening Day. If the Reds decide they want a lefty in the rotation, Fogg stays, while one of the two goes to the pen to start the year. Which one would you send?

One good thing for sure is it is looking more and more like Affeldt will start the year in the pen, which makes that a great signing.

dougdirt
03-11-2008, 02:30 PM
He didn't do to well last year for Texas. I hope he has improved somewhat since then. He looks great so far.

He didn't do bad for Texas last year either.

dougdirt
03-11-2008, 02:33 PM
Well, the debate rages on. Of course, missing bats is really overrated.......you can't tell anything from things like ERA (over 4) and WHIP (1.25 I think)....which isn't bad, right?

Anyway, I was impressed to a point......but Volquez worries me in that for a power pitcher, he seems to rely solely on the trick pitch. If you don't fall for the change, or he misses with it, there seems to be a hard hit ball in your immediate future.


Your worry sounds exactly what you should be worried with about Johan Santana. When guys don't miss his change up, they crush it. Fortunately, guys miss it quite often.

jojo
03-11-2008, 02:35 PM
Be mindful of the law of sample size.

I'd like to see how he would do against the Yanks while wearing a different cap. I think his last night was distracting. :cool:

RedsManRick
03-11-2008, 02:36 PM
Small sample sizes are more relevant for stats analysis than scouting. Still relevant in so much as you don't want to leave thinking he'll strikeout out everybody, but in so far as it gives us a real sense of what he's capable of, it's impressive.

jojo
03-11-2008, 02:40 PM
Small sample sizes are more relevant for stats analysis than scouting. Still relevant in so much as you don't want to leave thinking he'll strikeout out everybody, but in so far as it gives us a real sense of what he's capable of, it's impressive.

I agree to point. That said, if last night was the only 4 innings a scout saw Volquez pitch, he'd come away without an inkling that Volquez still struggles with command.

SunDeck
03-11-2008, 02:42 PM
Your worry sounds exactly what you should be worried with about Johan Santana. When guys don't miss his change up, they crush it. Fortunately, guys miss it quite often.

I'm sure the Mets FO loses a lot of sleep over that. :)

RedsManRick
03-11-2008, 02:47 PM
Volquez v. Cueto

Who would be better in the rotation vs. in the bullpen to start the year? It seems apparent the way things are going that both will be with the big club come Opening Day. If the Reds decide they want a lefty in the rotation, Fogg stays, while one of the two goes to the pen to start the year. Which one would you send?

One good thing for sure is it is looking more and more like Affeldt will start the year in the pen, which makes that a great signing.

Cueto in the rotation. Give me the more consistent guy and the one who already put in the workload last year -- so that the innings jump is less dangerous. If Volquez's main problem is consistency of execution and focus, let him start with smaller chunks, gaining confidence that he can get major leaguers out.

fearofpopvol1
03-11-2008, 02:49 PM
BTW, on using him in the pen there is an issue James brought up in his book.

He gives the W-L record for the team after each inning. Most teams tend to stay the course after the first inning ... sometimes teams will switch during the the 9 innings. However, in 2007, the Reds were something that James said was very rare, they switched twice in game. The started off behind, took control in the middle innings and then fell apart late. What it points out is that if the Reds had a quality pen they could make it a 6 or 7 inning game they could have been a winning team in 2007.

This is a really good point. It's not something I thought about at the time, but there were way too many games last year where I can specifically remember this happening.

With the Reds having a lot of potential arms for the bullpen (while adding Cordero), I think they could really have a solid pen. It just makes the thought of them keeping Stanton all the more cringing.

SunDeck
03-11-2008, 02:52 PM
It just makes the thought of them keeping Stanton all the more cringing.

At least the upside is that the Reds have more options to put in their if he tanks this year, and not too shabby ones at that.

flyer85
03-11-2008, 02:54 PM
At least the upside is that the Reds have more options to put in their if he tanks this year, and not too shabby ones at that.problem is the 2008 Reds have a small margin for error. Having a guy around thats tank makes the window smaller.

fearofpopvol1
03-11-2008, 02:54 PM
At least the upside is that the Reds have more options to put in their if he tanks this year, and not too shabby ones at that.

I'm having a hard time viewing this as upside (when they could bypass him altogether), but I understand your point.

princeton
03-11-2008, 02:58 PM
Small sample sizes are more relevant for stats analysis than scouting.

backwards

TOBTTReds
03-11-2008, 03:17 PM
backwards

What's backwards? What RMR said was right. SSS is a defense when someone goes 7 for 10 when they really aren't that good. You can see 5 changeups from Volquez and 5 fastballs and know what he has.

I think that is what he meant, that the term "small sample size" applies to stats more than scouting.

RedsManRick
03-11-2008, 03:25 PM
backwards

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. The claim "We shouldn't use this information because it comes from a small sample size." is less relevant for scouting than with stats.

4 innings of performance is a horrific predictor of the next 200 innings from a performance metric standpoint. However, it gives you a decent bit of insight in to what the pitcher throws, how he throws it, and what his capabilities are. Though not, as Jojo correctly pointed out, any assurance that he's able to do it consistently and reliably.

SunDeck
03-11-2008, 03:53 PM
problem is the 2008 Reds have a small margin for error. Having a guy around thats tank makes the window smaller.

Yeah, but it's still Spring Training, so I'm putting on my optimistic "everyone's in first place right now" hat.

The window is smaller this year. Last year it was the size of the Ozone hole over Antarctica.

red-in-la
03-11-2008, 03:56 PM
Your worry sounds exactly what you should be worried with about Johan Santana. When guys don't miss his change up, they crush it. Fortunately, guys miss it quite often.

COMMAND....

What Soto had, and I don't know much about Santana, but he must have it too looking at his record, is the ability to throw that fastball on the black when they want to. Soto could also throw a fastball letter high most every hitter in the league.

Again, I don't know about Santana.

All I know is that if Volquez is really like you guys talk about him, he would have cost even more than he did.

Sea Ray
03-11-2008, 03:58 PM
I'm thinking they'll open the season with Cueto in the rotation and Volquez in the bullpen just like they did in the late 80s with a young Jose Rijo. I would think he would work his way into the rotation sometime during the year.

Overall I see a lot of nice, young arms in camp this year which beats the retreads we've seen in previous years, but I don't think the light is going to "go on" all of a sudden with these kids and lead us to the post season. I'm thinking 2009 will be the earliest we can start talking contention with this team.

dougdirt
03-11-2008, 04:01 PM
COMMAND....

What Soto had, and I don't know much about Santana, but he must have it too looking at his record, is the ability to throw that fastball on the black when they want to. Soto could also throw a fastball letter high most every hitter in the league.

Again, I don't know about Santana.

All I know is that if Volquez is really like you guys talk about him, he would have cost even more than he did.

And Johan Santana should have cost more than $50,000.... but he didn't. My point was more along the lines though that when guys do hit Santana's change up, they crush it.

flyer85
03-11-2008, 04:10 PM
COMMAND....

What Soto had. I remember the young Soto, and he struggled with command at the beginning of his career. His BB rate did not go under 3 per 9IP until his age 25 season(vloquez is 24) and bounced around that number the rest of his career. Soto never had great command ... who had good command with electric stuff(just two pitches in his case).

BTW, EV has more potential upside as Soto had no 3rd pitch nor even tried one until after his arm injury when with his fastball just average he experimented throwing a slider.

Nugget
03-11-2008, 04:17 PM
Its Edison isn't it?

Anyway if they get two young guys into the rotation with Beslisle and they stick the REDS will have a rotation for years to come - i think Fogg and Affeldt are there if the young guys look like they may not be ready for April.

BRM
03-11-2008, 04:19 PM
Its Edison isn't it?


Actually, it's Edinson.

PuffyPig
03-11-2008, 04:33 PM
All I know is that if Volquez is really like you guys talk about him, he would have cost even more than he did.

I'm surprised you said this.

I assumed you thought that the cost of giving up Hamilton was huge.

I think that both Volquez and Hamilton had significant trade value.

It could end up being a great trade for both teams.

red-in-la
03-11-2008, 08:25 PM
I'm surprised you said this.

I assumed you thought that the cost of giving up Hamilton was huge.

I think that both Volquez and Hamilton had significant trade value.

It could end up being a great trade for both teams.

It was HUGE iMHO....but not in most others on this board. But dougD is using Volquez in the same post as Johan Santana. If Volquez was even in the same hemisphere as Santana, he would have cost WK Hamilton AND Bruce and maybe more.

WK is not my favorite GM. He has not shown me that he can make advantagoeus trades or sign FA at a good market price. I think he got his clock clean on the Hamilton deal. He also dealt a true need for just another arm equal to what the Reds already had 3 of......when they needed a proven quantity.

He has seemingly done a fine job rebuilding the scouting department as it appears that the Reds are drafting better then they have in a long time.

OnBaseMachine
03-11-2008, 08:47 PM
Reds pitchers Volquez, Cueto drawing attention
Listen to this article or download audio file.Click-2-Listen

By Hal McCoy

Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

SARASOTA, Fla. While Reds right-hander Johnny Cueto has scouts slapping and pounding their radar guns to see if the '97s? and '98s? on the readouts are accurate, Edinson Volquez is making a ?Hey, Look Me Over? statement.

The 24-year-old right-hander struck out eight New York Yankees in four innings on Monday night, March 10, making a statement that perhaps fans who hated the trade that brought him to Cincinnati at the loss of popular outfielder Josh Hamilton should pay attention.

?Volquez is working on his breaking ball and when that gets better wow,? Reds manager Dusty Baker said. ?Plus he has a little attitude. He doesn?t want to give up anything. He is hungry and there are certain desires that come with hunger and need.?

Volquez gave up two runs in his four innings, but no ball was hit hard. When one cheap hit fell in, Volquez stomped the mound like a matador looking for his fallen sword.

Of Cueto, one American League scout said, ?From people whose judgements I trust, they said Cueto is the best they?ve seen this spring.?

http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/content/oh/story/sports/pro/reds/2008/03/11/ddn031208redsnotesweb.html

Spitball
03-11-2008, 09:01 PM
Reds pitchers Volquez, Cueto drawing attention
Listen to this article or download audio file.Click-2-Listen

By Hal McCoy

Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

SARASOTA, Fla. — While Reds right-hander Johnny Cueto has scouts slapping and pounding their radar guns to see if the '97s? and '98s? on the readouts are accurate, Edinson Volquez is making a ?Hey, Look Me Over? statement.

The 24-year-old right-hander struck out eight New York Yankees in four innings on Monday night, March 10, making a statement that perhaps fans who hated the trade that brought him to Cincinnati at the loss of popular outfielder Josh Hamilton should pay attention.

?Volquez is working on his breaking ball and when that gets better — wow,? Reds manager Dusty Baker said. ?Plus he has a little attitude. He doesn?t want to give up anything. He is hungry and there are certain desires that come with hunger and need.?

Volquez gave up two runs in his four innings, but no ball was hit hard. When one cheap hit fell in, Volquez stomped the mound like a matador looking for his fallen sword.

Of Cueto, one American League scout said, ?From people whose judgements I trust, they said Cueto is the best they?ve seen this spring.?

http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/content/oh/story/sports/pro/reds/2008/03/11/ddn031208redsnotesweb.html

Lots of "?'s" there, but Cueto and Volquez have me excited with their potential. It should be fun to watch them develop after years of Larry Luebbers, Scott Scudders, John Ropers, Mo Sanfords, Ed Yarnells, Phil Dumatraits, Elizardo Ramirezes, and on and on and...

cincrazy
03-11-2008, 09:05 PM
COMMAND....

What Soto had, and I don't know much about Santana, but he must have it too looking at his record, is the ability to throw that fastball on the black when they want to. Soto could also throw a fastball letter high most every hitter in the league.

Again, I don't know about Santana.

All I know is that if Volquez is really like you guys talk about him, he would have cost even more than he did.

You didn't see him mow down A-Rod, Giambi and Matsui? Maybe the Rangers are just a stupid franchise that gave away a future All Star for pennies on the dollar. The Astros lost Curt Schilling and Johan Santana. The Blue Jays lost Chris Carpenter. It happens, and it happens way more frequently than you may think.

(And I'm not referring to Hamilton as "pennies on the dollar.." I'm just saying, if Volquez turns out to be as good as he can be, the Rangers would have asked for several stud prospects in return as opposed to just Hamilton)

Ga_Red
03-11-2008, 10:38 PM
I've seen EV 3 times this ST....barring injury, he is a rotation lock, as is JC.

the 5 spot needs an inning eater, following the two rookies, and
my guess is that Fogg gets it instead of Affeldt, because
of his innings history, the last 5-6 years, even tho so far
Affeldt has been better this spring.
Bailey needs to learn how to pitch from the stretch, and
that will happen in AAA imo.
Maloney is a disaster this spring......No command, no stuff, no mound presence.....
JR has been near perfect...
Cordero is good....but not lights out as I'd hoped, this ST...
Weathers is Weathers, Merk is the Merk of old, so far...Stanton has lost weight and has been pitching well, ugh...
Haven't seen Burton or Coffey
Coutlangus has been wild and hit hard...
just one guy's opinion, oc,
more l8r

Superdude
03-11-2008, 10:48 PM
Of Cueto, one American League scout said, ?From people whose judgements I trust, they said Cueto is the best they?ve seen this spring.?

What exactly does this mean? Best pitching prospect? Best Reds pitcher? Best spring training pitcher in the whole wide world?

red-in-la
03-11-2008, 11:26 PM
I still dislike this trade, but I will say that I can see Volquez contributing. I could see Fogg, Cueto and Volquez rounding out the rotation. Belisle is the guy who could go Brett Tomko on us.

fearofpopvol1
03-11-2008, 11:46 PM
It was HUGE iMHO....but not in most others on this board. But dougD is using Volquez in the same post as Johan Santana. If Volquez was even in the same hemisphere as Santana, he would have cost WK Hamilton AND Bruce and maybe more.

WK is not my favorite GM. He has not shown me that he can make advantagoeus trades or sign FA at a good market price. I think he got his clock clean on the Hamilton deal. He also dealt a true need for just another arm equal to what the Reds already had 3 of......when they needed a proven quantity.

He has seemingly done a fine job rebuilding the scouting department as it appears that the Reds are drafting better then they have in a long time.

Please explain what FA signings WK made at a bad market price? And if your answer is that he hasn't signed any and the FA's signed elsewhere, then it probably means they weren't at a "good market price." Sounds like the Reds traded surplus for a true need to me.

Also, what is the true need in Josh Hamilton that they traded away? Bruce is going to likely be in RF starting next year (which is what Hamilton projects to be). While he did a good job in limited playing time in CF last year, he's not fit to be a CF.

sonny
03-11-2008, 11:55 PM
Belisle is the guy who could go Brett Tomko on us.

I got this itchy thought in my head that Belisle will be the suprise of the year. In a good way or a bad way has yet to be determined.

Cedric
03-11-2008, 11:55 PM
I still dislike this trade, but I will say that I can see Volquez contributing. I could see Fogg, Cueto and Volquez rounding out the rotation. Belisle is the guy who could go Brett Tomko on us.

Belisle sure as hell hasn't earned a guaranteed rotation spot. I would be thrilled if the Reds found a way to get Belisle out of the rotation. At this point I would be more than happy with Fogg, Cueto, and Volquez over Belisle. I really don't think he has the makeup to be a major league starter. I see Fogg with at least consistent average to bad pitching. I really don't want to watch Belisle and his lack of command and lack of pitching Iq. I've never seen a pitcher that gets ahead 0-2 as much as Belisle and still manages to pipe the next pitch. He can't locate and that will always make him a sub par pitcher, IMO.

dougdirt
03-11-2008, 11:58 PM
It was HUGE iMHO....but not in most others on this board. But dougD is using Volquez in the same post as Johan Santana. If Volquez was even in the same hemisphere as Santana, he would have cost WK Hamilton AND Bruce and maybe more.
I was making a point based on this quote you made



Anyway, I was impressed to a point......but Volquez worries me in that for a power pitcher, he seems to rely solely on the trick pitch. If you don't fall for the change, or he misses with it, there seems to be a hard hit ball in your immediate future.

Johan Santana has a changeup too that he relies a whole lot on, but when guys make contact with it, they generally crush it. I wasn't suggesting he is going to be Santana, but that even the best pitchers in baseball get hit hard often on some of their pitches.

WMR
03-12-2008, 12:00 AM
Fogg over Belisle? Hell no.

WebScorpion
03-12-2008, 12:09 AM
All I know is the RedsZone weathervanes are in mid-season form. I can always tell which way the wind's blowing! http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/ad/weee.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

red-in-la
03-12-2008, 12:22 AM
I was making a point based on this quote you made



Johan Santana has a changeup too that he relies a whole lot on, but when guys make contact with it, they generally crush it. I wasn't suggesting he is going to be Santana, but that even the best pitchers in baseball get hit hard often on some of their pitches.

You added Santana to the discussion, not me. My point was only that Volquez lacks command and cannot do the things that Soto and Santana can because he doesn't have the ability yet.

This idea that WK somehow robbed Texas is so beyond me that I just don't know how to deal with it. The Reds outfield, sans this trade would be Dunn, Hamilton and JR until JR gets hurt. It would then be Dunn Hamilton and Bruce, in RF, where everybody wants him.

WK screwed that up with this trade and now we are talking Corey Patterson :eek:.

Volquez is not NEEDED nor even necessarily going to be good in the Reds rotation, or any better than Cueto or Bailey might have been. I can see him ending up there, but he stands little chance to contribute at the level that Hamilton would have.

As to signing FA's, Coco was a lot of money for a guy that again, was NOT their most pressing need. Of course, we hope he turns out to be worth it, but we will have to wait and see.

My point about Cordero has been the same since the day they signed him. Paying him is a WIN NOW move. Everything else that WK has done since has been a win later on move. Where is the plan?

Cedric
03-12-2008, 12:23 AM
Fogg over Belisle? Hell no.

If it wasn't for BABIP and the love affair Redszone has with it, Matt Belisle wouldn't even be considered for the rotation at this point. Bad pitchers have bad BABIP numbers and Belisle always has and always will.

I don't know why people are so confident in a pitcher that put up these numbers:

177 innings- 212 hits- 1.49 whip- and a 5.34 era. Taking even a deeper look you see some absolutely scary numbers.

After May 31st- 106 innings- 135 hits- 6.80 era

That's with exactly 4 starts over 6 innings in 19 starts. I'm sorry but Matt Belisle either always has the worst luck of any pitcher alive or he just can't locate and has a VERY high BABIP. I'm not expecting anything from him. If you can't locate, you can't pitch in the bigs. I've watched him and a reliever on this team for the last two years and they can't locate with any pitch no matter the count. It's a sad state that I'd rather take Fogg over Belisle. But I don't see luck having much to do with Belisle and I'll take Fogg. Josh Fogg is a terrible pitcher, don't think I'm a big fan. But at least he has been able to pitch around the 5.00 ERA mark in his career. He has three full seasons at 4.35, 4.64, 5.05, and 4.94.

Nothing great, but at least capable of pitching in the 5th slot until Bailey or someone else gets the gig. Fogg also has a career BA against of .286. Pretty pathetic I agree. Belisle as a starter on the other hand? .Right at .300 and with a career record of 15-18. Fogg is 60-60.

Neither is going to set the world on fire or even be close to good. I'd still rather take the guy with a longer track record and not the guy that really shouldn't be anywhere but the bullpen.

I hate arguing for Josh Fogg by the way. Makes me feel dirty.

*BaseClogger*
03-12-2008, 12:34 AM
If it wasn't for BABIP and the love affair Redszone has with it, Matt Belisle wouldn't even be considered for the rotation at this point. Bad pitchers have bad BABIP numbers and Belisle always has and always will.

I don't know why people are so confident in a pitcher that put up these numbers:

177 innings- 212 hits- 1.49 whip- and a 5.34 era. Taking even a deeper look you see some absolutely scary numbers.

After May 31st- 106 innings- 135 hits- 6.80 era

That's with exactly 4 starts over 6 innings in 19 starts. I'm sorry but Matt Belisle either always has the worst luck of any pitcher alive or he just can't locate and has a VERY high BABIP. I'm not expecting anything from him. If you can't locate, you can't pitch in the bigs. I've watched him and a reliever on this team for the last two years and they can't locate with any pitch no matter the count. It's a sad state that I'd rather take Fogg over Belisle. But I don't see luck having much to do with Belisle and I'll take Fogg. Josh Fogg is a terrible pitcher, don't think I'm a big fan. But at least he has been able to pitch around the 5.00 ERA mark in his career. He has three full seasons at 4.35, 4.64, 5.05, and 4.94.

Nothing great, but at least capable of pitching in the 5th slot until Bailey or someone else gets the gig. Fogg also has a career BA against of .286. Pretty pathetic I agree. Belisle as a starter on the other hand? .Right at .300 and with a career record of 15-18. Fogg is 60-60.

Neither is going to set the world on fire or even be close to good. I'd still rather take the guy with a longer track record and not the guy that really shouldn't be anywhere but the bullpen.

I hate arguing for Josh Fogg by the way. Makes me feel dirty.

If Belisle can't locate, why does he walk so few (2.18), and strike out so many (6.33)?

Cedric
03-12-2008, 12:50 AM
If Belisle can't locate, why does he walk so few (2.18), and strike out so many (6.33)?

He doesn't walk people because he throws too many pitches right in the hitting zone. Hence the incredible hits/innings numbers he puts up. That's not locating.

Look at the numbers of Todd Coffey and you will see the same thing. Locating pitches isn't about just walks. It's about pitching in the zone and that's why Belisle allows so many hits and has such a high BABIP. Todd Coffey and other poor pitchers have the same problem with BABIP and low walk rates/high hit rates.

According to some on this site there are no bad pitchers in baseball. They are just unlucky and location has nothing to do with it. Bad pitchers have bad peripheral metric numbers. It's not that hard to realize.

*BaseClogger*
03-12-2008, 12:52 AM
He doesn't walk people because he throws too many pitches right in the hitting zone. Hence the incredible hits/innings numbers he puts up. That's not locating.

Look at the numbers of Todd Coffey and you will see the same thing. Locating pitches isn't about just walks. It's about pitching in the zone and that's why Belisle allows so many hits and has such a high BABIP. Todd Coffey and other poor pitchers have the same problem with BABIP and low walk rates/high hit rates.

According to some on this site there are no bad pitchers in baseball. They are just unlucky and location has nothing to do with it. Bad pitchers have bad peripheral metric numbers. It's not that hard to realize.

No, Josh Fogg is a bad pitcher. Many of us would agree with you that Matt Belisle has limited potential if he didn't miss so many bats, but he showed a great propensity last season to strike people out. I don't understand how a pitcher can throw too many poorly located pitches in the strike zone, while striking out 6.33 per 9 innings...

Cedric
03-12-2008, 12:58 AM
No, Josh Fogg is a bad pitcher. Many of us would agree with you that Matt Belisle has limited potential if he didn't miss so many bats, but he showed a great propensity last season to strike people out. I don't understand how a pitcher can throw too many poorly located pitches in the strike zone, while striking out 6.33 per 9 innings...

Todd Coffey had a K/9 of 7.58 last year. If you watched him pitch you wouldn't even think of debating that he had no ability to locate pitches last year. I can remember watching him pitch and watching Ross locate and then Coffey would literally miss his mitt by a foot. There are some things you just see with your eyes and it's obvious. I doubt many people here missed how bad these two players located last year. I don't have the numbers in front of me but I can again think of countless times Belisle was up in the count and just piped pitches.

I'm using Coffey as a perfect example of how k/9 doesn't really prove a pitcher is locating his pitches.

*BaseClogger*
03-12-2008, 01:05 AM
Todd Coffey had a K/9 of 7.58 last year. If you watched him pitch you wouldn't even think of debating that he had no ability to locate pitches last year. I can remember watching him pitch and watching Ross locate and then Coffey would literally miss his mitt by a foot. There are some things you just see with your eyes and it's obvious. I doubt many people here missed how bad these two players located last year. I don't have the numbers in front of me but I can again think of countless times Belisle was up in the count and just piped pitches.

I'm using Coffey as a perfect example of how k/9 doesn't really prove a pitcher is locating his pitches.

And Todd Coffey is a relief pitcher, with a smaller sample size, that also walked 3.35 per 9 innings. He also gave up 2.12 home runs per 9 innings, for which Belisle isn't even close. It's really about the combination of strikeouts AND walks that has us excited about Belisle...

Another factor you neglect: Fogg had the Rockies excellent defense behind him last season, while Belisle had the Reds' awful defense...

Cedric
03-12-2008, 01:08 AM
And Todd Coffey is a relief pitcher, with a smaller sample size, that also walked 3.35 per 9 innings. He also gave up 2.12 home runs per 9 innings, for which Belisle isn't even close. It's really about the combination of strikeouts AND walks that has us excited about Belisle...

Another factor you neglect: Fogg had the Rockies excellent defense behind him last season, while Belisle had the Reds' awful defense...

I'm not going to cry if Belisle starts over Fogg. In reality I'd just rather see him in the pen. I honestly didn't want Fogg signed and I don't want Belisle starting. What does that mean? Krivsky should have done something to get another starter. At this point the Reds could desperately use another starter even if two of Cueto/Volquez/Bailey work out.

*BaseClogger*
03-12-2008, 01:14 AM
I'm not going to cry if Belisle starts over Fogg. In reality I'd just rather see him in the pen. I honestly didn't want Fogg signed and I don't want Belisle starting. What does that mean? Krivsky should have done something to get another starter. At this point the Reds could desperately use another starter even if two of Cueto/Volquez/Bailey work out.

Even with no improvement from last season, Belisle is above league average for a fifth starter--Again, that is with no improvement from his first season as a starter...

Cedric
03-12-2008, 01:18 AM
Even with no improvement from last season, Belisle is above league average for a fifth starter--AGAIN, THAT IS WITH NO IMPROVEMENT FROM HIS FIRST SEASON AS A STARTER...

The problem is he isn't looked at as a fifth starter. We disagree on his upside, no reason to yell at me. I see nothing in his career that shows me he can be a starter. I would sign Kyle Lohse and move Belisle to the 'pen.

Screwball
03-12-2008, 01:22 AM
FTR, Belisle's xFIP last year was 4.32. You can't have a number that good by serving up meatballs all the time. As *BaseClogger* has shown, taking a deeper look at the underlying numbers shows that Belisle actually pitched pretty well last year, and has earned a chance to do so again this season.

I have no problem with Matt Belisle being inked into the rotation.

RedsManRick
03-12-2008, 01:22 AM
The problem is he isn't looked at as a fifth starter. We disagree on his upside, no reason to yell at me. I see nothing in his career that shows me he can be a starter. I would sign Kyle Lohse and move Belisle to the 'pen.

You don't put a good 5th starter in the bullpen just because he isn't a #3 starter. If he's one of your 5 best starters, you start him.

Cedric
03-12-2008, 01:24 AM
You don't put a good 5th starter in the bullpen just because he isn't a #3 starter. If he's one of your 5 best starters, you start him.

I don't see him as one of the best 5 options if we signed Lohse.

And "good" is a stretch, IMO.

*BaseClogger*
03-12-2008, 01:25 AM
The problem is he isn't looked at as a fifth starter. We disagree on his upside, no reason to yell at me. I see nothing in his career that shows me he can be a starter. I would sign Kyle Lohse and move Belisle to the 'pen.

my bad, I edited it to italics :rolleyes:

You are entitled to your opinion that he won't improve, but I see reasons other than the normal SABR luck stuff, such as the fact it was his first full season as a starter in MLB...

WMR
03-12-2008, 01:26 AM
Harang
Arroyo
Belisle
Volquez
Cueto

That's my five.

*BaseClogger*
03-12-2008, 01:26 AM
I don't see him as one of the best 5 options if we signed Lohse.

And "good" is a stretch, IMO.

By good, he meant better than a NL average fifth starter with upside...

Harang
Arroyo
Lohse

Who are the other two?

Cedric
03-12-2008, 01:29 AM
my bad, I edited it to italics :rolleyes:

You are entitled to your opinion that he won't improve, but I see reasons other than the normal SABR luck stuff, such as the fact it was his first full season as a starter in MLB...

I use BABIP quite frequently actually. I just don't use it the way some do here.

And I don't understand the rolling eyes. I'm not degrading your opinion, it's one many share here and it's viable. I have just watched the man pitch enough to for my own opinion and I don't see much growth potential. Give me Lohse anytime over Belisle.

By the way, any news on the Lohse front? He has to be close to signing somewhere right?

Cedric
03-12-2008, 01:32 AM
By good, he meant better than a NL average fifth starter with upside...

Harang
Arroyo
Lohse

Who are the other two?

I'd start Cueto and Volquez over Belisle at this point. Volquez without a doubt. If Krivsky wants Cueto to get more innings above A ball I'm all for that. If Belisle is the 5th starter because of that reason I could understand. If the Reds signed Lohse I highly doubt Belisle would be in the rotation past June.

*BaseClogger*
03-12-2008, 01:33 AM
If the Reds signed Lohse I highly doubt Belisle would be in the rotation past June.

Except to stay in the Cy Young race! :cool:

RedsManRick
03-12-2008, 01:35 AM
I don't see him as one of the best 5 options if we signed Lohse.

And "good" is a stretch, IMO.

The average ERA from guys comprising the #5 rotation spot last year was over 6.00. A 5.00 ERA is actually an above average #4.

And Besides, as everybody else has mentioned, Belisle was extremely unlucky last year. A lot of that "bad luck" was the result of him not finishing his own innings and guys like Gary Majewski and Todd Coffey putting extra runs on the board on Belisle's dime. An improved bullpen will help the starters, as will some better defensive play.

Cedric
03-12-2008, 01:56 AM
The average ERA from guys comprising the #5 rotation spot last year was over 6.00. A 5.00 ERA is actually an above average #4.

And Besides, as everybody else has mentioned, Belisle was extremely unlucky last year. A lot of that "bad luck" was the result of him not finishing his own innings and guys like Gary Majewski and Todd Coffey putting extra runs on the board on Belisle's dime. An improved bullpen will help the starters, as will some better defensive play.


A high BABIP does not always mean bad luck. That is simply untrue. Bad pitchers are going to have higher BABIP. Why is it that Matt Belisle always has bad luck? Is it because he is unlucky or is he one of those bad pitchers that will always have a high BABIP? Sorta like the lizard or countless other pitchers. If every pitcher had the average BABIP there wouldn't be a bad pitcher in the game.

Voros McCracken never said the tool should be used as something to guarantee a better or worse ERA the following season. BABIP should be used as a tool when there are striking outliers to show that someone is bound to recover a seemingly poor start or to show that a pitcher is bound to come back to Earth. If BABIP was purely luck you wouldn't see pitchers such as Chien-Ming Wang, Brandon Webb, and Fausto Carmona control their BABIP or have lower numbers. Just look at the type of pitchers these three are and you can see why there is some control.

As an example look at Jason Marquis. Through May of last year he had an ERA of 2.25. We all knew that this wouldn't last because his BABIP was .191. That's a good use of the tool in that you know amazing luck has a role with that incredibly low BABIP. It doesn't mean that any pitcher with a BABIP over .315 is going to automatically have a better season the next year.

The best hitters usually have a higher BABIP than others. Is that purely total luck or a sign that BABIP is not total luck?

Patrick Bateman
03-12-2008, 02:24 AM
The best hitters usually have a higher BABIP than others. Is that purely total luck or a sign that BABIP is not total luck?

Well firstly, it's widely known that hitters have a very high factor on their BAPIP. Batters have a greater ability to control their line drive rates than pitchers do. Pitchers have shown to have minimal effects on their BAPIP (at least when you find guys with at least near major league ability), but not to the effect that Belisle's numbers would indicate.

Regarding Belisle, we've had this discussion a million time Cedric and neither of us comes out convinced enough to change their position so I'll keep it fairly short.

Anyways, if Belisle really did have that bad of control, than his numbers would reflect it in some way. I agree with you that there is more than just walk rates to prove a pitcher has a strong ability to control his pitches. Throwing grapefruits down the pike clearly isn't a very good illustration of control even though the walk rate would show otherwise.

I'm going to echo Baseclogger's post regarding Belisle's K:BB (Belisle posted a very respectable 2.91 last season). Belisle has managed to strike out an acceptable amount of people while keeping the walks to a minimum. To me, that indicates that while pitching mostly in the strikezone, Belisle still managed to fool enough hitters to collect a decent amount of strikeouts. That's what it's all about isn't it? When you do that, I'd say you are doing an above average job of locating your pitches. Belisle doesn't have tremendous movement on his pitches or top notch velocity, so there must be some reason for why he manages to post numbers like that. Perhaps he's not locating precisely, but the numbers show that he has something going for him (whether it be stuff, or good location).

The other thing I'll note is his line drive rates. Belisle's numbers are a little above average indicating that he should be dealt a BAPIP slightly above the average of .300. However, not the level of like .330 that he's become accustomed to. I'd agree with you if his line drive rates were completely out of whack, but really there not. Obviously the more line drives the more hits that will find holes, but Belisle's not hugely out of proportion. Belisle doesn't have a huge sample size, so I think it's fair to attribute the rest to the Reds abysmal defense.

Regarding Fogg, IMO, the main difference between him and Belisle are twofold. Firstly, Belisle does have better stuff. He has a couple ticks of MPH on him and has a better secondary pitch. Secondly, he's a better locator. Fogg is an absolute frustration out there. He's always walking a fine line.... trying to paint the corners to make perfect pitches that he rarely does.... runs up pitch counts. Even on his best days he seems to have to struggle constantly. Anyways, I'm not trying to tell you that Belisle is God's gift to pitching, but I think there are some pretty clear indications that seperate him from truly awful pitchers such as Josh Fogg that you see littered around on the backend of rotations leaguewide. He's a cut above, and until the Reds find true upgrades (not sideways at best with Kyle Lohse), Belisle is entitled to a rotation spot.

dougdirt
03-12-2008, 02:30 AM
You added Santana to the discussion, not me. My point was only that Volquez lacks command and cannot do the things that Soto and Santana can because he doesn't have the ability yet.
You said when he doesn't locate his change its going to get killed. I made the point that the same thing happens to Santana, and it does.



This idea that WK somehow robbed Texas is so beyond me that I just don't know how to deal with it. The Reds outfield, sans this trade would be Dunn, Hamilton and JR until JR gets hurt. It would then be Dunn Hamilton and Bruce, in RF, where everybody wants him.
Robbed? I don't think anyone has that opinion. Got a quality player in return in an area of need? Absolutely. As for what the Hamilton trade does to the outfield.... great. Lets also look at what it does for the pitching.



WK screwed that up with this trade and now we are talking Corey Patterson :eek:.
Patterson isn't bad in CF. He is bad if he bats higher than 7th.



Volquez is not NEEDED nor even necessarily going to be good in the Reds rotation, or any better than Cueto or Bailey might have been. I can see him ending up there, but he stands little chance to contribute at the level that Hamilton would have.
We will have a good chance to find that out. Generally, every day players will certainly have the advantage of being more valuable than a pitcher so you are likely right.... but thats not really the point. Right now, we don't really know Volquez position.... starter or reliever. Its pretty tough to go about right now, but lets revisit this sometime in July and see how each guy is doing.
I will take my chances with Volquez on our staff than without him and having Hamilton man the outfield.

crazybob60
03-12-2008, 03:13 AM
It al with it.

crazybob60
03-12-2008, 03:28 AM
It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see this as our starting four to start out the season:

1. Aaron Harang
2. Bronson Arroyo
3. Edison Volquez
4. Johnny Cueto

and then I think that the five spot is still up in the air and as much as we thought that Belisle was a lock for the number 3, I now think that that is in question and him and Affeldt and maybe even Fogg will start in the bullpen and I think it is now pretty much a foregone conclusion that Homer Bailey will start at AAA but mark my words, he will be back up here in the starting rotation, and excelling at all by at least the 2nd month of the season.

Now getting back to our 5th starter dilemna. I personally think that when we need our 5th starter early in the season, that whomever is more rested and has the hotter arm at the time will get it between Fogg, Affeldt, and Belisle. That being said, as soon as Bailey gets a few starts under his belt at Louisville and gets tghings under control, he will come up, and Fogg, Affeldt, and Belisle will be regelated to the bullpen and we will have our 3 youngsters tearing up the rotation which is nothing but a positive for us because I personally think they will excel, as long as Dusty doesn't overpitch them. I am really excited though about all 5 starters ages and how young they are and how much they will develop and hopefully turn into one of the better staffs not only in the majors but possibly that the Reds has ever seen...here are all five and their respective ages:

1. Aaron Harang -- 29 years old
2. Bronson Arroyo -- 31 years old
3. Edison Volquez -- 23 years old
4. Johnny Cueto -- 22 years old

5. Homer Bailey -- 21 years old

So our youngsters are 21, 22, and 23 all of which are pretty much near the cusp of major league ready and by that I mean ready to pretty much hand it to the opponents and get quality starts out there and get batters out when other players at their ages are either still in college or are just now getting drafted and whatnot. How fortunate we are to have them this early. They you have Harang and Arroyo who are already there and are dominate pitches in and of themselves. And its not like they are old and over the hill either they are 29 and 31 respectively and should have 5+ years each of not good but great years left and I would put that on the low side of a total of great years left.

Then if for some reason one of the youngsters fumbles or something out of the gate, we have our bullpen backup of former starters in Affeldt, Fogg and/or Belisle that will step in and although not do a great job like the previous five mentioned will do they will at least get the job done hopefully. Although I would say that by the time Bailey is ready to be brought up from Louisville by the second month at the latest, that one of the three aforementioned long relievers will either be DFA'ed and/or traded. My money would be on Fogg because he is so cheap. Well I hope that this makes sense, i am tired and won't read it over til morning, so if there are mistakes, I will fix them tomorrow to this because I am just too tired right now to deal with it.

fearofpopvol1
03-12-2008, 03:48 AM
It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see this as our starting four to start out the season:

1. Aaron Harang
2. Bronson Arroyo
3. Edison Volquez
4. Johnny Cueto

and then I think that the five spot is still up in the air and as much as we thought that Belisle was a lock for the number 3, I now think that that is in question and him and Affeldt and maybe even Fogg will start in the bullpen and I think it is now pretty much a foregone conclusion that Homer Bailey will start at AAA but mark my words, he will be back up here in the starting rotation, and excelling at all by at least the 2nd month of the season.

Now getting back to our 5th starter dilemna. I personally think that when we need our 5th starter early in the season, that whomever is more rested and has the hotter arm at the time will get it between Fogg, Affeldt, and Belisle. That being said, as soon as Bailey gets a few starts under his belt at Louisville and gets tghings under control, he will come up, and Fogg, Affeldt, and Belisle will be regelated to the bullpen and we will have our 3 youngsters tearing up the rotation which is nothing but a positive for us because I personally think they will excel, as long as Dusty doesn't overpitch them. I am really excited though about all 5 starters ages and how young they are and how much they will develop and hopefully turn into one of the better staffs not only in the majors but possibly that the Reds has ever seen...here are all five and their respective ages:

1. Aaron Harang -- 29 years old
2. Bronson Arroyo -- 31 years old
3. Edison Volquez -- 23 years old
4. Johnny Cueto -- 22 years old

5. Homer Bailey -- 21 years old

So our youngsters are 21, 22, and 23 all of which are pretty much near the cusp of major league ready and by that I mean ready to pretty much hand it to the opponents and get quality starts out there and get batters out when other players at their ages are either still in college or are just now getting drafted and whatnot. How fortunate we are to have them this early. They you have Harang and Arroyo who are already there and are dominate pitches in and of themselves. And its not like they are old and over the hill either they are 29 and 31 respectively and should have 5+ years each of not good but great years left and I would put that on the low side of a total of great years left.

Then if for some reason one of the youngsters fumbles or something out of the gate, we have our bullpen backup of former starters in Affeldt, Fogg and/or Belisle that will step in and although not do a great job like the previous five mentioned will do they will at least get the job done hopefully. Although I would say that by the time Bailey is ready to be brought up from Louisville by the second month at the latest, that one of the three aforementioned long relievers will either be DFA'ed and/or traded. My money would be on Fogg because he is so cheap. Well I hope that this makes sense, i am tired and won't read it over til morning, so if there are mistakes, I will fix them tomorrow to this because I am just too tired right now to deal with it.

Dude, you are 1 optimistic person!

Topcat
03-12-2008, 05:18 AM
MY View is quite simple there is no 50-50 hindsight. I loved Hamilton and upon reading of this trade I felt it was a very good move. They dealt from a surplus aka griffey basically untradeable for value and Dunn The true leader of this team.

Any time you can get a promising arm that throws gas and has a great performance climbing the ladder of minors as EV did last year its a deal you have to stick your neck out and take it. Sorry small sample size and analysis of a young guy who throws serious stuff is exactly the gamble the Reds have to take,

That is a realistic course any team with a true budget has to face. Loved the deal and I stand by irt no matter the results as a GM this is a gamble I would have taken. Don't talk after the fact, talk now express what you as a GM would have done if this deal was on the table.

icehole3
03-12-2008, 05:56 AM
It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see this as our starting four to start out the season:

1. Aaron Harang
2. Bronson Arroyo
3. Edison Volquez
4. Johnny Cueto

and then I think that the five spot is still up in the air and as much as we thought that Belisle was a lock for the number 3, I now think that that is in question and him and Affeldt and maybe even Fogg will start in the bullpen and I think it is now pretty much a foregone conclusion that Homer Bailey will start at AAA but mark my words, he will be back up here in the starting rotation, and excelling at all by at least the 2nd month of the season.

Now getting back to our 5th starter dilemna. I personally think that when we need our 5th starter early in the season, that whomever is more rested and has the hotter arm at the time will get it between Fogg, Affeldt, and Belisle. That being said, as soon as Bailey gets a few starts under his belt at Louisville and gets tghings under control, he will come up, and Fogg, Affeldt, and Belisle will be regelated to the bullpen and we will have our 3 youngsters tearing up the rotation which is nothing but a positive for us because I personally think they will excel, as long as Dusty doesn't overpitch them. I am really excited though about all 5 starters ages and how young they are and how much they will develop and hopefully turn into one of the better staffs not only in the majors but possibly that the Reds has ever seen...here are all five and their respective ages:

1. Aaron Harang -- 29 years old
2. Bronson Arroyo -- 31 years old
3. Edison Volquez -- 23 years old
4. Johnny Cueto -- 22 years old

5. Homer Bailey -- 21 years old

So our youngsters are 21, 22, and 23 all of which are pretty much near the cusp of major league ready and by that I mean ready to pretty much hand it to the opponents and get quality starts out there and get batters out when other players at their ages are either still in college or are just now getting drafted and whatnot. How fortunate we are to have them this early. They you have Harang and Arroyo who are already there and are dominate pitches in and of themselves. And its not like they are old and over the hill either they are 29 and 31 respectively and should have 5+ years each of not good but great years left and I would put that on the low side of a total of great years left.

Then if for some reason one of the youngsters fumbles or something out of the gate, we have our bullpen backup of former starters in Affeldt, Fogg and/or Belisle that will step in and although not do a great job like the previous five mentioned will do they will at least get the job done hopefully. Although I would say that by the time Bailey is ready to be brought up from Louisville by the second month at the latest, that one of the three aforementioned long relievers will either be DFA'ed and/or traded. My money would be on Fogg because he is so cheap. Well I hope that this makes sense, i am tired and won't read it over til morning, so if there are mistakes, I will fix them tomorrow to this because I am just too tired right now to deal with it.


thats my starting 5, I think with Bailey If Im Dusty I tell the kid youre in the rotation all year. We would like you to work thru your problems in the Big leagues.


http://www.sternfannetwork.com/forum/images/smilies/Animations/yes-nod.gif

Jpup
03-12-2008, 08:10 AM
thats my starting 5, I think with Bailey If Im Dusty I tell the kid youre in the rotation all year. We would like you to work thru your problems in the Big leagues.


http://www.sternfannetwork.com/forum/images/smilies/Animations/yes-nod.gif

and then you watch Bailey get lit up and lose all confidence. I had Homer penciled in @ #4 until I watched him pitch last night. It's just one game and maybe he just doesn't have his arm strength yet, but you can't send Homer to the show looking like he did last night. He simply had zero command of his breaking stuff and his fastball lacked much life. He'll get there, but he doesn't look even as good as he did last season IMO.

TRF
03-12-2008, 11:00 AM
The problem is he isn't looked at as a fifth starter. We disagree on his upside, no reason to yell at me. I see nothing in his career that shows me he can be a starter. I would sign Kyle Lohse and move Belisle to the 'pen.

Just jumping in here, but Kyle Lohse was not a better pitcher than Matt Belisle last year. Nearly every metric besides ERA says so. Belisle had more K's in fewer innings, fewer BB's. Yes Belisle was a little more hittable. He also didn't have Jimmy Rollins and Chase Utley behind him. While Utley IMO isn't the defender BP is, Rollins was better than the rotating SS's the Red's had. BTW, after Lohse went to the phils his WHIP was 1.44, the same as Belisle's.

By your reasoning BTW, Harang would have been in the pen his second year with the Reds. Similar stats at about the same age.

But here is the real differences between Belisle and Lohse. One guy has a track record (Lohse) of not harnessing his talent. Lohse has electric stuff and by now SHOULD be a #2 at least. But his rep is he has a 10 cent head. Belisle was stretched out last year, his first as a full time SP in the majors. By all accounts he's not uncoachable, and he has the potential to take the step forward that Harang did and that Lohse did not take.

dougdirt
03-12-2008, 11:21 AM
While Utley IMO isn't the defender BP is,

Utley is every bit the defender that BP is. Thats not a knock on BP, but Utley is one of the best in baseball with the glove at 2B just like Phillips.

jojo
03-12-2008, 11:33 AM
Just jumping in here, but Kyle Lohse was not a better pitcher than Matt Belisle last year. Nearly every metric besides ERA says so. Belisle had more K's in fewer innings, fewer BB's. Yes Belisle was a little more hittable. He also didn't have Jimmy Rollins and Chase Utley behind him. While Utley IMO isn't the defender BP is, Rollins was better than the rotating SS's the Red's had. BTW, after Lohse went to the phils his WHIP was 1.44, the same as Belisle's.

By your reasoning BTW, Harang would have been in the pen his second year with the Reds. Similar stats at about the same age.

But here is the real differences between Belisle and Lohse. One guy has a track record (Lohse) of not harnessing his talent. Lohse has electric stuff and by now SHOULD be a #2 at least. But his rep is he has a 10 cent head. Belisle was stretched out last year, his first as a full time SP in the majors. By all accounts he's not uncoachable, and he has the potential to take the step forward that Harang did and that Lohse did not take.

Just grabbing a thought without thinking about it too much-Lohse is to Brett Tomko as Belisle is to Gil Meche lite....

TRF
03-12-2008, 11:46 AM
Utley is every bit the defender that BP is. Thats not a knock on BP, but Utley is one of the best in baseball with the glove at 2B just like Phillips.

My understanding is Utley is an above average defender, and that BP is near elite at the position, nearly Pokey Reese like.

dougdirt
03-12-2008, 11:59 AM
My understanding is Utley is an above average defender, and that BP is near elite at the position, nearly Pokey Reese like.

Lets just say that I feel Utley is on par, if not better than Phillips.

Utley finished first (tie) in +/- in the Fielding Bible, despite missing a month. He finished 11 ahead of Phillips (who was still well above average).

Phillips and Utley had nearly identical Zone Ratings (.863 for Phillips, .859 for Utley) but Utley had 4 more out of zone plays in 204 fewer innings (roughly 23 games).

One thing were BP had a big advantage was double plays turned, but I can't say that isn't a side effect of things outside of each guys control (Utley destroyed BP in that category last year).

But essentially, the two are among the best in baseball at their positions.

TRF
03-12-2008, 12:18 PM
doug i know you are one that sees Belisle's upside, and you are definitely helping make my point. If Utley is equal to BP, certainly that he got to play nearly every game with the same SS, one that is certainly better than the rotating crop the Reds sent out, only helps a pitcher. And yet Lohse really wasn't better than Belisle after going to Philadelphia.

M2
03-12-2008, 12:26 PM
Lets just say that I feel Utley is on par, if not better than Phillips.

I just wish Strat-O-Matic agreed with you.

dougdirt
03-12-2008, 12:33 PM
I just wish Strat-O-Matic agreed with you.

Well that is their problem now isn't it :cool:

M2
03-12-2008, 12:57 PM
Well that is their problem now isn't it :cool:

No, it's mine since Utley's my 2B.

dougdirt
03-12-2008, 01:02 PM
No, it's mine since Utley's my 2B.

Well yeah, thats true. But its also their problem that they are incorrect on his rating.

westofyou
03-12-2008, 01:04 PM
I just wish Strat-O-Matic agreed with you.

A 3's a 3 isn't it?

icehole3
03-12-2008, 01:14 PM
and then you watch Bailey get lit up and lose all confidence. I had Homer penciled in @ #4 until I watched him pitch last night. It's just one game and maybe he just doesn't have his arm strength yet, but you can't send Homer to the show looking like he did last night. He simply had zero command of his breaking stuff and his fastball lacked much life. He'll get there, but he doesn't look even as good as he did last season IMO.

the same way Belisle lost his confidence, they let him work thru his problems last year why not give Homer his shot?

WMR
03-12-2008, 01:33 PM
I think inserting Homer into the rotation immediately this season would be a disaster, both for the Reds and Homer.

The kid clearly needs more seasoning and much more work, especially on pitching from the stretch (which he'd be doing a BUNCH if he was in the bigs). His curveball often hangs... he has trouble locating his other pitches... he's still way ahead of the game, but he needs to be in AAA until he figures a bunch of different things out.

M2
03-12-2008, 01:34 PM
A 3's a 3 isn't it?

I'm just saying that I'd vastly prefer a 1, like what they gave Brandon Phillips.

Never has the "Utley's as good or better than Phillips with the glove" appealed to me more.

westofyou
03-12-2008, 01:36 PM
I'm just saying that I'd vastly prefer a 1, like what they gave Brandon Phillips.

Never has the "Utley's as good or better than Phillips with the glove" appealed to me more.

First time I ever heard it mentioned.

M2
03-12-2008, 01:45 PM
First time I ever heard it mentioned.

I know you've been on this site over the past two years. How did you miss that?

fearofpopvol1
03-12-2008, 02:37 PM
Lets just say that I feel Utley is on par, if not better than Phillips.

Utley finished first (tie) in +/- in the Fielding Bible, despite missing a month. He finished 11 ahead of Phillips (who was still well above average).

Phillips and Utley had nearly identical Zone Ratings (.863 for Phillips, .859 for Utley) but Utley had 4 more out of zone plays in 204 fewer innings (roughly 23 games).

One thing were BP had a big advantage was double plays turned, but I can't say that isn't a side effect of things outside of each guys control (Utley destroyed BP in that category last year).

But essentially, the two are among the best in baseball at their positions.

But you also have to look at the zone rating as .859 in 204 fewer innings at .004 points lower. Sustaining that rating over an additional 204 innings is not a guarantee.

I think Utley is definitely a very solid 2B, but I don't think he's quite as good defensively. Offensively though...Utley definitely gets the nod.

dougdirt
03-12-2008, 02:46 PM
But you also have to look at the zone rating as .859 in 204 fewer innings at .004 points lower. Sustaining that rating over an additional 204 innings is not a guarantee.

I think Utley is definitely a very solid 2B, but I don't think he's quite as good defensively. Offensively though...Utley definitely gets the nod.

Sure, but he sustained it for over 1100 I figure he was quite likely to sustain it for another 200. Utley is, without question, the best second baseman in baseball by a HUGE margin. Defensively, he may be the best, but if not, within the top 5. Offensively, he is without question the best and that one isn't even close. Offensively he is probably a full win to a win and a half better than any other second basemen in baseball.

jojo
03-12-2008, 03:05 PM
I just wish Strat-O-Matic agreed with you.

Surely it likes Utley's bat lots more than it likes Phillips' glove.

M2
03-12-2008, 03:46 PM
Surely it likes Utley's bat lots more than it likes Phillips' glove.

Well, I drafted Utley with my first pick this year, so, yeah, he's got it all over Phillips with the bat.

But I'm greedy, I want a mega-glove to go with it, or at least a really good glove. As it is, Strat keeps putting Utley in the average category (mistakenly IMO).

Jpup
03-12-2008, 04:18 PM
the same way Belisle lost his confidence, they let him work thru his problems last year why not give Homer his shot?

Belisle is a lot older than Homer. He has been around a lot longer as well.

icehole3
03-12-2008, 07:04 PM
so are we back to treating him like fine china, I just want to know what everyone wants to do again.

http://www.sternfannetwork.com/forum/images/smilies/Animations/doh.gif

BoydsOfSummer
03-12-2008, 07:40 PM
I'm just saying that I'd vastly prefer a 1, like what they gave Brandon Phillips.

Never has the "Utley's as good or better than Phillips with the glove" appealed to me more.

Diamond Mind rated Utley a VG and Phillips AV.

EX-VG-AV-FR-PR

cincyinco
03-12-2008, 11:24 PM
Boyds, you and I both know that will change in 1 week when new projections come out. BTW, if yer ever still lookin for a league, look me up from time to time. Going into our 7th year.

BoydsOfSummer
03-13-2008, 03:36 AM
That was for the 2007 season disk. That is liable to change as they project this year.

You have a projection disk league?

Sea Ray
03-13-2008, 11:13 AM
The average ERA from guys comprising the #5 rotation spot last year was over 6.00. A 5.00 ERA is actually an above average #4.



Is that a league wide stat or just a 2007 Reds team stat? What is the average ERA for a #4 and a #5 starter in the major leagues?

RedsManRick
03-13-2008, 11:34 AM
Is that a league wide stat or just a 2007 Reds team stat? What is the average ERA for a #4 and a #5 starter in the major leagues?

League-wide. I've posted the numbers a few times -- Doug has as well. Here's the "trick". In reality, there tends to be no such thing as a #4 starter. And a #5 starter is extremely rare. There are very few guys who are the #4 or #5 starter by position who actually make 30+ starts a year.

Let's look at the Reds:

#1 Harang, 34 GS
#2 Arroyo, 34 GS
#3 Belisle, 30 GS

So far, so good right? Let's keep going.

#4a Lohse, 21 GS
#4b Livingston, 10 GS

#5a Bailey, 9 GS
#5b Milton, 6 GS
#5c Shearn, 6 GS
#5d Dumatrait, 6 GS
#5e Saarloos, 3 GS
#5f Ramirez, 3 GS

So what was the combined ERA of our 6 #5 starters? The Reds got some really ugly pitching from that group. And the reality is that that's not at all uncommon. You don't see too many single pitcher's who qualify for the ERA title with ERAs north of 6. But you do see guys who pitch 6 starts and 30 innings with ERAs over 7.00. There are tremendous gains to be had in run production simply by giving the ball to a Matt Belisle 30 times a year so that you don't have to give it to Phil Dumatrait, Kirk Saarloos and Elizardo Ramirez.

Then, if you're in the position to run out some actual high upside guys, you might be able to turn that 5.80 ERA from your 5th starters in to a 4.00 ERA -- from say, Yovani Gallardo, Carlos Villanueva, and Manny Parra.

The less starts you can give to guys who don't belong in a rotation and never will, the better off you'll be. And while a guy like Matt Belisle is nobody's idea of a good #3, contrast with him a rotation group of AAAA wanna-bes and you can start to appreciate the value of having him around a bit more. Every inning counts, even if it comes from a group of 6 guys who don't show up on the ERA qualifiers list.

Here's an article from yahoo that uses a different methodology, with somewhat similar results. However, I don't like it's methodology because it doesn't divy up the workload properly, allowing "#5" starters to have anywhere from 115 to 370 innings pitched. (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=takethefifthexaminingbot&prov=tsn&type=lgns).

I prefer a distribution of work grouping starters in groups of 30-35 starts, with the groups aligned in order of ERA to assign rotation slots. I believe Jeff Sackman at Hardball Times took this approach, but their site doesn't want to load this morning.

blumj
03-13-2008, 11:38 AM
Diamond Mind rated Utley a VG and Phillips AV.

EX-VG-AV-FR-PR
Makes me wonder who would be EX.

Chip R
03-13-2008, 11:49 AM
Makes me wonder who would be EX.


Let's keep this topic on baseball. If you would like to talk Stratomatic, do it on the Fantasy Baseball forum.

M2
03-13-2008, 12:16 PM
Let's keep this topic on baseball. If you would like to talk Stratomatic, do it on the Fantasy Baseball forum.

Um, Chip, the discussion's moved past Strat and is now onto Diamond Mind, which is like, TOTALLY different.

blumj
03-13-2008, 12:40 PM
Let's keep this topic on baseball. If you would like to talk Stratomatic, do it on the Fantasy Baseball forum.
Like I started it?

Anyway, I like Volquez a lot, that changeup is almost "Buchholzian". ;)

Sea Ray
03-13-2008, 03:28 PM
Then, if you're in the position to run out some actual high upside guys, you might be able to turn that 5.80 ERA from your 5th starters in to a 4.00 ERA -- from say, Yovani Gallardo, Carlos Villanueva, and Manny Parra.




I'm not so sure we could find any combination of guys that could put up a 4.00 ERA from the #5 spot. That'd be quite an accomplishment, but I do see the advantage of going with a #5 committee. Throw a Tom Shearn, mix in a Homer Bailey and maybe a Josh Fogg. You don't want your Josh Fogg type guys going around the league too many times when that sort of pitcher has limited "tricks in his bag."

princeton
03-13-2008, 03:36 PM
Like I started it?

Anyway, I like Volquez a lot, that changeup is almost "Buchholzian". ;)


the other day, I heard that Buchholz showed up for camp ripped.

oops-- forget I said that. What I really heard was that a guy showed up for camp with a ripped Buchholz.

Chip R
03-13-2008, 03:40 PM
the other day, I heard that Buchholz showed up for camp ripped.

oops-- forget I said that. What I really heard was that a guy showed up for camp with a ripped Buchholz.


I think you're thinking of this thread. ;)

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66060

princeton
03-13-2008, 03:44 PM
yeah, that's the one.

Matsui should visit doctors that see Pujols and Bucholz.