PDA

View Full Version : Coffey



Reds1
03-22-2008, 05:19 PM
Wow! I just noticed looking at the box score that Coffey hasn't given up an ER this spring. Wow! I'm just surprised. I don't know his stats, etc., but maybe this trainer and the wait loss will bring him back. What a nice addition to the pen would it be to have him back. Sorry if this posted. Just wanted to make sure all saw this.

*BaseClogger*
03-22-2008, 05:23 PM
2007 peripherals > losing weight

Spring~Fields
03-22-2008, 05:27 PM
He could really help the team with his performance thus far. I respect him for the effort that he has made to turn it around.

RedsManRick
03-22-2008, 05:41 PM
The short version is that Coffey allowed a ridiculous number of homers in 2007 -- a number that pretty much is guaranteed to regress significantly. Otherwise, he pitched better in 2007 than in 2006.

In 2007, Coffey had a .365 BABIP despite a very low 15.7% line drive rate. That sort of line drive rate usually equates to a BABIP under .300. Then, when he allowed fly balls, they turned in to homers at a 26.1% clip. There were only two other guys with 50 IP above 20%.

How can you explain a very low line drive rate (good contact) with an extremely high HR/FB? Either bad luck or an odd propensity to pitch very well most of the time but with an unusual tendency to serve up a complete meatball with some regularity. I'm guessing both are at play a bit here. He also had bad luck with infield and bunt hits. He's no ace reliever, buy Coffey was bad luck incarnate in 2007.

If Coffey gets 50 IP in 2008 and maintains his K rate (over 7.00) and BB rate (under 3.5), I'd be shocked to see him allow an ERA over 4.50. I'm glad he's getting in better shape, but any ERA improvement we see in 2008 is more likely due to a natural regression of his HR/FB rate than anything else.

Screwball
03-22-2008, 05:44 PM
2007 peripherals > losing weight

I was having a look at those the other day and I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw (7.59 K/9, 2.26 K/BB, 2.15 GB/FB). Until, that is, I came across his HR rate (2.12 HR/9!). Then I saw his absurd HR/FB rate (26.1%!!), and can't imagine how he could give up that high a percentage. I mean sure, he threw his share of meatballs down broadway, but that abnormally high rate makes me think Coffey's in store for a big rebound year this season. He utterly dominates AAA hitters, and he's got the stuff to really upgrade this pen if he can stay away from the long ball.

princeton
03-22-2008, 06:21 PM
The short version is that Coffey allowed a ridiculous number of homers in 2007 -- a number that pretty much is guaranteed to regress significantly. Otherwise, he pitched better in 2007 than in 2006.


"Yes, I was quite enjoying the play until the gunshot"

--Mary Todd Lincoln

RedsManRick
03-22-2008, 06:23 PM
"Yes, I was quite enjoying the play until the gunshot"

--Mary Todd Lincoln

Ah, princeton. If only I were happy living in a world so cut and dry as yours. Where's Rheal Cormier when we need him?

jojo
03-22-2008, 06:39 PM
Coffey pretty much earned his HR rate (right handers torched him for 10 of his 12 homers in '07). His '07 can't just be chucked up to bad luck. Here's (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1533996&postcount=3) why might I argue that:


Coffey is another interesting case of HR/FB%. While positive swings in "luck/unluck" splits usually suggest a regression to the mean is likely to occur, really poor ones aren't necessarily indicative of bad luck. For instance a pitcher who is done will often have high HR/FB rates, high BABIP and an low LOB% (that trifecta is a sure sign a guy is done actually). There was something up with Coffey last season that informs his BABIP and HR/FB rates (here's (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1513653&postcount=59) my thoughts but reading the whole thread, it's clear others have alternative explanations). We weren't just seeing the effects of bad luck IMHO(because his changed miraculously between the majors and Louisville). That said, he's young and clearly still has his velocity. He could rebound but it'll be due to some change he makes and not a reliance on his luck evening out.


Personally, I like Coffey (ducking my head to avoid the rotten vegetables being hurled my direction).

Last season Coffey killed the competition in Louisville but got beat up in the majors. He's got a plus fastball and based upon f/x data it averaged 94 mph last season with good movement so he apparently didn't lose his sink on it. Not surprisingly, Coffey threw it about 75% of the time (the change up being the bulk of the rest of his pitches). However, despite his velocity being great, f/x data suggests it was his fastball that got crushed by major league hitters last season. For example, his first pitch was a fastball 90% of the time but despite it being a plus fastball, hitters feasted (.500/.514/.667 OPS: 1.180) on Coffey's first pitch.

So if it's not velocity/movement, the answer would seem to be location. In AAA, a plus fastball and anything close to a major-league quality change (even an average one) could compensate for poor location (especially later in the season when the best hitters have been promoted to the bigs). In the majors, a 94 mph fastball poorly located ends up being omitted from BABIP data....

Like others have suggested, make a mistake and major league hitters feast.

mbgrayson
03-22-2008, 07:12 PM
The other thing, which I pointed out toward the end of last year, was that Coffey gave up way more first pitch hits than before. See this thread (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61892)....That thread had several interesting notes in it....including a discussion of how his weight had been creeping back up.

It looked like he was too predictable with fastballs on the first pitch, and batters were loading up and hammering him.

I was at the game today, and Todd looks much thinner. I realize CTR and others have noted this already, but it is very noticeable.

RedsManRick
03-22-2008, 07:24 PM
Jojo, how do you explain his LD% rate? I understand your argument, but find it odd that his LD% is so low if he's getting feasted upon.

Also, if we play the "bad luck" card regarding hit rate, we're talking about balls scooting past infielders mediocre IFs, dropping in front of slow-footed corner OF, infield hits, etc. Those are going to show up on the first pitch too. It's not like a .667 SLG is huge on a .500 batting average. That looks like a lot of extra singles with some homers stirred in to me -- not a bunch of extra base hits. His LD% supports that.

I don't argue the concept behind the control argument you're making (though I'm curious about why you think a guy can get by on poorly located 93 mph fastballs in AAA). A guy who makes mistakes with regularity is going to get hit hard and in some metrics it might appear to be "bad luck". I just don't understand how that explanation accounts for an uptick in K/9 and GB% and an usually high IFH%. I don't understand why he wasn't walking more guys if he had location problems.

If Todd did have a problem with inconsistent location, that sounds like a mechanical issue that can be addressed rather than some portent of doom. I'm optimistic that between his luck (you can't argue the Reds poor DER), his conditioning, etc. we're going to see a 2008 Coffey that looks a lot more like the 2006 version than the 2007 one. I guess we'll see.

jojo
03-22-2008, 07:40 PM
Jojo, how do you explain his LD% rate?

He was lucky. :cool:

redsrule2500
03-23-2008, 11:05 AM
How can you explain a very low line drive rate (good contact) with an extremely high HR/FB? Either bad luck or an odd propensity to pitch very well most of the time but with an unusual tendency to serve up a complete meatball with some regularity.


I think that Coffey's problems is pretty much all mental. He seems to be able to do fine unless under extreme stress in the situation - hence why the closer role wasn't good for him at all.

princeton
03-23-2008, 11:18 AM
the closer role wasn't good for him at all.

it's a good point. I look forward to seeing him in a lesser role.

Cedric
03-23-2008, 01:15 PM
There isn't a bad pitcher in baseball. It's just "bad luck".


It's bad luck for Reds fans that bad pitchers like Matt Belisle, Todd Coffey, and Elizardo Ramirez can't locate and aren't very good. Bad pitchers have higher babip averages. It's not really that hard of a concept and yet BABIP is so misused here. Good ol Voros McCraken would cringe at the way people here use his stats. They are completely misrepresenting his own statistics.
If you watched even one inning of Todd Coffey last year you would realize that he had terrible problems in locating during any count. Ross would set up just outside and Coffey would let a fastball tail right into the middle of the plate on a 0-2 pitch. I'm not going to believe in BABIP in that situation. I have MY OWN eyes. Stats like BABIP need to be supplemented with the eye test and Coffey failed by his own admission.

It gets old fast not being able to debate anything about a pitcher but his BABIP and not debate anything but OPS with a hitter.
It hurts the overall baseball discussion on this site.

*BaseClogger*
03-23-2008, 01:53 PM
There isn't a bad pitcher in baseball. It's just "bad luck".


It's bad luck for Reds fans that bad pitchers like Matt Belisle, Todd Coffey, and Elizardo Ramirez can't locate and aren't very good. Bad pitchers have higher babip averages. It's not really that hard of a concept and yet BABIP is so misused here. Good ol Voros McCraken would cringe at the way people here use his stats. They are completely misrepresenting his own statistics.
If you watched even one inning of Todd Coffey last year you would realize that he had terrible problems in locating during any count. Ross would set up just outside and Coffey would let a fastball tail right into the middle of the plate on a 0-2 pitch. I'm not going to believe in BABIP in that situation. I have MY OWN eyes. Stats like BABIP need to be supplemented with the eye test and Coffey failed by his own admission.

It gets old fast not being able to debate anything about a pitcher but his BABIP and not debate anything but OPS with a hitter.
It hurts the overall baseball discussion on this site.

Josh Fogg is a bad pitcher.

Mike Stanton is a bad pitcher.

Gary Majewski is a bad pitcher.

I find it hard to debate with someone when their reasoning is their "eyes"... so there. You still haven't explain why if Coffey has trouble locating in any count he can strike so many out and walk so few. I understand that Matt Belisle and Todd Coffey are going to have higher BABIP's than Johan Santana and Jake Peavy, but the gap in their LD% far exceeds the BABIP gap...

jojo
03-23-2008, 02:48 PM
Watching some content from the mlbtv archives can actually shed a lot of light on this argument.....

gm
03-23-2008, 04:28 PM
Wow! I just noticed looking at the box score that Coffey hasn't given up an ER this spring. Wow!


0.00 spring ERA? Ricardo Jordan and Josias Manzanillo say :wave:

Will M
03-23-2008, 04:50 PM
This winter I have been ok with giving Coffey ONE more chance.
If he can't stay in the bigs this time then he should be sent packing. He does seem to have talent but he certainly has struggled in the last 1 1/2 years.

This is different than Majik who I never ever want to see pitch for the Reds again. Ever. Ever. ... Ever.

Cedric
03-23-2008, 11:21 PM
I find it hard to debate with someone when their reasoning is their "eyes"... so there.

Yep, that's exactly what I said. Care to read again where I said it should be supplemented?

If you want to quote me at least be accurate. And if you are evaluating baseball players on numbers alone you are doing the game and your own mind a disservice. Where in the hell did I say I go with my eyes alone... so there.

Don't get snarky if you don't have a clue what you are commenting on. I don't know how I could be any more clear that I think both watching and numbers have a role. And that's all you can respond with? And you wonder why people have such a problem with the stats only or scouts only viewpoint. Both are misguided and yet you rip one and seem to live completely by the other.

Cedric
03-23-2008, 11:29 PM
Watching some content from the mlbtv archives can actually shed a lot of light on this argument.....

It's absolutely pathetic that people can't have an opinion from actually watching games and supplementing that with stats. If you voice an opinion that doesn't fit into a black/white box you will get completely misrepresented and basically called a tobacco chewing traditionalist.

Some people are ruining the discussion level of this site because they aren't respecting any viewpoint that isn't formulated with anything but an objective statistic. That's not baseball and the guy/girl needs to learn the game before calling out others. It makes the person look foolish.

Reds1
03-24-2008, 12:12 AM
0.00 spring ERA? Ricardo Jordan and Josias Manzanillo say :wave:

You had to bring Manzanillo up! Coffey has showed me more then he ever did though!

remdog
03-24-2008, 12:45 AM
It's absolutely pathetic that people can't have an opinion from actually watching games and supplementing that with stats. If you voice an opinion that doesn't fit into a black/white box you will get completely misrepresented and basically called a tobacco chewing traditionalist.

Some people are ruining the discussion level of this site because they aren't respecting any viewpoint that isn't formulated with anything but an objective statistic. That's not baseball and the guy/girl needs to learn the game before calling out others. It makes the person look foolish.

That is my Post of the Year, so far. :clap:

Rem

jojo
03-24-2008, 10:05 AM
It's absolutely pathetic that people can't have an opinion from actually watching games and supplementing that with stats. If you voice an opinion that doesn't fit into a black/white box you will get completely misrepresented and basically called a tobacco chewing traditionalist.

Some people are ruining the discussion level of this site because they aren't respecting any viewpoint that isn't formulated with anything but an objective statistic. That's not baseball and the guy/girl needs to learn the game before calling out others. It makes the person look foolish.

If an argument for stats is that they verify the eye, then it seems the flip side also is appropriate....the eye is valuable for verifying the stats if possible.

I think it's a homerun when both the eyes and stats lead you to the same place. To be fair though, applying both the eyes and stats can often be very difficult. Also samples are usually larger with stats and of course we all have to be aware of our biases too.

RedlegJake
03-24-2008, 01:06 PM
Lucky or unlucky, too fat or fastball too flat, the fact is that Todd didn't pitch well last year and he has so far this spring. Last year my eye told me he was throwing his fastball up too much, his fastball looked hard but flat and he substituted command for simply throwing the ball over the plate - in hitting zones. Hence, high fastball = strikeouts but lots of hard fly ball contact; control opposed to command = few walks but lots of very hittable pitches. It also looked as if his weight may have contributed to his being unable to finish off his delivery which may have been a factor in not getting the ball down and getting more movement. What is more important is that he appears to have fixed these problems so far. A Todd Coffey pitching all season like this would be huge for this team.

As for the discussion about stat/traditionalists -this is a terrific board. Everyone needs to stand back a second and think what most boards on the 'Net are like -RedsZone has a great mix of viewpoints, eloquently stated and passionately argued, with what I see as a minimum of friction all in all. And, as a 'traditionalist' (if labels are insisted upon) I mostly get frustrated when a 'stat guy's opposing viewpoint is verified by unfolding events. Amazingly, though, I find I learn the most from the guys and gals whose views were most different - when I can wrap my mind around the thought that maybe...just maybe mind you...I might have been wrong;)

Team Clark
03-24-2008, 01:08 PM
That is my Post of the Year, so far. :clap:

Rem

WOW! I'll second that. :thumbup:

15fan
03-24-2008, 01:24 PM
Can't remember if it was 2006 or 2007, but I seem to remember some discussion around here that Todd was tipping his pitches. I'd be curious to know if the person/people who knew what was happening have seen Todd pitch this spring and can say whether that problem was remedied.

Team Clark
03-24-2008, 01:28 PM
Can't remember if it was 2006 or 2007, but I seem to remember some discussion around here that Todd was tipping his pitches. I'd be curious to know if the person/people who knew what was happening have seen Todd pitch this spring and can say whether that problem was remedied.

I was one of the bunch. I have not seen him pitch this spring so I can't say one way or the other. I am hoping that Coffey's conditioning will be the difference maker. This bullpen can not afford a collapse or any period where one guy is sinking the ship.

princeton
03-24-2008, 01:43 PM
You still haven't explain why if Coffey has trouble locating in any count he can strike so many out and walk so few.

wild within the zone. It's tough to see in the stats, but you can see it at the park.

A lot of guys with good AAA numbers are wild within the zone. You can get away with it in the minors, but at the major league level, unless your stuff is good, it can lead to some long flies.

*BaseClogger*
03-24-2008, 01:46 PM
Yep, that's exactly what I said. Care to read again where I said it should be supplemented?

If you want to quote me at least be accurate. And if you are evaluating baseball players on numbers alone you are doing the game and your own mind a disservice. Where in the hell did I say I go with my eyes alone... so there.

Don't get snarky if you don't have a clue what you are commenting on. I don't know how I could be any more clear that I think both watching and numbers have a role. And that's all you can respond with? And you wonder why people have such a problem with the stats only or scouts only viewpoint. Both are misguided and yet you rip one and seem to live completely by the other.

Lets look at your original post then...


There isn't a bad pitcher in baseball. It's just "bad luck".

Well, now you have managed to attack a viewpoint I share with others. I'm going to assume you were being sarcastic and move on...


It's bad luck for Reds fans that bad pitchers like Matt Belisle, Todd Coffey, and Elizardo Ramirez can't locate and aren't very good.

I guess "aren't very good" meets your "eye" criteria but I think those three pitchers were/are/will be very valuable. Coffey and Ramirez were very important to that 2006 team, and I would try to make a reasonable argument as to why Belisle can improve this year but everytime I do I get ignored by you.


Bad pitchers have higher babip averages. It's not really that hard of a concept and yet BABIP is so misused here. Good ol Voros McCraken would cringe at the way people here use his stats. They are completely misrepresenting his own statistics.

As I said in my original post, this is generally true, but how can you explain it when they have comparable LD%?


If you watched even one inning of Todd Coffey last year you would realize that he had terrible problems in locating during any count. Ross would set up just outside and Coffey would let a fastball tail right into the middle of the plate on a 0-2 pitch. I'm not going to believe in BABIP in that situation. I have MY OWN eyes. Stats like BABIP need to be supplemented with the eye test and Coffey failed by his own admission.

Bravo :clap:, you said that the stats need to be supplemented. But at the same time, you said that you aren't going to believe in a stat. I would have taken your position more seriously if you would have the said the stats "could be better explained with an eye test", but instead you said you weren't going to believe them because you have your "eyes".


It gets old fast not being able to debate anything about a pitcher but his BABIP and not debate anything but OPS with a hitter.
It hurts the overall baseball discussion on this site.

I never even brought up BABIP. I simply like Coffey's peripherals, which BTW, you still have not explained...

As for the judging players on numbers along, I can agree with you, I often mistakingly overvalue statistics. Unfortunately, I am a 17 year old HS senior in Michigan who doesn't get to see every Reds game. To be a passionate fan, box scores are my only choice...

*BaseClogger*
03-24-2008, 01:47 PM
wild within the zone. It's tough to see in the stats, but you can see it at the park.

A lot of guys with good AAA numbers are wild within the zone. You can get away with it in the minors, but at the major league level, unless your stuff is good, it can lead to some long flies.

Is that Matt Belisle's problem too?

red-in-la
03-24-2008, 02:26 PM
Johan Santana and Jake Peavy are just lucky I guess.....:doh:

TRF
03-24-2008, 03:19 PM
It's absolutely pathetic that people can't have an opinion from actually watching games and supplementing that with stats. If you voice an opinion that doesn't fit into a black/white box you will get completely misrepresented and basically called a tobacco chewing traditionalist.

Some people are ruining the discussion level of this site because they aren't respecting any viewpoint that isn't formulated with anything but an objective statistic. That's not baseball and the guy/girl needs to learn the game before calling out others. It makes the person look foolish.

Yet there are some that dismiss results based on nothing more than their "eyes". Cueto can't be a successful, he's too short. Regardless of the fact that he HAS been successful as a SP in the minors. Maloney doesn't have the "stuff" to be a #1. He has the results though. Bailey can't miss as a SP, and lately he can't miss bats either. Obviously you need both, but I bet if you HAD to rely on just one method, the stat based system would at least do just as well as a traditional "tools" based system. No reason to completely dismiss either method as valid, though I lean towards results in older prospects like Maloney. I don't care HOW he gets it done, just that he does. Guervara was a perfect example of scouts overruling stats.

Chip R
03-24-2008, 03:28 PM
Coffey had a great spring last year too.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080324/SPT04/803240370/1071


Coffey has been good to last drop; Reliever loses weight in offseason and gains confidence
BY JOHN FAY | JFAY@ENQUIRER.COM

SARASOTA, Fla. - Todd Coffey had a very good spring last year. He was 1-0 with an 0.84 ERA in 11 games.

We all know what happened once the season began. Coffey went 2-1 with a 5.82 ERA.

Coffey's having a great spring this year as well. "It's totally different this year," Coffey said. "Number-wise, I had a good spring last year. Stuff-wise, I didn't. I got away with a lot of stuff up."

Coffey's given up one hit in 6 2/3 scoreless innings. He's walked two and struck out six. Four of six outings have been perfect.

"He's throwing the ball as well as anybody," Reds manager Dusty Baker said. "I don't know what the numbers are but I can't remember him giving up anything. He looks good."

Coffey isn't concerned with the results as much as he is with fine-tuning his stuff.

"I've been looking game by game, pitch by pitch," Coffey said. "I go out with a game plan: I'm going to work on this pitch here."

Coffey, a 27-year-old right-hander, has the stuff to be successful in the big leagues - if he can locate pitches.

"I'm throwing the same pitches," he said. "I'm hitting my spots, which is the most important thing. You can't miss your spots and leave it over the middle of the plate."

Coffey came to camp at 240, 25 pounds lighter than he was at the end of last season.

"He told me he was going to work in the offseason when I talked to him," Baker said. "He said he was going to lose weight and be in shape. He kept his word."

Coffey thinks that's helped.

"I'm trying to stay within myself, trying not to be overly aggressive," Coffey said. "I think that's what led to the ball coming back over the plate some. This spring, the ball's been down, sharp, crisp. My legs are under me. I think that has to do with me being in a lot better shape."

Coffeybro
03-24-2008, 03:28 PM
Since everyone is discussing him I'll just add in this article from today's enquirer website.

nevermind chip beat me to it.

TRF
03-24-2008, 03:38 PM
"Number-wise, I had a good spring last year. Stuff-wise, I didn't. I got away with a lot of stuff up."

Ya know, I like reading lines like this. He doesn't blame anyone or state "I can't understand why I was getting shelled." yada yada.

He mans up and says exactly what was happening.

Homer, please take a seat next to Mr Coffey.

Mario-Rijo
03-24-2008, 03:43 PM
Since everyone is discussing him I'll just add in this article from today's enquirer website.

nevermind chip beat me to it.

And if people read that article they might get an inclination of the bottom line as to what was wrong with him. Location based on bad mechanics which he explains pretty simply "he's now hitting his spots" and the ball isn't coming back out over the plate. I assume Todd's got it figured out and he should pitch very well for us this season.

jojo
03-24-2008, 03:45 PM
So if 10 innings in '07 ST didn't inform a thing concerning his '07 season, what does 6 innings this spring tell us?

It's shocking how much people generally read into ST.

45 ST at bats doesn't really tell us anything about Bruce or Patterson for that matter. There probably won't be a pitcher in camp with 25 IP. Most probably won't even face 30 bona fide major league hitters.

ST stats shouldn't even be recorded IMHO.

Johnny Footstool
03-24-2008, 04:10 PM
Johan Santana and Jake Peavy are just lucky I guess.....:doh:

Even good pitchers can get unlucky.

Jake Peavy in 2006:

202.1 IP, 11-14, 215K 4.09 ERA 1.23 WHIP

Pedestrian numbers, especially for him. But his peripherals said he was just unlucky and was due for a bounce-back, and 2007 turned out pretty well for him.

Personally, I think luck is a factor, but not nearly as big a factor as it is often made out to be.

Mario-Rijo
03-24-2008, 04:13 PM
So if 10 innings in '07 ST didn't inform a thing concerning his '07 season, what does 6 innings this spring tell us?

It's shocking how much people generally read into ST.

45 ST at bats doesn't really tell us anything about Bruce or Patterson for that matter. There probably won't be a pitcher in camp with 25 IP. Most probably won't even face 30 bona fide major league hitters.

ST stats shouldn't even be recorded IMHO.

It doesn't matter what it tells us, but it does matter what it tells Todd. And if you believe him and I do, and if you have stayed informed on him all winter and I have, then you'd know it coincides with what he has been working on all winter. It all makes perfect sense.

Mario-Rijo
03-24-2008, 04:15 PM
Even good pitchers can get unlucky.

Jake Peavy in 2006:

202.1 IP, 11-14, 215K 4.09 ERA 1.23 WHIP

Pedestrian numbers, especially for him. But his peripherals said he was just unlucky and was due for a bounce-back, and 2007 turned out pretty well for him.

Personally, I think luck is a factor, but not nearly as big a factor as it is often made out to be.

Just like Weathers last year getting lucky. I hear no one complaining about Stormy but he's the one I'd be more concerned about.

princeton
03-24-2008, 04:26 PM
I think that he's borderline. There'll be years where he helps, and years where he hurts. A real problem is that last year's team was counting on him to be a key pitcher for it, and that's scary.

Reds need better pitchers in bullpen. Cordero is a terrific step. I'd put Cueto out there, drop a pitcher, add someone to bench. The Reds have nice bench players in camp, but can't carry them or use the ones that they do carry because they'll have so many pitchers.

RFS62
03-24-2008, 04:31 PM
"Hitting your spots" is one of the most important things about pitching. It's universally understood among pitchers and pitching coaches.

I remember a Bill James interview on XM last year in which he was talking about things that surprised him when he started spending a lot of time around the Red Sox scouts. He said that their attention to a pitcher "hitting his spots" was something he hadn't considered, at least not in those terms.

It's the stuff the eyes tell you that the numbers don't, if you know what to look for.

Highlifeman21
03-24-2008, 04:43 PM
Ya know, I like reading lines like this. He doesn't blame anyone or state "I can't understand why I was getting shelled." yada yada.

He mans up and says exactly what was happening.

Homer, please take a seat next to Mr Coffey.

Or at least Homer's groin needs to take a seat next to Mr. Coffey.

jojo
03-24-2008, 04:53 PM
It doesn't matter what it tells us, but it does matter what it tells Todd. And if you believe him and I do, and if you have stayed informed on him all winter and I have, then you'd know it coincides with what he has been working on all winter. It all makes perfect sense.

Six innings doesn't make anything.....

Jpup
03-24-2008, 04:56 PM
Or at least Homer's groin needs to take a seat next to Mr. Coffey.

:deadhorse

Mario-Rijo
03-24-2008, 04:56 PM
Six innings doesn't make anything.....

I disagree, however it's not just 6 innings it's that 6 IP on top of the work he has put in that should allow him some benefit of the doubt.

BoydsOfSummer
03-24-2008, 05:49 PM
Or at least Homer's groin needs to take a seat next to Mr. Coffey.


I wish I could sit my fat groin next to Mr. Coffey. That has to be a sweet place to catch a game! :p:

princeton
03-24-2008, 06:59 PM
it's that 6 IP on top of the work he has put in that should allow him some benefit of the doubt.

he created the doubt with last year's performance.

that doubt will remain until he puts together a couple of good months in real games.

it's not even clear that he makes the team, is it?

Cedric
03-24-2008, 10:54 PM
Well, now you have managed to attack a viewpoint I share with others. I'm going to assume you were being sarcastic and move on...
Really? I'm not being sarcastic. I am only attacking WHAT YOU POSTED about me relying on my eyes alone. I'm also attacking the thought that BABIP can be thrown out and end an opinion about said player. It's YOU that is disrespecting the way some of us watch the games and supplement those with stats.



I guess "aren't very good" meets your "eye" criteria but I think those three pitchers were/are/will be very valuable. Coffey and Ramirez were very important to that 2006 team, and I would try to make a reasonable argument as to why Belisle can improve this year but everytime I do I get ignored by you.
My eye and their hideous other stats. Why would your periphreal numbers beat the eye and the real stats? By your opinion any pitcher with a high BABIP is just unlucky, that couldn't be a more wrong opinion. Basically you are saying there is no level of success for pitchers beyond k/9 or LD rate.


Bravo :clap:, you said that the stats need to be supplemented. But at the same time, you said that you aren't going to believe in a stat. I would have taken your position more seriously if you would have the said the stats "could be better explained with an eye test", but instead you said you weren't going to believe them because you have your "eyes".

So I'm wrong for not completely relying on BABIP? BABIP was created to look at possible outliers in performance. When a pitcher has five straight years with an unlucky BABIP I'm going to suggest that people need to judge if he sold his soul to the devil or if the guy is just a bad pitcher.

I never even brought up BABIP. I simply like Coffey's peripherals, which BTW, you still have not explained...

Explained bad luck and comparable LD rates? I've already explained my opinion on BABIP and JOJO explained better than I ever could about LD% rates.

As for the judging players on numbers along, I can agree with you, I often mistakingly overvalue statistics. Unfortunately, I am a 17 year old HS senior in Michigan who doesn't get to see every Reds game. To be a passionate fan, box scores are my only choice...

If you can't watch as many games as most of us than I don't see how you can dismiss watching the game as important. I made it VERY clear that stats are extremely important. I just know that they need to be supplemented with a visual look at the game. It doesn't do justice to the game of baseball if you look at it as a black/white game. There is a reason it's the best and most complex popular sport we have.

jmcclain19
03-25-2008, 03:28 AM
I watch baseball with an abacus while chewing tobacco. I find it's the best of both worlds.

And I think a season away from Narron will do wonders for Coffey's mental health. I would say he seemed to suffer the most at the hands of Narron's hack job handling the pitching staff.

mth123
03-25-2008, 04:58 AM
I watch baseball with an abacus while chewing tobacco. I find it's the best of both worlds.

And I think a season away from Narron will do wonders for Coffey's mental health. I would say he seemed to suffer the most at the hands of Narron's hack job handling the pitching staff.


:clap: The entire bullpen should benefit from Narron being gone. Just don't know if Dusty is better.

RANDY IN INDY
03-25-2008, 09:02 AM
It's absolutely pathetic that people can't have an opinion from actually watching games and supplementing that with stats. If you voice an opinion that doesn't fit into a black/white box you will get completely misrepresented and basically called a tobacco chewing traditionalist.

Some people are ruining the discussion level of this site because they aren't respecting any viewpoint that isn't formulated with anything but an objective statistic. That's not baseball and the guy/girl needs to learn the game before calling out others. It makes the person look foolish.



That is my Post of the Year, so far. :clap:

Rem

Totally agree.:beerme:

MartyFan
03-25-2008, 09:23 AM
At the end of the day...It'S BASEBALL..A freakin game.

I personally ignore all the stat geeks and their posts simply because I am a fan who worries about stats, figures and analysis with my job...too me, messing with all that feels too much like work so, I don't pay attention to it.

For those who love stats and all that...knock yourself out...have fun but leave me the hell alone.

princeton
03-25-2008, 09:27 AM
:clap: The entire bullpen should benefit from Narron being gone. Just don't know if Dusty is better.

Narron would have benefited from having better pitchers

We'll see if Dusty has it any better

Chip R
03-25-2008, 09:32 AM
At the end of the day...It'S BASEBALL..A freakin game.

I personally ignore all the stat geeks and their posts simply because I am a fan who worries about stats, figures and analysis with my job...too me, messing with all that feels too much like work so, I don't pay attention to it.

For those who love stats and all that...knock yourself out...have fun but leave me the hell alone.


Sorry, mister. We'll stay off your lawn. :rolleyes:

*BaseClogger*
03-25-2008, 10:38 AM
Well, now you have managed to attack a viewpoint I share with others. I'm going to assume you were being sarcastic and move on...
Really? I'm not being sarcastic. I am only attacking WHAT YOU POSTED about me relying on my eyes alone. I'm also attacking the thought that BABIP can be thrown out and end an opinion about said player. It's YOU that is disrespecting the way some of us watch the games and supplement those with stats.

You posted that before I had attacked to you. Perhaps, you should go back through this thread... I never even brought up BABIP... Never, in anything you said in your original post, did you supplement with stats. You said that because of what you have seen, you don't believe the stats...



I guess "aren't very good" meets your "eye" criteria but I think those three pitchers were/are/will be very valuable. Coffey and Ramirez were very important to that 2006 team, and I would try to make a reasonable argument as to why Belisle can improve this year but everytime I do I get ignored by you.
My eye and their hideous other stats. Why would your periphreal numbers beat the eye and the real stats? By your opinion any pitcher with a high BABIP is just unlucky, that couldn't be a more wrong opinion. Basically you are saying there is no level of success for pitchers beyond k/9 or LD rate.

Apparently things like ERA are real stats, but strikeouts and walks aren't... ;)

And yes, generally, if a pitcher can strike people out, and limit his LD%, but his BABIP is like .350, then yes, he has BAD DEFENSE or is unlucky...


As for the judging players on numbers along, I can agree with you, I often mistakingly overvalue statistics. Unfortunately, I am a 17 year old HS senior in Michigan who doesn't get to see every Reds game. To be a passionate fan, box scores are my only choice...


If you can't watch as many games as most of us than I don't see how you can dismiss watching the game as important. I made it VERY clear that stats are extremely important. I just know that they need to be supplemented with a visual look at the game. It doesn't do justice to the game of baseball if you look at it as a black/white game. There is a reason it's the best and most complex popular sport we have.

I love baseball. I watch baseball. I don't watch spreadsheets play baseball. I can't watch the Cincinnati Reds play baseball. I agree that stats need to be supplemented with scouting. But you never supplemented what you saw with stats. And I don't see how you can say Todd Coffey throws meat balls through the middle of the strike zone if he strikes out so many...

Highlifeman21
03-25-2008, 11:57 AM
I wish I could sit my fat groin next to Mr. Coffey. That has to be a sweet place to catch a game! :p:

It would be an even sweeter place to catch a game if Coffey goes North with the big club!

I'm not sure I would have much interest watching a AAA game from the bullpen.

jojo
03-25-2008, 12:49 PM
And I don't see how you can say Todd Coffey throws meat balls through the middle of the strike zone if he strikes out so many...

For Coffey's career he's done this: K/9: 6.21, BB/9: 2.74. In '07 he did this: K/9: 7.59; BB/9: 3.35. An NL average reliever did this in '07: K/9: 7.40; BB/9: 3.60.

To be fair, Coffey hasn't struck out a lot of guys-ever. Last season, he basically was average in that regard. Though he struck out more than his career numbers he also walked significantly more. Something was different including his command. To me, it makes a lot of sense to hit the video to see if that "something" might be location-related.

There's no need to attack each other. Lets all attack the mlbtv archives and see if we can't put our heads (spreadsheets) and eyes together.

BTW, these are just the kinds of arguments that can be tremendously fun (if we focus on the issue and not each other-and that's not pointing the finger at anyone). For instance, Chris Welsh argued earlier today on the radio that Homer needs to essentially scrap his whole delivery while I know there are some on this board who would completely disagree. Those are the kinds of arguments that can lead to some extraordinary threads IMHO.

*BaseClogger*
03-25-2008, 03:59 PM
Why was his command so good in AAA but not the majors?

Jojo- I've asked you this a thousand times, but how do I watch old mlbtv if I don't have a paid subscription?

flyer85
03-25-2008, 04:04 PM
coffey had a fluky 2007 in the HR FB rate. Reds have gotten fooled in recent years by fluky low HR FB numbers from guys like WHite and Stanton. He may never be a back end of the bullpen guy but he could turn out to a solid guy that can eat some innings.

jojo
03-25-2008, 04:18 PM
Why was his command so good in AAA but not the majors?

Jojo- I've asked you this a thousand times, but how do I watch old mlbtv if I don't have a paid subscription?

Well as a caveat, you do need a subscription.

Coffeybro
03-25-2008, 04:20 PM
http://www.ohio.com/news/ap?articleID=459881&c=y


Often-booed Reds reliever Todd Coffey hopes for better receptions
By JOE KAY AP Sports Writer

Published on Tuesday Mar 25, 2008

The outfield gate would open. Todd Coffey would take a deep breath and break into an all-out sprint.

He hadn't even cleared the warning track when the thing he dreaded would start again.

The boos _ so deep and so angry _ would swell from every corner of Great American Ball Park. The closer that Coffey got to the mound, the louder they got. Fans wished he'd just keep on running.

Some days, the Cincinnati Reds reliever probably felt that way, too.

Coffey never reacted to the sound that assaulted his ears every time he took the mound last season. It's not his way. Besides, what good would it do?

With everyone in the stands ready to pounce on every mistake, the 27-year-old reliever would try to block out the catcalls and get back to getting outs. Every bad pitch seemed to make things worse.

Eventually, he would leave the game to another round of abuse.

It went that way most of the time.

The Reds' bullpen was its downfall last season, and Coffey _ who sprints to the mound to get his heart pumping and his head focused _ became a moving target for fans' anger. To get to the mound, he had to run the gantlet.

"You hear it," Coffey said. "If you say you don't hear it, you're a liar. You're like, 'Man, c'mon!'

"I take it harder than anybody else. Obviously there was nothing to cheer; I was not pitching good. But sometimes you want to get a little support behind you, too, because you're out there giving everything you've got."

He has spent the last six months trying to make sure things are different this year.

Coffey went on a strict diet and training program in the offseason, trimming his waistline and his delivery. He weighed 265 pounds at the end of last season, when he was 2-1 with a 5.82 earned run average in 58 games.

When he got on a scale this week, he weighed 239.

The weight isn't all that's down considerably this spring. His earned run average is as small as it can be.

Coffey didn't allow a run in any of his first six appearances against major leaguers this spring. His control was back, his stamina was good, his results were much like back in the days when his here-I-come sprint was a reason to celebrate.

"When I talked to him (in the offseason), he told me he was working out," manager Dusty Baker said. "He said he was going to lose weight and come here ready. He's kept his word. Coffey's throwing the ball as well as anybody. He looks good."

He looks more like he did in 2006, when he pitched in a set-up role and saved eight games as well. The Reds were counting on him to hold leads in the eighth inning again last season, but it didn't work out.

Coffey got hit hard repeatedly _ and got booed regularly _ in the first seven weeks. He was sent to Triple-A Louisville on May 24, and spent the rest of the season shuttling back and forth.

He got so caught up in fixing his delivery that he let his diet and his conditioning slip.

"It's not like I put the weight on on purpose," Coffey said. "It was one of those things. Sometimes you get caught up in other things. I struggled last year, so I was more focused on the on-field stuff and had tunnel vision. The other stuff got sacrificed, and it snowballed."

As the season wound down, Coffey got on a scale and thought about the big number that registered.

"I looked at it and said, 'Wow!'" Coffey said.

The changes started immediately.

He hired a personal trainer and dietitian. He went to a high school near his home in Rutherfordton, N.C., and worked on his delivery virtually every day. He would stand in front of a mirror and study his throwing motion, trying to get rid of the kinks that had worked their way in.

When he got to Florida, he looked and felt like he did in 2006. By dropping those pounds, he was able to smooth out his delivery.

"It's been dramatic," he said. "It just feels better. It's hard to describe the exact feeling. It's like in '06."

When he sprints out of the bullpen this season, he hopes his reception is more like it used to be, too.

"It takes a toll, it does," he said. "You think about it. Trust me, nobody takes it harder than me."

fearofpopvol1
03-25-2008, 04:28 PM
I'm definitely rooting for Coffey. I really do hope he can turn it around this year when it counts.

OnBaseMachine
03-25-2008, 05:49 PM
I'm definitely rooting for Coffey. I really do hope he can turn it around this year when it counts.

Me too. He really seems like a great guy, unlike his brother. ;) Just kidding of course.

A big year from Coffey would be a huge boost to this bullpen.

mth123
03-25-2008, 08:27 PM
Narron would have benefited from having better pitchers

We'll see if Dusty has it any better

Can't argue that. But Narron had guys warming up every day and wore them out without even using them some times. In a pen that was doomed to be overworked in the first place, he did nothing but magnify the problem.