PDA

View Full Version : Fay Hints At Possible Move By Tuesday



TheNext44
06-15-2009, 05:55 PM
http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=blog07&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ae57bcc87-152a-4f72-96fb-cc08b1f396efPost%3ad98e4363-515d-4085-90aa-1e1885953638&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending&sid=sitelife.cincinnati.com



Man, where we could have been had we just played good ball the last two weeks. The rest of the division is struggling and we missed our chance to take control. Depression setting in. --Volkie

That was the first comment on the approval list when I fired up the old Dell at the Kansas City International this morning. Odd airport, by the way. Once you get through security, there's no bathrooms, restaurants or shops. Looks like it was designed pre-9/11.

I haven't been on the computer since just after the game. I saw The Hangover last night. Thumbs up. Not for kids but very, very funny in a smart way.

Anyway, that's not why you called. I didn't read the comments on the last post, but I thought Volkie summed up how the average Reds fan feels in those three sentences.

The question is what happens from here. I expect a move before Tuesday's game. I'm just going on a hunch. They've got to try to do something to help the offense, don't they?

This is a critical time. If this team falls too far back, I don't think it's good enough to recover. Dusty Baker said yesterday that they're fortunate to be where they are. If St. Louis or Milwaukee had gone 7-3 over the last 10, the Reds would be six back.

The biggest question is still when will Joey Votto return. Obviously, it's not going to be tomorrow. My flight's boarding. I'll keep you posted if they make a move.

Sea Ray
06-15-2009, 05:58 PM
My guess is it'll be a reshuffling of the chairs, not a deal which brings in a contributor from outside the organization.

flyer85
06-15-2009, 06:01 PM
I don't read a deal into those comments, just shuttling someone up from Louisville.

BRM
06-15-2009, 06:10 PM
I don't read a deal into those comments, just shuttling someone up from Louisville.

That's how I read it as well.

membengal
06-15-2009, 06:11 PM
Prob Drew Sutton's first time on the L'ville shuttle, with the 13th pitcher headed out.

kaldaniels
06-15-2009, 06:15 PM
I don't read a deal into those comments, just shuttling someone up from Louisville.

Since it was the word used in Fay's last sentence, I would change the word "deal" in the thread title to the word "move".

Homer Bailey
06-15-2009, 06:23 PM
Since it was the word used in Fay's last sentence, I would change the word "deal" in the thread title to the word "move".

I 2nd that motion. Nothing to see here.

redsmetz
06-15-2009, 06:28 PM
Not that we've got these guys blogging, tweeting etc., they have to fill the bandwidth. Nothing but a hunch; no real legwork done indicating he'd spoken to anyone or anything. He might as well just be posting on RZ or some other board.

Raisor
06-15-2009, 07:43 PM
how the average Reds fan feels in those three sentences.

I like being an ABOVE average Reds fan myself.

try to be average, and you will be.

That's why I like RZ, the ORG is full of above average fans.

Back to your regularly scheduled Fay being a dork.

BCubb2003
06-15-2009, 08:00 PM
He might as well just be posting on RZ or some other board.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

TheNext44
06-15-2009, 08:54 PM
Not that we've got these guys blogging, tweeting etc., they have to fill the bandwidth. Nothing but a hunch; no real legwork done indicating he'd spoken to anyone or anything. He might as well just be posting on RZ or some other board.

Sorry about the poor title choice. Should have said "move". Just trying to post it quickly.

My experience with Fay, and many other writers is that when they say they have a hunch, what they mean is that they have good info that they heard off the record. This is a journalistic trick used particularly well in the political world to convey info to their readers that can't really report on as fact, and can't quote someone on. I bet if you researched the times Fay has said something was just a hunch, it came true nearly every time. But that's just a hunch on my part. ;)

Anyway, I am guessing Taveras to the DL and Stubbs called up to start in CF and leadoff. Dusty has to have his speedy leadoff hitter in CF. I also think this could spark some offense.

RedLegSuperStar
06-15-2009, 09:06 PM
TheNext44 if Taveras is DL'd and Stubbs is called up.. Who gets DFA'd or released to get Stubbs on the roster (40 man roster)?

johngalt
06-15-2009, 09:16 PM
TheNext44 if Taveras is DL'd and Stubbs is called up.. Who gets DFA'd or released to get Stubbs on the roster (40 man roster)?

Bray can be moved to the 60-day.

CTA513
06-15-2009, 09:16 PM
TheNext44 if Taveras is DL'd and Stubbs is called up.. Who gets DFA'd or released to get Stubbs on the roster (40 man roster)?

Could Bray go to the 60 day DL to make room?

TheNext44
06-15-2009, 09:21 PM
TheNext44 if Taveras is DL'd and Stubbs is called up.. Who gets DFA'd or released to get Stubbs on the roster (40 man roster)?

Ramon Ramirez. He would clear waivers, and if he didn't, wish him well with his new team.

I could also see Burton sent back down (again) and either Sutton or Richer called up. Richer has been hitting the ball very well lately.

June - .452 .633 1.085

TheNext44
06-15-2009, 09:23 PM
Could Bray go to the 60 day DL to make room?

I read that since he was injured in the minors, if he were to go to the 60 day DL, he would be using his major league service time the entire time he was on it, which would be around 18 months. They could go that route if they had to, but only if they had to.

camisadelgolf
06-15-2009, 09:36 PM
Ramon Ramirez. He would clear waivers, and if he didn't, wish him well with his new team.

I could also see Burton sent back down (again) and either Sutton or Richer called up. Richer has been hitting the ball very well lately.

June - .452 .633 1.085
There's no way Ramirez would clear waivers. Another team would claim him, and then he'd be traded for a low-level minor leaguer. If the Reds were to clear roster space, they'd 60-day Bray and then release Lincoln. After that, they'd DFA LeCure or a catcher (Castillo? Tatum?) before losing Ramirez.

TheNext44
06-15-2009, 09:54 PM
There's no way Ramirez would clear waivers. Another team would claim him, and then he'd be traded for a low-level minor leaguer. If the Reds were to clear roster space, they'd 60-day Bray and then release Lincoln. After that, they'd DFA LeCure or a catcher (Castillo? Tatum?) before losing Ramirez.

I can see all those things you mention happening, but I would DFA Ramirez before any of them.

He'll be 27 in a few months, been released once already, has a 4.75 ERA, 1.47 WHIP, 38/28 K/BB in 60 innings, is behind Manuel and Roenicke in the depth chart, and has a very low ceiling.
Sure, teams need arms, so he might get taken, but he really will not be missed, at least in my opinion.

mth123
06-15-2009, 10:04 PM
I can see all those things you mention happening, but I would DFA Ramirez before any of them.

He'll be 27 in a few months, been released once already, has a 4.75 ERA, 1.47 WHIP, 38/28 K/BB in 60 innings, is behind Manuel and Roenicke in the depth chart, and has a very low ceiling.
Sure, teams need arms, so he might get taken, but he really will not be missed, at least in my opinion.

He's a guy that could come up and provide innings in the pen or the back of the rotation. He's #8 on the depth chart for starting pitchers at this point. If others are to be dealt, he'll be needed. Lecure is a much better bet to DFA IMO.

HokieRed
06-15-2009, 10:08 PM
I wouldn't DFA either Ramirez or Lecure to keep Wilkin Castillo.

mth123
06-15-2009, 10:20 PM
I wouldn't DFA either Ramirez or Lecure to keep Wilkin Castillo.

Point well taken. I'm not impressd with Castillo either.

PuffyPig
06-15-2009, 11:16 PM
Could Bray go to the 60 day DL to make room?

He could but that means he would accrue major league service time, which would be very costly down the road.

4256 Hits
06-15-2009, 11:45 PM
Return of Hopper?!?

Ron Madden
06-16-2009, 04:47 AM
Return of Hopper?!?

God I hope not. We need some offense.

camisadelgolf
06-16-2009, 06:00 AM
I can see all those things you mention happening, but I would DFA Ramirez before any of them.

He'll be 27 in a few months, been released once already, has a 4.75 ERA, 1.47 WHIP, 38/28 K/BB in 60 innings, is behind Manuel and Roenicke in the depth chart, and has a very low ceiling.
Sure, teams need arms, so he might get taken, but he really will not be missed, at least in my opinion.
I think you might be talking about the wrong Ramirez. The Reds' Ramon Ramirez has very good stuff, a higher ceiling than Robert Manuel's, and a career WHIP of 1.023 (which would make him third on the team this year, right behind Arthur Rhodes and Nick Masset). He also has an impressive 2:1 K:BB ratio at the Major League level. He was released by the Padres as a teenager without having actually pitched for them.

RedLegSuperStar
06-16-2009, 09:26 AM
cough..Mike Lincoln..cough

cumberlandreds
06-16-2009, 09:29 AM
Return of Hopper?!?

He couldn't be any worse than Taveras, could he?

lollipopcurve
06-16-2009, 09:50 AM
Daryl Thompson would be the first guy I'd drop from the 40-man. He's had major shoulder surgery, and he's been unable to stay healthy since. Writing's on the wall. Plenty of depth behind him, too, these days.

StillFunkyB
06-16-2009, 10:54 AM
cough..Mike Lincoln..cough

AGREED.

Mike Lincoln is the new Gary Majewski.

flyer85
06-16-2009, 11:02 AM
Mike Lincoln is the new Gary Majewski.
at least they didn't trade for Lincoln thinking that he might actually solve a problem.

paulrichjr
06-16-2009, 12:12 PM
at least they didn't trade for Lincoln thinking that he might actually solve a problem.

And at least they didn't sign him to a couple of million dollars in salary over a couple of years because that would be really bad. :D

klw
06-16-2009, 05:47 PM
Tonight's lineup is out so no moves likely today.

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=blog07&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ae57bcc87-152a-4f72-96fb-cc08b1f396efPost%3a92b487e4-1e73-4290-9b5f-94982088455c&sid=sitelife.cincinnati.com

Though with this lineup I would happily be wrong.

HokieRed
06-16-2009, 05:49 PM
Unbelievable that Dusty still has Taveras in CF and T and G in the first two spots.

forfreelin04
06-16-2009, 05:51 PM
Unbelievable that Dusty still has Taveras in CF and T and G in the first two spots.

With Phillips hitting third behind them, they have the making of Three Outegos.

I kid I kid.

kheidg-
06-16-2009, 05:52 PM
I think I'm more concerned with Gonzalez batting 2 hole than Taveras at leadoff... pick your poison though.

Homer Bailey
06-16-2009, 05:52 PM
Unbelievable that Dusty still has Taveras in CF and T and G in the first two spots.

Your statement is very believable. Dusty filling out a terrible lineup is very believable.

The fact that Dusty has a job is the unbelievable part.

lollipopcurve
06-16-2009, 05:53 PM
Unbelievable that Dusty still has Taveras in CF and T and G in the first two spots.

I was never one to hammer on Baker's CF-SS fixation at the top of the order, but I have to admit it's getting comical.

May I repeat, I smell a tailspin.

Falls City Beer
06-16-2009, 05:58 PM
Taveras represents roughly 1% of the reason this team is losing. But unless we can focus our anger in one concentrated area, it flails about aimlessly.

durl
06-16-2009, 06:00 PM
Given the number of Reds hitters who are slumping, the order in which they hit seems to make little difference at this point.

Almost every player in the lineup needs to get it going.

Homer Bailey
06-16-2009, 06:01 PM
Taveras represents roughly 1% of the reason this team is losing. But unless we can focus our anger in one concentrated area, it flails about aimlessly.

False. He represents approximately 11% of the starting lineup. Add in the fact that he is guaranteed to get the most plate appearances, and you can argue he makes up anywhere from 11-15% of the starting lineup. This is a guy that is basically guaranteeing 4 outs per game that he plays. Tell me how that adds up to roughly 1% of why this team is losing.

BRM
06-16-2009, 06:01 PM
Taveras represents roughly 1% of the reason this team is losing. But unless we can focus our anger in one concentrated area, it flails about aimlessly.

One concentrated area? I've seen "anger" thrown at Willy, BP, Lincoln, Arroyo, Dusty, Walt and Gonzalez. All in the last day or two. Plenty of "anger" to go around from what I've seen.

RedLegSuperStar
06-16-2009, 06:04 PM
This is outrageous as a Reds fan.. but what I have come to expect. This team I believe is afraid of contending. They are in the division hunt and are blowing the chance to take advantage of the way the rest of the division is playing.. This team is 500 and has no offensive threat and I guess the team will just wait till Votto, Encarnacion, and Volquez get healthy. LAME!

Hoosier Red
06-16-2009, 06:05 PM
The order doesn't matter, they all struggled last weekend.
But hell bat the pitcher leadoff just to shake things up.

BRM
06-16-2009, 06:07 PM
The order doesn't matter, they all struggled last weekend.
But hell bat the pitcher leadoff just to shake things up.

I think folks are more upset about who's playing vs the actual order. Wrt to CF at least.

forfreelin04
06-16-2009, 06:12 PM
Taveras represents roughly 1% of the reason this team is losing. But unless we can focus our anger in one concentrated area, it flails about aimlessly.

I agree that the blame is widespread. However, when your leadoff hitter falls into a slump of epic proportion, it tends to cause more than just 1% of the problem.

With Reds players with over 100 at bats; he is Tenth in OBP. If you count Janish and Gomes, he is 12th. EdE, he is 13th. If you count Owings, with his 35 at bats, he is right in front of him. Owings has an OBP of .278.

If that's 1% of the problem, then the 5th starter must be a 1/2 percent.

Kc61
06-16-2009, 06:14 PM
One concentrated area? I've seen "anger" thrown at Willy, BP, Lincoln, Arroyo, Dusty, Walt and Gonzalez. All in the last day or two. Plenty of "anger" to go around from what I've seen.

I think the anger has been directed very heavily to Taveras. He deserves some anger, but -

If you look at today's lineup, it's strength is Hairston and Hanigan hitting 7-8. Hairston's an acceptable seventh place hitter, Hanigan a good eighth place hitter.

Otherwise, well, hopefully somebody gets hot. Or less cold.

lollipopcurve
06-16-2009, 06:15 PM
I think folks are more upset about who's playing vs the actual order. Wrt to CF at least.

True for me. I would like to see Dickerson getting some starts in CF and Janish an occasional start at 3B. Baker has pretty much buried those guys lately, and I think it has cost the team.

forfreelin04
06-16-2009, 06:17 PM
I think the anger has been directed very heavily to Taveras. He deserves some anger, but -

If you look at today's lineup, it's strength is Hairston and Hanigan hitting 7-8. Hairston's an acceptable seventh place hitter, Hanigan a good eighth place hitter.

Otherwise, well, hopefully somebody gets hot. Or less cold.

Isn't it sad when your saying the lineup's strength is for guys who get roughly one at bat per game less than the 1-2 hitters?

Homer Bailey
06-16-2009, 06:19 PM
Isn't it sad when your saying the lineup's strength is for guys who get roughly one at bat per game less than the 1-2 hitters?

(As posted in the other thread:)

You know what the funny part is? If Bobby Cox were to fill out the Reds lineup for his Braves team to face, and had to choose between the current starters for the Reds (excluding Harang) I bet he would bat WT and AG 1 and 2.

*BaseClogger*
06-16-2009, 06:21 PM
I'm not angry that Taveras is batting leadoff tonight. I'm angry it isn't Chris Dickerson...

_Sir_Charles_
06-16-2009, 06:44 PM
Some "updates" from Fay.....


Joey Votto is working out with the team on the field, as I type.



"He hit today," Dusty Baker said. "He's looking good, a lot better. . . It's good to see him."



Baker said Votto will be his minor league rehab "relatively soon."

My guess is it will be some time this week.

Votto again declined to talk to the media.

Other quick updates:

--Edwin Encarnacion took batting practice today -- 25 swings. "It feels good," he said of his wrist/hand. "Couple more days, I'm going to playing." He was referring to a minor-league rehab. Baker cautioned: "He's been close before," Baker said. "We've got to make sure he's not sure the next day."

--Edinson Volquez threw from 110 feet today. He's take a day off, then throw from 120. After that, he'll throw off the mound. He'll also go on rehab -- either in Dayton or Louisville. "We've got to build him back up," Baker said. "It's not around the corner. It's around a couple of corners."

nate
06-16-2009, 06:52 PM
I can't wait until EE is going to playing. Good to see EV is take a day off!

:cool:

SMcGavin
06-16-2009, 06:52 PM
Taveras represents roughly 1% of the reason this team is losing. But unless we can focus our anger in one concentrated area, it flails about aimlessly.

Right, the guy with 200+ ABs of 50 OPS+ is 1% of the problem.

Rojo
06-16-2009, 07:14 PM
But unless we can focus our anger in one concentrated area, it flails about aimlessly.

The alternative is what? Anger at the whole team? Are Tavares and the ballboy equally culpable?

Falls City Beer
06-16-2009, 07:21 PM
The alternative is what? Anger at the whole team? Are Tavares and the ballboy equally culpable?

Here you go: Votto, Volquez, Arroyo, Owings, Lincoln, Burton, Hairston, Encarnacion have all been pretty huge problems, either by their presence or by their absence.

Falls City Beer
06-16-2009, 07:23 PM
Right, the guy with 200+ ABs of 50 OPS+ is 1% of the problem.

Hard to put a number on it; but I'll take a shot in the dark: not every thread on this side of the board has to eventually boil down to a Taveras-slamming session. I know it feels good to scratch an itch till it bleeds, but it's pretty much the opposite of any kind of objective solution.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-16-2009, 07:24 PM
But Taveras was the addition that nobody wanted.

And rightfully so.

Still, it's more than 1%. You know that.

Falls City Beer
06-16-2009, 07:25 PM
I agree that the blame is widespread. However, when your leadoff hitter falls into a slump of epic proportion, it tends to cause more than just 1% of the problem.

With Reds players with over 100 at bats; he is Tenth in OBP. If you count Janish and Gomes, he is 12th. EdE, he is 13th. If you count Owings, with his 35 at bats, he is right in front of him. Owings has an OBP of .278.

If that's 1% of the problem, then the 5th starter must be a 1/2 percent.

Arroyo gets next to no criticism, despite being crap in metric tons.

Falls City Beer
06-16-2009, 07:25 PM
But Taveras was the addition that nobody wanted.

And rightfully so.

Still, it's more than 1%. You know that.

4%? Still not justified.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-16-2009, 07:35 PM
C'mon, FCB. Are you just trying to be a contrarian?

If nobody mentioned anything about WT, you'd be all over him.

TheNext44
06-16-2009, 07:36 PM
I actually think that Taveras' slump is less than 1% of the reason why this team is losing. Its losing is 99.9% because Votto is out of the lineup.

If Joey was in there, posting a 1.000+ OPS, or even a 900+ OPS, then the Reds would have had a at least an 8-8 record in the 16 games that he has been out, instead of an 5-11 record. in my opinion.
If Taveras had continued his hitting from the beginning of the season, the Reds without Votto, still would have had a losing record in those games, in my opinion.

WMR
06-16-2009, 07:36 PM
But Taveras was the addition that nobody wanted.

And rightfully so.

Still, it's more than 1%. You know that.

The anti-Taveras group is still accepting new membership. :redface:

Falls City Beer
06-16-2009, 07:40 PM
C'mon, FCB. Are you just trying to be a contrarian?

If nobody mentioned anything about WT, you'd be all over him.

You honestly--really--don't see the criticism as a simple repeat of last year's constant harping on Patterson? Call it contrarianism, but I wouldn't mind reading a post or ten about why Owings is constitutionally unable to throw strikes. It's just boring to have nothing else to read about.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-16-2009, 08:01 PM
So because you're tired of hearing about it, you go the other direction with hyperbole?

I get it now. My bad.

Still, the Arroyo comparison is pretty much apples and oranges. Owings? Same thing.

Falls City Beer
06-16-2009, 08:06 PM
So because you're tired of hearing about it, you go the other direction with hyperbole?

I get it now. My bad.

Still, the Arroyo comparison is pretty much apples and oranges. Owings? Same thing.

What did I say is hyperbole? Why is Arroyo and Owings apples and oranges? Because they're starters?

nate
06-16-2009, 08:09 PM
You honestly--really--don't see the criticism as a simple repeat of last year's constant harping on Patterson? Call it contrarianism, but I wouldn't mind reading a post or ten about why Owings is constitutionally unable to throw strikes. It's just boring to have nothing else to read about.

I look forward to reading that thread when you start it.

Falls City Beer
06-16-2009, 08:14 PM
I look forward to reading that thread when you start it.

I was hoping someone who knows a thing or two about pitching/mechanics, etc. might start a thread about why they believe Owings has had such a tough time throwing strikes or why Arroyo hasn't so much crash-landed as he has exploded mid-flight (BB/9 of 3.10 and K/9 of 4.30).

BuckeyeRedleg
06-16-2009, 08:22 PM
What did I say is hyperbole? Why is Arroyo and Owings apples and oranges? Because they're starters?

1%? 4%?

Owings is a #5 making the league minimum. Arroyo has been solid for 3 years now. Yes, he's struggled, but not for his whole career, like WT. Arroyo and Owings were brilliant additions. WT was a horrendous decision that gets more ridiculous by the day.

Where are the similarities?

And about beating a dead horse. Really. What else is there to talk about? Starting WT, at leadoff, against a RHP is a big deal, because it's so silly. How can you NOT talk about it.

Plus, I seem to remember you beating the hell out of the dead horse that was Eric Milton every day. I should know. I was with you. What's it with you now? You only have it in for starters?

nate
06-16-2009, 08:26 PM
I was hoping someone who knows a thing or two about pitching/mechanics, etc. might start a thread about why they believe Owings has had such a tough time throwing strikes or why Arroyo hasn't so much crash-landed as he has exploded mid-flight (BB/9 of 3.10 and K/9 of 4.30).

If you build it, they will come.

Falls City Beer
06-16-2009, 08:38 PM
What's it with you now? You only have it in for starters?

The holes they leave in the USS Rhinelander are usually unpluggable. I guarantee you the record with Dickerson playing every single game instead of Taveras would be roughly the same, maybe--maybe--the Reds win one more game.

Take out Votto and Encarnacion and the Reds start losing games in gobs. It's about impact. It's just that losing Votto and EdE isn't an opportunity to have a gladiatorial I-told-ya-so session.

Rojo
06-16-2009, 09:31 PM
It's just that losing Votto and EdE isn't an opportunity to have a gladiatorial I-told-ya-so session.


Don't knock I-told-ya-so's. Without them, the stupid would get outta hand.

Homer Bailey
06-17-2009, 11:11 AM
From Brandon Funston at Yahoo sports:


Prospecting
Drew Stubbs, Cin, OF – The Reds are the proud owners of the worst hitting outfield in the league, with a combined average of less than .230. Enter Stubbs, the team’s first-round pick in ’06. The centerfielder is currently tied for sixth in the International League with a .312 batting average, and he’s pacing the league with 24 stolen bases. He’s at the age (24) and has the pedigree to warrant attention from the Reds, especially given their issues in the outfield. Expect to start hearing his name pop up more and more in the next couple weeks.

http://sports.yahoo.com/fantasy/mlb/news;_ylt=Aqu8ycN_wEdqDjqs.uWAX0O5bZ8u?slug=bf-skinny_061609

RED VAN HOT
06-17-2009, 01:58 PM
IMO Stubbs gets the call as soon as he is safely out of 'super 2' zone.

jojo
06-17-2009, 02:00 PM
I actually think that Taveras' slump is less than 1% of the reason why this team is losing. Its losing is 99.9% because Votto is out of the lineup.

If Joey was in there, posting a 1.000+ OPS, or even a 900+ OPS, then the Reds would have had a at least an 8-8 record in the 16 games that he has been out, instead of an 5-11 record. in my opinion.
If Taveras had continued his hitting from the beginning of the season, the Reds without Votto, still would have had a losing record in those games, in my opinion.

So Joey is a 30 win player over the course of a season?

LoganBuck
06-17-2009, 02:20 PM
IMO Stubbs gets the call as soon as he is safely out of 'super 2' zone.

We have probably passed that point, two weeks ago.

TheNext44
06-17-2009, 02:23 PM
So Joey is a 30 win player over the course of a season?

I found 7 games in that 16 game stretch where Joey Votto in the middle of that lineup would have given the Reds a good chance of winning. I assumed the Reds would have won half of those, just by luck. I errored on safe side and called it three wins.

I have no idea how many games the Reds would lose without Votto, over a course of a season, or the rest of this season, in which having a .900-1.100 OPS guy in the middle of the order for those games would give them at least a 50-50 chance of winning. I do know that over those specific 16 games, there were 7.

However, if I were to put a number on it, I would say that Votto is really worth somewhere 15-20 game a year. Take him out of this team, and it wins 70-75 games at best. With him in it all season, it can win 85-90. But that is just my opinion.

dougdirt
06-17-2009, 02:26 PM
I found 7 games in that 16 game stretch where Joey Votto in the middle of that lineup would have given the Reds a good chance of winning. I assumed the Reds would have won half of those, just by luck. I errored on safe side and called it three wins.

I have no idea how many games the Reds would lose without Votto, over a course of a season, or the rest of this season, in which having a .900-1.100 OPS guy in the middle of the order for those games would give them at least a 50-50 chance of winning. I do know that over those specific 16 games, there were 7.

However, if I were to put a number on it, I would say that Votto is really worth somewhere 15-20 game a year. Take him out of this team, and it wins 70-75 games at best. With him in it all season, it can win 85-90. But that is just my opinion.

You and jojo are talking two different things when you say 'a player is worth X wins'.

TheNext44
06-17-2009, 02:35 PM
You and jojo are talking two different things when you say 'a player is worth X wins'.

I know. That's why I explained it the way I did.

This ought to be a fun debate, if JoJo is up for it. :p:

jojo
06-17-2009, 03:22 PM
I found 7 games in that 16 game stretch where Joey Votto in the middle of that lineup would have given the Reds a good chance of winning. I assumed the Reds would have won half of those, just by luck. I errored on safe side and called it three wins.

I have no idea how many games the Reds would lose without Votto, over a course of a season, or the rest of this season, in which having a .900-1.100 OPS guy in the middle of the order for those games would give them at least a 50-50 chance of winning. I do know that over those specific 16 games, there were 7.

However, if I were to put a number on it, I would say that Votto is really worth somewhere 15-20 game a year. Take him out of this team, and it wins 70-75 games at best. With him in it all season, it can win 85-90. But that is just my opinion.

It's an interesting assertion and one that I'm sure has crossed the minds of just about everyone.

So lets crunch the numbers....

First, the above assumes that Joey would continue to be a .900-1.100 OPS guy which I think is significantly better than what he's likely to do over a full season when one assumes much above .900. But regardless lets assume Votto maintained that level of production in order to error in his favor.

How many runs would he have been worth over Hernandez in 16 games?

Votto has a wOBA of .460 and Ramon has one of .303. Over 16 games, that would equate to an 8 run difference offensively and this is likely about as big of a gap as possible because frankly, Dusty is being Dusty if he keeps running a bat to first base that has a wOBA of .303. Defensively Votto and Hernandez are both grading out as roughly -9 to -10 defenders based upon UZR/150 so their defensive values would be a push (Dewan's +/- also suggest the two have been similar thus far this season).

Votto is likely a better defender but then again he's likely to cool offensively so I'm not sure if there is anything to be gained by quibbling with the hypothetical.

All of that said, the Reds might have been expected to be 8 runs better in their RS/RA calculus if Votto had been in the lineup during the 16 game stretch in question giving their actual RS/RA of 54/66 and their hypothetical RS/RA of 62/66.

Using James' pythag formula, the Reds should've won 6.4 games over that stretch given their RS/RA. With Votto (assuming he maintained-adding those 8 RS), the Reds would've been expected to win 7.5 games. So James' pythag suggests Votto's absence may have cost the Reds a win over those 16 games given the above hypothetical.

I think in order to imagine Votto would be worth 15-20 wins over Hernandez over a full season one has to imagine that the bulk of the runs that Votto contributes above Ramon's bat all come at exactly the perfect times to change game outcomes. In other words, I'd argue 15-20 wins is an impractical estimate.

TheNext44
06-17-2009, 03:32 PM
It's an interesting assertion and one that I'm sure has crossed the minds of just about everyone.

So lets crunch the numbers....

First, the above assumes that Joey would continue to be a .900-1.100 OPS guy which I think is significantly better than what he's likely to do over a full season when one assumes much above .900. But regardless lets assume Votto maintained that level of production in order to error in his favor.

How many runs would he have been worth over Hernandez in 16 games?

Votto has a wOBA of .460 and Ramon has one of .303. Over 16 games, that would equate to an 8 run difference offensively and this is likely about as big of a gap as possible because frankly, Dusty is being Dusty if he keeps running a bat to first base that has a wOBA of .303. Defensively Votto and Hernandez are both grading out as roughly -9 to -10 defenders based upon UZR/150 so their defensive values would be a push (Dewan's +/- also suggest the two have been similar thus far this season).

Votto is likely a better defender but then again he's likely to cool offensively so I'm not sure if there is anything to be gained by quibbling with the hypothetical.

All of that said, the Reds might have been expected to be 8 runs better in their RS/RA calculus if Votto had been in the lineup during the 16 game stretch in question giving their actual RS/RA of 54/66 and their hypothetical RS/RA of 62/66.

Using James' pythag formula, the Reds should've won 6.4 games over that stretch given their RS/RA. With Votto (assuming he maintained-adding those 8 RS), the Reds would've been expected to win 7.5 games. So James' pythag suggests Votto's absence may have cost the Reds a win over those 16 games given the above hypothetical.

Nice work.

Unfortunately, the Pythag is really only accurate over a 162 game schedule. It's based on the notion that everything evens out after you have played every team, faced every type of pitcher, every defense, played in every park, many times, and had many blowouts and many close games on both sides.

Over 16 games, it's not a very useful stat, due to hot and cold streaks, only facing a few team, a few pitchers, one blowout can throw the whole thing off...

jojo
06-17-2009, 03:37 PM
Nice work.

Unfortunately, the Pythag is really only accurate over a 162 game schedule. It's based on the notion that everything evens out after you have played every team, faced every type of pitcher, every defense, played in every park, many times, and had many blowouts and many close games on both sides.

Over 16 games, it's not a very useful stat, due to hot and cold streaks, only facing a few team, a few pitchers, one blowout can throw the whole thing off...

Well it is more fun to imagine that Votto's "8 runs" would have all came sometime during those 7 games you've identified and in such a way as to turn the worm in at least three of them. :beerme:

BRM
06-17-2009, 04:31 PM
Fay was asked on his blog why the Reds are carrying 13 pitchers when the offense is struggling so much and there are hot hitters in AAA. Here was his response.



The fact they're carrying 13 pitchers and they aren't hitting, except for last night, tells you they dont think anyone at Louisville can help them much. Also, they'd have to put anyone but Sutton on the 40-man.

OnBaseMachine
06-17-2009, 04:33 PM
Sutton is already on the 40-man roster.

oops, misread his post.

BRM
06-17-2009, 04:33 PM
Sutton is already on the 40-man roster.

That's what Fay said. Anyone BUT Sutton would have to be put on the 40 man.

tripleaaaron
06-17-2009, 04:37 PM
It's an interesting assertion and one that I'm sure has crossed the minds of just about everyone.

So lets crunch the numbers....

First, the above assumes that Joey would continue to be a .900-1.100 OPS guy which I think is significantly better than what he's likely to do over a full season when one assumes much above .900. But regardless lets assume Votto maintained that level of production in order to error in his favor.

How many runs would he have been worth over Hernandez in 16 games?

Votto has a wOBA of .460 and Ramon has one of .303. Over 16 games, that would equate to an 8 run difference offensively and this is likely about as big of a gap as possible because frankly, Dusty is being Dusty if he keeps running a bat to first base that has a wOBA of .303. Defensively Votto and Hernandez are both grading out as roughly -9 to -10 defenders based upon UZR/150 so their defensive values would be a push (Dewan's +/- also suggest the two have been similar thus far this season).

Votto is likely a better defender but then again he's likely to cool offensively so I'm not sure if there is anything to be gained by quibbling with the hypothetical.

All of that said, the Reds might have been expected to be 8 runs better in their RS/RA calculus if Votto had been in the lineup during the 16 game stretch in question giving their actual RS/RA of 54/66 and their hypothetical RS/RA of 62/66.

Using James' pythag formula, the Reds should've won 6.4 games over that stretch given their RS/RA. With Votto (assuming he maintained-adding those 8 RS), the Reds would've been expected to win 7.5 games. So James' pythag suggests Votto's absence may have cost the Reds a win over those 16 games given the above hypothetical.

I think in order to imagine Votto would be worth 15-20 wins over Hernandez over a full season one has to imagine that the bulk of the runs that Votto contributes above Ramon's bat all come at exactly the perfect times to change game outcomes. In other words, I'd argue 15-20 wins is an impractical estimate.

While I agree that 15-20 is probably an overshoot and the pythag is quite accurate over a 162 game schedule for an individual player but what it can't measure is the players influence on the statistics of the remainder of the lineup. With Votto inserted into the middle, players around him would see more opportunities and an increase in value as well. While Votto's individual gains over Ramon may only be a victory (in theory), his presence in the lineup would significantly alter the 8 run shares.

jojo
06-17-2009, 05:09 PM
While I agree that 15-20 is probably an overshoot and the pythag is quite accurate over a 162 game schedule for an individual player but what it can't measure is the players influence on the statistics of the remainder of the lineup. With Votto inserted into the middle, players around him would see more opportunities and an increase in value as well. While Votto's individual gains over Ramon may only be a victory (in theory), his presence in the lineup would significantly alter the 8 run shares.

Those 8 runs were derived from the impact that adding Votto's production to a lineup would on average cause the lineup to spit out...

In other words, those 8 runs weren't strictly Votto knocking a guy in.....

TheNext44
06-17-2009, 06:31 PM
Those 8 runs were derived from the impact that adding Votto's production to a lineup would on average cause the lineup to spit out...

In other words, those 8 runs weren't strictly Votto knocking a guy in.....

Yes, but again, the RC formula is accurate (if it is accurate on an individual basis) only after a full season for the same reason's why the Pythag needs a full season to even everything out and account for randomness.

Using RC and then Pythag over 16 games is not that accurate at figuring out how the same scenario would play out over 162. I am not sure there is a better one, but here is a more straight forward attempt.

Over the 16 recent games when the Reds were without Votto, they averaged 4 runs a game. Over the rest of the season, they averaged 4.63 runs a game. Over the 16 games, that averages out to 10 runs less with the Vottoless lineup than they would have scored if they had Votto. So right there, you can see that the actual difference in runs scored was 2 runs greater than the one projected by RC.

Project that over 162 games, and the Reds would score 750 runs with Votto and 648 without him. If they stayed on pace and allowed 689 runs this year, they would win 88 games with Votto and win 76 without him.

That's a 12 game swing, so according to these calculations, (and I am not saying that they are accurate, just another way of doing it), Votto is worth 12 wins, two more than the 10 projected by the RC and Pythag method.

kaldaniels
06-17-2009, 06:39 PM
While we are on the subject of players "win" values...

What if the Reds had Jermaine Dye this year. How many more games would they have won to this point do you think. Knowing what I know now, I am glad the trade was not made...but I can't help but think the short term help due to it would have been outstanding.

jojo
06-17-2009, 11:15 PM
Yes, but again, the RC formula is accurate (if it is accurate on an individual basis) only after a full season for the same reason's why the Pythag needs a full season to even everything out and account for randomness.

I didn't use a RC calculation to arrive at the run difference between Votto and Hernandez. I used pythag to determine the effect of those 8 runs over the 16 game stretch in question.


Using RC and then Pythag over 16 games is not that accurate at figuring out how the same scenario would play out over 162. I am not sure there is a better one, but here is a more straight forward attempt.

I determined the difference in runs produced using wOBA so it's a linear weights-based approach. It's not really a valid criticism to suggest that the difference in production can't be reliably determined because that production was only over 16 games. Linear weights-derived values aren't beholden to sample size in the sense that was argued above. Really, RC aren't either. Now if you wanted to argue that the level of production might not be representative of true skill, that's a different argument. In fact, i'd suggest that is actually a flaw in your approach (see below).


Over the 16 recent games when the Reds were without Votto, they averaged 4 runs a game. Over the rest of the season, they averaged 4.63 runs a game. Over the 16 games, that averages out to 10 runs less with the Vottoless lineup than they would have scored if they had Votto. So right there, you can see that the actual difference in runs scored was 2 runs greater than the one projected by RC.

First, we know that the difference in R/G isn't solely due to Votto's absence. This approach is actually taking the wrong direction if accuracy is the most important aspect of estimating the value of the difference in production between Votto and RH.


Project that over 162 games, and the Reds would score 750 runs with Votto and 648 without him. If they stayed on pace and allowed 689 runs this year, they would win 88 games with Votto and win 76 without him.

Projecting it over 162 games just magnifies the inaccuracy. Second it assumes that Ramon is basically going to be a replacement level bat over a full season of PAs and that Votto is going to perform at an uber level over the same period. I'd argue that scenario is too optimistic.


That's a 12 game swing, so according to these calculations, (and I am not saying that they are accurate, just another way of doing it), Votto is worth 12 wins, two more than the 10 projected by the RC and Pythag method.

Just the magnitude of the value should be a cause for pause. That's an impact that is about 1.5 times greater than Albert Pujols' value as determined by WAR.

Seriously, a 12 game swing is such a huge magnitude that it blows my mind. Using a similar approach either Votto is a HOFer or Pujols would have to be worth something like a 20 game swing on a good year for him.

I think a WAR approach jives much more with intuition. It's very possible that a WAR approach might somehow underestimate a secondary effect of a player on his peers but that effect is likely pecking at the periphery given what sabermetrics has told us about concepts like "protection" meanwhile the alternative approach being debated here dramatically over corrects.