PDA

View Full Version : Harang...



Redsfan320
04-09-2010, 06:54 PM
has to be one of the worst #1 starters in the league. Let's take a look at the division's #1s shall we...

Carpenter
Zambrano
Gallardo
Oswalt
Duke

I'd take any of the first four in a SECOND over Harang, and I'm not even sure he's better than Zach Duke at this point. Just think and answer honestly, who would you rather have on the mound: Harang or Homer. My point is Harang is a #4 starter at BEST and should not be going up against the league's #1s anymore. He just shouldn't. He needs to retire after this season (or ASAP). He's just done.

Also, just for the record, let's check out the #1s for everyone else in the NL this year. They get a "+" if I'd take them over Harang, and a "-" if not.

NL East:
Santana +
Halladay +
Johnson +
Lowe +
Lannan - (probably)

NL West:
Padilla/Billingsly (Padilla was the OD starter but Billingsly's their true #1) + (I think)/ +
Jimenez +
Haren +
Garland - (probably)
Lincecum+

320

Tornon
04-09-2010, 07:09 PM
You think Aaron Harang's done.. what about Derek Lowe?

Rounding Third
04-09-2010, 07:43 PM
He needs to retire after this season (or ASAP). He's just done.



Um... what?

Joseph
04-09-2010, 07:46 PM
Harang may not be a number one anymore [or as some argue ever] but he is far from done.

Tom Servo
04-09-2010, 07:48 PM
Harang may not be a number one anymore [or as some argue ever] but he is far from done.
Agreed. He's perfectly fine in any rotation, he's just not at the same level he used to be. It sucks, but what can ya do.

westofyou
04-09-2010, 07:53 PM
Being number one on the Reds is like being the best looking couple in Lincoln Nebraska.

Nasty_Boy
04-09-2010, 08:01 PM
(Padilla was the OD starter but Billingsly's their true #1)

Couldn't you say the same thing about Harang and Arroyo?

RedEye
04-09-2010, 08:02 PM
I actually think Harang does alright. He's not an elite #1, that's for sure--but he's not embarrassing himself out there most nights. He keeps the team in games for the most part.

What I like about this Reds staff, actually, is not their TOR starters, but their depth. If two TOR starters can emerge from the crowd of Chapman, Bailey, Cueto, Leake, Volquez and Wood, then the Reds should be good to go for a long time. Harang and Arroyo, with any luck, will just be extras by the end of the season. I'm not sure there are many other teams in the league with this type of potential. I know, it is just potential--but it's a nice thing to have.

CTA513
04-09-2010, 08:10 PM
Hes kind of been forced to be the #1 even though hes never really been a #1.

RFS62
04-09-2010, 08:14 PM
Being number one on the Reds is like being the best looking couple in Lincoln Nebraska.


It's like being the smartest Hilton sister.


Royalties to Cincinnati Chili for that line...

Redsfan320
04-09-2010, 08:25 PM
Couldn't you say the same thing about Harang and Arroyo?

Very good point.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Redsfan320 View Post
He needs to retire after this season (or ASAP). He's just done.
Um... what?

By "done" I mean he's no good anymore. His career as anything decent is done.


Being number one on the Reds is like being the best looking couple in Lincoln Nebraska.

Very true.

320

Blitz Dorsey
04-09-2010, 08:27 PM
He's not the Reds' No. 1. He only started Opening Day because Arroyo (foolishly IMO) turned it down.

Falls City Beer
04-09-2010, 08:28 PM
The Reds have a lot--a lot--of so-so starters. Not sure why Harang is being dragged out for particular derision.

Redsfan320
04-09-2010, 08:34 PM
The Reds have a lot--a lot--of so-so starters. Not sure why Harang is being dragged out for particular derision.

Because even though they have a lot of so-so starters, Harang is the one who, to me, is painful to watch (not that Homer's not painful tonight); Harang is the one who's start I actually dread. For example, I'm dreading him going against Big Z tomorrow. BTW, this is what I meant by him being our #1. He has to be our #1, because he's going against other #1s.

320

pedro
04-09-2010, 08:43 PM
Is he a #1?

No.

But he needs to retire?

What a bunch of hooey.

Yep. Hooey.

RedsManRick
04-09-2010, 08:49 PM
By "done" I mean he's no good anymore. His career as anything decent is done.

And yet league average for NL starters last year was 4.49 while Harang put up a 4.21 ERA. In 2008, easily the worst of his Reds' career, he put a 4.78 ERA due to a HR/9 that was grossly out of line with his historical performance and which regressed back to normal in 2009.

Is he an ace? Of course not. But he's a league average starter at worst. And given the vast number of starters who cannot either pitch well enough or stay healthy enough to accrue 150+ IP, he's still among the 40 best starters in the NL.

There's no need for hyperbole. Harang is a solid starter, but not quite the kind of guy you'd ideally have anchoring your rotation. If you want to make such a bold declarative statement, consider backing it up with some facts next time. This Chicken Little stuff gets old real quickly.

Redsfan320
04-09-2010, 08:52 PM
Is he a #1?

No.

But he needs to retire?

What a bunch of hooey.

Yep. Hooey.

Really? Well, you see, the Reds are placing him in the #1 spot. So if he's not a #1, as you said, then he needs to go if the Reds are going to put him in the #1 spot. IMO, he has nothing left in the tank, and yes, needs to hang up the spikes. JMHO

320

Redsfan320
04-09-2010, 08:55 PM
This Chicken Little stuff gets old real quickly.

It's not chicken little about the team. I'm not saying Harang is dooming the team by being here (even from the #1 spot), I'm just saying I think Harang, in his own right, is no good anymore. The IP he gets is a good thing, it's just that they're usually not very good innings that he pitches. Once again, JMHO.

This is my first RZ argument, and I'm getting into a corner real fast. :sweating: ;)

320

nate
04-09-2010, 08:58 PM
It's not chicken little about the team. I'm not saying Harang is dooming the team by being here (even from the #1 spot), I'm just saying I think Harang, in his own right, is no good anymore. The IP he gets is a good thing, it's just that they're usually not very good innings that he pitches. Once again, JMHO.

This is my first RZ argument, and I'm getting into a corner real fast. :sweating: ;)

320

I think the point being made is that they're not very bad innings either. That has a lot of value.

CTA513
04-09-2010, 08:59 PM
Really? Well, you see, the Reds are placing him in the #1 spot. So if he's not a #1, as you said, then he needs to go if the Reds are going to put him in the #1 spot. IMO, he has nothing left in the tank, and yes, needs to hang up the spikes. JMHO

320

He took the #1 spot because Arroyo didn't want it and I would rather him take it then put even more pressure on guys like Cueto and Bailey.

Redsfan320
04-09-2010, 09:00 PM
I think the point being made is that they're not very bad innings either. That has a lot of value.

Maybe. It's just that whenever Harang pitches the team seems to lose. Even more then they usually do. But no, most of them aren't very bad innings.

320

nate
04-09-2010, 09:02 PM
Maybe. It's just that whenever Harang pitches the team seems to lose. Even more then they usually do. But no, most of them aren't very bad innings.

320

But that has more to do with how many runs they score when he pitches. His run support has been poor and had it been in line with the league or even the TEAM average, he'd have about ten more pitching wins under his belt.

Which should tell one all they need to know about the usefulness of pitching wins.

Redsfan320
04-09-2010, 09:03 PM
He took the #1 spot because Arroyo didn't want it and I would rather him take it then put even more pressure on guys like Cueto and Bailey.

It should have been given to Arroyo. It shouldn't be his decision. Walt, Duhsty, and Price, convene together, and Dusty tells Arroyo, "Get ready, you're the #1 starter."

320

Redsfan320
04-09-2010, 09:07 PM
His run support has been poor and had it been in line with the league or even the TEAM average, he'd have about ten more pitching wins under his belt.

Maybe. That seems like a lot of bad luck though... of course he did have appendicitis (more bad luck).

320

nate
04-09-2010, 09:08 PM
Maybe. That seems like a lot of bad luck though... of course he did have appendicitis (more bad luck).

320

It's not bad luck as much as it's bad offense.

Redsfan320
04-09-2010, 09:11 PM
It's not bad luck as much as it's bad offense.

Also true. Maybe with a better offense this year, Harang's game will improve some (or at least his number of Ws).

320

pedro
04-09-2010, 09:16 PM
Save it for MLB.com

JMHO

Redsfan320
04-09-2010, 09:27 PM
Save it for MLB.com

JMHO

Woah. What did I do that was so horrible? I brought up some strong thoughts I had about Harang. Then I defended them as best I could. What did I do to get the "MLB.com" label? You're the one calling other people's posts "hooey."

320

pedro
04-09-2010, 09:38 PM
Woah. What did I do that was so horrible? I brought up some strong thoughts I had about Harang. Then I defended them as best I could. What did I do to get the "MLB.com" label? You're the one calling other people's posts "hooey."

320

You're argument that he needs to retire is rank hyperbole and frankly indefensible.

reds44
04-09-2010, 09:39 PM
It should have been given to Arroyo. It shouldn't be his decision. Walt, Duhsty, and Price, convene together, and Dusty tells Arroyo, "Get ready, you're the #1 starter."

320
Really, who cares who pitched Opening Day? If I have two pitchers, and one says he wants the ball and one doesn't, I'll give it to the guy who wants it.

Redsfan320
04-09-2010, 09:52 PM
Really, who cares who pitched Opening Day? If I have two pitchers, and one says he wants the ball and one doesn't, I'll give it to the guy who wants it.

This really isn't about OD. It's about the fact that since he pitched OD now, due to where he falls in the rotation, he's going against everybody else' #1 starter.

320

fearofpopvol1
04-09-2010, 09:57 PM
Sorry, but most of these claims are outrageous. He's not a #1 and has never really been a #1, but he's a pitcher that I bet any team in the league would like to have. Overall, he's been well above league average for the Reds and I think that will continue this year.

Redsfan320
04-09-2010, 09:59 PM
Sorry, but most of these claims are outrageous. He's not a #1 and has never really been a #1, but he's a pitcher that I bet any team in the league would like to have. Overall, he's been well above league average for the Reds and I think that will continue this year.

My point is that the Reds are putting him in the #1 spot, and that I'd rather have him not here at all, and someone else(Arroyo, maybe), going up against everybody else' ace pitcher.

320

nate
04-09-2010, 09:59 PM
This really isn't about OD. It's about the fact that since he pitched OD now, due to where he falls in the rotation, he's going against everybody else' #1 starter.

320

Not necessarily. Off days, different rotation demands, injuries, etc. will have the rotations out of sync in short order.

Redsfan320
04-09-2010, 10:04 PM
Not necessarily. Off days, different rotation demands, injuries, etc. will have the rotations out of sync in short order.

Also true. But him against Zambrano tomorrow doesn't look good for the reds at all just as him against Carpenter didn't.

320

cincrazy
04-09-2010, 10:08 PM
Because even though they have a lot of so-so starters, Harang is the one who, to me, is painful to watch (not that Homer's not painful tonight); Harang is the one who's start I actually dread. For example, I'm dreading him going against Big Z tomorrow. BTW, this is what I meant by him being our #1. He has to be our #1, because he's going against other #1s.

320

Did you catch Big Z's start on Monday?

Redsfan320
04-09-2010, 10:10 PM
Did you catch Big Z's start on Monday?

Yeah, apparently he got shelled, which brings me much joy. He's still an ace pitcher though.

320

nate
04-09-2010, 10:21 PM
Also true. But him against Zambrano tomorrow doesn't look good for the reds at all just as him against Carpenter didn't.

320

I dunno. The Cubs aren't really an offensive juggernaut. If the Reds would start playing a smarter offensive game, I could see things picking up as Zambrano is pretty volatile.

Harang isn't overpowering but he's still a good pitcher. To want him gone seems a bit short-sighted to me as the Reds have no one capable of absorbing the innings. Just because Harang isn't an "ace" compared to other "aces" around the league doesn't mean he's not valuable.

BearcatShane
04-09-2010, 10:24 PM
I kinda thought Harang was our 3 or 4. He just pitched Opening Day because Arroyo didn't want too and Harang was next in line in terms of experience. It doesn't really matter anyway, the rotation starting tomorrow into next week is Harang, Leake, Cueto, Arroyo, Bailey.

reds44
04-09-2010, 10:25 PM
This really isn't about OD. It's about the fact that since he pitched OD now, due to where he falls in the rotation, he's going against everybody else' #1 starter.

320
That's not even close to being true. Give it a week.

Besides, by your logic Arroyo will be pitching against lesser pitchers. It evens out.

Redsfan320
04-09-2010, 10:26 PM
To want him gone seems a bit short-sighted to me as the Reds have no one capable of absorbing the innings.

This is true. But next year with Volquez back, and Leake, Chapman, Wood... it may be time to let Harang go and not sign him to a new contract.

I'm going to bed, so I won't be replying again until morning. All this debating makes me tired. Seriously, it's actually been fun arguing about the Reds.

320

Mario-Rijo
04-09-2010, 10:30 PM
I completely disagree with the initial post and even some others beyond it. True he's not a legit ace now and he's never been a "prototypical" ace but there are few of those IMO. There was a time however that he was a solid #1 starter for any team. 2 years of sub 3.80 era, 200+ Innings and 200+ K's (leading the league one year) says he indeed was a fine one. And despite his last 2 seasons I think he'll bounce back nicely and be a solid rotation member and will do much better than most we have keeping us in games against those so called "Aces".

wolfboy
04-09-2010, 10:34 PM
Yeah, apparently he got shelled, which brings me much joy. He's still an ace pitcher though.

320

Somehow I think that if this were a Cubs board, there'd be a similar thread about Zambrano.

Mario-Rijo
04-09-2010, 10:37 PM
Somehow I think that if this were a Cubs board, there'd be a similar thread about Zambrano.

How true, it takes more than "ace stuff" to be an ace. What Aaron lacks in stuff he makes up a lot for with approach, temperment, intelligence etc. Big Z has the stuff but lacks the temperment at times.

redsmetz
04-09-2010, 10:40 PM
Really? Well, you see, the Reds are placing him in the #1 spot. So if he's not a #1, as you said, then he needs to go if the Reds are going to put him in the #1 spot. IMO, he has nothing left in the tank, and yes, needs to hang up the spikes. JMHO

320

I haven't read through the entire thread yet, but this sort of rigidity regarding the numbers of your staff just lays out for me the foolishness of who's what number, etc. I want a staff of five decent pitchers. While it's always great for a team to have a "stopper," I want a staff that's going to run quality pitchers out there day in and day out. While an argument is made that a team's #1 star is more apt to see other team's #1, I think that's a bit of a fallacy because once you factor in days off and rain outs and guys skipping starts here and there, it really doesn't come down to that.

Again, I just don't care about the numbered positions on the staff. I care about the numbers the various pitchers put up.

Raisor
04-09-2010, 10:56 PM
He needs to retire after this season (or ASAP). He's just done.






Really? This is where we're at? I know you had some other ones and zeroes in this post, but we can just stop now.

This is Reds.com bad.

Sorry dude, but I don't have time for this kind of jibber-jabber.

TheNext44
04-09-2010, 11:04 PM
I'm not sure Harang needs to retire at the end of this season, but I'm pretty sure that he will be a below average pitcher after this season, if not sooner. I kinda agree with Redsfan320 here. He's not done at this point, but he's moving fast in that direction.

Mario-Rijo
04-09-2010, 11:15 PM
I'm not sure Harang needs to retire at the end of this season, but I'm pretty sure that he will be a below average pitcher after this season, if not sooner. I kinda agree with Redsfan320 here. He's not done at this point, but he's moving fast in that direction.

If I were a betting man I'd gladly take that bet. The expectations around here sometimes are just unbelievable.

Brutus
04-10-2010, 12:30 AM
Yeah, apparently he got shelled, which brings me much joy. He's still an ace pitcher though.

320

Sorry to pile on, but perception is a funny thing.

You call Zambrano an ace while you are ready to hang up the spikes for Harang.

3-year averages

K/9

Harang 7.9
Carlos 7.2

BB/9

Harang 2.3
Carlos 3.9

Peripherally, the only advantage Zambrano has had in the past three seasons over Harang is the ability to keep the ball in the ballpark, and even that has been a little bit of luck (5.9% HR/FB ratio last year for Zambrano). Their FIP and xFIP have been pretty even.

Zambrano is not an ace, but Harang is also not chopped liver.

For the record, I don't care where a guy pitches in a rotation. Generally speaking, you're going to get the same number of starts regardless and as Nate mentioned, after a few weeks, the "ace vs. ace" thing doesn't happen all that often in the rotations. As long as Harang pitches quality innings every fifth day, I don't care if the Reds have him at the top or in the middle of the rotation.

TheNext44
04-10-2010, 12:51 AM
Sorry to pile on, but perception is a funny thing.

You call Zambrano an ace while you are ready to hang up the spikes for Harang.

3-year averages

K/9

Harang 7.9
Carlos 7.2

BB/9

Harang 2.3
Carlos 3.9

Peripherally, the only advantage Zambrano has had in the past three seasons over Harang is the ability to keep the ball in the ballpark, and even that has been a little bit of luck (5.9% HR/FB ratio last year for Zambrano). Their FIP and xFIP have been pretty even.

Zambrano is not an ace, but Harang is also not chopped liver.

For the record, I don't care where a guy pitches in a rotation. Generally speaking, you're going to get the same number of starts regardless and as Nate mentioned, after a few weeks, the "ace vs. ace" thing doesn't happen all that often in the rotations. As long as Harang pitches quality innings every fifth day, I don't care if the Reds have him at the top or in the middle of the rotation.

In my opinion, Zambrano is much closer to being an ace than Harang at this point.

Zambrano has been dealing with a serious arm injury the last two years, so those three year numbers are misleading, he was injured for a good part of them. But he has battled back and when he was healthy, he was at the top of his game. He actually pitched a no hitter his first game back from the injury in '08. Basically, he's been injured but has gotten better.

Harang simply has started the slope of nearly every pitcher who reaches 30. He has gotten worse. He was dealing with some injury in '08, probably due to being brought back on just 4 days rest after pitching the infamous extra innings in SD, so his '08 numbers are worse than normal, but his '09 numbers show a steady decline from his '07 numbers. They are what you would expect from a declining pitcher two years after his '07 numbers.

So Zambrano is now healthy and getting better, while Harang is healthy and getting worse. I expect those trends to continue.

I'm one of the biggest homers on this board (and Cub haters), so I would love to be wrong, but that's how I see it.

dougdirt
04-10-2010, 01:38 AM
Carlos Zambrano gave up 8 earned runs in 1.1 innings in his first start this season. He is closer to an ace than Harang right now? Harang has never had a game that bad in his career. I guess the grass is always greener....

Brutus
04-10-2010, 01:50 AM
In my opinion, Zambrano is much closer to being an ace than Harang at this point.

Zambrano has been dealing with a serious arm injury the last two years, so those three year numbers are misleading, he was injured for a good part of them. But he has battled back and when he was healthy, he was at the top of his game. He actually pitched a no hitter his first game back from the injury in '08. Basically, he's been injured but has gotten better.

Harang simply has started the slope of nearly every pitcher who reaches 30. He has gotten worse. He was dealing with some injury in '08, probably due to being brought back on just 4 days rest after pitching the infamous extra innings in SD, so his '08 numbers are worse than normal, but his '09 numbers show a steady decline from his '07 numbers. They are what you would expect from a declining pitcher two years after his '07 numbers.

So Zambrano is now healthy and getting better, while Harang is healthy and getting worse. I expect those trends to continue.

I'm one of the biggest homers on this board (and Cub haters), so I would love to be wrong, but that's how I see it.

Even taking away Zambrano's 2007 & 2008 seasons, the two worst of his career, Aaron Harang's last three seasons' K/9 rate equals Zambrano's CAREER strikeout rate. And the walks aren't even close no matter you stack them up.

I would take Harang before I would take Zambrano and I wouldn't think twice about it.

TheNext44
04-10-2010, 02:18 AM
Even taking away Zambrano's 2007 & 2008 seasons, the two worst of his career, Aaron Harang's last three seasons' K/9 rate equals Zambrano's CAREER strikeout rate. And the walks aren't even close no matter you stack them up.

I would take Harang before I would take Zambrano and I wouldn't think twice about it.

But Zambrano's K rate has actually improved these last two years, that was my point. He's getting better, Harang is getting worse.

And there are three main elements that a pitcher can control (if you buy into the notion that he can't control his BABIP), K's, BB's and HR's. Zambrano's HR rate has gone down these last three years, while Harang's has gone up.

On all three elemens, K's, BB's and HR's, Zambrano has gotten better these last three years, and Harang has gotten worse. And logic would lead me to believe that those trends will continue.

Razor Shines
04-10-2010, 05:54 AM
This really isn't about OD. It's about the fact that since he pitched OD now, due to where he falls in the rotation, he's going against everybody else' #1 starter.

320

In 26 starts last year he faced the other team's #1 4 times. Other than opening day it does not matter what place they are in the rotation. If we get to the playoffs, then we'll talk.

I'll also think it's pretty silly to suggest that Harang should retire. He'll be at least league average this year.

Redsfan320
04-10-2010, 08:30 AM
Oh boy... wasn't trying to start argument of the decade here. My ultimate point was that, very simply, he really has no stuff anymore, which I still adhere to. Also, this really wasn't supposed to be about Zambrano, he was just an example of the kind of pitcher I don't want Harang going up against. Maybe he (Zambrano) is starting to wear out, I wasn't aware of that. Also, I understand he won't be facing #1s the whole season due to rain-outs, etc.. So that part of my argument is, admittedly, destroyed. However, I still think he has nothing left in the tank at all, will not bounce back, and is for the most part, finished.

Honestly sorry if I offended anyone, but I still have a point

320

Krusty
04-10-2010, 08:40 AM
Being number one on the Reds is like being the best looking couple in Lincoln Nebraska.

That's classic WOY.

nate
04-10-2010, 09:10 AM
Oh boy... wasn't trying to start argument of the decade here. My ultimate point was that, very simply, he really has no stuff anymore, which I still adhere to.

This is where you're continuing to get beat up. He has "stuff," it's just not the "stuff" _you_ want him to have. However, the "stuff" that he has and the innings he throws are needed by the Reds. And it's useful.


Also, this really wasn't supposed to be about Zambrano, he was just an example of the kind of pitcher I don't want Harang going up against.

But the matchup doesn't matter because every combination of pitching rotation slot matchup will occur during the season.


Honestly sorry if I offended anyone, but I still have a point

Well, you know the saying about anatomy and opinion...

pahster
04-10-2010, 09:17 AM
Oh boy... wasn't trying to start argument of the decade here. My ultimate point was that, very simply, he really has no stuff anymore, which I still adhere to. Also, this really wasn't supposed to be about Zambrano, he was just an example of the kind of pitcher I don't want Harang going up against. Maybe he (Zambrano) is starting to wear out, I wasn't aware of that. Also, I understand he won't be facing #1s the whole season due to rain-outs, etc.. So that part of my argument is, admittedly, destroyed. However, I still think he has nothing left in the tank at all, will not bounce back, and is for the most part, finished.

Honestly sorry if I offended anyone, but I still have a point

320

Last year, Harang 162 1/3 good innings and was well on his way to hitting 200 before appendicitis struck, and you can't blame anyone for that. You don't throw 162 above average innings in the majors if you "have nothing left in the tank." He's certainly a year older now (that's true of everyone), but it's not like he's 38 years old; he's 32. He's probably not going to pitch like 06/07 Harang anymore, but that's OK. You don't have to be one of the ten or so best starters in the majors to be a useful pitcher.

If he pitches like he did last year, he'll be a significant asset to the team. So no, I don't really think your reactionary argument has much merit.

RFS62
04-10-2010, 09:21 AM
The number one vs. number one matchups get skewed very early in the season, as many have pointed out.

Dusty is a players manager. He understands the sensibilities of the clubhouse. RedsZone often laughs at the idea of "respect" for a player. Players don't.

We need Harang to put it together to be successful. Smacking his ego around seems like a tactical error for a manager to me.

These guys aren't just the backs of their strat card. They're people, and the dynamics of the clubhouse get careful attention from both Dusty and Walt. It's their style.

This is a very RedsZonie thread for this early in the year.

HokieRed
04-10-2010, 09:25 AM
On the question of his stuff, I'd have to catch him extensively to be able to make much of a judgment about that. I did like his velocity on opening day. If he can sustain that, I think we see a bounceback year from him. In any case, he's still a very useful pitcher, and his success will be key to any chance this team has to contend.

Redsfan320
04-10-2010, 09:34 AM
I'm makin' a lot of enemies early here... maybe Harang is still useful, it just seems like he has trouble winning. Maybe that's just run support, but he is wearing out.


Dusty is a players manager. He understands the sensibilities of the clubhouse. RedsZone often laughs at the idea of "respect" for a player. Players don't.

We need Harang to put it together to be successful. Smacking his ego around seems like a tactical error for a manager to me.


These guys aren't just the backs of their strat card. They're people, and the dynamics of the clubhouse get careful attention from both Dusty and Walt. It's their style.

This is a very RedsZonie thread for this early in the year.

I guess. And if by "very RedsZonie tread" you mean a negative one, can you really blame RZ for negativity. Just look at the last decade for the Reds. It's a miracle all you longtime fans haven't shot yourselves. (JK). I've only been a fan for a couple years, and I'm already considering it... ;)

320

Tommyjohn25
04-10-2010, 09:48 AM
Okay. If you want to attack this posters point of view, fine. STOP attacking the poster. No more of the mlb.com, reds.com garbage. Cut it out.

Hoosier Red
04-10-2010, 10:07 AM
I'm makin' a lot of enemies early here... maybe Harang is still useful, it just seems like he has trouble winning. Maybe that's just run support, but he is wearing out.




I guess. And if by "very RedsZonie tread" you mean a negative one, can you really blame RZ for negativity. Just look at the last decade for the Reds. It's a miracle all you longtime fans haven't shot yourselves. (JK). I've only been a fan for a couple years, and I'm already considering it... ;)

320

You aren't making any "enemies" here. People just don't like your argument. I don't think you "offended" anyone, your argument just struck them as incorrect. If you believe in your argument, use facts that back it up. That's the essence of a good discussion.

pedro
04-10-2010, 11:09 AM
You aren't making any "enemies" here. People just don't like your argument. I don't think you "offended" anyone, your argument just struck them as incorrect. If you believe in your argument, use facts that back it up. That's the essence of a good discussion.

what he said.

VR
04-10-2010, 11:17 AM
I mentioned it on opening day...but I believe the Reds success will be wrapped up in Bailey/Cueto/Chapman/Volquez et al.

We know Harang hasn't compared to other teams #1 for wins.

At this point, Arroyo as a #2 is a bit below average. (but could be a major factor)

The bottom 3 of our rotation stack up very, very well as far as stuff and ability with any team, especially the Central. If they can pitch within themselves....what Harang does will only be gravy.

westofyou
04-10-2010, 11:27 AM
If you look at the last 5 seasons in the NL and allow a 130 innings average per season (650 IP over 5 years) you'd get this group of pitchers sorted by RSAA

(RSAA--Runs saved against average. It's the amount of runs that a pitcher saved vs. what an average pitcher would have allowed.)




NATIONAL LEAGUE
CAREER
2005-2009

STRIKEOUTS/9 IP vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
WALKS/9 IP vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
NEUTRAL WINS displayed only--not a sorting criteria
NEUTRAL LOSSES displayed only--not a sorting criteria
INNINGS PITCHED displayed only--not a sorting criteria

RSAA RSAA SO/9 IP BB/9 IP N_W N_L IP
1 Brandon Webb 140 0.30 0.97 71 36 931
2 Roy Oswalt 114 0.03 1.41 73 44 1064.1
3 Chris Carpenter 112 0.54 1.57 50 22 677.1
4 Carlos Zambrano 101 0.96 -.63 65 45 1011.2
5 John Smoltz 89 1.32 1.25 49 28 733.1
6 Matt Cain 82 0.66 -.18 56 39 872.1
7 Jake Peavy 74 2.69 0.66 61 42 884
8 Cole Hamels 64 1.49 1.15 48 34 736.2
9 Aaron Cook 61 -3.04 1.14 51 39 831.1
10 Aaron Harang 58 1.05 1.18 65 51 1024.1
11 Tim Hudson 51 -1.22 0.63 55 40 819
12 Bronson Arroyo 50 -.36 0.74 57 46 871.2
13 Derek Lowe 49 -1.00 1.01 71 56 1045
14 Dontrelle Willis 32 -.22 0.30 46 35 665
15 Brett Myers 29 1.62 0.40 43 39 742.2
16 Brad Penny 27 -.69 0.59 43 38 708.2
17 Doug Davis 25 0.35 -.85 56 50 968
18 Tom Glavine 11 -1.85 0.36 39 36 673
19 Jeff Francis 5 -.61 0.32 45 45 741.2
T20 Zach Duke -1 -2.29 1.05 47 45 805.1
T20 Greg Maddux -1 -1.78 1.97 51 52 827
22 Paul Maholm -4 -1.14 0.37 41 41 796
23 Wandy Rodriguez -6 0.69 0.16 51 52 790
24 Jason Marquis -11 -2.10 -.01 62 64 976
25 Jeff Suppan -21 -1.94 0.10 53 55 930.1
T26 Braden Looper -30 -2.22 0.83 45 49 701.1
T26 Ian Snell -30 0.68 -.55 36 42 681
28 David Bush -42 -.40 1.25 36 42 695.2
29 Oliver Perez -53 1.67 -1.85 33 44 652.2
30 Livan Hernandez -58 -1.91 0.13 44 56 890.2

Spring~Fields
04-10-2010, 11:27 AM
You aren't making any "enemies" here. People just don't like your argument. I don't think you "offended" anyone, your argument just struck them as incorrect. If you believe in your argument, use facts that back it up. That's the essence of a good discussion.

I am a little confused, perhaps you can straighten me out. "Let's hope so".

What is the definition of “facts” that we will be using ? As perception of what is a “fact” can be flawed. Especially if one is prone to the use of faulty perceptual labeling or implied faulty judgments, that readily makes use of such terms as “absolutely”, “rant”, or “irrational” to describe our supposition or presumptions of the facts or another individual. Which has the essence of all or nothing thinking attached to such terms, which is known to be flawed and wrong.

Are these the definition of facts?
1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened

2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something

3. piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth

Shall we require the use of facts from ourselves first, and will there be consistency in our use of these “facts”?

“something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened “

Vs.

“as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something” evidenced by the use of such terms as “absolutely”, “rant” or “irrational”. Obviously in such cases an opinion is not fact. Yet some of us who demand facts from other’s likes to toss around such terms rather loosely and recklessly. Thus I am confused, by the meaning of the author, in this case that is asking for "facts".



2009 Cincinnati Reds Actual
NAME GP AB OBP SLG OPS
Batting #1 162 696 .302 .348 .650
Batting #2 162 646 .302 .359 .661
Batting #3 162 620 .383 .519 .903
Batting #4 162 637 .326 .440 .765
Batting #5 162 599 .339 .431 .770
Batting #6 162 596 .321 .418 .739
Batting #7 162 590 .328 .437 .765
Batting #8 162 552 .308 .290 .598
Batting #9 162 526 .233 .289 .522


As cf 162 688 .298 .352 .650
As ss 162 612 .294 .342 .636
As 1b 162 608 .389 .507 .895
As 2b 162 634 .329 .451 .780
As 3b 162 587 .320 .346 .666
As lf 162 617 .302 .418 .721
As rf 162 617 .329 .488 .816
As c 162 552 .340 .332 .671
As p 162 299 .159 .194 .353

vs. Left 119 1346 .324 .398 .722
vs. Right 162 4116 .316 .393 .708


One could and does call these above, facts.

_Sir_Charles_
04-10-2010, 11:35 AM
I mentioned it on opening day...but I believe the Reds success will be wrapped up in Bailey/Cueto/Chapman/Volquez et al.

We know Harang hasn't compared to other teams #1 for wins.

At this point, Arroyo as a #2 is a bit below average. (but could be a major factor)

The bottom 3 of our rotation stack up very, very well as far as stuff and ability with any team, especially the Central. If they can pitch within themselves....what Harang does will only be gravy.

I agree with this for the most part. But the Arroyo as a below average #2? Considering what we've seen since the ASB last year...I'm not sure I agree with that. I know he's been on again/off again in each half the last few years, but I don't recall a stretch as dominant as he's been recently. I'd put him in the average to above average #2.

Hoosier Red
04-10-2010, 11:38 AM
...sigh

Facts are what they are. Some will help your argument. Some will take away from your argument.

For instance the fact that Harang's K's, BB, and HR numbers have gotten worse over the past three years seems to add credence to Redsfan320's arguments.

The facts WoY put up chip away at the argument.

The facts for and against an argument and the relative weight you put on them determines your opinion on the matter.

An argument in my mind is irrational if it is stated as fact even though the preponderance of facts goes against it.

Not sure what is so difficult to understand.

VR
04-10-2010, 11:38 AM
I agree with this for the most part. But the Arroyo as a below average #2? Considering what we've seen since the ASB last year...I'm not sure I agree with that. I know he's been on again/off again in each half the last few years, but I don't recall a stretch as dominant as he's been recently. I'd put him in the average to above average #2.

Just trying to not be overy optimistic about Arroyo's potential this year....but noted optimism with the major factor comment. It would be nice to have it be 'his year'...and be 20-5 type pitcher.

He's shown his ability to shut down any team or player when he's on. Maybe this is the year is pulls it together for the full course of the season.

_Sir_Charles_
04-10-2010, 11:46 AM
Just trying to not be overy optimistic about Arroyo's potential this year....but noted optimism with the major factor comment. It would be nice to have it be 'his year'...and be 20-5 type pitcher.

He's shown his ability to shut down any team or player when he's on. Maybe this is the year is pulls it together for the full course of the season.

Gotcha.

Spring~Fields
04-10-2010, 11:52 AM
...sigh

Facts are what they are. Some will help your argument. Some will take away from your argument.

For instance the fact that Harang's K's, BB, and HR numbers have gotten worse over the past three years seems to add credence to Redsfan320's arguments.

The facts WoY put up chip away at the argument.

The facts for and against an argument and the relative weight you put on them determines your opinion on the matter.

An argument in my mind is irrational if it is stated as fact even though the preponderance of facts goes against it.

Not sure what is so difficult to understand.

Any opinion is argumentative.

What if in the case of their opinion or argument they use what is readily recognized as flawed and descriptive terms, basically in the very beginning of their argument?

Is their premise and body of work not considered to be wrong, flawed or in error?

Is there any need to go any further when they use such flawed and erroneous terms? To support what they call their facts or arguments?

_Sir_Charles_
04-10-2010, 11:55 AM
So...is this a 5 minute argument, or the full half hour?

yes it is.

No it isn't

Yes it is.

Gotta love Monty Python. :O)

westofyou
04-10-2010, 11:55 AM
Sidebar the second meme and focus on the Harang argument please.

nate
04-10-2010, 02:04 PM
I'm makin' a lot of enemies early here... maybe Harang is still useful, it just seems like he has trouble winning. Maybe that's just run support, but he is wearing out.

I think this is why you're getting friction. He has trouble accumulating pitching wins because the rest of the team has trouble scoring runs. Just like the entire Reds team has trouble winning games, because they don't score more runs than they allow.

Blitz Dorsey
04-10-2010, 02:36 PM
A lead never feels safe with Harang on the mound, I will say that.

RedsManRick
04-10-2010, 03:09 PM
I think this is why you're getting friction. He has trouble accumulating pitching wins because the rest of the team has trouble scoring runs. Just like the entire Reds team has trouble winning games, because they don't score more runs than they allow.

To emphasize the point, here's Harang's run support over the last 4 years, compared to Arroyo:


Harang 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total
GS 35 34 29 26 124
0-2 R 26% 21% 38% 46% 31%
3-5 R 37% 38% 48% 35% 40%
6+ R 37% 41% 14% 19% 29%
AVG 4.8 5.3 3.5 3.4 4.4


Arroyo 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total
GS 35 34 34 33 136
0-2 R 26% 44% 24% 36% 32%
3-5 R 43% 29% 29% 42% 36%
6+ R 31% 26% 47% 21% 32%
AVG 4.5 4.0 5.1 3.7 4.3

fearofpopvol1
04-10-2010, 03:17 PM
For what it's worth, since the original poster claimed Zambrano was much better than Harang, the 2 went head to head today and here were the final lines...

Harang: 7 IP, 4 H, 3 ER, 0 BB, 7K, 2 HR
Zambrano: 7 IP, 6 H, 3ER, 2 BB, 9K, 1 HR

I don't know about anyone else, but those stats aren't night and day different. Zambrano walked more and gave up more hits, but he did K more and gave up 1 less home run. It's pretty close to being even.

RedsManRick
04-10-2010, 03:29 PM
And it's another quality start without the run support to get him a win today.

OnBaseMachine
04-10-2010, 03:39 PM
Harang turned in a solid start today but I was disappointed to see him blow a 3-0 lead. With the way he pitched those first three innings, I thought the Reds had that game wrapped up. Unfortunately, the HR ball killed Harang. The offense was to blame too.

Redsfan320
04-10-2010, 03:49 PM
RMR, I don't understand the stats you put up. What I gather from it is that, over the past 4 years, on average, Harang's had 4.4 runs of support per game, and Arroyo's had 4.3. Obviously, that's not right. How should I be reading these?

320

forfreelin04
04-10-2010, 03:53 PM
RMR, I don't understand the stats you put up. What I gather from it is that, over the past 4 years, on average, Harang's had 4.4 runs of support per game, and Arroyo's had 4.3. Obviously, that's not right. How should I be reading these?

320

I think the point Rick is trying to make is Harang was more prone to getting 0-2 run support. Nearly 50% of the time in 2009, the Reds only scored 0-2 runs for Harang while Bronson is much less.

Brutus
04-10-2010, 03:54 PM
RMR, I don't understand the stats you put up. What I gather from it is that, over the past 4 years, on average, Harang's had 4.4 runs of support per game, and Arroyo's had 4.3. Obviously, that's not right. How should I be reading these?

320

Check out the run support for Harang in 2008 and 2009. Less than 3.5 runs per game of run support.

Redsfan320
04-10-2010, 04:01 PM
Okay, I understand the stats now. Thanks for the help, ff04 and BtP. Harang certainly had very little run support the last couple years.

320

Spring~Fields
04-10-2010, 04:02 PM
And it's another quality start without the run support to get him a win today.

Can I gleam from your charts that just one or two more runs might make a big difference?

RedsManRick
04-10-2010, 04:13 PM
RMR, I don't understand the stats you put up. What I gather from it is that, over the past 4 years, on average, Harang's had 4.4 runs of support per game, and Arroyo's had 4.3. Obviously, that's not right. How should I be reading these?

320

That's right. But what's notable is not the 4 year average -- that's to be expected. As the sample size increases, observations regress to the mean. What we're really curious about is why Harang's W-L record has been so abysmal the last two years.

So let's look at the year by year totals. The last two years, Harang's win/loss record has been very poor. Coincidence that he received just 3.5 & 3.4 runs per game of support? Of course not.

It's important to do this type of analysis at the game level if you want to understand W/L records -- which are determined at the game level. It's much more advantageous to get 6 runs of support in each of 3 games than 18 runs of support in 1 game and 0 in the other two. Overall run support can give you a decent picture, but distribution matters as well.

The Reds gave Harang 2 or fewer runs of support 42% of the time the last two years. They gave him 6+ runs just 16% of the time. That's a 2.56:1 ratio. Arroyo meanwhile saw 30% and 34% respective, a 0.87:1 ratio. Want to know why their records were so different -- there's a VERY big part of the reason why.

Put more simply: over the last two years, Arroyo had a few more games where he got great support than games where he got poor support. Harang, meanwhile, had 2.5 times as many games with poor support as great support.

FWIW, the same works the other way too. You could have two pitchers with 4.00 ERAs but with different game distributions, one flat and wildly variable. The way those runs are distributed across their starts will impact how often they put their teams in position to win games.

kaldaniels
04-10-2010, 04:23 PM
320...it boils down to this. In this black and white world, there are various shades of gray in this debate. However, "Harang has no stuff and should retire" is not one of them. Period.

forfreelin04
04-10-2010, 04:25 PM
That's right. But what's notable is not the 4 year average -- that's to be expected. As the sample size increases, observations regress to the mean. What we're really curious about is why Harang's W-L record has been so abysmal the last two years.

So let's look at the year by year totals. The last two years, Harang's win/loss record has been very poor. Coincidence that he received just 3.5 & 3.4 runs per game of support? Of course not.

It's important to do this type of analysis at the game level if you want to understand W/L records -- which are determined at the game level. It's much more advantageous to get 6 runs of support in each of 3 games than 18 runs of support in 1 game and 0 in the other two. Overall run support can give you a decent picture, but distribution matters as well.

The Reds gave Harang 2 or fewer runs of support 42% of the time the last two years. They gave him 6+ runs just 16% of the time. That's a 2.56:1 ratio. Arroyo meanwhile saw 30% and 34% respective, a 0.87 ratio. Want to know why their records were so different -- there's a VERY big part of the reason why.

Put more simply: over the last two years, Arroyo had a few more games where he got great support than games where he got poor support. Harang, meanwhile, had 2.5 times as many games with poor support as great support.

FWIW, the same works the other way too. You could have two pitchers with 4.00 ERAs but with different game distributions, one flat and wild variable. The way those runs are distributed across their starts will impact how often they put their teams in position to win games.


Great analysis Rick. Thanks for sharing.

bucksfan2
04-11-2010, 06:28 PM
I think its C. Trent who says it but Harang gets Carson Palmer treatment in this city. He often doesn't get much criticism in this city and often doesn't take much blame for a poor performance.

To be honest Harang is a nice pitcher to have in any rotation. He does valuable things in eating up innings while posting a solid ERA. I think the issue arises when you start to look at the other pitchers in the rotation. He doesn't have the stuff that Bailey and Cueto have and Arroyo is a better pitcher. You also have pitchers in Leake, Volquez, and Chapman coming on strong with much better potential and much younger.

For Harang to be successful he needs to find a way to win games. He needs to hold on too 3 run leads. He can't give up home runs to Fukudome and Soriano. He can't give up runs on bad pick off throws. I heard an interview with a Cards player on Opening Day say that Carpenter may not have had his best stuff but he found a way to win. Harang needs to do that, find a way to win.