PDA

View Full Version : realistically what can Walt/Dusty do right now



Will M
04-25-2010, 01:42 AM
The team is playing very poorly. Some of us would like to DFA about half the team. I have been thinking about ways Walt/Dusty could improve things. Sadly, there are not a lot of moves we can make right now.

1. the pen outside of Masset & Ondrusek has been fine. Ondrusek has already been replaced by Fisher. the only question here is what to do with Nick. obviously he doesn't pitch in high leverage situations until he gets straightened out. if he has options left he could go to AAA. the only guy i see on the AAA roster who might take his place is LeCure. he has been a starter in the minors but is behind a lot of guys talentwise in the organization so i expect him to be a reliever in the bigs (if he has a big league career at all).

2. Maloney pitched ok at the end of 2009 & ok this spring. he had 3 great starts in AAA. however, he just went on the dl for a blister problem. Wood's issue this spring was walks. he has 7 in 18 IP in AAA. it doesn't seem like he is ready. We all want Chapman here as soon as he is ready but from what i have read he could use more time in AAA. that means our options are to stick with the five starters we have or maybe move Owings back to the rotation. i am against this move as he wasn't that great there in 2009 & he seems to be a decent pitcher out of the pen. so overall there is no great solution to the biggest issue the team has (starting pitching). we have to go with what we have until Maloney gets healthy and/or Wood & Chapman are ready. at that point if certain guys are still pitching terribly heads will roll.

3. two painfully obvious position moves are to give Hanigan & Janish more playing time. Dusty doesn't have to annoint them the starters full time but these two guys are much better defensively than Hernandez/Cabrera and for now are also outhitting them.

the Reds could give Nix some PT vs right handed starters. i doubt that this move is going to make or break the season.

down on the farm Frazier, Heisey, Francisco look more like AA players than big league players. Alonso is OPSing ~.830 in AA and also learning a new position. so much for our top prospects.

the only guys playing well in AAA are Valaika (OPS 913) & Dorn (OPS 908).
Valaika had such a terrible 2009 I would think at least a half season of AAA is in order before any thought of a big league promotion. Dorn OPSed .793 in AAA last year. In his case also I would think half a year of AAA would be in order before considering a callup. bottom line: no immediate help on the farm.

so we are playing terrible & have the following realistic moves we can make:
1. more playing time to Janish & Hanigan
2. move Masset out of the 8th inning.
3. develop lots & lots of patience & reevaluate at the mid point of the season

Spring~Fields
04-25-2010, 02:21 AM
Sometimes the plans, directions, and approaches have to be modified along with the philosophies and theories to move through or around the obstacles and barriers that are goal blocking.

They'll have to find the answers.

dougdirt
04-25-2010, 02:40 AM
First and foremost, you have to stop batting the center fielder lead off. I don't care who is starting there, whether its Stubbs or Dickerson, neither guy should bat higher than 7th or 8th right now. Put Scott Rolen directly in front of, or directly behind Joey Votto. Someone needs to be on base for the other guy. Get Janish in the game more. He most certainly won't keep hitting like he has, but the defensive difference between him and Cabrera is enough to overcome the offense and I feel pretty confident in that. Cabrera has lost two or three steps from what he once was and what he once was was a step worse than what Janish is. That is going to help the pitchers some. Maybe they then become a little more pitch efficient because grounders actually stop on the infield rather than go to Stubbs/Dickerson in CF. I would stick tough with the bullpen and rotation for now.

REDblooded
04-25-2010, 02:56 AM
You forgot to mention that Phillips should be hitting somewhere between where you suggested Dickerson/Cabrera hit, and where the pitcher hits... Unless the pitcher is Leake. Then you hit him behind the pitcher.

thatcoolguy_22
04-25-2010, 05:56 AM
Show patience.

The only thing that will make this team legitimately better is for everyone (excluding a couple) to stop playing below their floors. Everyone will gradually trend back to their norm. The youth will take the majority of the year until they are up and Harang/Arroyo need to work with Price (or maybe call Pole) and fix whatever is wrong with them. Bruce has been mashing everything but continues to be one of the most unlucky hitters in the league. Janish over Cabrera just for the sake of the pitchers (we might see a pitcher throw his 100th pitch in the 7th or 8th instead of the 4th and 5th).

Big time trades? Not likely. Even if we had the pieces to make a move for almost anyone of note, it would not be enough. Anyone the Reds trade for right now not named Felix, Albert, or Hanley will only be a marginal upgrade and add next to nothing for the seasons win/loss total.

My vote- Wait until the beginning of June and reevaluate. Decide what to do with Arroyo/Harang, decide if they are Buyers or Sellers, and act accordingly. Bring up youth if they are sellers trade youth if they are buyers.

My .02

GAC
04-25-2010, 07:19 AM
Janish or Cabrera? Gee, what a choice! LOL

Cabrera is "sore", so I have no problem short-term with putting Janish out there. Yes, Paul is better defensively, but does anyone think that is going to give THIS pitching staff a better edge?

This staff's DIP% is 78 (2nd worst in the NL). This is the same staff that has been basically getting shelled for 18 games, has a -30 differential, given up 105 ERs (2nd worst in the NL), issued 72 BBs and 23 HRs (3rd worst), and where the opposition has a .367 OB%, slugging .438, and OPSing at .806.

Janish may be better defensively at SS, but lets not forget his career offensive numbers (136 games, 349 ABs).... .215 BA .299 OB% .315 SLG% .614 OPS

I'm not the biggest fan of Cabrera, but his career numbers are..... .275 BA .321 OB% .398 SLG% .719 OPS

His numbers this year are slightly below that, but it is still quite early. But he is leading this team, so far, in RBIs, and is 2nd in hits with 16.

They aren't going to bench a Cabrera, whom they just signed, and are paying 4M. That makes the GM look like he made a bad decision. Ain't gonna happen.

It's the same logic as to why they will keep running Harang out there. Dusty even alluded to that after his last start - "we're paying this guy 12M to be a starter"

We've played 18 games and are still in April, the first month of the season. We're 7-11 and only 3.5 games out of 1st place. This management, at this early stage of the season, is not going to do anything drastic.

They really don't have anything in the system to get drastic with. And teams don't make trades in April.

So sit back and fasten your seatbelt for the next couple of months. ;)

mth123
04-25-2010, 07:22 AM
I think the rotation needs to get out of its funk. While I'm generally concerned about the offense and think it will be the on-going problem, I think I'd go with the best defensive team possible for a while and see if they can help the rotation to a few good starts. Once those guys regain a little confidence, I think they'll bounce back and getting the rotation on track has to be priority number 1 at this point. The line-up would be awful, but

Dickerson LF
Rolen 3B
Votto 1B
Bruce RF
Phillips 2B
Hanigan C
Stubbs CF
Janish SS

Hernandez, Cairo, Cabrera, Gomes and Nix may be the veteran presence bench of Dusty's dreams.

GAC
04-25-2010, 07:24 AM
Defense doesn't get their butts picked off base or make base running blunders. :D

mth123
04-25-2010, 07:41 AM
Defense doesn't get their butts picked off base or make base running blunders. :D

Nope, but the position players will be less than ideal all season no matter who he runs out there, The Rotation can be better though and I'd like to see them get straightened out and start pitching well. Harang and Arroyo for the sake of the return at the deadline and Cueto, Bailey and Leake for the sake of the future. Hernandez vs. Hanigan or Cabrera vs. Janish really won't matter much from the position player side. With the exception of Hanigan being a 50 to 60 start per year second catcher, I really don't see those guys having much of a role in 2011.

thatcoolguy_22
04-25-2010, 08:29 AM
Janish may be better defensively at SS, but lets not forget his career offensive numbers (136 games, 349 ABs).... .215 BA .299 OB% .315 SLG% .614 OPS

I'm not the biggest fan of Cabrera, but his career numbers are..... .275 BA .321 OB% .398 SLG% .719 OPS



The career numbers paint a very vivid picture, but career numbers of a 35 year old SS on the way out mean very little. Just as Janish's numbers don't show exactly where he is in progression. PJ hit 21 2B is just under 300 PA last year, meaning he is still coming into his own at 27 years old.

I think taking Janish over Cabrera only slightly improves the team overall, but every fraction of an improvement over 162 adds up.

Ltlabner
04-25-2010, 08:48 AM
Baring some radical DFA's and a major infusion of cash, neither of which are likely or practical, nothing.

This is the team they built and the team they'll ride for the foreseeable future.

GAC
04-25-2010, 08:58 AM
Just as Janish's numbers don't show exactly where he is in progression. PJ hit 21 2B is just under 300 PA last year, meaning he is still coming into his own at 27 years old.

Players who are going to show something are going to start showing it before they turn 27 years old.

And you look at Janish's offensive numbers at Chattanooga and Louisville (2007, 2008), and they aren't anything to crow about.

thatcoolguy_22
04-25-2010, 10:49 AM
Janish would not be the first to develop into an everyday major league player that was 27 or older. Janish K% dropped, BB% climbed, ISO went up, and his BABIP was only at .247 despite his 18.8% LD% (18.6 for OCAB, 13.0 for Bruce)

Janish's glove is far superior to Cabrera at this stage of their careers and PJ actually has upside (plus a 72.0 UZR/150 :cool:)

TheNext44
04-25-2010, 11:13 AM
Baring some radical DFA's and a major infusion of cash, neither of which are likely or practical, nothing.

This is the team they built and the team they'll ride for the foreseeable future.

Exactly. It's not like this team was built to go to the World Series this year. No need to over react and do something short term, especially when this years team really is just another step in a long term plan to rebuild ans strenghen the organization.

membengal
04-25-2010, 11:39 AM
What I said in the other thread. It's realistic.

_Sir_Charles_
04-25-2010, 11:50 AM
Concerning Ocab & Janish...I'll agree that there's no way Janish continues to hit like he is so far. But to post OCab's career numbers as a reference for this season is beyond foolish in my opinion. He's far past his prime and his numbers will only trend downward. He may go on a hitting streak to get his numbers close, but that's only a part of the equation. His defense is indefensible. Plain and simple. The only way I'm allowing him to play short is if he's hitting .350 and leading the team in doubles & HR's. It would take a monstrous offensive season from Cabrera to overcome his defensive shortcomings. I can't overstate that one enough. Paul may, I say MAY, hit less than Cabrera but the net result of the two ballplayers favors Janish by a rather LONG margin.

*tosses a couple of pennies into the fray*

GAC
04-25-2010, 12:52 PM
But to post OCab's career numbers as a reference for this season is beyond foolish in my opinion.

Foolish? Really? First off... I wasn't posting his career numbers as a reference for what he'd do this season; but in a comparison to Janish.


He's far past his prime and his numbers will only trend downward.

Take a look at his numbers over the last few years and up to last year...

http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=3739

Where is this huge drop off at as he's gotten older? If the guy comes anywhere close to his career numbers it will put Janish to shame. That is all I'm saying.

And again - I don't say this as some huge defender of Cabrera. Only that when it comes to offense, I'll take Cabrera over Janish. Janish has his "spurts", and that's about it.

Check out this article in Redleg Nation on Cabrera and Janish.....http://redlegnation.com/2010/03/08/orlando-cabrera-and-championship-shortstops/

Good stuff IMO. But the below paragraphs really stuck out to me because it presents this paradox we are facing between the two. But if they had addressed other areas, spent the money, we could have lived with Janish at SS.


For the record, I don’t think the Cabrera signing is the end of the world; I don’t think the Reds are really ready to compete just yet, so Cabrera could be a bridge to the future. What concerns me is where are the replacements? Zack Cozart is a good field, no-hit guy who should be in AAA this year. In AA behind Cozart is Kris Negron (acquired for AGon), but Negron is not listed on anyone’s prospect list. During the winter, the Reds were trumpeting their minor league shortstop prospects, but they’re buried pretty well deep in the minors. Miguel Rojas is yet another “good field, no hit” player; Mariekson Gregorius may be the opposite (good hit, no field); and young athletic Billy Hamilton may actually be a centerfielder by trade. How long had we known that Larkin was going to retire? And, isn’t filling this position rather important to the team’s future?

Maybe I’m spoiled and want too much. The Reds have had sixty years of quality shortstop play in Barry Larkin, Dave Concepcion, Leo Cardenas, Roy McMillan, and Eddie Miller. If we had one more real outfield stick we could play Janish at shortstop and let his defense talk. But since our offense is now so poor, we sign a shortstop that seems to be offensive-minded but really isn’t and, what’s worse, is the exact type of hitter our manager doesn’t need to have. Dusty Baker will bat him second and Cabrera will make outs. Cabrera doesn’t make out the lineup card, but Dusty should never have been batting AGon or Janish second last year either.

One thing’s clear to me…as long as our current shortstops are batting second, we won’t be clogging the bases for our best hitters like Joey Votto. But, isn’t that what top of the order hitters are supposed to do?

Someone tell this front office, and especially Baker, that!

nate
04-25-2010, 01:07 PM
Where is this huge drop off at as he's gotten older?

Mainly in his walk rate. It's odd because it was around 6% a couple years ago and then dropped to 4%-ish the past couple years. His BA remained the same but the loss in walks caused his OBP to go from "OK" to below average.

What...does the guy need Lasik or something?

:cool:

GAC
04-25-2010, 01:17 PM
Mainly in his walk rate. It's odd because it was around 6% a couple years ago and then dropped to 4%-ish the past couple years. His BA remained the same but the loss in walks caused his OBP to go from "OK" to below average.

What...does the guy need Lasik or something?

:cool:

His OB% is still 9 points higher then Phillips! Yeah, I know, that ain't saying much :p:

The guy's an out machine; but so are many in this lineup (this year and last).

But IMO, it shows a "pattern" of this FO when it comes to evaluating players/talent. We have a FO, and a manager, who are very "old school", traditional minded, and even scoff at a lot of statistical analysis.

Look at the logic they are using when it comes to acquiring players. They'll ignore the "telling" numbers shown in the article that are very important and relevant; but sign a guy because he doesn't miss games (durability), "gets the bat on the ball", has clubhouse leadership, or possesses speed! Geez!

Either that, or they're just plain ignorant.

nate
04-25-2010, 01:21 PM
His OB% is still 9 points higher then Phillips! Yeah, I know, that ain't saying much :p:

The guy's an out machine; but so are many in this lineup (this year and last).

But IMO, it shows a "pattern" of this FO when it comes to evaluating players/talent. We have a FO, and a manager, who are very "old school", traditional minded, and even scoff at a lot of statistical analysis.

Either that, or they're just plain ignorant.

Right. I'm just saying that a few years ago, he wasn't an out machine, he was middling in that regard. I always though guys developed _more_ discipline as they got older but he's gone backward. His bat has stayed the same though. However, even a shiny .280 BA can't make him a non-out machine.

It seems a bit odd to me.

GAC
04-25-2010, 01:25 PM
It seems a bit odd to me.

It's odd to a lot of us buddy. Except to those driving the car.

The main reason that Jocketty is gone from St Louis was because he was old school and resistant to change. That's why he'll fit right in in Cincy! :p:

Will M
04-25-2010, 02:34 PM
I think the rotation needs to get out of its funk. While I'm generally concerned about the offense and think it will be the on-going problem, I think I'd go with the best defensive team possible for a while and see if they can help the rotation to a few good starts. Once those guys regain a little confidence, I think they'll bounce back and getting the rotation on track has to be priority number 1 at this point. The line-up would be awful, but

Dickerson LF
Rolen 3B
Votto 1B
Bruce RF
Phillips 2B
Hanigan C
Stubbs CF
Janish SS

Hernandez, Cairo, Cabrera, Gomes and Nix may be the veteran presence bench of Dusty's dreams.

i like this idea as well. start with defense. hope the pitching improves with less balls hit to SS/LF falling in.

since the guys being benched for better defense aren't exactly tearing the cover off the ball, the team doesn't lose much offensively.

the team that played well late last year with Hanigan, Janish & Stubbs playing regularilly.

Spring~Fields
04-25-2010, 02:41 PM
His OB% is still 9 points higher then Phillips! Yeah, I know, that ain't saying much :p:

The guy's an out machine; but so are many in this lineup (this year and last).

But IMO, it shows a "pattern" of this FO when it comes to evaluating players/talent. We have a FO, and a manager, who are very "old school", traditional minded, and even scoff at a lot of statistical analysis.

Look at the logic they are using when it comes to acquiring players. They'll ignore the "telling" numbers shown in the article that are very important and relevant; but sign a guy because he doesn't miss games (durability), "gets the bat on the ball", has clubhouse leadership, or possesses speed! Geez!

Either that, or they're just plain ignorant.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

How would you like to have that think tank and mind set handle your pitching too?

_Sir_Charles_
04-25-2010, 05:21 PM
Foolish? Really? First off... I wasn't posting his career numbers as a reference for what he'd do this season; but in a comparison to Janish.

My apologies. Foolish was far too harsh of a word there. I just was trying to point out that Janish seems to be improving while Cabrera is worsening. Pointing back towards his better years isn't taking into account his current trends. But regardless, my point still stands. As a whole, offense and defense combined, Janish is the much better bet at this stage. It's not a knock on Orlando's bat...it's just pointing out just how BAD his defense has gotten. He'd have to have a career year at the plate to overcome his current state of defensive prowess.

GAC
04-26-2010, 06:12 AM
No apologies needed Sir_Charles. I know where you were coming from, and I'm not in total disagreement. That article I posted from Redleg Nation, IMO, gives a glimpse in the reasoning of this FO as to why they signed Cabrera. I don't agree with that reasoning, but it seems to be a pattern from this FO.

They seem to ignore really important tangibles on players that should send out warning signs, while getting goo-goo over stuff like the article emphasized....

- a two-time Gold Glover and finished 15th in the American League Most Valuable Player voting as recently as 2007
- Cabrera gets the bat on the ball, rarely strikes out, has doubles “power” (ahem, doubles power?), can sacrifice bunt, and even hits sacrifice flies (led the AL in three of the last four seasons—Marty Brennaman would be proud).
- he seems to never miss a game after having played 153, 155, 161, and 160 games over the last four seasons at ages 31-34.

BUT..... (and this is what is important and SHOULD easily override the above)

- Cabrera averaged making three outs per game. I don’t care that he gets the bat on the ball.
- He’s led the American League in outs made the past two seasons (512 and 509), and even finished third in outs made in his big 2007 year.
- he was fourth in the American League in double plays grounded into last year (22)
- He, like Alex Gonzalez before him, comes with a good glove reputation. But, like AGon before him, I believe we’ve missed the boat on Cabrera’s glove.
- According to Bill James’s 2010 Handbook, Cabrera was dead last in defensive performance in shortstop. The matrix used by James shows that Cabrera allowed 33 runs more to score than the average shortstop. That wasn’t just last; it was last by a lot.
- Baseball Prospectus’s new book says that Cabrera allowed 13 more runs to score than the average shortstop while playing only 99 games in Oakland (BP says he was dead on average while with Minnesota for a yearly total of -13). And, before someone throws up the one season of defensive metrics don’t mean anything flag, James’s studies show that Cabrera is fourth from the bottom for the past three years, too, and that includes his Gold Glove year of 2007.

So who cares that the guy is durable. That just means he's out on that field accomplishing the above.

Several made the point last year that if this FO would spend the money and fill a couple of our needs with established offensive talent we could "absorb" a Janish at SS because he is that good defensively.

This FO's answer was to go on the cheap. That's why we're seeing either Gomes, Nix, or Dickerson in LF, and why Stubbs is in CF. Now obviously, from a defensive standpoint, Stubbs is an improvement in CF over WT. But can Stubbs consistently hit at the ML level? That is yet to be seen.

But all that doesn't matter to these FO boys. To them, the real advantage is - "Lets give it a shot. If anything we're saving ourselves a boatload of money."

Spring~Fields
04-26-2010, 12:02 PM
Several made the point last year that if this FO would spend the money and fill a couple of our needs with established offensive talent we could "absorb" a Janish at SS because he is that good defensively.

This FO's answer was to go on the cheap. That's why we're seeing either Gomes, Nix, or Dickerson in LF, and why Stubbs is in CF. Now obviously, from a defensive standpoint, Stubbs is an improvement in CF over WT. But can Stubbs consistently hit at the ML level? That is yet to be seen.

But all that doesn't matter to these FO boys. To them, the real advantage is - "Lets give it a shot. If anything we're saving ourselves a boatload of money."

Is there anything from each season of the past ten seasons that is objective, strongly indicating that will be changing in any one of the next three to five years? While the rest of the major league teams go about business as usual?

Or will it simply be more pep rally’s through press conferences and the rally cry of young while bargain basement aging and declining experienced players are filtered in a side door of even cheaper rationalization?

I can’t imagine them going with a house full of their cream of the crop’s like Stubbs, Dickerson, Bruce, Janish, Ondrusek, Cueto and Bailey, cream of the crops that don’t seem to rise to the top or up to the challenge with any consistency. Perhaps there will be a stir and temporal excitement over potential pay flex, only to see the Reds purchase the major league hand me downs and castoffs coming to the end of their pitching and hitting careers, that might be left available after the coastal and large city vultures have fed?

How long can the Cincinnati Reds continue to peddle hope deferred?

Something about 1991 - 2010 says a very, very long time.

flyer85
04-26-2010, 12:09 PM
play the young guys. There is no upside with the old guys

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 12:13 PM
play the young guys. There is no upside with the old guys

Where do you draw the line between young and old, though? Can you imagine this team without the contributions of Rhodes (40), Rolen (35), and Cordero (35)? We'd likely be sitting on 2-3 wins right now at best (cf. Baltimore Orioles).

The sentiment's nice, but it seldom plays out very cleanly in reality. In fact, the opposite argument could be made with much greater weight.

bucksfan2
04-26-2010, 12:36 PM
Another bad week or two to and I think Dusty will be on shaky ground. I don't think its any stretch of the imagination to think that Bob thought that contention was in the cards this season. I don't think he thought he could run away and hide in the NL Central but I think he thought like most fans that if things went right they could contend for the Central and a WC spot. Unfortunately the Reds have played some seriously bad baseball to start the season. The pitching, which was thought to be a strength, has been awful. Guys under Dusty's control have been regressing or not developing. Here are some causes for concerns for me.

Phillips - He has been regressing under Dusty. He isn't a 4 hole hitter and his weaknesses and strengths have been clearly pointed out. Unfortunately for BP he focuses more on being who he isn't instead of who he is. In BP's first season as a Red he was 25 for 27 on stolen base tries. Each season he has been regressing and this season he is 1 for 4. I point this out because I think its mental errors and trying to make too much of the situation. BP just isn't a smart baseball player at times and Dusty has done everything to facilitate that.

Cueto - Anyone remember his first start as a Red? So far that has been the pinnacle of his career as a Red. The development just hasn't been seen this season. He is nibbling more than ever, falling off the mound to 1b, not doing things to be successful as a pitcher. The problem with Cueto is he fails to do a lot of basic things.

CF position - There is no question that both Stubbs and Dickerson have been struggling. But to keep hitting them leadoff? You drop Stubbs down to the 7 hole and he has success and then you move him right back up into the leadoff role. Doesn't make any sense to me. I think its fairly evident that Stubbs is doing a good job of being patient at the plate, but it is effecting his production. He is taking a lot of hittable pitches in order to work the count. At some point an edict from the FO has to come down about Drew in the leadoff slot. I just don't understand why for most every other player he makes them earn a spot in the lineup, but not the SS or CF.

As for what can be done right now, I don't know. Alonso to LF makes sense, but he isn't ready. They could try to trade BP, Arroyo, or Harang but who would want them right now. No CF candidate in the minors is tearing it up so it looks like its Stubbs and Dickerson for the time being. You could move Champan into the rotation but I think he still needs time to develop. Can you find a spot for Frazier to play? There really aren't any solutions as of right now which I think means more and more pressure on Dusty.

RedsManRick
04-26-2010, 12:42 PM
Where do you draw the line between young and old, though? Can you imagine this team without the contributions of Rhodes (40), Rolen (35), and Cordero (35)? We'd likely be sitting on 2-3 wins right now at best (cf. Baltimore Orioles).

The sentiment's nice, but it seldom plays out very cleanly in reality. In fact, the opposite argument could be made with much greater weight.

I think the nuanced version of that is: when the expected current production is roughly the same, play the young guys. It's the "give Maloney the start, not Lehr" argument. For me, that argument applies to Hanigan/Hernandez and Janish/Cabrera. I just don't believe that the supposed offensive advantage the older guys provide truly eclipses the defensive advantages the younger guys bring.

I'd be using Cabrera when we have a flyball pitcher on the mound or are playing in a park with a particularly slow IF. I'd be using Hernandez to catch to catch Cueto and one other time a week if a given pitcher expresses a preference.

I'd also start playing Stubbs and Dickerson nearly every day, only swapping Gomes in for Dickerson against particularly tough lefties. At least when those two aren't hitting, they're playing solid defense. When Gomes doesn't hit, he's a massive negative. If Stubbs hasn't shown an adjustment to those breaking pitches low in the zone by June 1 or so, then I'd consider sending him to AAA to explicitly work on the contact issues. Either way, I want him playing every single day.

This would give us similar overall production on average during the course of the game, but much better options of the bench for PH purposes. By nature of the game, offensive can be better utilized in targeted ways off the bench than defense can.

Really, this is what frustrates me about Dusty. This is a team that needs to find ways to eke out every possible drop of production from it's talent. Along with lineup order, these sorts of things are admittedly at the margin. But when your team has 85 win upside, nailing the margins is your only hope. Instead, we have a manager who's incapable of good marginal decision making and whose primary skill is ego management; just terribly helpful for a team with a lot of great character guys and just one ego problem.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 12:47 PM
I think the nuanced version of that is: when the expected current production is roughly the same, play the young guys. It's the "give Maloney the start, not Lehr" argument. For me, that argument applies to Hanigan/Hernandez and Janish/Cabrera. I just don't believe that the supposed offensive advantage the older guys provide truly eclipses the defensive advantages the younger guys bring.

I'd be using Cabrera when we have a flyball pitcher on the mound or are playing in a park with a particularly slow IF. I'd be using Hernandez to catch to catch Cueto and one other time a week if a given pitcher expresses a preference. This would give us similar production on average during the course of the game, but much better options of the bench for PH purposes where their offensive edge can be better exploited.

I'd say that's considerably more nuanced. So nuanced that it's an entirely different argument.

I would agree with both of your choices--Janish/Hanigan, and have been supportive of both. And of course, I'd supplant any middling veteran with a youngster that was tearing it up, but that's decidedly not the case right now with this franchise. So, until further notice, play the vets.

nate
04-26-2010, 12:57 PM
I think the nuanced version of that is: when the expected current production is roughly the same, play the young guys. It's the "give Maloney the start, not Lehr" argument. For me, that argument applies to Hanigan/Hernandez and Janish/Cabrera. I just don't believe that the supposed offensive advantage the older guys provide truly eclipses the defensive advantages the younger guys bring.

I'd be using Cabrera when we have a flyball pitcher on the mound or are playing in a park with a particularly slow IF. I'd be using Hernandez to catch to catch Cueto and one other time a week if a given pitcher expresses a preference.

I'd also start playing Stubbs and Dickerson nearly every day, only swapping Gomes in for Dickerson against particularly tough lefties. At least when those two aren't hitting, they're playing solid defense. When Gomes doesn't hit, he's a massive negative. If Stubbs hasn't shown an adjustment to those breaking pitches low in the zone by June 1 or so, then I'd consider sending him to AAA to explicitly work on the contact issues. Either way, I want him playing every single day.

This would give us similar overall production on average during the course of the game, but much better options of the bench for PH purposes. By nature of the game, offensive can be better utilized in targeted ways off the bench than defense can.

Really, this is what frustrates me about Dusty. This is a team that needs to find ways to eke out every possible drop of production from it's talent. Instead, we have a manager who's incapable of #1 skill is ego management on a team with basically 1 guy that has ego issues.

Yep. Well said, Rick.

Just to maybe add to that last bit, even if the production isn't different with the young guys vs. the vets, it's a chance for the players to get some seasoning. If the youngsters fail, you've got "veteran presence" to back them up.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 12:57 PM
I think the nuanced version of that is: when the expected current production is roughly the same, play the young guys. It's the "give Maloney the start, not Lehr" argument. For me, that argument applies to Hanigan/Hernandez and Janish/Cabrera. I just don't believe that the supposed offensive advantage the older guys provide truly eclipses the defensive advantages the younger guys bring.

I'd be using Cabrera when we have a flyball pitcher on the mound or are playing in a park with a particularly slow IF. I'd be using Hernandez to catch to catch Cueto and one other time a week if a given pitcher expresses a preference.

I'd also start playing Stubbs and Dickerson nearly every day, only swapping Gomes in for Dickerson against particularly tough lefties. At least when those two aren't hitting, they're playing solid defense. When Gomes doesn't hit, he's a massive negative. If Stubbs hasn't shown an adjustment to those breaking pitches low in the zone by June 1 or so, then I'd consider sending him to AAA to explicitly work on the contact issues. Either way, I want him playing every single day.

This would give us similar overall production on average during the course of the game, but much better options of the bench for PH purposes. By nature of the game, offensive can be better utilized in targeted ways off the bench than defense can.

Really, this is what frustrates me about Dusty. This is a team that needs to find ways to eke out every possible drop of production from it's talent. Instead, we have a manager who's incapable of #1 skill is ego management on a team with basically 1 guy that has ego issues.

I definitely part ways with you on Gomes/Stubbs. I agree that Dickerson should start every game, lead off and play CF, but Stubbs has done absolutely nothing to justify his number of PA. He has been beyond atrocious. Gomes has shown that, despite his terrible defense, he provides pretty consistent pop. I'd be happy not to see another Stubbs PA the rest of this season. He'd be ticketed for Louisville in my universe.

Preferring Stubbs is just an enormous leap of faith. He's 26 years old. Time for a reckoning.

OnBaseMachine
04-26-2010, 01:03 PM
If I was Dusty, Jonny Gomes and Orlando Cabrera would be pushed to the bench. The Reds pitching staff is struggling to get hitters out right now, so why make it even tougher on them by playing two of the worst defenders in the game at SS and LF? It's not like they're making up for their poor defense with the bat. I know Stubbs/Dickerson are struggling right now but at least they provide value with their defense.

flyer85
04-26-2010, 01:11 PM
Where do you draw the line between young and old, though? it's the old guys who won't likely be around much longer and who have a young guy playing behind them and that the Reds need to find out about. Cabrera, Hernandez and Gomes are not going to help in the future, they need to find out about Dickerson, Stubbs, Hanigan and Janish.

However, I have little doubt that Dusty will stick with the vets.

RedsManRick
04-26-2010, 01:14 PM
it's the old guys who won't likely be around much longer and who have a young guy playing behind them and that the Reds need to find out about. Cabrera, Hernandez and Gomes are not going to help in the future, they need to find out about Dickerson, Stubbs, Hanigan and Janish.

However, I have little doubt that Dusty will stick with the vets.

I think the problem is that Dusty (and I would bet, Reds management in general) believe that those 3 are significantly more productive players than the younger alternatives. Of course, I'd disagree, citing the Reds (assumed) simplistic methods of defensive valuation.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 01:14 PM
it's the old guys who won't likely be around much longer and who have a young guy playing behind them and that the Reds need to find out about. Cabrera, Hernandez and Gomes are not going to help in the future, they need to find out about Dickerson, Stubbs, Hanigan and Janish.

However, I have little doubt that Dusty will stick with the vets.

It's abundantly clear to me what they have in Stubbs. But yeah, I agree about Cabrera and Hernandez. Still my enthusiasm for their replacements isn't sky-high.

HokieRed
04-26-2010, 01:22 PM
I can't see much to justify playing CD in CF every day. Nor Stubbs. One of the hard facts I suspect we're going to face is that we have no CF of the future on this club as now constituted. I'd likely play Gomes a lot, on the theory that most of our success down the stretch last year occurred when we did have 5 major leaguers in a row in the 3-7 slots. Votto, Phillips, Rolen, Bruce, Gomes. Of course Dusty had/has them in the wrong order but two of them are definitely major league players, one will be, and two bear some resemblance to it. On Gomes, though, I'll say if there's one place Walt "screwed up" it's in not solving the LF problem, at least for a few years, very simply by signing Edmonds when the Cards released him. Last time I checked he had about an .870 OPS.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 01:25 PM
I can't see much to justify playing CD in CF every day. Nor Stubbs. One of the hard facts I suspect we're going to face is that we have no CF of the future on this club as now constituted. I'd likely play Gomes a lot, on the theory that most of our success down the stretch last year occurred when we did have 5 major leaguers in a row in the 3-7 slots. Votto, Phillips, Rolen, Bruce, Gomes. Of course Dusty had/has them in the wrong order but two of them are definitely major league players, one will be, and two bear some resemblance to it. On Gomes, though, I'll say if there's one place Walt "screwed up" it's in not solving the LF problem, at least for a few years, very simply by signing Edmonds when the Cards released him. Last time I checked he had about an .870 OPS.

Dickerson has shown that he understands what a walk is. Plus he plays stellar defense. Unless I'm missing something, he's by far the best CF currently on this team's roster.

bucksfan2
04-26-2010, 01:30 PM
Dickerson has shown that he understands what a walk is. Plus he plays stellar defense. Unless I'm missing something, he's by far the best CF currently on this team's roster.

He has one walk so far this season and looks lost at the plate.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 01:32 PM
He has one walk so far this season and looks lost at the plate.

His minor league history and last couple of seasons say he has some idea, and will eventually get it. I don't mind moving him around in the lineup, but he needs to get the PA.

flyer85
04-26-2010, 01:40 PM
It's abundantly clear to me what they have in Stubbs. probably true but you never know. Unless you plan on trading him in the near future there is no downside to giving him ABs

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 01:42 PM
Unless you plan on trading him in the near future there is no downside to giving him ABs

I can think of several downsides. He can get his ABs in Louisville just fine.

Spring~Fields
04-26-2010, 01:44 PM
I can think of several downsides. He can get his ABs in Louisville just fine.

Or the bottom of the order where his hitting style points belong with maybe several other Reds.

edabbs44
04-26-2010, 01:44 PM
Dickerson has shown that he understands what a walk is. Plus he plays stellar defense. Unless I'm missing something, he's by far the best CF currently on this team's roster.

Subbing CD for Stubbs everyday does nothing to help this team in its current form. The only think beneficial it might do is stop the nonsense about how he deserves to play everyday.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 01:46 PM
Subbing CD for Stubbs everyday does nothing to help this team in its current form. The only think beneficial it might do is stop the nonsense about how he deserves to play everyday.

Except that his stats say he'll get it with the bat with consistent PA. Stubbs has no such history to suggest improvement.

pedro
04-26-2010, 01:49 PM
I'm not ready to give up on Stubbs yet. FWIW, despite his .158 BA his OBP is still higher than Dickerson's.

edabbs44
04-26-2010, 01:51 PM
Except that his stats say he'll get it with the bat with consistent PA. Stubbs has no such history to suggest improvement.

Unless you are looking at different stats, I'm not sure how you could expect much out of CD.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 01:51 PM
I'm not ready to give up on Stubbs yet. FWIW, despite his .158 BA his OBP is still higher than Dickerson's.

He's also had three/four more game's-worth of PA than Dickerson. I know who is getting the premature criticism, and it isn't Stubbs.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 01:53 PM
Unless you are looking at different stats, I'm not sure how you could expect much out of CD.

He's regularly gotten on base at a .350 clip or better over the last 4 seasons MLB/AAA combined. While playing elite defense in CF. What more do you need, honestly?

pedro
04-26-2010, 01:55 PM
He's also had three/four more game's-worth of PA than Dickerson. I know who is getting the premature criticism, and it isn't Stubbs.

I wasn't knocking Dickerson. Frankly, I think should be getting most of the AB's in LF and leading off when he does. Regardless I'm not sure what 3 or 4 more starts has to do with rates stats.

flyer85
04-26-2010, 01:58 PM
I can think of several downsides. He can get his ABs in Louisville just fine.like what, the Reds lose. A few extra losses isn't going to matter one bit. Stubbs is at an age where you either let him play or trade him.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 01:59 PM
I wasn't knocking Dickerson. Frankly, I think should be getting most of the AB's in LF and leading off when he does. Regardless I'm not sure what 3 or 4 more starts has to do with rates stats.

Inconsistent PAs messes with hitters' ability to get a sense of live MLB pitching--rhythm, timing, etc. Stubbs has gotten the call no questions asked, but Dickerson's had to earn his starts. Seems kind of backwards to me.

RedsManRick
04-26-2010, 01:59 PM
I definitely part ways with you on Gomes/Stubbs. I agree that Dickerson should start every game, lead off and play CF, but Stubbs has done absolutely nothing to justify his number of PA. He has been beyond atrocious. Gomes has shown that, despite his terrible defense, he provides pretty consistent pop. I'd be happy not to see another Stubbs PA the rest of this season. He'd be ticketed for Louisville in my universe.

Preferring Stubbs is just an enormous leap of faith. He's 26 years old. Time for a reckoning.

I understand where you're coming from on Gomes, but I imagine part of your logic is based on a belief that defensive metrics overstate the negative impact of his defense. Is that fair?

Preferring Stubbs has very little to do with his current offensive production. In my book, he should be batting 7th at best. Rather it's that Gomes' defense is so poor that even when he's slugging, he's only marginally above replacement. And when he's not.... yikes. With Stubbs, when he's not hitting, his defense allows him to still be replacement level. And when/if he does start to hit, then there's some real positive production.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 01:59 PM
like what, the Reds lose. A few extra losses isn't going to matter one bit. Stubbs is at an age where you either let him play or trade him.

Trade him.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 02:02 PM
I understand where you're coming from on Gomes, but I imagine part of your logic is based on a belief that defensive metrics overstate the negative impact of his defense. Is that fair?

Preferring Stubbs has very little to do with his current offensive production. In my book, he should be batting 7th at best. Rather it's that Gomes' defense is so poor that even when he's slugging, he's only marginally above replacement. And when he's not.... yikes. With Stubbs, when he's not hitting, his defense allows him to still be replacement level. And when/if he does start to hit, then there's some real positive production.

My logic is that it takes a monumental amout of defensive badness from LF to offset an .800+ OPS. I'm not saying Gomes is great--of course, he's pretty limited.

The second part of my logic is that Stubbs' .550 OPS has no place on any MLB team.

edabbs44
04-26-2010, 02:08 PM
He's regularly gotten on base at a .350 clip or better over the last 4 seasons MLB/AAA combined. While playing elite defense in CF. What more do you need, honestly?

Personally I think his defense is a little overrated. Elite might be a stretch. And I don't have much faith in his bat. He's a 4th OF in my mind. Not going to kill you when he plays, but isn't going to help the team materially over the longhaul.

And he has been atrocious to this point in the season. Just flat out awful.

nate
04-26-2010, 02:16 PM
He has one walk so far this season and looks lost at the plate.

In 463 career PAs, he has a 12.3% walk rate.

Just a guess - in 40 odd PAs this season, he hasn't suddenly lost the ability to take a walk.

TheNext44
04-26-2010, 02:23 PM
He's regularly gotten on base at a .350 clip or better over the last 4 seasons MLB/AAA combined. While playing elite defense in CF. What more do you need, honestly?

Stubbs has gotten on base at .365 clip over four years in the minors while playing even more elite defense in CF. What more do you need, honestly? ;)

Drawing conclusions or making any decisions about Stubbs after 66 PA's this season or even 262 Career PA's is exactly the type of thinking that lead to the lost decade.

bucksfan2
04-26-2010, 02:25 PM
In 463 career PAs, he has a 12.3% walk rate.

Just a guess - in 40 odd PAs this season, he hasn't suddenly lost the ability to take a walk.

I don't know what has happened to CD in his first 40 odd PA's this season but he looks lost at the plate. He did the same thing at the beginning of last season. If Dickerson wants to earn more playing time them maybe he should start the season a little better.

Ltlabner
04-26-2010, 02:27 PM
Drawing conclusions or making any decisions about Stubbs after 66 PA's this season or even 262 Career PA's is exactly the type of thinking that lead to the lost decade.

While I'm not a huge fan of Stubbs, I have to agree with you. Too often fans and management alike have fallen for hot spring performances as proof a player has "turned the corner" instead of looking at the overall picture.

Drop Stubbs in the lineup, have him face a steady diet of low & away junk in the batting cages, and let the kid learn. This team isn't going anywhere so might as well see what he can/can't do in terms of adjusting to the real world.

Sadly we have the exact wrong manager at the helm for helping a young player(s) find his way.

Razor Shines
04-26-2010, 02:35 PM
I think the Dickerson - Stubbs solution is fairly simple. Those two should be getting the lion share of PAs in CF and LF. I really don't have much of a desire to watch Gomes play the outfield any more. Let me know when he starts putting up Adam Dunn offensive numbers and then I'll change my mind. Let him pinch hit and get a start in left every now and then when Dickerson starts in center.

Spring~Fields
04-26-2010, 02:39 PM
Subbing CD for Stubbs everyday does nothing to help this team in its current form. The only think beneficial it might do is stop the nonsense about how he deserves to play everyday.

It looks like you are saying that nothing will help this team in it’s current form? At least that is how I infer it.

Not even reducing PA of a .158 or some change batter . Who is giving new meaning to setting the table for those beloved SLG batters, and to creative run support for the pitching. Give him more time? Like his predecessors, Taveras and Patterson, that worked out so well?

Who’s the architect of this team in it’s current form? That very special advisor since 1998? Isn’t it the master planner, the master builder, the master craftsman from the St. Louis model that so many pay homage too? That is now employed in Paupers Ville, and finding it difficult to make ends meet in a volatile working environment, like so many before him?

Quite the impressive resume of upgrades.


OPS Career
Cairo .222 .670
Stubbs .518 .703
Cabrera .640 .719
Hernandez .648 .743
Gomes .651 .796
Nix .657 .697

The best that Cincinnati money can buy, by the master. :confused:

No additional pressure on the pitchers to perform with that groups run support above, especially in the user friendly GABP, known to be friendly to even opposing hitting, but not even friendly to that resume of upgrades above. Not even the GABP seems to help them. It’s still early, perhaps Mr. Jocketty and Mr. Baker are right to leave them out there until August. That’s worked out well before hasn’t it?

Since lineups don’t matter, why not bat them one, two, three, four. Stubbs, Cabrera, Gomes, Hernandez. Speed and slugging. With more PA and time, that should bring them up to their career numbers?

Which wouldn’t do much for this team in the way it is constructed in it‘s current form. I agree with you on that point.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=cin&cat=avg&order=false&season=2010&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 02:46 PM
Stubbs has gotten on base at .365 clip over four years in the minors while playing even more elite defense in CF. What more do you need, honestly?

Dickerson has more pop? Lefty, GABP favors lefties, further along in his developement, shall I continue?

The only reason Stubbs is getting a red carpet while Dickerson is mopping up is that Stubbs was a first-rounder. That's it.

edabbs44
04-26-2010, 02:57 PM
Dickerson has more pop? Lefty, GABP favors lefties, further along in his developement, shall I continue?

The only reason Stubbs is getting a red carpet while Dickerson is mopping up is that Stubbs was a first-rounder. That's it.

Dickerson has less pop than the piece of gum currently in my mouth.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 02:58 PM
Dickerson has less pop than the piece of gum currently in my mouth.

Except that he has some pop. More than Stubbs has shown over the course of his minor league career.

nate
04-26-2010, 03:00 PM
I don't know what has happened to CD in his first 40 odd PA's this season but he looks lost at the plate.

I do. It's 40-odd PAs. No, he hasn't done well but it's hardly enough of a sample to say he's no longer good at taking a walk.


He did the same thing at the beginning of last season.

Seeing as how there are 2^40 ways a "streak" of 40 PAs could end in a walk or not, I'm not exactly worried. In other words, because a tiny sample of 40 PAs doesn't represent his career BB% does not indicate a change in skill. As I've said regarding other situations, similar "streaks" can be found for pretty much any player.

For now, I'm confident his skill at taking a walk is very much similar to what it's been over his career.


If Dickerson wants to earn more playing time them maybe he should start the season a little better.

The same could be said of Gomes and Stubbs. So far this season, their play has been dreadful.

Someone has to play the OF.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 03:01 PM
Great points, nate. I'd only add that Dickerson has had very inconsistent PAs, making it more difficult to get off the schneid.

Raisor
04-26-2010, 03:02 PM
Dickerson now has 463 career PA's, getting to a place where we actually might have enough PA's to determine what he is.

.279/.372/.427/.799

Looks pretty good for a CFer to me.

TheNext44
04-26-2010, 03:02 PM
Dickerson has more pop? Lefty, GABP favors lefties, further along in his developement, shall I continue?

The only reason Stubbs is getting a red carpet while Dickerson is mopping up is that Stubbs was first-rounder. That's it.

I'll give you further along in his development, but that's it. That's the only advantage Dickerson has over Stubbs. Their power numbers throughout their career have been pretty similar, with Dickerson's being a hair stronger, but neither showed any pop in the minors. At least Stubbs showed that he can provide more power when he's on a roll.

And Dickerson isn't mopping up, he's actually played in 2 more games than Stubbs.

The reason why Stubb is playing CF is twofold. Defense and potential. He's a full step ahead of Dickerson in CF, and Dickerson is really good.

Dickerson's ceiling is a league average CF, and most likely is a solid 4th outfielder, while Stubbs' ceiling is an Gold Glove, All-Star CF, and most likely is a league average, Gold Glove CF.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 03:04 PM
I'll give you further along in his development, but that's it. That's the only advantage Dickerson has over Stubbs. Their power numbers throughout their career have been pretty similar, with Dickerson's being a hair stronger, but neither showed any pop in the minors. At least Stubbs showed that he can provide more power when he's on a roll.

And Dickerson isn't mopping up, he's actually played in 2 more games than Stubbs.

The reason why Stubb is playing CF is twofold. Defense and potential. He's a full step ahead of Dickerson in CF, and Dickerson is really good.

Dickerson's ceiling is a league average CF, and most likely is a solid 4th outfielder, while Stubbs' ceiling is an Gold Glove, All-Star CF, and most likely is a league average, Gold Glove CF.


As others have pointed out vis. Janish, defense alone should never earn you a guaranteed roster spot.

RedsManRick
04-26-2010, 03:11 PM
My logic is that it takes a monumental amout of defensive badness from LF to offset an .800+ OPS. I'm not saying Gomes is great--of course, he's pretty limited.

The second part of my logic is that Stubbs' .550 OPS has no place on any MLB team.

I guess I would counter by saying:

a) Gomes plays monumentally bad defense and is currently putting up a .651 OPS. I find it interesting you use a projection for Gomes, albeit a reasonable one, and yet use Stubbs' current figures.

b) I don't believe that Stubbs' will continue to put up a .550 OPS. I believe a .650 OPS is a more reasonable expectation. (most of the projection systems also put him in that ball park)

Given the above, when you do the math, Stubbs and Gomes are roughly equal at those levels of production. However, I think you're looking at something like Gomes 75th percentile of performance and Stubbs' 25th percentile. Given that, I'll take the guy who is younger and has greater upside.

I want to make it clear that I'm choosing Stubbs over Gomes; Dickerson, for me, is a given and should be leading off every day (followed by Rolen, by that's a different conversation). I do agree with you that Dickerson is the best all around CF currently on the roster. However, I do believe that Stubbs is better defensively and should be in CF if both he and Dickerson are playing.

An interest note on Stubbs: so far this year he has hit 23 GB, 10 FB, and just 2 LD; he actually deserves his current .229 BABIP. Though as I said earlier, I don't believe he'll continue to struggle this much.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 03:16 PM
I guess I would counter by saying:

a) Gomes plays monumentally bad defense
b) I don't believe that Stubbs' will continue to put up a .550 OPS. I believe a .650 OPS is a more reasonable expectation.

Given the above, when you do the math, Stubbs and Gomes are roughly equal. However, I think you're looking at something like Gomes 75th percentile of performance and Stubbs' 25th percentile. Given that, I'll take the guy who is younger and has greater upside.

And with Stubbs playing, that pushes Dickerson to LF -- though I do agree with you that he is the best all around CF currently on the roster. And if Stubbs is sent down, he should be playing and leading off every day.

I realize Gomes isn't OPSing .800 right now, but his history suggests it's fairly likely. So you're saying that a poor defender who OPS .800 in LF is worth the same as a great defender in CF who OPS .650? What if Stubbs can't OPS north of .550? Would the same apply? (for the record, in @50 PA, Stubbs has a .518 OPS, in GAB).

edabbs44
04-26-2010, 03:16 PM
Dickerson now has 463 career PA's, getting to a place where we actually might have enough PA's to determine what he is.

.279/.372/.427/.799

Looks pretty good for a CFer to me.

If you think those numbers are representative of his true ability at the major league level.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 03:17 PM
If you think those numbers are representative of his true ability at the major league level.

Why shouldn't they be?

Raisor
04-26-2010, 03:18 PM
If you think those numbers are representative of his true ability at the major league level.

How many PA's does he need before we start getting to his "true ability"?

edabbs44
04-26-2010, 03:21 PM
How many PA's does he need before we start getting to his "true ability"?

Kevin Maas looked awfully good through his first 300 PAs.

Raisor
04-26-2010, 03:22 PM
.273/.373/ .453/ .826

Those are Dickerson's AAA numbers. Looks pretty close to his major league numbers, don't they?

edabbs44
04-26-2010, 03:25 PM
Why shouldn't they be?

For starters, he slugged .427 or higher twice in his minor league career. Once as a 25 year old in AAA (.435) and once as a 26 year old in AAA (.479).

And after a crazy small sample in 2008 that was completely out of his career norms, he has slugged .373 in 2009 and currently .317 in another small sample in 2010. He had 6 HRs in 122 PAs in 2008 and has had 2 in 341 since.

He isn't a .427 slugger.

edabbs44
04-26-2010, 03:26 PM
.273/.373/ .453/ .826

Those are Dickerson's AAA numbers. Looks pretty close to his major league numbers, don't they?

Yeah, he mashed when he became a 26 year old in AAA.

Ron Madden
04-26-2010, 03:26 PM
]I don't know what has happened to CD in his first 40 odd PA's this season [/B]but he looks lost at the plate. He did the same thing at the beginning of last season. If Dickerson wants to earn more playing time them maybe he should start the season a little better.

Dusty has been hounding him to swing the bat according to Hal McCoy.

Maybe CD is trying to earn more playing time by doing what Dusty wants him to do.

edabbs44
04-26-2010, 03:29 PM
Dusty has been hounding him to swing the bat according to Hal McCoy.

Maybe CD is trying to earn more playing time by doing what Dusty wants him to do.

That's probably what has been plaguing Cabrera, Ramon and Gomes as well. I wonder if Gomes and Cabrera have been slow in the field because Dusty has been asking them to conserve their energy for their ABs.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

fearofpopvol1
04-26-2010, 03:30 PM
For those that think Dickerson is better than Stubbs, their minor league numbers are pretty similar (Dickerson gets a slight nod on offense while Stubbs gets a slight one on defense). Dickerson has an advantage because he's had more ABs at the show than Stubbs has, so it's sort of hard to compare until those 2 stats are equal.

Ltlabner
04-26-2010, 03:37 PM
.273/.373/ .453/ .826

Those are Dickerson's AAA numbers. Looks pretty close to his major league numbers, don't they?

I believe feel the vortex beginning to spin. Run while there's still time.

http://fanrants.net/fants/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/bhvincent1.jpg

Raisor
04-26-2010, 03:40 PM
I believe feel the vortex beginning to spin. Run while there's still time.

http://fanrants.net/fants/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/bhvincent1.jpg

http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:x4y2Baq2DerX1M::3.bp.blogspot.com/_NtgXlrcvXZA/ScJLgMt-feI/AAAAAAAAcPw/4aBIJy6A9Q8/s400/ROBOT%252B-%252BMAXIMILIAN%252BBLACK%252BHOLE%252BMOVIE%252B1 979.jpg&t=1&h=196&w=161&usg=__ObgZZuA7miacKlGNkZr9Yo5-q4c=

TheNext44
04-26-2010, 03:42 PM
Why shouldn't they be?

I like Dickerson, and think he should play nearly every day. However, those 463 PA's are only around halfway to being enough to really be predictive.

And it really isn't the number of PA's, it that he has faced every team, every type of pitcher, every type of ball park, etc, enough times that all of his strengths and weaknesses are revealed. And he just hasn't compiled that data yet.

As just one example, he has more PA's against the Pirates and Cubs, than he does against the Braves, Rockies, Marlins, Padres, Dodgers, Phillies and Mets combined.

I actually think he will hit close to those numbers, but not just because of his previous 462 PA's.

TheNext44
04-26-2010, 03:44 PM
As others have pointed out vis. Janish, defense alone should never earn you a guaranteed roster spot.

NO it shouldn't, but I do think that both Stubbs and Janish should not only have a roster spot, but should be playing nearly everyday. Their offense is not that bad.

RedsManRick
04-26-2010, 03:46 PM
I realize Gomes isn't OPSing .800 right now, but his history suggests it's fairly likely. So you're saying that a poor defender who OPS .800 in LF is worth the same as a great defender in CF who OPS .650? What if Stubbs can't OPS north of .550? Would the same apply? (for the record, in @50 PA, Stubbs has a .518 OPS, in GAB).

Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying. While I realize it's not perfect, Fangraph's WAR system is the best way I'm currently aware of to make such as assessment.

In 314 PA (.879 OPS) and 522 defensive innings, Gomes was 11 runs above replacement in 2009.

In 196 PA (.762 OPS) and 368.2 defensive innings, Stubbs was worth 14 runs above replacement in 2009. If you extended Stubbs' performance to the same number of PA/Innings, you'd get something like 20 runs above replacement.

Now all of that is extremely rough, I know. Maybe Stubbs isn't really that good of a defender. He likely isn't that good of a hitter. But I'm going off the evidence we have.

(For those who object to the Fangraphs approach, anybody who has an opinion on the subject is coming to it somehow. If only everybody was so good as Fangraphs in showing their work. Show me a better, more reliable method and I'll happily adopt it.)

I don't see why we should put more faith in Stubbs 50 PA in 2010 than we should his 196 PA in 2009. Obviously neither is a good sample, but I'll take the 196 over the 50 anytime. His career major league line so far: .241/.310/.392 (.702 OPS). Both PECOTA and ZIPS see a mid 600s OPS for 2010. Those same systems suggest an OPS of less than 800 for Gomes.

To your second question. If Stubbs can't OPS north of .550 and Gomes is .800+ of course the math changes. At that point, Gomes is clearly the more valuable player. Given your assumptions, I'd agree with your conclusions; But I think your assumptions about likely offensive performance moving forward are biased and possibly selected to fit a conclusion you reached before doing "the math".

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 03:55 PM
Given your assumptions, I'd agree with your conclusions; But I think your assumptions about likely offensive performance moving forward are biased and possibly selected to fit a conclusion you reached before doing "the math".


Not at all. I was asking questions. Not assuming anything. I can buy the argument that Gomes at .800 OPS and terrible defense in LF is a net negative. But I can't buy that a guy OPS .650 and playing all-universe defense is anything but a net negative as well. So I'll buy that defense is important, almost certainly more important than most layfolk would argue, but, I'm sorry, a .650 OPS means both Stubbs and Gomes almost certainly have no place on any MLB roster. It's like preferring cat poop over dog poop.

Homer Bailey
04-26-2010, 04:10 PM
Dickerson now has 463 career PA's, getting to a place where we actually might have enough PA's to determine what he is.

.279/.372/.427/.799

Looks pretty good for a CFer to me.

Aided largely by a .376 BABIP over that time period, with .148 IsoP, which says to me that he is been very lucky over those 463 PA's.

RedsManRick
04-26-2010, 04:22 PM
Not at all. I was asking questions. Not assuming anything. I can buy the argument that Gomes at .800 OPS and terrible defense in LF is a net negative. But I can't buy that a guy OPS .650 and playing all-universe defense is anything but a net negative as well. So I'll buy that defense is important, almost certainly more important than most layfolk would argue, but, I'm sorry, a .650 OPS means both Stubbs and Gomes almost certainly have no place on any MLB roster. It's like preferring cat poop over dog poop.

Both guys, given those projections are slightly better than dog poop -- basically your run of the mill above-replacement, but below-average starter, type. "Second division" starters, if you will.

I think the disagreement basically centers on the value of great CF defense. A .650 OPS is below replacement offensively, no doubt. But stellar CF defense is very valuable and more than makes that guy roster-worthy.

I'm curious, what's your definition for being worthy of having a place on a MLB roster? How are you coming to that distinction? I'd guess that your idea of replacement level is much higher than what it actually is in reality. That's not to say we should strive for replacement level players (or near it, of course), but we shouldn't be ignorant of it either. Replacement level talent, when cheap, isn't a bad thing if your alternatives are guys who are even worse.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 04:25 PM
Both guys, given those projections are slightly better than dog poop -- basically your run of the mill above replacement but below average starter type guy. "Second division" starters if you will.

I think the disagreement basically comes to the value of great CF defense. A .650 OPS is below replacement, no doubt. But stellar CF defense is very valuable and more than makes that guy roster-worthy.

I'm curious, what's your definition for being worthy of having a place on a MLB roster. I'd guess that your idea of replacement level is higher than what it actually is in reality. That's not to say we should strive for replacement level (or near it, of course), but we shouldn't be ignorant of it either.

I suspect there's an offensive baseline that no one, no matter how good a defender, should fall under. I'm willing to admit that I can't put a finger on that number, but I know that if you're using defense to justify a .650 hitter in your lineup, you're not trying very hard.

At least you can justify Gomes on the bench, where his defense won't hurt. And Dickerson is the better of the two between him and Stubbs.

edabbs44
04-26-2010, 04:29 PM
Aided largely by a .376 BABIP over that time period, with .148 IsoP, which says to me that he is been very lucky over those 463 PA's.

I am sure some would be pounding the hell out of those numbers if his name wasn't Dickerson. Especially when his .579 2010 OPS comes with a .417 BAbip.

RedsManRick
04-26-2010, 04:54 PM
I suspect there's an offensive baseline that no one, no matter how good a defender, should fall under.

I'm curious, why? Is there some point at which 1 less run scored is actually not offset by 2 runs prevented? On the team level, I suppose you have to be able to score at least one run to win a game. But that's only at the team level. When you're looking at an individual player, all that matters is his overall contribution to the team. The Reds are not better off by getting rid of a guy who is 10 runs below replacement offensively but 20 runs better defensively and adding a guy who is 10 above offensively and 10 below defensively. You're taking 10 runs away from your run differential. Or at the game level, you'd be going from say, 4.5 runs scored and 5.0 runs allowed to 4.6 runs scored and 5.2 runs allowed. How does that help?



I'm willing to admit that I can't put a finger on that number, but I know that if you're using defense to justify a .650 hitter in your lineup, you're not trying very hard.

This just plain doesn't make sense. How do you know?. Clearly you suppose, but what is your basis for knowing?

I'm not trying to "justify" anything. You seem to suggest that I have a predetermined position and that I'm trying to find data to "justify" it. I don't. I have data. From that data, I reach my positions. Hence, when the guy is a .550 OPS, the math is no longer in his favor. Yes, there is a cutoff at which no amount of great defense (given the upper bounds of awesomeness) can offset crappy offense. But for a CF, .650 isn't it.

You seem to be using an argument that starts with offensive production and then adjusts for defense. I'm taking a route which recognizes that in the NL, (save for PHing) you can't have one without the other. They both always count, period. There's no reason to start with one and then adjust for the other.



At least you can justify Gomes on the bench, where his defense won't hurt. And Dickerson is the better of the two between him and Stubbs.

If the Reds had a better 3rd OF option and it was between Gomes and Stubbs for the bench role, I'd use your logic and choose Gomes. However, that's not our situation. One of those guys is our 3rd best OF and will be playing defense on a regular basis. Given that reality, Stubbs is the choice. And given then that Stubbs is in the OF alongside Dickerson, I'm going to put the better defender in CF, and that's Stubbs.

RedsManRick
04-26-2010, 05:01 PM
I am sure some would be pounding the hell out of those numbers if his name wasn't Dickerson. Especially when his .579 2010 OPS comes with a .417 BAbip.

That .417 BABIP isn't the only thing way out of line. He also has put up a 2.4 BB%, a 41.5 K%, 3.25 GB/FB and a 0% HR/FB. If you think BABIP will regress to the mean, you should do the same for the other offensive components. I agree with your premise, you should base your decision on what is likely to happen moving forward and Dickerson's career line is based on an unsustainably high BABIP.

But if you want to make that projection of how he's likely to hit in the future, you can't cherry pick just the stat which is out of line on the positive side. Make similar adjustments for all the inputs to offensive production you have a guy likely to OPS north of .700 and probably closer to .750.

Homer Bailey
04-26-2010, 05:12 PM
That .417 BABIP isn't the only thing way out of line. He also has put up a 2.4 BB%, a 41.5 K%, 3.25 GB/FB and a 0% HR/FB. If you think BABIP will regress to the mean, you should do the same for the other offensive components. I agree with your premise, you should base your decision on what is likely to happen moving forward and Dickerson's career line is based on an unsustainably high BABIP.

But if you want to make that projection of how he's likely to hit in the future, you can't cherry pick just the stat which is out of line on the positive side. Make similar adjustments for all the inputs to offensive production you have a guy likely to OPS north of .700 and probably closer to .750.

I agree that looking at the .417 BABIP for 2010 is a bit silly. However, a .376 rate for his career is very high IMO given his skill set. He's not a smasher like Braun or Pujols, and doesn't have the speed of a guy like Stubbs. I would think he would be much closer to .300 BABIP hitter than a .376 BABIP hitter.

I think his career BB rate and K rate are what we should expect going forward.

RedsManRick
04-26-2010, 05:14 PM
I agree that looking at the .417 BABIP for 2010 is a bit silly. However, a .376 rate for his career is very high IMO given his skill set. He's not a smasher like Braun or Pujols, and doesn't have the speed of a guy like Stubbs. I would think he would be much closer to .300 BABIP hitter than a .376 BABIP hitter.

I think his career BB rate and K rate are what we should expect going forward.

Given his speed, we should expect a bit higher than .300, but I agree with your point in principle. But even when you regress it to the .320 range, he should be reasonably productive.

Hoosier Red
04-26-2010, 05:25 PM
Dusty has been hounding him to swing the bat according to Hal McCoy.

Maybe CD is trying to earn more playing time by doing what Dusty wants him to do.

Actually Dusty only did that after CD struck out 4 times (3 times looking.) Looking at strike 3 doesn't really accomplish anything. You can argue that grounding out to 2nd doesn't either but I think if you strike out 3 times looking in a game, it probably doesn't hurt to be open to swinging a little bit more often.

Spring~Fields
04-26-2010, 06:23 PM
For starters, he slugged .427 or higher twice in his minor league career. Once as a 25 year old in AAA (.435) and once as a 26 year old in AAA (.479).

And after a crazy small sample in 2008 that was completely out of his career norms, he has slugged .373 in 2009 and currently .317 in another small sample in 2010. He had 6 HRs in 122 PAs in 2008 and has had 2 in 341 since.

He isn't a .427 slugger.

In 2008, Mr. Jocketty gave away some of the best on base percentage and slugging, Adam Dunn .373 .528 .901 that the Reds had for Arizona cactus needles and a sand bag.

So he could pay to hang onto his veteran pitching Harang and Arroyo that he wanted, and Mr. Baker has said in 2010 that they need. Mr. Jocketty brought in upgrades, Nix, Gomes, Willie Taveras, McDonald and Dickerson to replace Dunn‘s offense with the rest of the money.

So what’s to complain about? Mr. Jocketty got what he wanted and paid for. With Bob Castellini’s blessings. I guess I don’t understand how some can swing both ways at the same time with their keyboard on Mr. Jocketty and his team full of his players?

All of these pitchers and other players are his by his and Mr. Bakers choice. :confused:

Of course Mr. Jocketty was looking for additional pitching, thus Owings and Masset appeared, from Dunn and Griffey, which makes it obvious that he wanted more pitching and to keep Arroyo and Harang, thus he adopted them, accepted them with open arms and they became his boys, and his contracts. Jocketty thought that they were the answer, he even fired the old pitching coach and brought in the Seattle/Arizona phenom Price to bring them back to his perceived prominence.

:arroyo: :harang: :castellini:

Otherwise he would have traded one or both of them and kept Dunn. He could have traded Volquez too while his value was high, but of course, he wanted pitching so he kept Harang, Arroyo, Volquez while trading off the Reds best OBP/SLG for Owings, and some minor league fodder, with his eyes on the prize, money to keep his star pitchers, Harang and Arroyo. His boys, his contracts, by his choice.

Now everyone is crying that his pitching and his offense stinks, and that his manager stinks. What gives? :confused:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/pitching?team=cin&season=2008&seasonType=2&split=0&cat=ERA&order=false&type=reg

If Mr. Jocketty wants Nix, Dickerson, Stubbs, Gomes, Cairo, Cabrera, Hernandez or maybe even Burke and those pitchers on his team, I think we should just trust that he knows what he is doing, don’t you? :)

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=cin&cat=onBasePct&season=2010&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=cin&season=2009&seasonType=2&split=0&cat=onBasePct&order=true&type=reg

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=cin&season=2008&seasonType=2&split=0&cat=onBasePct&order=true&type=reg

What did he get for Hairston and Keppinger, some good bench fodder that could OPS a little bit? I can’t remember their names.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 06:34 PM
I'm curious, why? Is there some point at which 1 less run scored is actually not offset by 2 runs prevented? On the team level, I suppose you have to be able to score at least one run to win a game. But that's only at the team level. When you're looking at an individual player, all that matters is his overall contribution to the team. The Reds are not better off by getting rid of a guy who is 10 runs below replacement offensively but 20 runs better defensively and adding a guy who is 10 above offensively and 10 below defensively. You're taking 10 runs away from your run differential. Or at the game level, you'd be going from say, 4.5 runs scored and 5.0 runs allowed to 4.6 runs scored and 5.2 runs allowed. How does that help?



This just plain doesn't make sense. How do you know?. Clearly you suppose, but what is your basis for knowing?

I'm not trying to "justify" anything. You seem to suggest that I have a predetermined position and that I'm trying to find data to "justify" it. I don't. I have data. From that data, I reach my positions. Hence, when the guy is a .550 OPS, the math is no longer in his favor. Yes, there is a cutoff at which no amount of great defense (given the upper bounds of awesomeness) can offset crappy offense. But for a CF, .650 isn't it.

You seem to be using an argument that starts with offensive production and then adjusts for defense. I'm taking a route which recognizes that in the NL, (save for PHing) you can't have one without the other. They both always count, period. There's no reason to start with one and then adjust for the other.



If the Reds had a better 3rd OF option and it was between Gomes and Stubbs for the bench role, I'd use your logic and choose Gomes. However, that's not our situation. One of those guys is our 3rd best OF and will be playing defense on a regular basis. Given that reality, Stubbs is the choice. And given then that Stubbs is in the OF alongside Dickerson, I'm going to put the better defender in CF, and that's Stubbs.

I'd say a .650 OPS in center (and don't kid yourself, Stubbs is going to be working triple-overtime to reach that this season) and .740 or so in left is pretty bad, considering that Dickerson looks like a pretty average defender in LF (as opposed to CF). Especially when you consider that Bruce is probably not good for anything more than about an .800 OPS.

TheNext44
04-26-2010, 06:42 PM
In 2008, Mr. Jocketty gave away some of the best on base percentage and slugging, Adam Dunn .373 .528 .901 that the Reds had for Arizona cactus needles and a sand bag.

So he could pay to hang onto his veteran pitching Harang and Arroyo that he wanted, and Mr. Baker has said in 2010 that they need. Mr. Jocketty brought in upgrades, Nix, Gomes, Willie Taveras, McDonald and Dickerson to replace Dunn‘s offense with the rest of the money.

So what’s to complain about? Mr. Jocketty got what he wanted and paid for. With Bob Castellini’s blessings. I guess I don’t understand how some can swing both ways at the same time with their keyboard on Mr. Jocketty and his team full of his players?

All of these pitchers and other players are his by his and Mr. Bakers choice. :confused:

Of course Mr. Jocketty was looking for additional pitching, thus Owings and Masset appeared, from Dunn and Griffey, which makes it obvious that he wanted more pitching and to keep Arroyo and Harang, thus he adopted them, accepted them with open arms and they became his boys, and his contracts. Jocketty thought that they were the answer, he even fired the old pitching coach and brought in the Seattle/Arizona phenom Price to bring them back to his perceived prominence.

:arroyo: :harang: :castellini:

Otherwise he would have traded one or both of them and kept Dunn. He could have trade Volquez too while his value was high, but of course, he wanted pitching so he kept Harang, Arroyo, Volquez while trading off the Reds best for Owings, and some minor league fodder, with his eyes on the prize, money to keep his star pitchers, Harang and Arroyo. His boys, his contracts, by his choice.

Now everyone is crying that his pitching and his offense stinks, and that his manager stinks. What gives? :confused:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/pitching?team=cin&season=2008&seasonType=2&split=0&cat=ERA&order=false&type=reg

I think that Jocketty would have traded Arroyo and Harang at any point in his tenure as GM if he could have. They only have been mentioned in every rumor regarding starting pitching for the last three years.

I think at no point did he decide to keep Arroyo and Harang at the expense of Dunn. Dunn was deemed too expensive for his production, and it seems like a smart move now. Even at Dunn's discounted contract at $10M a year, Fangraphs's estimates that he was over paid by around $3.4M last year. Jocketty actually got more production from Gomes/Dickerson/Nix last year then he would have gotten from Dunn, and at around 1/5th of the price.

Homer Bailey
04-26-2010, 06:45 PM
I'd say a .650 OPS in center (and don't kid yourself, Stubbs is going to be working triple-overtime to reach that this season) and .740 or so in left is pretty bad, considering that Dickerson looks like a pretty average defender in LF (as opposed to CF). Especially when you consider that Bruce is probably not good for anything more than about an .800 OPS.

I realize this is not your point, but I'd be willing to bet that Bruce will OPS over .800 this year.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2010, 06:46 PM
I realize this is not your point, but I'd be willing to bet that Bruce will OPS over .800 this year.

Maybe, but no one's going to confuse that outfield with, say, a productive one.

RedsManRick
04-26-2010, 06:48 PM
I'd say a .650 OPS in center (and don't kid yourself, Stubbs is going to be working triple-overtime to reach that this season) and .740 or so in left is pretty bad, considering that Dickerson looks like a pretty average defender in LF (as opposed to CF). Especially when you consider that Bruce is probably not good for anything more than about an .800 OPS.

I never said nor suggested that those were goals to which we should aspire. As far as our conversation was concerned, I understood us to be trying to deal with the realities of the current situation.

I'll agree with you that the current situation is us having an overall below average OF. Part of the Reds becoming competitive is getting more production from the OF. Given the general availability of talent, this clearly means improving LF as a top priority.

As for Dickerson's LF defense, it has graded out as slightly above average thus far in his career according to UZR. Given that he's a plus CF, we would expect him to be a plus LF as he gets more experience out there.

As for Bruce not being good for more than an .800 OPS, that's a whole other ball of wax being discussed elsewhere. Suffice it to say I think .800 OPS is more like a 25th percentile expectation for him, that .850 is a better "best guess" and that he's got .900+ upside as early as this year.

Homer Bailey
04-26-2010, 06:48 PM
Maybe, but no one's going to confuse that outfield with, say, a productive one.

Can't argue there.

TheNext44
04-26-2010, 06:51 PM
Maybe, but no one's going to confuse that outfield with, say, a productive one.

If you count defense, I'd bet money it's in the top half of the NL in overall productive outfields (assuming a straight Gomes/Dickerson platoon in left) at the end of the season.

thatcoolguy_22
04-26-2010, 08:35 PM
For starters, he slugged .427 or higher twice in his minor league career. Once as a 25 year old in AAA (.435) and once as a 26 year old in AAA (.479).

And after a crazy small sample in 2008 that was completely out of his career norms, he has slugged .373 in 2009 and currently .317 in another small sample in 2010. He had 6 HRs in 122 PAs in 2008 and has had 2 in 341 since.

He isn't a .427 slugger.

What about Stubbs' 1 crazy small sample size where he slugged well over his norms? His entire starting gig in CF was based on it. 196 PA for a .267/.323/.439.

edabbs44
04-26-2010, 09:31 PM
What about Stubbs' 1 crazy small sample size where he slugged well over his norms? His entire starting gig in CF was based on it. 196 PA for a .267/.323/.439.

Sure.

Spring~Fields
04-26-2010, 10:17 PM
I think that Jocketty would have traded Arroyo and Harang at any point in his tenure as GM if he could have. They only have been mentioned in every rumor regarding starting pitching for the last three years.

I think at no point did he decide to keep Arroyo and Harang at the expense of Dunn. Dunn was deemed too expensive for his production, and it seems like a smart move now. Even at Dunn's discounted contract at $10M a year, Fangraphs's estimates that he was over paid by around $3.4M last year. Jocketty actually got more production from Gomes/Dickerson/Nix last year then he would have gotten from Dunn, and at around 1/5th of the price.

1998 would have been a good time to move Arroyo. With the budget under ownerships plan. The budget is the plan, ownerships plan, not his plan.

Sure he did. He wanted pitching as that is what he traded for, and payroll flex to pay for the pitchers that he wanted to keep. That is what he has been about since coming to the Reds keeping and acquiring pitching.

So what he has brought in or used for an offense, should not upset anyone.

You mean he found a way to unload his offense in Dunn and Griffey, save some money, and where did he put that money? In the pitching contracts, that he wanted to keep.

But, he could not have unloaded Arroyo or Harang? As creative as he has been in moving Dunn, Griffey, Taveras, rewriting Rolens contracts, and his history of moves in St. Louis. Sure he could have unloaded them, he and Mr. Baker naturally wanted experienced innings eaters.

I guess I have more confidence in him than other's do. :)

With one exception, he doesn't have St. Louis money to run the St. Louis model in Cincinnati.

Though I have to go by what he has done, not supposition.

Don't you think that a smart move would have been to replace some of the OBP and SLG that he got rid of?



Fangraphs's estimates that he was over paid by around $3.4M last year.

Jim Bowden over paid Adam Dunn in Washington?



Jocketty actually got more production from Gomes/Dickerson/Nix last year then he would have gotten from Dunn,

So what are people complaining about ?

TheNext44
04-26-2010, 10:37 PM
1998 would have been a good time to move Arroyo. With the budget under ownerships plan, sure he did. He wanted pitching as that is what he traded for, and payroll flex to pay for the pitchers that he wanted to keep. That is what he has been about since coming to the Reds keeping and acquiring pitching.

So what he has brought in or used for an offense, should not upset anyone.

You mean he found a way to unload his offense in Dunn and Griffey, save some money, and where did he put that money? In the pitching contracts, that he wanted to keep.

But, he could not have unloaded Arroyo or Harang?
Don't you think that a smart move would have been to replace some of the OBP and SLG that he got rid of?

I guess I have more confidence in him than other's do. :)

With one exception, he doesn't have St. Louis money to run the St. Louis model in Cincinnati.

Every trade rumor had the other team demanding that the Reds pay most of either Arroyo's or Harang's salary, and not offering anything of value in return. And think about it, if you are another team, would you want an aging pitcher who is going to be paid over the next few years double what they are worth? And this was during a time when everyone, including teams like the Dodgers, were shedding big contracts, not picking them up.

Maybe all these rumors were false? Who knows, but it definitely is not a given that Jocketty wanted to keep Arroyo and Harang.

Spring~Fields
04-26-2010, 10:45 PM
Every trade rumor had the other team demanding that the Reds pay most of either Arroyo's or Harang's salary, and not offering anything of value in return. And think about it, if you are another team, would you want an aging pitcher who is going to be paid over the next few years double what they are worth? And this was during a time when everyone, including teams like the Dodgers, were shedding big contracts, not picking them up.

Maybe all these rumors were false? Who knows, but it definitely is not a given that Jocketty wanted to keep Arroyo and Harang.

I had to edit that mess of mine up there...........

Are we talking about 1998 when Mr. Jocketty was special advisor to Mr. Castellini and then the GM from 4/23/98 on to this date? Are you suggesting that Mr. Jocketty did not take pay flex from the Griffey and Dunn moves, to pay for experienced innings eaters?

Are you suggesting, I am asking, that Mr. Jocketty and Mr. Baker did not have a priority for pitching? That they did not want Arroyo and or Harang?

Sure they wanted them, that is why Mr. Baker is still saying that they need Harang. Why fire the old pitching coach? He thought that his pitchers were better than Pole was getting from them.

The Fall of 1998 was where he decided to keep them. The idea back fired on him in 99, he fired the pitching coach because he had thought that Arroyo and Harang was better than they were showing. Now on Pirce, some Mariners fans might disagree how good he is with younger pitchers, there was a time when the Mariners had what looked to be some very nice young pitching and prospects while Price was there, I don't know what happened to them, but, at one time they looked promising. I am not sure that Price has been that great with young pitching. Jojo would know better than I.

edabbs44
04-26-2010, 11:02 PM
I had to edit that mess of mine up there...........

Are we talking about 1998 when Mr. Jocketty was special advisor to Mr. Castellini and then the GM from 4/23/98 on to this date? Are you suggesting that Mr. Jocketty did not take pay flex from the Griffey and Dunn moves, to pay for experienced innings eaters?

Are you suggesting, I am asking, that Mr. Jocketty and Mr. Baker did not have a priority for pitching? That they did not want Arroyo and or Harang?

Sure they wanted them, that is why Mr. Baker is still saying that they need Harang. Why fire the old pitching coach? He thought that his pitchers were better than Pole was getting from them.

The Fall of 1998 was where he decided to keep them. The idea back fired on him in 99, he fired the pitching coach because he had thought that Arroyo and Harang was better than they were showing. Now on Pirce, some Mariners fans might disagree how good he is with younger pitchers, there was a time when the Mariners had what looked to be some very nice young pitching and prospects while Price was there, I don't know what happened to them, but, at one time they looked promising. I am not sure that Price has been that great with young pitching. Jojo would know better than I.

Those two have been pretty much untradeable since Walt took over. And you may want to check your calendar.

Spring~Fields
04-26-2010, 11:12 PM
Those two have been pretty much untradeable since Walt took over. And you may want to check your calendar.

I guess where I am having a problem reconciling the thought, where people can support Mr. Jocketty tooth and nail, yet complain about his outfielders, bench, ss, and pitching?

On one hand they say he is the greatest thing to land in Redsville, on the other hand they are complaining about his players, his pitchers, his fielders, which is clearly knocking him, that is a contradiction.

How can he be so good, and yet so many knock so many of his players and pitchers? Those are incongruent with one another. The same good minded people who claim his greatness, knock his players. I don’t get that, and I shouldn’t.

Mr. Jocketty was quoted as having said that he liked this team. He acquired and kept the pitching that he chose, and he brought in or up what position players that there are. I just don't see what his supporters are complaining about. A knock against his players, involves a knock against him.

They can't have it both ways, and swing both ways at the same time.

edabbs44
04-26-2010, 11:13 PM
I guess where I am having a problem reconciling the thought, where people can support Mr. Jocketty tooth and nail, yet complain about his outfielders, bench, ss, and pitching?

On one hand they say he is the greatest thing to land in Redsville, on the other hand they are complaining about his players, his pitchers, his fielders, which is clearly knocking him, that is a contradiction.

How can he be so good, and yet so many knock so many of his players and pitchers? Those are incongruent with one another. The same good minded people who claim his greatness, knock his players. I don’t get that, and I shouldn’t.

Mr. Jocketty was quoted as having said that he liked this team. He acquired and kept the pitching that he chose, and he brought in or up what position players that there are. I just don't see what his supporters are complaining about. A knock against his players, involves a knock against him.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Spring~Fields
04-26-2010, 11:24 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about.

Well, I don't know what to tell you, respectfully.

I don't think Jocketty's staunch supporters should be knocking his players while at the same time sing their praises for him, it just doesn't fly. Those are incongruent with one another.

TheNext44
04-27-2010, 12:01 AM
Well, I don't know what to tell you, respectfully.

I don't think Jocketty's staunch supporters should be knocking his players while at the same time sing their praises for him, it just doesn't fly. Those are incongruent with one another.

What is incongruent? It is perfectly logical to think a CEO is good, but that some of the products that his company makes are not good.

No company is going to be perfect. Every company will put out bad products, and the CEO should be responsible when they do. But that does not mean that the CEO is terrible, or isn't doing a good job overall. It is perfectly logical to criticize one of a companies many products, while still thinking that CEO is running the company well.

One example, I love Skyline (and yes, I am that mean ;)) but I think their wraps are stupid. I mean who goes to Skyline to eat healthy???? I think they made a huge mistake when they introduced them. But I think it's a great company, and whoever the CEO is, even though he screwed the pooch with the wraps, he is doing a fine job overall.

Likewise, I think Jocketty screwed the pooch when he signed Cabrera and Gomes, but I think he has done a very good job overall of rebuilding an organization that was in shambles when he inherited it. I don't see what's illogical about that.

Spring~Fields
04-27-2010, 02:49 AM
What is incongruent? It is perfectly logical to think a CEO is good, but that some of the products that his company makes are not good.

One poster goes on and on implying if not directly stating that Jocketty is so superior to the previous GM's, which would include Bowden who frequently had teams better than Jocketty, until Lindner and associates prepared for sale of the organization, by keeping it lean. These same individuals that say such things, then turn around and blast certain players and pitchers, that Jocketty brought up, or brought in, or retained. When they do that, they are saying in one breath Jocketty is the cats meow, then knocking his players, they are saying, man this guy really blew it in 08, 09 and heading into 2010.

Can't be super man and hero at the same time his players are so bad can he?



No company is going to be perfect. Every company will put out bad products, and the CEO should be responsible when they do.

Of course not, but when an ownership group does that for ten years or more running. Like the Reds ownership groups main powerful members, then that becomes something different.



One example, I love Skyline (and yes, I am that mean ;))

You aint mean, you're just onery. :D

You aint got me on that yet, but I do blame you for the excessive ice cream binges of late, sending you de bill for the cholestrol, flowing abudantly between my ears. ;)



Likewise, I think Jocketty screwed the pooch when he signed Cabrera and Gomes, but I think he has done a very good job overall of rebuilding an organization that was in shambles when he inherited it. I don't see what's illogical about that.

Rebuilt what? into what? Your not talking about those minor league prospects that may never make it to the majors let alone be difference makers are you? Your not calling that rebuilding are you, implying that there is some significant improvement in the major league product before it can be supported by data?

You've read some of the knowledgable posters on this board. They are not so sure that they are seeing something rebuilt yet. Built better than other bad teams or built to be equal to or greater than the primary competition within the weak Central?

Where's his pitching? Where's his OBP against right handed bats, where they receive the largest amounts of PA? How's come he shows no faith or confidence in his own players or prospects like Janish and Hanigan? Nix, Gomes, Cabrera, Cairo, Hernandez? Why? How many years does it take to find a centerfielder or bat for left field?

$$$$$, he knows how to trade for them or to buy them. He doesn't have the money, just like those before him in Redsland. Harang and Arroyo? He might keep them next year too. If they leave he will just go out and get experienced pitchers, and that will take up the funds that some are counting on to be used on offense.

They have to be equal to or greater than the competition or they are what they are.

Ron Madden
04-27-2010, 03:54 AM
Actually Dusty only did that after CD struck out 4 times (3 times looking.) Looking at strike 3 doesn't really accomplish anything. You can argue that grounding out to 2nd doesn't either but I think if you strike out 3 times looking in a game, it probably doesn't hurt to be open to swinging a little bit more often.

I don't know for sure but I believe that article was the only one that has actually named a specific player that Dusty has been preaching to.

(and I agree it's understandable after the night CD had)

In that same interview Baker says he has to keep preaching and teaching these young players until it sinks in.


There have been a whole lot more articles and quotes from Baker himself, that support his preference of a hackatistic approach at the plate than any that say otherwise.

All I know is what I read in the news papers. Like I said I don't know for sure.

;)

edabbs44
04-27-2010, 08:59 AM
Well, I don't know what to tell you, respectfully.

I don't think Jocketty's staunch supporters should be knocking his players while at the same time sing their praises for him, it just doesn't fly. Those are incongruent with one another.

Are you saying that I am doing this? If so, please provide some examples so I can review.

Thanks.

Spring~Fields
04-27-2010, 01:25 PM
Great Walt Jocketty with ownership enhancements $$$$
Not so good Walt Jocketty without ownership enhancements
Not so good Jim Bowden without ownership enchancements
Good Mozeliak with ownership enhancements $$$$



Cincinnati Ownership St. Louis Ownership Win Percentage
2010 Jocketty $ 71,761,542 Mozeliak $ 93,540,751 CIN .412 STL .632
2009 Jocketty $ 73,558,500 Mozeliak $ 88,528,409 CIN .481 STL .562
2008 Jocketty $ 74,117,695 Mozeliak $ 99,624,449 CIN .457 STL .531

2003 Bowden $ 59,355,667 Jocketty $ 83,786,666 CIN .426 STL .525
2002 Bowden $ 45,050,390 Jocketty $ 74,660,875 CIN .481 STL .599
2001 Bowden $ 48,784,000 Jocketty $ 78,333,333 CIN .407 STL .574
2000 Bowden $ 44,217,500 Jocketty $ 63,093,023 CIN .525 STL .586


Though I don't like Jim Bowden. I sure would like to have seen what he could have done with the money that has been given Walt Jocketty. Seems to work well for Mozeliak.

Spring~Fields
04-27-2010, 01:26 PM
Are you saying that I am doing this? If so, please provide some examples so I can review.

Thanks.

Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about.

edabbs44
04-27-2010, 01:27 PM
Great Walt Jocketty with ownership enhancements $$$$
Not so good Walt Jocketty without ownership enhancements
Not so good Jim Bowden without ownership enchancements
Good Mozeliak with ownership enhancements $$$$



Cincinnati Ownership St. Louis Ownership Win Percentage
2010 Jocketty $ 71,761,542 Mozeliak $ 93,540,751 CIN .412 STL .632
2009 Jocketty $ 73,558,500 Mozeliak $ 88,528,409 CIN .481 STL .562
2008 Jocketty $ 74,117,695 Mozeliak $ 99,624,449 CIN .457 STL .531

2003 Bowden $ 59,355,667 Jocketty $ 83,786,666 CIN .426 STL .525
2002 Bowden $ 45,050,390 Jocketty $ 74,660,875 CIN .481 STL .599
2001 Bowden $ 48,784,000 Jocketty $ 78,333,333 CIN .407 STL .574
2000 Bowden $ 44,217,500 Jocketty $ 63,093,023 CIN .525 STL .586


Though I don't like Jim Bowden. I sure would like to have seen what he could have done with the money that has been given Walt Jocketty. Seems to work well for Mozeliak.

I think you need to end the charade.

Spring~Fields
04-27-2010, 01:48 PM
I think you need to end the charade.

Is that some personal shot, some sort of character innuendo, some kind of baiting?

Why would you write such a thing?

TRF
04-27-2010, 02:12 PM
Anyone that knows anything about Dickerson, knows that he reworked his entire approach in AA. It took a little while, but results started happening for him at the plate. Was he an older prospect because of it? yep, but he was allowed to develop into the player he is, unlike Stubbs.

And both stink on ice right now.

But Dickerson has the history and the development that Stubbs doesn't have. He's also not completely miscast as a leadoff hitter like Stubbs is.

But as for the original topic of what Walt or Dusty can do....

Dusty:

Play the hot hands. Janish and Hanigan. If Harang and the other starters continue to disappoint, give them an extra day off and spot start Owings.

Cabrera to the bench. yesterday.

Bench Gomes too.

Walt:

where to start. Gomes isn't getting it done in any aspect of the game. admit your mistake and DFA him. Cabrera too. Cozart is looking better and better every day, plays excellent defense and has a little pop.

Laynce Nix serves almost no purpose I can see.

It really is time to play some Kids. Votto, BP and Rolen are veterans. The rotation has veterans. The pen has a few vets too. It's not like this team lacks veteran leadership.

It has an abundance of bad players. And they should be seeking employment elsewhere.

nate
04-27-2010, 02:16 PM
Anyone that knows anything about Dickerson, knows that he reworked his entire approach in AA. It took a little while, but results started happening for him at the plate. Was he an older prospect because of it? yep, but he was allowed to develop into the player he is, unlike Stubbs.

And both stink on ice right now.

But Dickerson has the history and the development that Stubbs doesn't have. He's also not completely miscast as a leadoff hitter like Stubbs is.

But as for the original topic of what Walt or Dusty can do....

Dusty:

Play the hot hands. Janish and Hanigan. If Harang and the other starters continue to disappoint, give them an extra day off and spot start Owings.

Cabrera to the bench. yesterday.

Bench Gomes too.

Walt:

where to start. Gomes isn't getting it done in any aspect of the game. admit your mistake and DFA him. Cabrera too. Cozart is looking better and better every day, plays excellent defense and has a little pop.

Laynce Nix serves almost no purpose I can see.

It really is time to play some Kids. Votto, BP and Rolen are veterans. The rotation has veterans. The pen has a few vets too. It's not like this team lacks veteran leadership.

It has an abundance of bad players. And they should be seeking employment elsewhere.

I agree with your lineup decisions but neither Gomes or Cabrera is going to get DFA this early in the season. I don't mind Gomes coming off the bench and starting versus the dreaded "tough lefty" every now and then. Same for Cabrera when they need Janish to pitch.

:cool:

Boss-Hog
04-27-2010, 02:39 PM
You two need to take this private and off the board or end it by placing each other on ignore. Your choice, but this is not going to continue.


Is that some personal shot, some sort of character innuendo, some kind of baiting?

Why would you write such a thing?


I think you need to end the charade.

Spring~Fields
04-27-2010, 02:43 PM
I agree with your lineup decisions but neither Gomes or Cabrera is going to get DFA this early in the season. I don't mind Gomes coming off the bench and starting versus the dreaded "tough lefty" every now and then. Same for Cabrera when they need Janish to pitch.

:cool:

What you're suggesting and TRF seems to be plausible and something that might be more effective in the present with what they have to work with.

If the ideas were given sufficient time for the application.

RedsManRick
04-27-2010, 02:46 PM
What is incongruent? It is perfectly logical to think a CEO is good, but that some of the products that his company makes are not good.

No company is going to be perfect. Every company will put out bad products, and the CEO should be responsible when they do. But that does not mean that the CEO is terrible, or isn't doing a good job overall. It is perfectly logical to criticize one of a companies many products, while still thinking that CEO is running the company well.

One example, I love Skyline (and yes, I am that mean ;)) but I think their wraps are stupid. I mean who goes to Skyline to eat healthy???? I think they made a huge mistake when they introduced them. But I think it's a great company, and whoever the CEO is, even though he screwed the pooch with the wraps, he is doing a fine job overall.

Likewise, I think Jocketty screwed the pooch when he signed Cabrera and Gomes, but I think he has done a very good job overall of rebuilding an organization that was in shambles when he inherited it. I don't see what's illogical about that.

But is it ok to think that the CEO is good if the company has lost money every year for the last decade?

I guess it comes down to what you believe that CEO's job/objective is. Usually CEOs are directly responsible for individual product lines. They are accountable for the overall performance of the business. So it comes down to how you define performance for the GM of a baseball team.

If his is to win as many baseball games as possible, clearly the Reds have not done well. If his job is merely to make money for the teams' owners, I believe the Reds have made its owners a good deal of money (in value if not profits). I think that GMs operate under the "rules" of the latter while us fans would prefer to judge them on the former.

If Jocketty could turn the Reds in to WS Champs with $40M of annual investment but doing so put the team significantly in the red financially, was he doing a good job?

TheNext44
04-27-2010, 02:55 PM
But is it ok to think that the CEO is good if the company has lost money every year for the last decade?

I guess it comes down to what you believe that CEO's job/objective is.
If the job of a baseball CEO is to win as many baseball games as possible, clearly the Reds have not done well. If his job is merely to make money, I believe the Reds have made its owners a good deal of money (in value if not profits).

If the CEO had been the CEO for the last 10 years, and the company had lost money every year, than there's no way to argue that he's a good CEO.

But what if he has only been CEO two years? What if the last time he took over a company, it took him 5 years to build that company into one of the most dominant companies in the game for over 10 more years? Then I would say give him more time, or at least judge him not on how profitable the company is now, but on how well the rebuilding process has been executed.

bucksfan2
04-27-2010, 03:16 PM
I'm curious, why? Is there some point at which 1 less run scored is actually not offset by 2 runs prevented? On the team level, I suppose you have to be able to score at least one run to win a game. But that's only at the team level. When you're looking at an individual player, all that matters is his overall contribution to the team. The Reds are not better off by getting rid of a guy who is 10 runs below replacement offensively but 20 runs better defensively and adding a guy who is 10 above offensively and 10 below defensively. You're taking 10 runs away from your run differential. Or at the game level, you'd be going from say, 4.5 runs scored and 5.0 runs allowed to 4.6 runs scored and 5.2 runs allowed. How does that help?

I have wondered this before, and even made mention of it, but really haven't seen any proof one way or the other. I get the whole 1 run scored equals 1 run saved. But I also believe it is inherently much easier to save a run than score a run. Hitting a baseball at 80 mph is difficult let alone hitting one at 95 moving all over the place.

Lets use Johnny Gomes and Chris Dickerson as a baseline. No matter how good or bad you think Dickerson or Gomes are there are a large percentage of baseballs hit that will end with the same result. A routine fly ball is going to be caught but either player just the same as a line drive that finds the turf is going to be a hit no matter which player is out there. A line drive that hits high up the LC wall isn't going to be caught by either player. In reality I think we are talking about very few marginal balls, especially when dealing with the LF position. Lets say that we are talking about one play every series that could make a difference. One marginal ball that Dickerson has shown a better ability to get to than Gomes. Is that worth sacrificing 12 at bats coming from a better offensive player? Granted the argument over who is a better offensive player is pretty putrid right now as both players are struggling.

Couple the defensive/offensive with a offensive deficient team. A team that will have problems scoring runs but won't have a problem preventing runs is likely willing to sacrifice some defense if it helps to score. Its easy to look at a player in a vacuum, taking their individual stats and saying player X brings this to the table. But when you put player X into the mix with 8 other player X's you need to find the best total sum not the best individual sum.

RedsManRick
04-27-2010, 08:21 PM
If the CEO had been the CEO for the last 10 years, and the company had lost money every year, than there's no way to argue that he's a good CEO.

But what if he has only been CEO two years? What if the last time he took over a company, it took him 5 years to build that company into one of the most dominant companies in the game for over 10 more years? Then I would say give him more time, or at least judge him not on how profitable the company is now, but on how well the rebuilding process has been executed.

This makes total sense and I agree completely. I just haven't seen much evidence that the rebuilding process has been well executed. Who the manager is in 2011 will speak volumes to me on this front.

I did a very comprehensive analysis of the Cards' ascent and found that Jocketty had a very simple premise: Improve the 25 man roster. There was no comprehensive rebuild, no apparent focus on a certain type of player. Rather, he just kept adding production to the make league roster by trading away mediocre talent and prospects and taking some cheap calculated risks in FA.

Of course, adding one of the greatest players in the history of the game in the 13th round and having him become that player 2 years after he was draft didn't hurt any.

What I'm still not completely clear on is how he goes about valuing talent and the balance of power between him and Dusty. His addition of Taveras and now Cabrera makes me wonder. He's always been a scout heavy guy and I wonder how much of his success in St. Louis was a result of great scouts and one of the greatest pitching coaches in league history.

TheNext44
04-27-2010, 10:27 PM
This makes total sense and I agree completely. I just haven't seen much evidence that the rebuilding process has been well executed. Who the manager is in 2011 will speak volumes to me on this front.

I did a very comprehensive analysis of the Cards' ascent and found that Jocketty had a very simple premise: Improve the 25 man roster. There was no comprehensive rebuild, no apparent focus on a certain type of player. Rather, he just kept adding production to the make league roster by trading away mediocre talent and prospects and taking some cheap calculated risks in FA.

Of course, adding one of the greatest players in the history of the game in the 13th round and having him become that player 2 years after he was draft didn't hurt any.

What I'm still not completely clear on is how he goes about valuing talent and the balance of power between him and Dusty. His addition of Taveras and now Cabrera makes me wonder. He's always been a scout heavy guy and I wonder how much of his success in St. Louis was a result of great scouts and one of the greatest pitching coaches in league history.

I lived in St. Louis during Jocketty's first 5 years. This is what he did.

Nothing. Or practically nothing in the first three years, at least on the major league level. In his first season, he got lucky and the team won 87 games and made the playoffs. But he realized that the organization was in shambles and this was not going to last.

So he let Zeile and Jefferies go via free agency, and worked on building up depth in the organization with the money saved. They suffered through two terrible years, and then when he thought they were close in '96, he went all in and signed Ron Gant, Gary Gaetti, Todd Stottlemeyer and Dennis Eckersley. That team was one win away from the World Series.

He did it again in 2000 when he got Edmonds, Hentgan, Kile, Matheney and Vina. That team also went to the NL Championship Series. Both those rebuilding projects were pre-Pujols too. So luck and little to do with it.

That's his M.O. Wait until an organization has depth, and then when the major league team is ready, go for it by getting the best talent out there.

Okay, so he doesn't value OPB over SLG, or xFIP over ERA. So he doesn't look for one type of player or pitcher. Instead he looks for talent, and when the time is right, he goes and gets the very best he can get at that time, whoever that is. And that has worked very well for him so far.

Now as to the Reds, if he is going to do that, he is going to need Cast to open his wallet. Not sure if it is going to be open wide enough to turn the Reds into true contenders, but the Chapman signing was a good move in that direction.

CesarGeronimo
04-28-2010, 12:09 AM
Walt:

where to start. Gomes isn't getting it done in any aspect of the game. admit your mistake and DFA him. Cabrera too. Cozart is looking better and better every day, plays excellent defense and has a little pop.

Laynce Nix serves almost no purpose I can see.

It really is time to play some Kids. Votto, BP and Rolen are veterans. The rotation has veterans. The pen has a few vets too. It's not like this team lacks veteran leadership.

It has an abundance of bad players. And they should be seeking employment elsewhere.

Maybe give Danny Dorn (.883 OPS in AAA, 4 HRs) a shot as the left-handed part of a platoon with Gomes in left field?

RedsManRick
04-28-2010, 12:59 AM
I have wondered this before, and even made mention of it, but really haven't seen any proof one way or the other. I get the whole 1 run scored equals 1 run saved. But I also believe it is inherently much easier to save a run than score a run. Hitting a baseball at 80 mph is difficult let alone hitting one at 95 moving all over the place.

Lets use Johnny Gomes and Chris Dickerson as a baseline. No matter how good or bad you think Dickerson or Gomes are there are a large percentage of baseballs hit that will end with the same result. A routine fly ball is going to be caught but either player just the same as a line drive that finds the turf is going to be a hit no matter which player is out there. A line drive that hits high up the LC wall isn't going to be caught by either player. In reality I think we are talking about very few marginal balls, especially when dealing with the LF position. Lets say that we are talking about one play every series that could make a difference. One marginal ball that Dickerson has shown a better ability to get to than Gomes. Is that worth sacrificing 12 at bats coming from a better offensive player? Granted the argument over who is a better offensive player is pretty putrid right now as both players are struggling.

Great example. The way the defensive metrics work accounts for everything you just described. Just like most defensive plays are made by whomever you put out there, most PA end up as outs regardless of who you put at the plate. If we want to talk about the marginal advantage of of a defensive play, we need to use the same terms when looking at plate appearances.

So, to your example:

The metrics suggest Dickerson is in the ballpark of 20 runs better than Gomes defensively. That difference may very well have only played out over 1 ball per series, something like 30 or 40 plays over the course of the seasons. But think about it. What's the run value of a ball that Dickerson gets to for an out but which scoots past Gomes for a double? With a runner on base that's a run's difference right there, plus the value of giving the team another plate appearance.

Every single different defensive play, by definition, is an out for one guy and a hit for the other -- and in the OF, those hits are often of the extra base variety. So now we have Dickerson up one hit per series. Analysis of the run value of each type of hit shows that singles are worth ~.5 runs, doubles ~.75, and triples ~1.0. I know that's a little counter intuitive, but you have to account for the advancement of runners on base and the value of the plate appearance another gets who wouldn't have gotten it if you made an out instead. But let's be generous and assume they're all singles. That puts Dickerson up half of a run defensively per series from that 1 play.

Then we look at the plate appearances. It's hard to model a typical batting line with just 12 PA, so let's make 5 series, 60 PA. So now we have Dickerson up 2.5 runs over 5 series. I tried to find a reasonable batting line over 60 PA for those two and came up with the following:

Player PA 1B 2B 3B HR BB K SB RC BR AVG OBP SLG OPS TB BB/PA K/PA
Gomes 60 8 2 0 4 6 18 0 9.3 9.3 .259 .333 .519 .852 28 10.0% 30.0%
Dickers 60 11 2 0 1 7 17 2 6.7 6.9 .264 .350 .358 .708 19 11.7% 28.3%

It's not exact, but it's pretty close to their expected production and you can only get so fine over 60 PA. But here's the kicker: when you use the run production formulas to figure out how many runs each guy produced (RC and BR are two different formulas), one puts the difference at 2.6 runs, the other at 2.4. (for reference, a very rough rule of thumb is that a 100 point advantage in OPS is worth 1 additional produced every 35 PA)

I swear I didn't play with the numbers to make this work out this way -- it just did. The differences balance each other out almost exactly; given that this all rough estimates, call it a wash. And frankly, given that the defensive differences show up in more than just singles, it's probably an edge for Dickerson. We can play around with the assumptions a bit if you want, but they're pretty reasonable and moderate tweaks won't change our conclusion much.

So, the answer to your question, "One marginal ball that Dickerson has shown a better ability to get to than Gomes. Is that worth sacrificing 12 at bats coming from a better offensive player?" is a definitive YES.

Dickerson vs. Gomes is roughly a wash and maybe a slight edge for Dickerson given the assumptions you've put forward.

I find it interesting that you talk about the difference between them defensively as being so small as to be just 1 play a series. Well, the difference between them offensively is just 1 PA per series. We just happen to have a better feel for what the difference is offensively than we do defensively because we've been measuring it and talking about it for so much longer.

That's the beauty of using replacement level as your baseline. You are already controlling for the difficulty of replacing that production, both offensive and defensive. We see this point in action when we see no player in baseball contributing more than 20-25 runs above replacement defensively (on a consistent basis) whereas great offensive players can be +60 or more. Additionally, we regularly see guys go in to the negatives on defense, precisely because defense is so easy to replace. So if you're a bad LF, you're screwing up something that a whole bunch of people in AAA could do better. That's harmful to a team. We don't see that nearly as much on offense.

If Gomes wasn't truly abysmal in LF, his offensive edge would more than make up for his defensive shortcomings. But he's a REALLY bad LF -- and being a REALLY bad LF is a pretty bad indictment given how easy adequate LF defense is to come by.



Couple the defensive/offensive with a offensive deficient team. A team that will have problems scoring runs but won't have a problem preventing runs is likely willing to sacrifice some defense if it helps to score. Its easy to look at a player in a vacuum, taking their individual stats and saying player X brings this to the table. But when you put player X into the mix with 8 other player X's you need to find the best total sum not the best individual sum.

So why would that team be willing to trade offense for defense in that situation? (I think you're generally right in terms of that being how some teams think, but that doesn't make it right). Are you a better team if you lose 4-5 instead of 3-4?

So, the question becomes: how do you define "best total sum"? At the end of the day, the game is about outscoring your opponent. It's pretty straight forward. So the answer to that question for me is similarly straight forward. The best total sum is differential between how many runs your team scores and how many runs you team allows. That's the best sum total.

It doesn't matter whether you outscore your opponent 2-1, 4-3, or 6-5; you just have to outscore them. There's no extra credit, no added advantage for achieving some sort of relative balance relative to league average. Runs are runs are runs; you just need more of 'em than the other guy.

What's interesting about baseball is precisely that there isn't very much interaction between what one guy does and another does. Adding Jonny Gomes to the lineup does not make Joey Votto a better hitter. The value of giving your team more base runners or more bases to advance is equally offset by providing the opponent the same advantage on the defensive side. In baseball, you can take the production of the individual players and add it up to get the team's production. Whatever slight efficiencies you might get from a certain combination of "types" of talent comes out in the wash.

Really, there's no need to over-think it. Now, if you want to debate the run value of defensive performance, we can go there. But once you make the conversion to runs, they're all the same.

Will M
04-28-2010, 01:09 AM
Dusty:

Play the hot hands. Janish and Hanigan. If Harang and the other starters continue to disappoint, give them an extra day off and spot start Owings.

Cabrera to the bench. yesterday.

Bench Gomes too.

Walt:

where to start. Gomes isn't getting it done in any aspect of the game. admit your mistake and DFA him. Cabrera too. Cozart is looking better and better every day, plays excellent defense and has a little pop.

Laynce Nix serves almost no purpose I can see.

It really is time to play some Kids. Votto, BP and Rolen are veterans. The rotation has veterans. The pen has a few vets too. It's not like this team lacks veteran leadership.

It has an abundance of bad players. And they should be seeking employment elsewhere.

IMO the problem with DFAing Gomes, Nix & Cabrera is that no one outside of Valaika is playing well in AAA. who is going to replace them on the 25 man roster? plus these three guys are likely above replacement level anyway. they are all fine BENCH players. they just shouldn't be getting regular playing time.

GAC
04-28-2010, 06:09 AM
I lived in St. Louis during Jocketty's first 5 years. This is what he did.

Nothing. Or practically nothing in the first three years, at least on the major league level. In his first season, he got lucky and the team won 87 games and made the playoffs. But he realized that the organization was in shambles and this was not going to last.

So he let Zeile and Jefferies go via free agency, and worked on building up depth in the organization with the money saved. They suffered through two terrible years, and then when he thought they were close in '96, he went all in and signed Ron Gant, Gary Gaetti, Todd Stottlemeyer and Dennis Eckersley. That team was one win away from the World Series.

He did it again in 2000 when he got Edmonds, Hentgan, Kile, Matheney and Vina. That team also went to the NL Championship Series. Both those rebuilding projects were pre-Pujols too. So luck and little to do with it.

That's his M.O. Wait until an organization has depth, and then when the major league team is ready, go for it by getting the best talent out there.

Okay, so he doesn't value OPB over SLG, or xFIP over ERA. So he doesn't look for one type of player or pitcher. Instead he looks for talent, and when the time is right, he goes and gets the very best he can get at that time, whoever that is. And that has worked very well for him so far.

Now as to the Reds, if he is going to do that, he is going to need Cast to open his wallet. Not sure if it is going to be open wide enough to turn the Reds into true contenders, but the Chapman signing was a good move in that direction.

Very good post 44. Jocketty ws an "opportunist". And I don't mean that in a bad light. He was not only able to be in the right place at the right time to acquire the players (pieces) you mention, but more importantly he had an ownership that would then open their pocket books to acquire and retain those players.

With Castellini and now Jocketty in Cincy, many were hopeful that they would turn the Reds into St Louis East. Well, so far it hasn't happened. And I think the difference is the ownership group in Cincy other then Bob C.

Jocketty was not known for his knowledge and emphasis on the farm system, drafting and developing players while in St Louis. He even acknowledged that he relied on others to handle that aspect. And many were worried that when he came to Cincy that he'd start trading away prospects to support Bob's "win now" mantra. Well that hasn't happened either. In fact, Walt has shown patience, talked of being patient, and of building from within.

Now the question I have is.... is that an approach that he personally has decided to take, or is it because this ownership group is just cheap and refuses to allow Walt to do what he did in St Louis and acquire various pieces to complement that youth? He has no other choice.

He was allowed to go out and get a Rolen; but other then that, not much else. has the guy been "handcuffed" because "you ain't in St Louis any more Walt". ;)

TRF
04-28-2010, 10:36 AM
IMO the problem with DFAing Gomes, Nix & Cabrera is that no one outside of Valaika is playing well in AAA. who is going to replace them on the 25 man roster? plus these three guys are likely above replacement level anyway. they are all fine BENCH players. they just shouldn't be getting regular playing time.

Cozart is playing well. Dorn has cooled a bit, but has a ton of power and OB skills. The rest of this offense sans Valaika is scuffling to be sure, but I'd rather see the kids than old, bad, players living off reputation or career years.

Spring~Fields
04-28-2010, 11:44 AM
Very good post 44. Jocketty ws an "opportunist". And I don't mean that in a bad light. He was not only able to be in the right place at the right time to acquire the players (pieces) you mention, but more importantly he had an ownership that would then open their pocket books to acquire and retain those players.

With Castellini and now Jocketty in Cincy, many were hopeful that they would turn the Reds into St Louis East. Well, so far it hasn't happened. And I think the difference is the ownership group in Cincy other then Bob C.

Jocketty was not known for his knowledge and emphasis on the farm system, drafting and developing players while in St Louis. He even acknowledged that he relied on others to handle that aspect. And many were worried that when he came to Cincy that he'd start trading away prospects to support Bob's "win now" mantra. Well that hasn't happened either. In fact, Walt has shown patience, talked of being patient, and of building from within.

Now the question I have is.... is that an approach that he personally has decided to take, or is it because this ownership group is just cheap and refuses to allow Walt to do what he did in St Louis and acquire various pieces to complement that youth? He has no other choice.

He was allowed to go out and get a Rolen; but other then that, not much else. has the guy been "handcuffed" because "you ain't in St Louis any more Walt". ;)

Good points and questions. It is going to be very interesting to see over additional time.