PDA

View Full Version : Bronson extension a done deal



Pages : [1] 2

Brutus
10-08-2010, 11:14 PM
I meant to bring this up right after the game, but I was distracted by the Cubs throwing the baseball all over the diamond. Fortunately the Sun Deck thread reminded me of this.

What's everyone's take on the word the announcers gave from Jocketty that they were in discussions with Arroyo about an extension?

I've mixed emotions. On one hand, I think he's earned it. On the other hand, I worry about committing too much money to him over too many seasons. If he's willing to take a pay cut in favor of 2-3 seasons, perhaps it's a good idea. I just don't want to see the Reds hand-cuffed going forward.

Thoughts on this? If they do re-sign him to an extension, as opposed to just flat picking up his option, I would think this means one of the SPs will be traded this offseason.

reds44
10-08-2010, 11:16 PM
I think the announcers was making stuff up to be honest. We'll exercise his option.

Brutus
10-08-2010, 11:21 PM
I think the announcers was making stuff up to be honest. We'll exercise his option.

They said it came straight from Jocketty. I suppose it's possible they misinterpreted things, but I don't think anyone could confuse picking up and option with working on an extension.

Joe Simpson is a pretty good guy in his profession. He's not likely to get that wrong.

I actually don't see the Reds picking up his option. I think an extension makes more sense if he's willing to accept 3 years with some money spread out than the Reds paying him (possibly) $13 million next season.

savafan
10-08-2010, 11:27 PM
I like the idea of an extension. For the body of his work, Bronson has been the Reds best pitcher from 2006-present. He's not flashy, doesn't strike a lot of guys out, but when he's on, he's money. Plus, he's a great personality and one of my favorite Reds. I'd love to see him finish his career here.

alloverjr
10-08-2010, 11:29 PM
Thoughts on this? If they do re-sign him to an extension, as opposed to just flat picking up his option, I would think this means one of the SPs will be traded this offseason.

Depends on the terms of the extension, but as far as pitchers go, there are not too many better examples of knowing exactly what you're getting. 220+, 4 ERA, 33 starts. Consistency. How much is that worth? Probably a little more than a high upside high effort pitcher that may give you a full run better in ERA, but might also blow is arm out in 3 months. Again, depends on the terms but worth a serious look.

I think it's a foregone conclusion that one of the SP is getting traded. They have holes to fill in the field and SP is a huge chip to have when sitting at the table.

corkedbat
10-08-2010, 11:32 PM
Unless an ace falls in their lap, I'd definitely pickup his option. I think he has shown to be somebody that can be counted on for 220 or more innings a year and 30+ starts (most of them quality). While he isn't you typical Number 1, he is invaluable and knows how to pitch.

Unless it something like the Rolen deal where he gets something like $27M over 2011, 2012, and 2013 instead of the $12M or so he's owed in 2011, I think I'd pass on an extension though. With another season under their belt, at least a couple of the young starters like Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Wood, Leake and Chapman will be mature enough to lead the staff and some of the next wave will be nearer to the majors.

Love Bronson and when he's on, it's a joy to watch him pitch. He's also the kind of pitcher to have decent longevity. By the 2012 season though, it will be time to really start paying the piper on some of the young guns. The money from Bronson, Cordero and Phillips will need to be cleared by then (if not sooner) to help offset those increased contracts (not to mention any additions to improve the team with additions).

Sea Ray
10-09-2010, 08:45 AM
I meant to bring this up right after the game, but I was distracted by the Cubs throwing the baseball all over the diamond. Fortunately the Sun Deck thread reminded me of this.

What's everyone's take on the word the announcers gave from Jocketty that they were in discussions with Arroyo about an extension?

I've mixed emotions. On one hand, I think he's earned it. On the other hand, I worry about committing too much money to him over too many seasons. If he's willing to take a pay cut in favor of 2-3 seasons, perhaps it's a good idea. I just don't want to see the Reds hand-cuffed going forward.

Thoughts on this? If they do re-sign him to an extension, as opposed to just flat picking up his option, I would think this means one of the SPs will be traded this offseason.

Were the Cubs playing last night?

I wondered if they knew what they were talking about when I heard that. Regardless I do think we'll see a pitcher moved this off season

jojo
10-09-2010, 08:52 AM
It's hard to say without knowing any details but, if I had to give an answer right now, i'd say it's probably a bad idea. Why? Because he really isn't good enough.

Sea Ray
10-09-2010, 09:02 AM
It's hard to say without knowing any details but, if I had to give an answer right now, i'd say it's probably a bad idea. Why? Because he really isn't good enough.

How can you say he isn't good enough without knowing the numbers?

jojo
10-09-2010, 09:11 AM
How can you say he isn't good enough without knowing the numbers?

I know his numbers.

Sea Ray
10-09-2010, 09:13 AM
I know his numbers.

You know how much money/yrs they're offering him?

OK, care to enlighten us?

jojo
10-09-2010, 09:15 AM
You know how much money/yrs they're offering him?

OK, care to enlighten us?

Reread both posts. Consider the caveat.

Sea Ray
10-09-2010, 09:51 AM
Reread both posts. Consider the caveat.

How can you say it's a bad idea without knowing the terms of the contract?

jojo
10-09-2010, 10:03 AM
How can you say it's a bad idea without knowing the terms of the contract?

Because, again with the obvious caveat that until we know what such a hypothetical contract would be, we don't know what it would be, we can look at his current $11M paycheck, consider that picking up his option might cost as much as $13M given his workload this season, the fact that he's coming off of two straight seasons of shiny, defense-driven sub 4 ERAs suggesting there might be some kind of market for him that gives him leverage in extension negotiations, quotes from him that suggest he feels he's well worth what he's getting paid and with taking those kind of things into consideration, logically surmise a likely extension might be at least three years at a similar pay level as he's currently earning.

Then one can look at his age, his peripherals, and the likelihood he'd be a number 5 behind Cueto, Chapman, Volquez, and Leake next season and say something like, "It's hard to say without knowing any details but, if I had to give an answer right now, i'd say it's probably a bad idea. Why? Because he really isn't good enough."

Sea Ray
10-09-2010, 10:17 AM
Because, again with the obvious caveat that until we know what such a hypothetical contract would be, we don't know what it would be, we can look at his current $11M paycheck, consider that picking up his option might cost as much as $13M given his workload this season, the fact that he's coming off of two straight seasons of shiny, defense-driven sub 4 ERAs suggesting there might be some kind of market for him that gives him leverage in extension negotiations, quotes from him that suggest he feels he's well worth what he's getting paid and with taking those kind of things into consideration, logically surmise a likely extension might be at least three years at a similar pay level as he's currently earning.

Then one can look at his age, his peripherals, and the likelihood he'd be a number 5 behind Cueto, Chapman, Volquez, and Leake next season and say something like, "It's hard to say without knowing any details but, if I had to give an answer right now, i'd say it's probably a bad idea. Why? Because he really isn't good enough."

Lots of assumptions there that I don't agree with, the biggest being that he'll be a #5 starter.

I think it'd be prudent to wait until we hear the terms before we call it a mistake. We also ought to dig up posts of folks like yourself and what they said when he signed this deal.

As a Reds fan, I like having him around and I think he's good for the city, but upon hearing about his extension, my attitude will likely be something along the lines of "I'm glad it's not my money".

mth123
10-09-2010, 10:19 AM
Unless Arroyo is willing to convert next season's $13 Million option into a two year deal at say $9 Million per with full rights to deal him after the 2011 season and no option or buyout, I don't like it. The team needs Arroyo (or some one better) next season, but after that enough of the kids should be grown up enough to take up the inning slack. In 2011, Chapman and Leake are still probably guys who need kid gloves (and AAA), Volquez and Bailey are still guys coming off of injuries and Wood is a first full season question mark who the league will have a pretty good book on this time around. The Reds need a vet starter that they can pencil in for 32 starts and 210 competitive IP. Bringing Arroyo back in 2011 is the minimum they should do (though getting a true ace would be preferable). Not sure he is somebody they need past that. I like Arroyo better than most, but for the Reds to maintain their success, they will need to move out larger salaries on the downhill side in favor of cheap talent to offset the escalating costs of the talented core. Arroyo is 34 in 2011. I like the idea of getting some relief from the $13 Million in 2011, but not if it means adding a bunch of years at 8 figures. I'd invoke the option and then say goodbye after 2011 unless Arroyo gives the Reds a sweatheart deal.

kaldaniels
10-09-2010, 12:33 PM
It's hard to say without knowing any details but, if I had to give an answer right now, i'd say it's probably a bad idea. Why? Because he really isn't good enough.

Have you seen the production BA has given us the past 5 years? He defies the proverbial projections.

jojo
10-09-2010, 12:41 PM
Have you seen the production BA has given us the past 5 years? He defies the proverbial projections.

Having one of the best defenses in the majors during the last two seasons defies his peripherals. He should buy the defense isotoners for Christmas and the Reds should pay someone else less than top dollar to gobble innings.

mth123
10-09-2010, 12:47 PM
Having one of the best defenses in the majors during the last two seasons defies his peripherals. He should buy the defense isotoners for Christmas and the Reds should pay someone else less than top dollar to gobble innings.

I hear this a lot, but the guys who would command less are guys who typically go 150 to 180 innings. You get what you pay for. This team is filled with young arms still in the danger zone. The rotation needs one guy that they can reliably lean on with no remorse and I don't see anybody like that who is any better coming to Cincy for any less. Not a big fan of downgrading from Arroyo to Jeff Suppan or Braden Looper, because for the reduced cost, that is what we're looking at.

One more year while the kids grow-up and sort themselves out and then I'm all for Leake assuming Arroyo's role. Of course if the Reds would have dealt for and extended Lee or dealt for Oswalt, I'd be all for cutting Arroyo loose.

TheNext44
10-09-2010, 12:58 PM
I think that it would be a bad idea given his age alone. But it could be a great idea if it means that the Reds are increasing payroll.

The Reds, without increasing payroll, have enough to pick up Arroyo's option, and nothing else. If they are increasing it enought to offer him an extension, and fill their other needs, I love the idea.

TheNext44
10-09-2010, 01:03 PM
Having one of the best defenses in the majors during the last two seasons defies his peripherals. He should buy the defense isotoners for Christmas and the Reds should pay someone else less than top dollar to gobble innings.

I kinda agree, but to be honest, I don't see anyone on the list of available inning eaters who will be cheaper than Arroyo, or better.

Remember, Randy Wolf got 3 years, $30M. The only other options I see are the Josh Fogg types. Not much in the middle available right now.


And Arroyo was defying his peripherals when the Reds had a terrible defense. He's been doing it his whole career. That argument just doesn't stick anymore.

NJReds
10-09-2010, 01:15 PM
On WFAN yesterday afternoon the host said that the Mets had tried to get Arroyo from Cincinnati, but he's "the owner's favorite player."

I don't doubt that they're trying to sign him to an extension.

OnBaseMachine
10-09-2010, 03:45 PM
From John Fay:

Jocketty says the #Reds will definitely pick up Arroyo's option. Will try to add years.

http://twitter.com/johnfayman

I'm in favor of picking up Arroyo's option but I wouldn't extend him. Wait and see how he does in 2011 before offering him an extension.

edabbs44
10-09-2010, 03:56 PM
If the terms are right it could end up being a good thing. They can then utilize the depth to get help in other areas via trade.

Reading what Fay says, I am sure Walt is going to extend him on his terms. If not, the option is exercised and they go from there.

RedsManRick
10-09-2010, 04:27 PM
I don't mind the option, but an extension is a bad idea if you ask me. He's way overdue for a regression as his low BABIP hid his K/9 decline. Sure, he induces weaker contact than most, but his .270 last year and .244 his year are not at all sustainable.

He's a ~4.50 ERA talent moving forward. With his durability, that still has a good deal of value. But I'm not sure it makes sense for the Reds to choose to spend their money that way. This team doesn't need to pay for depth. It should spend its money on things it can't get otherwise. I think Matt Maloney could fill that role just as well (check out the peripherals) and for a whole lot less.

VR
10-09-2010, 04:28 PM
Sign Arroyo.....be willing to trade any combination of Cueto, Phillips, Alonso, Francisco, for an ace and either a power hitting or very high OBP left fielder.
Arroyo is the perfect #2-3 inning eater that a contender needs.

edabbs44
10-09-2010, 05:37 PM
Sign Arroyo.....be willing to trade any combination of Cueto, Phillips, Alonso, Francisco, for an ace and either a power hitting or very high OBP left fielder.
Arroyo is the perfect #2-3 inning eater that a contender needs.

Bronson is the guy with the highest floor. If Leake, Chapman and Volquez all pitch to less than expectations (a real possibility), the Reds need someone who they know isn't going to flat out suck.

Hopefully WJ doesn't go too long with the years.

membengal
10-09-2010, 06:00 PM
What does Styx have to say about ORG part of Redszone right now? This. They're true to their own catelogue when offering opinions...


You see the world through your cynical eyes
You're a troubled young man I can tell
You've got it all in the palm of your hand
But your hand's wet with sweat and your head needs a rest

And you're fooling yourself if you don't believe it
You're kidding yourself if you don't believe it
Why must you be such an angry young man
When your future looks quite bright to me

fearofpopvol1
10-09-2010, 07:03 PM
I don't mind the option, but an extension is a bad idea if you ask me. He's way overdue for a regression as his low BABIP hid his K/9 decline. Sure, he induces weaker contact than most, but his .270 last year and .244 his year are not at all sustainable.

He's a ~4.50 ERA talent moving forward. With his durability, that still has a good deal of value. But I'm not sure it makes sense for the Reds to choose to spend their money that way. This team doesn't need to pay for depth. It should spend its money on things it can't get otherwise. I think Matt Maloney could fill that role just as well (check out the peripherals) and for a whole lot less.

This is exactly how I feel. I am totally good with the option, but anything beyond that, I'd pass. I like Arroyo a lot, I just don't think he's going to be needed beyond next year, particularly at 7 figures.

There's plenty of other arms and one of the young kids that we may not want to rely on next season should be ready for 2012.

jojo
10-09-2010, 07:04 PM
That argument just doesn't stick anymore.

That argument still sticks so tight it's hanging from a girder while holding onto it's hardhat.

Put him in front of the '07 Reds defense the last two seasons and we'd have about 6 threads bemoaning the fact that Dusty started him in game two....

lollipopcurve
10-09-2010, 07:21 PM
That argument still sticks so tight it's hanging from a girder while holding onto it's hardhat.

Put him in front of the '07 Reds defense the last two seasons and we'd have about 6 threads bemoaning the fact that Dusty started him in game two....

The old "Arroyo has bad peripherals" thing. Been hearing it since the day the Reds traded for him. Yawn.

Fact is, an extension that gives the team some extra salary room in 2011 makes a lot of sense.


Sign Arroyo.....be willing to trade any combination of Cueto, Phillips, Alonso, Francisco, for an ace and either a power hitting or very high OBP left fielder.
Arroyo is the perfect #2-3 inning eater that a contender needs.

Could happen. Young pitching sells.

Brutus
10-09-2010, 07:24 PM
That argument still sticks so tight it's hanging from a girder while holding onto it's hardhat.

Put him in front of the '07 Reds defense the last two seasons and we'd have about 6 threads bemoaning the fact that Dusty started him in game two....

I don't think it's all defense, and I say this as someone that has been less high on Arroyo as some here, and have even said he's not worth the money being paid to him. I've been very outspoken about that.

While I think it's fair to say there's some luck involved, he's been good enough for the better part of 3-4 years now where it's pretty narrow not to give him some of the credit for that.

Take this year, for example. While he does have nearly a run higher FIP than his actual ERA, it is worth noting his LD% is down at 16% this year while those extra 3-5% of line drives have seemingly been replaced with mostly harmless fly balls, which are not as much a product of defense.

It's also worth noting that Homer Bailey, Johnny Cueto, Travis Wood and Edinson Volquez pitch with the same defense and have all performed at or actually below their FIP.

If the entire pitching staff were out-performing their FIP, and Arroyo didn't have a history of this, I'd be inclined to agree with you. However, that hasn't been the case and that's a sign that perhaps Arroyo has at least had something to do with the performance.

Mario-Rijo
10-09-2010, 07:28 PM
Pass on the option (unless they plan to deal him afterwards) and pass hard on anything beyond that. I mean who gets to play in Louisville next year because of it, it's just time to move on for better or for worse IMO. That doesn't even mention the money that should soon rightfully go to Votto, Bruce, etc..


Just so everyone can see it in black and white...

Cueto - A Major League Starter!
Volquez - A Major League Starter!
Bailey, Wood & Leake - Should they now go backwards?

That is 5 even if Chapman stays in the pen which the Reds brass still swear he won't. So they may not pan out, he may not continue to either so which is the less risky proposition? I say go with the youth and let's see if it works out. At least it won't handcuff us from a fiscal standpoint.

dougdirt
10-09-2010, 07:53 PM
Pass on the option (unless they plan to deal him afterwards) and pass hard on anything beyond that. I mean who gets to play in Louisville next year because of it, it's just time to move on for better or for worse IMO. That doesn't even mention the money that should soon rightfully go to Votto, Bruce, etc..


Just so everyone can see it in black and white...

Cueto - A Major League Starter!
Volquez - A Major League Starter!
Bailey, Wood & Leake - Should they now go backwards?

That is 5 even if Chapman stays in the pen which the Reds brass still swear he won't. So they may not pan out, he may not continue to either so which is the less risky proposition? I say go with the youth and let's see if it works out. At least it won't handcuff us from a fiscal standpoint.

Agree here. The Reds are going to have to either send Homer Bailey to the bullpen, or Travis Wood/Mike Leake to AAA and keep Chapman in the bullpen or AAA if they bring back Arroyo, much less extend him at $10+M a year, limiting payroll a lot more than they should. Arroyo isn't an $8-9M upgrade over whoever would take his spot in the rotation. He isn't even close to it. Use that money elsewhere and stick with your starters of: Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Wood, Leake, Chapman, Lecure and Maloney.

OnBaseMachine
10-09-2010, 07:57 PM
From Joe Kay:

Arroyo says #Reds seem to be interested in picking up option for 2011 and adding 2 years for 3-year deal overall.

http://twitter.com/apjoekay

I'm a big Arroyo fan, I would definitely pick up his option for next year but there's no way I would extend him for another two or three years. Bronson will be 34 by Opening Day 2011 - I think the Reds should wait and see he performs in 2011 before considering extending him.

RedsManRick
10-09-2010, 07:59 PM
Arroyo's ERAs and BABIPs as a Red:

2006: 3.29, .279
2007: 4.23, .318
2008: 4.77, .321
2009: 3.84, .279
2010: 3.88, .246

If anybody wants to suggest that Arroyo's true talent BABIP is comparable to the best players in major leaguer history, fine. I'm going to go with something between that and average, like his career .290. Give him that BABIP and his ERA is closer to 4.50 than 3.85.

Homer Bailey
10-09-2010, 08:18 PM
Agree here. The Reds are going to have to either send Homer Bailey to the bullpen, or Travis Wood/Mike Leake to AAA and keep Chapman in the bullpen or AAA if they bring back Arroyo, much less extend him at $10+M a year, limiting payroll a lot more than they should. Arroyo isn't an $8-9M upgrade over whoever would take his spot in the rotation. He isn't even close to it. Use that money elsewhere and stick with your starters of: Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Wood, Leake, Chapman, Lecure and Maloney.

I'm not counting on anything from Mike Leake. Having to send him to AAA wouldn't stop me from picking up Arroyo's option.

TheNext44
10-09-2010, 08:25 PM
That argument still sticks so tight it's hanging from a girder while holding onto it's hardhat.

Put him in front of the '07 Reds defense the last two seasons and we'd have about 6 threads bemoaning the fact that Dusty started him in game two....

First, he did pitch in front of the '07 Reds and put up a 4.23 ERA.

How is it tight when it has failed to predict his production 4 out of the last 5 years? At some point you have to conclude that the guy is an outlier.

I agree an extension is a bad idea, depending on the terms, but that's mostly because of his age and the needs and resources of the club. I just don't think it's ever wise to give extensions/multiyear contracts to guys over 30.

TheNext44
10-09-2010, 08:30 PM
Agree here. The Reds are going to have to either send Homer Bailey to the bullpen, or Travis Wood/Mike Leake to AAA and keep Chapman in the bullpen or AAA if they bring back Arroyo, much less extend him at $10+M a year, limiting payroll a lot more than they should. Arroyo isn't an $8-9M upgrade over whoever would take his spot in the rotation. He isn't even close to it. Use that money elsewhere and stick with your starters of: Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Wood, Leake, Chapman, Lecure and Maloney.

I would agree with that if I thought there was a cheaper option out there.

Plus, you can never have too much pitching. I can pretty much guarantee that none of those guys will miss any starts that they are ready for because of Arroyo coming back.

And as I stated before, I think this is a sign that the Reds will be increasing payroll, and until we find out by how much, we shouldn't judge any moves.

Going to playoffs this year, probably translate into an extra $10M for next year. Where that goes is the big question.

edabbs44
10-09-2010, 08:30 PM
Does anyone have Jocketty's history on extending starting pitchers? I think he gave some money to Mulder coming off injury, but unsure of any comps we may have on the healthy side.

VR
10-09-2010, 08:31 PM
First, he did pitch in front of the '07 Reds and put up a 4.23 ERA.

How is it tight when it has failed to predict his production 4 out of the last 5 years? At some point you have to conclude that the guy is an outlier.

I agree an extension is a bad idea, depending on the terms, but that's mostly because of his age and the needs and resources of the club. I just don't think it's ever wise to give extensions/multiyear contracts to guys over 30.

That word outlier is an interesting one.

With all those young, unproven arms.....he's a 10M insurance policy that's very well worth it imho.

As long as you don't look at him as your ace....he's a very valuable asset to a team that wants to compete.

TheNext44
10-09-2010, 08:33 PM
Arroyo's ERAs and BABIPs as a Red:

2006: 3.29, .279
2007: 4.23, .318
2008: 4.77, .321
2009: 3.84, .279
2010: 3.88, .246

If anybody wants to suggest that Arroyo's true talent BABIP is comparable to the best players in major leaguer history, fine. I'm going to go with something between that and average, like his career .290. Give him that BABIP and his ERA is closer to 4.50 than 3.85.

I think you are dead on. That is why the terms are so important. 200 innings of 4.50 ERA is worth around $10M these days, at least according to last years signings.

camisadelgolf
10-09-2010, 08:54 PM
Does anyone have Jocketty's history on extending starting pitchers? I think he gave some money to Mulder coming off injury, but unsure of any comps we may have on the healthy side.
Here are some guys I can think of: Chris Carpenter, Matt Morris, Jeff Suppan (back when he was a viable option), Woody Williams, Andy Benes, Darryl Kile, Todd Stottlemyre, Donovan Osborne . . .

Basically, he doesn't let a lot of talent leave. It seems like he'd rather pay a guy until he fails rather than let him walk at the risk of him being productive elsewhere. For the most part, not many pitchers have left St. Louis and ended up productive elsewhere during his tenure.

edabbs44
10-09-2010, 09:05 PM
That word outlier is an interesting one.

With all those young, unproven arms.....he's a 10M insurance policy that's very well worth it imho.

As long as you don't look at him as your ace....he's a very valuable asset to a team that wants to compete.

Agree, and I wonder if the youngsters have taken to him enough that Walt feels the investment is wise on that end as well. We know how this regime values veteran leadership and I'd be scared for a defending NL Central champ to be going into next season with a rotation that accounted for like 25 wins this year, or something like that, depending on who is in the rotation.

mth123
10-09-2010, 09:25 PM
Agree here. The Reds are going to have to either send Homer Bailey to the bullpen, or Travis Wood/Mike Leake to AAA and keep Chapman in the bullpen or AAA if they bring back Arroyo, much less extend him at $10+M a year, limiting payroll a lot more than they should. Arroyo isn't an $8-9M upgrade over whoever would take his spot in the rotation. He isn't even close to it. Use that money elsewhere and stick with your starters of: Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Wood, Leake, Chapman, Lecure and Maloney.

I get the logic and if Leake had been good for 165 IP or so I'd agree, but Leake was the absolute suck after 75 innings in 2010. A rotation of Cueto, Volquez (coming off injury), Bailey (coming off injury), Leake (rookie who wasn't any good after the league adjusted) and Wood (how will the league adjust to him?) just doesn't have enough innings and has too many question marks in it. Let Leake have a year in AAA to build those innings and provide some depth should any of the others fail or come up lame and bring Arroyo back one more time. Chapman needs AAA or to stay in the pen. The Reds need Arroyo in 2011. They don't need to sign him for any longer unless its a real bargain price.

jojo
10-09-2010, 10:09 PM
why extend him?

mth123
10-09-2010, 10:15 PM
why extend him?

To get a discount on 2011. If that 2011 option at $13 Million could be converted to 2 years at $18 Million than you add a year. If you're just adding years to the current deal, then pass.

jojo
10-09-2010, 10:58 PM
To get a discount on 2011. If that 2011 option at $13 Million could be converted to 2 years at $18 Million than you add a year. If you're just adding years to the current deal, then pass.

Why do the Reds even want a 35 year old Arroyo around in 2012?

dougdirt
10-09-2010, 10:59 PM
To get a discount on 2011. If that 2011 option at $13 Million could be converted to 2 years at $18 Million than you add a year. If you're just adding years to the current deal, then pass.
Why would arroyo ever accept a $5M deal for one year

TheNext44
10-10-2010, 12:13 AM
why extend him?

I assume this another test case for Jocketty and his "method."

If you only look at WAR, you can make the claim that Arroyo was above average in 2004-2006, and has been getting worse every year since then. But if you look at xFIP, you can see another pattern. That he basically is a 4.50 ERA pitcher, who had a career year in 2006.

His peripherals have really stayed the same thoughout his career. Sure, his K/BB rate has declined each year, but his HR/9 and LD% has improved each year as well. His xFIP range as a Red has been rather small, 4.12-4.74. He is striking out less hitters, but making up for it by allowing fewer hard hit balls. It's a standard tale, a pitcher gets older and wiser, and realizes that he can go deeper into games but keeping the hitters off balance, and letting them put the ball in play more often.

Whether or not we believe that narrative, I think that is the one that Jocketty sees. A pitcher with declining stuff, but better control and pitch selection. And considering he has never missed a start, Arroyo seems like a safe bet to give a team 30 starts and 200 innings, even as he gets older.

I have stated I don't think it's wise, unless the Reds get a good deal on the extension, but I think that could be Jocketty's reasoning.

jojo
10-10-2010, 01:07 AM
I assume this another test case for Jocketty and his "method."

Why don't you assume, it's an opinion I'm sharing and consider the reasons I share for why I think it?

I really do try hard to carefully lay out arguments-there's plenty to poke a stick at without offering veiled or otherwise transparent pokes at the messenger.

jojo
10-10-2010, 01:38 AM
I assume this another test case for Jocketty and his "method."

If you only look at WAR, you can make the claim that Arroyo was above average in 2004-2006, and has been getting worse every year since then. But if you look at xFIP, you can see another pattern. That he basically is a 4.50 ERA pitcher, who had a career year in 2006.

His peripherals have really stayed the same thoughout his career. Sure, his K/BB rate has declined each year, but his HR/9 and LD% has improved each year as well. His xFIP range as a Red has been rather small, 4.12-4.74. He is striking out less hitters, but making up for it by allowing fewer hard hit balls. It's a standard tale, a pitcher gets older and wiser, and realizes that he can go deeper into games but keeping the hitters off balance, and letting them put the ball in play more often.

Whether or not we believe that narrative, I think that is the one that Jocketty sees. A pitcher with declining stuff, but better control and pitch selection. And considering he has never missed a start, Arroyo seems like a safe bet to give a team 30 starts and 200 innings, even as he gets older.

I have stated I don't think it's wise, unless the Reds get a good deal on the extension, but I think that could be Jocketty's reasoning.

Here's his xFIP by year with the NL average included so he can be compared to an actual baseline:

2006: 4.15 ave: 4.53
2007: 4.74 ave: 4.47
2008: 4.12 ave: 4.32
2009: 4.56 ave: 4.32
2010: 4.60 ave: 4.08

His HR/9 really hasn't improved-for instance the difference between 2009 and 2010 is minuscule (1 HR over the course of the season based upon the change in HR/9).

He's a below average pitcher who eats innings. Why lock his mid-30 years up with what is likely to be a premium?

I get that there is a fear of counting on young arms. If that's keeping the FO up at night then bite the bullet and pick up his option. There's no need to lock up Arroyo's age 36 season.

fearofpopvol1
10-10-2010, 03:27 AM
Pass on the option (unless they plan to deal him afterwards) and pass hard on anything beyond that. I mean who gets to play in Louisville next year because of it, it's just time to move on for better or for worse IMO. That doesn't even mention the money that should soon rightfully go to Votto, Bruce, etc..


Just so everyone can see it in black and white...

Cueto - A Major League Starter!
Volquez - A Major League Starter!
Bailey, Wood & Leake - Should they now go backwards?

That is 5 even if Chapman stays in the pen which the Reds brass still swear he won't. So they may not pan out, he may not continue to either so which is the less risky proposition? I say go with the youth and let's see if it works out. At least it won't handcuff us from a fiscal standpoint.

What if you can sell high on one of those guys and get a LF not named Gomes or Nix? I think counting on all 6 of those guys and hoping for the best is extremely risky. And who knows if someone may get injured or not. Think of how many injuries we saw this year. Also, I just do not think Chapman is ready for the Show in the rotation. His command needs to improve.

Now, I don't think they should try to extend Arroyo, but I think the option for 2011 makes sense. And here is what I would do for 2011...

Cueto
Wood
Volquez
Bailey
Arroyo

Leake and Chapman to AAA. Let Leake try to fix some things that haunted him for the 2nd half of the season and let Chapman work on his control. If someone goes down, you could call up Leake easily. If one of those guys kicks down the door at some point during the season, trade Arroyo to a contender and bring up one of those guys. If both guys kick down the door, I think you look to move not only Arroyo, but maybe Leake too.

TheNext44
10-10-2010, 07:18 AM
Why don't you assume, it's an opinion I'm sharing and consider the reasons I share for why I think it?

I really do try hard to carefully lay out arguments-there's plenty to poke a stick at without offering veiled or otherwise transparent pokes at the messenger.

Sorry, you took this the wrong way, but I wasn't making any references to you at all with the remark. I was merely stating what I thought the situation really is, a good test case for the argument that Jocketty has an ability to see either deeper into the numbers or beyond the numbers to make quality decisions that have worked out well for him in the past. Your argument based on the numbers is very solid, which is why this will be a good test case.

I'm not nor have I ever been critical of you. In fact, I like debating with you since you always do put up solid, logical arguments. Any disagreements we've ever had, have always been substantive, not personal. I apologize if it ever seemed otherwise.

TheNext44
10-10-2010, 07:32 AM
Here's his xFIP by year with the NL average included so he can be compared to an actual baseline:

2006: 4.15 ave: 4.53
2007: 4.74 ave: 4.47
2008: 4.12 ave: 4.32
2009: 4.56 ave: 4.32
2010: 4.60 ave: 4.08

His HR/9 really hasn't improved-for instance the difference between 2009 and 2010 is minuscule (1 HR over the course of the season based upon the change in HR/9).

He's a below average pitcher who eats innings. Why lock his mid-30 years up with what is likely to be a premium?

I get that there is a fear of counting on young arms. If that's keeping the FO up at night then bite the bullet and pick up his option. There's no need to lock up Arroyo's age 36 season.

First, I meant his H/9 not HR/9, my typo, sorry. And you are ignoring his LD% which has improved strongly in the last few years. The key is that his production has been very reliable over his career, even if the details within it has changed.

Again, regardless of whether he is officially classified as above, below or at league average, he likely will give the team 30+ starts, 200+ innings, and a 4.50 xFIP for the next few years. That is worth around $9-10M in the current market, and more importunely, is very hard to find. What better options are out there for the Reds?

This is why the terms of the deal, which are completely unknown, are most important, along with the Reds payroll for next season. If the Reds bump their payroll to $90M next season, and the move makes a lot more sense.

mth123
10-10-2010, 07:54 AM
Why would arroyo ever accept a $5M deal for one year

He wouldn't, but getting a $9 Million per year average is what it would take to extend him if he wants to stay. I agree that I only really want Arroyo for one more year, but I think its pretty important to have him in 2011. If the Reds want to clear some salary space to go for it in 2011, that might be the motivation to extend in exchange for a lesser deal in 2011 and the assumption that with Cordero and probably Phillips coming off the books they can handle a back loaded deal.

2011 is probably the last year for Arroyo, Phillips and Cordero, mgmt may be of the opinion that 2011 is the year to go for it all.

cincrazy
10-10-2010, 09:24 AM
Here's his xFIP by year with the NL average included so he can be compared to an actual baseline:

2006: 4.15 ave: 4.53
2007: 4.74 ave: 4.47
2008: 4.12 ave: 4.32
2009: 4.56 ave: 4.32
2010: 4.60 ave: 4.08

His HR/9 really hasn't improved-for instance the difference between 2009 and 2010 is minuscule (1 HR over the course of the season based upon the change in HR/9).

He's a below average pitcher who eats innings. Why lock his mid-30 years up with what is likely to be a premium?

I get that there is a fear of counting on young arms. If that's keeping the FO up at night then bite the bullet and pick up his option. There's no need to lock up Arroyo's age 36 season.

I agree with you here. I'm a big Arroyo fan and I appreciate the work he's put in for us, but I also think he's the type of pitcher that can fall off the cliff FAST. The margin for error is so small it's absurd, and a team in the Reds position can't afford to be shelling out huge bucks to pitchers in their mid-30s with below average stuff, especially in this ballpark.

redsfandan
10-10-2010, 10:07 AM
Sign Arroyo.....be willing to trade any combination of Cueto, Phillips, Alonso, Francisco, for an ace and either a power hitting or very high OBP left fielder.
Arroyo is the perfect #2-3 inning eater that a contender needs.
That's a pipe dream. I doubt they'll increase the payroll enough to be able to afford bringing Arroyo back, adding an ace, and a good leftfielder. And I don't see them dealing Phillips this offseason.

A Rolen type deal might work for me. But that's it. If it's more than that he'll be overpaid considering what the young guys would do in his spot. I just really doubt he'll be that much of an upgrade over the long term to justify the cost. Heck, he could become more of a downgrade.

GAC
10-10-2010, 10:55 AM
I figured they'd exercise the team option for 2011 on Bronson. Pretty much a no-brainer. And if they can work something out to add a couple more years to it, then more power to them IMO.

Respectfully... I could care less what his XFIP is, that is HR/9 hasn't improved, or any other stat people want to micro-strain at, as well as that he will regress, or his success was due to a good defense behind him, just to bolster their argument that they should think twice about extending him.

The guy has performed exceptionally well for us, was the "ace" of this staff. He was the one consistency we had on this starting staff this year. Everyone keeps waiting for, or predicting, Arroyo's regression for how long now?

He set a career high with 17 wins (4th best in the NL), was 8th in the NL in IP (215), carried a respectable 3.88 ERA, a WHIP of 1.15 (8th in NL).

redsfandan
10-10-2010, 11:01 AM
I figured they'd exercise the team option for 2011 on Bronson. Pretty much a no-brainer. And if they can work something out to add a couple more years to it, then more power to them IMO.

Respectfully... I could care less what his XFIP is, that is HR/9 hasn't improved, or any other stat people want to micro-strain at, as well as that he will regress, or his success was due to a good defense behind him, just to bolster their argument that they should think twice about extending him.

The guy has performed exceptionally well for us, was the "ace" of this staff. He was the one consistency we had on this starting staff this year. Everyone keeps waiting for, or predicting, Arroyo's regression for how long now?

He set a career high with 17 wins (4th best in the NL), was 8th in the NL in IP (215), carried a respectable 3.88 ERA, a WHIP of 1.15 (8th in NL).
It's not so much about a possible regression with me. It's more about value. We had 5 young guys that made starts this year that could better what Arroyo does in 2012 and, most importantly, at a cheaper price.

dougdirt
10-10-2010, 11:30 AM
He wouldn't, but getting a $9 Million per year average is what it would take to extend him if he wants to stay. I agree that I only really want Arroyo for one more year, but I think its pretty important to have him in 2011. If the Reds want to clear some salary space to go for it in 2011, that might be the motivation to extend in exchange for a lesser deal in 2011 and the assumption that with Cordero and probably Phillips coming off the books they can handle a back loaded deal.

2011 is probably the last year for Arroyo, Phillips and Cordero, mgmt may be of the opinion that 2011 is the year to go for it all.

The problem with losing the Phillips and Cordero contracts is that their money is just going to go to Votto, Bruce and a few other guys who are going to get raises in arbitration/contracts. Back loading Arroyo doesn't do anything but hamstring us in the future.

jojo
10-10-2010, 11:56 AM
It's not so much about a possible regression with me. It's more about value. We had 5 young guys that made starts this year that could better what Arroyo does in 2012 and, most importantly, at a cheaper price.

That's the point. It's not about predicting regression-he's doing that before our eyes.

It's about not paying a lot to lock up a guy who lives off of his defense when the organization has a ton of options that are ready or getting close.

Every starter the Reds ran out there that posted a below average k/9 had an ERA that significantly out performed their FIP (Cueto, Maloney, Leake, Lecure, Arroyo) with the exception of Harang who got his brains beat in on several occasions. In other words, yah defense!

Arroyo probably isn't the historical outlier that some might argue he appears to be and the Reds probably shouldn't pay him like he is....

PuffyPig
10-10-2010, 12:28 PM
Respectfully... I could care less what his XFIP is, that is HR/9 hasn't improved, or any other stat people want to micro-strain at, as well as that he will regress, or his success was due to a good defense behind him, just to bolster their argument that they should think twice about extending him.

The guy has performed exceptionally well for us, was the "ace" of this staff. He was the one consistency we had on this starting staff this year. Everyone keeps waiting for, or predicting, Arroyo's regression for how long now?

He set a career high with 17 wins (4th best in the NL), was 8th in the NL in IP (215), carried a respectable 3.88 ERA, a WHIP of 1.15 (8th in NL).

You should care, because xFIP is a better indication of his furutre ERA than the 3.88 ERA he posted this year.

mth123
10-10-2010, 01:48 PM
The problem with losing the Phillips and Cordero contracts is that their money is just going to go to Votto, Bruce and a few other guys who are going to get raises in arbitration/contracts. Back loading Arroyo doesn't do anything but hamstring us in the future.

Agree completely, but the Reds went to the play-offs this year. I'm guessing they'll mortgage some future to go for it all in 2011. The only reason to extend Arroyo IMO is to get some salary relief in 2011 to pay for some added parts. They may see Rolen potentially an old, injured guy by 2012 with Phillips at the end of his deal and that 2011 might be their best chance. I Like Cozart but SS is a question mark as well. Bruce and at least a couple of the starters will get better but there really are no viable in house replacements for Rolen and Phillips IMO and after next year the IF could be a real mess. I'm guessing Billy Hamilton was moved to 2B and may be fast tracked for just that reason. They may even bring Phillips back for 2012 (he's the one they should be extending in exchange for less money in 2011) with the idea that Hamilton can fill one of those holes by 2013.

edabbs44
10-10-2010, 01:49 PM
You should care, because xFIP is a better indication of his furutre ERA than the 3.88 ERA he posted this year.

His 2008-2009 xFIP hasn't done that great of a job projecting anything.

jojo
10-10-2010, 01:55 PM
His 2008-2009 xFIP hasn't done that great of a job projecting anything.

Sure it was.

edabbs44
10-10-2010, 02:41 PM
Sure it was.

Not his future ERA.

jojo
10-10-2010, 02:47 PM
Not his future ERA.

Why would something a pitcher can control predict something that is dramatically impacted by things he can't control like the quality of his defense for instance?

mth123
10-10-2010, 02:49 PM
Not his future ERA.

Hypothetical results correctly predicted his future Hypothetical results. I'm sure it will continue. Reality and actual analysis vs. blindly exercising an incomplete formula not required.

edabbs44
10-10-2010, 03:01 PM
Why would something a pitcher can control predict something that is dramatically impacted by things he can't control like the quality of his defense for instance?

I was responding to this


You should care, because xFIP is a better indication of his furutre ERA than the 3.88 ERA he posted this year.

The metric hasn't been all that accurate with Arroyo to this point, so what are we so concerned about? That one day it will catch up? Like doubling down until you eventually hit?

jojo
10-10-2010, 03:06 PM
Hypothetical results correctly predicted his future Hypothetical results. I'm sure it will continue. Reality and actual analysis vs. blindly exercising an incomplete formula not required.

Concerning pitching, there's no actual analysis going on when evoking ERA because one doesn't know what one is actually measuring.

RedsManRick
10-10-2010, 03:14 PM
I wish statistics was a mandatory course in high school. Two data points tells us jack squat about the predictive accuracy of a given statistic. It's ironic that statistics gets labeled for ignoring reality when it's the one objective approach that actually recognizes and accounts for how little of reality we can actually assess.

I'll never understand the slavish adherence to ERA as an indicator of pitcher performance. As if somehow including the results which result from a complex system which includes 8 other defenders and and a biased official scorer tells us more about a pitcher than the outcomes which result directly from his performance do.

It's right there with batting average as a "if we didn't have this already, there's no way we would have created it and felt like it was important" stat.

And even if it is a good measure of current performance, why in the world would we want to use it to predict how well the pitcher is going to pitch in the future? if the defense is helping him out so much, won't the defense help out whomever we run out there?

TheNext44
10-10-2010, 03:39 PM
I wish statistics was a mandatory course in high school. Two data points tells us jack squat about the predictive accuracy of a given statistic. It's ironic that statistics gets labeled for ignoring reality when it's the one objective approach that actually recognizes and accounts for how little of reality we can actually assess.

I'll never understand the slavish adherence to ERA as an indicator of pitcher performance. As if somehow including the results which result from a complex system which includes 8 other defenders and and a biased official scorer tells us more about a pitcher than the outcomes which result directly from his performance do.

It's right there with batting average as a "if we didn't have this already, there's no way we would have created it and felt like it was important" stat.

And even if it is a good measure of current performance, why in the world would we want to use it to predict how well the pitcher is going to pitch in the future? if the defense is helping him out so much, won't the defense help out whomever we run out there?

ERA is a flawed stat for many reasons. The biggest one imo, is because of how earned runs are allotted by the official scorer. Not only are error/hit rulings beyond unreliable, but pitchers get full responsibility for runners left on base, when they are only partly responsible, and pitchers who let in inherited runners assume no responsibility.

However, the concept that pitchers have no control over the number and type of hits they give up beyond home run is not accepted fact, and therefore, stats that leave them out in determining the production of a pitcher, I believe are just as flawed, if not more so, than ERA.

I don't like ERA, but I don't like FIP or xFIP either. More importantly, while ERA is a flawed stat, it is not a useless stat like you are saying it is. It tells us a lot about actual production, even it is less accurate about talent. There is no need to throw it out, or ignore it. One just needs to understand its limitations and use it with other stats to get a full picture of how effective a pitcher was.

mth123
10-10-2010, 03:40 PM
Concerning pitching, there's no actual analysis going on when evoking ERA because one doesn't know what one is actually measuring.

There is analysis where pitching is concerned as long as one knows that the spreadsheet merely begs the question and doesn't provide the answer.

One interpretation of Arroyo's numbers follows the model. His K-Rate dropped along with his BABIP so he must be in decline and his defense is bailing him out. In this case, I just don't think the model works. An alternative interpretation is that he is a good pitcher, has recognized the improvement in his defense and is using it to his advantage and the reduced K-Rate is simply a by-product.

Personally, I think Arroyo's is utilizing his defense the way a maestro uses his musicians. After all, the conductor doesn't really have control over whether the first violin hits a klunker or not, so I guess anybody could do that job. Next year Arroyo's K-Rate will probably continue to be below average and the hypothetical ERA will probably not be very impressive, yet his actual game results will probably continue to show better than that and he'll provide a bunch of very competitive innings as a foundation around which the host of unproven kids and rehabbers that everyone wants to fill the rotation with will grow and mature. I also don't believe any ham and egger that the Reds could get for a cheap price as a substitute would be as likely to provide that competitve inning foundation and stability that Arroyo provides and is likely to continue to provide. He's not an ace and he's not really all that unique, but he's worth his money for another year and skimping on it for a cheap substitute will lead to a drop in production IMO.

TheNext44
10-10-2010, 03:41 PM
Concerning pitching, there's no actual analysis going on when evoking ERA because one doesn't know what one is actually measuring.

Actually, we now exactly what it is measuring. The problem is that what it is measuring isn't always what a pitcher can control.

mth123
10-10-2010, 04:03 PM
I wish statistics was a mandatory course in high school. Two data points tells us jack squat about the predictive accuracy of a given statistic. It's ironic that statistics gets labeled for ignoring reality when it's the one objective approach that actually recognizes and accounts for how little of reality we can actually assess.

I'll never understand the slavish adherence to ERA as an indicator of pitcher performance. As if somehow including the results which result from a complex system which includes 8 other defenders and and a biased official scorer tells us more about a pitcher than the outcomes which result directly from his performance do.

It's right there with batting average as a "if we didn't have this already, there's no way we would have created it and felt like it was important" stat.

And even if it is a good measure of current performance, why in the world would we want to use it to predict how well the pitcher is going to pitch in the future? if the defense is helping him out so much, won't the defense help out whomever we run out there?

In Arroyo's case for multiple years in a Row the statistical model has not really predicted his results. I guess after five years of Arroyo providing 200+ competitive innings that provides a foundation for the rest of the staff, keeps the team in the game and frequently gives the team a chance to win, I'll go with the idea that he'll likely provide that again over the model that continually predicts that he'll be a dramatic failure while it never seems to occur. I do think if we keep predicting that we'll eventually be right so there is that.

You are very correct about the complexity of statistics. Maybe you should rethink whether such a complex system of analysis requires more than the predictable simplistic interpretations that are regularly used here.

Hoosier Red
10-10-2010, 04:11 PM
This may go off on a completely new tangent, but a big term du jour for batters a few years ago was "old mang skills." And the general upshot was that if a player like Ben Grieve showed good "old man skills" when he was 24,25,26, than you didn't really project him to get better even in the average peak years.

Is it possible that pitchers with "old man skills" like Bronson who are successful by keeping guys off balance, rather than power pitching will age better than young guys?

jojo
10-10-2010, 04:44 PM
In Arroyo's case for multiple years in a Row the statistical model has not really predicted his results. I guess after five years of Arroyo providing 200+ competitive innings that provides a foundation for the rest of the staff, keeps the team in the game and frequently gives the team a chance to win, I'll go with the idea that he'll likely provide that again over the model that continually predicts that he'll be a dramatic failure while it never seems to occur. I do think if we keep predicting that we'll eventually be right so there is that.

You are very correct about the complexity of statistics. Maybe you should rethink whether such a complex system of analysis requires more than the predictable simplistic interpretations that are regularly used here.

How has "the statistical model" failed 5 years in a row?

In 2006, FIP said he wasn't as good as his ERA and his ERA was going to regress. It did two seasons running. Arroyo didn't "beat the model" until the Reds put him in front of one of the best defenses in the majors.

The devil is in the details and he's poking this 5 years of consistency narrative with a pitchfork.

Brutus
10-10-2010, 05:25 PM
How has "the statistical model" failed 5 years in a row?

In 2006, FIP said he wasn't as good as his ERA and his ERA was going to regress. It did two seasons running. Arroyo didn't "beat the model" until the Reds put him in front of one of the best defenses in the majors.

The devil is in the details and he's poking this 5 years of consistency narrative with a pitchfork.

While I don't agree with your conclusion on the whole of Bronson's production thus far, I do absolutely agree with this aspect.

Since 2006, every single year the FIP has accurately predicted whether Bronson's ERA would rise or fall the next season based on the FIP being higher or lower than the current ERA. This year was actually the first year where the previous ERA was closer to the current ERA than was the previous FIP.

Now, the argument is that Bronson has outperformed his FIP in 4 of the 5 seasons thus far as a Reds' pitcher. I think it's fair to point that out. But I do agree from a predictive standpoint, the FIP has generally indicated whether the ERA would go up or down the following year.

RedsManRick
10-10-2010, 05:39 PM
In Arroyo's case for multiple years in a Row the statistical model has not really predicted his results. I guess after five years of Arroyo providing 200+ competitive innings that provides a foundation for the rest of the staff, keeps the team in the game and frequently gives the team a chance to win, I'll go with the idea that he'll likely provide that again over the model that continually predicts that he'll be a dramatic failure while it never seems to occur. I do think if we keep predicting that we'll eventually be right so there is that.

You are very correct about the complexity of statistics. Maybe you should rethink whether such a complex system of analysis requires more than the predictable simplistic interpretations that are regularly used here.

Here's my question. Why do we put more faith in ERA to measure a pitchers ability than in stats which actually measure what the pitcher does? Why should we be giving Arroyo extra credit because he's getting a lot of help from his defense?

As for the "dramatic" failure, are we just ignoring 2007 and 2008? It's not like we're suggesting something out of line with his past performance. Did Arroyo magically learn to reduce hits in 2009 and 2010? Or did the Reds defense just get a whole lot better? If it's primarily the latter, then what does that tell us about the value of ERA as an indicator of pitcher ability?

And to you last question, let's see what the various predictive models spit out for him next year. If you can find a single one that puts him under a 4.2 ERA I'd be shocked -- that ranges from the simplest Marcel, which simply extrapolates past performance to the more complex PECOTA or ZIPS.

TheNext44
10-10-2010, 06:23 PM
While I don't agree with your conclusion on the whole of Bronson's production thus far, I do absolutely agree with this aspect.

Since 2006, every single year the FIP has accurately predicted whether Bronson's ERA would rise or fall the next season based on the FIP being higher or lower than the current ERA. This year was actually the first year where the previous ERA was closer to the current ERA than was the previous FIP.

Now, the argument is that Bronson has outperformed his FIP in 4 of the 5 seasons thus far as a Reds' pitcher. I think it's fair to point that out. But I do agree from a predictive standpoint, the FIP has generally indicated whether the ERA would go up or down the following year.

However, if you look at his entire career, FIP has not done that great of a job of predicting Bronson's next year's ERA year to year.

In '04, it predicted a 3.82 and he had a 4.81.
In '05, it predicted a 4.43 and he had a 3.29.
In '06, it predicted a 4.15 and he had a 4.23.
In '07, it predicted a 4.57 and he had a 4.77.
In '08, it predicted a 4.50 and he had a 3.84.
In '09, it predicted a 4.78 and he had a 3.88.

So really, it was only accurate twice in six years.

Overall, it's pretty close, only around .30 off in ERA, which is around 5 runs a season. But year to year, it has not done that good of a job.

mth123
10-10-2010, 07:31 PM
Here's my question. Why do we put more faith in ERA to measure a pitchers ability than in stats which actually measure what the pitcher does? Why should we be giving Arroyo extra credit because he's getting a lot of help from his defense?

As for the "dramatic" failure, are we just ignoring 2007 and 2008? It's not like we're suggesting something out of line with his past performance. Did Arroyo magically learn to reduce hits in 2009 and 2010? Or did the Reds defense just get a whole lot better? If it's primarily the latter, then what does that tell us about the value of ERA as an indicator of pitcher ability?

And to you last question, let's see what the various predictive models spit out for him next year. If you can find a single one that puts him under a 4.2 ERA I'd be shocked -- that ranges from the simplest Marcel, which simply extrapolates past performance to the more complex PECOTA or ZIPS.

In 2007 Arroyo's K-Rate surpassed the magic 7 per 9 innings and his X-FIP was lower than his actual ERA by .065. Yet 2007 was the highest K-Rate since he became a 200 Inning starter but by far his least effective season. In other years the K-rate was lower and his X-FIP was about three quarters of a run higher than his actual results. After 5 years and over 1000 IP, maybe the alternate theory that K-Rate desn't mean as much in Arroyo's case as the formula apparently thinks it does has some merit. IMO, Arroyo's reliance on the Reds improved defense and his dropping K-Rate is not an indication that he's ready for a big drop-off, but a conscious plan by a veteran that knows how to pitch. My whole problem with these formulas involving hypothetical runs on offense, defense or the mound, is the mechanical overly simplistic interepretation of them. K-Rate dropped = Arroyo bad. It hasn't really happened.

jojo
10-10-2010, 07:38 PM
In 2007 Arroyo's K-Rate surpassed the magic 7 per 9 innings and his X-FIP was lower than his actual ERA by .065. Yet 2007 was the highest K-Rate since he became a 200 Inning starter but by far his least effective season. In other years the K-rate was lower and his X-FIP was about three quarters of a run higher than his actual results. After 5 years and over 1000 IP, maybe the alternate theory that K-Rate desn't mean as much in Arroyo's case as the formula apparently thinks it does has some merit. IMO, Arroyo's reliance on the Reds improved defense and his dropping K-Rate is not an indication that he's ready for a big drop-off, but a conscious plan by a veteran that knows how to pitch. My whole problem with these formulas involving hypothetical runs on offense, defense or the mound, is the mechanical overly simplistic interepretation of them. K-Rate dropped = Arroyo bad. It hasn't really happened.

This argument assumes he can control his BABIP at what would be historically low levels for a starting pitcher.

mth123
10-10-2010, 07:52 PM
This argument assumes he can control his BABIP at what would be historically low levels for a starting pitcher.

Not really. His BABIP in 2009 was .270. I acknowledge he won't repeat the .246 of this season, but if his BABIP normalizes a bit (say .285) and his ERA ends up in the 4.20 range, with his innings, durability and ability to keep his team in the game, that is far from a below average pitcher. Its worth every penny to the 2011 reds with lame guys coming back, kids who haven't pitched a full major league season and a raft of pitchers under 25 and in the injury danger zone both in the rotation and the pen.

Calling him below average is an overly simplistic interpretation of the numbers and what they actually represent.

RedsManRick
10-10-2010, 07:53 PM
However, if you look at his entire career, FIP has not done that great of a job of predicting Bronson's next year's ERA year to year.

In '04, it predicted a 3.82 and he had a 4.81.
In '05, it predicted a 4.43 and he had a 3.29.
In '06, it predicted a 4.15 and he had a 4.23.
In '07, it predicted a 4.57 and he had a 4.77.
In '08, it predicted a 4.50 and he had a 3.84.
In '09, it predicted a 4.78 and he had a 3.88.

So really, it was only accurate twice in six years.

Overall, it's pretty close, only around .30 off in ERA, which is around 5 runs a season. But year to year, it has not done that good of a job.

But the question is, what would have been a better predictor? If we're trying to guess about what he's doing next year, we have to choose some way of doing so. Going with the "same thing he did last year" approach would've been accurate only once.

RedsManRick
10-10-2010, 07:56 PM
In 2007 Arroyo's K-Rate surpassed the magic 7 per 9 innings and his X-FIP was lower than his actual ERA by .065. Yet 2007 was the highest K-Rate since he became a 200 Inning starter but by far his least effective season. In other years the K-rate was lower and his X-FIP was about three quarters of a run higher than his actual results. After 5 years and over 1000 IP, maybe the alternate theory that K-Rate desn't mean as much in Arroyo's case as the formula apparently thinks it does has some merit. IMO, Arroyo's reliance on the Reds improved defense and his dropping K-Rate is not an indication that he's ready for a big drop-off, but a conscious plan by a veteran that knows how to pitch. My whole problem with these formulas involving hypothetical runs on offense, defense or the mound, is the mechanical overly simplistic interepretation of them. K-Rate dropped = Arroyo bad. It hasn't really happened.

You're missing the point. The quality of a predictor is not based on well it worked with one player. There's too much noise. Predicting any one player's ERA from year to year is a crap shoot regardless of what approach you select.

I find it interesting that nobody is wondering why a guy's ERA jumps around so much from year to year. Do we really think that Arroyo has gone from bad to good to bad to good? Or maybe ERA is just influenced by a bunch of things besides how good the pitcher is or how well he pitched. That FIP is more stable is a good indicator that it's measuring something closer to the player's actual skills, which don't vary wildly year to year. And the best way to guess how a guy is going to perform in the future is by starting with a good assessment of his skill, and adjusting for other factors from there.

RedsManRick
10-10-2010, 07:59 PM
Not really. His BABIP in 2009 was .270. I acknowledge he won't repeat the .246 of this season, but if his BABIP normalizes a bit (say .285) and his ERA ends up in the 4.20 range, with his innings, durability and ability to keep his team in the game, that is far from a below average pitcher. Its worth every penny to the 2011 reds with lame guys coming back, kids who haven't pitched a full major league season and a raft of pitchers under 25 and in the injury danger zone both in the rotation and the pen.

Calling him below average is an overly simplistic interpretation of the numbers and what they actually represent.

Just curious how many pitcher's have demonstrated an ability to sustain a BABIP of .285 and I wonder what sort of pitchers those guys were.

I actually agree with your premise. If Arroyo puts up a 4.20 ERA, he'd be worth that contract. But I'm pretty sure most of this discussion is about the intelligence of an extension, not the option. When you're looking at the extension and the risk involved, it's a different conversation.

mth123
10-10-2010, 08:15 PM
Just curious how many pitcher's have demonstrated an ability to sustain a BABIP of .285 and I wonder what sort of pitchers those guys were.

I actually agree with your premise. If Arroyo puts up a 4.20 ERA, he'd be worth that contract. But I'm pretty sure most of this discussion is about the intelligence of an extension, not the option. When you're looking at the extension and the risk involved, it's a different conversation.

My whole issue has been the knee jerk almost mechanical unsophistaited use of the term below average.

As for your question, well I agree that Arroyo is relying on his defense. I just don't understand why that is such a bad thing. I think he's doing it intentionally and inducing soft contact. He has shown some ability to reduce his line drive rate the last 2 years as his K-Rate dropped below "acceptable" levels. Why is that written off as a coincidence? He's keeping hitters off balance and inducing poor contact by getting hitters to hit his pitch instead of theirs with the way he's pitching. If relying on his defense resulted in BABIP of .270 and .246, why would .285 be out of the question? The three guys who are free agents are Gomes, Cabrera and Hernandez. Easily the three worst defenders on the roster. Why would it get any worse?

And yes. I do think Arroyo has changed his ability level. He gets more grounders and fewer flies now. He's not tryimg to strike guys out unless the situation really calls for it. He's a pitcher who is pitching to the situation. EdE and Keppinger are gone from the IF, so he's gone to stuff to get more grounders. That's a credit to him not a negative IMO.

jojo
10-10-2010, 08:45 PM
My whole issue has been the knee jerk almost mechanical unsophistaited use of the term below average.

There is nothing knee jerk or frankly unsophisticated about examining a guy's peripherals to compare him to "average" as a baseline and then looking at his luck (or if some prefer his "randomness") metrics and considering the defense behind him to consider why he might have deviated from such a baseline.

TheNext44
10-10-2010, 10:38 PM
There is nothing knee jerk or frankly unsophisticated about examining a guy's peripherals to compare him to "average" as a baseline and then looking at his luck (or if some prefer his "randomness") metrics and considering the defense behind him to consider why he might have deviated from such a baseline.

He is below average based on all pitcher's xFIP. What about starters? What about starters who pitch 200 innings? What about starters who have thrown 200+ innings for 5 years straight? Even if you don't include LD% or hits, or XBH, there is more to evaluating a pitcher besides HR's, K's, and BB's.

TheNext44
10-10-2010, 10:43 PM
But the question is, what would have been a better predictor? If we're trying to guess about what he's doing next year, we have to choose some way of doing so. Going with the "same thing he did last year" approach would've been accurate only once.

What about what I've been arguing all along? That Arroyo is an outlier, that there is something about him (I say it's the movement on his pitches, but that is just a guess) that peripheral's miss. Admitting this doesn't say much about the validity of peripherals, since it's just one pitcher. In fact, it would be highly unlikely that peripherals can evaluate and project every pitcher well. Even if it was 98% accurate, there still would be that one pitcher.

Sea Ray
10-11-2010, 09:27 AM
I don't mind the option, but an extension is a bad idea if you ask me. He's way overdue for a regression as his low BABIP hid his K/9 decline. Sure, he induces weaker contact than most, but his .270 last year and .244 his year are not at all sustainable.

He's a ~4.50 ERA talent moving forward. With his durability, that still has a good deal of value. But I'm not sure it makes sense for the Reds to choose to spend their money that way. This team doesn't need to pay for depth. It should spend its money on things it can't get otherwise. I think Matt Maloney could fill that role just as well (check out the peripherals) and for a whole lot less.

I wouldn't worry too much about BABIP. In 2008 it was well over .300 yet he still was productive, winning 15 games for a bad team. I think we all know he'll never be one who will give you glittering stats but he's reliable and he wins

bucksfan2
10-11-2010, 11:12 AM
BA has led the NL in innings pitched since he was traded to the Reds. Year in year out he takes the ball every 5th day. He has the ability to work deep into games and has been a solid starter as a Red. He will throw in a stinker from time to time but that is Bronson. I don't think there is any way the Reds don't pick up his option, as for the extension I just don't know. The only way an extension would make sense would be to lower his salary into the future which BA has been against.

dougdirt
10-11-2010, 12:06 PM
I wouldn't worry too much about BABIP. In 2008 it was well over .300 yet he still was productive, winning 15 games for a bad team. I think we all know he'll never be one who will give you glittering stats but he's reliable and he wins

Arroyo was a bad pitcher in 2008. Sure, 'he' won 15 games, but his ERA was 4.77 which was 7% worse than the adjusted league average.... the guy was a well below average pitcher in terms of allowing runs that year. The team just happened to score runs for him. Sometimes funny things happen like that. Look at Cole Hamels. He threw 200+ innings and had a 3.06 ERA. He went 12-11 on the best team in the NL. Pitching records don't tell close to the entire story.

bucksfan2
10-11-2010, 01:45 PM
Arroyo was a bad pitcher in 2008. Sure, 'he' won 15 games, but his ERA was 4.77 which was 7% worse than the adjusted league average.... the guy was a well below average pitcher in terms of allowing runs that year. The team just happened to score runs for him. Sometimes funny things happen like that. Look at Cole Hamels. He threw 200+ innings and had a 3.06 ERA. He went 12-11 on the best team in the NL. Pitching records don't tell close to the entire story.

They way I see it Bronson had 5 bad starts that year. Other than those 5 games he was a pretty rock solid pitcher for the Reds. He isn't Cole Hamels, but then who is? Letting go of Bronson seems counter productive to me.

dougdirt
10-11-2010, 02:00 PM
They way I see it Bronson had 5 bad starts that year. Other than those 5 games he was a pretty rock solid pitcher for the Reds. He isn't Cole Hamels, but then who is? Letting go of Bronson seems counter productive to me.

A lot of guys have much better numbers if we take away 5 bad starts. I am not comparing him to Cole Hamels, I am simply using Hamels as an example of how poor it is to use wins as a barometer for value brought in by a player.

Bringing Bronson back beyond 2011 seems very counter productive to me. He is going to cost a lot of money and it won't be worth the upgrade at all over an in house option we have, if he is even an upgrade at all by that time.

Sea Ray
10-11-2010, 02:12 PM
Arroyo was a bad pitcher in 2008. Sure, 'he' won 15 games, but his ERA was 4.77 which was 7% worse than the adjusted league average.... the guy was a well below average pitcher in terms of allowing runs that year. The team just happened to score runs for him. Sometimes funny things happen like that. Look at Cole Hamels. He threw 200+ innings and had a 3.06 ERA. He went 12-11 on the best team in the NL. Pitching records don't tell close to the entire story.

Your stats don't take in account Bronson being Bronson. He has a few really bad starts that skew his season stats. I haven't looked at his 2008 season in detail but my guess is he had a lot of quality starts and he had a few where he really got hammered.

The folks who just look at the numbers probably thought it was a bad trade the day it was announced for Wily Mo. Let's not repeat that mistake now

Sea Ray
10-11-2010, 02:20 PM
Winning 15 games is not unusual for Arroyo. He's won 14 or more 4 out of 5 yrs with this team. How often does that happen in Reds history?

Regarding 2008, I was correct in that his poor games skewed his season stats. In his 15 wins he had an ERA of 2.32 and opponents BA of .211. In his looses that year his ERA was a whopping 10.77/ BA against .395.

After looking at those stats I'd say it's unfair to say "the team just happened to score runs for him". With an ERA of 2.32 he deserved to win those games

dougdirt
10-11-2010, 02:25 PM
Your stats don't take in account Bronson being Bronson. He has a few really bad starts that skew his season stats. I haven't looked at his 2008 season in detail but my guess is he had a lot of quality starts and he had a few where he really got hammered.

The folks who just look at the numbers probably thought it was a bad trade the day it was announced for Wily Mo. Let's not repeat that mistake now

Your stats don't take into account that a few really bad starts were absolute losses for the Reds where he didn't even give his team a chance to win. Those are killers. Those hurt your team a lot more than those 7 inning 3 run starts help you.

dougdirt
10-11-2010, 02:26 PM
Winning 15 games is not unusual for Arroyo. He's won 14 or more 4 out of 5 yrs with this team. How often does that happen in Reds history?

Regarding 2008, I was correct in that his poor games skewed his season stats. In his 15 wins he had an ERA of 2.32 and opponents BA of .211. In his looses that year his ERA was a whopping 10.77/ BA against .395.

After looking at those stats I'd say it's unfair to say "the team just happened to score runs for him". With an ERA of 2.32 he deserved to win those games

Every pitcher has stats strikingly similar to that. The point is though, when he lost (11 times that year), he didn't come close to giving his team a chance to win the game.

jojo
10-11-2010, 02:26 PM
Winning 15 games is not unusual for Arroyo. He's won 14 or more 4 out of 5 yrs with this team. How often does that happen in Reds history?

Regarding 2008, I was correct in that his poor games skewed his season stats. In his 15 wins he had an ERA of 2.32 and opponents BA of .211. In his looses that year his ERA was a whopping 10.77/ BA against .395.

After looking at those stats I'd say it's unfair to say "the team just happened to score runs for him". With an ERA of 2.32 he deserved to win those games

In 2008, national league pitchers had an ERA of 2.06 in wins and an ERA of 8.38 in losses. It's kind of a meaningless stat but if anything, one would have to say that Bronson was below average when he won and below average when he lost compared to the rest of the NL that year. :cool:

dougdirt
10-11-2010, 02:31 PM
Arroyo this year:
In wins: 1.71 ERA
In losses: 8.45 ERA

Johnny Cueto this year:
In wins: 1.65 ERA
In losses: 7.06 ERA

Mike Leake this year:
In wins: 3.18 ERA
In losses: 6.43 ERA

Homer Bailey this year:
In wins: 0.93 ERA
In losses: 9.39 ERA

Travis Wood this year:
In wins: 1.71 ERA
In losses: 5.57 ERA

Essentially, when guys get credit for the win, they tend to have a low ERA because its very likely to include all of their best starts on the season. When guys lose, they tend to have a high ERA because its going to include all of their worst starts on the season.

Sea Ray
10-11-2010, 02:35 PM
In 2008, national league pitchers had an ERA of 2.06 in wins and an ERA of 8.38 in losses. It's kind of a meaningless stat but if anything, one would have to say that Bronson was below average when he won and below average when he lost compared to the rest of the NL that year.

So you'd say based on those stats that he was lucky to win 15? I'd disagree. He earned those wins due to innings pitched

Sea Ray
10-11-2010, 02:37 PM
Arroyo this year:
In wins: 1.71 ERA
In losses: 8.45 ERA

Johnny Cueto this year:
In wins: 1.65 ERA
In losses: 7.06 ERA

Mike Leake this year:
In wins: 3.18 ERA
In losses: 6.43 ERA

Homer Bailey this year:
In wins: 0.93 ERA
In losses: 9.39 ERA

Travis Wood this year:
In wins: 1.71 ERA
In losses: 5.57 ERA

Essentially, when guys get credit for the win, they tend to have a low ERA because its very likely to include all of their best starts on the season. When guys lose, they tend to have a high ERA because its going to include all of their worst starts on the season.

Exactly. You're making my point that he was not lucky to win those games. The difference between Bronson and the ones you list above is that he pitches more innings. If you stay in the game you'll have a better chance of grabbing the win

dougdirt
10-11-2010, 02:38 PM
So you'd say based on those stats that he was lucky to win 15? I'd disagree. He earned those wins due to innings pitched

From 2000-2009 there were 14 players with 15 or more wins and an ERA of 4.75 or higher...... There were 199 pitchers in that same time frame with an ERA of 4.75 or higher and 160 innings pitched or more. So 14 out of 199.... Yeah, I would say that he was pretty lucky to win that many games.

Sea Ray
10-11-2010, 02:40 PM
Your stats don't take into account that a few really bad starts were absolute losses for the Reds where he didn't even give his team a chance to win. Those are killers. Those hurt your team a lot more than those 7 inning 3 run starts help you.

"My stats" as you like to put it included an ERA of over 10 in his losses. How does that not take into account that he pitched the Reds out of those games? What do you mean? It sure as heck does!

dougdirt
10-11-2010, 02:41 PM
Exactly. You're making my point that he was not lucky to win those games. The difference between Bronson and the ones you list above is that he pitches more innings. If you stay in the game you'll have a better chance of grabbing the win

No, I am not. I am saying that his win total does not define his seasons value. You seem to be suggesting because he had 15 wins his season was good, while ignoring the fact that he started 19 other games that year and what happened in those games (it wasn't good - 99.1 innings, 7.25 ERA and a 1.80 WHIP).

Sea Ray
10-11-2010, 02:42 PM
From 2000-2009 there were 14 players with 15 or more wins and an ERA of 4.75 or higher...... There were 199 pitchers in that same time frame with an ERA of 4.75 or higher and 160 innings pitched or more. So 14 out of 199.... Yeah, I would say that he was pretty lucky to win that many games.

I think you're selling him short by saying that. He's a competitor and I don't think it was an accident that he won those games.

dougdirt
10-11-2010, 02:44 PM
I think you're selling him short by saying that. He's a competitor and I don't think it was an accident that he won those games.

I think you are buying too high by ignoring what he did outside of the games he won that year. He was either on or way off. Very little in between.

Caveat Emperor
10-11-2010, 02:44 PM
200 IP+ per year, clean bill of health for his career, and his presence frees the Reds to sell some young pitching for things their minor league system seems incapable of producing -- namely a bopper who can play LF and a SS who isn't an out-machine at the plate.

As for the extension? I'll leave that to the guys paid to run the team for a living. Bronson's a mystery to me, and he runs against the grain a little bit when it comes to statistical analysis.

jojo
10-11-2010, 02:52 PM
So you'd say based on those stats that he was lucky to win 15? I'd disagree. He earned those wins due to innings pitched

I don't remember being part of that conversation.

Sea Ray
10-11-2010, 03:11 PM
I think you are buying too high by ignoring what he did outside of the games he won that year. He was either on or way off. Very little in between.

I see where you're coming from but you're cherry picking one yr and my point is he's as close to a guaranteed 15 game winner as this team has had in a longtime. I'll grant you 2008 wasn't a wonderful yr but he's had better ones.

What was your opinion when you heard he'd been signed to his current deal? Do you think it's been a good deal for the Reds?

Sea Ray
10-11-2010, 03:13 PM
I don't remember being part of that conversation.

You weren't, so I'm asking you...

jojo
10-11-2010, 03:35 PM
You weren't, so I'm asking you...

It's probably not unexpected that a pitcher who threw 200 innings might be involved in 26 decisions. He lost 15 games the year before. Did he deserve them?

King Felix put up a season this year that is much better than Arroyo could ever approach and Hernandez only won 13 games.

I think the question of who deserves a win is frankly one that has been pondered for decades and its answer isn't as straightforward as might appear. Bill James' career has basically been shaped by that very issue.

Sea Ray
10-11-2010, 03:48 PM
It's probably not unexpected that a pitcher who threw 200 innings might be involved in 26 decisions. He lost 15 games the year before. Did he deserve them?

King Felix put up a season this year that is much better than Arroyo could ever approach and Hernandez only won 13 games.

I think the question of who deserves a win is frankly one that has been pondered for decades and its answer isn't as straightforward as might appear. Bill James' career has basically been shaped by that very issue.

Yeah, I'd say he did deserve those losses but it was a bad team so losses were commonplace

King Felix winning 13 games on a 100 loss team with a putrid offense is quite a feat indeed. I agree with you, Bronson could not have won that many with that team

Will M
10-11-2010, 10:30 PM
What I would like to see...

Extend Bronson if the deal is reasonable. I think the rotation without Bronson's 200 IP is quite fragile. Too many young arms at risk. I also think extending Bronson lets the team try to deal one of the extra arms for a bat.

2011 rotation:
1. Bronson
2. Cueto
3. Volquez
4. Wood
5. Chapman if he develops a 3rd pitch otherwise he is in the pen.
6. Leake or Bailey is the 5th guy if Chapman goes to the pen.
If Chapman is in the rotation this 6th starter goes to middle relief.
7. Bailey or Leake is moved for help at LF/SS/3B

VR
10-11-2010, 10:46 PM
5. Chapman if he develops a 3rd pitch otherwise he is in the pen.


It is my understanding that Chapman was asked to stop throwing the changeup as a reliever.

If he moves back to starting....he will start throwing it again.

Topcat
10-12-2010, 05:02 AM
Bronson has to stay! But if they feel the same amount of cash can be used on offense I may take that gamble.

Will M
10-24-2010, 01:59 PM
According to this reporter the Reds are trying to extend Bronson. The blurb is near the end of the article.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2010/10/24/with_right_pitch_greinke_could_be_pried_from_kc/?page=4

TheNext44
10-24-2010, 02:23 PM
According to this reporter the Reds are trying to extend Bronson. The blurb is near the end of the article.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2010/10/24/with_right_pitch_greinke_could_be_pried_from_kc/?page=4

So basically a Rolenesque extension. Really not a bad idea if they can knock off $$$ per year, but give him security. It would help payflex this year, while keeping a 200 IP guy for a few more years.

cumberlandreds
10-25-2010, 07:56 AM
According to this reporter the Reds are trying to extend Bronson. The blurb is near the end of the article.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2010/10/24/with_right_pitch_greinke_could_be_pried_from_kc/?page=4 (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2010/10/24/with_right_pitch_greinke_could_be_pried_from_kc/?page=4)

Also buried in that article is that Pete Rose Jr. will be managing the White Sox rookie league team in Bristol,Virginia next season. I wonder if ole dad will make the trip to Bristol to give his son some managing tip?

REDREAD
10-25-2010, 09:52 AM
Why would something a pitcher can control predict something that is dramatically impacted by things he can't control like the quality of his defense for instance?

But the flip side of this is that Arroyo once again delivered much better results than his FIP or xFIP predicted. He won 17 games with a 3.88 ERA.
That doesn't necessarily mean he will repeat it next year, but a very solid year for him. He will still have a good defense behind him next year.

We are going for the World Series next year. We have to pick up Bronson's option. Going with Ceuto and 4 youngsters is not wise if you are contending.
We would not have won the division this year without Bronson and his 17 wins, that is clear.

On his extension, I wouldn't mind it if they turned his option into a 3 year deal. The fact that Bronson gets great results without striking out as many people as xFIP would like him to tells me that he is a good candidate to age well. I could see him pitching well at age 35. Yes, the Reds are going to have to pay a premium to extend him. He's already said that he's not going to accept a Rolen deal. He wants to be financially rewarded. I think it's worth it. I'd like the team to be competitive in 2012 as well as 2011, and I think signing Bronson accomplishes that.

REDREAD
10-25-2010, 10:02 AM
Here's my question. Why do we put more faith in ERA to measure a pitchers ability than in stats which actually measure what the pitcher does? Why should we be giving Arroyo extra credit because he's getting a lot of help from his defense?

.


Here is the formula for xFIP

xFIP = ((13*(.106*# of fly balls))+(3*BB+HBP-IBB)-(2*K))/IP+constant

I guess I really don't understand how a pitcher controls the number of fly balls he gives up. To some extent he does, by location.. but still, it's somewhat random.

Looks like xFIP punishes a pitcher for harmless fly balls to the OF. It rewards sinkerballers and guys with a high K.. There's nothing in xFIP that indicates SLG % against.

Sure, it's a useful stat and a tool, but I fail to see how it is not just as flawed as ERA.

If Bronson can take advantage of Bruce and Stubbs defense and tries to coax fly balls out of the hitters for easy outs, more power to him.
Bronson has always lived on movement, not raw velocity, so he's going to get fewer strikeouts.

REDREAD
10-25-2010, 10:11 AM
Bringing Bronson back beyond 2011 seems very counter productive to me. He is going to cost a lot of money and it won't be worth the upgrade at all over an in house option we have, if he is even an upgrade at all by that time.

Wow, this is quite the exaggeration. So you are saying five of that the following guys will all outperform Arroyo next year?
Leake, Wood, Homer, Chapman, Cueto, Volquez..

There's just no way, IMO. Cueto probably will be better next year.
The other guys are all crapshots, IMO. They all have various issues (although Wood is probably the exception).

At worst, I see Arroyo as the #3 starter on this club. I'm not going to complain if we have good fortune and Arroyo is the #4 next year, but there's no way Arroyo is #5 or worse next year.

jojo
10-25-2010, 10:46 AM
Here is the formula for xFIP

xFIP = ((13*(.106*# of fly balls))+(3*BB+HBP-IBB)-(2*K))/IP+constant

I guess I really don't understand how a pitcher controls the number of fly balls he gives up. To some extent he does, by location.. but still, it's somewhat random.

Looks like xFIP punishes a pitcher for harmless fly balls to the OF. It rewards sinkerballers and guys with a high K.. There's nothing in xFIP that indicates SLG % against.

Sure, it's a useful stat and a tool, but I fail to see how it is not just as flawed as ERA.

If Bronson can take advantage of Bruce and Stubbs defense and tries to coax fly balls out of the hitters for easy outs, more power to him.
Bronson has always lived on movement, not raw velocity, so he's going to get fewer strikeouts.

xFIP isn't punishing a pitcher for harmless flyballs. It's normalizing their HR rate...in other words, it's addressing the flyballs that Bruce and Stubbs can't get.

kaldaniels
10-25-2010, 10:52 AM
What is the expected ERA of all "7" rotation candiates for next year?

What is the expected IP of all 7 rotation candidates for next year?

dougdirt
10-25-2010, 05:45 PM
Wow, this is quite the exaggeration. So you are saying five of that the following guys will all outperform Arroyo next year?
Leake, Wood, Homer, Chapman, Cueto, Volquez..

It isn't that they will all out perform him, its that them + 9-11M in extra money to spend will outperform him.

With that said, I believe that Wood, Bailey and Cueto will all outperform Arroyo next season in terms of ERA and that there is a chance Leake and Volquez do as well. Chapman won't get enough innings to warrant being in the conversation.

dougdirt
10-25-2010, 05:47 PM
What is the expected ERA of all "7" rotation candiates for next year?

What is the expected IP of all 7 rotation candidates for next year?

My rough guesses:

Cueto: 185 innings, 4.00 ERA
Bailey: 195 innings, 4.00 ERA
Volquez: 180 innings, 4.25 ERA
Wood: 180 innings, 4.25 ERA
Arroyo: 210 innings, 4.25 ERA
Leake: 165 innings, 4.25 ERA

kaldaniels
10-25-2010, 06:18 PM
My rough guesses:

Cueto: 185 innings, 4.00 ERA
Bailey: 195 innings, 4.00 ERA
Volquez: 180 innings, 4.25 ERA
Wood: 180 innings, 4.25 ERA
Arroyo: 210 innings, 4.25 ERA
Leake: 165 innings, 4.25 ERA

Of course they are rough guesses, but you don't have more than a .25 ERA difference between our top 6 pitchers, with not one having a sub-4 ERA to boot?

dougdirt
10-25-2010, 06:34 PM
Of course they are rough guesses, but you don't have more than a .25 ERA difference between our top 6 pitchers, with not one having a sub-4 ERA to boot?

Correct. I don't think there is much difference between our pitchers at this point other than pure upside.

PuffyPig
10-26-2010, 08:08 AM
If Bronson can take advantage of Bruce and Stubbs defense and tries to coax fly balls out of the hitters for easy outs, more power to him.


xFIP and FIP and BABIP all assume (based on real data) that pitchers cannot induce weak contact, whether ground balls or fly balls.

For the most part, pitchers do not want to coax fly balls. They want to miss bats.

Chip R
10-26-2010, 09:12 AM
It isn't that they will all out perform him, its that them + 9-11M in extra money to spend will outperform him.


It's not like those guys are playing for free you know. It may be more like $5-6M and you are assuming they all will outperform Bronson.

TheNext44
10-26-2010, 12:22 PM
xFIP and FIP and BABIP all assume (based on real data) that pitchers cannot induce weak contact, whether ground balls or fly balls.

For the most part, pitchers do not want to coax fly balls. They want to miss bats.

For the most part, yes. All pitchers should stay away from trying to induce flyballs.

But I will again point out that because xFIP and FIP assume that pitchers cannot induce weak contact, and thus do not include any data on singles, doubles or triples, it misses certain pitchers like Arroyo that have consistently shown that they can induce weak contact. I have a feeling that thses stats will do the same with Leake throughout his career.

I like FIP, I just wish it included in some way, SLG against pitchers. I think it would be even more accurate.

And one pet peeve of mine. I hate the expression "miss bats.". You want pitchers to strike guys out. You can get high K totals without missing a lot of bats, and you can get low K totals when you miss a lot of bats. Generally, guys who miss bats have high K total, but using that phrase misses the point. The goal is to strike guys out, not must miss bats.

IslandRed
10-26-2010, 12:35 PM
But I will again point out that because xFIP and FIP assume that pitchers cannot induce weak contact, and thus do not include any data on singles, doubles or triples, it misses certain pitchers like Arroyo that have consistently shown that they can induce weak contact.

Well, it gets back to the idea that this is a defense-independent measure, and balls in play -- whether they are turned into outs, or become singles, doubles or triples -- are by definition defense-dependent, or at least defense-influenced.

To me, the somewhat questionable assumption at the heart of FIP/xFIP is that the timing of the strikeouts, homers/flyballs and walks is completely random. For most pitchers, it's perhaps true enough; the MLB-wide correlation is certainly there. But I don't think it's true for every pitcher.

I'm also not yet 100% buying in to the normalization of HR/FB rate. Again, as a league-wide thing it works. But if a pitcher has a strong ground-ball tendency, then it seems logical that the fly balls he gives up are likely to be mistake pitches, which have a higher rate of being crushed. I haven't seen any studies comparing HR/FB rates for various groupings of pitchers based on GB%, so maybe I'm off base on this one.

mth123
10-26-2010, 12:57 PM
Well, it gets back to the idea that this is a defense-independent measure, and balls in play -- whether they are turned into outs, or become singles, doubles or triples -- are by definition defense-dependent, or at least defense-influenced.

To me, the somewhat questionable assumption at the heart of FIP/xFIP is that the timing of the strikeouts, homers/flyballs and walks is completely random. For most pitchers, it's perhaps true enough; the MLB-wide correlation is certainly there. But I don't think it's true for every pitcher.

I'm also not yet 100% buying in to the normalization of HR/FB rate. Again, as a league-wide thing it works. But if a pitcher has a strong ground-ball tendency, then it seems logical that the fly balls he gives up are likely to be mistake pitches, which have a higher rate of being crushed. I haven't seen any studies comparing HR/FB rates for various groupings of pitchers based on GB%, so maybe I'm off base on this one.

:thumbup:

dougdirt
10-26-2010, 01:02 PM
It's not like those guys are playing for free you know. It may be more like $5-6M and you are assuming they all will outperform Bronson.

Bailey, Leake and Wood will all be making less than $600,000 next season. Cueto and Volquez will be arbitration eligible and I doubt either guy gets more than $3M. And outside of innings, I think that all will be able to match Arroyo quite well, if not out perform him, yes.

PuffyPig
10-26-2010, 01:14 PM
For the most part, yes. All pitchers should stay away from trying to induce flyballs.

But I will again point out that because xFIP and FIP assume that pitchers cannot induce weak contact, and thus do not include any data on singles, doubles or triples, it misses certain pitchers like Arroyo that have consistently shown that they can induce weak contact. I have a feeling that thses stats will do the same with Leake throughout his career.

I like FIP, I just wish it included in some way, SLG against pitchers. I think it would be even more accurate.

And one pet peeve of mine. I hate the expression "miss bats.". You want pitchers to strike guys out. You can get high K totals without missing a lot of bats, and you can get low K totals when you miss a lot of bats. Generally, guys who miss bats have high K total, but using that phrase misses the point. The goal is to strike guys out, not must miss bats.

The expression "missing bats" means the batter does not hit the ball. Whether he swings or not, the pitcher is "missing bats". And all strike outs occur when the batter fails to get his bat on the ball (other than foul tips I guess).

Chip R
10-26-2010, 01:27 PM
Bailey, Leake and Wood will all be making less than $600,000 next season. Cueto and Volquez will be arbitration eligible and I doubt either guy gets more than $3M. And outside of innings, I think that all will be able to match Arroyo quite well, if not out perform him, yes.


Of course none of them have yet.

dougdirt
10-26-2010, 02:10 PM
Of course none of them have yet.

I would argue that Cueto and Volquez both have had seasons that have outperformed Arroyo's 2010. Cueto did so this year, minus the innings.

lollipopcurve
10-26-2010, 02:16 PM
Cueto did so this year, minus the innings.

You can't ignore the 30 inning gap, because those innings tend to be 6th-7th innings, and the performance tends to dip there.

dougdirt
10-26-2010, 03:04 PM
You can't ignore the 30 inning gap, because those innings tend to be 6th-7th innings, and the performance tends to dip there.

I would rather ignore that gap and save 6-7 million bucks to spend elsewhere and let my bullpen take on those innings.

TheNext44
10-26-2010, 03:38 PM
I would rather ignore that gap and save 6-7 million bucks to spend elsewhere and let my bullpen take on those innings.

But picking up Arroyo's options doesn't mean he's replacing Cueto. He's adding 30 starts and 200+ innings, which will be extremely valuable with Leake, Wood, Bailey and Volquez all likely to provide 150 IP each at most.

That's at least 50 IP he is saving from the bullpen, and is probably saving using LeCure or Maloney for a few starts.

dougdirt
10-26-2010, 04:05 PM
But picking up Arroyo's options doesn't mean he's replacing Cueto. He's adding 30 starts and 200+ innings, which will be extremely valuable with Leake, Wood, Bailey and Volquez all likely to provide 150 IP each at most.

That's at least 50 IP he is saving from the bullpen, and is probably saving using LeCure or Maloney for a few starts.

Why would you believe that Wood (who threw 200 innings this year), Bailey (who threw 200 innings in 2009) and Volquez are only capable of 150 innings at most?

TheNext44
10-26-2010, 04:16 PM
Why would you believe that Wood (who threw 200 innings this year), Bailey (who threw 200 innings in 2009) and Volquez are only capable of 150 innings at most?

Chances are a least one of them will struggle or get hurt.

Point is, a guy who doesn't miss a start in over 5 seasons has value beyond his numbers.

osuceltic
10-26-2010, 04:52 PM
Chances are a least one of them will struggle or get hurt.

Point is, a guy who doesn't miss a start in over 5 seasons has value beyond his numbers.

It amazes me how people miss this point. When you say other guys can match him "other than the innings" you're missing a big part of the picture.

dougdirt
10-26-2010, 05:24 PM
It amazes me how people miss this point. When you say other guys can match him "other than the innings" you're missing a big part of the picture.

It really isn't though. How much money is an additional 20-30 innings worth? I don't know exactly, but I do know that IMO it isn't worth 5-10 million dollars.

RedsManRick
10-26-2010, 05:44 PM
I'm curious -- why don't we think Volquez, Bailey, et. all will fail to provide 180+ IP next year? Sure, somebody will most likely get hurt. But expecting all of them to fall short suggests there's something inherent about their ability to pitch a full season.

Just because a person has not done something does not automatically mean it is unlikely they will do so in the future. I've never typed what I'm typing right now, but based on what we know about my brain, fingers, and health, chances are I'm going to finish what I'm typing.

I'd be surprised if any of us knows with any degree of certitude just how likely each of those guys is to pitch 30+ starts. We can agree that it's unlikely they all do so, but a reasonable case can be made for any of them.

There's a lot gray area, sure. But I think a big chunk of that uncertainty could be said about every single pitcher in the game and we really don't know just how closely Jocketty will adhere to the Verducci rule.

TheNext44
10-26-2010, 05:48 PM
It really isn't though. How much money is an additional 20-30 innings worth? I don't know exactly, but I do know that IMO it isn't worth 5-10 million dollars.

Only it's not just an additional 30 innings. it more like an additional 50-75 innings, and an additional 4-6 quality starts, at the very least.

If the Reds didn't have Arroyo last season, that means they would have needed 33 starts from LeCure and Maloney instead of just 6.

And 50 more innings pitched for the bullpen, means more Owings and more Lincoln last season.

It has a very large domino effect.

dougdirt
10-26-2010, 05:50 PM
Only it's not just an additional 30 innings. it more like an additional 50-75 innings, and an additional 4-6 quality starts, at the very least.

If the Reds didn't have Arroyo last season, that means they would have needed 33 starts from LeCure and Maloney instead of just 6.

And 50 more innings pitched for the bullpen, means more Owings and more Lincoln last season.

It has a very large domino effect.

Not really. It means we would have likely just gotten 200 MLB innings from Travis Wood instead of a 100/100 split between AAA and the Majors.

RedsManRick
10-26-2010, 05:58 PM
Only it's not just an additional 30 innings. it more like an additional 50-75 innings, and an additional 4-6 quality starts, at the very least.

If the Reds didn't have Arroyo last season, that means they would have needed 33 starts from LeCure and Maloney instead of just 6.

And 50 more innings pitched for the bullpen, means more Owings and more Lincoln last season.

It has a very large domino effect.

Matt Maloney had a 3.05 ERA last year, support by peripherals better than Arroyo's across the board. LeCure had a 4.50 ERA with a walk rate that is most likely worse than his long term rate. It seems to me that 33 starts from those two wouldn't have been terribly different than what Arroyo provided.

I know, I know. Small sample size from those guys, certainty from Arroyo, etc. But I think we're overplaying the certainty card and underplaying the value that can be provided from a set of reasonably good options - simply because it's difficult to predict which options will play out.

And as Doug pointed out, we got just 1/2 a season from Wood. Throw Chapman in the mix we don't want for good options. I don't dislike Arroyo. But I think it's hard to make the case that he's $8MM better than the alternative, regardless of what combination of players it comes from -- namely the 3 of these guys (Chapman, Leake, Maloney, LeCure) who won't make the 2011 rotation because, in part, of Arroyo's presence.

TheNext44
10-26-2010, 06:17 PM
Matt Maloney had a 3.05 ERA last year, support by peripherals better than Arroyo's across the board. LeCure had a 4.50 ERA with a walk rate that is most likely worse than his long term rate. It seems to me that 33 starts from those two wouldn't have been terribly different than what Arroyo provided.

I know, I know. Small sample size from those guys, certainty from Arroyo, etc. But I think we're overplaying the certainty card and underplaying the value that can be provided from a set of reasonably good options - simply because it's difficult to predict which options will play out.

And as Doug pointed out, we got just 1/2 a season from Wood. Throw Chapman in the mix we don't want for good options. I don't dislike Arroyo. But I think it's hard to make the case that he's $8MM better than the alternative, regardless of what combination of players it comes from -- namely the 3 of these guys (Chapman, Leake, Maloney, LeCure) who won't make the 2011 rotation because, in part, of Arroyo's presence.

Lecure and Maloney's numbers were bolstered by solid relief outings. They both have over 4.50 ERA's when starting. That was based on their first time around the league, and neither one showed the ability to get past the 5th inning. I never want to see what either one can do starting 30+ games for the Reds.

After watching the three of them pitch, can you honestly say that LeCure and Maloney would be as productive as Arroyo starting 33 games a season? I would bet that if the Reds did not have Arroyo last season, and went with LeCure and Maloney, they wouldn't have made the playoffs, they probably wouldn't have even been in contention.

lollipopcurve
10-26-2010, 06:47 PM
It seems to me that 33 starts from those two wouldn't have been terribly different than what Arroyo provided.

You're suggesting they share a spot in the rotation?

Deja vu -- years ago there was ample support for discarding Arroyo to make way for Matt Belisle.

RedsManRick
10-26-2010, 06:50 PM
Lecure and Maloney's numbers were bolstered by solid relief outings. They both have over 4.50 ERA's when starting. That was based on their first time around the league, and neither one showed the ability to get past the 5th inning. I never want to see what either one can do starting 30+ games for the Reds.

After watching the three of them pitch, can you honestly say that LeCure and Maloney would be as productive as Arroyo starting 33 games a season? I would bet that if the Reds did not have Arroyo last season, and went with LeCure and Maloney, they wouldn't have made the playoffs, they probably wouldn't have even been in contention.

Let's assume those two guys and the extra relief innings they would require would put up replacement level production, a 5.10 FIP and let's assume that they don't get help from their defense and put up a 5.10 ERA. (do you think that's a reasonable assumption?) And that's ignoring that a chunk of those starts would have gone to Travis Wood.

The difference between a 5.10 ERA and a 3.88 ERA over 215 IP is 29 runs. That's 3 wins. We won the division by 5.0 games. By my math, we probably still win the division and are most certainly still in contention.

We could go on all night trying to hypothesize other consequences of not having Arroyo (such as other pitchers pitching worse due to the lack of his leadership or other bullpen arms having to throw more frequently and breaking down), but that's getting in to territory none of us can speak about with any real insight.

But what we're really talking about is 2011 and beyond. What value will Arroyo provide looking forward compared to the alternatives. What kind of numbers do you think we can expect from Arroyo in 2011? How do those numbers compare to your expectations for those guys who won't be in the rotation?

I find it very hard to make a case that Arroyo represents $8MM worth of production more than the alternatives.

(And I don't think anybody has even mentioned Ben Juckich or Chad Reineke, who also fit that replacement level mold, nor Matt Klinker who is likely the same but will be in his first full AAA season. None of them are likely major league starters of real quality, but the depth simply further increases the likelihood of somebody stepping in capably)

TheNext44
10-26-2010, 07:48 PM
Let's assume those two guys and the extra relief innings they would require would put up replacement level production, a 5.10 FIP and let's assume that they don't get help from their defense and put up a 5.10 ERA. (do you think that's a reasonable assumption?) And that's ignoring that a chunk of those starts would have gone to Travis Wood.

The difference between a 5.10 ERA and a 3.88 ERA over 215 IP is 29 runs. That's 3 wins. We won the division by 5.0 games. By my math, we probably still win the division and are most certainly still in contention.

We could go on all night trying to hypothesize other consequences of not having Arroyo (such as other pitchers pitching worse due to the lack of his leadership or other bullpen arms having to throw more frequently and breaking down), but that's getting in to territory none of us can speak about with any real insight.

But what we're really talking about is 2011 and beyond. What value will Arroyo provide looking forward compared to the alternatives. What kind of numbers do you think we can expect from Arroyo in 2011? How do those numbers compare to your expectations for those guys who won't be in the rotation?

I find it very hard to make a case that Arroyo represents $8MM worth of production more than the alternatives.

(And I don't think anybody has even mentioned Ben Juckich or Chad Reineke, who also fit that replacement level mold, nor Matt Klinker who is likely the same but will be in his first full AAA season. None of them are likely major league starters of real quality, but the depth simply further increases the likelihood of somebody stepping in capably)

Bronson gives the Reds around 20 quality starts a season. Even if you don't like that stat, I think it's clear that he pitches around 20 games a year in which he gives the team a chance to win. I can't imagine Lecure and.or Maloney or any other replacement level pitcher giving the team more than 15 quality starts over a full season. To be honest, I doubt they would give more than 10.

I see that holding true going forward for next season, and probably a few seasons after that. I know Bronson doesn't miss that many bats ;) anymore, but he has proven year after year after year that he can pitch at least 20 good games a season. That's worth the money he is getting paid, imo.

redsfandan
10-27-2010, 06:29 AM
It kinda seems like some of the people that want Arroyo signed to an extension so badly are also living in a world where the Reds rotation still includes guys like Haynes, Milton, and Fogg.

I just read how Barry Zito is going to be left off the Giants World Series roster. Now, granted, Arroyo will never get a contract THAT bad. And I'm sure people will say how Arroyo is no Zito. (Which I agree with btw) But, like the Giants, I can see the Reds regretting it if they make too much of a committment to Arroyo. And I can also see the Reds in the position of having 3 better starting pitchers for the playoffs and deciding whether Arroyo makes the playoff roster and, if so, where would they put him.

Arroyo's been a great bridge to the young guys. Picking up his option is one thing. And giving him an extension a year from now IF it's needed is another. But, adding years now? Unless the guy agrees to make less, considerably less, I just don't see the wisdom in rushing to give him an extension.

redsfandan
10-27-2010, 07:26 AM
One more thing, let's say the Reds don't extend him now, Arroyo leaves after 2011, and it turns out that the Reds could still use a veteran for one of the spots. What kind of starting pitcher do people think the Reds could get for $11M-$13M? Heck, the Reds might be able to get a decent replacement and save a few bucks at the same time. And that's IF the Reds still need a veteran starter after 2011. So, again, what's with the rush to extend him NOW?

I think most are happy with Cueto/Wood in the rotation for the next few years. And Arroyo would be a really expensive #5. So, do people really think that they won't be able to get 2 better starters out of Volquez, Bailey, Leake, and Chapman? Or that there won't be someone available as a FA IF only one of those four guys pan out (to become better than Arroyo)? If just two of those guys do pan out to be better than Arroyo I doubt that either will be the #5 guy. So, the Reds could very well end up with a very expensive #5 guy. Signing him just in case things don't work out and trading him if they do? What if there isn't a team willing to trade for him? It's possible.

Griffey012
10-27-2010, 08:12 AM
Let's assume those two guys and the extra relief innings they would require would put up replacement level production, a 5.10 FIP and let's assume that they don't get help from their defense and put up a 5.10 ERA. (do you think that's a reasonable assumption?) And that's ignoring that a chunk of those starts would have gone to Travis Wood.

The difference between a 5.10 ERA and a 3.88 ERA over 215 IP is 29 runs. That's 3 wins. We won the division by 5.0 games. By my math, we probably still win the division and are most certainly still in contention.

We could go on all night trying to hypothesize other consequences of not having Arroyo (such as other pitchers pitching worse due to the lack of his leadership or other bullpen arms having to throw more frequently and breaking down), but that's getting in to territory none of us can speak about with any real insight.

But what we're really talking about is 2011 and beyond. What value will Arroyo provide looking forward compared to the alternatives. What kind of numbers do you think we can expect from Arroyo in 2011? How do those numbers compare to your expectations for those guys who won't be in the rotation?

I find it very hard to make a case that Arroyo represents $8MM worth of production more than the alternatives.

(And I don't think anybody has even mentioned Ben Juckich or Chad Reineke, who also fit that replacement level mold, nor Matt Klinker who is likely the same but will be in his first full AAA season. None of them are likely major league starters of real quality, but the depth simply further increases the likelihood of somebody stepping in capably)

Lucky for us baseball fans the game of baseball is really not that simple. That's kinda like saying the Reds beat the Cubs who beat the Cardinals who beat the Phillies, so the Reds are better than the Cubs Cards and Phils.

In 24 of Bronson's 33 starts in 2010, the Reds scored 5 runs or less. It's extremely difficult for me to believe Maloney or LeCure exchange 3 of Bronson's wins for losses and go 14-13.

IslandRed
10-27-2010, 09:58 AM
One more thing, let's say the Reds don't extend him now, Arroyo leaves after 2011, and it turns out that the Reds could still use a veteran for one of the spots. What kind of starting pitcher do people think the Reds could get for $11M-$13M? Heck, the Reds might be able to get a decent replacement and save a few bucks at the same time. And that's IF the Reds still need a veteran starter after 2011. So, again, what's with the rush to extend him NOW?

You're right, it doesn't make sense for the Reds to extend Arroyo now at full fare. But I don't think that's what they're trying to do. From what I've read, they want to do a Rolen-type scenario where the per-year cost is knocked down somewhat. Of course, Arroyo has said he isn't inclined to take a hometown discount.

Bottom line, somebody's not going to get what they want.

But there is a reason why an extension, now, would be helpful -- it would give Jocketty more freedom to consider trading a pitcher for something else we need, a pitcher he might otherwise feel compelled to hold onto to replace Arroyo after next season.

lollipopcurve
10-27-2010, 10:29 AM
But there is a reason why an extension, now, would be helpful -- it would give Jocketty more freedom to consider trading a pitcher for something else we need, a pitcher he might otherwise feel compelled to hold onto to replace Arroyo after next season.

Exactly. It solidifies the pitching "surplus" (if such a thing exists), thereby positioning the team very well in the trade market. It also will give the team a bit more to spend this coming year (assuming Arroyo's 2011 salary goes down) and gives some cost certainty into 2012. There are larger issues here -- the peripherals stuff is, to a large extent, peripheral.

jojo
10-27-2010, 10:40 AM
It's possible that an extension could increase Arroyo's trade value as well (actually make him tradeable) so it's not a given that an extension means the Reds have to take on the risk.

lollipopcurve
10-27-2010, 10:54 AM
It's possible that an extension could increase Arroyo's trade value as well (actually make him tradeable)

He's tradeable as is.

Chip R
10-27-2010, 10:55 AM
It's possible that an extension could increase Arroyo's trade value as well (actually make him tradeable) so it's not a given that an extension means the Reds have to take on the risk.


True, but from the statements he's made in the past, I don't think he's interested in being traded and he's a 10-5 guy.

RedsManRick
10-27-2010, 12:51 PM
Lucky for us baseball fans the game of baseball is really not that simple. That's kinda like saying the Reds beat the Cubs who beat the Cardinals who beat the Phillies, so the Reds are better than the Cubs Cards and Phils.

In 24 of Bronson's 33 starts in 2010, the Reds scored 5 runs or less. It's extremely difficult for me to believe Maloney or LeCure exchange 3 of Bronson's wins for losses and go 14-13.

Firstly, why is it lucky that the game is not "that simple"?

Secondly, at the macro level, it is that simple. The entire WAR framework wouldn't line up with reality as well as it does if it wasn't. It's not perfect, but it's not off by factors of 2 or 3 as you are suggesting.

Thirdly, your comparison makes no sense. There's all sorts of noise in the particulars of a given season that don't adhere to some strict mode of A > B > C. Sometimes a Josh Fogg pitches better than Josh Johnson, occasionally head-to-head -- those individual games say very little about the player's overall ability nor his long term impact on the team's won-loss record.

In assessing impact over a 162 game season, you can't pick and choose just some examples. It all counts. Every start. And while Arroyo's average start will be better than replacement level guy's average start, both will have a wide range of games which will be more or less randomly paired with offensive support.

You're citing a specific example of those 24 starts, but aren't really playing out the math you're inferring. How many of those starts did the Reds win? Now, replace Arroyo's ER with 1 additional, as if the replacement level guy were pitching instead how many would the Reds have won?

No wonder it's hard for you to believe it -- your process for figuring it out appears to reliant on primarily a gut reaction. Try to pay it out a bit more - state your assumptions and go from there. I think you'll be surprised.

jojo
10-27-2010, 01:21 PM
He's tradeable as is.

Not if you want worthwhile other than salary relief.

jojo
10-27-2010, 01:28 PM
True, but from the statements he's made in the past, I don't think he's interested in being traded and he's a 10-5 guy.

I don't think Arroyo qualifies as a 10-5 guy because he didn't spend an entire year on a major league roster until his 2004 season with the BoSox.

TheNext44
10-27-2010, 01:51 PM
RMR,

I think what Griffey012 was referring to, was that you can't just say that a starting pitcher will let in X amount of runs more than another, and that will translate into X number of wins. I agree with him that the game is much more complicated that. A starting pitcher has too much control over the outcome of the games in which he starts, to evaluate his impact on the team win total, only on the number of runs he averages per start. You need to go start by start to fully evaluate his impact.

Let's just take your example of replacing Arroyo with LeCure for all of his starts. You can't just add a run (it would be over 2 runs actually, since they don't pitch a complete game every time) to each game on the opposing side and figure out who would have won which games like that. That's not how ERA works.

A pitcher who has an ERA one run higher than another, does not allow exactly one run more per game than the other in very game. He averages that, but I reality, game by game, he might pitch more shutouts, but get clobbered worse in the games he does give up runs.

This is why I think the most accurst way to analyze the difference having one pitcher over another would make to a team's win total, is to see compare how many games each pitcher is likely to keep the team in the game. How many quality staters (and you can define them anyway you want) would each pitcher provide for the team?

If you look at it this way, I think it is hard to conclude that replacing Arroyo with a replacement pitcher would result in a similar number of wins for the team.

BTW, using your approach, the likes of Halladay, Wainwright, Lee and King Felix, are only worth around 6-7 wins more each than a replacement level pitcher.

Brutus
10-27-2010, 02:04 PM
I don't think Arroyo qualifies as a 10-5 guy because he didn't spend an entire year on a major league roster until his 2004 season with the BoSox.

Correct. Bronson is still around 8 years and 160 days of service. So he could spend all of 2011 on the Reds roster but still not yet qualify for 10/5 rights until after about two weeks into 2012.

Patrick Bateman
10-27-2010, 02:04 PM
RMR,

BTW, using your approach, the likes of Halladay, Wainwright, Lee and King Felix, are only worth around 6-7 wins more each than a replacement level pitcher.

That's what they are roughly worth.
Which nets out to a worth of about 25M+ per year.

TheNext44
10-27-2010, 02:34 PM
That's what they are roughly worth.
Which nets out to a worth of about 25M+ per year.

Correct. Which is why WAR is great for figuring out payroll and contracts.

But do you really think that if you replaced Halladay with Josh Fogg, that the Phillies would only win 7 games less over the year?

Griffey012
10-27-2010, 03:59 PM
Firstly, why is it lucky that the game is not "that simple"?

Secondly, at the macro level, it is that simple. The entire WAR framework wouldn't line up with reality as well as it does if it wasn't. It's not perfect, but it's not off by factors of 2 or 3 as you are suggesting.

Thirdly, your comparison makes no sense. There's all sorts of noise in the particulars of a given season that don't adhere to some strict mode of A > B > C. Sometimes a Josh Fogg pitches better than Josh Johnson, occasionally head-to-head -- those individual games say very little about the player's overall ability nor his long term impact on the team's won-loss record.

In assessing impact over a 162 game season, you can't pick and choose just some examples. It all counts. Every start. And while Arroyo's average start will be better than replacement level guy's average start, both will have a wide range of games which will be more or less randomly paired with offensive support.

You're citing a specific example of those 24 starts, but aren't really playing out the math you're inferring. How many of those starts did the Reds win? Now, replace Arroyo's ER with 1 additional, as if the replacement level guy were pitching instead how many would the Reds have won?

No wonder it's hard for you to believe it -- your process for figuring it out appears to reliant on primarily a gut reaction. Try to pay it out a bit more - state your assumptions and go from there. I think you'll be surprised.

If the game of baseball were really that simple it would not be fun to watch. There would be no unpredictability in the game. That's why it's lucky for us fans that its not that simple.

At the macro level it may make sense that way, but we are discussing replacing Arroyo with Lecure and Maloney. The operation of the Reds is a micro perspective.

My A>B>C>D scenario was used because it follows some of the same logic in the lines of LeCure gives up close to 1 run more per start, which is X numbers of runs over the season, which is X number of wins/losses. A beats B so they must be better than C is very similar to what you were implying. A beats B so they must be better than B and B beat C so A must be better than C. That's just like saying LeCure has a 5.10 ERA so he must have a 5.10 ERA over the course of 215 IP. If LeCure threw 215 innings his ERA would likely be well above that once the league became used to him. Not to mention we are ignoring facts like LeCure not having the skills to pitch 215 innings. He is lucky to get 5 in a start. Arroyo goes 5 on an off day.

To draw out the research on Arroyo's starts:
24 times the Reds scored 5 or less runs.

The Reds record was 11-13 in those games.
Arroyo's record was 9-10 with 5 NDs.

Upping Arroyo's runs by 1 for the replacement guy is not a plausible scenario. Arroyo is a special pitcher who racks up a huge number of quality starts, always near the league lead. When he is off, he gives up 7 or 8 runs, but does that 2 or 3 times a season. A replacement pitcher, ala LeCure in this discussion is going to put up a quality start on a good day. ERA over time will follow something like a normal distribution with the mean being the ERA. It is likely that half of the starts will fall between an ERA of 0 and the average, and half of the starts will be above the ERA. Arroyo is not that way, most of his are at or below his ERA. In fact, of his 33 starts 21 had an ERA of less than 3.88, and 12 had an ERA of above 3.88. This is why its not feasible to simply say that because LeCure's ERA equivalates to 1 run higher on average, that the Reds would lose 3 less games.

If we do add the 1 run like you suggested...we get a Reds record of 7-13 with 4 tied games.

redsfandan
10-27-2010, 04:29 PM
You're right, it doesn't make sense for the Reds to extend Arroyo now at full fare. But I don't think that's what they're trying to do. From what I've read, they want to do a Rolen-type scenario where the per-year cost is knocked down somewhat. Of course, Arroyo has said he isn't inclined to take a hometown discount.

Bottom line, somebody's not going to get what they want.

But there is a reason why an extension, now, would be helpful -- it would give Jocketty more freedom to consider trading a pitcher for something else we need, a pitcher he might otherwise feel compelled to hold onto to replace Arroyo after next season.
I'd pass unless he's willing to take alot less and I'm skeptical that he would. And I doubt that the Reds could afford, financially, to commit too much to him.

Exactly. It solidifies the pitching "surplus" (if such a thing exists), thereby positioning the team very well in the trade market. It also will give the team a bit more to spend this coming year (assuming Arroyo's 2011 salary goes down) and gives some cost certainty into 2012. There are larger issues here -- the peripherals stuff is, to a large extent, peripheral.
The Reds would have alot more payroll flexibility if Arroyo isn't extended. ALOT more. That's very important. Especially for a team like the Reds.

lollipopcurve
10-27-2010, 05:00 PM
The Reds would have alot more payroll flexibility if Arroyo isn't extended. ALOT more. That's very important. Especially for a team like the Reds.

I'll take the few extra million in 2011 and see what happens in 2012 (at that time, Phillips may be off the books, and Cordero will be for sure).

RedsManRick
10-27-2010, 05:12 PM
RMR,
Let's just take your example of replacing Arroyo with LeCure for all of his starts. You can't just add a run (it would be over 2 runs actually, since they don't pitch a complete game every time) to each game on the opposing side and figure out who would have won which games like that. That's not how ERA works.

A pitcher who has an ERA one run higher than another, does not allow exactly one run more per game than the other in very game. He averages that, but I reality, game by game, he might pitch more shutouts, but get clobbered worse in the games he does give up runs.

I know this, believe me. I was carrying forward the logical extension of the example which was offered to me -- that in a certain number of starts, a certain number of runs were scored. I simplified the logic using conservative estimates (on average it would be less than 1 run per start) simply to make the point. I was attempting to work within the framework that was provided.



This is why I think the most accurst way to analyze the difference having one pitcher over another would make to a team's win total, is to see compare how many games each pitcher is likely to keep the team in the game. How many quality staters (and you can define them anyway you want) would each pitcher provide for the team?

If you look at it this way, I think it is hard to conclude that replacing Arroyo with a replacement pitcher would result in a similar number of wins for the team.

BTW, using your approach, the likes of Halladay, Wainwright, Lee and King Felix, are only worth around 6-7 wins more each than a replacement level pitcher.

I understand your process. But I don't think you are appropriately applying your own process. I think you are equating "keeping the team in the game" and the team actually winning that game. It's not a 1:1 ratio. You need to convert the number of "keeping them in the game" starts in to TEAM wins. (e.g. 10 more quality starts = 5 more team wins). My runs allowed model does this implicitly. Yours doesn't.

So the question becomes, what % of "keeping them in the game" starts result in team wins? Convert the number of those starts for each player in to team wins (what's your conversion factor?) and then do your subtraction.

TheNext44
10-27-2010, 05:13 PM
The Reds look very good payroll wise the next few season. I'd much rather have talent the next few years than extra payflex.

redsfandan
10-27-2010, 05:13 PM
I'll take the few extra million in 2011 and see what happens in 2012 (at that time, Phillips may be off the books, and Cordero will be for sure).
Jocketty specifically mentioned Phillips the other day (on WLW) when he was talking about extensions. I doubt Phillips is going anywhere.

redsfandan
10-27-2010, 05:17 PM
The Reds look very good payroll wise the next few season. I'd much rather have talent the next few years than extra payflex.
Sure about that? Those young guys will get expensive fast.

lollipopcurve
10-27-2010, 05:21 PM
Jocketty specifically mentioned Phillips the other day (on WLW) when he was talking about extensions. I doubt Phillips is going anywhere.

I didn't say Phillips would be gone -- only that he could be. But if WJ is thinking extension with Phillips, my guess is that the 2012 number is knocked down (maybe even 2011). Point is, they're not going to hamstring themselves with extensions that overpay -- they'll be sensible, and will give the team a stable outlook for where the holes in the roster will be going forward.

TheNext44
10-27-2010, 05:32 PM
I understand your process. But I don't think you are appropriately applying your own process. I think you are equating "keeping the team in the game" and the team actually winning that game. It's not a 1:1 ratio. You need to convert the number of "keeping them in the game" starts in to TEAM wins. (e.g. 10 more quality starts = 5 more team wins). My runs allowed model does this implicitly. Yours doesn't.

So the question becomes, what % of "keeping them in the game" starts result in team wins? Convert the number of those starts for each player in to team wins (what's your conversion factor?) and then do your subtraction.

Sorry, my bad, I didn't full explain the math in the process.

I am not assuming it's a one to one ratio of quality starts to wins. I said that replacing Arroyo with Lecure translates into at least 5 more team loses, and maybe as many as 10. What I mean by that is that it means at least 8 less quality starts, and maybe as many as 15. I am assuming that at least 60% of quality starts are converted into team wins, and about 20% of none quality starts converted into team wins. Those are just estimates, but I think they are pretty close to reality.

I think that LeCure, if pressed to start everyday all season long, would provide somewhere between 5-12 quality starts. That translates into 5-10 more team losses than Arroyo who pitched over 20 quality starts last season.

IslandRed
10-27-2010, 05:38 PM
It's possible that an extension could increase Arroyo's trade value as well (actually make him tradeable) so it's not a given that an extension means the Reds have to take on the risk.

After his experience with Boston, Arroyo would no doubt insist on a no-trade clause if he did the type of extension the Reds are likely seeking.

camisadelgolf
10-27-2010, 05:40 PM
Sure about that? Those young guys will get expensive fast.
In terms of retaining the current players, things are looking great. It's not until you get into the discussion of new acquisitions that things start to get tight.

TheNext44
10-27-2010, 05:41 PM
Sure about that? Those young guys will get expensive fast.

Cueto, Votto, Volquez Bailey and Bruce combined in 2012, will make much less than what Cordero and Phillips makes in 2011.

redsfandan
10-27-2010, 05:48 PM
In terms of retaining the current players, things are looking great. It's not until you get into the discussion of new acquisitions that things start to get tight.
Isn't that the point of payflex? Having the flexibility to make those acquisitions?

Cueto, Votto, Volquez Bailey and Bruce combined in 2012, will make much less than what Cordero and Phillips makes in 2011.
Willing to bet on that? I wouldn't. Votto alone will eat up a chunk. Won't be hard for the others to make up the rest.

edit: Btw, I don't know why you made it Cordero and Phillips. Personally, I think it's a safer bet that Phillips is still here in 2012 than Arroyo.

camisadelgolf
10-27-2010, 05:51 PM
Isn't that the point of payflex? Having the flexibility to make those acquisitions?
Sorry, I worded that like an idiot. I'm sure you're shocked. What I mean is that as of now, they have plenty of pay flex, but that won't be in jeopardy until they use it on new acquisitions. It was kind of a redundant statement that I said a little redundantly.

redsfandan
10-27-2010, 05:53 PM
Sorry, I worded that like an idiot. I'm sure you're shocked. What I mean is that as of now, they have plenty of pay flex, but that won't be in jeopardy until they use it on new acquisitions. It was kind of a redundant statement that I said a little redundantly.
Could ya be anymore redundant? lol ;)

PuffyPig
10-27-2010, 05:59 PM
Correct. Which is why WAR is great for figuring out payroll and contracts.

But do you really think that if you replaced Halladay with Josh Fogg, that the Phillies would only win 7 games less over the year?

The Phillies went 22-11 in Halladay's 33 starts.

Would they have gone 15-18 if Josh Fogg had pitched?

Fogg was close to a .500 pitcher on pretty bad teams posting a 5+ ERA, so yeah, 15-18 is a safe bet on a team like the Phillies.

TheNext44
10-27-2010, 07:29 PM
Isn't that the point of payflex? Having the flexibility to make those acquisitions?

Willing to bet on that? I wouldn't. Votto alone will eat up a chunk. Won't be hard for the others to make up the rest.

edit: Btw, I don't know why you made it Cordero and Phillips. Personally, I think it's a safer bet that Phillips is still here in 2012 than Arroyo.

If those guys p,ay well enough to earn $25M in 2112, payflex really won't be that big of a problem. ;)

mth123
10-27-2010, 07:52 PM
The part I have trouble accepting in all of this is the 3 win assertion. I'm willing to go with WAR's calculation here and agree that Arroyo is a three win starter. The part I have trouble with is assuming that Reds have some one to replace him with who would be worth zero. I'd guess some of the names mentioned in this thread would be negative 4 or negative 5 (Kllinker? Jukich?)under WAR's methodology and the 3 win swing that Arroyo's 3 WAR implies would actually show up a lot more in the standings. 5 to 8 wins in actual ballgames I'd guess. The assertion that the Reds have 7 viable rotation arms is just not true. IMO, Leake and Chapman are not viable starters for 2011. Volquez, Wood and Bailey come with questions of their own. All the other names (Maloney, Lecure, Klinker, etc.) are even more iffy. The Reds should be aiming for the World Series in 2011. That isn't the time to fill the rotation with question marks. I'll take my 33 start, 215 inning 3 WAR certainty in at least one spot. There are 4 other spots to risk big failure in hopes of finding an ace. You just can't get through a 162 game season with a rotation filled with those types.


But no extension without a big discount. Redsfandan is right on. By next year, at least a couple of these guys should be established and the need for Arroyo could be assessed then.

dougdirt
10-27-2010, 08:12 PM
The part I have trouble accepting in all of this is the 3 win assertion. I'm willing to go with WAR's calculation here and agree that Arroyo is a three win starter. The part I have trouble with is assuming that Reds have some one to replace him with who would be worth zero. I'd guess some of the names mentioned in this thread would be negative 4 or negative 5 (Kllinker? Jukich?)under WAR's methodology.


Do you know how bad someone would have to be in order to be -4 or -5 WAR? The WORST pitcher in baseball this year was only -1.6 WAR (Ryan Roland Smith, he of the 109 innings and 6.75 ERA. That tells me that in order to reach the ineptitude that you are suggesting (-4/5 WAR) a guy is going to have to throw over 200 innings with an ERA around 8.00. I don't think that is ever going to happen.

RedsManRick
10-27-2010, 08:14 PM
Sorry, my bad, I didn't full explain the math in the process.

I am not assuming it's a one to one ratio of quality starts to wins. I said that replacing Arroyo with Lecure translates into at least 5 more team loses, and maybe as many as 10. What I mean by that is that it means at least 8 less quality starts, and maybe as many as 15. I am assuming that at least 60% of quality starts are converted into team wins, and about 20% of none quality starts converted into team wins. Those are just estimates, but I think they are pretty close to reality.

I think that LeCure, if pressed to start everyday all season long, would provide somewhere between 5-12 quality starts. That translates into 5-10 more team losses than Arroyo who pitched over 20 quality starts last season.

Ok, I'm game. Let's test your assumptions and then run with your model.

Assumption 1
60% of QS are converted to wins & 20% of non-QS are converted to wins.

The relationship between a QS and a win should not be pitcher dependent, unless the characteristics of a pitcher's QS & non-QS performances vary significantly -- that is, that the pitcher is particularly inconsistent*. Also, the rate will vary by team, since the win is 50% dependent on offense. A league-wide figure would not be accurate for Reds pitchers, since our offense was better than league average. So I looked at 154 starts by Reds pitchers in 2010 (Arroyo, Harang, Cueto, Volquez, Wood, Leake).

*I don't doubt that pitchers vary in consistency year to year (small sample size of just 30 starts), but I would be surprised to learn that it was an actual, repeatable characteristic of significant impact, that Arroyo's QSs are particularly good compared to the average quality start and vice versa. In any event, answering that question is beyond the scope of what I did here and was not part of your argument.

So, here are the data for those 154 games:


Win Loss Win Loss
QS = Y 63 23 73% 27%
QS = N 25 43 37% 63%

QS = Y 72% 35%
QS = N 28% 65%


When a Reds pitcher threw a QS, the team won 73% of the time (63/86). When the pitcher did not throw a QS, the team won just 37% of the time (25/68). (Arroyo was more extreme than this at 86% and 14% respectively, but as I said, I don't believe we can expect him to repeat those rates for reasons I explained above) You were a bit low on both counts, but not out of the ballpark. I wouldn't be surprised to see that your numbers are closer to league average. Anyways, so that's assumption 1.

Assumption 2
LeCure, if pressed to start everyday all season long, would provide somewhere between 5-12 quality starts (that's between 15% and 36% QS rate)

Firstly, I'm not sure why we're choosing LeCure since he's hardly the first option to replace Arroyo, but I'll set that aside for now. As I mentioned earlier, my analysis was based on an assumption of replacement level performance, an ERA around 5.10. If you think the guy(s) who would replace those 215 innings would compile an ERA higher than 5.10, then we're not on the same page. Tell me what ERA you're envisioning and I can adjust accordingly. A 6.00 ERA would be a 51 run difference, a 5 win difference.

So I looked at pitchers with ERAs around 5.10 in at least 140 IP: Rodrigo Lopez (5.00), Kevin Millwood (5.10), Maholm (5.10), James Shields (5.18). They combined for 62 QS in 129 GS - a 48% QS rate.

But maybe those guys have more stamina than Maloney or LeCure. And what about guys who were yanked before they got to 140 IP because they sucked so bad? Ok, let's look explicitly at QS% and lower the bar to 100 IP. For context, you predicted between 5 and 12 QS. How many MLB pitchers had a 36% QS rate or lower last year - your high-end estimate for LeCure? 10. 10 of 147 pitchers with at least 100 IP. And their ERAs were worse than replacement, on average, so that group was actually worse than replacement.

The Math
So et's see where that puts us based on our standardized conversion rates and some difference flavors of "Not Arroyo": a 48% QS version (my replacement estimate), a 35% version (your top-end estimate) and 15% (your low-end estimate)

Arroyo: 21 QS* 72% + 12 Non-QS *28% = 18.5 team wins
Not Arroyo48: 16 QS* 72% + 17 Non-QS *28% = 16.3 team wins (2.2 fewer team wins)
Not Arroyo35: 12 QS* 72% + 21 Non-QS *28% = 14.5 team wins (4.0 fewer team wins)
Not Arroyo15: 5 QS* 72% + 28 Non-QS *28% = 11.4 team wins (7.1 fewer team wins)

So, there you have it. Pick whichever assumptions you want. I went with replacement level, which produces somewhere in the 12 to 16 QS range given 33 starts. That equates to somewhere between 2 and 4 wins difference from Arroyo. We're right back where my 29 run difference estimate (2.9 wins) put us. Give me a different ERA expectation and that total would grow accordingly.

Conclusion
If you think the Arroyo replacement would be sub-replacement level (worse than a 5.10 ERA), then we can start talking about a 5 wins difference. But the replacement pitcher would have to be MUCH worse than replacement to go much beyond that. And frankly, given our depth, if a guy was pitching that bad, we'd ditch him and try one of our other options.

And that's really my point, we have 4 options beyond our current top 5 who represent replacement level production or better: Chapman, Leake, Maloney, LeCure (and I'd guess in that order). I think we'd get better than replacement level because the reality of the situation is that the replacement was pitching at a sub-replacement level, we'd bring in the next guy. And I think that one of the first two guys is likely to equal Arroyo's performance. But I'll fight that fight elsewhere.

RedsManRick
10-27-2010, 08:16 PM
Do you know how bad someone would have to be in order to be -4 or -5 WAR? The WORST pitcher in baseball this year was only -1.6 WAR (Ryan Roland Smith, he of the 109 innings and 6.75 ERA. That tells me that in order to reach the ineptitude that you are suggesting (-4/5 WAR) a guy is going to have to throw over 200 innings with an ERA around 8.00. I don't think that is ever going to happen.

Run Klinker out there for 200 IP and it might. But at the point you're talking about option number 6 or 7 as a replacement. As you point out, something tells me we're not going to lose all of our top 5 starters for the season in Sprint Training.

I'll come back to my initial point. Arroyo at his salary is not a bad deal. But we have options -- certainly better options than we have in LF and SS. I'd rather invest his salary there and give our replacements (Leake or Chapman) Arroyo's innings. I have more confidence in the ability of those guys to give us 2 or 3 wins worth of production than I do in Gomes/Heisey/Nix/Janish/Cozart. Trade Arroyo for say, Josh Willingham, and I think we are a better team for it -- and salary neutral.

mth123
10-27-2010, 08:37 PM
Run Klinker out there for 200 IP and it might. But at the point you're talking about option number 6 or 7 as a replacement. As you point out, something tells me we're not going to lose all of our top 5 starters for the season in Sprint Training.

I'll come back to my initial point. Arroyo at his salary is not a bad deal. But we have options -- certainly better options than we have in LF and SS. I'd rather invest his salary there and give our replacements (Leake or Chapman) Arroyo's innings. I have more confidence in the ability of those guys to give us 2 or 3 wins worth of production than I do in Gomes/Heisey/Nix/Janish/Cozart. Trade Arroyo for say, Josh Willingham, and I think we are a better team for it -- and salary neutral.

I get the logic, but the Reds have lots of depth that they have no use for. Alonso, Maloney, Burton, Valaika, Smith, maybe Heisey ... and lower level guys to sweeten things like Sulbaran, Klinker, Rojas, H-Rod etc. Seems like they should be able to fill the needs w/o making a 215 inning hole in the rotation to be filled by question marks. The Reds want to contend. They need some certainty.

If I were to make a prediction, I'd guess that Bailey and Wood will establish themselves in 2011, Cueto will provide more mid-rotation goodness, Volquez will crash and burn and Chapman and Leake will be exposed as not ready for prime time. Maloney and the rest will bring back memories of Jose Acevedo. That would leave the rotation just 3 deep and hurting for innings if Arroyo were to be dealt. Innings I'd worry that the Reds would try to force out of Leake and Chapman. How much of the savings would it be worth to damage one of those guys? In 2012, I think they'll both be ready, but in 2011, they just aren't.

camisadelgolf
10-27-2010, 08:48 PM
RMR, you're forgetting about the wins that come from veteran leadership. I don't see intangibles factored into your calculations at all, and therefore you're wrong.

Griffey012
10-27-2010, 09:22 PM
Assumption 2
LeCure, if pressed to start everyday all season long, would provide somewhere between 5-12 quality starts (that's between 15% and 36% QS rate)

Firstly, I'm not sure why we're choosing LeCure since he's hardly the first option to replace Arroyo, but I'll set that aside for now. As I mentioned earlier, my analysis was based on an assumption of replacement level performance, an ERA around 5.10. If you think the guy(s) who would replace those 215 innings would compile an ERA higher than 5.10, then we're not on the same page. Tell me what ERA you're envisioning and I can adjust accordingly. A 6.00 ERA would be a 51 run difference, a 5 win difference.

So I looked at pitchers with ERAs around 5.10 in at least 140 IP: Rodrigo Lopez (5.00), Kevin Millwood (5.10), Maholm (5.10), James Shields (5.18). They combined for 62 QS in 129 GS - a 48% QS rate.

But maybe those guys have more stamina than Maloney or LeCure. And what about guys who were yanked before they got to 140 IP because they sucked so bad? Ok, let's look explicitly at QS% and lower the bar to 100 IP. For context, you predicted between 5 and 12 QS. How many MLB pitchers had a 36% QS rate or lower last year - your high-end estimate for LeCure? 10. 10 of 147 pitchers with at least 100 IP. And their ERAs were worse than replacement, on average, so that group was actually worse than replacement.



Originally I was under the impression was that you were saying LeCure in the rotation instead of Arroyo would only be a 3 win difference, I can see now you just stated Lecure as a potential replacement pitcher. When you bring guys like Lopez, Millwood, Shields, and Maholm into the equation I see the value in the logic you were using. My original discrepancy was in the thinking LeCure would remain a replacement level performer all-season. Now I understand what you were initially trying to get at.

Back to the thread, I want to see Arroyo back next season, but anything after will depend a lot on the rest of our staff next season. It is too early to decide at this point.

TheNext44
10-28-2010, 02:19 AM
The part I have trouble accepting in all of this is the 3 win assertion. I'm willing to go with WAR's calculation here and agree that Arroyo is a three win starter. The part I have trouble with is assuming that Reds have some one to replace him with who would be worth zero. I'd guess some of the names mentioned in this thread would be negative 4 or negative 5 (Kllinker? Jukich?)under WAR's methodology and the 3 win swing that Arroyo's 3 WAR implies would actually show up a lot more in the standings. 5 to 8 wins in actual ballgames I'd guess. The assertion that the Reds have 7 viable rotation arms is just not true. IMO, Leake and Chapman are not viable starters for 2011. Volquez, Wood and Bailey come with questions of their own. All the other names (Maloney, Lecure, Klinker, etc.) are even more iffy. The Reds should be aiming for the World Series in 2011. That isn't the time to fill the rotation with question marks. I'll take my 33 start, 215 inning 3 WAR certainty in at least one spot. There are 4 other spots to risk big failure in hopes of finding an ace. You just can't get through a 162 game season with a rotation filled with those types.


But no extension without a big discount. Redsfandan is right on. By next year, at least a couple of these guys should be established and the need for Arroyo could be assessed then.

I obvioulsy completely agree. This is the point that I have been making.

Let's just ignore WAR for now, because my arguement, and I believe your's as well, is that WAR misses the boat on this one.

The idea behind a replacement level pitcher is a pitcher that a team can get for free, at any time, either from the minors or waivers. RMR uses Kevin Millwood, James Shields, Pat Maholm and R. Lopez as his examples of replacement pitchers. None of the pitchers are pitchers that a team could get for free. Why? Not because they will put great numbers, but because they give a team innings.

That is what WAR misses. The value of being able to pitch 150 to 200 innings year in and year out. Any pitcher that can do that, will not be available for free, because he is rare. The vast majority of free pitchers, true replacement level pitchers, would not be able to pitch 100 innings during a season. The vast majority of them would not be able to go more than 5 innings in nearly all of their starts. They would provide nearly zero quality starts over a season. And if you use a bunch of different ones. you run into a different problem... the more you use, the worse the pitchers are. Very few teams have 3, 4 or 5 pitchers that they can just get for free that can provide quality starts.

And that is my main point.

Brutus
10-28-2010, 03:02 AM
I obvioulsy completely agree. This is the point that I have been making.

Let's just ignore WAR for now, because my arguement, and I believe your's as well, is that WAR misses the boat on this one.

The idea behind a replacement level pitcher is a pitcher that a team can get for free, at any time, either from the minors or waivers. RMR uses Kevin Millwood, James Shields, Pat Maholm and R. Lopez as his examples of replacement pitchers. None of the pitchers are pitchers that a team could get for free. Why? Not because they will put great numbers, but because they give a team innings.

That is what WAR misses. The value of being able to pitch 150 to 200 innings year in and year out. Any pitcher that can do that, will not be available for free, because he is rare. The vast majority of free pitchers, true replacement level pitchers, would not be able to pitch 100 innings during a season. The vast majority of them would not be able to go more than 5 innings in nearly all of their starts. They would provide nearly zero quality starts over a season. And if you use a bunch of different ones. you run into a different problem... the more you use, the worse the pitchers are. Very few teams have 3, 4 or 5 pitchers that they can just get for free that can provide quality starts.

And that is my main point.

What you're saying is true, but WAR doesn't really miss that because in the calculation, it's factored in that a pitcher not pitching 7 innings won't be worth as much as one who does.

I agree that pitchers able to pitch 200 innings are not free... but they are free until arbitration. A guy like Sam Lecure could give the Reds 2-3 years of decent innings, in theory, if he were an OK pitcher. Those innings clearly have to be of quality, or else pitching him a bunch of innings is pointless.

I don't disagree with the point you're making, but WAR does in fact take that point into consideration. The number of innings having to be used on replacement pitchers because a starter can't go deep into games, because a position player misses 30 games every year, etc., that kind of thing is part of the calculation.

redsfandan
10-28-2010, 05:05 AM
If those guys p,ay well enough to earn $25M in 2112, payflex really won't be that big of a problem. ;)
Really? Didn't you just say this as well?...

Cueto, Votto, Volquez Bailey and Bruce combined in 2012, will make much less than what Cordero and Phillips makes in 2011.
First you said that those 5 players will make much less than the other 2 players. Then it sounds like you conceded that they could but that it wouldn't be that big of a problem. So, does that mean that you agree that it could be a problem? ;)

RedsManRick
10-28-2010, 11:35 AM
I obvioulsy completely agree. This is the point that I have been making.

Let's just ignore WAR for now, because my argument, and I believe your's as well, is that WAR misses the boat on this one.

The idea behind a replacement level pitcher is a pitcher that a team can get for free, at any time, either from the minors or waivers. RMR uses Kevin Millwood, James Shields, Pat Maholm and R. Lopez as his examples of replacement pitchers. None of the pitchers are pitchers that a team could get for free. Why? Not because they will put great numbers, but because they give a team innings.

That is what WAR misses. The value of being able to pitch 150 to 200 innings year in and year out. Any pitcher that can do that, will not be available for free, because he is rare. The vast majority of free pitchers, true replacement level pitchers, would not be able to pitch 100 innings during a season. The vast majority of them would not be able to go more than 5 innings in nearly all of their starts. They would provide nearly zero quality starts over a season. And if you use a bunch of different ones. you run into a different problem... the more you use, the worse the pitchers are. Very few teams have 3, 4 or 5 pitchers that they can just get for free that can provide quality starts.

And that is my main point.

The reason we see guys like Milwood and Shields in that group is 2-fold:

1) They've produced at high level before and thus are given more opportunity to bounce back from poor performance
2) They're being paid to perform and teams are averse to admitting sunk costs

But forget those guys. Your point makes no sense. We aren't debating the merits of WAR as an analytical tool (hough I'm glad you essentially conceded it's accuracy and hopefully my use of the QS method to reinforce the point helped). We aren't debating, in a vacuum, whether Arroyo deserves is salary. And frankly, we aren't even debating the definition of replacement level. WAR is absolutely unnecessary for this conversation. Let's deal strictly with the Reds' current reality.

Bronson Arroyo pitched 215 IP last year with a 3.88 ERA. Let's assume that's his true talent level (a point I'd argue, but will concede for the sake of this discussion). That's 93 earned runs allowed.

Let's pretend he disappeared. The Reds now have to find other pitcher(s) to pitch those 215 innings. What ERA do you think the Reds can expect from WHOMEVER throws those 215 innings?

Take that ERA and subtract 3.88. Multiply that difference by 2.4. That's how many wins above replacement you think Arroyo is.

(Every point of ERA higher than Arroyo's 3.88, over 215 IP, is 24 runs, or 2.4 wins.)

So an ERA in the low 5's equates to ~30 runs or 3 wins. It doesn't matter if those runs come from a starter or a reliever. We're talking about team innings, team runs and team wins. Whether or not that comes from a specific person is more of a question of finances and our current available talent.

Speaking of which: the Reds have 4 reasonable candidates to replace Arroyo: Aroldis Chapman, Mike Leake, Matt Maloney and Sam LeCure. Do you think that some combination of those 4 guys can give the Reds 33 starts with an ERA around 5.10? And if they average fewer innings per start than Arroyo, do you think the extra innings the bullpen picks up could come at a 5.10 ERA?

If you think the answer to these questions is yes, then let's move on. You've just conceded that Arroyo is at best 3 wins better than replacement.

If you think the answer to these questions is no, let's talk about that. What ERA do you expect in those innings and why?

bucksfan2
10-28-2010, 12:10 PM
Speaking of which: the Reds have 4 reasonable candidates to replace Arroyo: Aroldis Chapman, Mike Leake, Matt Maloney and Sam LeCure. Do you think that some combination of those 4 guys can give the Reds 33 starts with an ERA around 5.10? And if they average fewer innings per start than Arroyo, do you think the extra innings the bullpen picks up could come at a 5.10 ERA?

Interesting analysis Rick.

But here is the thing, if you take Arroyo out of the mix you really ARE replacing 220+ innings with guys who have never done that before. Two guys are AAAA style pitchers, and a flame throwing lefty with some control problems and needs sore more seasoning. I am counting in Leake being in the rotation next season so I didn't include him.

We aren't taking hypothetical numbers from Maloney and LeCure rather real numbers. Real numbers against teams who have seen them a second, third, fourth time. You aren't replacing Arroyo with hypothetical numbers, numbers that can be done, rather a real life situation.

I fully believe that there is a reason why Maloney has been treated like an AAAA pitcher and a reason why LeCure was moved to the pen after his stint as a Reds pitcher. And by the way it looks as if LeCure has found a home in the pen. There is a reason why Maloney was passed up by Leake and Wood last season. There is a reason why Maloney is never really given a chance to be a regular starter. And there is a reason why Maloney never has been targeted by another team. I think it has more to do with scouting and projections than anything else.

dougdirt
10-28-2010, 12:18 PM
Interesting analysis Rick.

But here is the thing, if you take Arroyo out of the mix you really ARE replacing 220+ innings with guys who have never done that before. Two guys are AAAA style pitchers, and a flame throwing lefty with some control problems and needs sore more seasoning. I am counting in Leake being in the rotation next season so I didn't include him.
Well if you are not counting Leake, you are counting someone else like Homer Bailey, Edinson Volquez or Travis Wood, right?



We aren't taking hypothetical numbers from Maloney and LeCure rather real numbers. Real numbers against teams who have seen them a second, third, fourth time. You aren't replacing Arroyo with hypothetical numbers, numbers that can be done, rather a real life situation.
Then what are you suggesting they would post?



I fully believe that there is a reason why Maloney has been treated like an AAAA pitcher and a reason why LeCure was moved to the pen after his stint as a Reds pitcher. And by the way it looks as if LeCure has found a home in the pen. There is a reason why Maloney was passed up by Leake and Wood last season. There is a reason why Maloney is never really given a chance to be a regular starter. And there is a reason why Maloney never has been targeted by another team. I think it has more to do with scouting and projections than anything else.I imagine that Maloney was passed up by Leake and Wood last season is because they are just better pitchers than he is. Given that the two of them were pretty darn good last year, I think that says more about them than it does Maloney don't you? As for LeCure and the bullpen, I imagine that it is similar to Maloney.... the other guys were just better.

RedsManRick
10-28-2010, 12:46 PM
Interesting analysis Rick.

But here is the thing, if you take Arroyo out of the mix you really ARE replacing 220+ innings with guys who have never done that before. Two guys are AAAA style pitchers, and a flame throwing lefty with some control problems and needs sore more seasoning. I am counting in Leake being in the rotation next season so I didn't include him.

We aren't taking hypothetical numbers from Maloney and LeCure rather real numbers. Real numbers against teams who have seen them a second, third, fourth time. You aren't replacing Arroyo with hypothetical numbers, numbers that can be done, rather a real life situation.

I fully believe that there is a reason why Maloney has been treated like an AAAA pitcher and a reason why LeCure was moved to the pen after his stint as a Reds pitcher. And by the way it looks as if LeCure has found a home in the pen. There is a reason why Maloney was passed up by Leake and Wood last season. There is a reason why Maloney is never really given a chance to be a regular starter. And there is a reason why Maloney never has been targeted by another team. I think it has more to do with scouting and projections than anything else.

And yet you ignore the question. I agree, there are question marks among that group for 4 pitches (If not Leake, than Wood, Bailey, Volquez or Cueto). But what sort of ERA does a AAAA guy put up in the majors? Or a guy with awesome stuff but control issues? Or a guy who's athletic, if slight, and relies on guile and movement (though that sounds an awful lot like Arroyo...)

Given everything you've said, all your reservations and concerns, imagine that some combination of guys does end up throwing 215 innings. Maybe it's one guy, maybe it's all 4 in combination. Whatever scenario you want. What ERA will they produce?

Suggestions of a 5 or more win difference require a 6.00 ERA or higher in those 215 replacement innings (regardless of who they come from). Is that really what you guys expect?

HokieRed
10-28-2010, 12:55 PM
The relevant ERA for Bronson, though, would seem to be the one he'll likely post next year, not his 3.88 from this year.

RedsManRick
10-28-2010, 12:58 PM
The relevant ERA for Bronson, though, would seem to be the one he'll likely post next year, not his 3.88 from this year.

Of course, but let's fight one battle at a time... that conversation ended up running in circles with the "a BABIP of .250 is totally sustainable b/c Bronson is special" crowd.

bucksfan2
10-28-2010, 01:47 PM
Well if you are not counting Leake, you are counting someone else like Homer Bailey, Edinson Volquez or Travis Wood, right?

If I am making the decision I go into next season with a rotation of

Arroyo
Bailey
Wood
Leake
Cueto/Volquez

With either Cueto or Volquez being traded.

bucksfan2
10-28-2010, 01:51 PM
And yet you ignore the question. I agree, there are question marks among that group for 4 pitches (If not Leake, than Wood, Bailey, Volquez or Cueto). But what sort of ERA does a AAAA guy put up in the majors? Or a guy with awesome stuff but control issues? Or a guy who's athletic, if slight, and relies on guile and movement (though that sounds an awful lot like Arroyo...)

Given everything you've said, all your reservations and concerns, imagine that some combination of guys does end up throwing 215 innings. Maybe it's one guy, maybe it's all 4 in combination. Whatever scenario you want. What ERA will they produce?

Suggestions of a 5 or more win difference require a 6.00 ERA or higher in those 215 replacement innings (regardless of who they come from). Is that really what you guys expect?

Until Harang and Arroyo's arrival we saw where poor rotations got the Reds. We saw teams routinely be in the top tier of the league in offense but struggle getting batters out. We saw retreads being run out there year in year out because there was no pitching in the system. Guys like Jimmy Haynes and Joey Hamilton were being billed as aces of the staff. So forgive me if there is no way I let Bronson walk because I don't think a hodge podge of AAAA type pitchers can replaces his overall value.

During Bronson's time as a Red he has let the NL in innings pitched. Your not going to replace those innings pitched with the likes of Maloney and LeCure. Your going to see shorter outings which leads to more strain on the pen. More strain on your middle inning pitchers.

dougdirt
10-28-2010, 02:15 PM
Until Harang and Arroyo's arrival we saw where poor rotations got the Reds. We saw teams routinely be in the top tier of the league in offense but struggle getting batters out. We saw retreads being run out there year in year out because there was no pitching in the system. Guys like Jimmy Haynes and Joey Hamilton were being billed as aces of the staff. So forgive me if there is no way I let Bronson walk because I don't think a hodge podge of AAAA type pitchers can replaces his overall value.

During Bronson's time as a Red he has let the NL in innings pitched. Your not going to replace those innings pitched with the likes of Maloney and LeCure. Your going to see shorter outings which leads to more strain on the pen. More strain on your middle inning pitchers.

Except that the Reds aren't calling on retreads to replace what would be Arroyo's innings. It seems that your fear of the past is clouding your judgment of reality.

lollipopcurve
10-28-2010, 02:26 PM
Let's remember:

Bailey had shoulder issues this year.
Volquez is pitching on a surgically repaired elbow.
Leake has not shown he can stay effective over much more than half a season.

Health/durability is highly underrated in discussions like these.

RedsManRick
10-28-2010, 02:40 PM
Until Harang and Arroyo's arrival we saw where poor rotations got the Reds. We saw teams routinely be in the top tier of the league in offense but struggle getting batters out. We saw retreads being run out there year in year out because there was no pitching in the system. Guys like Jimmy Haynes and Joey Hamilton were being billed as aces of the staff. So forgive me if there is no way I let Bronson walk because I don't think a hodge podge of AAAA type pitchers can replaces his overall value.

During Bronson's time as a Red he has let the NL in innings pitched. Your not going to replace those innings pitched with the likes of Maloney and LeCure. Your going to see shorter outings which leads to more strain on the pen. More strain on your middle inning pitchers.

1) This is not 2004. Jimmy Haynes and Joey Hamilton would not make this rotation with or without Arroyo in it. In the past, Maloney would have been our #3. Starter, Our 3-5 in 2011 are INSANELY better than our 3-5 in 2006.

2) Our team defense is also much better. Run prevention is about more than just pitching.

3) Nice strawman -- I've not asserted that Arroyo's replacements will replace his overall value. I have asserted that his salary could be put to greater use at other positions where fewer replacements are available in house or in the acquisition of a superior talent we could not otherwise afford.

4) Good to see another person acting like Mike Leake doesn't exist.

5) There's depth in the bullpen too. Take off a full inning per start (33 innings) and give them to the bullpen -- namely long relievers. Who gets those innings? Well, probably one of the 4 guys who isn't taking Arroyo's spot in the rotation. If it's not one of those guys, maybe it's Jared Burton or Carlos Fisher, who are major league replacement level guys at worst.

I appreciate the value of durable starting pitching. Really, I do. Arroyo has played a pivotal role in the Reds improvement in run prevention and overall success in the past few years. But circumstances change. I'm not stating unequivocally that Arroyo needs to go. But this insistence that he is simply irreplaceable simply isn't rooted in any argument that can be backed up by analysis -- just repeated assertion and appeals to issues that have little bearing on our current reality.

Arroyo is a valuable guy. But we really need to stop acting like we just survived the depression and have to hide 1/2 our paycheck under the mattress in case the banks fail yet again. Sure, we should be prudent. Without a willingness to put some of our savings to use, we're not going to grow -- to improve. Is it without risk? Of course not. But neither is assuming that Arroyo will put up 215 IP and a sub 4.00 ERA again. In fact, I'll happily put $100 on Arroyo not having at least 200 IP and a 4.00 ERA or better in 2011.

There are risks either way. But one of these approaches carries the upside possibility of improving the team. The other involves merely hoping we don't get worse. If you're confident that we're in line to win 90 games again as-is, great. I see regression ahead and want to get out in front of it.

bucksfan2
10-28-2010, 03:27 PM
1) This is not 2004. Jimmy Haynes and Joey Hamilton would not make this rotation with or without Arroyo in it. In the past, Maloney would have been our #3. Starter, Our 3-5 in 2011 are INSANELY better than our 3-5 in 2006.

Here is my point though. Matt Maloney has a career minor league ERA of 3.30. Jimmy Haynes had a career minor league ERA of 3.29. So essentially they were equally effective. Joey Hamilton had a career minor league ERA of 3.63 compared to 3.77 of Sam LeCure. ERA isn't the best indicator but it is a common ground I am using here. So in essence you say that Haynes and Hamilton wouldn't make our rotation in 2011 but you are willing to pencil in two very similar versions of those two and expect to get drastically better results?


2) Our team defense is also much better. Run prevention is about more than just pitching.

Granted pitching isn't the only form of run prevention but IMO its the most important one. You can have the best defense in baseball but if your staff is giving up line drive after line drive your run prevention isn't going to be all that great.


3) Nice strawman -- I've not asserted that Arroyo's replacements will replace his overall value. I have asserted that his salary could be put to greater use at other positions where fewer replacements are available in house or in the acquisition of a superior talent we could not otherwise afford.

Strawman? IMO this is debatable. If Arroyo isn't here next season that freed up money isn't going to bring Lee or Crawford into the fold. So in essence you are not only having to replace Arroyo with two guys who aren't as good but where are you going to spend that extra cash? Payflex is nice, extending Votto would be nice, but it doesn't help next year's team out. IMO losing Arroyo will hurt the team. It is debatable whether that extra cash would be able to improve the team more.


4) Good to see another person acting like Mike Leake doesn't exist.

I said above that I expect Leake to be in the rotation. I fully acknowledge that he does exist and has a very important spot on this team.


5) There's depth in the bullpen too. Take off a full inning per start (33 innings) and give them to the bullpen -- namely long relievers. Who gets those innings? Well, probably one of the 4 guys who isn't taking Arroyo's spot in the rotation. If it's not one of those guys, maybe it's Jared Burton or Carlos Fisher, who are major league replacement level guys at worst

Bullpens from year to year change. Some players you thought who were going to be budding stars never take the next step. Some relievers who you have written off for dead come back and have a remarkable season. Right now the Reds have 2 guys who I would consider good, young, live arms. Two guys who I would rely on going into next season. Those two are Masset and Chapman. Chapman being a competitor for a rotation spot would weaken the pen. They have issues at closer, although it wouldn't be all that unheard of to see Cordero have a bounce back year. How many years in a row can Rhodes go to the fountain of youth and produce another great season? Jared Burton? The same guy who spent all of this past season toiling in AAA. Ondrusek (I am still laughing at his throw in Game 1 against the Phillies) looks to be a nice pitcher but he his hardly overwhelming. LeCure looked to find a role in the pen but was left of the post season roster. Bill Bray can't stay healthy. I guess my point is you never really know when you start talking about the pen. It could be good next year but that is hardly a given.

RedsManRick
10-28-2010, 03:56 PM
Here is my point though. Matt Maloney has a career minor league ERA of 3.30. Jimmy Haynes had a career minor league ERA of 3.29. So essentially they were equally effective. Joey Hamilton had a career minor league ERA of 3.63 compared to 3.77 of Sam LeCure. ERA isn't the best indicator but it is a common ground I am using here. So in essence you say that Haynes and Hamilton wouldn't make our rotation in 2011 but you are willing to pencil in two very similar versions of those two and expect to get drastically better results?

1) Matt Maloney is replacement option #3. You continue to ignore (guy who Leake replaces) and Chapman.
2) Jimmy Haynes had a career ERA of 5.37 in a superior offensive era than today. In other words, he was a replacement level starter. Sort of what I've suggested Arroyo's replacement would be throughout this entire discussion.. How in the world is that expecting "drastically better" results? Jimmy Haynes as your #1 starter. BIG PROBLEM. Jimmy Haynes as your #5 starter. Not a BIG PROBLEM.
3) Are you suggesting than any pitcher with a 3.30 ERA in the minors should be expected to be a 5.37 ERA pitcher in the majors? Your comp system is interesting. How does anybody ever succeed in major league baseball without a minor league ERA of less than 2?



Granted pitching isn't the only form of run prevention but IMO its the most important one. You can have the best defense in baseball but if your staff is giving up line drive after line drive your run prevention isn't going to be all that great.

No argument, but what's your point. We're talking shades of gray here. Good defense helps and Arroyo will continue to benefit from it (as will whomever pitches for the Reds in 2011). Jimmy Haynes and Joey Hamilton pitched in front of a poor defense.


Strawman? IMO this is debatable. If Arroyo isn't here next season that freed up money isn't going to bring Lee or Crawford into the fold. So in essence you are not only having to replace Arroyo with two guys who aren't as good but where are you going to spend that extra cash? Payflex is nice, extending Votto would be nice, but it doesn't help next year's team out. IMO losing Arroyo will hurt the team. It is debatable whether that extra cash would be able to improve the team more.

I don't want to nitpick, but you said "I don't think a hodge podge of AAAA type pitchers can replace his overall value", suggesting I thought they could. As you describe here, my argument was more holistic. I'm willing to discuss the latter half of my argument, but that is not how you positioned your disagreement originally. I agree 100% that if Arroyo's salary is simply added to the books and not reinvested in talent, the Reds will be a worse team in 2011. But my argument over the last 24 hours has focused on Arroyo's value relative to his replacements, not the 2nd half regarding how the savings would be used. If we can agree on the difference between Arroyo and his replacements, then we can have an intelligent debate about the use of the savings -- and whether it would offset the pitching downgrade or not.



I said above that I expect Leake to be in the rotation. I fully acknowledge that he does exist and has a very important spot on this team.
Fine, who doesn't make the rotation. Bailey? Volquez? Wood? Cueto? Take out whichever guy you want and I'll make the same case with him instead. The issue remains that Maloney and LeCure are not the first replacement options - a more proven, experienced pitcher is -- or a combination of those pitchers based on how effective they are.



Bullpens from year to year change. Some players you thought who were going to be budding stars never take the next step. Some relievers who you have written off for dead come back and have a remarkable season. Right now the Reds have 2 guys who I would consider good, young, live arms. Two guys who I would rely on going into next season. Those two are Masset and Chapman. Chapman being a competitor for a rotation spot would weaken the pen. They have issues at closer, although it wouldn't be all that unheard of to see Cordero have a bounce back year. How many years in a row can Rhodes go to the fountain of youth and produce another great season? Jared Burton? The same guy who spent all of this past season toiling in AAA. Ondrusek (I am still laughing at his throw in Game 1 against the Phillies) looks to be a nice pitcher but he his hardly overwhelming. LeCure looked to find a role in the pen but was left of the post season roster. Bill Bray can't stay healthy. I guess my point is you never really know when you start talking about the pen. It could be good next year but that is hardly a given.

Agreed. But bullpens don't have to be filled with 6 closers to be effective. There will always be churn, but I dont' see a comprehensive argument that the bullpen will be notably worse in 2011, save for the assumed decline (or absence of Rhodes). And further, I don't see how replacing Arroyo, save for adding ~30 innings to the load of the pen (the equivalent of a 1/2 season from our best reliever who would otherwise be in AAA) substantially changes things. I think the bullpen could put up 30 extra replacement level innings -- as I've asserted.

camisadelgolf
10-28-2010, 04:07 PM
:deadhorse

bucksfan2
10-28-2010, 04:18 PM
1) Matt Maloney is replacement option #3. You continue to ignore both Leake and Chapman.
2) Jimmy Haynes had a career ERA of 5.37 in a superior offensive era. In other words, he was a replacement level starter. Sort of what I've suggested Maloney would be... How is that "drastically better" results?
3) Are you suggesting than any pitcher with a 3.30 ERA in the minors should be expected to be a 5.37 ERA pitcher in the majors? Your comp system is interesting. How does anybody ever succeed in major league baseball without a minor league ERA of less than 2?

1) I am not ignoring Leake and Chapman. Leake I fully expect to be in the rotation and Chapman in the pen. I am not ignoring them at all just trying to look at what is likely to happen and the fallout from that.
2-3)No my point basically is lets not hold up Maloney or LeCure to be a savior as a major league starter. Ever failed major league starter put up good numbers in the minors. We can suggest that Maloney can be a league average starter but we also have to realize that there is a pretty good chance he could fail as well. There is a reason a pitcher becomes a journeyman or AAAA type pitcher. A lot of times they just don't have the stuff to consistently pitch at the major league level.


Fine, who doesn't make the rotation. Bailey? Volquez? Wood? Cueto? Take out whichever guy you want and I'll make the same case with him instead. The issue remains that Maloney and LeCure are not the first replacement options - a more proven, experienced pitcher is.

Arroyo
Leake
Bailey
Wood
Cueto/Volquez with one being traded. Cueto's value is pretty high right now and I don't like his long term potential. Volquez is a wild card. He can be great and he can be poor. I would trade one of the two.



This cuts both ways. Burton pitched very well in AAA. As did Herrera. That both guys were in AAA at all speaks to our depth. Certainly that doesn't mean they will necessarily be effective in the majors again, but you made my point for me. Who knows? Who would've thought we'd get 58 solid innings from Logan Ondrusek last year? Who predicted Jordan Smith?

Bullpens don't have to be filled with 6 closers to be effective. There will always be churn, but I dont' see a comprehensive argument that the bullpen will be notably worse in 2011, save for the assumed decline (or absence of Rhodes). You're right, you never know. But how does Arroyo's presence change your assessment of the bullpen in any event?

Herrera got beaten like a drum this year. He wasn't effective once hitters saw him a second time. I want nothing to do with Herrera at the major league level. Herrera was in AAA because his trick pitches weren't so tricky anymore. Burton is an interesting case but I don't know if he will ever regain his level of effectiveness from a couple of years ago.

If you replace Arroyo with Maloney (or another pitcher from within for that matter) you are going to lose innings. Bronson has given you on average 206 IP's with the his Reds avg at 217. If you replace him with someone else that leaves more innings pitched for the pen.

dougdirt
10-28-2010, 04:26 PM
Arroyo
Leake
Bailey
Wood
Cueto/Volquez with one being traded. Cueto's value is pretty high right now and I don't like his long term potential. Volquez is a wild card. He can be great and he can be poor. I would trade one of the two.


The key here is that you are assuming a trade will happen. If the Reds don't extend Arroyo, its very unlikely that a trade does happen.

This isn't what you would do, its what is likely to happen in the scenario that the Reds don't extend Arroyo.

RedsManRick
10-28-2010, 04:45 PM
1) I am not ignoring Leake and Chapman. Leake I fully expect to be in the rotation and Chapman in the pen. I am not ignoring them at all just trying to look at what is likely to happen and the fallout from that.
2-3)No my point basically is lets not hold up Maloney or LeCure to be a savior as a major league starter. Ever failed major league starter put up good numbers in the minors. We can suggest that Maloney can be a league average starter but we also have to realize that there is a pretty good chance he could fail as well. There is a reason a pitcher becomes a journeyman or AAAA type pitcher. A lot of times they just don't have the stuff to consistently pitch at the major league level.

Arroyo
Leake
Bailey
Wood
Cueto/Volquez with one being traded. Cueto's value is pretty high right now and I don't like his long term potential. Volquez is a wild card. He can be great and he can be poor. I would trade one of the two.

Herrera got beaten like a drum this year. He wasn't effective once hitters saw him a second time. I want nothing to do with Herrera at the major league level. Herrera was in AAA because his trick pitches weren't so tricky anymore. Burton is an interesting case but I don't know if he will ever regain his level of effectiveness from a couple of years ago.

If you replace Arroyo with Maloney (or another pitcher from within for that matter) you are going to lose innings. Bronson has given you on average 206 IP's with the his Reds avg at 217. If you replace him with someone else that leaves more innings pitched for the pen.

I don't know what else to say. You're completely changing the terms of the discussion. This hasn't been a discussion about the best course of action for the Reds pitching staff in 2011. It's been a response to a very specific question: What is Arroyo's value relative to replacement given the current situation?

- I've not asserted that Maloney would be anything other than replacement level, not average as you keep insisting
- I've addressed the innings difference multiple times
- One of Volquez/Cueto bring traded is not part of this scenario

If you want to have the conversation about trading one of those guys instead of Arroyo, great. That's a conversation worth having. But it's a different conversation.

I know you have a different plan for the offseason. Great. Frankly, I do too -- I support not extending Arroyo AND trading Volquez movement. But my entire series of long-winded posts was in response to the assertion that losing Arroyo's would cost the Reds 5 to 10 wins.

In a discussion based on a set of assumptions, you can either argue that the assumptions are wrong or argue that the conclusion based on those assumptions is wrong. Doing both at the same time is having a different conversation altogether. This is how people end up talking past each other.

I'll leave the bloody carcass of this discussion alone now. Sorry for the distraction.

TheNext44
10-28-2010, 05:06 PM
Really? Didn't you just say this as well?...

First you said that those 5 players will make much less than the other 2 players. Then it sounds like you conceded that they could but that it wouldn't be that big of a problem. So, does that mean that you agree that it could be a problem? ;)

I think they will make much less than $25M combined.

I also think that there exists the possibllity that they earn that much, but that scenario involves them all performing at an All-Star level and being with the team. If that happens, the Reds will be good enough to not have to worry about payflex.

TheNext44
10-28-2010, 05:51 PM
Let's remember:

Bailey had shoulder issues this year.
Volquez is pitching on a surgically repaired elbow.
Leake has not shown he can stay effective over much more than half a season.

Health/durability is highly underrated in discussions like these.

Exactly.

Last year the Reds had major injuries to Harang and Bailey. Lucklly they had Wood and then Volquez ready fill in admirably. they won't have that luxury this season.

Without Arroyo, they will have just five starters, and if anyone gets injured or is ineffective, they will have to go to LeCure or Maloney. Even if they have Chapman start in the minors, it will be late in the season before he is ready to join the rotation, if at all.

Assume they are all healthy, I think this is the most optimistic amount of innings we can expect from these guys:

Cueto - 200
Volquez - 175
Wood - 175
Bailey - 150
Leake -150

That totals 850 IP, which is 115 innings less that what the Reds got from their starters last season.

So even if no one gets injured, the Reds are looking at an extra 115 innings from their bullpen and LeCure/Maloney combined. Adding Arroyo, not only insures no LeCure/Maloney/Bullpen innings, it also takes around 100 IP off of the rest of the guys, and/or absorbs up to 100 IP that are likely to come from injury/ineffectiveness.

My personal bet is that those 5 will only account for around 650 IP next season, which means Arroyo is needed even more.

In summation...

You can never have too much pitching. :)

dougdirt
10-28-2010, 06:21 PM
Assume they are all healthy, I think this is the most optimistic amount of innings we can expect from these guys:

Cueto - 200
Volquez - 175
Wood - 175
Bailey - 150
Leake -150



Travis Wood and Homer Bailey both have 200+ inning seasons under their belt. Why such a low total for both guys?

I don't think there is a reason to actually predict an injury to any of the guys, and I would go more like:
Cueto - 190
Volquez - 175
Wood - 190
Bailey - 190
Leake -150

kaldaniels
10-28-2010, 06:22 PM
Could I have your argument in flowchart form Rick?

TheNext44
10-28-2010, 06:55 PM
Travis Wood and Homer Bailey both have 200+ inning seasons under their belt. Why such a low total for both guys?

I don't think there is a reason to actually predict an injury to any of the guys, and I would go more like:
Cueto - 190
Volquez - 175
Wood - 190
Bailey - 190
Leake -150

IP has as much to do with effectiveness as it does durability. Bailey has not shown the ability to keep his pitch counts low enough to go deep into games often enough to justify 200 IP. I'm guessing Wood will not be as effective the second time around the league. 200+ IP years are pretty rare for pitchers.

How many teams can you name that have gone an entire season with 5 starters?

When doing budgets, you always include "the X factor." You basically add 15-20% of your budget to your budget to account for random costs that you cannot predict. I sure hope Jocketty does the same when plannning out his roster for the next season.

mth123
10-28-2010, 07:08 PM
The reason we see guys like Milwood and Shields in that group is 2-fold:

1) They've produced at high level before and thus are given more opportunity to bounce back from poor performance
2) They're being paid to perform and teams are averse to admitting sunk costs

But forget those guys. Your point makes no sense. We aren't debating the merits of WAR as an analytical tool (hough I'm glad you essentially conceded it's accuracy and hopefully my use of the QS method to reinforce the point helped). We aren't debating, in a vacuum, whether Arroyo deserves is salary. And frankly, we aren't even debating the definition of replacement level. WAR is absolutely unnecessary for this conversation. Let's deal strictly with the Reds' current reality.

Bronson Arroyo pitched 215 IP last year with a 3.88 ERA. Let's assume that's his true talent level (a point I'd argue, but will concede for the sake of this discussion). That's 93 earned runs allowed.

Let's pretend he disappeared. The Reds now have to find other pitcher(s) to pitch those 215 innings. What ERA do you think the Reds can expect from WHOMEVER throws those 215 innings?

Take that ERA and subtract 3.88. Multiply that difference by 2.4. That's how many wins above replacement you think Arroyo is.

(Every point of ERA higher than Arroyo's 3.88, over 215 IP, is 24 runs, or 2.4 wins.)

So an ERA in the low 5's equates to ~30 runs or 3 wins. It doesn't matter if those runs come from a starter or a reliever. We're talking about team innings, team runs and team wins. Whether or not that comes from a specific person is more of a question of finances and our current available talent.

Speaking of which: the Reds have 4 reasonable candidates to replace Arroyo: Aroldis Chapman, Mike Leake, Matt Maloney and Sam LeCure. Do you think that some combination of those 4 guys can give the Reds 33 starts with an ERA around 5.10? And if they average fewer innings per start than Arroyo, do you think the extra innings the bullpen picks up could come at a 5.10 ERA?

If you think the answer to these questions is yes, then let's move on. You've just conceded that Arroyo is at best 3 wins better than replacement.

If you think the answer to these questions is no, let's talk about that. What ERA do you expect in those innings and why?

I think this is an excellent post. For me the answer is 6.00 or so.

RedsManRick
10-28-2010, 07:17 PM
Could I have your argument in flowchart form Rick?

Don't tempt me. :cool:

RedsManRick
10-28-2010, 07:20 PM
I think this is an excellent post. For me the answer is 6.00 or so.

In that case, we better hang on to Arroyo!

Who do you see pitching those innings?

dougdirt
10-28-2010, 07:26 PM
IP has as much to do with effectiveness as it does durability. Bailey has not shown the ability to keep his pitch counts low enough to go deep into games often enough to justify 200 IP. I'm guessing Wood will not be as effective the second time around the league. 200+ IP years are pretty rare for pitchers.
And yet Bailey threw 203 innings in 2009 between AAA and the Majors. Suggesting that he is drops down to 150 and suggesting its the MOST optimistic you can suggest is ignoring reality.



How many teams can you name that have gone an entire season with 5 starters?
What does that matter to this conversation? The Reds aren't going to have all 5 guys go on the DL in the same year and if they do, having Arroyo simply isn't going to matter at all. No team is going to make it with the same 5 starters all year. Even without Arroyo, the Reds have plenty of options to pitch the 1000 innings or so that your starters throw on the season and to do so with reasonable success.

dougdirt
10-28-2010, 07:27 PM
In that case, we better hang on to Arroyo!

Who do you see pitching those innings?

I too am interested in this answer, because I just can't see a combo of LeCure, Maloney and Chapman combining for an ERA of 6.00.

kaldaniels
10-28-2010, 07:34 PM
I would argue that ignoring reality is ignoring the fact that for 1 reason or another, Bailey has hardly thrown more than 100 innings in the big leagues in 1 year.

TheNext44
10-28-2010, 07:41 PM
And yet Bailey threw 203 innings in 2009 between AAA and the Majors. Suggesting that he is drops down to 150 and suggesting its the MOST optimistic you can suggest is ignoring reality.


What does that matter to this conversation? The Reds aren't going to have all 5 guys go on the DL in the same year and if they do, having Arroyo simply isn't going to matter at all. No team is going to make it with the same 5 starters all year. Even without Arroyo, the Reds have plenty of options to pitch the 1000 innings or so that your starters throw on the season and to do so with reasonable success.

1) Pitching AAA innings is completely different from pitching in the bigs.
2) After pitching 200+ innings in 2009, Bailey missed close to half of 2010 due to injury. Not saying that the two are connected, but that he is still coming off of surgery.
3) The reason why it matters to the converation is that it is vry likely to happen. At least one, probably two starters are going to lose time to inure or ineffectiveness in 2011. IT happens to nearly ever team every year. You have to expect that when planning for the next season.
Lets put it this way. Do you think the Reds planned on using just Harang, Arroyo, Cueto, Bailey and Leake in 2010? Every team plans for expected, logical to assume injuries, and if they don't they should

mth123
10-28-2010, 08:32 PM
In that case, we better hang on to Arroyo!

Who do you see pitching those innings?

Again, I'm tallking about 2011 here. With Arroyo gone the rotation is Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Wood and a revolving door. Forget that Bailey was on the DL for three months and hasn't ever really been successful as a major leaguer or that Wood only has three months in the big leagues and we don't know how the league will adjust or that Volquez is coming off surgery, hasn't really ever had any control and has his own first time around the league questions since he really wasn't all that super in the second half of 2008. Lets concede that those guys stay upright, on the mound and are effective enough to be OK (I'm actually optimistic about Bailey and Wood, but the questions still exist). For that 5th spot lets take them one at a time.

I just don't see Chapman succeeding in 2011. As Doug astutely pointed out in the minor league forum, he's never pitched more than 125 innings and that's a problem. He's probably not ready for a big league rotation, his secondary stuff is untested, his stamina is questionable, he wasn't really a world beater as a starter in AAA with a BB/9 that was too high and he won't be throwing that 100+ gas multiple times through an order. The Reds are talking about him as a reliever because they know this to be true.

Lecure isn't an option IMO. He's my choice to be the long reliever and it may be a good role for him. His ERA/FIP was in the 5 range in 2010 and that was with the bump he got from pitching in relief and not having to work through line-ups multiple times in many of his appearances.

Leake is probably most people's choice, but he's the guy who scares me the most. His ERAs were 5.22, 4.56 and 8.83 in June, July and August. The kid burst on the scene and nobody knew a thing about him. No one had faced him. Unlike most rookies, he didn't have anyone who had even faced him in the minors. Everyone was taking to get a read on him, he was laying stuff over the plate, guys were falling behind in the count and he was pretty successful. At about the 75 inning mark (after his first start in June) the league adjusted, he started getting knocked around, he gave up more fly balls than grounders and lots and lots of homers. IMO, the advantage he had those first couple of months represent extreme conditions in his favor and those results just aren't representative of what we should expect moving forward. The common argument was that he reached his inning max, but he became a batting tee at the 75 inning mark after throwing 142 in his senior year in college. The inning limit argument doesn't add-up. He did have an adjustment to the 5 man rotation, so that may be a factor, but IMO his innings and stamina weren't behind his loss of effectiveness. Add that there was talk of shoulder soreness when he was shut down, and he'd get a lot of babying in my world. He'd go to AAA, get some success and a 160 inning season under his belt before a Septemeber call-up with the idea that he could be Arroyo's replacement in 2012 when he's actually more likely to be ready.

My top choice would probably be Matt Maloney. As another poster stated, I suspect there is a reason that Maloney doesn't get a shot and isn't really discussed much outside of Redszone when people are talking about excess starters who could go help a team. I'd guess that he could be a fringey back-end starter who makes his living eating innings on teams like the Pirates, but teams that want to win would be looking to replace him.

Finally, no matter who they'd choose, we'd be looking at another 30 to 40 innings from the pen. The back-end guys were already overworked in 2010, so those innings would fall on the 11th and 12th men on the staff and an ERA well over 5 in those innings would be a near certainty.

In General, kids take there lumps for the first couple of hundred innings and the Reds are trying to win not run a try-out camp. If the Reds were coming off another 75 win season, I'd be all for finding out what these kids (Maloney especially) have, but contention requires a different mind-set.

dougdirt
10-28-2010, 08:33 PM
1) Pitching AAA innings is completely different from pitching in the bigs.
2) After pitching 200+ innings in 2009, Bailey missed close to half of 2010 due to injury. Not saying that the two are connected, but that he is still coming off of surgery.
3) The reason why it matters to the converation is that it is vry likely to happen. At least one, probably two starters are going to lose time to inure or ineffectiveness in 2011. IT happens to nearly ever team every year. You have to expect that when planning for the next season.
Lets put it this way. Do you think the Reds planned on using just Harang, Arroyo, Cueto, Bailey and Leake in 2010? Every team plans for expected, logical to assume injuries, and if they don't they should

1. Bailey can't go back to the minors, and even if 100 innings in AAA = 90 innings in the majors, you are still being 'optimistic' with him by being about 40 innings short.

2. What surgery? Bailey was fantastic when he came back, I don't think he is still 'recovering' from anything.

3. But that is going to happen whether or not Arroyo is here and he can't pitch innings for other guys. He isn't going to help the Reds #4 spot if their #4 guy goes down. He is only going to help out the spot he is in. He isn't going to come in and pitch 2 out of 5 days.

Brutus
10-28-2010, 08:42 PM
Again, I'm tallking about 2011 here. With Arroyo gone the rotation is Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Wood and a revolving door. Forget that Bailey was on the DL for three months and hasn't ever really been successful as a major leaguer or that Wood only has three months in the big leagues and we don't know how the league will adjust or that Volquez is coming off surgery, hasn't really ever had any control and has his own first time around the league questions since he really wasn't all that super in the second half of 2008. Lets concede that those guys stay upright, on the mound and are effective enough to be OK (I'm actually optimistic about Bailey and Wood, but the questions still exist). For that 5th spot lets take them one at a time.

I just don't see Chapman succeeding in 2011. As Doug astutely pointed out in the minor league forum, he's never pitched more than 125 innings and that's a problem. He's probably not ready for a big league rotation, his secondary stuff is untested, his stamina is questionable, he wasn't really a world beater as a starter in AAA with a BB/9 that was too high and he won't be throwing that 100+ gas multiple times through an order. The Reds are talking about him as a reliever because they know this to be true.

Lecure isn't an option IMO. He's my choice to be the long reliever and it may be a good role for him. His ERA/FIP was in the 5 range in 2010 and that was with the bump he got from pitching in relief and not having to work through line-ups multiple times in many of his appearances.

Leake is probably most people's choice, but he's the guy who scares me the most. His ERAs were 5.22, 4.56 and 8.83 in June, July and August. The kid burst on the scene and nobody knew a thing about him. No one had faced him. Unlike most rookies, he didn't have anyone who had even faced him in the minors. Everyone was taking to get a read on him, he was laying stuff over the plate, guys were falling behind in the count and he was pretty successful. At about the 75 inning mark (after his first start in June) the league adjusted, he started getting knocked around, he gave up more fly balls than grounders and lots and lots of homers. IMO, the advantage he had those first coulple of months represent extreme conditions in his favor and those results just aren't representative of what we should expect moving forward. The common argument was that he reached his inning max, but he became a batting tee at the 75 inning mark after throwing 142 in his senior year in college. The inning limit argument doesn't add-up. He did have an adjustment to the 5 man rotation, so that may be a factor, but IMO his innings and stamina weren't behind his loss of effectiveness. Add that there was talk of shoulder soreness when he was shut down, and he'd get a lot of babying in my world. He'd go to AAA, get some success and a 160 inning season under his belt before a Septemeber call-up with the idea that he could be Arroyo's replacement in 2012 when he's actually more likely to be ready.

My top choice would probably be Matt Maloney. As another poster stated, I suspect there is a reason that Maloney doesn't get a shot and isn't really discussed much outside of Redszone when people are talking about excess starters who could go help a team. I'd guess that he could be a fringey back-end starter who makes his living eating innings on teams like the Pirates, but teams that want to win would be looking to replace him.

Finally, no matter who they'd choose, we'd be looking at another 30 to 40 innings from the pen. The back-end guys were already overworked in 2010, so those innings would fall on the 11th and 12th men on the staff and an ERA well over 5 in those innings would be a near certainty.

In General, kids take there lumps for the first couple of hundred innings and the Reds are trying to win not run a try-out camp. If the Reds were coming off another 75 win season, I'd be all for finding out what these kids (Maloney especially) have, but contention requires a different mind-set.

Revolving door? What about Leake? If they wanted to, they could make Chapman a starter and get up to 150 innings out of him. Why would it have to be a revolving door?

Leake was a No. 1 draft pick for a reason. I think he's plenty good enough to be counted on for a solid 175 innings this next season. And I think it's even worse to write him off as someone that should only be considered some group of (apparently) unappealing replacements for a 5th starter. Goodness, the kid carried the staff for 2 months last year and was a top 10 pick. He's got some good talent.

mth123
10-28-2010, 09:02 PM
Revolving door? What about Leake? If they wanted to, they could make Chapman a starter and get up to 150 innings out of him. Why would it have to be a revolving door?

Leake was a No. 1 draft pick for a reason. I think he's plenty good enough to be counted on for a solid 175 innings this next season. And I think it's even worse to write him off as someone that should only be considered some group of (apparently) unappealing replacements for a 5th starter. Goodness, the kid carried the staff for 2 months last year and was a top 10 pick. He's got some good talent.

I answered this in the post you quoted. I like Leake, but most first round picks don't debut for a couple years and by then I'm optimistic that he'll be ready to replace Arroyo. He wouldn't see the major leagues until September if it were my decision.

Chapman wouldn't be able to get through a line-up multiple times until he can throw his secondary stuff. He's just not an option at this point IMO. The move to the pen was a win now move that helped the Reds in 2010. The consequence is that it pushed his timetable back a year.

kaldaniels
10-28-2010, 09:15 PM
I haven't had the time today to jump in here as I would like, but my thought is this...there is no need to try to extend BA today (unless the price was right but that 11M in 2011 makes that impossible.) That said, eliminating him from the rotation today would be extremely risky business...something that is not being acknowledged enough by some.

Hoping all of our youngsters turn out good (and stay injury free)isn't exactly hoping for an inside straight...but it's gonna be tough to do.

westofyou
10-28-2010, 11:27 PM
1995 Mets off season, slotting Izzy, Bill Pulsipher, Paul Wilson and Pete Harnisch into their future... 1997, Harnisch pitches 25 Innings, Izzy 29.2.

The other 2 zip.

There are no guarantees, innings pitched and durability is an increasing skill set in todays game evidently, in fact if 200 IP hurlers dwindle any more the ones that do it become more treasured in the in the marketplace. 25 years ago those guys were everywhere.

The cost though is as always debatable

redsfandan
10-29-2010, 02:34 AM
Except that the Reds aren't calling on retreads to replace what would be Arroyo's innings. It seems that your fear of the past is clouding your judgment of reality.
It doesn't seem like he's the only one that has that problem. I think that could apply to most of the pro Arroyo extension camp.


Let's remember:

Bailey had shoulder issues this year. (which isn't uncommon, Bailey did do pretty good when he came back though)

Volquez is pitching on a surgically repaired elbow. (So? How many pitchers in the majors are in the same boat?)

Leake has not shown he can stay effective over much more than half a season. (Considering that was his very 1st year of pro ball I don't see why that's surprising. That doesn't mean that he can't be effective. More like he has some work to do.)

Health/durability is highly underrated in discussions like these.
That's why depth is so important. That doesn't mean you have to rush to extend Arroyo. Let's see how 2011 goes. I doubt Arroyo is in a rush to go anywhere.

redsfandan
10-29-2010, 02:35 AM
I think they will make much less than $25M combined.

I also think that there exists the possibllity that they earn that much, but that scenario involves them all performing at an All-Star level and being with the team. If that happens, the Reds will be good enough to not have to worry about payflex.
I think it's safe to say that I'm going to disagree with ya on both counts. If you were talking about 2011 it would be different. But, by 2012 whoever doesn't have a long term deal will be getting their 2nd arbitration raise. And they won't all have to be performing like all-stars either.

I haven't had the time today to jump in here as I would like, but my thought is this...there is no need to try to extend BA today (unless the price was right but that 11M in 2011 makes that impossible.) That said, eliminating him from the rotation today would be extremely risky business...something that is not being acknowledged enough by some.

Hoping all of our youngsters turn out good (and stay injury free)isn't exactly hoping for an inside straight...but it's gonna be tough to do.
+1

I've warmed up to picking up the 2011 option for Arroyo. But, the pro Arroyo extension people actually seem to be talking from fear. People afraid that the state of the Reds is just a mirage and that all the potential of the young talent is way overblown. Someone please tell me do you really think Arroyo is that eager to go to another club? That he wouldn't be willing to consider an extension with the Reds after the 2011 season?

WebScorpion
10-30-2010, 12:16 AM
Really, I don't think there are many safer bets than Bronson Arroyo to keep the team in the game 25-30 games per year for the next 4 or 5 years. He's proven his durability and every year he makes a few less mistakes. Because he's the kind of pitcher who relies more on guile than pure stuff, he's a pretty safe bet to remain productive later in his career. I'd have no problem giving him an extension at a reasonable price. Even if all our young studs realize their full potential, there are injuries to consider and we always have the option to trade someone. I wouldn't break the bank for him, but there's no doubt he's a huge asset for the team. :thumbup:

savafan
11-07-2010, 11:12 PM
Ken Rosenthal says he expects the Reds to extend Arroyo through 2013 and get it done this week.

fearofpopvol1
11-07-2010, 11:15 PM
Ken Rosenthal says he expects the Reds to extend Arroyo through 2013 and get it done this week.

Interesting. I thought Arroyo was looking for a longer term deal than that.

Not what I'd want (I would've settled for just the option), but could be worse I guess. I just hope the money isn't outrageous.

camisadelgolf
11-07-2010, 11:32 PM
Because of the 10/5 rule, Arroyo will essentially have a no-trade clause in mid-April, 2012.

Blitz Dorsey
11-07-2010, 11:55 PM
Because of the 10/5 rule, Arroyo will essentially have a no-trade clause in mid-April, 2012.

Don't you mean 2011? (Next season.) He joined the Reds in 2006 and has pitched 5 full seasons with the Reds (2006-10). 2011 will be his sixth year and he should have veto power over any trade, right?

But I still want to see the Reds pick up the option. I wouldn't want Bronson at multiple years at that figure, but I think it's a good decision to pick it up for one year. He is the only veteran on the staff and has been productive.

BearcatShane
11-08-2010, 12:10 AM
Don't you mean 2011? (Next season.) He joined the Reds in 2006 and has pitched 5 full seasons with the Reds (2006-10). 2011 will be his sixth year and he should have veto power over any trade, right?

But I still want to see the Reds pick up the option. I wouldn't want Bronson at multiple years at that figure, but I think it's a good decision to pick it up for one year. He is the only veteran on the staff and has been productive.

They picked up the option already.

camisadelgolf
11-08-2010, 12:19 AM
Don't you mean 2011? (Next season.) He joined the Reds in 2006 and has pitched 5 full seasons with the Reds (2006-10). 2011 will be his sixth year and he should have veto power over any trade, right?

But I still want to see the Reds pick up the option. I wouldn't want Bronson at multiple years at that figure, but I think it's a good decision to pick it up for one year. He is the only veteran on the staff and has been productive.
2012 is when he'll have 10 full years as a Major Leaguer. He needs to have 10 years in MLB combined with 5 years with the same team.

Brutus
11-08-2010, 12:53 AM
camisa is correct. To be exact, Arroyo's 10/5 rights will kick in about the third week of April 2012.

RedsManRick
11-08-2010, 01:02 AM
I think this time in 2012, if not during the course of the year, we'll be looking a budget that's getting increasingly tight with arbitration raises and wondering why we committed 8 figures to somebody who we could so easily replace in house.

I'm ok with picking up his 2011 option, but I see absolutely no reason to extend Arroyo. It's almost all downside.

TheNext44
11-08-2010, 01:42 AM
I think this time in 2012, if not during the course of the year, we'll be looking a budget that's getting increasingly tight with arbitration raises and wondering why we committed 8 figures to somebody who we could so easily replace in house.

I'm ok with picking up his 2011 option, but I see absolutely no reason to extend Arroyo. It's almost all downside.

You could be right, it's hard to bet on pitchers over 30.

But I would like to see the numbers before judging the deal. It could be backloaded and include deferred money. Jocketty has a history of being very creative. If it drops Arroyo's salary a few million in 2011, that could be the difference between getting a real LF or living with Gomes.

As for 2012, here is how I see it:

Assuming that the following players get the following in arb that year...

Votto - $15M
Cueto - $7M
Volquez - $5M
Bruce - $7M
Bailey - $3M
Masset - $3M

... that would put the Reds at $60M without Arroyo's contract. If he gets $13M that year, which I think is high, that would put the Reds at $73M. This is all worst case scenario, imo. No long term deals for the young guys, no deals with the arb guys at all, all of them getting the most they could get.

With the payroll, the Reds would still need a 2B and a LF, maybe a SS if Janish and Cozaart both bomb. However, they would have the following rotation...

Cueto
Volquez
Bailey
Chapman
Leake
Wood
Arroyo

There is an excellent chance that at least one of the young guys will be traded for a LF or 2B or whatever the Reds need. Extending Arroyo makes that easier. Regardless, extending him really doesn't handcuff the Reds in 2012. It doesn't mean it will work out, either, however.

Tom Servo
11-08-2010, 02:04 AM
I think this time in 2012, if not during the course of the year, we'll be looking a budget that's getting increasingly tight with arbitration raises and wondering why we committed 8 figures to somebody who we could so easily replace in house.

I'm ok with picking up his 2011 option, but I see absolutely no reason to extend Arroyo. It's almost all downside.
I don't see a scenario where Arroyo could be easily replaced in house unless he falls prey to the disease that claimed Harang.

HokieRed
11-08-2010, 08:15 AM
I think this time in 2012, if not during the course of the year, we'll be looking a budget that's getting increasingly tight with arbitration raises and wondering why we committed 8 figures to somebody who we could so easily replace in house.

I'm ok with picking up his 2011 option, but I see absolutely no reason to extend Arroyo. It's almost all downside.

Agree 100%. 2011 is one thing, beyond that a horse of an entirely different color. I'd ask the extension supporters which two of the six other starters-- Bailey, Volquez, Cueto, Chapman, Leake, or Wood--they'd want a 2012-13 Bronson to be blocking (and at a very high cost at that)? I've been a fan of WJ's but this extension makes no sense to me whatever.

bucksfan2
11-08-2010, 08:38 AM
Agree 100%. 2011 is one thing, beyond that a horse of an entirely different color. I'd ask the extension supporters which two of the six other starters-- Bailey, Volquez, Cueto, Chapman, Leake, or Wood--they'd want a 2012-13 Bronson to be blocking (and at a very high cost at that)? I've been a fan of WJ's but this extension makes no sense to me whatever.

Who is to say that all of those guys mentioned are going to be in the starting rotation come 2012-2013. Baseball is fluid and guys who you were counting on to be there in a year or two may not be there. The Reds have depth in pitching, which is a good thing, but good teams trade from depth to replace a position of need.

If it were up to me I would think that Arroyo would be a more valuable pitcher than both Volquez and Chapman (as a starter) in 2012 and maybe even 2013. Both Volquez and Chapman has much higher ceilings but are doubtful to put up 220 innings of right around 4 ERA.

To me this is about building the best overall team. If signing Arroyo to an extension lowers his 2010 cost and allows WJ to trade from a position of surplus it makes a great deal of sense.

osuceltic
11-08-2010, 08:55 AM
I don't see a scenario where Arroyo could be easily replaced in house unless he falls prey to the disease that claimed Harang.

Exactly. If he gives us what we have come to expect (insert RMR's long post about not paying for what he's done, but what he's going to do), we would have a hard time replacing him if we picking from all around baseball.

lollipopcurve
11-08-2010, 08:56 AM
I'd ask the extension supporters which two of the six other starters-- Bailey, Volquez, Cueto, Chapman, Leake, or Wood--they'd want a 2012-13 Bronson to be blocking

Not a fair question, because it's not 2012 yet. From where we stand today, while all of these guys are valuable commodities, they all have question marks (with the possible exception of Cueto).

Chapman: Can he develop the 3-pitch mix?
Volquez: How well will he continue to bounce back from the elbow surgery?
Bailey, Leake and Wood: Can they put together consistent, full seasons at the major league level?

2011 will help answer those questions. In the meantime, the team will have some extra cash to spend on the 2011 team. That's a good thing. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

I'll be curious to see if there are any restrictions on where/when/if Arroyo can be traded.

kaldaniels
11-08-2010, 09:00 AM
Agree 100%. 2011 is one thing, beyond that a horse of an entirely different color. I'd ask the extension supporters which two of the six other starters-- Bailey, Volquez, Cueto, Chapman, Leake, or Wood--they'd want a 2012-13 Bronson to be blocking (and at a very high cost at that)? I've been a fan of WJ's but this extension makes no sense to me whatever.

I'd ask you if you predict 5 of the 6 listed above are going to be consistent injury free starting pitchers. My odds say it won't happen.

I don't want to give an extension to BA today, but he is very valuable to this team. And I forsee a Moyer-like path to his career so I think he will be fine.

edabbs44
11-08-2010, 09:14 AM
Look for the Reds, who recently exercised right-hander Bronson Arroyo's club option, to complete a two-year extension with the pitcher this week. Including the option, which is believed to be worth
$13 million, the value of the deal over three years is expected to be between $36 million and $39 million.


Didn't see the money talked about anywhere.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Dan-Uggla-turns-down-Florida-Marlins-contract-offer-110810