PDA

View Full Version : Matt Holliday & McClellen to DL



Magdal
06-02-2011, 06:54 AM
Their #1 hitter and #3 starter will be out for 15 days. With Berkman in a slump and Pujols still floundering it's a good time for the Reds to bust a move.

frenetic wave
06-02-2011, 07:23 AM
I have full confidence that Allen Craig will hit 4 home runs in that span with 12 RBI and Jay will score the game winning run in at least 3 games by getting on with a scrappy single/induced defensive error. There are also those 2 quality starts Westbrook will throw in that span, and that shut out Carpenter will throw. Garcia might have a bad start but Descalso will hit a 3 run homer and remove him from the decision and they will eventually come back to win it in the 8th.

2011: year of the scrubs

malcontent
06-02-2011, 09:12 AM
I have full confidence that Allen Craig will hit 4 home runs in that span with 12 RBI and Jay will score the game winning run in at least 3 games by getting on with a scrappy single/induced defensive error. There are also those 2 quality starts Westbrook will throw in that span, and that shut out Carpenter will throw. Garcia might have a bad start but Descalso will hit a 3 run homer and remove him from the decision and they will eventually come back to win it in the 8th.

2011: year of the scrubs
That's funny, but also probably horribly close to the truth.

mroby85
06-02-2011, 11:24 AM
What were their injuries? I know Mcclellan hasn't pitched well his last few outings.. Hopefully they're lingering injuries rather than just something they will be ready to go 100% after the 15 days.

redsfan1995
06-02-2011, 01:04 PM
What were their injuries? I know Mcclellan hasn't pitched well his last few outings.. Hopefully they're lingering injuries rather than just something they will be ready to go 100% after the 15 days.

Holliday has a strained quad and mcclellan has a hip injury

Razzle
06-02-2011, 02:46 PM
Their #1 hitter and #3 starter will be out for 15 days. With Berkman in a slump and Pujols still floundering it's a good time for the Reds to bust a move.

Not remotely close to the truth.

I actually think McClellan getting hurt helps the Cardinals. He was coming close to what would likely be his innings threshold anyway and his velocity was continually moving south game after game. If Lance Lynn pitches well enough at the big league level I'm hoping McClellan can go back to the pen with Boggs and we can be rid of Batista and Franklin. Holliday's injury obviously hurts a ton.

davereds24
06-02-2011, 02:56 PM
He's clearly been their 3rd best starter regardless of where he started the season.

Razzle
06-02-2011, 04:02 PM
He's clearly been their 3rd best starter regardless of where he started the season.

If all you look at is ERA and wins, then yes. He was pitching well above his peripherals.

Magdal
06-02-2011, 04:17 PM
He's clearly been their 3rd best starter regardless of where he started the season.

The Cardinal's starters have been the backbone of the team in spite of Carp's futility. Even when he pitches a decent game the bats take a day off. Now TLR is trying to ruin Garcia. He left him in the game his last start 'till 12 runs crossed the plate, 11 earned. Oddly, he pulled Garcia in his previous start after only 80 pitches because "he didn't have it". He was leading 7-3 at the time. He later added that his low 1.90 ERA was like a yoke around his neck! So he did the kid a favor by helping it blow up to 3.12! LOL! You can't make this stuff up.:laugh:

Westbrook went back to his old M.O. of averaging 20 pitches per inning and giving up 3 runs in his 5 innings yesterday, leaving the game in the hands of the likes of Franklin and the geezer Batista, who of course puked up the game. He sent the hard throwing Boggs down to AAA in favor of these two gas cans.

He has the hottest hitter around in Craig but refuses to start him every day in favor of the no hit, no field Shumacher and Green. At least if Dusty had a guy hitting .450 in the last few weeks and .360 overall with NO errors he would PLAY him!

Kingspoint
06-02-2011, 04:19 PM
Good. They need some injuries to balance things out a little bit.

The entire REDS' organization has been turned upside down by the plethora of injuries at the Major League level, particularly with the pitching staffs. Carolina, for example has had 12 pitchers on their roster who have pitched at more than one minor league level this season (...and I'm not even counting the ones who've been asked to pitch at the Major League level). Our pitchers throughout our organization have to constantly have their bags packed. April and May should be a time for stability, where he gets to have some structure and work with the minor league coaches at that level. These first two months have been an absolute disaster to the organization's pitchers as less than 50% of the pitchers have been allowed to remain at the minor league level they were intended to be at in April and May when the Spring Training decisions were made. As a result, there's going to be some pitchers whose confidence is damaged in the Minor Leagues, and it will take them until next year to get it back, if they get it back, as pitching is a very, very difficult job to master.

Magdal
06-02-2011, 04:20 PM
If all you look at is ERA and wins, then yes. He was pitching well above his peripherals.

What else would you look at? Actual results are what counts. I guess you Concider Carp still #1 because he USED to be?

lonewolf371
06-02-2011, 04:26 PM
What else would you look at? Actual results are what counts. I guess you Concider Carp still #1 because he USED to be?
Because you can get lucky. McClellan has been lucky so far in that his balls in play have gone to fielders. Over the rest of the season and his career, that won't happen.

Razzle
06-02-2011, 04:29 PM
What else would you look at? Actual results are what counts. I guess you Concider Carp still #1 because he USED to be?

You keep hoping McClellan and Batista continue to post ERA's well above their heads. I'll do the logical thing and realize that with declining velocity and a horrific strikeout rate that McClellan will not continue doing what he has been doing. He's around a full run worse than his ERA has been thus far and he hasn't even hit his innings threshold yet. ERA and wins tell you what they have done, however they aren't good predictors on what they will do.

Magdal
06-02-2011, 04:37 PM
You keep hoping McClellan and Batista continue to post ERA's well above their heads. I'll do the logical thing and realize that with declining velocity and a horrific strikeout rate that McClellan will not continue doing what he has been doing. He's around a full run worse than his ERA has been thus far and he hasn't even hit his innings threshold yet. ERA and wins tell you what they have done, however they aren't good predictors on what they will do.

I don't hope any such thing! I know the guy is an ave. arm, and Batista SUB ave. One should be doing long relief and the other retired. When it all boils down the Cards have only 2 good starters. That ain't gonna cut it.

Kingspoint
06-02-2011, 04:37 PM
What else would you look at? Actual results are what counts. I guess you Concider Carp still #1 because he USED to be?

I couldn't agree more. You can't judge a pitcher based on what he's "supposed to be" or "used to be". He is what he is, and that changes from month to month and year to year when it comes to pitchers. Trending upwards or trending downwards can give you an idea about where they're heading, but how they're "currently" pitching is all that matters. Just like the joke of an idea that Volquez was the team's #1 pitcher during Spring Training and April of this year and during the playoffs last year because "he was supposed to be" and he "had the most potential".

Kingspoint
06-02-2011, 04:39 PM
Because you can get lucky. McClellan has been lucky so far in that his balls in play have gone to fielders. Over the rest of the season and his career, that won't happen.

It's not luck. There's no "luck" involved. That's just a term that stats geeks like to throw around when they don't understand how to explain something.

mckbearcat48
06-02-2011, 07:55 PM
Well, there's a reason they play 162. Time to see how good some of these guys really are. The division is 3 sure contenders, the Pirates, and those other 2 teams that really don't care much about winning. BTW, the Pirates have recently moved out of the other category.

lonewolf371
06-02-2011, 08:14 PM
It's not luck. There's no "luck" involved. That's just a term that stats geeks like to throw around when they don't understand how to explain something.
There's plenty of luck involved. I told you Travis Wood was lucky that his balls weren't going out of the park last season, partially since he didn't start that much at home. I told you that his ERA would jump once they did and that's exactly what happened. Now I'm telling you that McClellan will eventually look bad and he will.

The funny thing is "stat geeks" actually do a pretty good job at predicting who will be good over the course of the season.

Kingspoint
06-02-2011, 10:47 PM
There's plenty of luck involved. I told you Travis Wood was lucky that his balls weren't going out of the park last season, partially since he didn't start that much at home. I told you that his ERA would jump once they did and that's exactly what happened. Now I'm telling you that McClellan will eventually look bad and he will.

The funny thing is "stat geeks" actually do a pretty good job at predicting who will be good over the course of the season.

You're judging Travis Wood's 2011 season on a couple of starts? Do you even know what Woods' ERA was in May? (So, you don't have to look it up...it was 3.50.)

lonewolf371
06-02-2011, 11:06 PM
You're judging Travis Wood's 2011 season on a couple of starts? Do you even know what Woods' ERA was in May? (So, you don't have to look it up...it was 3.50.)
Couple of starts mean almost half a season? If he keeps pitching at that 3.5 rate that you like, he'll be down to the low 4s by the end of the year. That's actually above where I had him, but still worse than last year which is what I said would happen.

Redeye fly
06-02-2011, 11:09 PM
There's plenty of luck involved. I told you Travis Wood was lucky that his balls weren't going out of the park last season, partially since he didn't start that much at home. I told you that his ERA would jump once they did and that's exactly what happened. Now I'm telling you that McClellan will eventually look bad and he will.

The funny thing is "stat geeks" actually do a pretty good job at predicting who will be good over the course of the season.


This is where there's always going to be a balancing act between "stat geeks" and traditionalists. I don't mean to wimp out but I think there's a point to be said for both.

Overall I think luck plays a role but I find it somewhat hard to believe it carries over the course of a full season. I know there's some stats you can use to make the argument that it does or can fairly well. But I tend to look it in the most literal sense and probably align closer to people like Kingspoint. If a pitcher during the course of a game or even for a short stretch of a few games gives up several rockets that find fielders, that's "good luck". If on the other hand a batter is hitting those several rockets finding fielders, that's obviously "bad luck".

But personally, I consider even if a pitcher with middling stuff is getting better than anticipated results, if it happens over the course of a season or more I don't call it luck. I call it a pitcher executing his pitches precisely the way he needs to. He might not miss too many bats, but he might miss the fat part of the bat often enough that yeah hitters put the ball in play, but they don't put it in play all that hard.

I remember there years ago there was an argument in the earlier part of his career by some Reds fans looking at the stats like babip that former Red Rob Bell was "hit unlucky". Yet when he went out start after start and gave up all those hits and runs, before too long the obvious had to settle in for everybody. He wasn't hit unlucky... he was just an incredibly mediocre major league pitcher.

lonewolf371
06-02-2011, 11:30 PM
This is where there's always going to be a balancing act between "stat geeks" and traditionalists. I don't mean to wimp out but I think there's a point to be said for both.

Overall I think luck plays a role but I find it somewhat hard to believe it carries over the course of a full season. I know there's some stats you can use to make the argument that it does or can fairly well. But I tend to look it in the most literal sense and probably align closer to people like Kingspoint. If a pitcher during the course of a game or even for a short stretch of a few games gives up several rockets that find fielders, that's "good luck". If on the other hand a batter is hitting those several rockets finding fielders, that's obviously "bad luck".

But personally, I consider even if a pitcher with middling stuff is getting better than anticipated results, if it happens over the course of a season or more I don't call it luck. I call it a pitcher executing his pitches precisely the way he needs to. He might not miss too many bats, but he might miss the fat part of the bat often enough that yeah hitters put the ball in play, but they don't put it in play all that hard.

I remember there years ago there was an argument in the earlier part of his career by some Reds fans looking at the stats like babip that former Red Rob Bell was "hit unlucky". Yet when he went out start after start and gave up all those hits and runs, before too long the obvious had to settle in for everybody. He wasn't hit unlucky... he was just an incredibly mediocre major league pitcher.
Well guys normally regress to their career BABIP rates over the course of a season. Different guys maintain different BABIPs based on how they pitch and hit. With Rob Bell, in his time with Cincinnati he never actually showed what his BABIP was.

McClellan has shown over the course of his career that he can maintain a great BABIP (.266), although that was in relief. But when you strike out less than 5 per nine, you're going to start giving up a lot more runs sooner or later. If you could find me one pitcher in the last ten years that struck out less than 5 per nine while pitching more than 150 innings and keeping his ERA below 4, I'd be very impressed. There is a few, though.

Magdal
06-02-2011, 11:43 PM
Instead of TLR letting his ace start in his regular turn, he opts for the 2 rookies just called up to pitch on short rest. They have given up 10 runs so far. LaRussa! The Central divisions secret weopon!.

10- 3 SF in the 7th

Redeye fly
06-03-2011, 10:51 AM
Well guys normally regress to their career BABIP rates over the course of a season. Different guys maintain different BABIPs based on how they pitch and hit. With Rob Bell, in his time with Cincinnati he never actually showed what his BABIP was.

McClellan has shown over the course of his career that he can maintain a great BABIP (.266), although that was in relief. But when you strike out less than 5 per nine, you're going to start giving up a lot more runs sooner or later. If you could find me one pitcher in the last ten years that struck out less than 5 per nine while pitching more than 150 innings and keeping his ERA below 4, I'd be very impressed. There is a few, though.


Oh I more or less agree. I just think people can get too carried away with the stats sometimes I mean when a guy does have a quality season one way or another, pitcher or hitter, in which the BABIP is a good bit above or a good bit below the norm and it's explained as luck, I think in some cases that's a credible explanation if that same player comes back down to earth the very next season. At the same time, I'm not so sure it tells the whole story just because the game itself is so complicated and difficult at the highest level. By that I mean I think it's probably, at least of the 4 major team sports the one in which your mechanics and timing has to be more precise and more on than any other. I mean the margin of error for a pitcher is so slight when it comes to getting a guy out or giving up a home run in terms of executing his pitches and his location. Same for a hitter, the preciseness in timing and mechanics of a swing determines whether a hitter is going to pop up to the shortstop or hit a 420 foot home run. So there's a lot of little factors that maybe are not so little in determining success and failure. At times luck is a perfectly valid description. At times, it may not be.

signalhome
06-03-2011, 01:59 PM
It's not luck. There's no "luck" involved. That's just a term that stats geeks like to throw around when they don't understand how to explain something.

Wait, there's no luck involved in baseball? Really? Trust me, there is plenty of luck in baseball, more so than in any other sport. It doesn't matter how hard you hit the ball, if it's right at someone, it's an out, the same as if you had just hit a weak ground ball to the pitcher. On the other hand, you can hit a weak dribbler into no man's land between 3B, SS, and P and wind up on first base with a single. If those aren't indicators of luck, be it good or bad, I'd love to know what is.

Of course, luck will normalize over a full career, but there are plenty of times when people have been fortunate for an entire season, only to have their luck turn around the next. Let's just look at Jaime Garcia. Last year he outperformed his FIP by 0.71, but this year, he's under-performing it by 0.43. Just because his ERA is higher this year, however, is no reason to just assume he's a worse pitcher than he was last year. His K/9 has risen, his BB/9 has declined, and his LD% has declined. He is giving up slightly fewer ground balls (55.9% vs. 52%), but since his HR/FB has decreased, it's not hurting him. The two places where he has gotten seemingly worse are the two peripherals most driven by luck: LOB% and BABIP. Instead of stranding 75% of runners like last year, he's only stranding 65.9% this year; that's even more an indication of luck given the fact that he's striking out 0.99 more batters per nine innings, which should lead to a lower strand rate. His BABIP has only risen 13 points, so it's not like there is a huge difference there -- at least not enough to account for his ERA being 0.58 higher than last year. If Garcia's seemingly worse production this year isn't a direct byproduct of luck, please, tell me what it is.

Of course, we've been here before, with Travis Wood, before the season started. I seem to remember you repeatedly claiming that Wood made hitters get themselves out by making weak contact, in spite of the fact that he had given up line drives at an astonishingly bad rate of 21.4% in 2010, thus indicating that maybe Wood was extremely fortunate to finish with a .259 BABIP last year. This year, his BABIP is .313, which is about what should be expected with his horrible LD%; it has risen all the way to 23.2% this year. Of course, Wood is also striking out fewer while walking more batters, so it shouldn't be surprising at all that he has looked a lot worse this year than last.

signalhome
06-03-2011, 02:09 PM
Oh I more or less agree. I just think people can get too carried away with the stats sometimes I mean when a guy does have a quality season one way or another, pitcher or hitter, in which the BABIP is a good bit above or a good bit below the norm and it's explained as luck, I think in some cases that's a credible explanation if that same player comes back down to earth the very next season. At the same time, I'm not so sure it tells the whole story just because the game itself is so complicated and difficult at the highest level. By that I mean I think it's probably, at least of the 4 major team sports the one in which your mechanics and timing has to be more precise and more on than any other. I mean the margin of error for a pitcher is so slight when it comes to getting a guy out or giving up a home run in terms of executing his pitches and his location. Same for a hitter, the preciseness in timing and mechanics of a swing determines whether a hitter is going to pop up to the shortstop or hit a 420 foot home run. So there's a lot of little factors that maybe are not so little in determining success and failure. At times luck is a perfectly valid description. At times, it may not be.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said. Sometimes a guy comes along that consistently outperforms his FIP, and nobody really knows why. At that point, it stops being described as luck, and begins being described as "I have no idea". I thought Arroyo was on that path, as he had significantly outperformed his FIP the past two years, but this year he's pitching worse than his FIP would suggest, so who knows. Johan Santana, Matt Cain, Jon Garland, and Randy Wolf are a few guys that come to mind whom fit the description. However, even those guys don't feature a huge disparity in career ERA vs. FIP; it's a rather minor split. Thus, when I see someone like McClellan outperforming his FIP by 0.76, I feel I can pretty safely say that's not his true talent level, at least not right now.

And you're spot-on about baseball being the most difficult as far as precision, timing, and mechanics. It's unbelievable how precise both pitchers and hitters have to be in order to not only be successful, but to even make it into the major leagues. Blows my mind. I have a lot more appreciation for the truly elite baseball players like Bautista (I think it's safe to call him elite now, right?) and Halladay than I do for players in any other sport.

lonewolf371
06-03-2011, 02:58 PM
Oh I more or less agree. I just think people can get too carried away with the stats sometimes I mean when a guy does have a quality season one way or another, pitcher or hitter, in which the BABIP is a good bit above or a good bit below the norm and it's explained as luck, I think in some cases that's a credible explanation if that same player comes back down to earth the very next season. At the same time, I'm not so sure it tells the whole story just because the game itself is so complicated and difficult at the highest level. By that I mean I think it's probably, at least of the 4 major team sports the one in which your mechanics and timing has to be more precise and more on than any other. I mean the margin of error for a pitcher is so slight when it comes to getting a guy out or giving up a home run in terms of executing his pitches and his location. Same for a hitter, the preciseness in timing and mechanics of a swing determines whether a hitter is going to pop up to the shortstop or hit a 420 foot home run. So there's a lot of little factors that maybe are not so little in determining success and failure. At times luck is a perfectly valid description. At times, it may not be.
Oh yeah I agree with you there. The trick is that when you see a change in stats, you always need to look for a change in the approach of the player. If a player does every single thing the same as in previous seasons (throws same number of fastballs in a game, same velocity, hits same spots, swings at same number of pitches in/out of the zone, etc.), as you could see in his peripherals, then I think you can chalk small variations up to luck.

Take Adam Dunn. I don't think he's unlucky, I think there's seriously something wrong with him. He used to destroy fastballs, but he can't get a hit off of them this year. Not only that, but opposing pitchers know it and have been throwing him a ton more fastballs than normal. Is Dunn's horrible season so far a product of luck? I don't think so. I think for some strange reason, he's just fallen off a cliff as a player.


Wait, there's no luck involved in baseball? Really? Trust me, there is plenty of luck in baseball, more so than in any other sport. It doesn't matter how hard you hit the ball, if it's right at someone, it's an out, the same as if you had just hit a weak ground ball to the pitcher. On the other hand, you can hit a weak dribbler into no man's land between 3B, SS, and P and wind up on first base with a single. If those aren't indicators of luck, be it good or bad, I'd love to know what is.

Of course, luck will normalize over a full career, but there are plenty of times when people have been fortunate for an entire season, only to have their luck turn around the next. Let's just look at Jaime Garcia. Last year he outperformed his FIP by 0.71, but this year, he's under-performing it by 0.43. Just because his ERA is higher this year, however, is no reason to just assume he's a worse pitcher than he was last year. His K/9 has risen, his BB/9 has declined, and his LD% has declined. He is giving up slightly fewer ground balls (55.9% vs. 52%), but since his HR/FB has decreased, it's not hurting him. The two places where he has gotten seemingly worse are the two peripherals most driven by luck: LOB% and BABIP. Instead of stranding 75% of runners like last year, he's only stranding 65.9% this year; that's even more an indication of luck given the fact that he's striking out 0.99 more batters per nine innings, which should lead to a lower strand rate. His BABIP has only risen 13 points, so it's not like there is a huge difference there -- at least not enough to account for his ERA being 0.58 higher than last year. If Garcia's seemingly worse production this year isn't a direct byproduct of luck, please, tell me what it is.

Of course, we've been here before, with Travis Wood, before the season started. I seem to remember you repeatedly claiming that Wood made hitters get themselves out by making weak contact, in spite of the fact that he had given up line drives at an astonishingly bad rate of 21.4% in 2010, thus indicating that maybe Wood was extremely fortunate to finish with a .259 BABIP last year. This year, his BABIP is .313, which is about what should be expected with his horrible LD%; it has risen all the way to 23.2% this year. Of course, Wood is also striking out fewer while walking more batters, so it shouldn't be surprising at all that he has looked a lot worse this year than last.
Well to be fair to Mr. Garcia, his current ERA is largely a product of one bad start.