PDA

View Full Version : Reds mosst likely done with major league deals



alett12
01-26-2012, 01:55 PM
This was on MLBTR which would mean they are out on Oswalt which is fine by me.

mroby85
01-26-2012, 01:58 PM
This was on MLBTR which would mean they are out on Oswalt which is fine by me.

I wish we could have Oswalt instead of washed up Scott Rolen.

alett12
01-26-2012, 02:14 PM
I wish we could have Oswalt instead of washed up Scott Rolen.

Honestly, Oswalt's season last year wasn't any better than Rolen's. They were both injured the majority of the year and Oswalt just barely broke the 100 IP mark. It just isn't a deal that would make sense for the reds.

jhu1321
01-26-2012, 02:26 PM
While I still think Oswalt could have a productive year for us, I do agree that it doesn't make a ton of sense. I'm especially encouraged to hear Homer has bulked up a bit, if he can put it together and stay healthy he should have a better year than Oswalt. We'll see!

UCBrownsfan
01-26-2012, 03:37 PM
Honestly, Oswalt's season last year wasn't any better than Rolen's. They were both injured the majority of the year and Oswalt just barely broke the 100 IP mark. It just isn't a deal that would make sense for the reds.

Roy Oswalt 139 IP , 3.69 ERA - only his 2nd in the last 9 under 200IP
That would have made him 4th in IP and 2nd in ERA last year amongst Reds starters.

Rolen's WAR .6, Oswalt 1.7 (Only Leake and Cueto higher amongst Reds starts last year, last year was the only sub 3 WAR of Oswalts Career - odds are he's at worst our #2 in terms of production by the end of the year, in fact his 2010 season with the phillies(2.8), and his 2010 season with the astros(2.3) - each by itself would have led the reds in WAR) He's 3 more good years from being a potential HOFer.

Cueto/Leake combined - 6.4 WAR
Latos - 2.6 WAR
Arroyo, Bailey combined - .2 WAR
Wood, Volquez, Willis combined - (-.8) WAR

alett12
01-26-2012, 04:15 PM
Roy Oswalt 139 IP , 3.69 ERA - only his 2nd in the last 9 under 200IP
That would have made him 4th in IP and 2nd in ERA last year amongst Reds starters.

Rolen's WAR .6, Oswalt 1.7 (Only Leake and Cueto higher amongst Reds starts last year, last year was the only sub 3 WAR of Oswalts Career - odds are he's at worst our #2 in terms of production by the end of the year, in fact his 2010 season with the phillies(2.8), and his 2010 season with the astros(2.3) - each by itself would have led the reds in WAR) He's 3 more good years from being a potential HOFer.

Cueto/Leake combined - 6.4 WAR
Latos - 2.6 WAR
Arroyo, Bailey combined - .2 WAR
Wood, Volquez, Willis combined - (-.8) WAR

To me, WAR means nothing. The wins that the Reds had with Rolen on the field the last three years are enough for me to say i would rathe have him out there than Oswalt.

[deleted]
01-27-2012, 03:40 PM
To me, WAR means nothing. The wins that the Reds had with Rolen on the field the last three years are enough for me to say i would rathe have him out there than Oswalt.

...what? How does this make even the slightest bit of sense? How can you just so blatantly disregard numbers? And what about the wins Philadelphia had with Oswalt on the field the last year and a half? Do those just not matter?

You're wrong when you say that Oswalt's 2011 season wasn't more valuable than Scott Rolen's. It absolutely was. I don't see how there is much of an argument to be made there. I can understand not being an advocate of signing him due to financial reasons or the worry that management would then do something drastic with Bailey or Leake, but Roy Oswalt would definitely be a huge asset to this team. It would sure up our SP depth problem and could push Arroyo out of many of his starts (certainly a good thing).

Oswalt had a back problem last year, but still put up a sub 4 ERA and FIP. He ended the year especially strong and even if he isn't the 200 IP model of consistency he once was (which he could still be - he threw 211 in 2010) he would be a reallllly good bet to put up 170 worth around 3 or 4 wins. And on a one year deal, that would be a steal.

I'd bet almost anything that Oswalt bounces back a lot stronger than Rolen does in 2012.

takealeake
01-27-2012, 03:46 PM
;2530304']...what? How does this make even the slightest bit of sense? How can you just so blatantly disregard numbers? And what about the wins Philadelphia had with Oswalt on the field the last year and a half? Do those just not matter?

You're wrong when you say that Oswalt's 2011 season wasn't more valuable than Scott Rolen's. It absolutely was. I don't see how there is much of an argument to be made there. I can understand not being an advocate of signing him due to financial reasons or the worry that management would then do something drastic with Bailey or Leake, but Roy Oswalt would definitely be a huge asset to this team. It would sure up our SP depth problem and could push Arroyo out of many of his starts (certainly a good thing).

Oswalt had a back problem last year, but still put up a sub 4 ERA and FIP. He ended the year especially strong and even if he isn't the 200 IP model of consistency he once was (which he could still be - he threw 211 in 2010) he would be a reallllly good bet to put up 170 worth around 3 or 4 wins. And on a one year deal, that would be a steal.

I'd bet almost anything that Oswalt bounces back a lot stronger than Rolen does in 2012.

Rolen got us to the playoffs for the first time in 15 years. Enough said.

[deleted]
01-27-2012, 03:59 PM
Rolen got us to the playoffs for the first time in 15 years. Enough said.

Well he was certainly a key member of a team that made the playoffs, yes. Don't really see how that has any bearing on Oswalt's value.

bigredmechanism
01-27-2012, 04:03 PM
Roy O is getting up there, and I don't think it would be a good investment for a team that doesn't have too much money to play with.

Thomaswaynem
01-27-2012, 04:17 PM
This is probably the wrong place to put this, but I hate sabermetrics or whatever they are called. I think the whole "War" thing is dumb. I don't care what Oswalt's "War" was last year. I think he is a better pitcher than both Bailey and Arroyo. Whether his WAR was below them or not, I'd rather have him out there. I think these stats are overplayed.

[deleted]
01-27-2012, 04:30 PM
This is probably the wrong place to put this, but I hate sabermetrics or whatever they are called. I think the whole "War" thing is dumb. I don't care what Oswalt's "War" was last year. I think he is a better pitcher than both Bailey and Arroyo. Whether his WAR was below them or not, I'd rather have him out there. I think these stats are overplayed.

Posts like this are fascinating to me. What's the cause for such a backlash against WAR? Or Sabermetrics in general? Do you know what WAR really is? Or how it is calculated? What about something like wOBA? It's just a stat pulled directly from numbers. From the game. How can you argue with numbers? Obviously there is no one end-all stat, but why immediately and stubbornly tune out those that professional analysts, historians, statisticians, and writers favor as being the most illustrative?

The obvious go-to answer is that some people are simply rooted in tradition and refuse to see things any way other than how they were raised (not saying this about you in particular, of course). I can't understand how these people can't see what a dangerous line of thinking this is. To reflexively shut down an idea simply because it is different is just so mind bogglingly ignorant to me - especially in an age where it's hard to argue that traditionalist stats like Wins and Batting Average aren't totally irrelevant.

The great irony to this particular post, of course, is that WAR rates Oswalt as being more valuable than either Arroyo or Bailey.

Thomaswaynem
01-27-2012, 05:20 PM
I'm actually 25 and wouldn't say I am traditional at all. I just hate how everything is broken down into 19 different stats. FIP, FIPX, WAR, STA, AT&T, WEBN. I just don't like it. I like the eye test. I don't need advance metric stats to tell me David Wright would be better in our lineup than Scott Rolen, or that Roy Oswalt would be better than Homer Bailey.

I wouldn't say that my disregard for it is ignorance, I just dislike all of this junk. Do we really need to compute all of this just to figure out that a certain player is -.3 wins behind another guy? Please.

Alpha Zero
01-27-2012, 07:29 PM
I'm actually 25 and wouldn't say I am traditional at all. I just hate how everything is broken down into 19 different stats. FIP, FIPX, WAR, STA, AT&T, WEBN. I just don't like it. I like the eye test. I don't need advance metric stats to tell me David Wright would be better in our lineup than Scott Rolen, or that Roy Oswalt would be better than Homer Bailey.

I wouldn't say that my disregard for it is ignorance, I just dislike all of this junk. Do we really need to compute all of this just to figure out that a certain player is -.3 wins behind another guy? Please.

The eye test is good and all, but there are 30 teams in the MLB playing almost every night. It isn't possible to watch every team enough to get a great feel for each player's true talent level. Traditional stats tell a decent part of the story, but stats like WAR and FIP give us a way to measure our favorite players against the rest of the league. WAR isn't perfect and can be a somewhat crude measuring stick, so I agree that bickering about a 0.3 WAR difference between two players is pretty silly. Still, simply dismissing advanced metrics altogether is pretty ignorant in itself.

LeDoux
01-27-2012, 07:54 PM
I'm actually 25 and wouldn't say I am traditional at all. I just hate how everything is broken down into 19 different stats. FIP, FIPX, WAR, STA, AT&T, WEBN. I just don't like it. I like the eye test. I don't need advance metric stats to tell me David Wright would be better in our lineup than Scott Rolen, or that Roy Oswalt would be better than Homer Bailey.

I wouldn't say that my disregard for it is ignorance, I just dislike all of this junk. Do we really need to compute all of this just to figure out that a certain player is -.3 wins behind another guy? Please.

I agree. While I use advanced stats quite a bit in my research endeavors, but I don't like them to dominate my baseball. Stats can be helpful for comparisons, but over-relying on them can interfere with simply watching and enjoying the game. The stats are the shadow of the game, not the substance.

I also think baseball stats are quite often abused. For a true statistical comparison you need to use a real statistical test (without violating any of its assumptions.) Using an alpha of .05, how can you compare Oswalt and Rolenís projected 2012? Show your work!

texasdave
01-28-2012, 12:17 AM
A 2010 first-half Rolen is more valuable to this team than Roy Oswalt. Does that Rolen exist anymore? We will find out soon enough.

[deleted]
01-28-2012, 02:58 PM
A 2010 first-half Rolen is more valuable to this team than Roy Oswalt. Does that Rolen exist anymore? We will find out soon enough.

This I could buy. I would wager, though, that that Rolen doesn't show up.

alett12
01-30-2012, 10:03 AM
I'm actually 25 and wouldn't say I am traditional at all. I just hate how everything is broken down into 19 different stats. FIP, FIPX, WAR, STA, AT&T, WEBN. I just don't like it. I like the eye test. I don't need advance metric stats to tell me David Wright would be better in our lineup than Scott Rolen, or that Roy Oswalt would be better than Homer Bailey.

I wouldn't say that my disregard for it is ignorance, I just dislike all of this junk. Do we really need to compute all of this just to figure out that a certain player is -.3 wins behind another guy? Please.

I'm 18 and I dont care about sabermetrics. They are projections and I'm 100% sure no sabermetric system projection could've projected what
Matt Kemp and Cueto did last year, or what Votto and Cargo did the year before that. So someone tell me that Oswalt has had more of an affect on the teams he has pitched for than Rolen has on the Reds since he got here and that he will have a bigger effect than Rolen will this year based on some stupid projections I'm going to say you're full of crap.

[deleted]
01-30-2012, 12:51 PM
I'm 18 and I dont care about sabermetrics. They are projections and I'm 100% sure no sabermetric system projection could've projected what
Matt Kemp and Cueto did last year, or what Votto and Cargo did the year before that. So someone tell me that Oswalt has had more of an affect on the teams he has pitched for than Rolen has on the Reds since he got here and that he will have a bigger effect than Rolen will this year based on some stupid projections I'm going to say you're full of crap.

Wow, don't even know where to start with this one. I have no idea where you're getting this idea that sabermetrics are projections. I mean, I suppose they are - in the same sense that all stats are projections. So why do you look at one group of numbers and say YES THIS MAKES SENSE and then at another and go NOPE THESE ARE PROJECTIONS. They're just different numbers, telling different sides of a story. Where do you draw the line?

Perhaps you view sabermetrics as projections because so many fans tend to analyze them, deconstruct them, and then use them as tools to make note of trends and abnormalities - which then, in turn, help them reach logical and objective conclusions about a player's talent and expected future production. Which... is why we look at stats in the first place?

Rolen had a very productive 2010. But he did not contribute more to the Reds in 2011 than Oswalt did to the Phillies. I would guess that Oswalt will perform better in 2012 than Rolen will. I will use some "stupid projections" to justify this: even while hurt, Oswalt pitched to a 3.69 ERA with a 2.8 K/BB. Rolen appeared in only 65 games and posted a .279 on-base percentage. I know, I know - ERA, OBP - just sabermetric nonsense, right?

And age has nothing to do with it, really. You can be a stubborn traditionalist at 25, 18, or 13. It has more to do with mainstream baseball culture and the fact that ESPN and the such raises us to think BATTING AVERAGE and WINS and RBIs are the stats to care about.

In the end they're all just numbers on a page. Pretending they're perfect is totally and completely foolish - no one stat can encapsulate a player.

But stubbornly ignoring half of them is just as bad.

alett12
01-30-2012, 01:57 PM
honestly, I'm 18 and I think the advance metrics stuff is way to over used. You can't tell me that some projections had Votto and Cargo exploding on to the scene like they did two years ago, or that Kemp and Cueto were going to have the amazing seasons they did last year. One of the few advanced metrics when used properly that I do agree with is FIDP. That does show you how good a pitcher actually was in any given year.

[deleted]
01-30-2012, 02:10 PM
You just re-wrote your old post. Did you even read what I said?

alett12
01-30-2012, 02:14 PM
;2531032']You just re-wrote your old post. Did you even read what I said?

My bad it didn't show it had posted the 1st time i wrote it. As for your, you have valid points but they are still just numbers that show what a computer thinks a guy will do. I don't see why any team would want to risk 10 million on a guy who pitched 100 innings due to back troubles. That just doesn't seem like a winning investment to me.

Larkin88
01-30-2012, 02:56 PM
My bad it didn't show it had posted the 1st time i wrote it. As for your, you have valid points but they are still just numbers that show what a computer thinks a guy will do. I don't see why any team would want to risk 10 million on a guy who pitched 100 innings due to back troubles. That just doesn't seem like a winning investment to me.

I'm not here to argue that you use some of the newer metrics that exist if you don't want to... but literally and empirically, most of the numbers are 100% based on what a player HAS done in his career. Gotta agree with [deleted] here, they aren't projections or "what a computer thinks a guy will do" by any means. Rather, they are a reflection of what a guy has managed to do to date.

So no, they couldn't have predicted Votto would have the 2010 that he did beforehand. But the numbers could have indicated that he was, perhaps, the most likely Red TO have that kind of success based on some of his peripheral tendencies. (and, in fact, did)

That said, I agree with you on Oswalt 100% here.

Red Raindog
01-30-2012, 05:47 PM
My bad it didn't show it had posted the 1st time i wrote it. As for your, you have valid points but they are still just numbers that show what a computer thinks a guy will do. I don't see why any team would want to risk 10 million on a guy who pitched 100 innings due to back troubles. That just doesn't seem like a winning investment to me.

If you are going to argue about numbers - please use the correct ones! Oswalt pitched 139 * not 100 * innings in 2011

For the record - Oswalt IP

2002 233
2003 127
2004 237
2005 241
2006 220
2007 212
2008 208
2009 181
2010 211
2011 139

=== now do I think the Reds should pay $10M? - no way - but I would love to see him here since there are very precious few pitchers with a track record like his.

nmculbreth
01-30-2012, 11:33 PM
I'm actually 25 and wouldn't say I am traditional at all. I just hate how everything is broken down into 19 different stats. FIP, FIPX, WAR, STA, AT&T, WEBN. I just don't like it. I like the eye test. I don't need advance metric stats to tell me David Wright would be better in our lineup than Scott Rolen, or that Roy Oswalt would be better than Homer Bailey.

I wouldn't say that my disregard for it is ignorance, I just dislike all of this junk. Do we really need to compute all of this just to figure out that a certain player is -.3 wins behind another guy? Please.

Actually, I think we do.

Statistics have always been a part of baseball, it's why numbers like 755, 4192 and 300 mean so much to baseball fans. Think back to when you were a kid, arguing over why your favorite player was better than your friend's... I'd imagine that you made your argument with stats... something along the lines of that since your guy scored more runs and had a better batting average he was clearly better player.

As such, the notion that sabermetrics somehow introduced statistics to baseball is completely bunk. The whole underlying idea behind the sabermetric movement is that the traditional counting stats didn't always paint a true picture of what was actually going on and that there had to be a more elegant solution. Which is why we hear about OBP, OPS, WHIP, BABIP and WAR. None of them are perfect, but they're clearly better tools than counting stats like runs and RBIs.

Just because you don't like / understand them doesn't mean that they're dumb. The eyeball test is all well and good, if you watch every game and have a photographic memory. Otherwise you run into the problem that you can only see so many games and with the passing of time the details gleaned from those games starts to become fuzzy. After a certain point you're only left with the vaguest of impressions and no real way to support your conclusions.

As such I prefer to base my opinions on empirical data rather than the impressions that you formed watching one game eight months ago.

Krawhitham
01-31-2012, 12:41 AM
Honestly, Oswalt's season last year wasn't any better than Rolen's. They were both injured the majority of the year and Oswalt just barely broke the 100 IP mark. It just isn't a deal that would make sense for the reds.

23 starts he missed 7 (he averages 30 per season over 11 seasons)

So he missed 23% of the season

Rolen played in 65 games and missed 60% of the season

Of players that had at least 100 AB on the reds last season Rolen's average would place him in 11th place

Oswalt's ERA was 3.69 which would put him 2nd on the Reds behind Johnny Cueto who by the way only had ONE MORE start than Oswalt last season



Rolen missed most of the season and when he did play he sucked, while Oswalt missed part of the season when he play he was well above average

Krawhitham
01-31-2012, 01:01 AM
A 2010 first-half Rolen is more valuable to this team than Roy Oswalt. Does that Rolen exist anymore? We will find out soon enough.

Rolen has had 2 good months in a reds uniform and that is it

Lets look at 2010 everybody always boasts about

April .257avg 5hr 10rbi (average)
May .298 6 hr 22rbi (good)
June .337 6hr 21rbi (good)
July .319 1hr 9rbi missed 50% of games (average)
Aug .261 1hr 14rbi (bad)
Sept .257 1hr 7rbi (bad)
Oct .063 0hr 0rbi (bad)



just for giggles

after being picked up July 29th 2009 he had 3 HR & 24 RBI the rest of the season for the Reds (2 months)

2011 he had 5hr & 36 RBI for the whole season


Rolen he done, he is toast. Best thing the Reds can hope for is he gets hurt very early on and Juan Francisco takes over

alett12
02-01-2012, 01:59 PM
If you are going to argue about numbers - please use the correct ones! Oswalt pitched 139 * not 100 * innings in 2011

For the record - Oswalt IP

2002 233
2003 127
2004 237
2005 241
2006 220
2007 212
2008 208
2009 181
2010 211
2011 139
=== now do I think the Reds should pay $10M? - no way - but I would love to see him here since there are very precious few pitchers with a track record like his.

That is the number that scares me if you are going to give a guy even a $5M.
I would rather see the reds pay a little more (if they could afford it) and bring in Edwin Jackson who turns 28 in September and has basicly thrown 180+IP every year since becoming a stater with the exception of his 1st season. he threw 199.2 last year and 212 the year prior all while being swaped from team to team.

[deleted]
02-01-2012, 02:13 PM
I would welcome Jackson with open arms: he's been a beacon of above-average consistency his entire career. He's a tailor made #3 - but his arrival in Cincy is even less likely than Oswalt's. He could still get a 3+ year deal, and even if he decided to settle on 1, it would still be worth 10+ million.

alett12
02-01-2012, 02:15 PM
True, but if jackson has a good enough year he could be worth compensation but it would need to be a lights out season.