Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeThierry
If you're the opposing team, you feel more comfortable about coming back against Broxton or Cordero than you did Chapman. Last year when the Cards were down in the 9th, I was at the point of turning off the TV because it was over. Now, I'll watch with anticipation against a guy (Broxton) who've the Cardinals have had decent success off of. I would think that mentality goes for a lot of teams. Rather than facing a guy who is nearly unhittable, they are now more comfortable being down in the 9th against Broxton.
Nothing you have said is wrong, yet the stats suggest that you chances of coming back against Chapman are about the same as Broxton, Cordero or whoever.
Motte has the rep of blowing saves all the time, yet the fact is, while he blows saves by giving up HR's occasionally, he'll save you games 85% of the time.
Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PuffyPig
Nothing you have said is wrong, yet the stats suggest that you chances of coming back against Chapman are about the same as Broxton, Cordero or whoever.
Motte has the rep of blowing saves all the time, yet the fact is, while he blows saves by giving up HR's occasionally, he'll save you games 85% of the time.
True statement. My point was mainly comfortability factor. As studly as I think Craig is, he looked almost frightened and lost when facing Chapman. That won't happen this year with Broxton.
Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedEye
My hunch is that prior to throwing away an additional $21 million on Broxton, Marshall and Hoover were already equal if not better candidates for the closer position on the roster -- and the team threw away some money for a clichéd "need" that was greatly exaggerated.
.
I guess I disagree with this.
Where would've been a better place to spend Broxton's money?
I think we needed another top end arm in the bullpen, especially with Chapman planned to start. Even if you make Hoover the closer, you'd need to add a reliable BP arm.
In fact, I'd argue the Reds still need to add a good LH reliever too.
Going into the offseason, the Reds needs were LF, CF, 2 bench infielders, and bullpen.
Since they were able to address them all (except maybe one more LH reliever), I guess I would say the Broxton's salary was not an issue.
Or maybe you like Broxton, but at a lower price? Like if they could get Broxton for 3-5 million, would you like the move then?
Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2
Broxton added a cutter late last season which reportedly was part of what made him so effective down the stretch, in addition to being more completely recovered from his surgery.
I have a lot of confidence in Broxton as closer. The point about 'fear factor' brought up by Mike is valid though. We've all experienced it to some degree against other teams. A guy like Eckersley or Rivera make you believe it over when they come into the game, where as a guy like Graves or Cordero or even some of the guys the Cards have run out over the last few seasons haven't inspired the same 'fear'. Broxton isn't the guy who inspires that fear like he did in his early seasons, but he has the chance to get there with a good year.
Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2
Pardon me for being kind of jerkish here but I still laugh at the Reds bringing Graves out as closer in the mid-2000's. That guy was a launching pad for Cardinals hitters.
That said, Ryan Franklin certainly left a lot to be desired as it pertains to fear factor. If you were fearful of goat type beards, then he was your guy. Actual talent... not so much.
Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedsManRick
No. There are better ways to project next season's performance than simply by assuming they'll repeat last year. And they don't involve watching the player work out.
Such as? I guess im having a difficult time trying to understand what other variables you are looking for from a national writer to do for all the teams when all that's different between end of season and now is off season moves.
Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2
Is anyone surprised that the Giants aren't on this list?
Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeThierry
True statement. My point was mainly comfortability factor. As studly as I think Craig is, he looked almost frightened and lost when facing Chapman. That won't happen this year with Broxton.
"looks" can be deceiving. Regardless, even if some hitters were in fact frightened, it didn't save any more games for Chapman than several other guys were saving. So the end result for Chapman's dominance was the same save rate as the average league closer would have had.
Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2
Speaking of Broxton, what is the prognosis he will pick up a mile or two per hour on that fastball. Pre-TJ surgery, his fastball was at 97-98 fairly consistently. Late in the 2012 season, he was sitting around 94-95, and would occasionally hit 95-96. Think he will be able to get back up to 96-97 in time? Or is this as good as he is going to get?
Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeThierry
Pardon me for being kind of jerkish here but I still laugh at the Reds bringing Graves out as closer in the mid-2000's. That guy was a launching pad for Cardinals hitters.
Yet during his final two seasons with the Reds he had 51 saves in 62 chanches, about 82%, close to average. Even in his last season, when his ERA was approaching a run per game, he saved 10 of 12.
Save percentage is a poor way to judge a reliever.
Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smith288
Such as? I guess im having a difficult time trying to understand what other variables you are looking for from a national writer to do for all the teams when all that's different between end of season and now is off season moves.
Projections to true talent level. Guys with a .375 BABIP are going to regress. Guys with a .250 BABIP are likely to step forward. Players coming back from injuries. Age progression (guys under 28 are likely to take a step forward, guys over 28 are likely to take a step back - hitters).
Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeThierry
Pardon me for being kind of jerkish here but I still laugh at the Reds bringing Graves out as closer in the mid-2000's. That guy was a launching pad for Cardinals hitters.
Really? Danny Graves did not have a stellar career as a starter but his only career shutout came against you guys:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bo...00305140.shtml
Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sea Ray
A squirrel finds a nut sometimes. He was a career 3-6 vs. the Cardinals with a 4.45 ERA and 1.3 WHIP
Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedEye
Are we sure that save percentage is the best indication of overall RP performance?
I was starting to read this thread and when it started talking about Chapman's save percentage, I was thinking this.
He only gave up runs in 8 games last year; all of them but 2 of them he was given credit with a blown save or a loss.
Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nathan
I was starting to read this thread and when it started talking about Chapman's save percentage, I was thinking this.
He only gave up runs in 8 games last year; all of them but 2 of them he was given credit with a blown save or a loss.
That's actually a reasonable quick way to determine the effectiveness of a reliever.
Chapman gave up runs in 8 appearances out of 68 games
Broxton gave up runs 13 appearances out of 60 games last year (one of those appearances was no earned runs).
So if we project Broxton's numbers to 68 games, that means he would've given up runs in about 15 games. The difference between Broxton and Chapman last year could be estimated that Broxton gives up runs in 7 more appearances (roughly). I'm not sure how to project that into blown saves/losses, but it's potentially significant.