Turn Off Ads?
Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 81415161718
Results 256 to 267 of 267

Thread: Reds sign Wilson

  1. #256
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,450

    Re: Reds sign Wilson

    Quote Originally Posted by Redmachine2003
    How does Wilson stack up against the Cards Rotation. I don't think any of them pitched that much better than Wilson did they? The Cards had one of the best Defense's in the league to help the rotation too.
    He'd probably have been their #6 starter. You can make an argument that Wilson was better than Matt Morris. He had a better ERA, even in relative terms. Yet Morris chewed up 18.1 more innings, had just as many quality starts and an identical OPS against (Morris with the lower OB, Wilson the lower SLG). All things considered, I'd take the better innings eater.

    Plus the Cards have Dan Haren and Al Reyes poised to leapfrog Wilson.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #257
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    CINCINNATI
    Posts
    170

    Re: Reds sign Wilson...

    Are the Reds actually done?
    ---------------------------
    My question is are the Reds done with the FA market? It seems highly unlikely we will make a trade to improve the team NOW, and most likely for later, if that happens.

    I heard on the radio (1360) this morning that the Reds might get a reliever and that would be the end of any new transactions before the season starts. Knowing how slow DanO goes, the reliever might be a pipe dream as well.

    I would hope we get someone to replace Castro, and have some depth at infield/off-the-bench types as well. Another good starter sounds good, but knowing our direction, it's not gonna happen.

    Anyone's take?
    Last edited by djeternal; 12-01-2004 at 02:32 PM.

  4. #258
    Big Red Machine RedsBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Out Wayne
    Posts
    22,928

    Re: Reds sign Wilson

    Quote Originally Posted by maniem
    I noticed that his ERA had dropped every year the last 4 years.
    While Wilson's ERA has dropped each of the last four years, so has the NL's ERA. BaseballReference.Com includes ERAs adjusted for playing conditions. In each of the last four seasons, Wilson's ERA was higher than the adjusted NL average: 4.88 to 4.48, 4.83 to 4.47, 4.64 to 4.29 and 4.36 to 4.01.
    BaseballReference.Com also has an adjusted ERA for pitchers, where the higher the score the better, as it measures a pitcher against the league norm. For example, in 2004 Randy Johnson had an ERA of 2.60-matched against a league norm of 100, Johnson's score was 171. Wilson has been remarkably consistent by that measure-each of the last four seasons he has had a score of 92 versus a league average of 100. I'm sure WOY or Steel could explain this better, but as I understand it, this means that in all four seasons Wilson was mediocre, just below the average.
    "Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."

  5. #259
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,866

    Re: Reds sign Wilson

    Quote Originally Posted by M2
    He'd probably have been their #6 starter. You can make an argument that Wilson was better than Matt Morris. He had a better ERA, even in relative terms. Yet Morris chewed up 18.1 more innings, had just as many quality starts and an identical OPS against (Morris with the lower OB, Wilson the lower SLG). All things considered, I'd take the better innings eater.

    Plus the Cards have Dan Haren and Al Reyes poised to leapfrog Wilson.
    So you would take Wilson over Suppan and Williams since Wilson had pitched more innings per start and the Stats are very close.

  6. #260
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    princeton, nj
    Posts
    9,482

    Re: Reds sign Wilson

    devil's advocate: if Paul Wilson stays healthy for all of August, then maybe he posts a 3.45 ERA, and scratches out 200 innings.

    I'm sure that the Reds FO is harboring such thoughts.

  7. #261
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    43,297

    Re: Reds sign Wilson

    He's a negative.
    Then I guess he's not the best arm in the BP then eh?

  8. #262
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,345

    Re: Reds sign Wilson

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou
    Then I guess he's not the best arm in the BP then eh?
    Only a negative because of his salary.. Performance-wise, he was the best.

    Obviously, if Graves was only making 2 million/year, there'd be no problem trading him.
    Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

    Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

  9. #263
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,450

    Re: Reds sign Wilson

    Quote Originally Posted by Redmachine2003
    So you would take Wilson over Suppan and Williams since Wilson had pitched more innings per start and the Stats are very close.
    Suppan and Williams threw more total innings and that's what I care about. Suppan's thrown more innings every year of his career. Williams has thrown more innings all but once. Both have been well above 200 IP mulitple times.

    Both pitchers have also had better relative ERAs, either at or slightly above average in both cases, than Wilson every season.

    So, no, I wouldn't consider Wilson in front of either one of those two guys. In fact I've been thinking Williams might wind up in a Reds uniform as the Reds nominal "ace" this season. IMO, he'd be more likely to pitch decent than Lidle was, though Williams is nothing to get excited over.


    Quote Originally Posted by princeton
    devil's advocate: if Paul Wilson stays healthy for all of August, then maybe he posts a 3.45 ERA, and scratches out 200 innings.

    I'm sure that the Reds FO is harboring such thoughts.
    I'm sure you're right, but Wilson's entire career can be viewed as a collection of unrealized what-ifs that always land him in the exact same unappetizing spot. He can have his runs (most pitchers can), but he's only good for a QS half the time when you get to the end of a season and he breaks down when the inning load starts to mount.

    My working set of assumptions, and I've never wavered on these, is that Wilson is incapable of pitching 200 IP in a season and he's never going to qualify for an ERA title with a sub-4.00 ERA.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  10. #264
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,397

    Re: Reds sign Wilson

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsBaron
    While Wilson's ERA has dropped each of the last four years, so has the NL's ERA. BaseballReference.Com includes ERAs adjusted for playing conditions. In each of the last four seasons, Wilson's ERA was higher than the adjusted NL average: 4.88 to 4.48, 4.83 to 4.47, 4.64 to 4.29 and 4.36 to 4.01.

    BaseballReference.Com also has an adjusted ERA for pitchers, where the higher the score the better, as it measures a pitcher against the league norm. For example, in 2004 Randy Johnson had an ERA of 2.60-matched against a league norm of 100, Johnson's score was 171. Wilson has been remarkably consistent by that measure-each of the last four seasons he has had a score of 92 versus a league average of 100. I'm sure WOY or Steel could explain this better, but as I understand it, this means that in all four seasons Wilson was mediocre, just below the average.
    Nah. You did fine. You're speaking about ERA+, which is also park and league normalized.

    Basically, when a pitcher hits the same ERA+ three seasons in a row (i.e. Wilson's 92 ERA+), it means that the pitcher's individual effort hasn't really changed. It might appear so, but only because factors beyond his control make it appear so.

    Furthermore, Wilson's OPS Against and ERA drop in 2004 was generated primarily by a 10-point reduction in BABIP versus 2002 and 2003. We can either attribute that to luck or to the fact that the groundscrew turned the infield into a shrubbery nightmare.

    If we believe in the luck explanation, then we know Wilson's going to revert back to previous OPS-Against form (read- over .800). If we trust the shrubbery explanation (take a look at his home/road splits), then Wilson's 2004 numbers (including ERA) were an environmental mirage. That's a scary thing considering that his numbers were below average even with the help of Miracle-Gro.

    Either way, he's not worth what he's now being paid nor is he as good as he appeared to be in 2004, nor did anything improve due to his own performance versus previous seasons, nor does he project numbers as good as his 2004 end result.

    And yet we still have folks who think that Wilson's last three years show a true pattern of "improvment" and are projecting that improvement for 2005. Smells a lot like the discussions circa last offseason.
    "The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer

    "The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
    --Ted Williams

  11. #265
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    43,297

    Re: Reds sign Wilson

    Last season the A's inked Redman to a 3 year 11 million dollar contract, it was back loaded, 2.2 million last year and 4.25, 4.95 the next 2.

    The A's will be paying the Pirates 1 million each year.

    Mark Redman is going to get 9.2 million bucks in the next 2 seasons.

    He has 807 IP and an ERA that screams Paul Wilson.

  12. #266
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,397

    Re: Reds sign Wilson

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou
    Last season the A's inked Redman to a 3 year 11 million dollar contract, it was back loaded, 2.2 million last year and 4.25, 4.95 the next 2.

    The A's will be paying the Pirates 1 million each year.

    Mark Redman is going to get 9.2 million bucks in the next 2 seasons.

    He has 807 IP and an ERA that screams Paul Wilson.
    The club option is 4.95 M. If the Pirates choose not to use their option in 2006, Redman will get 4.5 M using his player option, according to reports.

    And is the 1M payment tied directly to Redman or was it involved in the deal as a whole to counter some of the contracts of both Redman and Rhodes?

    In any case, Redman's three-year OPS Against (even including a nasty 2004) is .736. Wilson's is .801. They don't appear to be the same pitcher.
    "The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer

    "The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
    --Ted Williams

  13. #267
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    43,297

    Re: Reds sign Wilson

    BP Weighs in

    http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...cleid=3653#CIN

    Re-signed RHP Paul Wilson to a two-year, $8.2 million contract, with a club option for 2007. [11/30]

    I can see this as a need-driven signing, but there are echoes of this deal that make me think this is like the team's unfortunate tendency to re-commit to Pete Harnisch not so very long ago. Yes, Wilson has been useful relative to the team's alternatives the last two years. Yes, he's not irreparably broken by his run-in with Dallas Green's Shred-O-Matic Decision Tree of Manly Machismo. But it's also worth noting he wasn't really that great last year, or the year before. He was useful, yes, and in a world that's paying Brian Anderson $6.5 million over a couple of seasons to be pretty awful, I think we can all accept the case that Wilson's worth this sort of price on the open market. My question is whether you can contend in the NL Central when you can afford one "name" pitcher, and the name you've got is Paul Wilson at this sort of price. It's up to Dan O'Brien to conjure up a bit more than this if the Reds want to keep up with the front three in the division.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25