Turn Off Ads?
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 28910111213 LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 189

Thread: Why All The Negativity?

  1. #166
    Pagan/Asatru Ravenlord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Williamsburg, OH and the wilds.
    Posts
    8,994

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    it's not that the Reds are signin' (i'm happy about that), it's who the Reds are signin'

    the bullpen is the only thing that has been improved to any truly meaningful level.
    the store for all your blade, costuming (in any regard), leather (also in any regard), and steel craft needs.www.facebook.com/tdhshop


    yes, this really is how we make our living.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #167
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,662

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    While we're going with the assumption that Clement > Milton, Milton = Booby Prize, they have amazingly similar career ERAs relative to league average. The primary difference is that Milton's career ERA has been on the rise since 2001, while Clement's has been lowering over the same period. However, there is that catch phrase out there "regressing to career norms." Both have good stuff, both got paid the same $, yet Clement is clearly superior? That I'm not following.

    Oregon Red, nice analysis.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  4. #168
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,333

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan the Reds Fan
    So I ask this Steel, 1, what about other years? The 3 full years he pitched before that, I believe he averaged 13 or 14 wins as well. and 2, if Milton has a 5 ERA, wins 14 games, and get over 6 runs of support this year, will you be disappointed? And come on losses that should have been? Were they a W in the win column? Isn't that what matters? I doubt the team that lost was happy because they "should have won".
    In 2001, Milton received 5.18 Runs per Game in support.

    And yes, if Milton has a 5.00 ERA, I'll be supremely disappointed regardless of Run Support. Run Support is not a constant. It cannot be projected. It's random. If Milton posts a 5.00 ERA that means that the Reds could have plugged pretty much an schmo into the rotation for far FAR less than 8.5 million dollars while getting the same results- including recorded Wins.

    Seriously, not a single sub-.500 record from a pitcher who got at least 6.00 Runs in support since 2002. Not one, no matter how badly they actually pitched. You think those Wins can be attributed to pitcher skill?

    Using your logic, Randy Johnson wasn't as valuable as Derek Lowe in 2004. Not because of how they actually pitched- but because of how many Runs were scored when they were pitching. And we all know that's just not true.

    Ben Sheets posted a 13-14 record. Are you telling us that Eric Milton is a preferable option to Sheets- who received 3.53 Runs per Game in support from his offense? What about Odalis Perez? Do you think that maybe his 7-6 record was a product of the Dodgers scoring an average of only 3.30 Runs per Game in his Starts despite his 3.25 ERA? Kelvim Escobar posted a record of 11-12. Why? Because he allowed 3.93 Earnies per game while his team averaged exactly 3.93 Runs Scored in games he pitched.

    All of these players appear to be worse options than Milton using your "Wins are everything" reasoning. But there's not a player on that list who wasn't a geometrically better pitcher last season than Eric Milton.

    The problem is that it appears you view Wins and Losses as being solely dependant on pitcher skill level. They're not. In fact, for Pitchers, Wins and Losses shouldn't even be considered performance evaluation metrics because they tell us so little about what actually happened. They're team-dependant event outcome assignments. A pitcher can't record a Win if something beyond their control doesn't perform (ie. the offense) but CAN record a win even if their performance hinders their team's chances of outscoring their opponent.

    Pitcher-recorded Wins simply don't care how good or bad the Pitcher actually was. And yes, if a Pitcher posts a 5.00 ERA they're hurting their team.

    All Wins are not created equal.
    Last edited by SteelSD; 12-29-2004 at 11:28 AM.
    "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

  5. #169
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,160

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Great post Steel.

    I've never understood why folks fail latch onto this concept. It's not like ERA's anything new. We all grew up with it. They print it on the backs of baseball cards and sort pitchers by it in the Sunday papers.

    Give Ben Sheets Eric Milton's run support last season and he wins the Cy Young going away. Give Milton Sheets' run support and he's pushing up toward 20 losses.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  6. #170
    He has the Evil Eye! flyer85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    south of the border
    Posts
    23,858

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Quote Originally Posted by M2
    Great post Steel.

    I've never understood why folks fail latch onto this concept. It's not like ERA's anything new. We all grew up with it. They print it on the backs of baseball cards and sort pitchers by it in the Sunday papers.

    Give Ben Sheets Eric Milton's run support last season and he wins the Cy Young going away. Give Milton Sheets' run support and he's pushing up toward 20 losses.
    How about give RJ that run support. He was clearly the best pitcher in the NL last year. It was just his W-L record didn't reflect it and most Cy Young voters could get past giving the award to a guy that barely had a winning record. His .90 WHIP was just ridiculous.

  7. #171
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,799

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Everyone keeps saying that Milton is an upgrade over Hancock, yet I'd almost rather have Hancock's 5.02 ERA over Milton's 4.75 ERA because Hancock is younger and I can dismiss his struggles as growing pains. Hancock is no stud, but I think even he could post a 4.75 ERA. He did post a 4.45 ERA after coming to Cincy last year.
    Opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one, and they don't want someone else's shoved into their face.

  8. #172
    Puffy 3:16 Puffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Panama City Beach
    Posts
    13,771

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeS21
    Everyone keeps saying that Milton is an upgrade over Hancock, yet I'd almost rather have Hancock's 5.02 ERA over Milton's 4.75 ERA because Hancock is younger and I can dismiss his struggles as growing pains. Hancock is no stud, but I think even he could post a 4.75 ERA. He did post a 4.45 ERA after coming to Cincy last year.
    Dude - never say that again!!!!!

    While I agree that Milton is not worth 8 million a year, Josh Hancock does not belong in any rotation thats league does not have the intitals of AAA on it. Hancock throws slop. He has no out pitch. If he is in a rotation that rotation is in serious trouble. He had a decent month. Lots of bad pitchers have had decent months. Don't let it fool you - he is not an answer to any relevant question.
    "I came here to kick ass and chew bubble gum... and I'm all out of bubble gum."
    - - Rowdy Roddy Piper

    "It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. I am not a big man"
    - - Fletch

  9. #173
    He has the Evil Eye! flyer85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    south of the border
    Posts
    23,858

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeS21
    Everyone keeps saying that Milton is an upgrade over Hancock
    Only time will tell. I would say the kind of deal DanO gave Milton is one where the GM is staking his job on a good outcome because evaluating the signing on his past performance, Milton is being seriously overpaid.

    Maybe Milton will take his performance to a new level over the next 2 years.

    Is DanO staking his job on that? BTW, I hope he is because if this flops he ought to lose his job over it.
    Last edited by flyer85; 12-29-2004 at 11:47 AM.

  10. #174
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,662

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeS21
    because Hancock is younger and I can dismiss his struggles as growing pains. Hancock is no stud
    Hancock is pushing 27, so he's hardly experiencing growing pains, he just isn't very good. Nothing but middle relief fodder at best in the long run.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  11. #175
    Member Ryan the Reds Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    808

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelSD
    In 2001, Milton received 5.18 Runs per Game in support.

    And yes, if Milton has a 5.00 ERA, I'll be supremely disappointed regardless of Run Support. Run Support is not a constant. It cannot be projected. It's random. If Milton posts a 5.00 ERA that means that the Reds could have plugged pretty much an schmo into the rotation for far FAR less than 8.5 million dollars while getting the same results- including recorded Wins.

    Seriously, not a single sub-.500 record from a pitcher who got at least 6.00 Runs in support since 2002. Not one, no matter how badly they actually pitched. You think those Wins can be attributed to pitcher skill?

    Using your logic, Randy Johnson wasn't as valuable as Derek Lowe in 2004. Not because of how they actually pitched- but because of how many Runs were scored when they were pitching. And we all know that's just not true.

    Ben Sheets posted a 13-14 record. Are you telling us that Eric Milton is a preferable option to Sheets- who received 3.53 Runs per Game in support from his offense? What about Odalis Perez? Do you think that maybe his 7-6 record was a product of the Dodgers scoring an average of only 3.30 Runs per Game in his Starts despite his 3.25 ERA? Kelvim Escobar posted a record of 11-12. Why? Because he allowed 3.93 Earnies per game while his team averaged exactly 3.93 Runs Scored in games he pitched.

    All of these players appear to be worse options than Milton using your "Wins are everything" reasoning.
    When was the last time you saw a team make the playoffs, not because their win/loss record put them there, but because they had the top ERA in the league, not to say ERA may not get them to having the wins to put them there, but last I looked, standing were based on wins and losses. Now, come on, I know other factors get you to wins, and yes ultimately I believe wins are everything, at least they are what get you to the playoffs. I understand Milton's ERA hasn't been the best, but if he comes in and wins, I don't care what it is.

    But there's not a player on that list who wasn't a geometrically better pitcher last season than Eric Milton.

    The problem is that it appears you view Wins and Losses as being solely dependant on pitcher skill level.
    Definitely not, there are many factors that go into wins. If I am looking at a pitchers skill level, sure I'll look at ERA, K/9, K/BB, SLG against, BAA, WHIP, and W's. But what I care about is if my team makes the playoffs, and wins are what get a team to the playoffs, so that is what I'm ultimately worried about. So if for some reason, whether it's run support or a low ERA/WHIP that gets Milton wins, I don't care, if he's not getting wins, I'm upset.

    They're not. In fact, for Pitchers, Wins and Losses shouldn't even be considered performance evaluation metrics because they tell us so little about what actually happened. They're team-dependant event outcome assignments. A pitcher can't record a Win if something beyond their control doesn't perform (ie. the offense) but CAN record a win even if their performance hinders their team's chances of outscoring their opponent.

    Pitcher-recorded Wins simply don't care how good or bad the Pitcher actually was. And yes, if a Pitcher posts a 5.00 ERA they're hurting their team.

    All Wins are not created equal.
    Edited to add: Please see my comments amongst yours above in red. When I looked at the post, they don't stick out as much as I thought they would.

    Let me ask you this, if Milton goes 5-10, with a 3.25 ERA, 1.25 WHIP what will your thoughts be then?

    And just to be clear Steel, I respect your opinion, just want understand it more, I appreciate you going through what you have here, I just want you to understand mine as well, I think what it comes down to here is I'm looking at ultimately I want the Reds in the playoffs, which I'm sure you do as well, and I don't care what the stats are as long as we get the wins. You are evaluating and getting on a more probability look at it than I. I'm no saber man, I admit it. But I just don't believe you can only look at stats. There are intangibles. Like why historically has Milton been given this run support? What was his run support as compared to other pitchers on the team? Could it be that players play better for some reason when he is pitching? Is he such a good team guy that consciously or subconsciously players play better for him? I know, far fetched, but I think there is more to it that just stats. I'll admit, if you look at his ERA it's not great, but his K/9 and K/BB numbers are pretty good. Let's hope Gully can get him to keep the ball down, go 23-3 with a 2.57 era, 1.15 whip and 7K's per 9. Then I think we'd all be very happy. :gac:

  12. #176
    He has the Evil Eye! flyer85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    south of the border
    Posts
    23,858

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan the Reds Fan
    Let me ask you this, if Milton goes 5-10, with a 3.25 ERA, 1.25 WHIP what will your thoughts be then?
    That he earned his money but his W-L record doesn't reflect it. The W-L record is subject to too many variables outside the control of the starting pitcher.

  13. #177
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,799

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Puffy
    Dude - never say that again!!!!!

    While I agree that Milton is not worth 8 million a year, Josh Hancock does not belong in any rotation thats league does not have the intitals of AAA on it. Hancock throws slop. He has no out pitch. If he is in a rotation that rotation is in serious trouble. He had a decent month. Lots of bad pitchers have had decent months. Don't let it fool you - he is not an answer to any relevant question.
    You missed my point. My point is that the level of upgrade from Hancock to Milton is not as wide as some would have us believe. I agree that Hancock has an extremely low ceiling. And he does have junk pitches, I'll grant you that. But I'm not conviced you can pawn him off as lifetime AAA material just yet. He may have had a good month, but he also pitched four pretty good games - two against the Cubs and two against the Cards.

    All I'm saying is that I think Hancock could pitch 150 innings and post an ERA around 4.80. While that's not great numbers, it also not that much worse than Milton's 200 innings and 4.75 ERA.
    Opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one, and they don't want someone else's shoved into their face.

  14. #178
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,333

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Let me ask you this, if Milton goes 5-10, with a 3.25 ERA, 1.25 WHIP what will your thoughts be then?
    That he's well worth the price and that something went horribly wrong with the offense.

    And then I'd identify that as a career year and deal him for much cheaper talent while his value is high.
    "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

  15. #179
    Puffy 3:16 Puffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Panama City Beach
    Posts
    13,771

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeS21
    You missed my point. My point is that the level of upgrade from Hancock to Milton is not as wide as some would have us believe. I agree that Hancock has an extremely low ceiling. And he does have junk pitches, I'll grant you that. But I'm not conviced you can pawn him off as lifetime AAA material just yet. He may have had a good month, but he also pitched four pretty good games - two against the Cubs and two against the Cards.

    All I'm saying is that I think Hancock could pitch 150 innings and post an ERA around 4.80. While that's not great numbers, it also not that much worse than Milton's 200 innings and 4.75 ERA.
    No, I got your point - and I don't think he is AAA material per se. I do think that he is AAA Starter material. Hancock might have a place on a major league roster, but its in the pen. If hitters get too many looks at him, watch out.

    So I understood what you were saying, I just disagree with your conclusion. If Hancock got 33 starts, then I think his ERA will be higher than the 4.80 you suggest. I think it would be solidly in the 5's. And I also doubt he would get to 200 innings - the whiplash alone would cause him to miss a start or three Seriously, he would never average the 6 innings to get to 200 innings.

    But I do hear what your saying - 8 million is a lot to spend on 4.75, 200 innings, and you could get those numbers from someone for less. Like Luke Hudson. I just disagree with you that Hancock would be the one to get those numbers.

    Sorry if I sounded rude or anything - I was mainly joking. I just want no part of Hancock in any rotation
    "I came here to kick ass and chew bubble gum... and I'm all out of bubble gum."
    - - Rowdy Roddy Piper

    "It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. I am not a big man"
    - - Fletch

  16. #180
    Pre-tty, pre-tty good!! MWM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    12,324

    Re: Why All The Negativity?

    Ryan, last year Milton was 14-6. That's a .700 winning percentage. According to your logic, a staff full of Eric Milton's would win 113 games.
    Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David


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