From 2002-2004....Originally Posted by SteelSD
Van Poppel, Riedling and Norton:
334 runs (208 earned)
5.512 runs/9 IP
*For Norton, this is only 2003-2004 because he didn't pitch in the Majors in 2002.
Weathers, Weber and Mercker:
508.3 innings 56.48
246 runs (216 earned)
4.356 runs/9 IP
*For Mercker, this includes 2002 with Colorado.
Actually, Wilson has registered the same ERA vs. League Average rating for four straight years, so I'd say it's a safe bet he'll repeat 2004 (whether that's good or bad is another debate)Paul Wilson will not repeat his 2004 numbers so now we're at a net loss.
In 2003 and 2004, Mercker had ERAs of 1.95 and 2.55 in 55 1/3 and 53 innings, respectively. Not 60 innings, but that's splitting hairs.Please note anyone that Dan O'Brien has inked to a pen slot who pitched over 60 Innings in 2004 with an ERA under 4.00.
Prior to 2004, Weathers pitched at least 75 innings with an ERA no higher than 3.08 for four straight years. Last season that ERA hit 4.15 in 82.3 innings.
Sorry, just barely missed your random criteria, but I still see a high probability you'll see both guys with ERAs closer to 3.00 than 4.00 in 2005.
Spending $2.1 million on a starting third baseman just doesn't seem extravagant to me. Will Randa be an All-Star? No, but he will earn that money this season.It IS a big deal when you spend over two million dollars on a player who projects to be a Run Value bust at the position versus a player you had in hand. That's a BIG DEAL.
And let's go ahead and make the Freel comparison.
*Each had 67 runs created in 2004, Randa's coming in 539 PAs and Freel's coming in 592.
*Randa has the advantage in BA (.287 vs. .277), slugging percentage (.408 vs. .368), OPS (.751 vs. .743), RBIs (56 vs. 28), total bases (198 vs. 186), home runs (8 vs. 3), doubles (31 vs. 21) and fewer strikeouts (77 vs. 88).
*Freel has the advantage in OBP (.375 vs. .343), steals (37 vs. 0), runs scored (74 vs. 65), hits (140 vs. 139), walks (67) and triples (8 vs. 2).
*On the defensive side, Randa had a .967 fielding percentage (11 errors in 119 games) against a league average of .951. Freel had a .925 fielding percentage (12 erros in 56 games) against a .956 league average. Randa's range factor/game was 2.74, while Freel's was 2.66.
Looking at that info, I'd give the offensive nod to Randa (not by much), although I can understand the argument that what Freel provides offensively might be more valuable to our lineup in relation to what we already have. On the defensive side, I don't think there's any question Randa is much better than Freel at third, particularly if we're looking at an everyday guy.
Additionally, if you start Freel at third, your first infielder off the bench is going to either be Machado or a free agent, with Reese a possibility. I'd definitely take a Randa/Freel combo over a Freel/Machado combo and I would take it over Freel/Reese as well.
I'm with you as far as Clement having an impact, and I do believe he could have helped us out. But signing Clement would probably mean him being our biggest signing not just this year, but next year as well because of the commitment that would need to be made. Every fifth day, Clement's chances of winning would be much, much greater than any pitcher the Reds have right now. But I look at these other additions, and to me, it gives the Reds a much better shot at winning the other four games. That's just more valuable to me.Because having a Matt Clement (I am not a proponent of Odalis Perez) means that you have a great chance of beating any team every fifth day out. Because having a sub-.700 OPS in a Starter slot actually means something- because there were only 25 Starting Pitchers in MLB who posted sub-.700 OPS Against numbers in 2004 and those pitchers are geometrically more valuable than the below-league-average puds the Reds now own lock, stock, and barrel.
Aside from Freel, how else could third have been filled for less? Tony Batista? Vinny Castilla? Mark Derosa? I don't see anyone out there that fits coming cheaper and providing more of an improvement.Very simply, there was no hole at 3B that couldn't have been filled for less.