Arizona still got some good eatin' out of Schilling.Originally Posted by westofyou
Arizona still got some good eatin' out of Schilling.
When all is said and done more is said than done.
The Reds considered that recipe, but decided to go with a more popular and less-fulfilling cake.
When all is said and done more is said than done.
An impact player contributes to the team's run differential in a positive way.
No one ever said having a impact players means your team will automatically win. However, lacking impact players is a sure way to end up sub-.500. You need impact players on offense, defense, and on the mound.
Getting similar talent in return is important because if you do, your team's run differential is not affected. If you throw away talented players and get minimum-impact players in return, you team does not improve. It's a simple concept.
"I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful
The reds have had plenty of tallented players over the past few years. Yet they've stunk as a team. Continuing to do the same thing would mean we'd continue to stink.
Dealing from strength to fix weaknesses on the team leads to more wins.
Comparing the relative worth of players, especially vastly different ones such as outfielders and pitchers is diffucult. We all know defensive metrics are next to useless so how in the world can you compare the defensive value of two players? I'd say instead of fretting over comparing worth of players, and winning trades, one should instead focus on building the strongest baseball team possible by fixing the current weaknesses and working towards building the farm system where possible.
Pretty simple concept.
Last edited by Ltlabner; 08-23-2006 at 04:15 PM.
They haven't been able to find much talented pitching in the past. (IMO, they still haven't -- Majewski isn't the answer.) That doesn't mean you should panic and overspend.
Only if you don't give up more than you get in return. And now we're back to the concept of "winning" trades again.Dealing from strength to fix weaknesses on the team leads to more wins.
Not really.Comparing the relative worth of players, especially vastly different ones such as outfielders and pitchers is diffucult.
There are plenty of metrics that compare pitchers to hitters. And there are new defensive metrics that are worlds better than fielding percentage.
And of course GMs have a sense of which players have a bigger impact on a team. At least the good ones do.
Any GM worth his salt should fret about getting equal talent in return for his players. Otherwise you get a spendthrift who quickly depletes the organization of all its commodities.We all know defensive metrics are next to useless so how in the world can you compare the defensive value of two players? I'd say instead of fretting over comparing worth of players, and winning trades, one should instead focus on building the strongest baseball team possible by fixing the current weaknesses and working towards building the farm system where possible.
Pretty simple concept.
"Fixing the current weakness" can be done without overspending in terms of dollars or talent.
"I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful
Yet desipite all of these allegidily concrete measuring tools, people rarely agree on the value of players. Some here hate Dunn while others love him. "Value" to a team is not a concrete, measurable item so trying to argue about "winning trades" makes little sense. You're trying to compare two mushy, ill-defined numbers that at the end of the day don't mean much anyway.
Add to this that we know little besides the statistical information available for a player. That is, we don't know anything about the players attitude, work ethic, the ease of dealing with his agent, how well he meshes with the teams clubhouse culture, etc. Maybe a player is having major personal issues that are starting to impact their play but the general public doesn't know about it. These issues also effect a players "value". Yet we know nothing about this aspect nor have any way to measure it.
Add to this the risk of a player who has "potential" never really panning out or the risk of injury and you end up so with many variables that trying to measure "value" much less be sure you get more in return than you gave up, doesn't make much, if any, sense.
It all gets back to the same concept: you trade to build a strong team. A strong team that wins is what has value, not the individual player.
The only thing mushy and ill-defined is the idea of building a strong team without paying attention to the individual value of the players that make up that team.
If you give away valuable players and don't get valuable players in return, you simply can't build a strong team.
"I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful
You're putting the cart before the horse. A strong team that wins is a team that scores a lot of Runs and allows a lot fewer. For one of those teams to be the culmination of a properly implemented plan, a team must know how individual players impact the Run Differential.
Get players who project to produce solid Run value offensively, defensively, and on the mound and you're giving yourself the best shot at winning.
What Johnny is saying is that you can't build the kind of team you're talking about should you consistently trade more value for less value while still not getting the Run Diff impact value you need. Diminishing returns is not the result of intelligent design- particularly when you have few resources to swap. When you're in that situation while already behind the Run Diff game, you desperately need to win trades consistently. Breaking even or taking a Run value loss is NOT going to work, especially if that value loss forces you into spending additional resources to shore up an area that should have been fixed in the first place.
Such is the dynamic of swapping this for that. The variables only change based on resource availability, redundancy, and Run Differential.
"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
I don't believe it's a major driver; I just think it's one of multiple drivers. I actually do agree that the largest driver is luck, but I'm just not sure how large that driver really is.
I do believe there's some other factors at work here too ...
Check out Arroyo's lineup situational splits in Boston compared to here in Cincy; they're very peculiar. Arroyo has a career history prior to 2006 of getting rocked by good, middle of the lineup type hitters moreso than the average pitcher, but then shutting down all other hitters in the lineup very well.
OPS by batting order, 2003-05
655, 718, 961, 1046, 676, 664, 668, 572, 546
OPS by batting order, 2006
603, 820, 833, 811, 812, 724, 888, 617, 303
He got crushed by #3 and #4 hitters before this season while he dominated hitters in other parts of the order. It's hard to find pitchers who are that extreme.
This season he's strangely having the most trouble with #7 batters, but then uses the 8th/9th slots with the pitcher involved to likely get out of jams created by the #7 hitter. The most troubling part is he has been consistently above an .800 OPSA from #2 to #5 hitters, but fortunately none of those numbers are too terribly high.
Interestingly, the average OPSA from lineup slots 1-7 is roughly the same for both sets of years. In earlier seasons he had a major spike in OPSA for #3 and #4 hitters, whereas in 2006 most of the OPSA numbers are near the mean. One key question could be is there a difference in run patterns for both sets of OPSA figures? I'm honestly not sure.
You're right that he's been an odd duck this season, and this is all very strange, which is the main reason I've been looking at lineup dynamics to see if there's any explanation within.
A separate factor could be just pure league strength differences between the AL and NL. IMO, the AL's just been the stronger league the past few seasons, and it's possible that could just be the main reason for everything. The combo of better luck and plain ole worse opposing hitters could go a long way.
The Lost Decade Average Season: 74-88
2014-22 Average Season: 71-91
The Red Sox did Bronson a favor by trading him to the Reds, although obviously unintentionallly. In '05: v. left-113 IP, v. right-92.1 IP. In '06: v. left-85.2 IP, v. right-97.2 IP. Is that going to continue? Are NL teams equipped to throw LHHs at him at anywhere near the rate AL teams did? It's an extreme case, but the NYY could throw a lineup at him several times a year of 6 LHHs plus Jeter, Sheffield, and A-Rod. That must have been fun. When NL teams stack their lineups with LHHs against him, they seem to top out at around 4, so he still usually gets 4 RHHs and a pitcher. Then there's the career 4.91 ERA at Fenway Park. I suspect it's the LF wall, although I don't know it for sure, and even if it is, he may have been able to figure out how to pitch better there, it had improved from '04 to '05. Still, it's another thing he doesn't have to deal with anymore.
Another component is the GM's ability to determine worth in ANY transaction. Krivsky wasn't rolling the dice on Joe Mays. he KNEW what Mays was
And he signed him anyway. Yan too.
He kept Q on the bench while Deno tore up the IL. He kept EE in L'ville probably a little longer than was needed, though i don't mind erring on the side of caution there.
He traded for an injured Guardado, and Franklin. Knowingly.
Talk up the good aquisitions, but remember: He had to be talked into getting BP. no points there. I give him all the kudos in the world for Ross, Hatte and even Arroyo, IF Arroyo has become something he's never been.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
Here's a thought about our beloved GM Wayne Krivsky and manager Jerry Narron. So many people love to complain about how lousy they are but here's food for thought. Let me point out ,as so many have, that the Reds are 1 game out of leading their division. If the season ended today they would be in the playoffs. Now for a little history lesson. In the last 30 seasons how many times have the Reds made the playoffs? Four times. The Reds are on pace to do something that on average only happens every 8 or 9 years. Let's take this even further. Since 1890 how many times do you think the Reds have made the playoffs? In 115 seasons they have made the playoffs only 12 times. What's that, about once a decade? But still people complain. Why do the Reds have Clayton? Why wasn't WMP given a fair chance? Why was EE in the minors for so long? Enjoy the season the Reds are having. Don't you realize how rare it is? Screw Dunn's AVG and Milton's ERA and enjoy the fact that the Reds could accomplish something that very rarely happens in Cincy. Catch the playoff fever.
Levi Strauss had to be talked into putting rivets in the pants he sewed.He had to be talked into getting BP. no points there.
Moses had to be talked into freeing the Jews from Egypt.
No points there.
Amen
Posting Permissions
|
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. |
