What's the word on Wilson?

[M2]

So if Wilson ranked 53rd out of starters in with a 4.38 ERA, but the adjusted league average ERA was 4.01, wouldn't it follow that the average ERA for starters was higher than the average ERA for all pitchers?

The league average provided here is park adjusted. Greg Maddux in 2004 would be compared to a 4.24 league average because he threw his home games in Wrigley. Jason Jennings, hurling for the Rockies, would compare to a 5.05 league average. The reason why it's done that way is to normalize the results so that what you're talking about is how well Pitcher A did instead of basing your conclusions on the circumstances in which the guy pitched. For instance, Wilson's 4.36 ERA looks a whole lot better than Jennings's 5.51 and Eric Milton's 4.75 from 2004. Yet when you normalize them for park factors, all three wind up with a 92 ERA+. A 100 is average and the better you pitch, the higher that ERA+ will climb.

Beyond that, finishing 51st out of 86 ERA qualifiers is nothing to write home about. Yet if you rank players using a park-adjusted ERA+ (slightly different from the calculation WOY used above), Wilson would drop into the high 60s in a dead heat with the guys who finished 61st, 71st and 81st in overall ERA.

[Balls]

Actually, he didn't just pitch well at GAB:

PNC Park 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 12.0 15 5 5 0 3 5 3.75 1.50 .300
Great American 16 16 6 3 0 1 0 105.2 92 39 39 13 32 70 3.32 1.17 .237
Citizens Bank Park 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 7.1 6 1 1 1 2 2 1.23 1.09 .222
Jacobs Field 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5.2 8 3 2 0 2 4 3.18 1.76 .364
Dodger Stadium 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 7.0 5 1 1 0 2 4 1.29 1.00 .200

And yes, you're right, he did have a very good May, but a lot of pitchers have similar variations in their seasons' performance month by month. The fact remains that if you take away a bad August when he was hurt and went on the DA, he had a substantially above average year.

[westofyou]

The fact remains that if you take away a bad August when he was hurt and went on the DA, he had a substantially above average year.

And if you take away Rich Aurilia's away numbers last year he would have had a .941 OPS.

[flyer85]

I vounteer myself as the president of the Paul Wilson for Cy Young campaign.

[M2]

Actually, he didn't just pitch well at GAB:

PNC Park 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 12.0 15 5 5 0 3 5 3.75 1.50 .300
Great American 16 16 6 3 0 1 0 105.2 92 39 39 13 32 70 3.32 1.17 .237
Citizens Bank Park 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 7.1 6 1 1 1 2 2 1.23 1.09 .222
Jacobs Field 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5.2 8 3 2 0 2 4 3.18 1.76 .364
Dodger Stadium 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 7.0 5 1 1 0 2 4 1.29 1.00 .200

And yes, you're right, he did have a very good May, but a lot of pitchers have similar variations in their seasons' performance month by month. The fact remains that if you take away a bad August when he was hurt and went on the DA, he had a substantially above average year.

And would you now care to list all of the parks where Wilson laid an egg in 2004?

You can "but' this until you're blue in the face. He finished with a 4.36 ERA. If you want to x out his uncharacteristically bad August, then I'm xing out his uncharacteristically good May. That would leave you with the mediocre pitcher from April, June, July and September where he showed little to no variance. He also finished with a .775 OPS against, which indicates that his overall ERA could have been a good bit higher than it was.

Pretending Wilson was better than he was gets us nowhere. The point isn't to seek out the sunnyside of his stats, it's to take a look at his entire body of work, to see what the sum total of his performance nets you. That sum total, not surprisingly, puts Wilson in the exact same spot where he finished in 2001, 2002 and 2003. In short, Paul Wilson managed to be Paul Wilson in 2004 and, once again, Paul Wilson was nothing worth crowing about.

[flyer85]

In short, Paul Wilson managed to be Paul Wilson in 2004 and, once again, Paul Wilson was nothing worth crowing about.

and now he is coming off his umteenth arm surgery and is in his mid 30's. His future looks rosy red to me.

[Jpup]

Plus, that Wilson did all right in the elephant grass the Reds grew at the GAB in 2004 and got pounded elsewhere, doesn't really argue in favor of him being a good pitcher. Mostly he was a guy who needed a fairly extreme gimmick in order to be effective.

M2, please don't say stuff like that. That's insane to assume the grass had some kind of effect on his performance.

It has just been stated that he pitched the same way for 4 straight years. I don't think the grass caused it.

[M2]

M2, please don't say stuff like that. That's insane to assume the grass had some kind of effect on his performance.

It has just been stated that he pitched the same way for 4 straight years. I don't think the grass caused it.

He managed to induce a high GB rate at home in 2004 and with the ridiculously high grass that gave his numbers a bump. He was worse on the road than usual in 2004 and that offset his home performance. So, while he wound up in the same place in 2004 as in previous seasons, if you dig into it, Wilson was much more reliant on a fluke to achieve it.

His home performance in 2004 was actually another reason to be concerned about him heading into 2005. The Reds knew they performed some extreme groundskeeping and that Wilson relied on it. A smarter organization would have done the math on what to expect from Wilson without that sort artificial help.

[flyer85]

That's insane to assume the grass had some kind of effect on his performance.

Maybe he was smoking it? :

[SMcGavin]

The league average provided here is park adjusted. Greg Maddux in 2004 would be compared to a 4.24 league average because he threw his home games in Wrigley. Jason Jennings, hurling for the Rockies, would compare to a 5.05 league average. The reason why it's done that way is to normalize the results so that what you're talking about is how well Pitcher A did instead of basing your conclusions on the circumstances in which the guy pitched. For instance, Wilson's 4.36 ERA looks a whole lot better than Jennings's 5.51 and Eric Milton's 4.75 from 2004. Yet when you normalize them for park factors, all three wind up with a 92 ERA+. A 100 is average and the better you pitch, the higher that ERA+ will climb.

So for 2004, GAB rated very strongly as a pitcher's park? I've heard the argument that it isn't as much of a hitter's park as many say, and is really more in the middle, but I haven't heard this before. Has this been true for the other seasons of GAB's existence?

Also, bear with me if I'm little slow on alot of the stats stuff - I've been reading here for a couple of seasons, and picked up what I could. It doesn't really come intuitively to me as I'm more of a basketball guy. I have at least become the "OPS guy" in my circle of friends, but it may be a while before I understand the whole Runs Created and Win Shares argument.

[M2]

So for 2004, GAB rated very strongly as a pitcher's park?

Because of The World's Smallest RainforestTM it rated as one of the more severe pitching parks in the majors in 2004.

Overall pitching adjustment ratings for the first three years of the GAB (according to www.baseball-reference.com) were (over 100 favors hitters):

2003 - 100
2004 - 93
2005 - 105

In general, the GAB is friendly for homers and tough on singles. When they cut the grass last season it became more singles friendly and that eliminated the safety cushion for the pitching.

Though the upside of that is the strength of the team is hitting, meaning that the Reds' best players get the chance to enhance their value by playing in a neutral or better park.

Also, bear with me if I'm little slow on alot of the stats stuff - I've been reading here for a couple of seasons, and picked up what I could. It doesn't really come intuitively to me as I'm more of a basketball guy. I have at least become the "OPS guy" in my circle of friends, but it may be a while before I understand the whole Runs Created and Win Shares argument.

No problem. This stuff isn't native to what we're taught in Little League, on the backs of baseball cards or in the sports pages. Though it can become oddly intuitive once you get the knack for it.

For instance, it makes a certain amount of sense to normalize for park conditions when comparing Pitcher A and Pitcher B. Not all ERAs are created equal. Understanding the luck effects of BABIP (batting average on balls in play) can help you avoid a guy like Ramon Ortiz or Corey Lidle or Dave Williams once it becomes clear that said pitcher needs good luck in order to be an effective pitcher.

Most of what statheads try to do is built around methodolgy - compare apples to apples, identify true cause and effect, develop reliable methods for projecting performance. I can't imagine anyone disagrees with that in theory, but man do some folks get upset about it when they see it in practice.

[Team Clark]

Are the D-Rays getting a new catcher?

Naaah. Been friends with Jason for a LONG time now. I tried calling him on my way to the ballpark today. Hopefully, he'll call back soon. He's probably having a good time in Fla.


I'd welcome him in Tampa. He'd probably hit better here.

I like Kevin Cash. Once he gets settled in at the plate I think he can contibute at the big league level. Pretty smart kid.

[Team Clark]

He managed to induce a high GB rate at home in 2004 and with the ridiculously high grass that gave his numbers a bump. He was worse on the road than usual in 2004 and that offset his home performance. So, while he wound up in the same place in 2004 as in previous seasons, if you dig into it, Wilson was much more reliant on a fluke to achieve it.

His home performance in 2004 was actually another reason to be concerned about him heading into 2005. The Reds knew they performed some extreme groundskeeping and that Wilson relied on it. A smarter organization would have done the math on what to expect from Wilson without that sort artificial help.

That reminds me of the old Ryne Sandberg "Wrigley Effect" when he was winning all of those gold gloves. No matter that he was playing against teams that had "HORRIBLE" or less than desirable turf... Pittsburgh, Cincy, Philly, St. Louis, Montreal, and Houston on the road. San Diego's Infield was pretty darn bad and they had GRASS.

Wilson, like Jimmy Haynes, had a career year and to be honest it should be thrown out with his worst year when making comparisons. In retrospect, I can't recall how many times the bullpen blew his 10th win that year. He pitched his butt of for 7 and even sometimes 8 innings before the Bully gave it up. If memory serves he could have easily been a 15-16 game winner. Paul put everything he had into that season and that was ALLhe had left. Folks, I CAUGHT the guy. TWO separate years. He had better stuff in 1998-2000 then he does now.

[IslandRed]

Folks, I CAUGHT the guy. TWO separate years. He had better stuff in 1998-2000 then he does now.

And that was after the first round of arm injuries. I watched him at Florida State quite a bit, so I probably remember better than most just how good his stuff was before the injuries. It's depressing for me to watch even when he's having a good game, because the juxtaposition between now and then is just so jarring.

[Aronchis]

What started Paul's decline? TJ or Shoulder?. I can't remember which was first.