Mike Stanton a Red

[Heath]

For what it's worth, BP's stats show Speier was less valuable than either Coffey or Weathers in 2006, primarily because he had a bad year with respect to allowing inherited runners to score. Didn't show up on his ERA but it did on the scoreboard. Now, that's the sort of thing that can fluctuate a lot from year-to-year, so I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it. Speier's still a guy I'd like to have signed. But four years for a middle reliever? That's a certified "whaaat?"

So, for comparison's sake, the Neal Cotts on a one-year deal the Cubs got could be the "steal" of the year.

And, if I am not mistaken (and goodness knows I don't have the time to crunch the numbers) most RP flame out over 3-4 years and are really a crap shoot anyway? (Unless you are a closer.)

[Heath]

I think in this market teams may give something to get a LH for the pen for 1 year at $2.25 Million.

Scott Boras is claiming that some team is getting 4 years for Scott Schoenweis.



hide the women and children

[traderumor]

His WHIP was under 1 two years ago and I believe his K rate is around one per inning. But I think there is a big enough sample size over 2 years to say his ERA has been pretty good.

So you entirely missed the point. A reliever's ERA isn't about sample size, it is about timing. It doesn't necessarily follow that a reliever with a good ERA will have the WHIP and K rate to match. I'll put it this way--if a decision maker is targeting relievers primarily based on ERA, they will make some bad decisions and be wondering why certain guys are not performing as well for them as they did elsewhere.

[edabbs44]

So you entirely missed the point. A reliever's ERA isn't about sample size, it is about timing. It doesn't necessarily follow that a reliever with a good ERA will have the WHIP and K rate to match. I'll put it this way--if a decision maker is targeting relievers primarily based on ERA, they will make some bad decisions and be wondering why certain guys are not performing as well for them as they did elsewhere.

OK. I can't figure out how, over 2 years, when you have an ERA well under 3, that it isn't good. I don't have his inherited runs let up in front of me, but that can me misleading. Bases loaded and no outs, it would be tough not to let up runs. Same with many other situations. I definitely agree that inherited runners is important, but how can't ERA be a factor? Over 2 years? So would you rather have had someone with a better DIPS ERA than ERA over the past two years? Saying, "Well, he didn't perform as we thought he would have. But his DIPS ERA was good. Even though it doesn't track what actually happened over his tenure with us."

What was Speier's DIPS for 2005? How did it do in a prediction of his 2006 season? I have no idea where to find these stats or else I would do it myself.

[GAC]

Maybe this should be my new avatar?

[M2]

Scott Boras is claiming that some team is getting 4 years for Scott Schoenweis.



hide the women and children

And thanks for the supplemental draft pick.

One thing about Stanton is you never know what you'll get from him. Some years he's much better against RHBs (2001, 2004), some years he's much better against LHBs (2003, 2005), some years he's steady Eddie (2002, 2006). On the bright side, he was majorly BABIP unlucky last season (.332).

[Heath]

Maybe this should be my new avatar?

What's the sentence above it? Future Reds Closer?

[IslandRed]

OK. I can't figure out how, over 2 years, when you have an ERA well under 3, that it isn't good. I don't have his inherited runs let up in front of me, but that can me misleading. Bases loaded and no outs, it would be tough not to let up runs. Same with many other situations. I definitely agree that inherited runners is important, but how can't ERA be a factor? Over 2 years? So would you rather have had someone with a better DIPS ERA than ERA over the past two years? Saying, "Well, he didn't perform as we thought he would have. But his DIPS ERA was good. Even though it doesn't track what actually happened over his tenure with us."

What was Speier's DIPS for 2005? How did it do in a prediction of his 2006 season? I have no idea where to find these stats or else I would do it myself.

ERA isn't a great predictor of future success for relievers just because so much of a reliever's value is "off the chart" of ERA -- what he does with inherited runners, and what happens to runners he puts on base and some other guy inherits. Add in luck and leverage, and there's a lot of noise in the stats. DIPS strips out some of the noise and gets down to the basics, and as such tends to be a little better future predictor.

What I really like are the stats BP comes up with for relievers, that try to quantify those variables -- adjusting for the success in preventing inherited runners to score versus what the average guy would have allowed given the same situations, accounting for leverage (i.e. to what degree the game is on the line when he's on the hill), basically everything they can think of. The all-in-one number they come up with is WXRL, which is basically "expected wins added." Take the leverage of the situation when a reliever came in, and the state of the game when he came in, and the state of the game as he left it, and sum it across all his performances... based on what he could control, how many "expected wins" (or losses) should he get credit for?

[traderumor]

ERA?????

His DIPS ERA was 3.50 last year, above 4 the year before.

Stanton's has been just as good. And give up quite a bit less HR's.

Speier would be a fine aquistion, but certainly his performance doesn't justify a 4 year deal.

There is Speier's DIPS ERA.

[edabbs44]

There is Speier's DIPS ERA.

So looking at his 2005 season, he had a DIPS ERA of over 4. The following year, he had a sub-3.00 real ERA and a DIPS ERA of 3.50.

So what we are saying is that his ERA this year should go up since his DIPS last year was 3.50? Didn't happen last year.

And I think the change from the hitting heavy AL East to the NL Central would have negated any DIPS changes anyway.

[traderumor]

So looking at his 2005 season, he had a DIPS ERA of over 4. The following year, he had a sub-3.00 real ERA and a DIPS ERA of 3.50.

So what we are saying is that his ERA this year should go up since his DIPS last year was 3.50? Didn't happen last year.

And I think the change from the hitting heavy AL East to the NL Central would have negated any DIPS changes anyway.

No, its really saying proceed with caution and don't be fooled by an traditional ERA in the 2s, that what you are really getting is a reliever, who, if all other things were equal, would post an ERA in the 3.50 to 4.00 range. So, don't overpay and don't sign him to do something like be your closer.

[Redsland]

OK. I can't figure out how, over 2 years, when you have an ERA well under 3, that it isn't good.

Because, if you're a reliever, it doesn't tell anyone how effective you've been at stranding inherited runners, which is one of the more important jobs a reliever has.

I don't have his inherited runs let up in front of me, but that can me misleading. Bases loaded and no outs, it would be tough not to let up runs.

Sure, but those runs would be charged to the pitcher who put the runners on base, not to the reliever who let them in. Therefore, you can let in as many inherited runners as you want and still have a glittering ERA. Your team could have lost a lot of games along the way, though.

I definitely agree that inherited runners is important, but how can't ERA be a factor?

That's a big reason right there. Your job is to come into a game with runners on and to strand them there. But ERA doesn't tell us if you did that.

So would you rather have had someone with a better DIPS ERA than ERA over the past two years?

Absolutely. DIPS stands for (forgive me if you already know this) "defense-independant ERA." That means it lets you compare individual pitchers' numbers without wondering what kind of defenders this guy or that guy had behind him. DIPS is going to give you a truer understanding of what this particular pitcher did.

Saying, "Well, he didn't perform as we thought he would have. But his DIPS ERA was good. Even though it doesn't track what actually happened over his tenure with us."

I don't follow. His DIPS ERA is what it is. If it tells you his 15 wins were a mirage or that his 4.80 ERA would have been in the low 4's with better gloves behind him, then at least you know whether the pitcher is as good (or bad) as he looks.

What was Speier's DIPS for 2005? How did it do in a prediction of his 2006 season?

You tell me.

What I really like are the stats BP comes up with for relievers, that try to quantify those variables -- adjusting for the success in preventing inherited runners to score versus what the average guy would have allowed given the same situations, accounting for leverage (i.e. to what degree the game is on the line when he's on the hill), basically everything they can think of.

That's the kind of info I want to know about my relievers. Not how many runs he allows per nine innings, when it would take him six or seven games over a couple of weeks in several parks against several teams just to throw that many.

[IslandRed]

So looking at his 2005 season, he had a DIPS ERA of over 4. The following year, he had a sub-3.00 real ERA and a DIPS ERA of 3.50.

So what we are saying is that his ERA this year should go up since his DIPS last year was 3.50? Didn't happen last year.

It's not so cut and dried as to say that a 4.00 this year means a 4.00 next year; it's just trying to get a better picture of the true performance. The DIPS ERA of 3.50 last year suggests he pitched better than he did the year before. Granted. The fact that his real ERA was under 3.00, but he had a significant negative inherited-runners factor, suggests that he probably pitched at around a 3.50 level but some of his rightful ERA was billed to other accounts.

So I'm suggesting that a more reasonable projection of next year's ERA is 3.50, not sub-3.00. Not that there's anything wrong with 3.50, especially on the Reds, I'm just not sure it's worth a four-year contract.

[traderumor]

It's not so cut and dried as to say that a 4.00 this year means a 4.00 next year; it's just trying to get a better picture of the true performance. The DIPS ERA of 3.50 last year suggests he pitched better than he did the year before. Granted. The fact that his real ERA was under 3.00, but he had a significant negative inherited-runners factor, suggests that he probably pitched at around a 3.50 level but some of his rightful ERA was billed to other accounts.

So I'm suggesting that a more reasonable projection of next year's ERA is 3.50, not sub-3.00. Not that there's anything wrong with 3.50, especially on the Reds, I'm just not sure it's worth a four-year contract.

With the volatility of relievers, doing more than two years with a reliever not named Mariano Rivera doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Do you think the Astros are glad they don't have a LTC on Brad Lidge?

[Mutaman]

Chris "Mad Dog" Russo on WFAN really knows baseball and is a hugh Giants fan. (Thats all he knows). Russo said Stanton was solid last year and still has something left. But he was flabergasted at the amount of money the Reds spent for him. He said it was rediculous. He also feels that Sorriano was overpaid but that the Cubs needed to make a statement. He likes the Mets picking up Alou. He thinks its clear that every team is rolling in money and have a lot to spend.