Reds Sign Ryan Madson

[traderumor]

Basically, that closer wasn't a problem last year. Madson can't be that much better this year than Cordero was last year. Sure, the Reds are better today than they were yesterday (when they didn't have Madson or Cordero), but the difference between 2011 Cordero and 2012 Madson probably is going to be minimal. The difference between 2012 Cordero and 2012 Madson may be much greater, but that isn't what he's arguing.

So the argument, ultimately, is that this is a great acquisition that more or less preserves the Reds' position at the end of games. It doesn't provide an upgrade. Doesn't make it a bad acquisition -- it's fantastic, actually -- just doesn't do much to improve the team over last year. But maintaining areas of strength is just as important as improving areas of weakness. Walt has improved areas of weakness with the Latos and Marshall deals. Adding Madson makes sure those deals remain net positives (instead of offsetting a potential downgrade at the closer spot).

By the way, Cordero had a heck of a year last year -- a great bounce-back from 2010. I feel like that's getting minimized or dismissed as lucky, which is unfair to Cordero. It's clear as he ages that his stuff isn't what it once was, but he got the job done -- and it's not as if he was loading the bases with baserunners and wriggling off the hook. He was pretty clean last year. He didn't strike out many, but he didn't allow a lot of runners.

Regardless, I'm happy with the Madson signing and all the moves Walt has made this season. This is the Walt Jocketty I was expecting all along. Leads me to believe he was being held back a bit by ownership. Last year was a wakeup call.

I don't agree with taking last year's results, evaluate the net additions/subtractions, then determine any incremental improvement. This "all things being equal" approach would be espcecially dangerous with relievers. The only relevant evaluation is projected 2012 Coco vs. projected 2012 Madson.

For example, last year, the Reds made the right call on projecting Arthur Rhodes and went a different direction. This year, I think history will show the same with Cordero. Madson is in the prime of his career and could reasonably be expected to match or beat his last two seasons' performance. Considering the impact on 2012, signing Coco to close could very likely yield below average results, while Madson should bring above average results. That will make a significant difference on the Reds' ability to win baseball games.

[Superdude]

I don't agree with taking last year's results, evaluate the net additions/subtractions, then determine any incremental improvement. This "all things being equal" approach would be espcecially dangerous with relievers. The only relevant evaluation is projected 2012 Coco vs. projected 2012 Madson.

For example, last year, the Reds made the right call on projecting Arthur Rhodes and went a different direction. This year, I think history will show the same with Cordero. Madson is in the prime of his career and could reasonable be expected to match or beat his last two seasons' performance. Considering the impact on 2012, signing Coco to close could very likely yield below average results, while Madson should bring above average results. That will make a significant difference on the Reds' ability to win baseball games.

No one's saying we could've signed Cordero again and been just as well off. The point is that despite Cordero's likelihood of regressing precipitously, he was a solid closer last year. This signing is essentially a lateral move compared to what we had last year regardless of how great Madson's peripherals are.

[757690]

I think I see what you're getting at. However, Cordero posted a 0.1 WAR last year. I think there is plenty of room for improvement there, and Madson is going to give us that.

Pitching WAR is based on FIP and innings pitched, not actual production.

When it comes to closers, it's really easy to understand their production: saves vs. blown saves. That's all that counts.

[_Sir_Charles_]

I must admit, I'm flat out SHOCKED by this. Firstly, I didn't think there was a chance he'd go for a one-year deal. And secondly, I didn't think he'd be affordable enough for our budget. I probably liked Cordero more than most on here, so I'm kinda sad to see him go. Best of luck to you Coco.

Now let's see if Mad-Dog was a one year wonder. *crosses fingers*

[mdccclxix]

The Reds add:

-projectability/reliablility for 2012
-the possibility of only 2-3 blown saves as opposed to 6-8, Cordero's norm, net 3 to 5 wins
-1 mil to 2.5 mil of payroll space compared to 2011
-a sandwich pick in 2012 draft
-a possible comp pick when Madson leaves

The Reds lose:
-a proven closer good for 35-40 saves, with average blown saves around 6-8 per year
-a peripheral numbers bomb waiting to go off
-a chance to save even more money if Cordero signed for, say, 5 million.
-a great citizen and team mate.


I'd say it's a good amount better than lateral, but not a drastic upgrade like Latos vs Volquez.

[traderumor]

Pitching WAR is based on FIP and innings pitched, not actual production.

When it comes to closers, it's really easy to understand their production: saves vs. blown saves. That's all that counts.

Closers don't always come in when its a save situation. I think that is what WAR captures better than just looking at saves/save chances. For example, Dusty liked to use Cordero in tie games in the 9th or in extras. Saves vs. blown saves tells you nothing about how he performed in those appearances. So, "saves/blown saves" is not the sum total of "actual production."

[traderumor]

No one's saying we could've signed Cordero again and been just as well off. The point is that despite Cordero's likelihood of regressing precipitously, he was a solid closer last year. This signing is essentially a lateral move compared to what we had last year regardless of how great Madson's peripherals are.

I think over 2 WAR for a closer is incrementally demonstrating that Madson was a dramatically stronger performer in every area than Cordero last year even, who was basically a replacement level reliever. There seems to be a lot of overvaluing saves/blown saves in this line of thinking.

[Superdude]

Closers don't always come in when its a save situation. I think that is what WAR captures better than just looking at saves/save chances. For example, Dusty liked to use Cordero in tie games in the 9th or in extras. Saves vs. blown saves tells you nothing about how he performed in those appearances. So, "saves/blown saves" is not the sum total of "actual production."

I don't know for sure, but someone earlier said WAR takes into account FIP, which isn't a measure of production at all. Even if innings outside of save opportunities were to be taken into account, only inning and ERA should matter.

[traderumor]

I don't know for sure, but someone earlier said WAR takes into account FIP, which isn't a measure of production at all. Even if innings outside of save opportunities were to be taken into account, only inning and ERA should matter.

You are begging the question that saves is a measure of production that is statistically relevant. I would imagine you also consider a pitcher win production?

[Superdude]

You are begging the question that saves is a measure of production that is statistically relevant. I would imagine you also consider a pitcher win production?

I'm not arguing for or against the save as a valuable statistic. I'm saying using FIP as a retrospective measure of production, as WAR does, is useless. It's a totally theoretical number. If a Jimmy Pitchalot throws 200 innings with a FIP of 5.30 and an ERA of 2.20, then he was an ace. I wouldn't bet my hat on him repeating that, but you can't rewrite history and say Jimmy wasn't extremely valuable.

[traderumor]

I think I see what you're getting at. However, Cordero posted a 0.1 WAR last year. I think there is plenty of room for improvement there, and Madson is going to give us that.

BTW, my prior posts assumed this was an accurate post. Baseball-reference.com shows Cordero's WAR as 2.3, which is .1 BETTER than Madson. Were you using a different reference for WAR?

[Homer Bailey]

BTW, my prior posts assumed this was an accurate post. Baseball-reference.com shows Cordero's WAR as 2.3, which is .1 BETTER than Madson. Were you using a different reference for WAR?

Fangraphs, which uses FIP. I'm not sure what Baseball reference uses.

[Vottomatic]

Masset, Marshall, and Madsen.

The M-asty boyz!!!!

[George Anderson]

Masset, Marshall, and Madsen.

The M-asty boyz!!!!

[PuffyPig]

I'm not arguing for or against the save as a valuable statistic. I'm saying using FIP as a retrospective measure of production, as WAR does, is useless. It's a totally theoretical number. If a Jimmy Pitchalot throws 200 innings with a FIP of 5.30 and an ERA of 2.20, then he was an ace. I wouldn't bet my hat on him repeating that, but you can't rewrite history and say Jimmy wasn't extremely valuable.

He might have gotten "'ace" like results, but he was no Ace.

But you didn't mention his W-L record.

If he pitches 200 innings with a record of 5-15, was he an Ace? But it would be unfair to look at one luck dependant stat like ERA and ignore another luck dependant stat like W-L record.

So, his 2.20 ERA may not have been particularly valuable if he didn't win games for his team.