Two other things that perplex me a bit...
1) People point out the 20 inning sample being small. That's completely fair. However, Broxton wasn't acquired until July 31. Some people were sure he would not be a very good addition. But yet it had to be known that kind of observation would be manifested through a small sample anyhow. I mean a reliever only spending the last two months on a roster is going to see a relatively low number of innings. So it seems like now that he has been a good addition, the small sample is a root cause but if the 20 innings had gone like the first four months, it would have been confirmation. The small sample is a possible issue, but it leads me to my next issue...
2) It's understandable to point out the small sample in his success, but some didn't mind saying, without any hesitation or uncertainty, that he was no longer a very good pitcher on the basis of his 35-inning sample in Kansas City. It seems pointing out his 20 innings now mitigates any basis on which he was considered to have not been a very good pitcher to begin with.
My 2 worthless cents...
- Way too small of a sample size for any definitive conclusions
- However the Reds acquired him for a "small sample size" amount of time hoping he would suceed, and that he has
- dougdirt's Broxton dossier and Walt Jocketty's Broxton dossier are 2 different items...just using doug as the example as he is the most active on this thread...it goes for all of us - I'm a broken record, but it is a reason why "know-it-all" predictions should be avoided
- I don't think it is fair to say "No one could have expected Brox to improve his perpherials this much" in order to take away from the move. Real people with real jobs stuck their necks out inputting into this move for the Reds. It has so far been a sucess. They should reap the rewards. I don't take anything away from the Reds for drafting Joseph Votto, as "no one would have predicted him becoming the best hitter in the game".
- He's pitching well. Enjoy it!
Let's say the Reds are eliminated in the first round.
Latos has two starts, both horrible.
Some would say that means Latos had a bad year.
I would disagree, since Latos was a big reason we got to the playoffs.
Likewise, for what Broxton cost us, he's more than justified the cost.
He's probably the RH reliever that I trust the most now.. If he blows the playoffs, so be it.. Likewise if Chapman or Marshall blow the playoffs, that doesn't take away from what they did in the regular season.
Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
Thank God the idea to call out posters on their historic erroneous predictions never gained any traction.
So if Miguel Cairo finds something in his game to significantly alter his skillset, should we just say that it was implied that when we got him we didn't think he was a significant pick up, even if he all of a sudden starts hitting for power and walking twice as much as he used to?
Broxton changed his skillset, be it sustainable or not (I don't know that it is, but so far, what he has done has been done). His skillset is no longer "walks a bunch of guys and can't strike out guys".
I'm not arguing for or against the trade right now, nor am I suggesting that the Reds and the fans had the same information. I'm just trying straighten out a conversation where a number of different questions are being combined in to a mess that results in people talking right past each other and not even being able to agree about what they disagree about.
1. Based on what was known about Broxton at the time of the trade, what level of performance was likely? (I say "likely" and not "possible" because nearly any kind of production is possible in 2 months of relieving)
2. Given #1, was the trade logical at the time?
And for reference, my answers:
1. Based on what was known publicly, we had no reason to expect anything like this kind of superb performance. Broxton was injured for most of 2011 and effective, but not dominant (and highly reliant on a very low HR/rate) in KC.
The Reds might have had additional information to suggest this was more likely than us fans thought, particularly scouting info. But even then, it's highly unlikely they suspected he'd be this good, considering he's never had a season where he walked as few as twice as many guys as he's walked per 9 with the Reds.
2. From a pure production standpoint, there's a pretty good chance the Royals come out ahead and a non-zero chance they come out WAY ahead. Additionally, the Reds bullpen was and is a strength without Broxton.
However, given that neither prospect was a blue-chipper, that there is significant financial value in making the playoffs, that Broxton undoubtedly had both production upside and experience that would allow Dusty to keep people in their roles if Chapman got hurt and that acquiring Broxton meant less Logan Ondrusek, it's definitely defensible.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
So many words, so many letters.
Here's how easy it can be.
"I was wrong."
Nine characters with character
It's also fair to say that his velocity was not and has not increased during the season.
Given these things are all significant drivers for his performance over his 20 innings as a Red, I think it's actually fair for Doug and Rick to argue that the Reds have seemed to hit on an inside straight with this one (sorry, I don't play black jack). This has been a magical season for Jocketty and the Reds where everything has worked out (well except for Madsen). I chalk it up to magic. Broxton is obviously still a legitimate major league bullpen arm but I'd understand someone worrying about penciling him in as a proxy for Chapman.
Last edited by jojo; 09-26-2012 at 07:20 PM.
"This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
RMR posted a story on Latos changing his approach and bailing on his change which has possibly led to him having increased success. Has anyone dug into his numbers to see if something similar happened with Brox?
Those of us that doubted Broxton had our reasons for doing so. There was nothing we could have seen that would have made us feel good about that trade when it happened. His peripherals were ugly. I've literally never watched a Royals game in my entire life, so I can't possibly see anything that would make me think that his peripherals may change. When he came over, he pretty much continued to be the same pitcher he was in KC for a while. I think of the first 28 batters he faced, he struck out like 3 of them. Since that point, Broxton has clearly, clearly improved. If I had known this is the Broxton we were getting, of course I would have signed up! But with what I (and others) knew at the time of the acquisition, and with what we saw those first few weeks, can you blame us for being skeptical of him? The fact that he's turned it around to this point doesn't make me that much more confident in him during the playoffs than I was when the trade was made. Obviously I feel more comfortable than I would if he was performing horribly at this point, but aside from the possibility that a mechanical change was made to turn him around, I don't feel that comfortable saying we're seeing a brand new Broxton. He could have been rejuvenated by the playoff team, or a myriad of other things, but he's had stretches similar to this one (aside from the walk rate) as recent as June and April.
Conclusion: Ecstatic about the way he has pitched lately, both results and actual performance wise. Sincerely hoping this maintains. If so, I will gladly admit I was wrong. As of now, I can't admit that. Yes he was acquired to pitch a small sample of innings, so the small sample size argument is a tough one to lean on, but I'm just not entirely positive that he's turned it around for good going forward due to the fact that we're looking at a small sample of innings where he has put up this run. Again, I emphasize that inherently, we look at all relievers with a small sample size. I'm just saying I don't think it's safe to conclude anything, on any pitcher in a 20 inning sample.