Reds Acquire Jonathan Broxton

[Homer Bailey]

It all depends on one's definition of success.
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.

OK, I see your point. I agree to an extent.

In hindsight, it's obvious that the Reds would have made the playoffs even without Broxton. I think we can all agree that Latos' overall production > Broxton's overall production, so it isn't an apples to apples comparison.

The difference I think is that Broxton was picked up specifically for the playoffs. What he did up to the playoffs, while I don't consider it completely insignificant, but it will have little impact on how we view this team's success at year end. If he is a rousing success in the playoffs, as I said earlier, I can completely get on board with admitting that it was a good trade, and that I was wrong. If he reverts back to what we saw in KC though, won't all this talk about his performance in a pretty meaningless month of baseball seem moot?

I don't mean to move the goalposts from my previous posts, and I don't think I am. Just didn't want people to think I'm changing my tone to "what he's currently doing doesn't matter." I will say, if he continues to stay hot through the playoffs, I will certainly factor in this hot run with a lot more credence, and not just consider the playoffs a lucky hot run. If that makes any sense. It probably doesn't.

[dougdirt]

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?

Let's note that this data isn't correct, as it is just the raw data from gameday via TexasLeaguers.com.

                       From Royal to Red							
Type		  Use	  MPH	  Vertical	 Horizontal	
FF		-7.10%	  0.4	     0.4	     -0.2	
SL		 4.30%	 -0.9	    -1.6	     -0.4

So Broxton has used his fastball less and his slider more. The biggest difference to me is the different movement he is getting now with his slider compared to what he was getting with it while in Kansas City. Obviously some change was made to alter the pitch. His fastball is sinking about a half inch more with the Reds while also getting about a half inch less of horizontal movement. That may not be much of anything other than a smaller sample size. Also, his fastball velocity is down half a MPH (but, as I noted, this data is not corrected and KC is known to have had a hot PFX reading in the first half of the season).

[Brutus]

It's also possible that people are forgetting their conclusion that Broxton was no longer the same pitcher was based on 35 innings for Kansas City. Perhaps that as he continues to get further away from surgery, and additionally, more of a sample grows, that we're seeing the real Broxton. It might be a combination of getting stronger, more conditioned and also simply regression coming into play.

It still amazes me that people were willing to write him off as a bad pitcher on account of 35 innings. Thirty five innings after major surgery, one would think a grace period is entitled to a guy to get his production back.

Make no mistake, I never have anticipated him getting back to striking out 13 batters per nine. I think he himself has said that's no longer his goal. But A lot of definitive conclusions were being drawn off of 35 IP.

[wheels]

I don't remember what I posted on this thread, but I can remember being somewhat nonplussed by the trade.

I'm glad I was wrong, that's for sure. He's been fantastic.

[PuffyPig]

The difference I think is that Broxton was picked up specifically for the playoffs.

Broxton was picked up also to help us make the playoffs. The fact he would have made the playoffs anyway doesn't change the fact the playoffs were far from a certainty at that time.

[Patrick Bateman]

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".

You wrote a narrative on Broxton as if his skillset was set in stone.

The point is, those that have essentially turned out to be right recognized that Broxton's narrative was not complete. There were reasons to look beyond the year to date stats, and many people allowed for the suggestion that not only could he improve, but it was perhaps even to some degree, likely.

You made it very clear at the time in your numerous posts that you were not willing to entertain the notion that there were some reasons to suggest he could improve and be an asset. I think that was the reason you ultimately appear to be wrong on this issue, and the fact that you have been more willing to change your own narrative, than to simply admit that you may have missed the boat on this one seems to make it difficult to get your "implications".

[Wonderful Monds]

Sure, he has. But he has done it by being an entirely different player. It would be like trading for Juan Pierre, then Juan Pierre turning into Todd Frazier. Nothing suggested Juan Pierre would turn into Todd Frazier. Just like nothing suggested that Broxton would cut his walk rate by 60% and increase his strikeout rate by 43%. To expect such a turnaround is crazy. Even if you expected improvement, those kinds of improvements are not one anyone should have reasonably expected. Heck, if he would only have improved his walk rate by 30% and his strikeout rate by 20%, it would have been in incredible improvement. But he doubled those improvements.

I am not at all upset that Broxton is performing outstandingly. I don't believe for a second that I was wrong about what I said at the time of the trade in regards to Broxton. Nothing suggested he was capable of what he has done as a Red so far, or even close to it.

That you knew of. You also didn't get detailed scouting reports on him.

[PuffyPig]

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".

Your view was clearly that Broxton could not change his skillset.

Otherwise any prediction by any poster will be useless as they can simply pull out the "but he altered his skillset" card. Predictions become very easy if they are all predicated upon his present skillset being unchanged.

[RedsManRick]

Your view was clearly that Broxton could not change his skillset.

Otherwise any prediction by any poster will be useless as they can simply pull out the "but he altered his skillset" card. Predictions become very easy if they are all predicated upon his present skillset being unchanged.

Not necessarily. Many, if not most, people prefer to use past results rather than underlying skills when making their projections.

You make a fair point in that true projection includes a projection of talent changes, something most fans are woefully unqualified to do from both a skills and information standpoint. But it's not exactly accurate to suggest Doug's projection (and mine) was a no-brainer -- many discussions around here have been predicated on people expecting performance out of line with underlying skills to continue.

[Brutus]

Not necessarily. Many, if not most, people prefer to use past results rather than underlying skills when making their projections.

You make a fair point in that true projection includes a projection of talent changes, something most fans are woefully unqualified to do from both a skills and information standpoint. But it's not exactly accurate to suggest Doug's projection (and mine) was a no-brainer -- many discussions around here have been predicated on people expecting performance out of line with underlying skills to continue.

The only past results that supported the assertion Broxton wasn't a very good pitcher was 35 innings this year and that's it. That's the only basis in which someone could really draw that assertion. And making a projection based on 35 innings was not very wise to begin with, especially since it was coming off surgery and he has a long track record of success.

[dougdirt]

2010 wasn't exactly a very good season for Broxton. It wasn't bad, but he walked 4 guys per 9 innings and had a WHIP around 1.48.

[RedsManRick]

The only past results that supported the assertion Broxton wasn't a very good pitcher was 35 innings this year and that's it. That's the only basis in which someone could really draw that assertion. And making a projection based on 35 innings was not very wise to begin with, especially since it was coming off surgery and he has a long track record of success.

If a pitcher has a serious injury and is just ok in his first 35 innings after coming back, I think the prudent assumption is that he's going to continue to be just ok, rather than that he'll suddenly up his strikeout rate significantly and start demonstrating the type of control he's never had in his entire career.

I agree small samples aren't a good basis for projection performance. But neither is data from 2 years and a serious injury ago.

[Tom Servo]

What I want to know is where I can get a Jay-Z in a Reds uniform bobblehead like in RMR's avatar.

[Sea Ray]

He was a nice addition. But I guess what should have been said, though I figured it was implied, was that if Jonathan Broxton comes to the Reds and has the same walk rate and strikeout rate he had in Kansas City, he isn't going to help this team. And he wouldn't have. But he doesn't have anywhere near those things. He has gone from below average in both, to incredibly above average in one and above average in the other.

If I were advising Walt, I would have said, "His numbers aren't that good despite his shiny ERA. If he comes over to our side and walks that many guys and strikes out so few guys, he isn't going to be an asset to us. Do our scouts/pitching coach see something in the video that suggests he can cut down on the walks or raise his strikeout rate?" and then the conversation would have progressed from there depending on the answer.

Forget the scouts here Doug. In this scenario you are the scout. It gets us nowhere if you say something that starts with "if". I said at the time of the trade that he would be the top RH in our bullpen...no ifs. You disagreed with me. We now know who was right

[Sea Ray]

I don't have 25,000+ posts for nothing....

I know I'm coming across as picking on you here but let me say this and I mean it:

If I had an extra ticket to a Reds (or a Reds minor league affiliate) game, you'd be #1 of all the thousands of people on RZ that I'd ask to go with me. I'd love to sit next to you and talk baseball for 9 innings. If we did that, I'm sure I'd learn more by picking your brain than you would from me.