2004 Reds Staff vs. 2005 Reds Staff

[johngalt]

Okay, I was looking at some stats on Hardball Times and decided to make a comparison between last season's Reds staff and what I project as this season's 12-man staff. The stats are all from last season, so it doesn't take into account performance over a career. Still, I think it shows where there's been a drastic improvement.

Here are the two staffs I used to compare:

2004
Rotation: Lidle, Wilson, Harang, Acevedo, Claussen
Bullpen: Graves, Jones, Riedling, White, Norton, Wagner, Van Poppel

2005
Rotation: Milton, Wilson, Ortiz, Harang, Hudson
Bullpen: Graves, Weathers, Weber, Mercker, Acevedo, Wagner, Hancock

Total Runs Scored Above Average for 2004: -111
Total Wins Shares Above Average for 2004: -35

Total Runs Scored Above Average for 2005: -26
Total Wins Shares Above Average for 2005: -13

[MWM]

Just curious, when calculating Ortiz, did you use only his numbers as a starter and then project that out over a full season of starting?

Also, did you use Hudson's performance in September and use that to project the whole season?

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by MWM

Just curious, when calculating Ortiz, did you use only his numbers as a starter and then project that out over a full season of starting?

Also, did you use Hudson's performance in September and use that to project the whole season?

I took the numbers from Hardball Times. They didn't appear to have separate starter/reliever numbers for guys that did both.

The Hudson stats appeared to be a projection.

[MWM]

I'm not trying to hijack your projections, but if you want to be as accurate as possible, you have to look at Ortiz only as a starter. Also, I don't think it's accurate to project a full season of Hudson based on a few good starts at the end of the season. That's just my take.

[PuffyPig]

When calculating Acevedo, did you use all his stats, ir just his stats as a reliever, where he should pitch in 2005? Also, Using Weber's absolutely horrible 2004 stats would be misleading, as if he is still hurting, he simply won't pitch this year.

Basing it strictly on last years stats is misleading, but it cuts both ways.

Your illustration shows that we can expect improvement in the pitching staff. The pitchers we have now, have showed, historically that they are better pitchers than what we had last year.

And I doubt that guys like Acevedo (stricly relief) and Wagner will sport 5 plus ERA's again this year. If they do, they will be quickly replaced.

[princeton]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

When calculating Acevedo, did you use all his stats, ir just his stats as a reliever, where he should pitch in 2005? Also, Using Weber's absolutely horrible 2004 stats would be misleading, as if he is still hurting, he simply won't pitch this year.

Basing it strictly on last years stats is misleading, but it cuts both ways.

Your illustration shows that we can expect improvement in the pitching staff. The pitchers we have now, have showed, historically that they are better pitchers than what we had last year.

And I doubt that guys like Acevedo (stricly relief) and Wagner will sport 5 plus ERA's again this year. If they do, they will be quickly replaced.

we say these things every year-- we grasp at straws in hopes of explaining why our guys won't bite this year. We look at 20 innings by Acevedo, 20 by Wagner. Then they go out and bite as badly as they did before.

bottom line is that a guy or two might improve, but others will get worse.

[GoReds]

Given the potential pitching staff, what is to be expected for the upcoming year? Here is my "expectation".

Starters
Ortiz - improvement. Perhaps big improvement. He's coming from the AL, which allows him to face a pitcher instead of a DH each time through the lineup. I also think a change of scenery will help as well.

Wilson - same or slightly worse.

Milton - improvement from last year. More towards career norms.

Harang - slight improvement from last year.

Claussen/Hudson/Hancock - improvement. As long as they are pitching from the 5th spot in the order, there should be a decent gain here from what the Reds ran out to the mound every 5th day last year.

Bullpen
Mercker - not as good as last year for him, but a vast improvement over White/Norton of last year.
Weathers/Weber - I think they will fill the Todd Jones role. Should stay about the same.
Acevedo - mixed bag. He should improve from his starting numbers, but I don't think he is as good in the pen as his small sample size showed. So, about the same.
Bong - slight improvement
Hancock/Hudson - whoever loses the 5th starting spot will be the long reliever here. Last year, this spot went to Van Poppel. I can't imagine that Hancock or Hudson would be worse.
Wagner - wild card. With the veterans that this team has, I don't see a clearly defined role for Wagner. In reality, he should be in AAA working on either becoming a dominant closer in preparation for Graves departure or developing another pitch to see if he could be a starter. I think he's wasted in Cincinnati right now.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by princeton

we say these things every year-- we grasp at straws in hopes of explaining why our guys won't bite this year. We look at 20 innings by Acevedo, 20 by Wagner. Then they go out and bite as badly as they did before.

bottom line is that a guy or two might improve, but others will get worse.

It's hard to imagine anyone getting worse, based on last year.

Acevedo was near perfect for 20 innings of relief, vindicating those that said he was better suited for relief. It wouldn't surprise me to see Acevedo put up mid-3 ERA in middle, short relief this year.

I don't know what to expect from Wagner, other than if he blows badly like he did early last year, he'll be quickly sent to the minors.

The big difference between 2004 and 2005 is the fact we ahve more options. If someone stinks, we don't have to continually send them out to get hammered. That in itself should give us some improvement.

[princeton]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

It's hard to imagine anyone getting worse, based on last year.

Acevedo was near perfect for 20 innings of relief, vindicating those that said he was better suited for relief. It wouldn't surprise me to see Acevedo put up mid-3 ERA in middle, short relief this year.

I don't know what to expect from Wagner, other than if he blows badly like he did early last year, he'll be quickly sent to the minors.

The big difference between 2004 and 2005 is the fact we ahve more options. If someone stinks, we don't have to continually send them out to get hammered. That in itself should give us some improvement.

we don't have more options this year, just different ones.

we're still a team that's putting hopes in 35 year old pitchers with little stuff, on 28 year old pitchers with no history of sustained success, and on 24 year olds that couldn't find the plate in AA. Same old same old.

[M2]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

It's hard to imagine anyone getting worse, based on last year.

Heard that last year. Hard as it was to imagine, it got worse.

[traderumor]

We need a MWM reverse whammy put out for the pitching staff.

[red-in-la]

Hate to sound the optimist, but I think you are missing something that is VERY important princeton.

Unlike last year, when virtually every pitcher was miscast in his role....the pitchers this year are very close to role where they have succeeded in the past.

Milton - is being paid to be the ace and I believe he served that role well with the Twins in the past.

Ortiz - in his best season, he was the number 2/number 3 starter (circa 2002). Again, he and Wilson will switch in and out of that role this year.

Wilson - just about everybody who gives Wilson even the slighest bit of credit as a ML starter says he is a #3......that is what he will be with the Reds now. He was completely miscast as the staff ace last year.

Harang - similar to Wilson in that most everybody calls him a good #4/#5 starter.....and he and Hudson will probably be considered as interchangeable at #'s 4 and 5.

Hudson - perfect place for a kid with stuff who need experience. Best possible thing to do for him is to put him at the back of the rotation and let him prove his way up the ladder (towards number 1 or 2).

In contrast.....I completely fail to see where Weathers is an upgrade over Rielding. This move (to let Riedling walk) is going to bite the Reds.....I garrruuunteeeee it! But I do complete agree that a BP without Norton/Matthews is stronger by subtraction.

Acevedo has found his place IMHO. And with Clauseen and Bong as other LH alternatives, there is some depth there. My biggest hope is that this rotation will allow the Reds to carry only 11 pitchers.....thus maybe giving them some more umph on the bench.

[princeton]

Originally Posted by red-in-la

Unlike last year, when virtually every pitcher was miscast in his role....the pitchers this year are very close to role where they have succeeded in the past.

since there's no number one, no number two, and no closer...practically everyone's miscast, except for the guys at the end of the 'pen. Now THOSE guys are where they belong

Originally Posted by red-in-la

Hate to sound the optimist, but I think you are missing something that is VERY important princeton.

In contrast.....I completely fail to see where Weathers is an upgrade over Rielding. This move (to let Riedling walk) is going to bite the Reds.....I garrruuunteeeee it! But I do complete agree that a BP without Norton/Matthews is stronger by subtraction.

I am glad to see someone finally said this. Letting Reidling go just baffles me. He has been stellar year in and year out with the exception of his performance after his Dad passed away. I would take Reidling over Weathers or Weber. Just watch what he does for Florida this year. The worst part is that he signed for only $750K with incentives. I personally don't think Weathers is going to last out the year and if we try to use him in the Van Poppel role, like OB alluded to, well, what can I say, his 5+ ERA in spot starting situations doesn't do much to impress me.

[icehole3]

I agree...you have to throw the kid's year out due to a sick parent. No one can handle all that grief. The kid's mind was somewhere else.