M2/Guernsey Bet On the 2005 Reds Team ERA

[timmario66]

The Reds may play in the sixth-easiest park in the National League to hit a home run in. But that hasn't stopped them from plowing in this winter to acquire two of the five active pitchers who have had a 40-gopherball season -- Eric Milton and Ramon Ortiz.

Well, it isn't often that you see a team acquire two 40-gopherball men in the same season. In fact, it isn't ever -- according to the Sultan of Swat Stats, SABR home run historian David Vincent. (The others, because we know you have to know: Jamie Moyer, Jose Lima and Brad Radke.)

The Sultan reports that only three previous teams have employed two different pitchers who once served up 40 homers. But none of them made a joint entrance. So this is true gopherball history. Here are those other duos:

1964 Yankees
Pedro Ramos (43, 1957)
Ralph Terry (40 ,1962)

1966-1967 Tigers
Denny McLain (42, 1966)
Orlando Pena (40, 1964)

1972 Braves
Denny McLain (42, 1966)
Phil Niekro (40, 1970)

[flyer85]

Sure looks like it could be a waste of a cool $13M in 2005.

But that's OK, I am going to stick my head in the sand with everyone else.

[REDREAD]

Is the GAB rated as a HR friendly park, partially due to the staff we've trotted out there, and Dunn/Jr/Kearns/Pena? Or do they have some way to remove the influence of a poor hometeam pitching staff and/or powerful HR hitting home team?

[johngalt]

Maybe this will help...

Reds homers 2003-2004:

Home - 189 (680 runs scored)
Away - 187 (764 runs scored)

Opponents homers 2003-2004:

Home - 246 (ERAs of 4.75 and 4.97)
Away - 199 (ERAs of 5.70 and 5.22)

[westofyou]

Most HR's ever given up in the NL by a team not named "The Rockies"


HOMERUNS HR
1 Jose Acevedo 30
T2 Aaron Harang 26
T2 Paul Wilson 26
4 Cory Lidle 24
5 Todd Van Poppel 22
6 Josh Hancock 14
T7 Gabe White 12
T7 Danny Graves 12
9 John Riedling 10
10 Brandon Claussen 9
T11 Mike Matthews 7
T11 Ryan Wagner 7
13 Juan Padilla 6
T14 Brian Reith 5
T14 Phil Norton 5
T16 Todd Jones 4
T16 Jesus Sanchez 4
T16 Joe Valentine 4
T19 Luke Hudson 3
T19 Jimmy Haynes 3
T19 Jung Bong 3

[flyer85]

The two new guys jump to the top of the list, they must be studs.

[max venable]

Sure looks like it could be a waste of a cool $13M in 2005.

But that's OK, I am going to stick my head in the sand with everyone else.

Seriously...those are some pretty doggone decent pitchers on that list. Like I said in another post...as strange as it sounds, you've got to be a pretty decent pitcher to give up 40 HR in one season.

Somebody back me up on this one.

[RedsBaron]

The Reds may play in the sixth-easiest park in the National League to hit a home run in. But that hasn't stopped them from plowing in this winter to acquire two of the five active pitchers who have had a 40-gopherball season -- Eric Milton and Ramon Ortiz.

Well, it isn't often that you see a team acquire two 40-gopherball men in the same season. In fact, it isn't ever -- according to the Sultan of Swat Stats, SABR home run historian David Vincent. (The others, because we know you have to know: Jamie Moyer, Jose Lima and Brad Radke.)

The Sultan reports that only three previous teams have employed two different pitchers who once served up 40 homers. But none of them made a joint entrance. So this is true gopherball history. Here are those other duos:

1964 Yankees
Pedro Ramos (43, 1957)
Ralph Terry (40 ,1962)

1966-1967 Tigers
Denny McLain (42, 1966)
Orlando Pena (40, 1964)

1972 Braves
Denny McLain (42, 1966)
Phil Niekro (40, 1970)
In 1957 Ramos went 12-16 with a 4.79 ERA for the Senators; despite a career mark of 117-160, he was good enough to put in 15 seasons in the majors.
Terry went 23-12 for the 1962 World Champion Yankees, leading the AL in wins, and posting a 3.19 ERA. He went 16-3 for the Yanks in '61 and 17-15 in '63, with a career mark of 107-99. He was a quality pitcher.
Pena was 12-14 for the 1964 A's and 56-77 for his career. He was the worst pitcher mentioned.
McLain was a great pitcher, but only for a few seasons. In 1966, he gave up the 42 HRs mentioned, but he also went 20-14. In 1968 McLain was 31-6 and he went 24-9 the next season, before his career fell apart. He finished with a 131-91 mark, two Cy Young awards, one MVP award, several suspensions, and constant controversy.
Niekro was only 12-18 in 1970, but he deserved his election to the HOF, having three 20 win seasons and more than 300 career wins.
I agree with Max.

[Unassisted]

OTOH, with the abundance of free baseballs, the outfield seats will become the hottest ticket in town for souvenir hunters.

There's always a bright side. ;)

[princeton]

I agree with Max.

I'm sure that the Reds could have let Acevedo pitch 225 innings and watched him give up 45 HRs

still wouldn't have made him Bert Blyleven or Robin Roberts

good pitchers can give up HRs; unfortunately for the Reds, that's not why those pitchers are good. They're good in spite of the HRs

our guys aren't

[Rocket_Fuel]

The two new guys jump to the top of the list, they must be studs.

Considering everyone but Stark hate Milton and Ortiz they may not be studs but I'm not going to whine about them and call them a waste of money without giving them a chance to prove themselves. That's just a waste of time. I could care less about how many homeruns they gave up last year because of different circumstances (Milton still recovering from knee surgery, Ortiz being yanked around by the Angels). So are they studs? No. Are they a waste of $13M, gee I don't know, lets let them at least pitch in a Spring Training game before calling them garbage. With the number of pitchers who have turned their careers around or jumpstarted their careers you would think people would learn to stop ripping a guy before letting him prove himself.

[Rocket_Fuel]

I'm sure that the Reds could have let Acevedo pitch 225 innings and watched him give up 45 HRs

still wouldn't have made him Bert Blyleven or Robin Roberts

good pitchers can give up HRs; unfortunately for the Reds, that's not why those pitchers are good. They're good in spite of the HRs

our guys aren't

Milton won something like 16 games, and Ortiz did two a couple of years ago and was a key guy on the Angels' world championship team, I think those make them pretty good pitchers.

[deltachi8]

Milton won something like 16 games, and Ortiz did two a couple of years ago and was a key guy on the Angels' world championship team, I think those make them pretty good pitchers.

hey that Jimmy Haynes won 15 games once too, he must be pretty good.

[MWM]

The wins argument was the one used by the Angles to trade some scrub named Edmonds for Kent Bottenfield. That trade is approaching Pappas-esque.

[M2]

Considering everyone but Stark hate Milton and Ortiz they may not be studs but I'm not going to whine about them and call them a waste of money without giving them a chance to prove themselves. That's just a waste of time. I could care less about how many homeruns they gave up last year because of different circumstances (Milton still recovering from knee surgery, Ortiz being yanked around by the Angels). So are they studs? No. Are they a waste of $13M, gee I don't know, lets let them at least pitch in a Spring Training game before calling them garbage. With the number of pitchers who have turned their careers around or jumpstarted their careers you would think people would learn to stop ripping a guy before letting him prove himself.

Prove themselves?

I submit they've already done that.

[guernsey]

If you subscribe to the theory that a pitcher can only control three outcomes (strikeouts, walks and homeruns), Milton controls two of the three very well. The outcome he performs the worst in is the least important of the three.

[BadFundamentals]

At least they were "moves". I'm willing to hold judgement on O'Brien till the end of this year. Then you have a body of work and can see just what has become of the moves he has made.............

At least they were "moves" and they were spending ($$$$) from Lindner. Good or Bad? who knows?.....They were enough to give you some extra reason to believe.........as opposed to reason to look for new things to do this spring.

[guernsey]

Ramon Ortiz's career averages in K/9, HR per 200 IP (which is what you want from a starter) and BB/9 are as good as or better than the Reds pitchers who started a significant number of games last year.

When the Reds re-signed Wilson, the hue and cry on this board was that the Reds shot their wad on that one deal and wouldn't make any other moves to improve the starting pitching. Well, lo and behold, the Reds traded for a starting pitcher and signed a FA starting pitcher (who woulda thunk that, I wonder), both of whom are better than Paul Wilson.

The Reds improved their starting pitching this offseason. No doubt about that. Will it be enough to contend in the NL Central? Maybe, maybe not, but it's sure going to be more interesting to watch now than it would have been without these moves.

[M2]

Anyone who thinks Ortiz posts good K/9 numbers doesn't understand the concept. I don't see much point in comparing him to what's been pitching for the Reds of late. That's been awful. Though I fail to see what makes him a better pitcher than Aaron Harang.

[Reds1]

Anyone who thinks Ortiz posts good K/9 numbers doesn't understand the concept. I don't see much point in comparing him to what's been pitching for the Reds of late. That's been awful. Though I fail to see what makes him a better pitcher than Aaron Harang.

Can we see some career stats! Well, I know Harang hasn't had much of one, but since you want to compare we might as well use the small sample size. ;)

[M2]

Can we see some career stats! Well, I know Harang hasn't had much of one, but since you want to compare we might as well use the small sample size. ;)

You could look them up. They're not hard to find and this isn't exactly a state secret I'm letting out of the bag.

Ortiz - 5.94 K/9, 1.37 HR/9, 3.27 BB/9
Harang - 6.59 K/9, 1.25 HR/9, 3.34 BB/9

[Reds1]

You could look them up. They're not hard to find and this isn't exactly a state secret I'm letting out of the bag.

Ortiz - 5.94 K/9, 1.37 HR/9, 3.27 BB/9
Harang - 6.59 K/9, 1.25 HR/9, 3.34 BB/9


Sorry M2. It was a joke! Hence the ;) We've seen this many times. You didn't catch my wink. Yes, I know how to use Google search. To tell you the truth I really don't care about the stats. I'm just glad to see a couple more pitchers in the mix. I'll wait and pass judgement when I see Ortiz pitch for the Reds in the NL.

[RedsBaron]

good pitchers can give up HRs; unfortunately for the Reds, that's not why those pitchers are good. They're good in spite of the HRs


Oh I know that. The point wasn't that giving up 40 HRs in a season made someone a good pitcher; it was a pitcher either had to have been good at some point or be thought to have "potential" to be allowed to pitch enough to give up 40 HRs.
You have to be a decent pitcher to lose 100 games in your career; you have to be a good pitcher to lose 200; lose 256 or more and you are a Hall of Fame pitcher-----not because of the losses, but because you won't be allowed to pitch enough to lose all those games unless you have some ability.

[guernsey]

Though I fail to see what makes him a better pitcher than Aaron Harang.

Umm - Aaron Harang wasn't the only Reds pitcher who, "started a significant number of games last season".

Having Milton and Ortiz available to replace the starts made last year by Van Poppel, Acevedo and Lidle (combined for 62 starts) is a significant upgrade in the rotation. Wilson needs to be Wilson (who, BTW, lowered his ERA by 0.30 last season and increased his K/9 by 0.70), and two of the four kids need to step up and show they belong in a major league rotation (instead of having to hit on four out of four).

[M2]

And what has Ortiz done as a starting pitcher the past two seasons? 5.28 ERA, 1.51 WHIP, 4.93 K/9

That's not an upgrade. It's just another horrible pitcher.

As for Wilson, either you understand park effects or you don't. He was just as sub-mediocre last year as he was the previous three.

I don't mind Milton. Of the three, he's the one with upside. Yet he hasn't had a good season since 2001. If the best you're going to get out of him is some mid-4.00s ERA then the only "improvement" you're going to see is a staff that's gone from hideous to butt ugly.

[Reds1]

Hasn't ORtiz had some injuries the past couple of seasons? I can't quantify, but I had Ortiz on my fantasy baseball teams a few starts and he did very well. I think he had some blow out appearances and did very well through periods of time. If he is healthy again he can get back to what he did when he was pitching in the WS.

[M2]

Cory Lidle had some good starts too, but as he amply demonstrated you don't get a 5.00+ ERA unless your failures far outweigh your flourishes. Over his last 46 starts, Ramon Ortiz has a 5.28 ERA. That can only be achieved by a consistently bad pitcher.

[Reds1]

That can only be achieved by a consistently bad pitcher.

Or consistantly hurt!

[M2]

Or consistantly hurt!

Sorry, I thought we were talking about reality and not fiction.

[TRF]

I'll say it again. why pay ortiz 3.5 mil, when Luke Hudson is on the roster for 3 mil less?

moves like this simply drain my will to live. I'm not saying Hudson is all that, but he's at least likely to put up the same numbers as ortiz, and he misses bats, so he's likely to put up better numbers. And he can actually say he was hurt.

Ortiz=money wasted.

[guernsey]

Actually, it's pretty simple.

60 starts from Milton & Ortiz in '05 will be better than the 60 starts the Reds got from Van Poppel, Lidle & Acevedo in '04.

As for the Ortiz or Hudson debate, if they're the same pitcher, why not have them both? If Hudson and Harrang are the two front runners for the rotation, then that keeps lesser lights from getting starts that will go to Ortiz.

[M2]

Actually, it's pretty simple.

60 starts from Milton & Ortiz in '05 will be better than the 60 starts the Reds got from Van Poppel, Lidle & Acevedo in '04.

Milton, maybe, though not wildly so. Ortiz no. He's every bit as bad as those guys.

What ought to be simple to figure out is the Reds still have a lousy pitching staff.

[guernsey]

Milton, maybe, though not wildly so. Ortiz no. He's every bit as bad as those guys.


Money time.

'05 Milton will outpitch '04 Lidle.

'05 Ortiz will outpitch '04 Starting Van Poppel and '04 Starting Acevedo.

Wanna bet?

[Reds1]

I don't know if he was hurt. I"m just hoping I guess! It's not like Ortiz was the only deal. If it were I'd be pissed, but we got a 3B, 3 BP, Left starter, and now a SS. If you don't think this team is better then last years which was in it until Griffey went down then I can't say anything right.

[M2]

Money time.

'05 Milton will outpitch '04 Lidle.

'05 Ortiz will outpitch '04 Starting Van Poppel and '04 Starting Acevedo.

Wanna bet?

This is when you need to buy a clue.

I agree Milton will outpitch the '04 Lidle (note where I said he's the one with upside). However I don't get all jazzed up about the difference between 4.75 and 5.32.

And the point with Ortiz is who cares whether his 5.00+ ERA is better than Von Poppel or Acevedo's from last season. He still sucks.

Supposedly, and I only know this because I've seen teams other than the Reds do it in recent years, the idea is to have a staff that pitches well. The Reds don't have one that can do it. Wanna bet on that?

[guernsey]

This is when you need to buy a clue.

I agree Milton will outpitch the '04 Lidle (note where I said he's the one with upside). However I don't get all jazzed up about the difference between 4.75 and 5.32.

And the point with Ortiz is who cares whether his 5.00+ ERA is better than Von Poppel or Acevedo's from last season. He still sucks.

Supposedly, and I only know this because I've seen teams other than the Reds do it in recent years, the idea is to have a staff that pitches well. The Reds don't have one that can do it. Wanna bet on that?

Well, I figured you'd be too chicken to take the bet. You won't debate that the Reds have improved their staff, because they have. And the Reds aren't to be given credit for anything.

As for a staff that pitches "well", you care to put a definition with that? By leaving it ambiguous, you leave yourself plenty of opportunity to say, "I'm right! I'm right" when the Reds staff isn't one of the three best in the league.

Do I think Milton/Ortiz/Wilson will match up with Clemens/Oswaldt/Pettite and Prior/Wood/Maddux? No, but then the Cubs watched the postseason on TV last season just as the Reds did.

It's amazing that someone who has never managed anything more complex that a lemonade stand can manage a baseball franchise. Being in Boston, I suggest you go get an interview with Bill James and put that talent to work somewhere other than a meaningless Internet forum.

[M2]

Well, I figured you'd be too chicken to take the bet. You won't debate that the Reds have improved their staff, because they have. And the Reds aren't to be given credit for anything.

As for a staff that pitches "well", you care to put a definition with that? By leaving it ambiguous, you leave yourself plenty of opportunity to say, "I'm right! I'm right" when the Reds staff isn't one of the three best in the league.

Do I think Milton/Ortiz/Wilson will match up with Clemens/Oswaldt/Pettite and Prior/Wood/Maddux? No, but then the Cubs watched the postseason on TV last season just as the Reds did.

It's amazing that someone who has never managed anything more complex that a lemonade stand can manage a baseball franchise. Being in Boston, I suggest you go get an interview with Bill James and put that talent to work somewhere other than a meaningless Internet forum.

Do you read? Because in this very thread I said the Reds have marginally improved the pitching staff ... from hideous to butt ugly.

You want a number to shoot for? How about a 4.23 ERA? That's been the NL average the past three seasons. I was actually going to let you have first crack at defining it, but that probably would have turned into a discussion over gradients of lousy.

As for the other stuff. Never been in the lemonade business and I like being a baseball fan. Might I suggest that if you hold such a low opinion of this "meaningless Internet forum" then maybe you ought not to spend so much time here. I don't share your opinion on that matter.

[Reds1]

Time to just go sit back relax and stop reading this post or the Redzone. I know it can be frustrating when fans just seem to share joy in their team, but it's not worth it for either party to be stressed over this or that. Like I said earlier. Let's just wait and see and the we can banter back with I told you so if that gets you going!

[TRF]

Money time.

'05 Milton will outpitch '04 Lidle.

'05 Ortiz will outpitch '04 Starting Van Poppel and '04 Starting Acevedo.

Wanna bet?

I'll take half that bet. In fact I'll bet that Ortiz is actually worse than Acevedo alone.


As for the Ortiz or Hudson debate, if they're the same pitcher, why not have them both? If Hudson and Harrang are the two front runners for the rotation, then that keeps lesser lights from getting starts that will go to Ortiz.

2 of crap is crap. if the reds really wanted to shoot themselves in the foot, they'd have signed Lima too.

[Falls City Beer]

I'll take half that bet. In fact I'll bet that Ortiz is actually worse than Acevedo alone.



2 of crap is crap. if the reds really wanted to shoot themselves in the foot, they'd have signed Lima too.


I'm willing to bet that Acevedo puts up better numbers than Ortiz as well, but I also believe that Ortiz is in the bullpen by mid-season.

[flyer85]

60 starts from Milton & Ortiz in '05 will be better than the 60 starts the Reds got from Van Poppel, Lidle & Acevedo in '04.

The latter group made ~$4M last year. The former will get paid ~$13M this year.

They damn well oughta pitch better.

[Aronchis]

Acevedo may not even be a Red after spring training. Ortiz's career success level is higher than Acevedo, you have to at least give him that. He is Gullet's project with a upside to pull a Harnish though I figure he will blow out at some point. Milton, is a sneeky good pick up that got overpaid in this market. Oh the surprise.

DanO's moves aren't for the "know-it-all" fan to say the least. My view they are a more "richer" version of Bowdenism after the 1998 season. Though the Reds farm system, I suspect will have better players to offer 2004 and beyond than what Jimmy had for himself after during and after the 99 season. Though interestly enough, Bowden is the one who stocked alot of these players.

Will it work? Why people get hyped over Wilson,Milton and Ortiz, the key is the developement of Hudson,Claussen and the Minor League righties like Gardner,Nelson and Pauly. Even if the Top 3 Veterens all succeed past our expectations, you will need some talent to complete the pie from another pitcher. Hudson and Claussen IMO have that talent to do that in 2004 and the others in 2005(except maybe for Nelson if he was injured last year). My guess is one Vet succeeds, the other is down the middle and the last bombs out. DanO's gotta hope for better.

DanO's future as Reds GM may ride on this season. The stakes are high. If the Reds don't compete for the playoffs after Augest 1st and are mediocre, the fallout could be bad. Fans will be depressed, which will decrease the money supply and the Reds will have to deal off more players than they might have had if they had succeeded in 2004. It could start a domino effect dooming DanO and setting up Allen who didn't support O'brien's hiring and has been very quiet recently concerning the Reds, unilateral power in selecting the next GM. The O'brien/Lindner regime is at its peek, they are running the operations and the Limiteds are sitting back taking notes. If they fail, Lindner will sell the managing shares to another Limited partner, who, if my hunch is right concerning this partner, will give John Allen absolute power.

[guernsey]

You want a number to shoot for? How about a 4.23 ERA? That's been the NL average the past three seasons.

Might I suggest that if you hold such a low opinion of this "meaningless Internet forum" then maybe you ought not to spend so much time here.

That's a fair target, and one the Reds have a chance for, allowing for park effect factors.

As for your second suggestion, in case you haven't noticed; I don't.

[M2]

Name any price.

[guernsey]

Loser donates $100 to the Reds Community Fund.



Support

If you're interested in finding out how you can support the Reds Community Fund, please contact Charley Frank at 513-765-7231. To make a tax-deductible charitable contribution, send a check payable to:

Cincinnati Reds Community Fund,
Attn: Executive Director
100 Main Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

100 % of your donation will be dedicated to the Community Fund and its mission of improving the lives of youth by leveraging the tradition of the Cincinnati Reds and the game of baseball. Your contribution is tax deductible. The Cincinnati Community Fund Tax ID # is 31-1790195.

[M2]

I was hoping to get a ski vacation out of you. I consider sports bets infantile by nature and I figured I might as well cash in on it.

But I can't argue with giving your money to a charitable cause. 4.23 and $100 it is.

[guernsey]

I consider sports bets infantile by nature and I figured I might as well cash in on it.


I'm so flattered that you climbed down off your high horse long enough to engage in an infantile pursuit with little ole me.

But I still can't decide if your arrogance is exceeded by your pompousness, or whether they are both trumped by your condescension.

[M2]

I'm so flattered that you climbed down off your high horse long enough to engage in an infantile pursuit with little ole me.

But I still can't decide if your arrogance is exceeded by your pompousness, or whether they are both trumped by your condescension.

It's the latter for sure. Now thank me for my patronization of you and your adorable little wager. I hope you'll learn a valuable object lesson from it which leads to your betterment in the future.

[DoogMinAmo]

M2,

In case you didn't realize, based on your own pitching dependent theory, in the midst of this measuring match between guernsey and yourself, you are betting against the Reds success.

Would this not be a conflict between what you want and what you believe?

[PuffyPig]

You improve a pitching staff 1 pitcher at a time.

NO, we don't have a primo pitching staff led by 3 aces.

But it's better than last. Quite a bit.

[M2]

M2,

In case you didn't realize, based on your own pitching dependent theory, in the midst of this measuring match between guernsey and yourself, you are betting against the Reds success.

Would this not be a conflict between what you want and what you believe?

Hell yeah. Yet another reason why I think sports bets are infantile. I'd love for the Reds to do better than a 4.23 ERA. I don't think they will and am perfectly willing to debate the finer points of that, but apparently that means nothing unless I'm willing to put money on it. On the bright side, on the extremely remote chance the Reds get under that mark I'll be pleased as punch when I pay up.

In the meantime I get the infinite chuckles that come over me when guernsey puts on his mad cow act.