Basement Dwellers

BtB Power Ranking Season Reviews

2009-10-23T17:04:00.000-04:00

Earlier this week, I completed my season-by-season reviews of all MLB teams. Fun exercise. Here they are:

AL East

Here's what I wrote about the Reds:

I root for laundry of this color. It was a rough season, but after dwelling in the basement for much of August and early September, a hot-hot-hot streak at the end of the year got them up to 26th place in the rankings and 4th place in the division over the last few weeks. cW% was substantially lower than true W%: 0.441 vs. 0.481. The reason was a slight underestimate of runs scored, and a slight overestimate of runs allowed, plus the fact that even straight-up Pythagoras had the Reds as a bit lucky. This was quite possibly the best fielding team in the National League, but their pitching was just a tad below average. And that, coupled with an offense that flirted with the 0.300 wOBA line for most of the year, spelled disaster. So, for the 9th consecutive season, Reds fans are wondering if next year will be the year they finally win more than they lose again.

And here are the final 2009 Beyond the Box Score Power Rankings. I really enjoyed doing that series this year, even if occasionally was a bit contentious (:cough: Giants :cough:). Very well received, and might go even further next season if we can keep it going. Just need to figure out some strength of schedule adjustments.

Now that I'm done with that series for a while, I have some Reds work I'm planning. Look for a recap of the 2009 season at Red Reporter sometime next week if all goes well. I also have a minor league study about half written up at BtB. Stay tuned...

Barry Larkin for the Hall

2009-10-23T15:26:00.002-04:00

I finished a piece last night, running today at Red Reporter, arguing for Barry Larkin's induction into the Hall of Fame. Response has been very positive, with links from BBTF (Repoz) and Rob Neyer, among others. Everyone seems to think that Larkin should get in (as I show, that's clearly supported by the data), but some think he might have some trouble. Hopefully he'll get in before guys like Jeter start appearing on the ballot.

Regarding Mudgate: I will read from a prepared statement

2009-10-02T12:52:00.003-04:00

I did it. It's all my fault. Yes, the attendant rubbed the balls correctly and thoroughly. But I cleaned them. With soap. And a Snuggie.

I deeply regret my actions and apologise to my family, friends, and the baseball community. I will accept any consequences that MLB/Dave Duncan/Tony La Russa deem appropriate.

This concludes my statement. On the advice of my lawyer, I will not be taking questions.

Thank you.
Justin

Reds offense

2009-09-28T20:38:00.003-04:00

I posted a short article on the Reds' offense at Red Reporter. Excerpt:

As a result, in many cases we like to look at context-neutral offensive stats. There are a number to choose from, but my personal favorite is the one I calculate for Beyond the Boxscore: I estimate runs scored based on linear weights of offensive events (wRC at fangraphs) and baserunning stats from Baseball Prospectus (EqBRR). Based on this measure, after park corrections, through Sunday's games, the Reds trail the Astros 634 runs to 606 runs. Why? Despite their park disadvantage, the Astros rank ahead of the Reds in AVG, OBP, and SLG, as well as baserunning (0 RAA for Astros vs. 9 runs below average for the Reds). The Reds have just been a bit "lucky" in terms of how their offensive events have translated into runs, whereas the Astros have been a tad "unlucky."
The games disparity mentioned above still applies, so you can convert those totals to a rate stat. I prefer wOBA, which has the Reds trailing the Astros 0.319 vs. 0.309 (wOBA uses the same scale as OBP, but properly weights all offensive events--in this case, I'm even including EqBRR baserunning). The Reds rank ahead of only San Francisco by wOBA.

CTrent on Defense

2009-09-21T22:36:00.003-04:00

CTrent has a nice article on the Reds' fielding. To my disbelief, he actually quotes me from an e-mail exchange we had:

"Through Wednesday's games, I had the Reds at 49 runs above average in the field," Inaz wrote in an e-mail. "That's an average of two different fielding stats (UZR and a team-level one from Hardball Times), plus catchers. Since 93% of all runs are earned runs, that would mean that we'd add ~46 runs to the Reds' ER if they were an average fielding team, shifting their team ERA from 4.31 to 4.62.
"tRA, which is my personal favorite fielding- and context-independent pitching stat, they have the Reds' actual runs allowed as 73 better than predicted in their model (I'm getting that from the xRR number), which would be ~69 more earned runs than expected. That pushes team ERA from 4.31 to 4.81," Inaz said. "Last one: the Reds' FIP, another fielding-independent pitching stat (this one only looks at k-rate, bb-rate, and hr-rate), puts the Reds expected team ERA at 4.66 compared to their ERA of 4.31. That one matches up well to the first estimate."

Pretty fun to see my crap alongside quotes by Baker, Arroyo, and Rolen, even if I'm clearly the least articulate of the bunch. :)

It's probably pretty obvious, but the e-mail exchange between myself and CTrent led directly to my fielding post at Red Reporter, which comes at this stuff from a slightly different angle.

@RR: Reds can catch the ball

2009-09-19T11:38:00.003-04:00

Excerpt:

If one of the front office's major goals heading into this season was to improve the team's fielding, they seem to have succeeded: the Reds are clearly one of the best fielding teams in the league.
How much does it matter? Let's run with a figure of +50 runs this season, which is where I have the Reds in the BtB Power Rankings, and is a rough average of all the other run estimates. Add that to the average of ~40 runs below average that Reds teams have been from 2004-2008 (by bUZR), and you have a total of a 90 run improvement in fielding this year compared to the 2004-2008 teams. In the current NL run environment, that's roughly a 10-win improvement compared to the 2004-2008 teams!

Unfortunately, it doesn't mean they're an improved team, because the offensive dropoff is worse than the fielding gains...

Me, elsewhere

2009-09-18T12:26:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, I updated my power rankings for Beyond the Boxscore...and for the first time in weeks, the Reds do not rank last! The reason? I've (finally) added catcher fielding to the dataset. Ryan Hanigan and crew have done a great job behind the plate this year, at least based on SB, WP, and Error data, and that was enough to springboard the Reds above the badly-slumping Pirates. So...."Yay, we're not in last place anymore!"

Also, yesterday was my debut as a contributer at Red Reporter. I posted a very short profile on Lonny Frey, a Reds Hall of Famer who passed away last Sunday. Excerpt:

Frey was purchased from the Chicago Cubs prior to his
age-27 season in 1938. Previously at shortstop, he would go on to play almost exclusively at second base for the next seven seasons. He really blossomed in 1939 when he gave up switch-hitting and focused entirely on hitting form the left side. He put up two consecutive 6+ WAR seasons and helping lead the team to two consecutive World Series. He then followed with three consecutive 4 WAR seasons--all told, his time with the Reds was easily the best stretch of the three-time All Star's career.

Being an independent blogger since 2006, I've had plenty of opportunities and offers to move to or join other blogs over years. And I've always declined, as I was content writing here. I could do what I wanted, set my own schedule, and not worry about any feeling of commitment and such. And given the uncertainty about my job future from 2006-2008, I didn't want to make any promises that I couldn't keep.

But I think what has happened over the past year and a half is that life has become so busy that I really just don't have time to run my own blog anymore...and so, my twice-monthly posting activity has resulted in very little traffic. And even worse, there's been very little interaction compared to how things used to be when I could post more often. I think I've finally come to grips with that at the same time that my personal and professional life has become substantially more stable (very busy, but stable!). Furthermore, contributing over at Beyond the Boxscore has helped me realize what I'm missing--interaction, mostly, and the feeling of not having to wait for a link in order for someone to read my stuff.

As a result of all of that, I finally decided to approach Slyde about joining on with his crew. I've collaborated with Slyde on a number of projects over the years, many of which have unfortunately never seen the light of day. But I'm very happy that he agreed to let me join up on very relaxed terms--the frequency of my posting over there is unlikely to be much better than it has been over here.

Basement Dwellers isn't going away, though. The Reds WAR position review series, for example, is going to continue to be posted here. And I'll continue to link to my stuff on the other sites as a way of tracking what I'm up to, as well as post the occasional short piece that isn't appropriate for other sites. But the majority of my Reds stuff will likely be posted at Red Reporter moving forward, while more general baseball work will continue to be posted at Beyond the Boxscore.

So, this isn't goodbye, but it does mark a change in how the site will be used for the immediate future. I do want to thank everyone who has contributed the 200,000+ page views and 150,000+ unique visits to this site since 2006. I've had a great time here and I hope you've enjoyed it too. See you at RR and BtB. :)

The Reds and WAR - Best Pitcher Seasons (1900-2008)

2009-09-14T21:35:00.003-04:00

Did Dolf Luque have the best pitcher season in Reds history? By WAR, yes, you can argue that he did. Image via Wikipedia

Guest writer Greg from Atlanta returns with his break-down of the best pitcher seasons by Reds pitchers. You can read his piece on the best Reds hitter seasons here.

The following is a WAR based looked at the Reds best pitcher seasons of all time and a sequel to this look at the 15 best Reds hitter seasons. The WAR pitching metric includes some interesting adjustments – particularly an adjustment for the defense. Pitchers who pitch behind a great defense (which were a key feature of the 39-40 Reds and the Big Red Machine) will find some of the runs they saved credited to the defense, while pitchers who labor with a lousy defense behind them (think Aaron Harang in 2007) get some extra credit.

If we included all years back to 1876, 7 of the top 9 Reds pitcher seasons would belong to 19th century pitchers. The differences between 19th century baseball and baseball of the early 20th century were huge, and most of those differences revolved around pitcher usage. The 1882 Reds (which won the American Association with a 55-25 record) featured a three man pitching staff, and two of those (Will White and Harry McCormick) combined for 97% of the team’s innings pitched. White made 2/3 of the team’s starts, went 40-12, and posted a team record 12.2 WAR. If you accept the WAR totals without any adjustments, you have to believe the greatest players of all time were all 19th century pitchers. For the purposes of this ranker, I will use a 1900 cutoff, and with a tip of the cap to Will White, Billy Rhines, Tony Mullane and the other Reds 19th century greats, lets take a look at the top 15 Reds pitching seasons since 1900.

15 – Bucky Walters 1940 – 6.4

Bucky Walters had a remarkable career, coming up with the Boston Braves in 1931 as a light hitting third baseman. He converted to pitching with the Phillies in 1935, and he promptly led the league in losses in 1936 despite an ERA+ of 106. Acquired by the Reds in mid 1938, he blossomed into a star for the 39-40 team, as he led the league in wins, ERA, and fewest hits/9 in both seasons. His 1940 season was the best in the National League, and he added two complete game wins in the World Series against the Tigers.

14 – Noodles Hahn 1901 – 6.5

Hahn was the first of a long line of Reds pitchers that had brilliant but injury shortened careers. Despite pitching only 7 seasons, he has the highest total WAR for any Reds pitcher. In 1901 at age 22, Noodles completed 41 of 42 starts, led the league in strikeouts, and was the third best pitcher in the league (behind Christy Mathewson and Vic Willis).

11T – Mario Soto 1983, Jim Maloney 1966, Fred Toney 1915 – 6.6

Speaking of brilliant but injury shortened careers, Mario Soto and Jim Maloney are tied for 11th with their second best seasons by WAR. Soto ranked second in the majors in WAR in 1983, led the NL in strikeouts, complete games (18), and ranked second in strikeouts and in the Cy Young vote behind John Denny. Over a five year period from 1981-1985, Soto made 162 starts, completed 63 of them, tossed 1200 innings and was essentially done as an effective pitcher just as the Reds were becoming a contender. In 1966, Maloney had “only” the 4th best WAR in the NL, but it wasn’t exactly an embarrassment to rank behind Sandy Koufax, Juan Marichal, and Jim Bunning. From 1963 – 1969, Maloney averaged 4.9 WAR per season, but in his second start in 1970, he tore his Achilles tendon and was finished just as the Reds were becoming a contender. Fred Toney’s 1915 was one of the great fluke years by a Red pitcher – he was a waiver find that went 17-6 with a 1.58 ERA for a seventh place Reds team. Using the neutralized pitching tool on Baseball Reference, his season translates to 19-4 with 2.13 ERA in 2008 at GABP.

9T – Gary Nolan 1967, Noodles Hahn 1903 – 6.8

Gary Nolan was the Reds first round draft pick in 1966, and made the team as an 18 year old in 1967. He promptly posted one of the greatest seasons ever by a teenage pitcher, going 14-8 with a 2.58 ERA and 206 strikeouts in 226 IP. He ranked 2nd in the majors in WAR behind Jim Bunning, 4th in the league in ERA and strikeouts, and in a memorable no decision on June 7th, he struck out 15 Giants (including Willie Mays four times) in 7 2/3 innings. His season translated to 2008 would have been 17-7, 2.97 ERA with 198 strikeouts in 218 IP. Granted, it was a pitchers era, but at that time Crosley Field was one of the best hitter parks in the NL. Imagine if Homer Bailey had come up in 2005 (he spent the year in class A Dayton), immediately placed among the league leaders, and struck out Albert Pujols four times in a game – that is what Nolan accomplished as a teenager in 1967.

Nolan was another great “what if” among Reds pitchers, and probably would have benefited more from modern pitcher usage (and modern medicine) than any other in Reds history. He struggled with injuries in 1968 and 1969, and then was the Reds best pitcher from 1970-72, throwing 671 IP in his age 22-24 seasons. However, the workload took its toll and he missed almost two years with injuries. He came back in 1975 and made the transition from great power pitcher to an extreme control pitcher and was a key rotation member of the 75-76 Reds. In 1976 he gave up more home runs (28) than walks (27) but by age 29, his career was finished.

8 – Mario Soto 1982 – 7.0

Mario Soto was like Aaron Harang, only better. Both were durable power pitchers, with good control being offset by giving up the long ball (Soto led the league in homers allowed 3 times in a five year span). The 61-101 1982 Reds remain (as of this writing) the only team to lose 100 games in franchise history, and one has to wonder how much uglier they would have been without Mario. He ranked second in the league in strikeouts, 4th in ERA, and 3rd in WAR behind Steve Rogers and Joe Niekro. But with no run support (18 starts where the Reds scored 3 or fewer runs), Soto ended up with a 14-13 record and in an era when W-L records dictated the Cy Young voting, Soto ranked 9th.

7 – Bob Purkey 1962 – 7.2

Perhaps the biggest surprise in the top 15, Bob Purkey was a unique pitcher. He used a knuckleball, but was not a knuckleball pitcher. He mixed it in with a fastball, curve, slider, and sinker and relied on his defense and control. In 1962 he went 23-5 with a 2.81 ERA in 288 IP for a Reds team that was considerably better than the 1961 pennant winners, but still finished third. His 7.2 WAR was second best in baseball (curiously trailing Turk Farrell of Houston, who posted a 3.02 ERA in 241 IP for the season). Purkey had a number of other solid seasons, and was a worthy selection of the Reds Hall of Fame in 1974.

5T – Bucky Walters 1939 and Noodles Hahn 1902 – 7.7

If you look at the standard stats, Bucky Walter’s 1939 season looks like the best season by a Reds pitcher in history. He went 27-11 with a 2.29 ERA in 319 innings, and won the NL MVP and the pitching triple crown (although it only took 137 to tie for the league lead in strikeouts). Bill McKechnie put together a tremendous defensive infield (Frank McCormick, Lonnie Frey, Billy Myers and Billy Werber combined for an estimated 40 runs above average in Total Zone) and Walters took full advantage. He was wild (109 walks in 1939 or 3.1 per game in an era when the league leaders would walk about 1 per game) but by allowing very few hits thanks to a great sinker and infield defense he was still very effective. He was the second best pitcher in baseball in 1939, trailing only Bob Feller.

WAR sees 1902 as Noodles Hahn’s best season, when he posted a ridiculous 1.77 ERA in 36 starts (completing 35 of them) for a mediocre Reds team. His 170 ERA+ was second in the league behind Chicago’s Jack Taylor, who also edged Hahn in WAR that year. Over a 4 year period from 1901-1904, Hahn completed 143 of 146 starts, but he was out of baseball by age 28.

4 – Jim Maloney 1965 – 8.0

Maloney was a classic power pitcher, ranking in the top three in the league in strikeouts per 9 innings nearly every year from 1963 – 1968 but also walking more than his share (including 110 in 1965). The 1965 Reds were a great offensive team (leading the league in runs scored by over 100 runs), but Maloney was the only starter on the team with an ERA better than league average. Some highlights from his season:

4/19 – In his first start of the year, Maloney gives up only one hit (a single by future Red Denis Menke leading off the 8th inning) in a 2-0 win.

6/14 – In the greatest start in team history during the Retrosheet era (game score of 106), Maloney holds the Mets hitless for 10 innings, then gives up a home run and single in the 11th. Jim’s line for the 1-0 loss – 11IP, 1 ER, 18 strikeouts and 1 walk.

8/19 – Maloney had to be thinking “not again” when he held the Cubs hitless in the first nine innings at Wrigley. In the top of the 10th, Leo Cardenas homered to give him a lead, and he closed out the shutout and no hitter in the bottom of the 10th. This one wasn’t as clean as the loss in New York – Maloney struck out 12 while walking 10.

9/1 – A five hit shutout against Milwaukee, featuring 12 K’s and only 1 walk.

Thru his age 29 season, his most similar player list reads like a who’s who of great power pitchers (Koufax, Carlton, Jenkins, Dwight Gooden and Jim Palmer are all on his top 10 list), and one has to believe that had has career lasted into his late 30’s he could have added considerably to his win total with the Big Red Machine behind him. Even with the shortened career, WAR sees him as the greatest Reds pitcher of the last 75 years in total WAR.

3 – Ewell Blackwell 1947 – 8.3

Signed as a 19 year old by the Reds in 1942, Blackwell had a cup of coffee with the Reds before joining the service for the duration of the war. A 6’ 6” lanky righthander, Blackwell combined a great fastball with an unusual sidearm motion, and in 1947 he was incredibly dominant for a 5th place Reds team that went 73-81. Blackwell went 22-8, led the league in wins and strikeouts, and was second in ERA (behind Warren Spahn, who edged him for the highest pitcher’s WAR of the year). Blackwell won 16 straight games, tossed a no hitter on June 18, and then nearly tied Johnny Vander Meer’s record on June 22nd, holding the Dodgers hitless for 8 1/3 innings. He started the All-Star game, and the National League would name him to the All Star team every year whether he was having a good year or not, reasoning that his unique motion would be tough on the American League (he struck out 12 in 13 2/3 innings with a 1.32 ERA in his All Star game appearances). He was plagued by a number of injuries for the rest of his Reds career, but posted another excellent year in 1950 (6.3 WAR).

2 – Jose Rijo 1993 – 8.6

Jose Rijo’s 1993 season has a lot in common with Mario Soto’s 1982; a brilliant season that was wasted on a bad Reds team. The 1993 Reds finished 73-89 and 31 games behind the Braves. and were plagued by injuries and turmoil. This was the year that Marge Schott was suspended, Tony Perez was fired as manager after 44 games, and nearly every Red made a visit to the disabled list. Much like teammate Barry Larkin, Rijo usually would miss games each season but in 1993 he made a career high 36 starts, was second in the league in ERA, and led the league in strikeouts. With less than 4 runs a game in run support, Jose was only able to post a 14-9 record despite having the best WAR in baseball. Greg Maddux predictably won the Cy Young with a 20-10 record while Rijo finished 5th. He had one more good year in 1994 before injuries effectively ended his career (except for an emotional comeback in 2001-2002). He has the highest WAR per 220 innings (5.0) of any Reds starter in team history and ranks 5th in career WAR.

1 – Dolf Luque 1923 – 9.9

Dolf Luque was one of the stars of the good Reds teams in the 1920’s, which featured pitching and defense and very little offense. The 1923 Reds were one of the better editions of those teams, finishing in second place with a 91-63 record (ranking 7th in runs scored and 1st in runs allowed). During his 12 year career with the Reds, Luque generally posted better than league average ERA’s with .500 W-L records, but in 1923 everything clicked for the 32 year old from Havana. He led the league in wins (27), ERA (1.93 in a hitters era), was second in strikeouts and allowed a total of 2 home runs in 322 IP. In WAR, it ranks among the top 25 seasons by a pitcher since 1900, and was not exceeded until 1946 when Bob Feller posted a 10.1 season. Luque ranks just behind Jim Maloney in total WAR for a Reds pitcher, and was inducted into the Reds Hall of Fame in 1967.

And lets not forget the trailers – the five worst seasons by a Reds pitcher were:

T5 – Dave Tomlin 1978, Si Johnson 1935 (2.7)

Why win/loss records are meaningless, part 47 – in 1978 relief pitcher Dave Tomlin managed to post a 9-1 record for the Reds. He also posted a 5.78 ERA, gave up almost 2 baserunners per inning, and an ERA+ of 62. The Reds finished 2.5 games behind the Dodgers, so having a reliever almost 3 games under replacement didn’t help matters any. Si Johnson had the misfortune of pitching for the Reds in the early 1930’s, and his .348 winning percentage (46-86) is the worst in team history.

T3 – Jim O’Toole 1965, Jean Dubec 1909 (3.0)

Jim O’Toole was one of the better Reds pitchers of the 60’s, but in 1965 had an awful year, going 3-10 with a 5.92 ERA (that would translate to 6.92 in 2008). He bounced back in a part time role 1966, but 1965 was one of the worst in team history

2 – Benny Frey 1935 (3.1)

Like Si Johnson, Benny Frey had the misfortune of pitching for the Reds in the 1930’s and his 1935 season gave the Reds two pitchers that combined for almost 6 wins below replacement level. Despite that, the Reds finished 6th for the year, which doesn’t sound impressive except that the Reds had finished last the previous 4 seasons.

1 - Bill Phillips 1901 (3.2)

Phillips was actually a pretty decent pitcher for the Reds at the turn of the century, but in 1901 he wiped out, posting a 4.64 ERA over 281 IP when the league ERA was 3.32. His start in game 2 of a doubleheader on June 24th didn’t help – a complete game 22 hitter (allowing 19 runs to the Phillies).

For current Reds fans who are wondering – Ryan Dempster in 2003 and Eric Milton in 2005, narrowly missed the worst 5 Reds seasons ever, but do rank in the worst 10.

Can a Ballclub's Record Justify It's Beer Prices?

2009-09-10T22:57:00.003-04:00

I did a little article for the Wall Street Journal, appearing today, about beer costs. It's an extension of the fan value post I did at BtB a few weeks back. Fun!

This led us to wonder: Does quality have anything to do with beer prices?

Surprisingly, it does. A team with a .600 winning percentage charges, on average, about $1.30 more for a 16-ounce beer than does a team with a .400 percentage.

My conversation with Neal Huntington and Dan Fox

2009-09-06T08:46:00.007-04:00

Ok, that's going a bit far. I was in a room with 50 other people for the Baseball Prospectus event at PNC Park, and they answered two of my questions during the Q&A (the first and last questions of the night!). Like a typical amateur blogger, I was completely unprepared--I brought a camera but not a notebook or recording device (and I didn't use the camera much), and didn't put much thought into composing my questions to be comprehensible (and thus they almost certainly weren't).

But here, at least in spirit, is a summary of the exchange. Please do not interpret any of these things as quotes...but I think, at least, they are not misrepresentations. If anything, I sounded less coherent, and Huntington sounded more coherent. If someone out there who attended can submit any modifications or additions, please do so. My goal is for this to be as accurate as it can be. Maybe there will be some audio on a BPRadio podcast later on where we can confirm some of this.

Me: I'm a big believer in scouting (at this point, Will Carroll made fun of me for being a Reds fan--it was funny). But how do you know that a scout is a good scout? I've asked this of other people and you hear "well, some of these guys have been doing this for a long time and know so much about the game." But what is your process for evaluating a scout to find out whether they really know what they are talking about, or whether they are full of it?

Huntington: It's a good question, and one that has been asked since the advent of scouting departments. It's always going to be subjective. But for me, the way you can identify a good scout is in how he breaks down a player. In my mind, there are probably two different kinds of scouts. The first one sees a player and within a minute decides he likes a player...and then proceeds to dig deeper and find support for that decision. To me, that's more the "old school" type of scout. My preference is for the other type, who will be very methodical in breaking down a player, piece by piece, and then at the end of the process will come to a decision that (motioning with hands) all of these things are adding up and therefore he likes the player.

Me (later, after some discussion of trades and prospect valuation): So how is it that you do break down a player? I mean, I write a blog, and we've gotten to a point that we can do a reasonably good player valuation in our basement (by this, I meant, that we have some objective numbers and methodologies to use when evaluating both MLBers and prospects, like seen here). But I'm wondering if you can talk about the process that you use to take all of your information and assign a number to your player, be it dollars, wins, or whatever unit you want to use. Clearly, you've made a lot of trades lately, and therefore must have this sort of thing down.

Huntington: I don't think we really do ever assign a "number" to a player. We have a lot of internal discussions about how we value a player, but it doesn't come down to a number to the point that there's a dollar figure put on a guy. At least not yet. Dan (Fox)'s information definitely comes into play with this, however, and often helps reign in some of our more outlandish positions.

Fox: Let me just add that something along the lines of what you describe is something we're working towards. But we're not there yet.

(Let me just say, I have absolutely no doubt that Fox, at least, is well aware of the sort of trade evaluations that people are doing in the amateur circuits. In fact, it is very clear from my conversations last night that he and others like him around baseball are constantly poaching the best ideas, methods, etc, that amateur researchers come up with and putting them to good use. My feeling is that they must still do something along the lines of what we do, but that they bring in a lot of other approaches as well to come to a decision on value. ... It's worth noting, however, that when SFiercex4 broke down the Pirates trades this season, he found that they received almost dead-on even value. So, either we're doing something that other teams are doing, or at least we're doing something that is an accurate way to predicting the decisions that teams will come to.)

Some other tidbits from the conversation:

* Huntington thinks that there has clearly been a big shift towards teams putting great value on their top prospects, more so than ever before in the history of baseball. He actually thinks that teams may be over-valuing prospects at this point. (I think they are probably being valued accurately, for the most part, but this is the first time this has happened in baseball history and so it is jarring).

* He also thinks that the competitive balance this year is disappointing. He continues to think that they can succeed, but it's going to be more of a challenge that it would have been 5 years ago. A salary cap would help, he thinks.

* Dan Fox stated that the ultimate goal in baseball analysis, data collection-wise, will be to have a complete digital record of a ballgame: tracking the ball and player position in real time. And we're almost there, as evidenced by the "GPS" software demo we all saw videos of earlier this summer. The question then will be how to mine it; that's where the next great advances in baseball statistics will come from. I hope the public will have access to those raw data...if nothing else, it's in baseball's best interest to let us do that research.

* The Pirates have a no-touch policy for the first six months a player is in the organization. After that time, they may try minor tweaks, but rarely will make huge changes to a player. There was lots of discussion of Tim Alderson in this regard.

----

As for me, it was a really fantastic evening. I got to meet and interact with a lot of folks that I've corresponded with and/or read over the years, including Dan Fox, Eric Seidman (chatted with him most of the game that followed the Q&A session--terrific guy), Will Carroll, Brian Cartwright, and, of course, the newly minted Pizza Cutter, Ph.D. Wonderful experience.

Furthermore, let me say that Neal Huntington is an incredibly impressive person. I'm sure most GM's are when you meet them--I remember Chad having a similar impression of Wayne Krivsky when they met for an interview early in Krivsky's tenure. But he seems like a very direct, no-nonsense person who had a very clear idea of how he felt was the best way to get his organization back on a winning path. It helps, I'm sure, that I agree with him. He talked a lot about the joint role of scouts vs. stats, and about making sure that the process is right, even if mistakes are occasionally made....something I've been talking about a fair bit of late. This kind of venue is precisely the sort of experience that could make a Pirates fan out of someone. I doubt I'll ever quit the Reds, but I sure like the Pirates front office.

I'll add some photos later on, though I didn't take photos of people--didn't want to be the Paparazzi.

Update: Here's Shawn Hoffman's recap of the event. For the record, Brian, I never ridiculed the Pirates' record. :)

If anyone else sees an event recap, please let me know--I'd like to link it.

@BtB: First Basemen WAR Review

2009-08-29T23:18:00.003-04:00

Image by Kjunstorm via Flickr

Tonight I posted a WAR review of the most valuable first basemen in MLB history. Pete Rose is the most notable Red to appear--he played 1B more than any other position.

Tony Perez ranks 29th all-time among first basemen, behind Fred McGriff and ahead of George Sisler.

An all-Reds 1B review is underway. :)

Recap of a Curve Game

2009-08-16T21:38:00.005-04:00

Image via Wikipedia

Went to an Altoona Curve game this evening. Let's just say that going with a 3-year old and a 3 month old, while a wonderful time, is not the best opportunity to scout our division rivals' AA team.

It was a blow-out by the third inning, though the Curve scored four in the 9th to bring the score 9-7. We left at the 7th inning stretch...kids getting cranky at their bedtime.

I saw two PA's by Pedro Alvarez. He took a called third strike and then popped out to short right. He was DHing tonight, so I didn't get to see him in the field.

Gorkys Hernandez grounded out the PA I clearly saw him, which was his first. I heard him hit an RBI triple, but I was in the bathroom stall helping my daughter go potty.

Ray Chang of WBC fame also had a great game. I saw him line a double to left field to drive in the Curve's first run. He apparently hit another at some point, but I missed it (maybe in the 9th?). Also made some slick plays in the field.

My 3-year old ate her first bag of Cracker Jack tonight. And she has demonstrably improved her bouncy house skills over the past year to being clearly above replacement level. The gymnastics lessons probably have helped with that.

Offense and Defense Over Reds History

2009-08-15T21:29:00.004-04:00

Mike has a nice post today that tries to rank this year's Reds offense for futility compared to other best-bad offenses in franchise history.

I thought I'd do a quick little study myself. I calculated actual team runs scored above NL average and runs allowed above NL average, after park factor correction, from 1890-2008 (ok, so I only have park factors for 1901+ teams). For 2009, I did the same, but I extrapolated to 162 games to make the data comparable.

By using park factors and the NL Average baseline, I should be correcting for pretty much everything aside from level of competition. Also note that I'm strictly using actual runs data--no RC, lwts, BsR, DIPS, UZR, etc. I love looking at components because they're less noisy (e.g. the BtB Power Rankings), but you also risk losing some information that the component stats don't take into account. So, for that reason, I think it makes the most sense to just start with straight up RS and RA.

Anyway, here are those data graphically.
Above-average is good on both offense and defense. The line is a 10-year moving average, because there are huge year-to-year fluctuations.

The past decade excepted, the Reds have traditionally had good defense (meaning pitching + fielding). Offensively, there really are only a few times when they've consistently posted above-average hitting clubs--though you can clearly see how remarkable the Big Red Machine era was (those two little dots blue dots near the top of the graph are runs scored above average in 1975 and 1976...man oh man). Since then, the Reds have basically fluctuated around average on offense.

As far as best- and worst-offensive seasons go, here you are:

Top-10 Reds Offenses

Rank	Year	RSAA
1	1976	204
2	1975	180
3	1972	135
4	1965	125
5	1974	123
6	2005	103
7	1973	99
8	1939	98
9	1919	90
10	1968	86

Those '70's teams were really good at hitting the baseball.

Also, I think I remember there were a lot of complaints about too many home runs in 2005. Remember those days? :)

Worst-10 Reds Offenses

Rank	Year	RSAA
1	1930	-183
2	1982	-133
3	1951	-133
4	1945	-128
5	1932	-120
6	1891	-118
7	1929	-117
8	1934	-110
9	1893	-102
10	1933	-101
11	2009	-97
12	1997	-95

Ok, I cheated and gave you 12. The current Reds team is on pace (I'm extrapolating) to be the 11th-worst Reds offense, at least by this measure. What surprised me was that the '97 team showed up as just a tad "better." I guess I'd forgotten how bad that offense was, but they had four starters OPS below 0.700, including Pokey Reese at a brilliant 0.571.

And holy crap, that 1930 team was horrible. Harry Heilmann hit 0.333/0.416/0.577 for that team, but there wasn't much of a supporting cast. They won 59 games.

Top-10 Reds Defenses

Rank	Year	RAAA
1	1896	152
2	1940	142
3	1890	114
4	1904	112
5	1944	111
6	1964	110
7	1925	105
8	1999	104
9	1990	101
10	1967	96

If you glance back up at the graph, there were two large peaks in Reds' defense in the '20s and in the '40s, and you see some of that in this table. The 1890's also had some brilliant defenses, including probably their best defensive team ever in 1896. The 1940 team included Bucky Walters and Paul Derringer in the rotation, and won the World Series over the Tigers.

And two of the last three Reds teams to make the post-season (I count the 1-game playoff against the Mets in '99 postseason, technicalities be damned!) are on this list. Big Red Machine teams don't appear, though the '75 team ranks 18th.

And now...

Worst-10 Reds Defenses

Rank	Year	RAAA
1	1901	-169
2	2005	-162
3	2004	-135
4	2003	-123
5	1894	-113
6	1934	-105
7	1931	-83
8	1916	-82
9	1948	-74
10	2001	-72

I mean, like, holy crap, the 2001-2005 was a pretty horrible time for run-prevention, eh? I don't think offense was the problem in 2005.

One last thing. Since I had the data in front of me, I calculated PythagenPat-estimated winning percentages for all Reds teams since 1890. Through last night's game, the Reds have been outscored 81743-81634 since 1890, which results in a PythagenPat of 0.4994 since they joined the National League.

Top-10 PythagenPat Winning % Reds Teams

Rank	Year	PythW%	RSAA	RAAA
1	1975	0.662	180	77
2	1919	0.654	90	93
3	1976	0.639	204	18
4	1940	0.629	41	142
5	1939	0.616	98	79
6	1896	0.614	11	152
7	1972	0.607	135	21
8	1904	0.607	23	112
9	1994	0.602	78	41
10	1974	0.595	123	26
11	1999	0.593	41	104
12	1995	0.586	80	44

Big Red Machine at the top, naturally.

That 1919 team is interesting, as they were, of course, the "victims" (benefactors?) of the Black Sox scandal. The story you always hear is that the Reds were a vastly inferior team to the Sox, and how the Sox gave the series away. Maybe they did, but if they played to the best of their abilities, I wouldn't be surprised to see this Reds team still beat them. They were a very, very good team.

I was also surprised to see three teams from the mid-late '90's on this list (though I cheated a bit to get them on there again). The '99 team is a favorite of mine, but the '94 and '95 teams were superb as well. Both years were shortened seasons, so they might have posted even higher numbers vs. average had they played 162 games both years. Damned strike.

Worst-10 PythagenPat W% Reds Teams

Rank	Year	PythW%	RSAA	RAAA
1	1901	0.326	-91	-169
2	1934	0.360	-110	-105
3	1930	0.380	-183	-17
4	2003	0.385	-67	-123
5	1945	0.385	-128	-36
6	1933	0.387	-101	-49
7	1948	0.387	-90	-74
8	1931	0.397	-73	-83
9	1932	0.401	-120	-25
10	1891	0.403	-118	-26

The '30s were not a good time to be a Reds fan. Makes the 2000's look like...well, maybe not quite a golden era, but the '30's make our current decade look a lot better. The '30's had five consecutive seasons with actual winning percentages below 0.400 (1930-1934). The Reds' most recent season below 0.400 was 27 years ago (1982; 0.377 in reality, 0.415 by PythagenPat).

The '39 and '40 teams must have been incredibly special to this town. It's before my time, though, and I'm just starting to learn about those players and teams.

For the record, 2009 is on pace to be the 20th-worst team in Reds history.

Almost all raw data is from the Baseball Databank.

More on judging deals at the time they are made

2009-08-13T10:01:00.004-04:00

Fantastic interview with Chris Antonetti that talks a lot about how the Indians evaluated risk prior to inking Travis Hafner. It's very relevant to my last post about problems with post-hoc analyses. Here's an excerpt:

So then, you must feel perfectly good about that whole process.

Yeah. There are obviously different degrees of outcomes in any decision you make, and I think what we try to look through and look back on the process, and how complete and how effective the process was, irrespective of the outcome. You could have a very good process and still bad outcomes. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case in Travis' case - again, our expectation and our belief is that he's gonna come back and with his physical issues behind him will go back to being a very, very productive major league hitter.

Well ... come on, I think you could say that it has not worked out at least on the medical side the way you hoped it would.

Oh, certainly, so far, that's correct, yeah.

So then, would it be fair to say that, with the management team currently in place, if faced with the exact same set of circumstances again, you go ahead and sign that same contract?

With the information we had at that point? Yeah. Yep. I think that's fair to say.

So from the day you signed the contract until now, a season and a half later, realistically, the contract that that player could command on the market has gone down precipitously, and yet you would look back at that and say, "There's nothing about that experience that would make us change our process at all."

With the information we had at point, no. Yes, I would say that. I would say that's correct. We are comfortable with the process we had to arrive at that decision.

I also thought that this last bit was an interesting comment.

But you've concluded that the process was as good as you thought it was?

And as good as we could have done with the information we had at that point. I think you can get into bigger questions about team building, about committing significant dollars in a market our size to a player at that end of the defensive spectrum. That's a different strategic question than what we thought of the process arriving at the decision and the risk associated with signing Travis to a long-term deal.

Interesting point about market size & player type. I guess you can make the argument that a guy at the far right of the defensive spectrum (1B or DH) is riskier simply because all of his eggs are in one basket. A shortstop might decline offensively, but still provide defensive value. If a 1B/DH doesn't hit, they have no value. That said, offensive projections are more reliable than defensive projections, so that might counter things a bit. Neat idea, anyway.

FWIW, I still think the Reds need to buy out Votto ASAP while he can still be signed for a massively below-market contract. :)

Hat tip to Tango.

Why do we bother trying to judge trades as they happen?

2009-08-10T15:55:00.002-04:00

There's a tendency in the media and among fans to evaluate trades after the fact. You wait a few years, see which teams win out, and then see which team got the most value.

On the other hand, many of us also like to try to judge a trade as it happens. Everyone does this, some using a qualitative approach and others using a quantitative approach (e.g. my analysis of the Rolen trade). Yet some would say that we shouldn't evaluate a trade until after the fact, as there's just too much uncertainty in trying to forecast the future--and what matters are results, right?

I certainly agree that there are big error bars around quantitative trade analyses. But I still think there's a lot of merit in trying to judge trades as they happen, because it helps us recognize quality moves by GM's--regardless of the eventual outcome. You can make what, by all information available, is a great trade at the time, only to have some bad luck (injuries, etc) derail it in a post-hoc analysis. I still think we should recognize that the GM made a smart move, even if it falls apart later.

Paul DePodesta wrote a great article about this that I've been meaning to link to for a long time. Here's an excerpt:

As tough as a good process/bad outcome combination is, nothing compares to the bottom left: bad process/good outcome. This is the wolf in sheep's clothing that allows for one-time success but almost always cripples any chance of sustained success - the player hitting on 17 and getting a four. Here's the rub: it's incredibly difficult to look in the mirror after a victory, any victory, and admit that you were lucky. If you fail to make that admission, however, the bad process will continue and the good outcome that occurred once will elude you in the future. Quite frankly, this is one of the things that makes Billy Beane as good as he is. He is quick to notice good luck embedded in a good outcome, and he refuses to pat himself on the back for it.

Reds WAR Review: Catchers

2009-08-07T21:58:00.007-04:00

Bubbles Hargrave is probably the 4th-best catcher in Reds history. I hadn't heard of him. Yes, I'm lame. Image via Wikipedia

At BtB, I've started a series of recaps looking at the most valuable players at each position of all time, as measured by Rally's WAR database. Since I'm a Reds fan, I'm going to do a mirrored series here looking at past Reds greats. It will be a great way to help me learn some Reds history, and has the added bonus of keeping my mind off the current Reds team's woes.

Keep in mind a few caveats: the WAR values you see here are only for those seasons (or partial-seasons) players spent with the Reds. Second, WAR is not a perfect measure of value (I think it is the best available stat of its kind). And third, even if WAR was perfect in measuring what it tries to, career WAR value is necessarily the best way to evaluate who is the "best" player (i.e. peak seasons matter just as much as total career value when deciding things like that).

We'll begin the series with a Top-10 list of Reds catchers!

10. Ivey Wingo.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1915	13	3302	-63	0.313	-5	-1	48	7.3	1.5

This is the kind of lousy Reds fan I am: Wingo played in the second-most seasons by any Reds catcher, and ranks third in PA's among any Reds catcher. And I had never heard of the guy. Wingo wasn't a particularly great player (tied for lowest WAR/yr rate of anyone in the top-18 Reds catchers), but he played a long time, and at his retirement held the NL record for most games caught. His best year with the Reds was in 1917, when he hit 0.266/0.311/0.376 in 432 PA's in a league that averaged 0.249/0.305/0.328. That was good for a half-win above average, which translates to 2.3 wins above replacement that year. His tenure with the club included an appearance in the Reds' 1919 World Championship team, which (in)famously defeated the "Black Sox" that year. He also served as manager of the Reds for two whole games during the 1916 season, nestled between the managerial careers of Buck Herzog and Christy Mathewson. Wingo ended his career with the Reds.

9. Smoky Burgess. Reds Hall of Fame.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1955	4	1227	22	0.356	0	0	13	8	4.6

The fun thing about team lists like this, and part of the reason I'm only doing a top-10 list, is that you get players making your top-10 who only played for the Reds for a few years, sometimes as a reserve--but were really good players during their time. Burgess is our first example of this. He was a very good player over a long career, and ranks 27th among MLB catchers in WAR overall. He played four of those seasons with the Reds, and put up outstanding numbers despite serving as the reserve/platoon partner for C Ed Bailey during three of those four years. As a hitter, he hit for good power, fine average, and walking at twice the rate he struck out. His 0.356 wOBA (which is park- and era-adjusted) ranks 4th-best among Reds catchers with more than 50 PA's.

He is also one of just four catchers to be elected into the Reds Hall of Fame (curiously, Bailey is not one of them). How that happened is somewhat inexplicable to me. Chris Eckes of the Reds passed on a bit of info via Greg in Atlanta on this: Burgess was elected in 1975, his 4th year on the ballot, edging out deadball era one year wonder Cy Seymour by just 800 votes. Apparently, it was just a weak year!

8. Johnny Edwards.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1961	7	2624	-53	0.312	4	1	44	8.2	2.2

Edwards broke in with the Reds and played as their starting catcher for six seasons before losing his job to a rookie. I'm sure that stung, but at least he can take heart knowing now that the rookie would go on to become the best catcher in MLB history. For his part, though, Edwards was an average-fielding backstop who put up four decent seasons of performance from 1962-1965 before falling off a cliff in 1966. 1963 and 1965 were 3-WAR seasons, but he fell apart and posted -0.5 WAR seasons in '66 and '67. Hard to keep your job doing that. In his best year, Edwards hit 0.267/0.353/0.474, showing nice power in slugging 17 home runs. He was traded for Pat Corrales in 1968.

7. Ray Mueller.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1943	6	1864	2	0.336	9	3	16	9.2	3.5

Mueller is #7 on our list due to a pair of three-WAR seasons and one other decent season. He came to the Reds after missing the '41 & '42 seasons following his time with the Pirates (possibly military service? Anyone know?). He is best known for catching 233 consecutive games during the '43, '44, and '46 seasons for the Reds (he did miss 1945 while serving in the Army). Mueller had a little bit of power, but his best offensive asset was his ability to get on base. During his years with the Reds, Mueller walked as much as he struck out, which helped him post back to back seasons with ~a 0.350 OBP. Being incredibly durable, at least for a few seasons, didn't hurt either.

6. Tommy Clarke.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1909	9	1935	7	0.339	5	2	37	10.6	3.8

Clarke overlapped with Ivey Wingo during the second half of his tenure with the Reds, but Clarke spent almost his entire career with the Reds and posted above-average offensive performance over that time. As a late-dead ball era hitter, I have a hard time evaluating his individual strengths and weaknesses. But while Clarke didn't seem to have much if any power, he seems similar to Mueller in that he excelled at getting on base, posting a 0.351 career OBP. Also, if his BR Wiki page is any indication, he sounds like he was a pretty fiesty individual.

5. Heinie Peitz.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1896	9	2949	-11	0.331	18	4	42	14.2	3.4

Heinie is our only 1800's player in the top-10, and ranks as the 5th-most valuable catcher in Reds' history. He joined the Reds in a trade prior to the 1896 season, and went on to be their starting catcher until he was traded to the Pirates in 1905. Just shy of an average hitter and an apparently competant fielder, he played a lot during his career with the Reds, which is a big part of how he got to this spot on our list. He also played all over the diamond: most of his starts were at catcher, but he played first, second, third, and even pitched on a few occasions

4. Bubbles Hargrave. Reds Hall of Fame

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1921	8	2605	75	0.368	2	1	23	18	4.8

The Reds have had some great names playing the two position: Ivey, Heinie, Smokey, Admiral...but no one can top Bubbles (though it was apparently a rather cruel nickname that referenced his stutter). But he was more than a name--he was an excellent ballplayer. Aside from Burgess, Hargrave is the first clearly above-average hitter on the list. He started behind the plate for 8 seasons following his arrival in 1921. Hargrave won a batting title in 1926, a season in which he posted a .406 OBP. But his best season was in 1923, when he hit 0.333/0.419/0.521, good for 4.6 wins above replacement. He received MVP consideration in three consecutive seasons from 1925-1927, and ended with a career line of 0.314/0.377/0.461 with the Reds.

3. Ed Bailey.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1953	9	2576	24	0.346	38	10	38	19.4	5.3

Bailey might not have been the hitter that Hargrave was, Bailey was an excellent fielder. In fact, on a per-PA (or inning played, if you like) basis, Bailey has better fielding numbers than any catcher in the top-25 Reds catcher list. Yes, that includes Johnny Bench. Bailey was also a fine hitter in his own right, with good power (28 HR in 1956) and strong on base skills, posting a career line (or close to it) of 0.261/0.359/0.438 with the Reds. Bailey was a 5-time All Star (4 with the Reds), so he clearly was recognized at the time as among the game' elite. Why isn't he in the Hall of Fame, despite his backup/platoon partner Smokey Burgess's membership? My guess is that it's bias against low-batting average players. More on Bailey below.

2. Ernie Lombardi. Reds Hall of Fame.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1932	10	4277	114	0.366	-16	-3	35	27.1	4.4

When Bubbles Hargrave left the team after the 1928 season, the Reds didn't have to wait long for their next great catcher. Lombardi arrived in 1932 and was heralded as one of the better hitters of his time. He was a two-time batting champion, including the 1938 season in which he was voted league MVP. He also played in seven all-star games and in two world series--the Reds won one of them (over DET in 1940). Lombardi had good power, routinely posting between 10 and 20 home runs each season. And he walked his share, while hitting for excellent average. But while he was an excellent hitter, both Hargrave and Bailey posted better WAR rates. What made Lombardi special is that on top of all of his other accomplishments, he played a ton during his 10 seasons with the Reds, at least by catcher standards. He played at least 107 games every year with the Reds (average=120), and averaged 420 PA's per year during that time. He ended up with almost 1000 more PA's than Ivey Wingo, who received the third-most PA's of a Reds catcher. Lombardi ranks 20th on the all-time list of MLB catchers.

1. Johnny Bench. Baseball Hall of Fame.

Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1967	17	8568	253	0.369	71	6	98	71.3	5.8

Surprise! Bench rates as the best catcher in MLB history, at least based on WAR. Here's what I wrote about him at BtB:

As a Reds fan I'm biased, but I think if you were to ask a large number of fans the name of the best catcher ever, Johnny Bench's name would be at the top of the poll. It's not a slam dunk, but Bench comes out four wins above Fisk--and Bench had 1200 fewer PA's and a much higher peak. Bench was a brilliant defender, but probably not the best defensive catcher of all time. And he was a superb hitter, but is probably not the best hitting catcher of all time. What sets him apart is that he was extremely good at both offense and defense: with game-changing defense and prodigious power, he redefined his position. No other catcher has ever hit 45 home runs in a season, and only one other Mike Piazza) has topped the 40-mark twice. He was Rookie of the Year, a two-time MVP (second only to Berra), a 14-time All Star (13 consecutive), and the winner of 10 consecutive gold gloves. He was the best of the best, and I'm proud that he played for my team...it's nice to be proud of something these days.

Graphics

Reds Catcher Timeline

Below is a graph of total WAR from Reds catchers (primary position only) since 1890. The line is a 10-year moving average.

Striking that since Bench retired, the Reds haven't had a long-term, quality catcher. Best year was 2005 with the LaRue/Valentin combo. Catcher is clearly a position at which the Reds have historically been strong, at least going back to Hargrave. Who will be the next great Reds catcher?

WAR Career Trajectory Graph

Here are the four Reds Hall of Fame catchers, plus Ed Bailey.

Bench was obviously the best, but the most interesting thing to me about this graph is the Bailey/Lombardi comparison. Lombardi was much more productive over his full career. But during their best five seasons, Bailey was probably Lombardi's equal. Bailey should be in the Reds Hall of Fame, at least by my judgment.

Top-25 Reds Catchers, by WAR

Table is sortable--click on the header by which you wish to sort!

Rank	Name	Debut	Seasons	PA	Offense	wOBA	FldRns	Fld/700PA	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
1	Bench, Johnny	1967	17	8568	253	0.369	71	6	98	71.3	5.8
2	Lombardi, Ernie	1932	10	4277	114	0.366	-16	-3	35	27.1	4.4
3	Bailey, Ed	1953	9	2576	24	0.346	38	10	38	19.4	5.3
4	Hargrave, Bubbles	1921	8	2605	75	0.368	2	1	23	18	4.8
5	Peitz, Heinie	1896	9	2949	-11	0.331	18	4	42	14.2	3.4
6	Clarke, Tommy	1909	9	1935	7	0.339	5	2	37	10.6	3.8
7	Mueller, Ray	1943	6	1864	2	0.336	9	3	16	9.2	3.5
8	Edwards, Johnny	1961	7	2624	-53	0.312	4	1	44	8.2	2.2
9	Burgess, Smoky	1955	4	1227	22	0.356	0	0	13	8	4.6
10	Wingo, Ivey	1915	13	3302	-63	0.313	-5	-1	48	7.3	1.5
11	Vaughn, Farmer	1892	8	2585	-52	0.312	9	2	22	6.7	1.8
12	LaRue, Jason	1999	8	2516	-59	0.308	7	2	42	6.2	1.7
13	McLean, Larry	1906	7	2251	-47	0.311	8	2	36	6	1.9
14	Seminick, Andy	1952	4	1122	-4	0.331	5	3	10	5	3.1
15	Taubensee, Eddie	1994	7	2291	7	0.339	-57	-17	31	4.8	1.5
16	Pavletich, Don	1957	9	1206	13	0.347	-18	-10	6	4.4	2.6
17	Schlei, Admiral	1904	5	1675	-33	0.312	2	1	27	4.2	1.8
18	Diaz, Bo	1985	5	1672	-53	0.299	21	9	26	4.1	1.7
19	Oliver, Joe	1989	8	2598	-87	0.296	10	3	43	3.5	0.9
20	Ross, Dave	2006	3	795	-14	0.315	10	9	14	3.3	2.9
21	Lamanno, Ray	1941	5	1536	-40	0.305	1	0	13	2.6	1.2
22	Wood, Bob	1898	3	492	7	0.351	-3	-4	7	2.6	3.7
23	Campbell, Gilly	1935	3	585	2	0.339	-1	-1	5	2.4	2.9
24	Picinich, Val	1926	3	810	-8	0.324	0	0	8	2.4	2.1
25	Hershberger, Willard	1938	3	427	2	0.34	0	0	4	2	3.3

Next up: First Basemen!

Update (9/15/09): I regret that I mistakenly neglected to include Reds teams prior to 1890 in the above analysis. As a result, some players were mistakenly omitted, though it did not affect rankings among the top-10. Players in the top-25 should have also included Pop Snyder (5 seasons, 6.8 WAR), Deacon White (3 seasons, but 6.2 WAR), and Jim Keenan (7 seasons, 5.7 WAR)

@BtB: Value to Fans, Power Rankings

2009-08-06T22:28:00.003-04:00

Two new posts over at BtB.

First, I updated my power rankings. The Reds are now ranked last in all of baseball. That freaking sucks--good thing it only matters to my spreadsheet.

Second, I revisited a topic that I've looked at once before: which teams offer the most value to their fans? I look at Fan Cost Index (essentially the cost for a family of four to visit the ballpark--tickets, parking, food, drinks, souviers, etc), and compare it to winning percentage. I also explicitly look at beer cost, because beer is fun.

The Reds come out looking pretty decent this year, even though the team stinks. Based on a regression, their Fan Cost is $33 less than expected, based on team winning percentage. If you use the BtB Power Ranking estimated winning percentage, the Reds' FCI comes out $9 less than expected. Still above-average, though not as much. But then, the Power Rankings aren't kind to our Redlegs.

The Reds' beer is also cheaper than expected, though only by a few cents. Good thing--we need it.

Hat Tip to ctrent for the link to the latest FCI stuff.

Farewell to Hal McCoy

2009-08-06T20:43:00.005-04:00

One of the better baseball writers I've had the pleasure of reading, even if I agree with him only about half the time, will be leaving us at the end of the season. And not by his choice.

We're down to John Fay and Mark Sheldon. Both great guys and good writers, but neither quite has Hal's creativity with the pen. We'll still get our Reds news. But the fewer reporters we have, the harder it will be to get something more than what is in the day's press releases, or what Dusty wants to talk about in his daily meeting.

This recession shit sucks.

Reds Futility, Visualized

2009-08-05T13:10:00.004-04:00

This is one of the worst stretches that I can remember as a Reds fan. Here are some graphical looks at how bad it's been.

Sparkline, via THT:

In this case, the Red marks indicate wins (or losses) of four runs or less. So they haven't been blowouts. But still. Yikes.

+/- 0.500 graph, via THT:

Not horrible 'til the All-Star break, then KerBloom!

And these don't illustrate the terribleness of the Volquez injury news...

::sigh::

Understanding Surplus Value

2009-08-03T20:53:00.006-04:00

Joey Votto is not only the Reds' best player, but also one of their cheapest players. Image by phillenium1979 via Flickr

In the Rolen trade analysis, I spent much of my time evaluating "surplus value" in my assessments of the players involved. This is not the first time I've posted about this, though perhaps it's the highest profile case of this sort. It is, however, becoming a more mainstream approach to analyzing trades (see, for example, Sky's Trade Value Calculator). I thought I'd take a stab at explaining this concept, and how it has been extended to prospect valuation.

The core of it is understanding the connection between player value and payroll.

The major league minimum this year is $400k. You need 25 guys on your team (assuming no injuries, etc...), which means the minimum possible payroll in MLB right now is $10 million ($400k * 25). How well would such a team perform? Well, if you use that $10 million exclusively on free agents, you're not going to get very good players--mostly guys who can't get a job anywhere else, minor league free agents, etc. Those guys are essentially the definition of replacement players, and we generally assume a team full of replacement players will play around 0.350 ball, which amounts to 57 wins per season (you'll see other figures around the 'net--which one you choose doesn't change what I'm about to do qualitatively).

On the other side of the coin are the New York Yankees, who began this season with a $201 million payroll. From other work, we know that each win above replacement cost roughly $4.5 million in last offseason's free agent market. Therefore, if the extra $191 million they're spending above the minimum was invested in free agent salaries, they could reasonably expect to win $191/$4.5 = 42 extra wins above the minimum 57, or 97 wins (for what it's worth, the Yankees are on pace for 99 wins). :)

But take the Tampa Bay Rays. They began the year with a $63 million payroll. That's just $53 million over the minimum payroll. If you invested that extra money in free agents, and filled in the rest with replacement players, you'd expect they'd win another $53/$4.5 = 12 extra wins. That would equal 69 total wins. But they're on pace for 91 wins. How?

The answer, of course, is that their team is not made up of free agents. It is made up of a lot of quality, young players making far less than they would had they signed as free agents. For the first three seasons of a player's career in the major leagues, they make at or close to the league minimum. For the next three seasons after that, they are eligible for arbitration and get raises, but for a variety of reasons still get paid well below what they would as a free agent. As a result, for the first six years of a player's career, they will make less than a free agent regardless of their performance on the field.

Most teams operate under a fairly set budget. The median opening day payroll was about $81 million this year. So if a team has that budget, and spend it all on free agents, you'd expect them to win around 57+16 = 73 games. In order to win more games, teams have to have players who produce value above their salaries. For example, this year, Joey Votto has produced ~2.5 wins above replacement (worth $11.3 million on free agent market), but is making just over league minimum. If you fill your team with those kinds of players instead of replacement players, and still spend $71 million on free agents, you'll obviously win a lot more games.

That's what we're talking about when we talk about surplus value. It's the extra value a player provides above what their salary would bring on the free agent market. The keys to winning, at the club level, is 1) to spend money for good players, and 2) to get players who produce value above what their salary would predict. Most teams can't get by on #1 alone, and the easiest way to do #2 is to get young players making "slave" wages.

This is also what makes prospects valuable commodities. Prospects generally have no or minimal MLB playing time, which means that their "owners" get them for six full seasons when they will make below free-agent market rates. So, the short of it is that if you figure out how much surplus value a typical prospect type provides their team during the first six years (including assessments of how often they provide any value to their team at all--many, of course do not), that gives you a good indication of how much value to assign prospects of that type.

In Zach Stewart's case, I pegged him (as many others do) as a class-B pitching prospect. Pitchers of this sort tend to provide the equivalent of $7.3 million in surplus value over their first six seasons. Another way to think of that is that it's a total of ~1.6 wins above replacement over their first six years (only 0.3 WAR/season). Not particularly inspiring, maybe, but it reflects the fact that many class-B pitching prospects do not pan out for one reason or another. But some do, some provide a little value, and some provide a ton of value. The $7.3 million total is the typical amount of surplus value you can hope to get from such a pitcher.

Anyway, this became rather long. But if anyone made it this far, I hope it helped clarify the underpinnings of this kind of trade analysis.

More on the Rolen deal

2009-07-31T23:19:00.006-04:00

Scott Rolen's a fine player. But was the cost too great? Image via Wikipedia

Through a strange twist of fate, I suddenly have a bit of time to spend working through today's big deal in a more careful way than I did earlier today (I have no real opinion on the Hairston deal as of now). Let's look at the players one by one.

Scott Rolen, RHB 3B

Year	Age	Team	PA	%K	%BB	%LD	BABIP	AVG	OBP	SLG	ISO	wOBA	RAA	WAR
2006	31.2	STL	594	12%	9%	20%	0.301	0.296	0.369	0.518	0.223	0.380	22.1	4.0
2007	32.2	STL	441	13%	8%	20%	0.287	0.265	0.331	0.398	0.133	0.327	-3.6	0.9
2008	33.2	TOR	467	15%	10%	21%	0.292	0.262	0.349	0.431	0.169	0.346	5.5	2.3
2009	34.2	TOR	373	11%	7%	25%	0.341	0.320	0.370	0.476	0.157	0.368	11.1	2.5
2009	34.2	TOR (ROS)	174	13%	8%	--	0.308	0.284	0.351	0.439	0.155	0.349	2.2	0.9
2009	34.2	TOR (ZiPS)	547	12%	7%	--	0.331	0.308	0.364	0.465	0.156	0.362	13.4	3.4

Rolen's had a bit of a resurgence this year, though as noted elsewhere it seems likely to be, in part, based on a "lucky" BABIP (though his LD rate is also up...though that too is also likely unsustainable). His updated ZIPS, based on stats to date and rest of season performance, put his value this season at 3.4 WAR (0.9 WAR the rest of the way). He's a nice all-around hitter, with average walk rates, nice power, and good contact ability. A big part of his problem has been injuries--he hasn't hit 500 PA's since 2006 (a full season is 700 PA's!). A weighted 3-year average of the 07, 08, and projected 09 stats puts his expected "true talent" hitting value at 2.4 WAR.

Fielding-wise, he's not what he once was, but still is a plus defender. A weighted 3-year average of his bUZR puts him at ~8 runs above average. His Fan's Scouting Report in 2008 was outstanding, rating him best in all of baseball at his position. I'll put him as a +1 WAA fielder, with the understanding that injuries can pull this value down.

So, in terms of win value (i.e. total value) the rest of this season (60/162=37% games remaining), we have:
+0.9 offense (from ZiPS Rest of Season)
+1.0 WAA * 0.37 = 0.4 fielding
+0.25 WAA * 0.37 = 0.09 position adjustment
---------------------------------------------
1.4 WAR over the remainder of this season, which is worth around $6.3M.

He's due to make $11M this season, of which I'm estimating 37% should be paid by the Reds, which is $4M. That's a surplus value of ~$2 million this season.

Next year:
2.4 WAR offense
1.0 WAA fielding
0.25 WAA position
-0.5 WAA aging
----------------
3.2 WAR Total

That's worth between $14.5 M and $16 M, depending on how the free agent market goes this offseason. He'll make $11 million, so that's ~$4 million in surplus value. Overall, we have a "property" that can reasonably be expected to provide ~$6 million in surplus value over the rest of his contract. He also fills several holes on the Reds--he's a good RHB, and solves (at least until the end of July 2010) the defensive problem at 3B. He's a good pickup. The question, of course, is the cost...

Edwin Encarnacion, RHB 3B

Year	Age	Team	PA	%K	%BB	%LD	BABIP	AVG	OBP	SLG	ISO	wOBA	RAA	WAR
2006	23.5	CIN	467	17%	9%	21%	0.307	0.276	0.355	0.473	0.197	0.361	9.7	2.4
2007	24.5	CIN	560	15%	7%	19%	0.322	0.289	0.354	0.438	0.149	0.353	8.3	2.5
2008	25.5	CIN	582	18%	10%	16%	0.264	0.251	0.340	0.466	0.215	0.352	9.6	2.7
2009	26.5	CIN	165	23%	15%	14%	0.250	0.209	0.333	0.374	0.165	0.322	-1.7	0.3
2009	26.5	CIN	181	19%	10%	0%	0.288	0.259	0.348	0.449	0.190	0.354	3.1	0.8
2009	26.5	CIN	346	21%	12%	0%	0.271	0.236	0.341	0.414	0.178	0.339	1.4	1.1

Eddie's had a horrible season thus far with the stick. But prior to this year, he had posted three consecutive seasons with offensive WAR's in the mid-2's. I tend to think that this year is an aberration. But to be objective, a 3-year weighted average puts his "true talent" offensive performance at almost exactly 2 WAR.

The problem with Eddie is that his fielding really hurts his value. A 3-year weighted average of his bUZR puts him as a -10 run fielder. His Fan's Scouting Report was more "positive," rating him just in the bottom third of 3B's defensively. Consensus seems to be he has a solid glove, but an awful arm--seems right to me. FSR data would put him at about a -5 run fielder. I'll split the difference and call him a -0.75 win fielder.

So, over the rest of this year, we have:
0.8 WAR offense
-0.75 * 0.37 = -0.3 WAA fielding
0.25 * 0.37 = 0.09 WAA position adjustment
----------------------------
0.6 WAR, which is worth ~$2.7 million on the free agent market. He makes $2 million this season, and 37% of that is $0.7 M. That makes his surplus value over the rest of this year ~$2 million.

Next year, we have:
2 WAR offense
-0.75 WAA fielding
0.25 WAR position adjustment
-0.25 Aging (I'm not taking off the full 0.5 WAR because he's still young; injury risk and my lack of regression still warrants a deduction)
-------------------------------
1.3 WAR, which is worth between $6-$6.5 million next year. He'll make $4.75 M, so that makes for about a $1.5 million surplus value--entirely due to the fact that he's still in his arbitration years (otherwise, his salary would be better).

So, overall, I'd rate Encarnacion as being worth about $3.5 million in surplus value. You can guestimate that he might be worth another $0.75 million surplus in his third year of arbitration (arbitration players don't make what free agents do), which would bring his value to $4.25 million.

Zach Stewart, RHP

Year	Age	Team	GS%	IP	K/9	BB/9	HR/9	BABIP	ERA	FIP
2008	21.8	Reds (A)	0%	16.3	7.2	1.7	0.0	0.232	0.55	2.34
2008	21.8	Reds (A+)	0%	16.6	12.4	5.9	0.0	0.400	1.62	2.60
2009	22.8	Reds (A+)	100%	42.3	6.8	1.7	0.2	0.345	2.13	2.63
2009	22.8	Reds (AA)	100%	37.0	7.5	2.4	0.2	0.276	1.46	2.77
2009	22.8	Reds (AAA)	0%	12.3	11.7	5.8	0.0	0.369	0.73	2.55

Stewart was the Reds' 3rd-round selection (their second pick, as they did not have a 2nd-round selection) in the 2008 draft. He's done very well thus far and is skyrocketing through the minors. Scouting reports on him are strong, and he's put up extremely good ERA's thus far. His strikeout and walk rates have been a bit all over the place, but somehow it has all balanced out thus far in a very consistent FIP. Sickels rated him a B- pitcher prior to this season, and the consensus view is that he's a legitimate "B" pitcher now. "B" prospect pitchers are worth about $7 million in surplus value, based on their typical success rate and expected 6 years of below-market pay.

Josh Roenicke, RHP

Year	Age	Team	GS%	IP	K/9	BB/9	HR/9	BABIP	ERA	FIP	eW%	WAR
2006	23.9	Reds (R)	0%	15.6	13.8	6.9	0.6	0.308	6.32	3.26	63%	---
2006	23.9	Reds (R)	0%	7.6	10.6	3.5	0.0	0.388	1.17	2.42	73%	---
2007	24.9	Reds (A+)	0%	27.6	13.3	4.9	0.3	0.373	3.25	2.44	73%	---
2007	24.9	Reds (AA)	0%	19.0	7.1	2.8	0.0	0.237	0.95	2.57	71%	---
2008	25.9	Reds (AA)	0%	22.0	11.5	4.9	0.8	0.358	3.27	3.47	59%	---
2008	25.9	Reds (AAA)	0%	39.0	9.9	3.2	0.5	0.323	2.54	2.74	68%	---
2008	25.9	CIN	0%	3.0	18.0	6.0	0.0	0.709	9.00	2.13	75%	0.1
2009	26.9	Reds (AAA)	0%	28.0	10.3	1.9	0.0	0.390	2.57	1.77	80%	---
2009	26.9	CIN	0%	13.3	9.5	2.7	0.0	0.355	2.70	1.85	79%	0.5
2009	26.9	ZiPS (RoS)	0%	17.0	7.9	4.2	1.1	0.313	4.24	4.23	52%	0.1
2009	26.9	ZiPS (Update)	0%	30.9	8.6	3.6	0.6	0.331	3.56	3.19	63%	0.5

Roenicke's been all over the place the last few years. But his profile is fairly consistent: hard thrower, very good strikeout numbers, and high-but-not-outrageous walk totals. He's in his first full season, so I think it's probably best to go with Sickels' pre-season rating for him and use that to assign value to him. Sickels gave him a B-, which I'll guess makes him worth about $4 million in surplus value, given his fairly advanced age (he's the oldest player in this deal aside from Rolen!). That's spread out over the first six years of his career.

Trade Tally
Rating strictly on surplus value, we have:

Update: Fay says they get cash to cover the rest of Rolen's 2009 salary. That would be ~$4M. I've updated the below bit to reflect that guesstimate.

Rolen: $6 million surplus
+$4 million cash(??)
vs.
Encarnacion: $4 million surplus
Stewart: $7 million surplus
Roenicke: $4 million surplus
Total: $15 million surplus

Assuming the cash sent to the Reds above is accurate, Toronto "wins" trade by ~$5 million, which is roughly the value of a bench player as a free agent.

Does this deal make sense for the Reds? You can make the argument in a lot of ways that it does. They upgrade third base by roughly 1.5 wins next season, get a good right-handed bat (though only modestly better than Eddie's), and continue to upgrade their fielding.

The problems from my perspective are two-fold. First, the Reds overpaid by roughly one Josh Roenicke (though we're admittedly within the margin of error here). Second, even if this was the market rate, they acquired a single aging, injury-prone player in exchange for cheaper, younger players. If the Reds were likely to contend this or next season, it makes sense to do. But who outside of Bob Castellini really thinks that the Reds are in that sort of position? Rolen doesn't improve them by more than 2 wins per season, tops. The Reds prior to this trade were a sub-0.500 club, and by at least one way of forecasting these things, on their way to finishing last in the division. The Reds sacrificed a small part of the future for the now, and the two wins Rolen provides don't help the now very much.

On the plus side, at least I don't have to fret about why the Reds aren't moving Edwin to the outfield anymore. ;)

Reds Acquire Scott Rolen

2009-07-31T15:56:00.004-04:00

Update: More on this trade here.

I'm leaving town for the weekend in 20 minutes, so only a little time.

Rolen's long been an outstanding talent, with a great bat and brilliant glove. He's also been someone who has a hard time staying healthy, which hurts his value. He's had a WAR of 2.5, 3, and by this season's end 3.5 to 4. I think it's safe to call him a 2.5-3 WAR player next year. That's worth somewhere around $11-15 million next year. He's paid $11M next yea, so it's fair value, possibly with a small surplus up to $4 M depending on the market.

Eddie has been a 1.5-2 WAR player, but might be lucky to post 1.5 WAR this year. I'll call him 1.5 WAR for next year. Hitting-wise, he's valuable. But the fielding kills his value, and I've long since given up hope he'll get much better. Eddie makes 4.75 M next year in his final arbitration year, while his value should be in the $5.5-6.5 range (again, depending on market).

So, if it was a 1:1 trade, it'd favor the Reds slightly, I think--we take more salary, but upgrade talent and (probably) get a larger surplus.

The question now is who the minor leaguer is. Alonso is a top-25 hitter, I think, which puts his value at ~$25 M. (if just top-50, $23 M). That would swing the deal in a HUGE way to Toronto. Latest reports are that he's not included.

Zach Stewart I don't know how to rate. If he's a top-100 pitcher, he's ~$10 M. Grade B, he's $7 M. Either way, favors Toronto, though not as bad as initial reactions...only by a few million or so. Roenicke is maybe another 1 WAR, which is ~$4.5 WAR.

So yeah, I think Toronto wins by $6M in value or so. Not a disaster, but not good. I don't like this deal. Rolen's old, still a good player, but he's not going to make this team a contender next year. And how much longer will he play? Will he be healthy?

Have to run. :(

Mailbag: Pitching Questions

2009-07-30T16:15:00.003-04:00

What is wrong with Harang this year? Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Had a few questioins arrive in the inbox. Questions may be paraphrased, and since I didn't ask permission to post them, they are anonymous (feel free to chime in if you wish).

Reader #1:

What is your take on Aaron Harang? Has he collapsed, or is he just unlucky?

Note: most of what follows is from Harang's player pages at FanGraphs.

Comparing the 2008-2009 Harang to the 2006-2007 Harang, there are two substantial differences I see. First is a decline in his strikeout rate from the mid-8 k/9's to the mid-7 k/9's. The second thing I see is a decline in ground ball rate from 39% or so to a fairly Milton-like 35%. All the while, though, his walk rate has stayed pretty constant--maybe a slight uptick, depending on how you measure it. But nevertheless, he still has a very fine k/bb rate, even if not as good as it used to be.

I recently read something about his slider's vertical movement having vanished. There is a pretty steep decline in slider vertical movement between 2007 and 2008/2009, which corresponds to a big drop in his slider's run value. Looking at this graph, it seems as though it happened about three starts before his DL stint. So there absolutely could be something to that, and it could explain why his strikeout rates have dropped a fair bit of late. But then again, there's an increase in horizontal movement in his change-up over the same time, without much change in its run value.

The various DIPSish metrics are mixed on him. His FIP is up from 3.7 to 4.4 or so, which is a steep climb. But his xFIP, which is a better predictor of future performance, is up only slightly, from 3.8 to 4.1 or so. So that's encouraging.

His tRA has gone from 3.75ish to 5.1 or so (yikes). But his tRA*, which includes appropriate regression and thus is a better predictor than tRA of future performance (FIP:xFIP::tRA:tRA*), has "only" increased from 4.1 to 4.9 or so. Again, not as bad as the unregressed data, though clearly not the level of performance we saw from him during 2006-2007.

He's essentially performing right at his ZiPS projection this year, which I would have said was pessimistic. Not surprisingly, his ZiPS the rest of the year is unchanged. That's the only projection system I have access to that gives in-season updates, but I think all the other projection systems (which had Harang in the 4.0-4.2 ERA range) will be closer to 4.35 ERA or so.

So I think the message here is that, at this point, Harang is still a quality starter, and can be expected to post something close to a league-average ERA (which is still a bit above-average for a starter). I'd put his expected WAR at around 2.5 to 3 by season's end, and probably about 2.5 next season. That's a quality pitcher. Not the 5 WAR beast he used to be, but still a good pitcher.

He's being paid $11M this year (expected 2.5 WAR) and $12.5M (~2.5-2.7 WAR, depending on the market) next year, which means he's pretty much being paid appropriately. No problem there either.

Reader response: Something you haven't mentioned is that Harang's DER is 2nd worst in the majors. I'd like to see some study on the affect that has on a pitcher's overall numbers. The reason is because if there is a pitcher that is getting less help from his defense, will his other numbers naturally decline simply because of the extra effort it takes to get through an inning. Put another way, a pitcher who basically has to get 3.5 outs an inning might be more likely to give up home runs or other hits than one that only has to get 3 outs an inning.

I didn't directly address the DER issue, though I did notice it. My feeling is that this year has to be luck-induced, as opposed to fielding induced. It's his worst DER of his career, but at least as far as Reds teams go, this has been the best defense he's ever had playing behind him. Granted, maybe there were some screw-ups while he was on the mound gven the small sample, but it makes no sense that his DER would get worse as his team's fielding undergoes a massive transformation unless it's largely a timing/"luck" issue.

Reading this again, I sort of missed the point as far as the psychology issue is concerned. My feeling is that you're right about it, but I don't know what the effect size is.

The next question comes from a different reader:

I am wondering if there is any way you could address this question/issue on your blog or maybe on BTB if you think it is interesting enough. You probably know about the Reds starters' struggles in the 1st inning of games this season. The stats, closely approximated about as near as I can tell are the following:

Bronson Arroyo: 9.46 ERA, 1.080 OPS
Aaron Harang: 7.36 ERA, .870 OPS (OPS worse after today's start against the Padres)
Johnny Cueto: 9.00 ERA (slightly worse), 1.150 OPS
Micah Owings: 7.50 ERA, .860 OPS
Edinson Volquez: 7.00 ERA, .913 OPS

Also, Harang, Cueto, and Arroyo are 3 of the top 5 worst pitchers in the league in BAA the first tie through the order, and the Reds have by far the worst 1st inning run differential in all of MLB. So my question is, do you have any idea or insight into why this might be? Any explanation for it at all? This phenomenon is very perplexing to me, as is the fact that apparently no adjustments are being made to correct it.

I honestly have no clue. Most teams do worse in the first inning than any other inning, simply because that's the only inning where you are guaranteed to see at least one (and often more) of the other team's best hitters. But why the Reds might be especially bad during the first inning isn't something I have an explanation for, unless they're not warming up enough or something (very unlikely, I'd think). Especially because the Reds rotation, while not awesome, isn't bad either.

It's not like the 8th-inning problem the Reds had a few years back, where the problem was that the Reds didn't have anyone competent enough to get the ball to Weathers in the 9th. There was a clear explanation for what we saw that year.

My honest guess is that it's noise. But I can't think of a clear way to test that further that would provide any sort of clear answer. Maybe some of the pitchf/x'ers can look at pitch motions and velocities in different innings and identify an issue. But that's not in my bag of tricks, at least not yet.

Sorry, that's the best I can do.

Reds Acquire Wladimir Balentien

2009-07-29T21:20:00.004-04:00

Wladimir Balentien is the newest Cincinnati Red. Image by Baseball player photos via Flickr

Short post, as I'm beat tonight. The Reds picked up RHB OF Wladimir Balentien tonight for Robert Manuel.

Stats in quick 'n dirty fashion via fangraphs:

Year	Age	Team	PA	%K	%BB	%LD	BABIP	AVG	OBP	SLG	ISO	wOBA	RAA	WAR
2006	22.0	AA	522	27%	13%	---	0.280	0.230	0.337	0.435	0.205	0.342	0.4	---
2007	23.0	AAA	542	19%	10%	---	0.323	0.291	0.362	0.509	0.218	0.376	15.0	---
2007	23.0	SEA	4	0%	0%	25%	0.333	0.667	0.500	2.000	1.333	0.810	1.6	0.2
2008	24.0	AAA	274	18%	12%	---	0.256	0.266	0.354	0.584	0.318	0.385	9.4	---
2008	24.0	SEA	260	30%	6%	14%	0.266	0.202	0.250	0.342	0.140	0.257	-15.4	-1.0
2009	25.0	SEA	170	25%	8%	13%	0.264	0.213	0.271	0.355	0.142	0.274	-7.6	-0.3
2009	25.0	ZiPS (RoS)	178	22%	8%	---	0.267	0.235	0.298	0.414	0.179	0.312	-2.3	0.3
2009	25.0	ZiPS (Update)	348	24%	8%	---	0.265	0.224	0.284	0.385	0.161	0.295	-9.5	0.0

He's hit well in the minors, and even has shown a decent eye, despite his reputation for swinging at everything. Hasn't translated to the big leagues, though, at least not yet. High strikeout rate, slightly higher than Phillips walk rate, but good power in the minors. Major league pitchers have carved him up in 434 PA's, so he must have some major holes and/or is easy to fool--consistently low BABIP and LD%'s might support both explanations, though perhaps there's some bad luck in there too.

But maybe he can fix it and get better. His ZIPS over the rest of the season is actually above-replacement level, and that was in the tougher AL. We have a guy who's quite a bit below replacement level playing center field for us these days. And, of course, Bruce and Dickerson are on the DL, so we need all the help we can get.

Fielding-wise, not sure. His LF numbers are good (+4 UZR), but CF and RF numbers are weaker (-2 and -2). Fan's Scouting Report rated him as a below-average fielder last year, which I trust more than UZR givne the small sample sizes. The breakdown on him shows somebody who's somewhat toolsy but quite raw--average speed, plus arm strength, but poor instincts, hands, and release on his throws. Again, maybe there's the possibility that he could get better...

He's still under club control for what should be four more years. He's definitely a project. But there's something to like here, especially given that it "only" cost the Reds a solid relief prospect in Robert Manuel. I like Manuel, but the Reds need some offense--especially from the right side--and while I doubt that Balentien is likely to deliver that this year, he might just be a decent hitter down the line.

The only "bad" thing I see about him is that he basically looks like a raw-er, less good version of Johnny Gomes. Maybe with better fielding, but there's no guarantee of that. And I'd like to see the Reds try to keep Gomes on this team next year. No reason they can't have both players, of course...except that it works against the defense first, offense second strategy the Reds tried to employ this year. Maybe the complete lack of offense is making the front office re-evaluate.

Reds Hall of Fame Ballot 2010

2009-07-29T12:55:00.003-04:00

From the Reds:

The Cincinnati Reds Hall of Fame and Museum has announced the ten former Reds players who will appear on the Modern Player Ballot for induction into the Reds Hall of Fame in 2010.
Modern Player Candidates are: Bret Boone, Jeff Brantley, Norm Charlton, John Franco, Danny Graves, Kevin Mitchell, Hal Morris, Paul O'Neill, Chris Sabo, and Scott Sullivan.

I don't have my database completely set up to work with pitchers yet. But here's the breakdown on the five position players on the ballot:

Name	Seasons	Debut	wOBA	Offense	Fld/700PA	Fielding	PosAdj	WAR	WAR/700PA
Boone, Bret	5	1994	0.315	-46	-3	-12	9	2.7	0.7
Mitchell, Kevin	3	1993	0.435	75	-7	-8	-9	8.4	6.8
Morris, Hal	10	1990	0.352	54	1	5	-56	11.1	2.1
O'Neill, Paul	8	1985	0.339	10	9	39	-32	10.8	2.6
Sabo, Chris	7	1988	0.348	38	1	3	5	14.5	3.1

And here's the nth-best season graph that we BtB'rs love so much.
Mitchell, O'Neill, and Sabo all effectively tied in their best season with the club. But Sabo had two other seasons that were close to that mark, while the others never really repeated. Mitchell had fabulous rate stats, but never topped 380 PA's in any one season. Morris had the longest tenure with the team, but was never as spectacular (though also didn't tail off as quickly) as Sabo.

My vote's for Spuds. :)