SB Nation - Bronson Arroyo

Fan Projections: Get the Vote Out for Reds Players

Slyde — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:06:15 -0000

I was just looking through the fan projections at FanGraphs and I noticed that only 4 Reds players have enough projections cast for them to qualify them for listing on FanGraphs projection page. Looks like we need to do some ballot stuffing!

Here are the projections so far for the 4 qualifying players:

Joey Votto: .309/.396/.530 (.396 wOBA), 4.9 WAR
Jay Bruce: .269/.341/.495 (.358 wOBA), 3.2 WAR
Drew Stubbs: .265/.336/.385 (.330 wOBA), 2.5 WAR
Aaron Harang: 11-10, 4.20 ERA, 7.69 K/9, 2.34 BB/9, 3.0 WAR

Click any of the names to be taken to that player's projection edit page and you can enter a projection of your own. (NOTE: You need a FanGraphs account to create a projection. It's free and then don't hassle you at all, so don't fret!)

The reason that these guys all passed the voting threshold is because FanGraphs featured each of them at one time or another on their site. In an attempt to boost the number of votes for some other players, here are direct links to the some of the projected starters for the Reds:

Brandon Phillips
Scott Rolen
Paul Janish
Wladimir Balentien
Chris Dickerson
Ryan Hanigan
Ramon Hernandez
Bronson Arroyo
Johnny Cueto
Homer Bailey

For many of you, this may be the last day of work this year. You don't want to spend it doing actual work, do you? Take some time and fill out these projections for players with your best guess as to how they will perform and let's see what kind of a team we've got on our hands right now. (Then again, that might just ruin our holiday cheer)

Wrapping up the top 100

riverfront76 — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:00:16 -0000

Now that our countdown is over, I thought it might be appropriate to post some wrap-up thoughts and conclusions.

First, I suppose that you may be wondering about current Reds and where they might stack up against this list. As you might have noted, only one active player made the list, and barely so at that (Brandon Phillips, #98). There are three other players on the current roster that are somewhere in the top 250 or so...

Aaron Harang sits at #134, hampered by injury and ineffectiveness over the last couple seasons. If in 2010 Harang can reprise what he did in 2006-07, he would be a candidate to scrape into the top 100.

Bronson Arroyo ranks as the 149^th greatest Red after his four seasons. While his 2006 was very good, he has settled into a consistent level a couple tiers below that ever since. If he continues on at that level, he is still a couple years away from breaking into the top 100, meaning it's unlikely he'll remain a Red long enough to do so.

Sitting just behind Arroyo, at #151, is Joey Votto --really on the basis of just two seasons played. The quality of Votto's seasons is high-if he can reproduce the value of his 2009, he'll sit somewhere in the #75 neighborhood a year from now.

Coincidentally, recently traded third baseman Edwin Encarnacion ranks between Arroyo and Votto at #150. He's unlikely to improve on that standing. The other 2009 trade-away with any significant tenure was David Weathers, who stands as the 230^th greatest Red (if you guessed that he ranks just behind Ron Robinson, you're right!)

More minutia and analysis after the jump...

One of the things that emerged during this project was that for many of us, some of the old-time players were not only unfamiliar to our collective consciousness, but also had some really bizarre names. In that vein, I present to you five more entries for the all-time name team:

1) Mysterious Walker, pitched briefly for the Reds in 1910
2) Twink Twining, another pitcher of little regard during the 1916 season
3) Pinky Pittenger, a middle infielder who played from 1927-29
4) Pee Wee Wanninger, a 1927 shortstop
5) Frenchy Bordagaray, also from 1939, played a bit of left field

A couple of those guys, were they to be acquired today, might just cause Red Reporter's whole head to explode.

************************************************************************

For the next segment, I took the top 100 group, and did some sorting and digging, to see if anything interesting popped up...

First, let's look at the breakdown of the top 100 players, sorted by primary position:

Starting pitcher; 26

Relief pitcher, 3

Catcher, 8

First Baseman, 11

Second Baseman, 8

Third Baseman, 10

Shortstop, 7

Left Field, 6

Center Field, 10

Right Field, 11

That doesn't seem like it tells us much of anything. Let's move on.

What if were to track a count of top-100 guys, and how many of them were represented in each calendar year they played for the Reds? On the one hand, there's a bit of a problem presented by assuming all top-100 players are equally valuable, or that player #100 is significant while #101 is not, but let's see what happens:

That's something, I guess. 13 top-100 guys on that 1973 roster. The data looks a bit choppy, though. What if we use 5-year rolling averages:

The year listed is the middle of the 5 year data set, and again we see a peak in the mid-70s which makes sense, but I think we can get a little bit more refined.

This next graph shows rolling averages of the percentage of the team's total win shares accounted for by top-100 players (for example, if a 80 win team was good for 240 win shares, and that team had 3 players that ended up on the top-100 list, each player with 20 win shares, that season would get a .25 score on the following chart):

This provides an interesting comparison to how successful the team has been over the years:

Bullet point observations:

Originally, I was surprised at how closely these two graphs tracked with each other, since I assumed that the bad teams of history might have one or two good players who ate up a higher percentage of a team's value. After further consideration, however, it's been made clear that a team can't win on the basis of one or two good players. Remember that Aaron Boone and Danny Graves are tail-end top-100 guys. A winning team would need them, plus 4 or 5 or 6 players who were even better.
The graph doesn't seem to track at all prior to 1900. I think this is probably due to the smaller rosters and completely different usage patterns as compared to the modern game.
The Reds had an underappreciated period during the 1920's, with 3 2^nd place finishes between 1922-26.
The ramp-up to the Big Red Machine was steady and determined: starting in the mid-1950's, the team had very few bad seasons. They were good, won a pennant, went back to being good again, then elevated to be a special team in the mid-70's. The sharp drop-off in the early 80's must have been particularly jarring to long-time fans at the time.
The Reds have had their droughts before: seven straight losing seasons from 1910-16 (average winning percentage of .442), nine straight from 1929-37 (.399), eleven straight from 1945-55 (.442), and now nine straight (and counting!) from 2001-09 (.457). If you discount the post WWII stretch due to, er...World War 2 and its effects, then this current era is arguably the 2^nd worst in franchise history.
Originally, in this space, I had written what were some high-level conclusions drawn from the graphs above, the state of the current team, and what it meant going forward. The tone of it was more pessimistic than I wanted, and it was missing one of the "lessons" of this project, namely that some of the best players on the best teams come out of nowhere (see: Bucky Walters and George Foster). So, I'm not making any predictions. We know the team hasn't been good, we think there's a few promising youngsters (with one potential carry-the-team-on-his-back guy), and we hope for a couple out-of-the-woodwork surprises. We'll do the same this time next year.

***********************************************************************

Finally, a few words about the Big Red Machine, another topic where I'm simply adding to the millions of words already spilled. My perspective, however, coming out of this top 100 exercise, is just how unlikely it all was. I can't imagine too many other franchises drawing from well over a century's worth of teams, and ending up with six of the top 12 who happened to be teammates for a minimum of five straight years, with several of the combinations lasting much longer than that (Davey and Johnny were teammates for 14 straight seasons, Pete and Tony for 13 straight). Part of that is a by-product of itself; the players were good, therefore the team was really good, therefore the players were kept around for a long time, therefore they rank pretty high on the list. The only parallel I could think of was maybe the Orioles who: a) were also really good in the 70's; b) also do not have an otherwise exceptional history; and c) employed Frank Robinson.

The success of the Big Red Machine wasn't altogether exceptional; there have been other teams with great stretches, some even greater. The BRM tends to be highlighted, in my opinion, because they were so lopsided in favor of the offense, which was a great one. Easier to get excited about, perhaps. At any rate, the Big Red Machine era seems so extraordinary, partly because it stands out so singularly in the franchise's history. Since 1900, the Reds have had 12 seasons with a winning percentage above .600. Half of those came between 1970 and 1976. Otherwise, as a rule, the historical record is scattered with onesies and twosies. Free agency, varying levels of parity, and the sheer fact that dynasties are rare are all factors in this; nonetheless, the Reds have spawned exactly one dynasty (or even mini-dynasty) in its history.

The funny thing about the Big Red Machine is that they still feel like a relatively recent phenomenon, despite the passage of 40 years time since Sparky was hired. Maybe part of that is due to the direct link from that era that continues to call the games over the airwaves. Or maybe that the heroes from those days are still with us, many of them still connected to the game. Or maybe that the Reds, for the better part of a decade, set an impossible standard that will loom large over whatever accomplishments the present and future Reds teams are able to achieve.

*************************************************

To officially close this project, I would like to say thank you to:

Baseballreference.com, for being awesome
Dave Studeman, for producing a Win Shares database
Wikipedia, for being a go-to resource on basic biographical details
Red Reporter, for being the best Reds-related blog in the intertubes

Fin.

Some Let's-Take-A-Deep-Breath Analysis Of The Bradley-Silva Deal

Al — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:00:18 -0000

More photos » by Ted S. Warren - AP

Browse more photos »

Now that you've all had a day to express disgust, outrage, "FIREHENDRYNOW", etc. over the trade of Milton Bradley to the Mariners for Carlos Silva, let's examine how this really will affect the 2010 Cubs on the field.

We don't have to rehash the reasons that Bradley had to be moved, but it was clear after he was sent home in September that he would be, no matter what. And when that happened, it was also clear that what the Cubs would get back wasn't going to be much -- likely someone else's bad contract. And that is precisely what we got.

All of you here know that I was against the signing from the beginning -- but I'm not going to say "told you so" here, because even I never imagined that Milton would melt down in the way he would. Let's just say he was never a good fit for the high-profile team that is the Chicago Cubs, and Jim Hendry should have known that. Hendry took responsibility for the entire debacle, and you can bet that Tom Ricketts will have him on a pretty short leash for the rest of this offseason and 2010. If the Cubs don't return to the playoffs in 2010, I'd expect Hendry to be fired, and that firing would be justified. Until then, I do think Hendry deserves a chance to clean up the mess that he made.

So what, really, do we now have here? There has been some dispute over exactly how much financial relief the Cubs got in this deal, but according to this cubs.com article, it's $6 million. This article has the same number. So until I hear different, that's the assumption I'm going on for this post.

Let's not pretend this deal is something it isn't. In December 2009, in a vacuum, there is no way any team deals for or signs Carlos Silva, based on his performance the last two years. He's been horrific. And that might be an insult to horrific players. I'll cut Silva some slack for 2009, as he was hurt most of the year. Could be, that contributed to his poor performance in 2008 also; maybe he was hurt then and didn't tell anyone.

Silva has had, since 2004 when he became a rotation starter for the Twins, at least three seasons where his performance would have made him a capable fifth starter for most teams. In 2005, in 27 starts, he put up an ERA+ of 126 and a 1.17 WHIP. In 2007, the year that got him the four-year deal from the Mariners in free agency, he had a 102 ERA+ and 1.31 WHIP; those numbers, along with a 4.19 ERA, aren't too different from what the Cubs got from Jason Marquis in 2007 and 2008.

Can Silva do this again? The answer is, we simply do not know until we see him pitch. The Cubs claim they have good reports on him from Venezuela:

The Cubs have had scouts watching Silva in Venezuela. He has appeared in four games, striking out two and walking three over nine innings. The club will send its strength and conditioning staff down there to get Silva on a program. The right-hander did report to camp this year 30 pounds lighter.

"We'll do everything we can to get him as close to back where he was a few years ago," Hendry said.

There's no doubt that he needs to lose weight -- just look at the photo at the top of this post, which was taken April 14, 2009. Get the guy in shape, bring him to camp, and see what he can do. There were some here who thought the Cubs should just release Milton Bradley and eat the $21 million on his deal. If Silva really can't pitch any more, he could be released -- but the Cubs would only eat $15 million. Even trading for Pat Burrell would have made the Cubs eat $13 million (because the Rays weren't likely going to take any of Bradley's 2011 salary), and Burrell would have been a very expensive pinch-hitter.

At his best, Silva was a decent ground-ball pitcher who didn't walk anyone. There have been pitchers like him who have come from the AL to the NL and had success -- Bronson Arroyo, for one, or even Glendon Rusch, who had one decent year for the Cubs (2004) as a long reliever/spot starter. There were some links passed around here yesterday -- helpfully combined by Harry Pavlidis -- that indicate that Silva is a very intense player who has on occasion called out his teammates in public for not performing. Clearly, this isn't a good thing, and the only thing I can hope for is that the Cubs clear the air on this right away.

Again, this is obviously not a player you would have chosen to add to your team in a perfect world. The Milton Bradley situation was about as far from "perfect world" as you could get. The $6 million in salary relief, we hope, will allow Jim Hendry to add some help in CF (hey, how about a Ryan Church/Reed Johnson platoon?), or another starting pitcher (paging Joel Pineiro!), or a reliever like Matt Capps.

About Bradley, this portion of Paul Sullivan's article sums him up:

Bradley referred to himself as a "quiet" guy, and said people who criticize him or athletes in general are trying to make names for themselves.

"Pretty much for me, anybody deep down on the inside, looking out or looking in, you understand how PR works and media works, and how people are promoted, and how you have a bad guy and you can have a good guy," he said. "And that's just the way it is. And so I'm portrayed as however I am. It just adds to the mystique, I guess."

Yep, Milton, sure. It's always everyone's fault but yours. Bruce Miles calls you "unrepentant" and I am 100% agreed. For me, this statement by Ryan Dempster sums up the Bradley "era" in Chicago:

"It's unfortunate," Cubs pitcher Ryan Dempster said in September after Bradley was suspended. "At the end of the day, he was provided a great opportunity to come over here and be a part of a really great organization with a lot of really good guys, and it just didn't seem to make him happy, anything."

Somehow, I doubt he'll be happy in Seattle, either, but for now, I'm going to put the pitchforks down and reserve judgment till I see what else Hendry does this offseason. Let's the rest of us try to do that, too. Finally, don't forget to vote in the poll I posted on the right sidebar, if you haven't already, about this deal.

The NL Central Offseason Revue Pt. 2: The Red Menace

the red baron — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:35:23 -0000

Um, I think Jocketty is the one on the left.

View full size photo »

I decided I'm going to try and do these in order from best to worst in the division; unfortunately, that now means I have to try and come up with preseason predictions before the offseason is even half over. Not a great idea on my part, really; I should have done them in alphabetical order or something. Oh, well. Too late for such considerations now, I suppose.

Of all the teams in the Central, perhaps none is so enigmatic as the Cincinnati Reds. Every spring for god knows how many years now we've heard the constant refrain, "Look out for the Reds this year. This is the year they finally turn that corner." Now, to be fair, we hear much the same thing about the Pirates, but predictions of Pittsburgh's rise are always couched not in terms of contention, but in terms of near-winning baseball. Thus, even as the predictions are made, our natural inclination toward Piratic indifference kicks in. The Reds, on the other hand, are a different story.

See, the thing about the Reds is this: they have some really, really good players. Players I would love to have on my team. They stole Brandon Phillips from their in-state rivals just a couple offseasons back, right from under the Cards' noses, even as Junior Spivey was busily reminding us not all reclamation projects end up reclaiming anything. Sometimes the ship stays sunk. (By the by, I'm proud to say I was one of the people hoping and advocating for the Cards to bring in Phillips. Sadly, our voices were not heard.) The Reds have some outstanding young arms. Their closer is one of the better ones in the business. (Still not worth his contract, but that's another issue entirely.) The right fielder is the guy the Cardinals really wanted in 2005; they chose Colby Rasmus specifically because he was the most similar player to Jay Bruce in the draft. There is some real talent here.

Yet somehow, year after year, those cries which warn us of the approaching Cincinnati domination always turn out to be wrong. Every year the Reds find some way not to win. It's gotten to the point I almost fear the offseason when no one cautions against the Reds; perhaps the spell will then be broken and this long-benighted franchise will step fully into the light. Or, perhaps not.

Either way, a little insurance can't possibly be a bad thing.

This is the year, folks. Watch out for the Reds.

Cincinnati Reds 2009 Record: 78-84, 13 games out of first

Pythagorean Record: 76-86 (673 runs scored, 723 allowed)

It was another disappointing year for the Reds, who came into the 2009 season with one of the most promising teams Cincinnati has seen in years. There was tons of optimism, and rightfully so; the Reds' rotation was immensely talented and young, just beginning to come into its own. Unfortunately, the struggles of youth and the injury bugbear combined to rob the Reds of their pitching bite, and the offense simply wasn't good enough to compensate.

Offense: After years of watching the Dunn/Griffey led Reds mash their way through the division while failing to hold anyone to less than seven runs per game, the 2009 Reds were a positively anemic change of pace. The Cardinals were not a particularly prolific offensive team, but the Reds made them look positively potent by comparison. (I'm feeling quite loquacious this morning, by the way. Does it show?) The Cardinals scored 730 runs, 57 more than the limp-lumbered lads from Cincy. Nearly six wins worth of offensive production is nothing to sneeze at.

While the Reds' problems at the platter in 2009 were legion, one can point to two areas in particular which acted as anchors around the necks of the Redlegs. On the one hand, you have the outfield. Then, on the other hand, you have the infield.

One of the more glaring issues for the Reds was the appallingly average sophomore slump of Jay Bruce, who followed up what was a very encouraging debut season with, essentially, the exact same performance. Not that that's the worst thing in the world, mind you; Bruce's OPS+ was 97 in '08 and 100 in '09, making him exactly league average, but this is Jay F. Bruce we're talking about here. He's young, yes, but you still don't expect him to be duking it out with Skip Schumaker for the title of Averagest HItter in all Baseballdom.

The good news, for Cincinnati fans at least, is this: Jay Bruce is still a better hitter than what he's shown in the majors. I feel completely confident in saying I still expect Bruce to be a star, given time to grow and better health. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the rest of the Reds' outfield. This is, after all, a team which paid Willy Taveras actual, honest to god money to post a .559 OPS over the course of 400+ at-bats. Laynce Nix proved a source of superfluous Y's and steroid speculation, but little else. (Well, except against the Cardinals, that is.) He did put up an OPS+ of 98, but from a left fielder, you've got to expect a bit more thump. The lone real bright spot for the Reds was Johnny Gomes, who hit quite well in the Great American Bandbox, to the tune of an .879 OPS. Unfortunately, Johnny Gomes plays defense like Chris Duncan using an oven mitt. Still, beggars can't be choosers, I suppose.

On the infield, things were a bit more of a mixed bag. The right side of the Reds' gamut of grounder grabbers was brilliant, with Joey Votto establishing himself as a legitimate force (OPS of .981 for the season), and Brandon Phillips turning in another of his usual five-tool showcase performances. The left side of the infield, however, oy. Not so much. Paul Janish and Adam Rosales took the lion's shares of at-bats at shortstop and third base, respectively, and both posted OPS's in the low .600s. (Janish took the low .600s thing to the extreme, posting a .601.) Jerry Hairston played a fair amount at various positions all over the diamond and was a little better, though he still wasn't inspiring shock and awe in too many opposing pitchers.

Now that's the bad news. The good news (again, for Reds' fans), is that there will be different faces at several positions for 2010. Drew Stubbs, the Reds' uber-athletic Mike Cameron clone, came up late in the season and displayed a wide base of exciting tools in center field. Stubbs has speed, he has power, and he can go get it with the best of them in the field. The only thing holding him back is his tendency to take lots and lots of empty swings. Sort of a center field version of Tyler Greene.

The other big upgrade the Reds can count on is, of course, our old buddy Scott Rolen. Rolen came over from the Blue Jays in a midseason trade and played quite well for the Reds, hitting .270/.364/.401 and playing defense which was nearly Rolenesque. The Rolen of old is gone and he's never coming back, but the new model is still a substantial upgrade over what the Reds were trotting out most of the season.

Starting Pitching

What was supposed to be the biggest strength for the Reds ended up helping to drag them down. As the year opened, there were some touting the Reds' 1-2 rotation punch of Edinson Volquez and Johnny Cueto as the best in the National League, and perhaps one of the best in all of baseball. Sadly, Volquez succumbed to injury, having Tommy John surgery in early August, and Cueto seemed to take a step backward from his rookie campaign, even though he ended up with a lower ERA for the season. Cueto started off hot, then imploded in the late summer months, allowing an opponent's OPS of 1.026(!) in July and .938 in August. He did turn things around a bit at the end of the season, pitching better in September, but it wasn't enough to wash away the sins of the previous two months.

As strange as it sounds, Bronson Arroyo actually had sort of an okay year. Sort of. Kind of. He went 15-13, 3.84, gave up less hits than innings pitched (214 H in 220.1 IP), and struck out almost twice as many batters as he walked. Now, as to how he did it, I honestly have no idea. Every time I saw Arroyo, he was being yanked out of the game after giving up five runs in two and a third. He's basically Swamp Gas II: the Swampening at this point for me. Homer Bailey continued to frustrate those of us who believe prospect ranking should count for something, damn it, by not turning into Nolan Ryan, but there were positive signs. While his overall numerical profile doesn't inspire much confidence, Bailey did pitch extraordinarily well in September, going 4-1, 2.08 and striking out 42 batters in 43.1 innings while walking 19. Let's put it this way: if Walt or Dusty decide Homer's just not going to work out up there, I would be more than happpy to take him off their hands.

Elsewhere in the Reds' rotation, Aaron Harang was bad again, Micah Owings was a really good hitter, and Kip Wells gave Cincinnati a taste of the 2007 Cardinal magic.

The rotation could very well still be a strength in 2010 for the Reds. If Bailey really has turned a corner and Cueto can find a bit of his early-season magic after Memorial Day, Cincy could have a nice tandem atop the rotation. Add Volquez possibly returning for the stretch run, and that's an intriguing trio. And as much as it pains me to say it, you could probably do worse than Bronson Arroyo and the Harangutan for your 4th and 5th spots. (Then again, for what the Reds are paying those guys, they could also do miles better.)

Bullpen

And now we come to the real strength of the Cincinnati Reds: their bullpen. (I'll take 'Sentences I Never Expected to Speak' for $600, Alex.) After years of wandering in the desert, searching for relievers, the Reds seem to have finally found the guys to put the kibosh on any late-inning uprisings.

Francisco Cordero is not worth his contract. We'll just get that out of the way up front. Nonetheless, he's a very, very good pitcher even as he enters his mid 30s, posting a 2.16 ERA last season. He could fall off a cliff, but I don't think he will. I think we're just going to have to put up with him being good for the near future. Maybe we could get Spiezio to sober up and just pinch-hit during series with Cincinnati...

The biggest difference for the Reds between 2009 and past seasons was the emergence of Nick Masset and Danny Ray Herrera, the Screwball Kid himself, as legitimate setup men. In the past, even when the Reds had a player who could shut the door at the end of the game (remember when Todd Coffey looked like a good pitcher for like three months? Wasn't that weird?), there was nothing in the way of a bridge to get there. With Masset and Herrera, the Reds finally have that bridge.

The rest of the Redleg relief corps was solid but nothing spectacular. Arthur Rhodes was good, making me wish the Cardinals had more Rhodehouse and less Diner, but secondary LOOGY certainly isn't anything to get too very upset about.

Offseason Priorities

To be honest, I'm not sure how much Walt Jocketty and the rest of his communist cronies are going to be doing this offseason. The very same thing that makes the Reds such an intriguing team is the thing which makes them so difficult to improve. The Reds are a transitional team, and the opportunity cost of bringing in marginal upgrades may just prove to be a bit too steep. Add in the fact Cincinnati appears to have very little breathing room in terms of payroll, and I think it will likely be a relatively quiet offseason for Jocketty and Co.

The two big opportunities for the Reds to make upgrades are at shortstop and left field; unfortunately, upgrading at either of those spots is easier said than done this winter. The Reds lack the financial capacity to get into the bidding for either of the big LF prizes, Holliday or Jason Bay, and most of the other players available would represent a middling upgrade at best. The Reds have two players in their system, Todd Frazier and Chris Heisey, who both could see time in left in 2010. Frazier is a third baseman by trade, but earns his keep mostly with the bat, and could see outfield time a la Allen Craig just to get him into the lineup. Heisy is a speedy, plus-defense type with a line-drive swing and fair on-base skills. It wouldn't surprise me to see the Reds bring back Gomes as a LF/1B guy on days when Votto isn't playing and try to work one or both of Heisy/ Frazier in slowly with ABs in left.

Shortstop, on the other hand, might be a bit more interesting. There aren't a whole lot of guys out there, but there are a couple decent names. If the Reds were looking for an offensive upgrade, either Miguel Tejada or Felipe Lopez could offer a bat for a fair value. Of course, both have significant questions surrounding their abilities to play shortstop, but hey, I said offensive upgrade. If Cincinnati decided to go more for a defense-first guy, Orlando Cabrera can still pick it with the best of them. Regardless, I think shortstop is the most likely position to look toward if the Reds are going to make a move this offseason.

I'm sure Jocketty and Baker would like to pick up a more dependable arm for depth in the rotation, but I'm not sure they'll have the payroll to do so. The Reds are already paying Harang and Arroyo gobs of money; they may try to deal for an arm but I don't see a signing there. The bullpen actually needs the least help of all; they may sign a guy to replace Rhodes if he leaves or something like that, but I think the relief corps is largely set.

The Bottom Line

Do I think the Reds are going to be better than Milwaukee? I must, since I did them before the Brew Crew, right? The answer is a decided and unequivocal maybe. I think the Reds have the potential, certainly, to improve more than probably any other team in the division, simply based on their young talent base. I think the Brewers largely are who we think they are, a team of tremendous offensive talent and very, very limited pitching resources. The Reds, on the other hand, have a lot of untapped potential on both sides of the equation, and depending on how things break, they could vault up the standing in the Central or remain the same enigmatic bunch of underachievers they have been for years now.

I think the addition of Scott Rolen was a cataclysmically bad one, but, paradoxically, I also believe he'll make the Reds better in the coming season. He should provide just enough offense while helping the pitchers out significantly.

In the end, the success or failure of the Reds' 2010 season will likely have little to do with what, if any, moves Walt Jocketty makes this winter. Rather, the fate of the first season of the new decade (eat it, Matty!), will hinge largely on the three pillars upon which we've been told Cincinnati's new glory would be built for years: Homer Bailey, Jay Bruce, and Joey Votto. If those three are the players they were thought to be on the way up, the Reds could very well make some noise. If not, it could be another very long summer in the home of the world's shittiest chili.

The Baron's Playlist for the 16th of December, 2009: the Christmas Catalogue

(In no particular order, by the way)

"Fairytale of New York" - The Pogues
"Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree" - Brenda Lee (listen closely; she's actually saying fucking pie. Seriously.)
"You're All I Want for Christmas" - Brook Benton
"A Change at Christmas (Say it Isn't So)" - the Flaming Lips
"Merry Xmas Everybody" - Slade
"Jingle Bell Rock" - Bobby Helms (this is the song that will one day force me to pull to the side of the road and cry when my mother is gone)
"White Christmas" - The Drifters (sorry, but this one is way, way better than the Bing Crosby version)
"Happy Christmas (War is Over)" - John Lennon and Yoko Ono
"Blue Christmas" - Elvis Presley
"Happy Holidays" - Alabama (I really, really hate Alabama, but I loved this song when I was a kid listening to the old True Value Hardware Christmas records)
"We're Going to the Country!" - Sufjan Stevens
"Peace on Earth/ Little Drummer Boy" - David Bowie and Bing Crosby
"Marshmallow World" - Dean Martin
"God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen" - Nat King Cole (another True Value special)
"Frosty the Snowman" - The Ronettes
"Jingle Bells" - Glenn Miller
"I'll Be Home for Christmas" - Frank Sinatra
"I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas" - Gayla Peevey
"Christmastime is Here" - The Vince Guaraldi Trio (sadly, this song underwent one of the worst remasters I believe I've ever heard just a couple years ago; find the old, unremastered version.)
"Christmas Wrapping" - the Waitresses (this song is utter crap. I fucking love it.)

I'm going to stop at 20. It's tough for me to do, but I'm going to do it.

Heroes of the Zeros: The Starting Rotation

Slyde — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:21:24 -0000

It's that time of the decade when people start creating lists of the best and worst whatevers of the past 10 years. I was going to do that too, but then I decided to make you guys do all of the work. So, over the next two weeks we will be voting on the players that we think deserve the title of All-Decade team member for the Cincinnati Reds. Each day, I'll present you with a new position, and you get to vote. While we do this, the running totals will be kept secret so that you will be surprised when we announce the final roster on December 31st. The maybe we can finally put to bed what might be the worst decade in Reds history.

We'll start with where it started to end, the starting rotation. The Reds haven't exactly been stocked with quality starting pitching during the decade, but you still have to figure out who the top 5 of the decade are. To qualify for the team, a pitcher must have spent at least 50% of his time with the Reds as a starter and he must have made at least 20 starts in a Reds uniform. The rest of the qualifications are up to you. I've listed the stats for the 23 pitchers that meet our minimum qualifications. The voting form is in this post after the jump.

Click header to sort table by column
	ERA+	FIP	GS	Years	G	CG	SHO	W	L	W-L%	IP	H	R	ER	BB	SO	ERA	HR	OPS
Jose Acevedo	78	5.17	54	2001-2004	68	1	0	16	21	.432	304.1	334	198	189	97	222	5.59	58	.830
Bronson Arroyo	113	4.47	136	2006-2009	136	8	3	53	50	.515	871.2	887	424	387	260	630	4.00	119	.755
Homer Bailey	81	4.92	37	2007-2009	37	0	0	12	13	.480	195.0	217	129	118	97	132	5.45	23	.803
Rob Bell	92	5.93	35	2000-2001	35	1	0	7	13	.350	184.2	176	112	105	90	145	5.12	41	.840
Brandon Claussen	85	4.96	57	2004-2006	57	0	0	15	27	.357	309.2	351	195	176	120	223	5.12	47	.824
Johnny Cueto	94	4.87	61	2008-2009	61	0	0	20	25	.444	345.1	350	191	177	129	290	4.61	53	.792
Lance Davis	97	4.66	20	2001	20	1	0	8	4	.667	106.1	124	60	56	34	53	4.74	12	.808
Ryan Dempster	66	5.27	35	2002-2003	37	1	0	8	12	.400	204.1	236	150	145	108	150	6.39	30	.856
Elmer Dessens	115	4.47	80	2000-2002	104	2	1	28	27	.509	530.1	564	246	232	148	306	3.94	66	.756
Osvaldo Fernandez	88	4.60	28	2000-2001	35	1	0	9	9	.500	159.0	172	95	93	64	71	5.26	14	.775
Aaron Harang	106	4.07	193	2003-2009	195	13	6	69	73	.486	1231.1	1288	606	572	315	1043	4.18	169	.767
Pete Harnisch	92	5.80	29	2000-2001	29	3	1	9	9	.500	166.1	181	105	94	63	88	5.09	32	.836
Jimmy Haynes	84	5.05	56	2002-2004	57	1	0	17	25	.405	306.0	354	188	172	145	183	5.06	38	.820
Luke Hudson	87	5.44	25	2002-2005	31	0	0	10	11	.476	139.0	124	83	76	81	98	4.92	18	.790
Cory Lidle	80	4.95	24	2004	24	3	1	7	10	.412	149.0	170	95	88	44	93	5.32	24	.832
Kyle Lohse	101	4.24	32	2006-2007	33	2	1	9	17	.346	194.2	213	109	99	52	131	4.58	23	.777
Eric Milton	77	5.40	66	2005-2007	66	0	0	16	27	.372	370.1	439	256	240	103	231	5.83	73	.850
Ramon Ortiz	80	5.66	30	2005	30	1	0	9	11	.450	171.1	206	110	102	51	96	5.36	34	.882
Steve Parris	98	5.10	33	2000	33	0	0	12	17	.414	192.2	227	109	103	71	117	4.81	30	.858
Elizardo Ramirez	75	5.30	26	2005-2007	31	0	0	4	14	.222	142.2	176	106	97	47	86	6.12	24	.876
Ron Villone	87	5.92	23	2000	35	2	0	10	10	.500	141.0	154	95	85	78	77	5.43	22	.871
Edinson Volquez	128	3.90	41	2008-2009	42	0	0	21	8	.724	245.2	201	107	94	125	253	3.44	20	.681
Paul Wilson	86	5.00	66	2003-2005	66	1	0	20	21	.488	396.2	450	231	215	130	240	4.88	60	.817

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/13/2009.

I will only be accepting your first vote, so don't bother trying to stuff the ballot box, you cheaters. I don't care how much you want Jimmy Haynes in this rotation Dan O'Brien, you only get one vote.

Dodgers Offseason Path Appears Set

Eric Stephen — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:01:01 -0000

More photos » by David Zalubowski - AP

Juan Pierre may be traded to fill a hole in the starting rotation.

Browse more photos »

Through three days of the winter meetings, the Dodgers haven't made any deals, but we do have a better idea of their plans this offseason. Randy Wolf signed with the Brewers today for $29.75 million over three years, leaving the Dodgers with a sizable void to fill in their starting rotation.

Actually, there are two holes to fill, behind Clayton Kershaw, Chad Billingsley, and Hiroki Kuroda. It appears the Dodgers are still in the market for one starting pitcher, but general manager Ned Colletti said he is looking to fill one of the two open rotation slots from within. Ken Gurnick of MLB.com reported:

Colletti said he's comfortable holding the last rotation spot for a Spring Training competition involving James McDonald, Scott Elbert, Josh Lindblom, Charlie Haeger and Ramon Troncoso. Colletti added left-hander Eric Stults to that group he originally listed on Tuesday.

In my mind, Elbert is the favorite of that group, with his electric left arm, but there is plenty of time for that to get sorted out. McDonald had success out of the bullpen (2.72 ERA, 8.70 strikeouts per nine innings), and I can see him returning to that role in 2010, even though I'm not ready to give up on him as a starter just yet. Both Haeger and Stults are out of options, so they will not only be fighting for a starting role at Camelback Ranch, but also will be fighting for their baseball lives.

How the Dodgers fill that other starting rotation slot has yet to be seen, but the Dodgers don't have much room in their budget without getting creative. If the Dodgers wanted to pay a pitcher $10 million a year, they would have either offered Wolf arbitration, or made an offer to him when presented the opportunity by Wolf's agent, Arn Tellem, today. Wolf's deal, coupled with Brad Penny's deal with St. Louis (one year, $7.5 million plus incentives) and the oft-injured Rich Harden's deal with Texas (one year, $7.5 million with an $11.5 million option for 2011), made it clear that most free agent pitchers are simply out of the Dodgers' price range. If they sign a free agent pitcher, it might be someone like a Vicente Padilla and Jon Garland, again. That is, if they come cheaply enough.

Another option to fill the starting pitching void is to trade Juan Pierre. The idea here is to swap Pierre's contract (two years, $18.5 million) for a high-priced pitcher in a swap of inflated contracts, using that money to pay for a position in need rather than for a fourth outfielder. Options here include:

		2009		2010 Projected
Pitcher	2010 Age	ERA	FIP	ERA	FIP	Contract remaining
Bronson Arroyo	33	3.84	4.78	4.11	4.49	2010: $11m; 2011: $11m option ($2m buyout)
Aaron Harang	32	4.21	4.14	4.18	4.14	2010: $12.5m; 2011: $12.75m option ($2m buyout)
Paul Maholm	28	4.44	3.83	4.29	4.20	2 years, $11m total, plus $9.75m option for 2012
Nate Robertson	32	5.44	4.55	4.89	4.67	2010: $10m
Jeremy Bonderman	27	only 10 IP		4.43	4.22	2010: $12.5m
2010 Projections from Bill James Handbook					Contract info courtesy of the amazing Cot's

I would have thought Kevin Millwood was another trade option (due $12 million in 2010), but he was traded to the Orioles earlier Wednesday. Maholm may be a pipe dream, as his contract isn't all that onerous, but the Pirates seem interested in Pierre, so maybe there is a fit.

Matching up Pierre with a team directly might be tough, so a three-team trade may be the way to go. In fact, Pierre may be traded to fill a different hole, second base. Steve Henson of Yahoo Sports tweeted this on Wednesday night:

Dodgers are more concerned about 2B than letting on publicly, but 3-way trade tries at offing Pierre while filling 2B aren't working yet.

This is interesting, because in the report by Gurnick, Colletti showed a faith in Blake DeWitt manning the second base next season:

At second base, he's sounding more and more comfortable with DeWitt, although he still hopes to add a veteran from a group of free agents that includes Ronnie Belliard, Craig Counsell, Juan Uribe, Jamey Carroll and Felipe Lopez.

"Barring something not on the radar, it will be Blake DeWitt plus a veteran if we started the season today," Colletti said

Whether or not any budget constraints forced this philosophy, Colletti appears to have a faith in the Dodgers' young talent to play a big role in 2010. If you ask me, I think the Dodgers bring back one of Garland or Padilla, and bring back Belliard to caddy for the Blakes -- DeWitt at second and Casey at third. Which means the 2010 Dodgers will look a lot like the 2009 Dodgers in many ways, and the returning cast will have to step up.

Diamond Leung reported that Colletti expressed that same sentiment while showing faith in Chad Billingsley in an interview with Sirius XM:

"Sometimes, you have to make your guys better. You just can’t continue to expect to fill everything from the outside and continue to sign free agents and continue to trade away players. You end up in the same spot more times than not and most of the time worse off than before you started making moves…

The 2010 Dodgers need their guys to be better if they want to stay atop the NL West.

Sabermetric Review of the 2009 Reds, Part 4: Pitching

JinAZ — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:14:43 -0000

To recap thus far, 2009 saw the offense drop considerably, the fielding improve dramatically, with a net effect being that the 2009 position players were probably at least as good, if not slightly better than the 2008 Reds squad of position players.

What about the 2009 pitchers? Since the fate of a pitcher in the boxscore is directly tied to the fielders playing behind him, we need to adjust for fielders. Here are three ways of doing that, and how the last several years of Reds pitchers have fared using each approach:

Here's what is shown above:

UZR-adj Runs Allowed is straight-up runs allowed (park adjusted), with UZR-based team fielding factored out. For example, this year, UZR rates the Reds as a +53 fielding team. So, I added 53 runs to the runs allowed total to "simulate" what would have happened with an average-fielding team.
FIP-based runs allowed uses team FIP to estimate runs allowed per game, and then extrapolates to the full season. FIP stands for "fielding independent runs," and uses K, BB, HBP, and HR rates to estimate runs allowed independent of a teams' fielders or context. I park-adjusted K, BB, HBP, and HR rates.
tRA-based runs allowed is straight-up pRAA from statcorner, summed for starters and relievers. It is based on tRA, which is billed as a sort of "FIP on steroids." It uses K, BB, and all batted ball rates (LD, FB, GB, HR/FB, all park adjusted) to estimate runs allowed in a manner that again should be independent of fielders or context. I am unclear if pRAA is based on tRA or tRA* (tRA* is the regressed version).

As you can see, the UZR-adjusted number is more volatile, which makes sense given that it's based on actual runs allowed and thus is subject to all kinds of "luck" (not to mention the volatility of a fielding stat!). The FIP and tRA stats, on the other hand, basically parallel each other, with pRAA being consistently more negative about the team than FIP. These two stats do largely the same thing (though with somewhat different input data and methods), and in my experience are usually within spitting distance of each other. So while I'm not surprised to see them running parallel, I am surprised to see such a large quantitative difference between them in RAA. It seems to me, at least over the last four years, that the "real" data (UZR-adjusted runs allowed) have more closely matched FIP, which makes me more inclined to believe FIP. Maybe pRAA is using the wrong baseline (I'm comparing to all NL pitchers), or is more severe in its park adjustments? (fwiw, while I still like tRA, I am much less enamored with it--and much less ready to ditch FIP--than I was, say, 6 months ago. This is just the latest reason).

Anyway, looking at each line individually, you can see that all three statistics point to the same thing: pitching fell off a bit this year. And, if you look at just the FIP or tRA lines, it was in its worst state since Bronson Arroyo's arrival in 2006. What happened? Obviously, the Volquez injury was huge. But that's not the only story here. Player by player breakdowns below the jump.

The table is sortable if you click in the header.

Name	IP	pLI	K/9	BB/9	HR/9	HR/F	GB%	BABIP	ERA	FIP	WARra	WARfip	WARhit	WAR
Aaron Harang	162.3	0.9	7.9	2.4	1.3	12%	35%	0.339	4.21	3.96	2.5	2.7	0.0	2.7
Bronson Arroyo	220.3	1.0	5.2	2.7	1.3	12%	45%	0.270	3.84	4.63	4.5	2.0	-0.2	1.7
Johnny Cueto	171.3	0.9	6.9	3.2	1.3	11%	42%	0.296	4.41	4.63	2.3	1.5	0.1	1.6
Francisco Cordero	66.7	1.9	7.8	4.1	0.3	3%	41%	0.301	2.16	3.10	2.8	1.6	0.0	1.6
Nick Masset	76.0	1.1	8.3	2.8	0.7	10%	54%	0.250	2.37	3.25	2.4	1.2	0.0	1.2
Arthur Rhodes	53.3	1.5	8.1	3.4	0.5	5%	41%	0.249	2.53	3.10	2.0	1.1	0.0	1.1
Homer Bailey	113.3	1.0	6.8	4.1	1.0	9%	43%	0.306	4.53	4.38	1.4	1.3	-0.3	1.0
Micah Owings	119.7	1.0	5.1	4.8	1.4	11%	37%	0.286	5.34	5.53	0.4	-0.1	1.1	1.0
Jared Burton	59.3	0.9	6.8	3.5	0.8	6%	43%	0.314	4.40	3.75	0.3	0.5	0.0	0.5
Daniel Ray Herrera	61.7	0.8	6.4	3.5	0.7	9%	50%	0.309	3.06	3.91	0.5	0.4	0.0	0.5
Josh Roenicke	13.3	0.2	9.5	2.7	0.0	0%	47%	0.355	2.70	2.03	0.4	0.4	0.0	0.4
Matt Maloney	40.7	0.9	6.2	1.8	2.0	13%	34%	0.282	4.87	5.16	0.5	0.1	0.2	0.3
Carlos Fisher	52.3	0.5	8.3	5.3	0.7	7%	44%	0.316	4.47	4.02	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.3
Paul Janish	2.0	0.0	13.5	9.0	9.0	50%	50%	0.726	49.50	14.99	-0.1	-0.1	0.3	0.2
Edinson Volquez	49.7	1.1	8.5	5.8	1.1	14%	45%	0.231	4.35	4.99	0.8	0.3	-0.2	0.1
Robert Manuel	4.3	0.2	4.2	2.1	0.0	0%	33%	0.329	0.00	2.97	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.1
Kip Wells	46.3	0.9	4.9	4.3	1.0	11%	49%	0.232	4.66	5.15	0.6	0.1	-0.1	0.0
Ramon Ramirez	12.3	0.6	5.8	2.9	1.5	11%	37%	0.183	3.65	5.03	0.2	-0.1	0.0	-0.1
Pedro Viola	7.0	0.4	6.4	3.9	2.6	18%	38%	0.253	5.14	6.43	0.0	-0.1	0.0	-0.1
David Weathers	38.0	1.6	6.4	4.0	1.7	15%	43%	0.200	3.32	5.23	1.0	-0.3	0.0	-0.3
Justin Lehr	65.3	0.9	4.6	3.9	1.9	16%	40%	0.277	5.37	6.09	0.4	-0.3	-0.1	-0.4
Mike Lincoln	23.0	0.7	3.5	7.4	2.7	23%	44%	0.283	8.22	8.75	-0.6	-0.7	0.0	-0.7

Notes on table: pLI is an indication of the leverage of the situations in which a pitcher pitched. pLI = 1 on average, pLI=2 when situations are twice as influential on game outcome as usual, pLI=0.5 when situations are half as influential on game outcome as usual. FIP is Fielding Independent Runs, with park adjustments for each coefficient (see above). WARra is Wins Above Replacement based on actual runs charged to a pitcher (park adjusted). It is calculated following Tango's methods, including the leverage adjustment. WARfip is WAR based on FIP. WARhit is an overall hitting assessment, which will be different from the last post because I discovered I was using much too low of a position adjustment for pitchers (sorry!). WAR is the sum of WARfip and WARhit.

Bronson Arroyo had the best season of the group based on traditional stats, and is our official 2009 Reds Pitcher of the Year. Clearly, he's the only one who topped 200 innings, and that has a lot of value in and of itself. Harang, in contrast, seemingly had another sub-par season, at least by his standards. This was especially true with respect to durability: thanks to his appendix, he only reached 162 innings this season, his lowest total since 2004.

But as Slyde showed recently, the major driving factor behind the differences in these two pitchers was actually some combination of fielding and luck: Harang's batted balls became hits 34% of the time compared to just 27% with Arroyo. In fact, if you look at his peripherals, Harang had a better strikeout rate (by a lot), a better walk rate, and an equivalent home run allowed rate (with identical HR/F rates) to Arroyo. Based on this, and despite his much lower innings total, Harang comes in as the more valuable pitcher this year...by a full win...over Arroyo!

I'm actually a bit concerned about Arroyo. His strikeout rate dropped considerably this year. Although he was improved in the second half, my pet belief is that Arroyo's success depends largely on his strikeout rate. Then again, he's shown large fluctuations in strikeout rate in the past, so hopefully this is just a blip. The Reds need him to be a 2-win pitcher next year if they're going to do anything.

Johnny Cueto had by most accounts a very successful season. He started strong, but seemed to taper off as the season wore on, perhaps due to workload: he pitched in both winterball and the WBC last winter, which is far too many innings for my comfort. I'd like to see him get back into the 8+ k/9 range where he was in 2008--if he does, he could be a force.

Homer Bailey had a heck of a turnaround season. Citing some changes in his delivery that occurred during the offseason, Bailey started slow, but then something seemed to just "click." The result was a tremendously successful final few months of the season. I still don't know if what we saw was real or not, but I sure hope it was. Given his playing time, he probably has the biggest error bars around his projection of any pitcher on this team, and perhaps across the entire league.

Micah Owings has probably the most interesting row on the list. As a pitcher, he wasn't very impressive. Low strikeout rate, VERY high walk rate, and low ground ball rates do not tend to lead to success. But the amazing thing is that he was able to couple that replacement-level pitching performance with hitting that clocks in right at league average. The result? A 1 WAR pitcher. You can do worse from your #5 starter. Or long reliever/pinch hitter. Whatever he is these days. Fascinating player.

Speaking of the bullpen, it sure looked excellent this year. Cordero, Rhodes, and the revelational Nick Masset combined for sub-3 ERA's and low-3 FIP's. Jared Burton (FIP 3.75), Danny Herrera (seems like the screwball works, at least on lefties), and Carlos Fisher (scary walks) also performed adequately in middle relief. If Bill Bray comes back strong following Tommy John, this could be a great young relief core moving forward. Well, minus Rhodes, because he's old.

Speaking of old, Cordero's line looks a little shaky from where I sit. His strikeout rate has gone from 12 k/9 in 2007 to 10 k/9 in 2008 to 8 k/9 in 2009. His walk rate was about where it is supposed to be, but his home run rate is artificially low, thanks to an extremely lucky HR per Fly Ball rate of 3%. I don't know if it's related, but he threw a lot more fastballs this year than last (63% vs. ~50% in prior seasons)...maybe the slider wasn't working as well as it used to? The Reds owe him two more seasons at $12M per year.

Overall, this wasn't a terrible pitching staff. But it also wasn't a pitching staff that featured any fantastic individual performances. And the rotation wasn't as strong as it has been in recent years, especially with injuries to Edinson Volquez and Harang. Volquez apparently thinks he will be back mid-next season, which could be a nice shot in the arm if the team is able to do anything with the first half. We'll see.

...

Wrap up and looking forward: So, that's your 2009 Reds. Fun in April and September, utterly forgettable in between. I don't know where this team is going, honestly. There are some good parts here. There are solid, steady contributers in Votto, Rolen, Phillips, Harang, and Arroyo. And there is youth with some nice upside in Bruce, Bailey, Cueto, Stubbs, and Volquez (when he returns). And there's more help on the way in Frazier, Alonso, and Leake. But it's also a team that is seeing some key players, especially pitchers, start to show signs of aging.

Given this, I wonder if 2010 is the year with the best window for success? And if so, can the cash-strapped Reds do what they need to do--plugging holes, mostly--to put themselves in a position to take advantage of some good fortune if it arrives?

MLB Trade Rumors: Winter Meetings Coverage Begins Monday

raygu — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:00:17 -0000

by Aaron J. Latham - AP

2 months ago: San Diego Padres' David Eckstein, left, celebrates with teammate Adrian Gonzalez, right, after they scored on Gonzalez's home run in the fourth inning of a baseball game against the Arizona Diamondbacks Sunday, Sept. 27, 2009 in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Aaron J. Latham)

View full size photo »

We at Fake Teams will be covering the trades and signings that occur at the Winter Meetings that start today in Indianapolis. We will address the fantasy impact of the trades and signings that occur this week and throughout the offseason. The biggest name discussed at the Winter Meetings will be the Blue Jays ace Roy Halladay.

Some of the rumored deals could involve the following players changing uniforms:

Steve Henson from Yahoo Sports tweeted the following last night:

The Dodgers have 3-4 teams interested in $$ Juan Pierre and a 3-team deal is being explored to get L.A. a bad-contract starter in return.
The "bad contract" starter the Dodgers might get for Juan Pierre would not be Derek Lowe, a source said. That bridge has burned.

It appears the Yankees and Red Sox are the favorites for Roy Halladay. Halladay to the Yankees for a package of Jesus Montero and Phil Hughes? Halladay to the Red Sox for Clay Buchholz and Josh Reddick? Halladay to the Phils for J.A. Happ and Michael Taylor? The Giants may make sense for Dan Uggla, but where would he play with Freddy Sanchez at second? I'd be shocked if Adrian Gonzalez isn't dealt to the Red Sox now that former Sox Jed Hoyer is the new GM in San Diego. Josh Willingham in Atlanta makes sense.

Would the rumored Milton Bradley-Pat Burrell deal result in one of the worst outfields in the majors? How can Pat Burrell and Alfonso Soriano play in the same outfield? Pierre makes sense in St. Louis, Chicago and Cincinnati, especially with Dusty Baker managing the Reds. Pierre for Arroyo??

Poll

Who is more likely to get traded during the Winter Meetings this week?

Roy Halladay

150 votes

Adrian Gonzalez

90 votes

Javier Vazquez

47 votes

Juan Pierre

86 votes

373 votes | Poll has closed

Orioles interested in Kevin Gregg?

Eli Greenspan — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:19:35 -0000

More photos » by Paul Beaty - AP

Browse more photos »

INDIANAPOLIS - The Orioles are interested in free agent closer Kevin Gregg, who pitched under Orioles pitching coach Rick Kranitz in Florida. Gregg struggled mightily in Chicago, posting a 4.72 ERA in 72 games.

	W-L	G	GS	CG	SHO	SV	BS	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	K	ERA	WHIP
2009 - Kevin Gregg	5-6	72	0	0	0	23	7	68.2	60	38	36	13	30	71	4.72	1.31

The Orioles are in need of a veteran late inning reliever, and Gregg - with a career 4.10 ERA - would be a low cost option who could help stabilize their bullpen.

The Orioles are also looking to add a starter and potentially a corner infielder. In terms of a starting pitcher, one NL source said the Orioles could look into trading for veteran Derek Lowe, but the Braves would have to take on the majority of his salary so there may not be a match.

Aaron Harang or Bronson Arroyo of the Reds could also be options as well.

For a corner infielder, the Orioles aren't looking for anything long-term. With Josh Bell and Brandon Snyder a year or so away from playing everyday in Baltimore, a one-year stop gap like Troy Glaus or Pedro Feliz could improve the middle of their order.

Harang and Arroyo: What a Difference a Defense Can Make

Slyde — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:00:34 -0000

by Al Behrman - AP

Bronson Arroyo appreciates the help from his defense, but his mama didn't raise no dummy.

View full size photo »

Bronson Arroyo led the Reds' starters in wins, ERA, and innings pitched in 2009. Aaron Harang led the Reds in losses and has managed just 12 wins over the last two seasons. What if I told you that the biggest difference between those two pitchers last year was something that is largely out of their control?

As Justin showed yesterday, the Reds were arguably the best defensive team in the National League in 2009, but oddly enough, Harang saw very little benefit from that improved defense. Out of all qualified pitchers, Harang finished dead last in the National League in Defensive Efficiency Ratio (DER) at .669. Arroyo on the other hand had the 5th best ratio at .735. This means that out of every 100 balls that were put into play (not counting home runs), the Reds defense turned 6.6 more of them into outs for Arroyo than they did for Harang. That may not seem like a ton until you realize that batters put the ball into play 514 times against Harang and 722 times against Arroyo last season. Those numbers add up quickly.

This is not to say that none of it is Harang's fault. The big right-hander did have the highest Line Drive allowed rate in the Majors at 24% and his ground ball rate of 34% was much lower than Arroyo's 44% GB rate. But those numbers still don't seem like enough of a reason for the dramatic 30+ play difference in the two pitcher's numbers. So I did a little mathematical experiment.

Using the batted ball data from Baseball Reference's splits page, let's compare each player's BABIP to the team's BABIP for each batted ball type. We're using BABIP, which is more or less 1 - DER, because BBRef does not include reached on error within the pitcher splits.

	Arroyo		Harang		Reds overall
	BIP	BABIP	BIP	BABIP	BIP	BABIP
GB	321	.209	177	.299	1889	.237
FB	242	.090	200	.148	1642	.111
LD	145	.660	121	.702	908	.690
Bunt	14	.400	16	.200	103	.262

You can see here that Arroyo has had the fortune of many more of his batted balls being turned into outs across the board. His BABIP outperforms the rest of the Reds team in every single category except for the tiny sample of bunts, most of which are sacrifice hits. If you subscribe to the DIPS theory that pitchers have very little control over what happens to a ball once it is put into play, then you can see that Arroyo benefited dramatically from defensive help much more than Harang did.

What's that look like from a runs perspective? If we use wRAA (runs above average based on wOBA) for our estimator, we see that Arroyo, based on actual values, was about 9 runs better than the average pitcher while Harang was about 7 runs worse than the average pitcher. If we adjust each pitcher's BABIP lines per batted ball type to match the Reds' team average in each type (exchanging only singles and outs, leaving all extra base hits the same), Arroyo's wRAA changes to 3.5 runs below the average pitcher while Harang moves to 7 runs better than average. That's a -12.5 run shift for Arroyo and a +14 run shift for Harang, all simply by leveling out the defensive success behind them. I'll admit that it was a much bigger change than I expected.

Unfortunately, I won't simply take these numbers and adjust ERA because the chain effect of converting a hit into an out and vice versa would adjust the number of innings pitched and the math is too complicated for my small brain. Besides, the point wasn't to argue the quality of each pitcher so much as to demonstrate how two pitchers, pitching for the same team, can get very different support from their defensive teammates and what a dramatic effect that can have on their outcomes. And that's not even mentioning run support. No one should be surprised if Harang is the 15-game winner next year and Arroyo is struggling on a start-by-start basis. Such is the fickle nature of depending on your teammates.