SB Nation - Cincinnati Reds

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.

Cubs Historic Photos: Sixth In A Series

Al — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:00:28 -0000

The catcher you see in this photo had, by the date it was taken, already established himself at a very young age as one of the top catchers in the game. Go past the jump to find out when it was taken.

Click on photo to open a larger version in a new browser window

This photo was in a large group of pictures from a 9-8 loss to the Reds on August 25, 1969. That was a wild game in which the Cubs spotted the Reds a 9-4 lead, only to score four runs in the bottom of the ninth, all with two out, and left the bases loaded.

Glenn Beckert is the hitter; Beckert batted three times with runners on base, which appears to be the case here as Johnny Bench prepares to throw toward either first or second. In the third inning, Beckert singled after Don Kessinger led off the inning with a single. In the fifth, he came up with runners on first and second and nobody out and singled to load the bases (the runner on second was pitcher Bill Hands, which is likely why no run scored).

And in the wacky ninth inning, walks put runners on first and second with nobody out, and Beckert lined out to left field.

Looking at the shadows, I'm guessing it's the third-inning at-bat, since you can see faces in the first-base boxes still in the sun -- you wouldn't see that later in the game. The Cubs lost the first three of that four-game series to Cincinnati and lost 2.5 games off their first-place lead. No need to rehash what happened after that.

Heroes of the Zeros: Third Base

Slyde — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:00:22 -0000

During the aughts, the Reds had 39 different players play at least one game at 3B, including Javier Valentin, Jason Larue, Dmitri Young, and Wily Mo Pena. There was also a fan favorite, a fan whipping boy, and a guy that is more famous for a single swing on another team than anything he did with the Reds. Who do you think is the starting 3B for the Reds All Decade team? Vote in the poll after the jump.

Other ballots: Starting Rotation | Bullpen | Catcher | First base | Second base

Click header to sort table by column
	Years	G	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	OPS+	wOBA	WAR
Aaron Boone	2000-2003	455	1889	1681	242	451	101	7	70	257	144	308	.268	.335	.462	.797	103	.339	8.4
Edwin Encarnacion	2005-2009	514	2000	1764	236	462	109	4	71	263	185	364	.262	.345	.449	.793	103	.344	1.4
Tim Hummel	2003-2004	82	219	194	19	43	9	0	3	17	16	30	.222	.285	.314	.599	58	.258	-0.9
Brandon Larson	2001-2004	109	332	291	29	52	11	0	8	37	35	86	.179	.271	.299	.570	49	.258	-1.4
Andy Phillips	2008	52	80	73	11	17	3	0	3	10	6	14	.233	.300	.397	.697	80	.307	-0.2
Joe Randa	2005	92	368	332	44	96	26	1	13	48	33	52	.289	.356	.491	.847	120	.362	1.3
Scott Rolen	2009	40	162	137	24	37	7	1	3	24	19	20	.270	.364	.401	.766	102	.342	0.9
Adam Rosales	2008-2009	105	296	259	23	55	11	1	4	21	27	50	.212	.296	.309	.605	60	.275	-0.3
Chris Stynes	2000	119	420	380	71	127	24	1	12	40	32	54	.334	.386	.497	.883	120	.378	2.5

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/18/2009.

MLB Trade Rumors: Dissecting the Red's Decision to Restructure Scott Rolen's Contract

raygu — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:00:31 -0000

by Ben Margot - AP

4 months ago: Cincinnati Reds' Aaron Harang works against the San Francisco Giants during the fourth inning of a baseball game Sunday, Aug. 9, 2009, in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Ben Margot)

View full size photo »

A few days ago, there was a rumor that the Dodgers were talking to the Reds about trading for starting pitcher Aaron Harang. Then on Friday, that rumor was put to rest as Dodgers GM Ned Colletti was quoted as saying the talk between the two teams is all but dead.

Then yesterday, we hear that the Reds have restructured the contract of third baseman Scott Rolen to give them more "payroll flexibility". Instead of receiving $11 million in 2010, Rolen will receive $6 million in 2010, $5 million in 2011 and $6.5 million in 2012. So, the Red extended Rolen's contract through 2012 to give them payroll flexibility. But, this extension also blocks two of their 3b prospects Todd Frazier and Juan Francisco. Both will compete for the opening in left field in spring training, and one of them will be the first to be called up when Rolen goes on the DL. My money is on Frazier.

But getting back to the rumored Harang to the Dodgers deal. The Reds were rumored to want one or two guys off the Dodgers major league roster in return for Harang. My guess is they have interest in one of Scott Elbert and James McDonald along with SS Chin-Lung Hu.

Could the restructuring of Rolen's contract allow the Reds to take on more of Harang's salary in a possible deal to the Dodgers?

Poll

Did the restructuring of Scott Rolen's contract allow the Red to take on more of Harang's salary in a possible deal with the Dodgers?

The Rolen Extension, by the numbers

JinAZ — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 03:17:45 -0000

More photos » by Al Behrman - AP

With his new extension, Scott Rolen will be manning the hot corner for the next three years...provided he can stay healthy.

Browse more photos »

Overall reaction seems positive in the news thread. I wanted to run the numbers, though, just to see.

What the Reds are Paying:

Assuming the signing bonus is paid evenly over the three years ($1.7M/yr), and making some guesstimates about current and future WAR/$ exchange rates, the Reds are paying:

$7.7 M in 2010 @ $4.5 M/WAR = 1.7 WAR
$8.2 M in 2011 @ $4.7 M/WAR = 1.7 WAR
$8.2 M in 2012 @ $5.0 M/WAR = 1.6 WAR
Total contract value: 5 WAR over life of contract.

How Rolen Projects:

Offense: I averaged the CHONE and ZiPS projections for Rolen in 2010. That gives this projection: 463 PA's (66% playing time), 0.277/0.352/0.432 slash line, 11 HR, 0.347 wOBA, 4.8 RAA after park adjustments = 0.51 WAR. An aging but still effective hitter, at least when he's in the lineup.

Fielding: both Jeff Zimmerman's UZR/150 projections as well as CHONE's fielding projections have Rolen at 7 RAA per season. Fan Scouting Report had him at +18 runs last season (weighted average of his totals from TOR and CIN fans). Average of the three approaches puts him at 10.6 runs per season. Given the playing time estimates above, that projects him at 7 RAA = 0.75 WAR. Still an excellent defensive 3B.

Position Adjustment: +0.25 per full season for 3B, prorates to +0.17 WAR given the playing time estimates.

Replacement level: 2 WAR/season in the NL, which prorates to 1.3 WAR given the playing time estimates.

Overall, assuming 0.5 win/yr aging:

2010: 0.51 + 0.75 + 0.17 + 1.3 = 2.7 WAR
2011: 2.2 WAR
2012: 1.7 WAR
Total expected: 6.6 WAR

Given his age and injury history, you can argue that we should use slightly higher aging rates than this. You can also argue that free agent salaries are actually coming in lower than $4.5 M per WAR this year (though I think it's too early to make that call). Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that this deal is, at WORST, a market-even deal....and most likely represents a nice little surplus. Congrats to the Reds on a nice deal.

Update 12/20/09: I noticed an error in how I was applying a park correction to his offensive projection. This has been fixed above. It did not change the conclusions, but did pull 0.2 WAR/season off of his projections. I apologize for being a dork.

The Greatest Reds: #1

riverfront76 — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:00:16 -0000

1. Pete Rose

Played as Red	Primary Position	Career Rank	Peak Rank	Prime Rank
1963-78, 1984-86	LF, 3B, 2B, RF, 1B	1	4	2
Percent Breakdown of Value			Best Season	Best player on Reds
Hit	Field	Pitch	1969	1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1971
84%	16%	0%	1969	1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1971
Awards/Honors as a Red	Leading the League		On the Reds Leaderboard
Most Valuable Player – 1973 Rookie of Year – 1963 World Series MVP – 1975 Hutch Award – 1968 Lou Gehrig Award – 1969 Roberto Clemente Award – 1976 Gold Glove – 1969, 1970 All Star – 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1985	Hits – 1965, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1973, 1976 Plate Appearances – 1965, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1978 At Bats – 1965, 1972, 1973, 1977 On Base Percentage – 1968 Batting Average – 1968, 1969, 1973 Runs Scored – 1969, 1974, 1975, 1976 Singles – 1973 Doubles – 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978		-1st in career runs scored -1st in career doubles -1st in career hits -1st in career walks -4th in career RBI

via www.mkrob.com

Peter Edward Rose, perhaps more than any man in the history of the world, was built to hit .300. One suspects that it was not only important to him (you just *know* he kept track of his stats), but that there was some sort of innate necessity—like an internal magnet that drew him towards a .300 batting average. I say this for a variety of reasons: one, Rose played for a really, really long time, came up to bat more than anyone ever, and hit .303 for that career. But at the end of his career, he had—as player/manager—the ability to write himself in or out of the lineup. As his skills dimmed (he hit just .219 in his final season), he had the power to ensure that his lifetime mark stayed above that magic line. More interesting, however, is just how balanced it all was after 14,000 at-bats. Rose hit .302 in day games, .303 at night. He hit .303 on grass, and the same on turf. Domed stadiums presented no trouble (.301). He wasn’t a total robot—for example he was a better left-handed hitter than right—but it must have seemed that way to opponents, at times. From 1965 through 1980, Rose managed at least 175 hits in each season—and often times posted many more than that. Too much has been written about Rose, much of it either overly positive or overly negative. Here, then, are five observations about Rose, rooted primarily in fact and data:

1) Rose was at least a little bit lucky that Tommy Helms wasn’t either a bit older or a bit better. Rose won Rookie of the Year in 1963, due in part to the fact that there weren’t many good candidates that year (he had just a 101 OPS+, and was caught stealing more times than he was successful). The following season, Rose was pretty bad—80 OPS+, didn’t field particularly well, etc. The Reds had Helms, another 2nd baseman, in AAA that year, and he was just not quite ready for prime time. Actually, as his career unveiled, it turned out he wasn’t quite good enough to be foundational to a winning team. Rose bounced back in ’65 (led the league in hits, finished 6th in MVP voting), but an impatient team or a better alternative at 2nd base might have changed his situation considerably.

2) Rose bounced from position to position, generally at four-year intervals, and didn’t play any of them particularly well. Honestly, one of the great surprises in this entire project was that Rose won two Gold Glove awards, while playing right field, but I would guess that a retrospective, fielding data-based examination of the results wouldn’t approve. Actually, he was probably a decent enough left fielder in the early 70’s, especially playing alongside Tolan or Geronimo. He didn’t make many errors, and was almost certainly pretty intelligent about throws, or running down flies, etc.

3) One of my favorite unknowable questions in baseball history is this: how many home runs could Pete Rose have hit had he employed a different style of hitting? He certainly didn’t hit very many as it was: just 160 of his 4256 hits went over the fence, and he peaked at 16, twice. From 1972 on, he reached double digit dingers just once. Still, he regularly led the league in doubles (five separate times during his 30’s), and he appeared to be muscular enough to turn some of those doubles into home runs. One imagines that his mental calculus determined that trying for home runs decrease the batting average, and that might mean he drop below .300…

4) Rose played until he was 45 years old. He clearly and transparently played long enough to eclipse Ty Cobb’s hits record. Still, he was good enough in 1985, at age 44, to post a .395 on-base percentage.

5) Throughout his career and its aftermath, Rose was probably a bit overrated. He was flashy, a great quote, a statistical freak given his longevity, and he had an elevated profile in part due to the greatness of his teammates. His peak was very good, but wasn’t other-worldly (he had only two seasons with OPS+ marks above 150, although he was generally on-base heavy). Still, it’s possible that his ridiculous career marks are understated. The indescribably good Baseball-reference.com takes efforts to translate each player’s season to a "neutral" offensive era, whereby teams average just over 4.4 runs per game. Since Rose’s peak took place in the pitcher-friendly 1960’s, he emerges favorably from this exercise, which imagines 4,604 career hits, 800 doubles, and an OPS of 815 instead of his actual 784.

Rose spent 19 seasons with the Reds, came to bat over 12,000 times, scored over 1700 runs, maintained a 124 OPS+, and reached base safely over 4,500 times.

The Top 15 Left Fielders in Reds history

1          Pete Rose
2          Frank Robinson
3          George Foster
4          Adam Dunn
5          Bob Bescher
6          Pat Duncan
7          Kal Daniels
8          Eric Tipton
9          Babe Herman
10        Joe Kelley
11        Dmitri Young
12        Gary Redus
13        Elmer Smith
14        Jerry Lynch
15        Mike Donlin

Friday's Frosty Mug

KLSnow — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:03:38 -0000

More photos » by Tony Gutierrez - AP

It appears Claudio Vargas was never photographed as a Brewer. He'll get another chance to show up in an AP photo in 2010.

Browse more photos »

Some things to read while simulating a sunrise.

Claudio Vargas is expected in Milwaukee for his physical late in the day today, so we can expect an official announcement on his contract sometime late this afternoon. Vargas had to return from the Dominican Republic, where he just reported to winter ball a few weeks ago and has yet to allow an earned run in four relief appearances, including two saves. Since he's only logged 6.1 innings of work, he might head back down there after the physical.

Until last season, Vargas had thought of himself as a starter temporarily pitching out of the bullpen, but Adam McCalvy has the story of how a late-season matchup against Albert Pujols changed his mind and caused him to embrace his new role.

Once the Vargas signing is official, the Brewer 40 man roster will be full. Tom H. engaged in a little rosterbation and notes the team is pretty much set going into spring training, barring an injury or trade.

With a tight roster, apparently there's no room for Seth McClung. McClung tweeted that the Brewers sent an email to his agent letting him know they're not interested in pursuing a deal to bring him back as a free agent. He's also looking to sell his house in Florida, if you're in the market.

Meanwhile, Adam McCalvy posted a correction to an earlier report on the incentives in LaTroy Hawkins' contract: they're actually tied to appearances and games finished, not saves. As TheJay noted, the collective bargaining agreement prohibits teams from tying incentives to "skill" stats, but allows them for playing time.

Elsewhere in the bullpen, Chuck Lofgren's hometown paper has a story about his opportunity to pitch for the Brewers this spring. They also have this quote, which might remind you of another former Brewer reliever/pinch hitter:

"I don't prepare for spring training like a hitter would, but I do still get in the cage,'' Lofgren said. "I can still hit. I never really lost it.''

Months into the offseason, the market hasn't heated up quite as much as one might have expected for second basemen. FanGraphs has a look at the guys that still remain on the market, including Felipe Lopez, and the possibility that they'll have to change positions to find work this offseason. I still think Lopez would have turned down arbitration in search of full-time work, but perhaps the Brewers knew something we didn't in terms of the market for his services.

Adam McCalvy also picked up on that note, and his ensuing post on Lopez included this note regarding the Brewer payroll for 2010:

Melvin says he still has some flexibility left over to troll the market in January and February for bargains. If he doesn't find any deals to his liking, Melvin could retain that flexibility into June and July to make a pre-trade deadline deal.

I guess the possibility of another signing shouldn't be ruled out.

Have the Brewers done enough to improve themselves this offseason? Reds Blog handicapped the 2010 NL Central, and said the Brewers "may be slightly better than the Reds, but not much."

John Steinmiller and Caitlin Moyer continue to give us looks into the offseason jobs of the Brewer front office staff: Today they have a look at the work being done by Aleta Mercer, Brewers Senior Director of Entertainment and Broadcasting.

Meanwhile, the Timber Rattlers' front office staff still has some time on their hands, as demonstrated by the five minute battle for superiority between ketchup and mustard in this week's episode of The Offseason.

The Timber Rattlers are also looking for your help to select a shortstop for their 15th anniversary team. Follow this link to read about the candidates, then click over to the front page to vote.

Speaking of voting, we have two of the closest races to date for our BCB All Decade Team. You have until 4 pm today to cast a vote for a backup catcher, where Mike Rivera leads Jason Kendall by 13 votes. You also have until 4 pm tomorrow to cast a vote for our fourth outfielder, where Carlos Lee leads Scott Podsednik by 28 votes, with Jeromy Burnitz lurking over his shoulder.

Around baseball:

Dodgers: Signed infielders Doug Mientkiewicz and Angel Berroa to minor league deals.
Marlins: Signed Ricky Nolasco to a $3.8 million, one year deal, avoiding arbitration.
Mets: Signed Japanese reliever Ryota Igarashi to a two year deal worth $3 million.
Padres: Signed outfielder Chris Denorfia to a minor league deal.

Here's another research project for a reader looking for something to do: Max Marchi of The Hardball Times looks at the difference in pitches CC Sabathia threw to three Yankee catchers in 2009, showing he appeared to prefer to throw sinkers to Jose Molina. I'd be curious to see if there are any disparities in pitches thrown to Mike Rivera and Jason Kendall last season.

There seem to be enough sites discussing it so I'm not going to turn the Mug into a daily receptacle for notes on Hall of Fame voting, but I did find these notes interesting:

Tom H. submitted his ballot yesterday, and had nine players on it. He didn't name them but based on this argument for Bert Blyleven, it's safe to assume he's one of them.
Followers on Twitter convinced Jeff Fletcher of AOL to change his mind and vote yes for Tim Raines.
Rob Neyer reminded us that some Hall of Fame voters still don't get it.

Speaking of Neyer, earlier this week I mentioned his post on the top 100 players of the decade, which included Corey Koskie (among others), but not Prince Fielder. Tangotiger has a look at Koskie's career, and his somewhat surprising route to 22 WAR in slightly more than five full seasons.

If that's not enough stat content for you today, Big League Stew has everything you always wanted to know about WPA.

There may be snow on the field on or near Opening Day, but at least Target Field will have functional bathrooms. Hall of Famer and Twins exec Tony Oliva was recently trapped in a Metrodome bathroom when the handle fell off the door.

I've heard of players doing all kinds of things to break slumps, but Hee Seop Choi might have topped them all by climbing Mount Seorak.

On this day in 1985, the Brewers traded two minor leaguers to the Giants for Rob Deer. Long before Russell Branyan was king of the Three True Outcomes, Deer was a 3TO Pioneer, hitting .229/.329/.450 with 333 walks, 137 home runs and 823 strikeouts in five seasons as a Brewer. Those 137 home runs were the tenth most in baseball during that stretch.

Happy birthday today to 2009 Nashville Sound Patrick Arlis, who turns 29.

Oh, and I'm hoping Garrett Broshuis will eventually share the plans for his Radioactive Cardboard Catcher.

Drink up.

Heroes of the Zeros: Second Base

Slyde — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:00:17 -0000

Today's installment of vote for the best of the Reds worst moves us to second base. The Reds have seen some decent offense from 2B over the decade, and two of the best defenders they've ever had at the position. However, until Brandon Phillips came along in 2006, it was one of the most unstable positions on the team. This shouldn't be a difficult vote today, but who knows with you guys. Ballot is after the jump.

Other ballots: Starting Rotation | Bullpen | Catcher | First base

Click header to sort table by column
	Years	G	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	OPS+	wOBA	WAR
Rich Aurilia	2005-2006	236	949	866	122	252	48	3	37	138	71	118	.291	.344	.482	.825	110	.352	3.2
D'Angelo Jimenez	2003-2005	260	1102	958	124	260	48	5	19	103	130	165	.271	.359	.391	.751	98	.335	3.3
Brandon Phillips	2006-2009	601	2542	2329	330	642	108	19	88	345	151	365	.276	.324	.452	.776	98	.330	5.2*
Pokey Reese	2000-2001	268	1051	946	126	228	40	8	21	86	79	168	.241	.303	.367	.670	68	.289	1.5
Donnie Sadler	2001	39	95	84	9	17	3	0	1	3	9	20	.202	.280	.274	.553	42	.251	-0.6
Bill Selby	2001	36	100	92	7	21	7	1	2	12	5	13	.228	.273	.391	.664	66	.277	-0.5
Drew Sutton	2009	42	76	66	10	14	4	1	1	9	7	20	.212	.297	.348	.646	70	.282	0.1
Todd Walker	2001-2002	221	964	873	120	260	59	3	16	96	76	123	.298	.356	.427	.783	101	.338	1.9

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/15/2009.

* Because FanGraphs only goes back to 2002, I have been using Sean Smith's WAR Database for WAR values except for 2009, which I have pulled from FanGraphs. Smith's WAR is calculated using different defensive metrics which rate Brandon Phillips much more poorly than I think anyone would actually say he is, and therefore lowers his WAR value dramatically. Using just FanGraphs, Phillips WAR with the Reds is 12.5, which I would guess is closer to a correct valuation of BP. However, for consistency sake, I have only included it in this footnote and am sticking to Smith's WAR in the table.

Small-Payroll Teams Don't Need Jacuzzis

Charlie — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:46:05 -0000

More photos » by Al Behrman - AP

Teams like the Pirates--and Reds--can't really afford closers like Francisco Cordero.

Browse more photos »

Some odd point-counterpoint from Neal Huntington and Dejan Kovacevic. Huntington:

History has not been kind to teams in markets like Pittsburgh that have invested heavily in a closer. As a result, we will build depth, give ourselves options and see who steps up to take the ball and get the final outs in our close wins.

Kovacevic:

Here again, what do Pittsburgh or anyone's market size have to do with this concept?

If the Reds regret signing Francisco Cordero to close at his huge contract, how is that different than the Mets regretting signing J.J. Putz or Billy Wagner?

Sure, the Mets absorb the loss more easily because of a bigger payroll, but the history is no less kind to the Mets than it is to the Reds. It's still a lousy move on both counts.

Kovacevic gets it right with "Sure, the Mets absorb the loss more easily because of a bigger payroll...", but actually the conversation begins and ends there. Huntington is dead on.

First, and this is a minor point, the Mets didn't sign Putz, they traded for him. As for Wagner, the Mets paid him $10.5 million in 2009--but after they paid their team-controlled players, they also had room to spend $9 million on Francisco Rodriguez, $12 million on Oliver Perez, $12 million on Carlos Delgado, $20 million on Johan Santana, and $20 million on Carlos Beltran. They also paid $6.25 million to Luis Castillo and $6 million to Putz. None of those players were developed by the Mets.

The Reds spent $12 million on Cordero in 2009. After that, they paid $11 million to Aaron Harang, as part of a four-year deal that bought out two option years. They paid $9.5 million to Bronson Arroyo.

That's it. Every other player was either under team control (Brandon Phillips was signed to a long-term deal, but 2009 would have been one of his arbitration years) or cost them less than $5 million. (Thanks to Cot's Contracts for the data for both teams.)

That's almost $100 million in what we might call expensive-player spending for the Mets, and about $30 million for the Reds. It is absolutely clear that a team like the Mets can afford to drop $12 million for 80 innings if it wants to, while a team like the Reds just can't. And if the Reds sign a player to a contract they end up regretting, it hurts them much more than it hurts the Mets. This is really elementary stuff--a doctor can probably afford that jacuzzi, whereas someone like me just can't. Closers are like jacuzzis. I think that's all Huntington was saying.

History won't be kind to recent versions of the Mets. That's true. But to suggest that has much to do with their decisions to spend heavily on closers is strange and confusing. History won't be kind to them because they were expensive, poorly-constructed teams who suffered two straight September collapses before coming completely unglued in 2009. But their decisions to invest big bucks on closers are only small parts of that, probably very small parts. While the Wagner signing in particular wasn't the world's best idea, it was far from the worst--after all, he pitched brilliantly for the Mets for the better part of three years.

The Mets had a jacuzzi in Wagner, and for several years it worked just fine. And if Minaya had bothered to build a bathtub by having some other relievers handy, the loss of the jacuzzi in 2008 wouldn't have caused the Mets to stink so badly. The problem with the house the Mets built was that it didn't have a roof, or even very many functioning appliances. With their payroll, they could have built the roof and the bathtub and the jacuzzi, but they didn't.

The 2009 Mets devoted broad swathes of playing time to non-hitters like Daniel Murphy and Omir Santos and Alex Cora and Brian Schneider and Ryan Church and Cory Sullivan and Wilson Valdez. They had so many injuries, and planned for them so poorly, that were times when their lineup resembled a Triple-A team's. Their rotation was also a complete mess behind Santana, with Perez, Livan Hernandez, Tim Redding and Mike Pelfrey all imploding along the way. However history may treat the Mets, if they'd run the rest of their team well, they could have spent exactly as they did on closers and probably had three straight playoff appearances from 2007 to 2009. Not so for the Reds, who simply can't afford to spend 40% of their expensive-player spending on an 80 inning guy. They need to spend that money on stuff like heating and water, not on a jacuzzi.

By the way, you may be wondering what this has to do with Matt Capps, since Huntington addressed the Capps matter elsewhere in his chat and the beginning of Kovacevic's post was about Capps. The answer is, nothing. While a small-payroll team shouldn't pay a closer $12 million, it can certainly afford to pay $3-4 million in arbitration.

The Greatest Reds: #2

riverfront76 — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:00:19 -0000

2. Johnny Bench

Played as Red	Primary Position	Career Rank	Peak Rank	Prime Rank
1967-1983	C, 3B, 1B	2	2	4
Percent Breakdown of Value			Best Season	Best player on Reds
Hit	Field	Pitch	1972	1970, 1972
72%	28%	0%	1972	1970, 1972
Awards/Honors as a Red	Leading the League		On the Reds Leaderboard
Inducted to Hall of Fame – 1989 Most Valuable Player – 1970, 1972 TSN Player of Year – 1970 Rookie of Year – 1968 World Series MVP – 1976 Lou Gehrig Award – 1975 Babe Ruth Award – 1976 Hutch Award – 1981 Gold Glove – 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977 All Star – 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1983	Runs Batted In – 1970, 1972, 1974 Home Runs – 1970, 1972 Extra Base Hits – 1970, 1974 Sacrifice Flies – 1970, 1972, 1973 Intentional Walks – 1972 Total Bases – 1974		-1st in career RBI -1st in career home runs -4th in career runs scored -4th in career doubles -5th in career hits

via artfiles.art.com

Bench is on the short list of the greatest catcher of all time, so there seems little point in what-if scenarios. And the grueling nature of catching makes long-term projections seem suspect. Nonetheless, Johnny Bench—through his age 24 season in 1972—had not only two seasons in which he had 40 or more home runs, but he had also just doubled his walk rate, drawing 100 free passes in 1972. Under typical scenarios and aging patterns, this should have meant some amazing things—if I scale down Bench’s projections from a 1972 vantage point to match his actual playing time over the years due to injuries, etc., he still projected to hit 500 home runs, instead of his actual 389.

As the story goes, a spot was found on an x-ray of Bench’s lungs during the ’72 season, and while the tumor turned out to be benign, he still needed surgery, which—again, as the claim goes—severely impacted Bench’s power at the plate. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s wishful conjecture from a wistful athlete who happened to peak early, but the fact remains that the early part of Bench’s career was basically meant to blow your mind. Despite being hampered by injury in 1971, Bench had 154 home runs and 512 RBI before turning 25—both representing better starts than Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, or Reggie Jackson, all of whom also got early career starts. For all the impressive hitting stats, by all accounts Bench revolutionized the catcher position defensively. Most fielding statistics cannot possibly do his reputation justice; perhaps only the caught stealing percentages get us close (routinely around 50%, was 13 years into his career before the CS% dropped below 40%), as well as the ten consecutive Gold Glove awards.

The data paints a picture of Bench as a multi-dimensional athlete, especially compared to the prototypical catcher: Bench hit at least one triple in every season until 1979, he was good for a handful of steals every year—peaking at 13 in 1976, and he routinely spelled his legs by playing other positions 20-30 times a year (even playing center field a couple times in 1970). A Cincinnati Red for his entire 17-year career, Bench was productive almost until the end. 1980 was his last season as a regular catcher, crouching behind the plate in 105 games, and hitting for a 123 OPS+. A severely shortened season in 1981 (even beyond the effects of the player strike) left him as a part-time first baseman with a great bat (141 OPS+). The final two years were mostly spent at 3rd base (to poor result, defensively) and hitting right around league average. His legacy is as another lifetime Red, with a cumulative OPS+ of 126 across 8600 plate appearances, with a pair of peak seasons to rival Morgan’s finest.

The Top 15 Catchers in Reds history

1          Johnny Bench
2          Ernie Lombardi
3          Bubbles Hargrave
4          Ed Bailey
5          Johnny Edwards
6          Ray Mueller
7          Ivey Wingo
8          Heinie Peitz
9          Jason LaRue
10        Eddie Taubensee
11        Larry McLean
12        Joe Oliver
13        Farmer Vaughn
14        Tommy Clarke
15        Smoky Burgess