SB Nation User Blog: BLee2525

On trading Bronson...

BLee2525 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:34:34 -0000

As much as I like what Arroyo's done here, I think he's the guy you have to trade if you want to make a run this season. Trading prospects for FA's-to-be would be unwise, as this is still a flawed team with most of its core players several years from their respective primes. It's not worth wasting Jay Bruce's best years because you went all-in on a 2009 team whose best possible outcome is a one-and-done in the playoffs.

But, the division is there for the taking. You never know how often these kind of chances will come around, so you have to do something, right?

If this team is to go to the playoffs without mortgaging the future, the most probable scenario (really, the only scenario in my mind) is to add a bat, get Volquez back healthy, and have some combination of Bailey/Maloney/Ramirez cobble together enough quality innings to maintain the strong pitching we've enjoyed thus far. That last part is a lot easier to do when all you need to do is equal the 5.16ERA Bronson's given you to this point. You can't ask rookies to replace Harang's production.

So, where to send him? I look at Minnesota; a .500 squad in a division that's eminently winnable, with a 109 OPS+ and a 93 ERA+ as a team. They have 4 outfielders with at least 170 PA's, plus a DH who's a nominal LF. One of those OF's happens to have a career 109 OPS+ (Bronson has a career 106 ERA+), happens to have a contract that pays him $16.5mil over the next 2 seasons with an $11mil option for 2011 (compared to Bronson's $22mil over the next 2, plus an $11mil 2011 option), and happens to bat righthanded.

Bronson Arroyo and $3mil to the Twins for Michael Cuddyer?

After calling up Drew Stubbs and demoting Willy Taveras (riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight) we'll be able to roll out this lineup:

CF Stubbs R
1B Votto L
LF Cuddyer R
RF Bruce L
2B Phillips R
3B Encarnacion R
C Hanigan/Hernandez
SS Shit, what's that one guy's name?

Playoffs?

via i154.photobucket.com

Awesomeness Herein

BLee2525 — Thu, 07 May 2009 01:24:33 -0000

Tim Marchman posted on his blog a Series of Photos showing Hall of Famer Mordecai "Three Finger" Brown going through his pitching motion. That is cool. Some enterprising soul took that series of photos, and Made a really awesome video showing what Ol' Three Finger would have looked like in action. I thought it was awesome, so I thought I'd share. I know this is probably the kind of thing that should go in a FanShot, but I also know that nobody reads FanShots, and I really wanted everybody to see this. I hope I'm up to 300 characters.

Fun with Numbers: Strikeouts vs. Ball-in-Play Outs

BLee2525 — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:29:34 -0000

I was having a discussion on another Reds' board, and came across one of my favorite types of Reds' fans; the "put-the-ball-in-play-and-let's-manufacture-some-runs" guy. He, of course, hated Chris Dickerson. I like Chris Dickerson. He told me that strikeouts were terrible, and productive outs were awesome. I said that strikeouts are bad, productive outs are slightly less bad, and GIDP's are really bad, and that most of the gains that result from productive outs are erased by grounding into double plays. He said, "Nuh uh." I said, "Yes huh."

It actually turned into a really good discussion, with one poster making a great point after I launched into my usual tirade about strikeout rate correlating with Walks, Power, and ever so slightly, run production. The point was that we need to separate strikeouts from players who strike out. There's an inherent selection bias in the correlation rates I cited, as players who strike out have to have those secondary skills in order to make the Big Leagues in the first place.

So, this is my attempt to isolate the effects of strikeouts, and compare them to Ball-in-Play outs. I haven't seen anything like this done by anybody else, so I hope I'm showing you guys something new here. It's long, and it's got a lot of math, all of which I did myself. You've been warned.

First, we need to determine a run value for every type of out in every baserunner situation and every out situation. The most important tool in making this determination is the 2008 Run Expectancy Matrix, as compiled by Baseball Prospectus. Most of you are familiar with this, but for those who haven't seen it, a quick explanation. On the left side is the baserunner situation. 1, 2 or 3 indicates a runner on that base, 0 indicates the base is empty. So, 103 means runners on first and 3rd. On top is the Out situation. The numbers in the middle indicate the average number of runs scored by all teams in all innings (except walk-off 9th innings) throughout MLB in 2008.

So, with this information, we'll determine Run Values for Productive Outs by subtracting the "after" run expectancy from the "before" run expectancy, adding runs as applicable when there's a productive out with a runner on 3rd. For example, for a Sacrifice Fly with runners on 1st and 3rd and 0 out, the Run Value would be 1.77 - (1 + 0.53) = -0.24, where 1.77 is the run expectancy for runners on 1st and 3rd with 0 out, 0.53 is the RE for a runner on first with 1 out, and 1 is added because a runner scored. I'll make the assumption that every Productive Out happens with the same frequency regardless of the Out situation, and thus can take a simple average of the 0 out and 1 out Run Value for a Productive Out in each Baserunner Situation. Here's what I came up with:

100= -0.205
020= -0.26
003= -0.08
120= -0.22
103= -0.02
023= -0.13
123= -0.12

I made the assumption that in 1st and 3rd situations, the man on 1st advances half the time; in 2nd and 3rd situations, the man on 2nd advances half the time; and in bases loaded situations, 1/3 of the time, nobody advances; 1/3 of the time, only the man on 2nd advances; and 1/3 of the time, both men advance. It's probably not perfect, but it's probably close.

This jives pretty well with intuition. The best time for a productive out is with a man on 3rd, since at least you get a run home. However, when the bases are stacked behind him, you get some diminishing returns, as you hurt your chance for a big inning.

Now, we do the same for Strikeouts. This is considerably easier, as we don't have to consider "before" and "after" Baserunner Situations. Here's the results I got:

100= -0.34
020= -0.41
003= -0.58
120= -0.54
103= -0.65
023= -0.71
123= -0.76

So, yeah, productive outs are better than strikeouts. That shouldn't shock anybody. However, there's a 3rd type of out that can also result from putting the ball in play; the dreaded GIDP. The only real assumption I made regarding other baserunners was that any runner in front of the DP advanced 1 base when there were 0 out. I gave the same credit for a DP with a runner on 3rd that I did above. The run values for GIDP:

100= -0.63
120= -1.05
103= -0.91
123= -1.28

So, now that we have Run Values for every type of Out in every Baserunner Situation, we can calculate the weighted average, multiplying Run Value by the Percentage of Plate Appearances in that situation. When we're done, we'll divide that by the aggregate of %PA to determine a Total Run Value. Being very familiar with them, I utilized Adam Dunn's splits for the %PA's for each Baserunner Situation (come on, you knew I wouldn't go an entire post without bringing him up). Here's the Total Run Value for each type of out:

TRV (PO) = -0.19
TRV (K) = -0.46
TRV (DP) = -0.81

So, now, we need to determine the ratio of Productive Outs to GIDP's needed to break even with Strikeouts. Get ready for some Algebra:

-0.81 + -0.19*x = -0.46*(x+1)
x=1.30

We need 1.3 Productive Outs for every GIDP in order to break even. So, how do MLB teams do in that regard?

ESPN actually kept Productive Out stats for a while as Buster Olney tried to convince us that they were some sort of hidden indicator of success. ESPN hid that data once it became apparent that teams with large numbers of productive outs had bad offenses. I found Productive Out data for 2008 buried deep on ESPN's site, though. The average MLB team had 187 Productive Outs in 2008.

GIDP's were considerably easier to find. The average team had 129 of those.

187 / 129 = 1.45

So, the average MLB team does gain a little bit by making ball-in-play outs instead of strikeouts. Let's see how many runs they gain over the course of a season with their Ball-in-Play Outs.

187*(-0.19) + 129*(-0.81) = -140 Runs
(187+129) * (-0.46) = -145 Runs

So, over the course of an entire season, the average MLB team gains 5 runs as a result of their Ball-in-Play outs. The question I leave to you, dear reader, is; Are the benefits of late-count hitting (walks, high opponents' pitch counts, seeing more pitches) enough to offset those 5 runs a team gains by trading strikeouts for Ball-in-Play outs?

Drew Stubbs

BLee2525 — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:15:21 -0000

Here was John's comment from the book on Stubbs:

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2007/12/7/143649/622

He's since been promoted to AAA Louisville. His numbers across 3 levels:

High-A Sarasota: .261/.366/.406, 21 2B, 4 3B, 5 HR, 50BB, 82K, 27/35SB in 303 AB
AA Chattanooga: .315/.400/.402, 8 2B, 0 3B, 0 HR, 11BB, 21K, 3/4SB in 92 AB
AAA Louisville: .316/.381/.579, 2 2B, 1 3B, 2 HR, 3 BB, 7K, 2/2 SB in 38 AB

2008 Totals: .277/.374/.420, 31 2B, 5 3B, 7 HR, 64BB, 110K, 32/41 SB in 433 AB

Obviously, sample size caveats apply to the AA/AAA numbers, but he looks to be improving the strikeout rate, which was his major red flag coming into the season, and maintaining a nice walk rate in the high minors. The power numbers aren't spectacular, however, Sarasota and Chattanooga are both pitchers' environments, and he looks to be hitting the ball with some authority thus far at AAA. He also has a tremendous defensive reputation, with some going as far as to say he could contend for a gold glove in CF today.

So, what are the projections for Stubbs now? Nice 4th OF? Ryan Sweeney with speed? Perennial .380 OBP, 20/20 leadoff hitter? Does the strikeout rate still worry you? Do you anticipate any further power development? Yeah, I know that's a lot of questions.

Just curious on people's thoughts on Stubbs now that the production appears to be catching up to his scouting reports.

Closer Usage

BLee2525 — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:15:27 -0000

While watching Mike Lincoln, in his 2nd inning of work, give up the game-winning HR's in the 10th this afternoon despite Francisco Cordero sitting in the bullpen, the issue of closer usage came up in the game thread. BubbaFan, like some MLB managers, advocated bringing your closer in for the 9th or 10th inning of a tie game at home. At that point, if your offense gains a lead, it's a walk-off, and there's nothing for a closer to do. I advocated an even broader use of the closer; use him in almost all tie games, regardless of home or road situation, instead of the 1-inning, 3-run saves.

Well, that sent me to Cordero's game logs to check Dusty's usage of Cordero against where I would use him. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20, but I'll try to be objective and look at the game situation at the time to determine where I might differ from Dusty in my bullpen philosophy.

Games I would not have used Cordero where Dusty did:
5/31 (1 inning, 2 run defecit)
4/10 (1 inning, 3 run lead. Send Weathers, Bray or Affeldt in with that kind of lead.)
4/13 (1 inning, 8 run defecit)
4/16 (1 inning, 9 run defecit)
4/24 (1 inning, 2 run defecit)
5/3 (1 inning, 8 run defecit)
5/10 (1 inning, 8 run lead)
5/24 (1 inning, 5 run lead)
5/27 (0.1inning, 3 run lead)
6/9 (1 inning, 5 run lead)
6/12 (1 inning, 4 run lead)

Games I would have used Cordero, where Dusty did not:
4/8 @ Mil, Bottom 9. Reds tie it up on a Patterson HR in the top of the 9th. I would bring Cordero in to hold the tie. Could have changed the outcome, too, as Dusty went to Weathers in the 10th, and he gave up 3 hits and a run to blow it.
4/11 @ Pit, Bottom 8. Down 1-0, I'd bring Cordero in 1) because he hadn't worked in 3 days, and 2) to hold the score where it was to see if we can get the offense going. Ultimately, it didn't matter, as the Reds didn't score in the top of the 9th.
4/12 @ Pit, Bottom 8. Down 4-3 in the game, down 2-0 in the series. Bring Cordero in to hold it down, and see if I can steal one. This one didn't end up mattering, either.
4/19 vs. Mil, Top 9. I'd have used him for a 2nd inning here. He hadn't pitched in 2 days, and this was a tie game going to extras. Weathers blew the lead by giving up 2 runs in the 10th.
4/25 @ SF, Bottom 8. Down 1-0 at this point, and Cordero hasn't worked in almost a week. This is a no-brainer. This one could have changed the outcome, as Harang started the 8th, giving up a run, and turned it over to Burton, who allowed another Giants' runner to score. The Reds' run in the top of the 9th would have tied it if those other 2 didn't score first.
5/19 @ LA, Bottom 9. Tie game on the road. This one could have mattered, as the Dodgers scored against Weathers to win it in that inning.
6/2 @ Phi, Bottom 8. Down 5-4, I'd have brought him in here. Wouldn't have mattered, as Weathers didn't give up a run, and the Reds didn't score in the top of the 9th.

So, that's 12 games Dusty used Cordero where I would not have, and 7 games where I would have used Cordero and Dusty did not. Of Dusty's 12, 6 of them were losses that would not have changed. I highly doubt that we would blow more than 1 of those 6 big leads he used Cordero for. Of course, if it got dicey with one of my second tier guys trying to close out a 3-run lead, I could probably bring in Cordero.

On the other hand, I count 4 games where I could swing the outcome by bringing in Cordero in a situation where most managers would not go to their closer.

It's crazy to me that "old-school" guys say they don't pay attention to stats, but let a stat govern when they use their best reliever. My way, you've used him 5 fewer times at this point in the season, but had the chance to turn 4 losses into wins instead of wasting him for 3, 4, 5, or 8 run leads that Brian B could probably close out, and TheC definitely could.

Who's with me?

(Edit: Dusty used Cordero on 4/19, but didn't stick with him in the 10th. I read that game wrong initially, and had it on both lists)

Reds' Prospects: Deal or No Deal

BLee2525 — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 18:10:05 -0000

While watching A.J. Burnett pitch this afternoon, I had an interesting thought pop into my head; would I be happy with Homer Bailey if he became AJ Burnett? If I could guarantee that Homer became a 25-start-a-year guy who approximates a #2 when healthy, would I cash in any further upside he has?

Then, I started extending it to the Reds' other young players. What kind of career would you have to guarantee to make me cash in any further upside? I thought this would be a game that the rest of the board would find interesting. The question is, would you cash in the upside that the prospect has in order to guarantee the established player's career (Deal)? Or would you prefer to go with what the young guy gives you for his career, thinking that the upside of the young player outweighs the guarantee of the established guy's production (No Deal)?

Homer Bailey - AJ Burnett - A 25-start-a-year guy who is a solid #2 when healthy.

Johnny Cueto - Tom Gordon - Several years as a league-average starter, followed by a long career as a very good short reliever.

Jay Bruce - Jim Edmonds - 15 years as a 130 OPS+ guy, but only 5 seasons with 30+ HR, only 4 with 100+ RBI, and only 4 with 100+ Runs. Textbook "Hall of Very Good" guy.

Joey Votto - Eric Chavez - Several 30-100 seasons at his peak, but finished as a productive player by age 30.

Edinson Volquez - Jack McDowell - Several years of good, consistent production, contends for a Cy Young or two, done by age 30.

My initial answers would be Deal on Bailey and Volquez, No Deal on Cueto, Bruce and Votto.

Reds' Defensive Review

BLee2525 — Sun, 18 May 2008 16:48:11 -0000

Much has been made of the struggles of the offense, but at the quarter pole, I wanted to take a position-by-position look at the defense. JinAZ (jinaz-reds.blogspot.com) and Doug (redsminorleagues.com) have done far better stuff on defense in the past, but I think this works as a quick-and-dirty look. Defensive stats are notoriously effected by small sample sizes, especially over a quarter of a season, but I think there's something to be gleaned from what the stats say so far. The main basis of comparison I'm using is THT's Revised Zone Rating (RZR), with bonus points added and subtracted for Out of Zone (OOZ) plays, Double Plays, and errors as applicable.

1B - Joey Votto ranks 9th out of 14 qualifying 1B in RZR. He's really at the back end of the "average" tier, though, as he's only .016 out of 7th, and almost .100 ahead of #11. He leads the NL with 20 OOZ Plays, and also leads the NL in assists. His Double Play numbers are right in line with the rest of the NL, and while he has the lowest FP of NL 1B's, the small sample size means that he's really only 1-2 errors away from average.
Bottom line - The low RZR and FP are concerning, but the huge OOZ and assist totals make him Average, with the potential to be better.

2B - No surprise here. Brandon Phillips is 1st in the NL in RZR. He's 2nd in the NL in FP (Iguchi has 0 errors, Phillips has 1), and his Double Play numbers are right around average. The only knock is that he only has 4 OOZ plays, but given the rest of the numbers, that's nit-picking.
Bottom line - Excellent. No debating that.

3B - Edwin Encarnacion is 8th out of 15 in RZR, dead average. Double plays are average, too. Unfortunately, he's 2nd to last in OOZ Plays, and tied for the most errors in the NL. While this may seem like a poor performance, it's actually a big improvement from EE, as he's ranked at or near the bottom in RZR the last 2 years, while still last in FP and OOZ.
Bottom Line - Below Average but, as noted, improving.

SS - Conventional wisdom suggests that Jeff Keppinger has held his own at SS. Statistical analysis shows that's not the case. He's 2nd to last in the NL in RZR, 3rd to last in OOZ plays (9. The only guy below him in RZR has 26). The FP is solid, but it's tough to make errors when you don't get to any balls. Double plays are significantly below average, too.
Bottom Line - Poor. Kepp deserves an everyday shot somewhere, but not at SS.

LF - For all the beatings he takes, Adam Dunn's defense looks to be improved this season. He's typically among the bottom 5 in RZR with the Burrells and Carlos Lees of the world. So far this season, he's 6th out of 11, but his raw numbers show him in the middle tier with Juan Pierre and Ryan Braun, significantly ahead of Burrell, Lee and the like. He's also dead league average in OOZ plays, where he's typically brutal. He has 1 more error than league average, but interestingly, both of his errors have been on throws this year.
Bottom Line - Surprisingly Average.

CF - Corey Patterson has a reputation as a guy who can really go get them in Center. As terrible as his bat has been, the defensive reputation is borne out in the stats. He's 2nd in the NL in RZR (.003 behind the leader, Rick Ankiel), and has 16 OOZ plays, slightly below average. He has 2 OF assists, and 2 errors, which pretty much cancel each other out.
Bottom Line - Excellent

RF - Ken Griffey, Jr. has lost many, many steps. Last in the NL in RZR, 2nd to last in OOZ plays, 2nd to last in FP. There's really nothing else to say. He's awful in Right.
Bottom Line - Poor. Very, very poor.

How to fix it? That's the good news. The defense has been at least decent at 7 of the 9 positions. RF and SS look to be really dragging us down. I'm told there's a RF at AAA who looks to be solid defensively. He's supposed to be able to hit a little, too. Deal Griffey, bring up The Boss, problem solved. SS is a little trickier. Alex Gonzalez's 2007 rates Above average defensively (Excellent RZR, solid OOZ, poor FP), but we're not sure when he'll be available. I think we could deal Griffey to Cleveland for Josh Rodriguez (SS prospect) and Chuck Lofgren (power LHP). Rodriguez might not be ready yet, but I think he could be a long-term answer. The good news is that the defensive issues are no longer team-wide, and can be significantly improved with upgrades at only 2 positions.

What's wrong with the offense?

BLee2525 — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:40:24 -0000

A few interesting splits for your perusal:

I think most people here subscribe to the theory that the most important thing the top of the lineup can do is get on base. Get to the big boppers, and give them somebody on base in front of them to drive in. Seems pretty simple, but how are the Reds doing in that regard?

OBP from leadoff hitter: .324
OBP from #2 hitter: .311
OBP from #3 hitter: .304
OBP from #4 hitter: .306

Ouch.

Marty's constantly railing on the team's performance with Runners in Scoring Position. Lack of situational hitting and what not. He's kinda wrong, though. Actually, he's really wrong.

Overall BA: .255
BA with Runners On: .268
BA with RISP: .262

Strikeouts must be the issue, then. We all know that strikeouts are the debil, and we have a whole bunch of swing-and-miss bastards on this team. Put the farking ball in play, am I right?

123 strikeouts, 2nd fewest in the NL.

Well, what the hell's the problem then? If they're putting the ball in play, and hitting with ducks on the pond, they should be bringing runs home in bunches, right?

# of AB with Runners On: 321, 11th in NL
# of AB with RISP: 183, 14th in NL

Oh, right. That.

One good way to help yourself out is to see a lot of pitches. Control that strike zone. Take some walks, find something to hit. Get the starter out of the game as soon as you can.

#P/PA: 3.74, T-14th in NL
# of PA's vs. opponent's relievers: 296, 14th in NL.

We're giving up outs, we're not working counts, we're doing exactly what the pitcher wants us to do. We keep the opposing starter in the game too long. We're trying to "manufacture runs" (3rd in NL in Sac Bunts) It's not situational hitting or "selfish swinging" like Marty and Cowboy will tell you. There's your problem with the offense.

Baseball Trivia on Fay's Blog

BLee2525 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:35:29 -0000

Fay posted an interesting bit of trivia on his blog today.

Who was the first pitcher to defeat all 30 current MLB Teams? Apparently, this had several beat writers stumped in Pittsburgh for quite some time.

Multiple posters chimed in with Al Leiter. Fay confirms that Leiter is the correct answer. One reader adds that Kevin Brown, Terry Mullholland, and Curt Schilling all achieved the same feat after Leiter.

One problem. That's not right. Leiter was the first guy to beat all 30 current franchises, but he never beat the Washington Nationals, a current MLB team. Similarly, Brown, Mullholland, and Schilling all beat the Expos (thus, all 30 franchises), but have not beaten the Nationals. So, none of those guys have beaten all 30 current MLB teams.

One guy has. Name him.

Who are you, and what the hell have you done with John Fay?

BLee2525 — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:11:02 -0000

Dunn Has Shown He Deserves Long-Term Deal

Highlights:

Those of you who like the "Moneyball" numbers game love Dunn. His OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage) annually is among the best in baseball.

He's 22nd in the category among active players. Only three players under age 30 are above him - No. 2 Albert Pujols, No. 14 Miguel Cabrera and No. 20 Mark Teixeira.

I think OPS is much more important than batting average. I also think the most overlooked stat in baseball is games played.

He's a guy who always has been liked by everyone who covers the team on a daily basis, although not so much by some columnists. (Ed. - Whoever could he mean?)

If the Reds win early and Dunn performs as usual - 40 home runs, 100 RBI, 100 runs and 100 walks - Castellini will work out a deal.

The Fay, I take back most of the nasty things I ever said about you.