Reds promote Dick Williams to GM

The Reds followed pattern that has become commonplace in baseball front offices over the last several years by promoting former Assistant GM Dick Williams (not that Dick Williams) to the role of General Manager, with Jocketty staying on as the President.  This is the new model that we're seeing around baseball, with similar arrangements in place with Mark Shapiro in Toronto, Andrew Friedman in Los Angeles, and, of course, Theo Epstein in Chicago.  In many cases, the President retains many of the authorities that once were under the purview of the General Manager.  For example, final decisions on the Blue Jays transactions will be controlled by Mark Shapiro, which was the main reason that Alex Anthopoulos cited for not returning to the Jays following their outstanding season.

The rationale typically cited by outside observers when these kinds of moves are made is that they provide a way for teams to retain talented assistant general managers within an organization when they are at risk of securing a general manager job elsewhere.  By giving them the title of GM, you make staying within your organization more appealing, even if it's not the traditional GM job as chief decision-maker.  Teams often have more than one assistant GM, and so this is a way of formally recognizing the President's chief lieutenant with an improved position title.

In the Reds case, it seems to be a bit more honest, though: while Jocketty will retain decision-making this year, and Williams is being granted the GM title for now, the expectation is that Jocketty will step down after 2016 into an advisory role.  At that time, Williams will take over a traditional GM role, wielding full power to control transactions and shape the ballclub.  Whether the Reds will hire another President to replace Jocketty and oversee Williams is an open question, though they seem to be indicating that this is not the plan.

There are some things to like here.  Per C.Trent's article, Williams has a background in investment banking and private equity.  Those are fields dominated by those who are effective in using data-driven approaches to make decisions.  I just recently started reading Jonah Keri's The Extra 2%, which profiles how the trio of Stuart Sternberg, Matthew Silverman, and Andrew Friedman made the transition from similar Wall Street backgrounds to running the Tampa Bay Rays.  It's hard not be excited by the prospect of the Reds being run by someone who has similar principles to Friedman's, with a strong emphasis on analytics as a way to meld statistical and scouting information.  True to form, that was one of Williams' first talking points today:

"We have some of the best scouts in the game so I would never say we are not heavily dependent on scouting. At the same time, we're doing everything in our power to grow our analytics initiatives," Williams said. "We're right up there with the other teams. We don't talk a lot about it because it really doesn't get you anywhere to let information out there publicly. We will be continuing to invest more and more in our analytics. That's just the nature of the business right now. I'm very much a proponent of combining the analytics and the scouting to get to the right answer."

That's saying all the right things to my ears.  And he's right that the Reds do have an analytics department.  Sam Grossman has said a few interesting things in public over the years, and I noted that the Reds had hired intern Lewie Pollis for a time.  How much they actually make use of those analytics is a question, but I will say that I haven't seen many recent, substantial moves (aside from the extensions of Votto, Phillips, and Bailey) that clearly ran contrary to a data-driven approach.  The Latos and Simon trades last winter looked good at the time and still look good, with Anthony DeSclafani and Eugenio Suarez looking like useful pieces for years to come.  The trades this summer seemed to do what they were supposed to do: net a number of quality players, albeit almost all pitchers, to enhance the farm system.  They probably didn't trade enough of their players last summer, but the moves they've made have looked good.  I'm not sure I buy that the Reds are "right up there with the other teams" in terms of implementation and development of analytics though I guess it depends on what teams.  Pirates?  Cubs?  No way.  But I'd buy that the Reds could be close to a median ballclub on this.

There are some other things that aren't as enticing to me.  Williams is the grandson of former Reds owner William Williams (hat tip to Red Reporter), and there are two other Williams-es near the top of the executive office roster: Chairman Joseph Williams and Vice Chairman and Treasurer Thomas L. Williams.  Now, one can be positive about this and see this as the Williams' being a great Reds' family who are at the core of the business.  But, on the other hand, you could view this as just straight-up nepotism.

Can we really argue that Dick Williams is one of the 30 best candidates for this position, given the advantages he had to gaining and maintaining his position?  I don't know.  I won't blame the guy for his family, but I'm not comfortable giving him credit for it either.  There is an opportunity cost here, in that the Reds aren't giving themselves a chance to hire from outside the organization and bring in a top-tier candidate.  Maybe Alex Anthopoulos (to pick a name of an available, successful GM) isn't a better option, but the Reds didn't even give themselves the chance to find out.

No matter what I think of it, though, Dick Williams is now, or soon will be, our guy.  We get a long goodbye with Walt Jocketty (I hate long goodbyes), and we get to know Williams gradually.  I'll always cheer for the Reds, so I'm cheering for this to work.  Good luck, Walk & Dick.

Tony Cingrani to the bullpen

Tony Cingrani could be a weapon for the Reds out of
the bullpen this season.  But does it matter if the game
is already out of hand?
Photo credit: Patrick Reddick

There was big news out of Goodyear today when Bryan Price, for the first time since last season, indicated that Tony Cingrani is destined for the pen.  Some quotes from Doug Miller's article:

"It means that we're going to get Iglesias stretched out, and as of right now, we're looking at Tony as more of a relief option than as a starting option," Reds manager Bryan Price said. "We have to find a way to get out of the gates strong, and at this point in time, the feeling was that organizationally, Tony's better suited for us at the moment as a relief pitcher."
....
"We want to keep him strong and healthy, and we've had a hard time doing that the last two years. … So one of the things that we hope is that pitching out of the bullpen will allow him to be strong and remain strong, and then evaluate if we think it's a good idea to look at him as a starter in the future."

As I wrote last season, Cingrani has seen some fairly dramatic fluctuations in his fastball velocity in his short big-league career.  When throwing out of the pen in 2013, he showed about a 2 mph jump in velocity.  And last year, just before he went on the DL, he showed a severe loss in velocity, and struggled with arm problems the rest of the season.

In a lot of ways, moving Cingrani to the bullpen makes a lot of sense.  First, he's left-handed.  With Chapman the closer and Marshall perpetually injured, the only lefty the Reds have in the bullpen available in the late innings is Manny Parra.  Second, he is exactly the kind of guy that you'd expect to do really well in the pen: he has a fairly limited repertoire highlighted by an explosive fastball that he has already demonstrated that he can throw harder in shorter stints.  Third, as Price indicated, perhaps a move to the pen will be easier on his arm, allowing him to stay healthy and have a longer, more productive career.

That said, as Doug pointed out, he's had good success as a MLB starter despite his apparent limitations.  In 157 career MLB innings as a starter, he has a 3.78 xFIP and has struck out more than a batter per inning.  Steamer projects him for a 3.66 ERA, while ZiPS projects him for a 3.98 ERA.  I sort of expected the Reds to let him pitch his way out of the role, but that's not in the cards.

Still, given that the Reds have DeScalfani and Iglesias as viable options for #4 and #5 starters, and can fill in for Homer Bailey with one of the veteran replacement player cogs in camp, I can be on board with them shifting Cingrani to the pen to start the season.

But then Price said this:

"The thing is, when we have veteran guys like Marquis and Maholm, you're not going to use them for one start," Price said. "If they're going to be on our team, the hope is that they're on our team for an entire season, if not longer. And that's how we have to look at that. … You can back-and-forth a young guy. You can start a game or two and then go down to the Minor Leagues or go to the bullpen and help us as a long guy. So Marquis and Maholm are looking more like long-term, start-to-finish options for us."

...honestly, I'm speechless.  What?

Update: I'm still speechless, but fortunately Dave Cameron is not.  And he's right.

Redleg Nation asks: Should the NL adopt the DH?

Would Reds fans get to see more of Joey Votto
during his career if they had a DH?  Yeah, maybe.
Photo credit: Keith Allison

Today, Redleg Nation ran a post asking its various contributors to weigh in on the question of whether the National League should adopt the Designated Hitter.  This isn't something imminent, but I think everyone realizes that with offense down, this could well become one of the strategies that baseball adopts to increase its run environment.

There are a lot of arguments against the DH.  One set of them is based on ideals.  "It's tradition." "Every player should have to field and bat." "This is how baseball is meant to be."  Those arguments don't do much for me.  Then there are other arguments for it based on strategy, which work better for me.  Having a pitcher spot in the lineup introduces interesting strategic elements into the game.  Here are at least some of them:

• When a pitcher is due up in the next inning, managers may be less likely to remove them mid-inning to set up a more favorable match-up.  This is an interesting decision, and might help prevent mid-inning pitching changes (which, in turn, might speed up games).
• When a pitcher is throwing well but a team needs offense, there is an equally-interesting decision to be made about whether to pinch hit for him.
• Double-switches are a fun, and have the consequence of removing a regular from a game in favor of a bench player.  
• The necessity of having at least a few pinch hitter appearances in most games guarantees bench players will get into games more often.

These arguments held sway over me for a long time.  But over the past year, I've come to like the DH.  Some reasons:

• Like it or not, pitchers are just not good at hitting.  In fact, one can use pitcher offense as a measure of league quality.  They aren't trained to do it, and it's not fun to watch them hit.
• It doesn't happen often, but sometimes pitchers get hurt hitting or running the bases.  To cut down on injury risk, they are not even encouraged to run with maximum effort.  Again, not fun to watch.
• The DH means fewer sacrifice bunts.
• The DH allows for some small amount of specialization to improve the quality of play: offensive lineups get better because bad-fielding hitters can still play, and defense gets better because bad-fielding hitters don't have to field.
• The DH allows hitters to get rest without actually taking a full game off.  Similarly, it sometimes allows players with a minor injuries to still play.  This should mean that fans get to see their favorite players in games more often.  Would Joey Votto have been able to play more last year if the Reds could use the DH?  I'm not sure, but maybe.
• Fewer pitchers should be needed per game because managers are not forced to pinch hit for a pitcher.  This should help keep bullpens more rested, and makes it easier for managers to get the match-ups they want in late innings.  
• It means that player performances decide games, not the machinations of managers.  That's what this game is all about.

So, there you have it.  Bring on the DH.  I'm finally converted.

My two cents of pitcher head protection

Like all Cincinnati Reds fans, I'm still reeling from the news of Aroldis Champan's injury last night.  The star closer was hit by a line drive in the face, resulting in facial fractures.  If nothing else, the bones in the area where he was hit (near where his eyebrow and nose meet) are directly in front of his left frontal cranial sinus, so that may have collapsed.  He is getting a metal plate installed in a surgery that began at 5pm Arizona time, which will be reinforcing those areas.  The big concern from all of this, of course, was the possibility of damage to the brain, and the eye.  Early reports are very good, however.  Hopefully, those reports will continue.  Word is that he can be expected to be pitching as early as May, assuming he recovers well and is able to conquer the psychological challenge of getting in front of live hitters again.

Therefore, for the moment, I'm breathing a little easier now than I was this morning.  That reprieve allows one to start thinking about how the Reds will readjust their bullpen (Broxton?  Hoover?  Marshall?), but that can come later.

My other reaction is to immediately advocate measures that would fix this problem.  As Craig Calcaterra noted, it's hard to know how to what to recommend here.  I do think that we're very slowly starting on a trajectory toward requiring some kind of protection for pitchers.  Pitching at the major league level is so difficult, however.  It must require almost perfect balance and coordination to get the ball within a 3' by 1' box sixty feet away.  Therefore, anything that has the potential to disrupt or interfere with that balance seems destined to be rejected.

The IsoBlox padded hat.  Ugly, uncomfortable,
but at least a bit safer?

Still, solutions are already in the works.  This spring, in response to Brandon McCarthy's injury in 2012, MLB approved a new padded cap as an option for pitchers.  It weighs about a half-pound more, but provides a modicum of additional protection against line drives to the head.  Unfortunately, at least thus far, even McCarthy himself has been slow to embrace the cap.  I'd be interested to know if any players in baseball are using it right now; I haven't seen reports of any.  And, given that the ball hit Chapman in the face, it wouldn't have mattered in his case anyway.  There's another level or protection to consider as well: the pitching facemasks used in softball and even some little leagues.  The two in combination would offer a lot of protection.  But would pitchers still be able to throw the baseball with precision while wearing that gear on their heads?

My guess is that it would take some practice, and the transition would sometimes be frustrating to watch.  But yes, eventually pitchers would adapt.  The problem is, as long as protection is entirely optional, I think we're very unlikely to see pitchers adopt the protection on their own.  Some might give it a try.  But my guess is that the moment they start to struggle, someone is going to suggest they go without it.  And then, because Regression, they'll probably start throwing better once they take the gear off, and decide that it's just not for them.

So a league-wide policy, then?  It worked for third base coaches.  Yes, it has a chance to have a meaningful impact on player performance, and thus their livelihood.  And yes, some pitchers--maybe max-effort throwers?--might be impacted more severely than others.  But I see this as a workplace safety issue.  Just as wearing a hard hat on a construction site is a requirement for worker safety, requiring some kind of head protection should probably be something that MLB strongly considers.

Will it happen?  I'm under no illusions that it will happen soon.  A first step would be to improve the hat (or find another) that at least a decent number of pitchers can sign off on, and yet still provides meaningful protection.  But once that's done, I think MLB will need to mandate it if it is going to be used.

Bryan Price

Bryan Price (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Reds named Bryan Price the manager yesterday.  By all accounts, Price has been a fantastic pitching coach.  I remember the buzz when he was hired as a pitching coach, and the general feeling of how lucky the Reds were to get him.  Pitchers have had nothing but positive things to say about him since he started here, and the results have been superb.  I'm not convinced that you can really judge a coach by his results; you have no control group, after all.  But it's at least consistent with the idea that he's been a very successful coach.

I've been pretty excited to read the quotes from players about Price.  Probably the best, which everyone has seen but I'll repost it because I like it so much, is from Bronson Arroyo.

"I think he'd be unbelievable," Bronson Arroyo said when asked about Price as manager. "He's as organized as anyone in the game, he holds people as accountable as well as anyone I've seen. He doesn't buy into stereotypical things in the game, things that other people buy into that I don't feel are relevant. Price looks at evidence. He's a freaking smart guy, he makes his decision on reasonable evidence. Sometimes in baseball we go by hunches, what someone else said or they way things have gone in the past. He doesn't do that."

As a guy who watches baseball from a sabermetric angle most of the time, that's music to my ears.  I don't expect Price to be a sabermetric guy.  But if the principle way that he makes decisions is based on evidence--I don't care of its sabermetric evidence or scouting-based evidence--I'm happy.  It implies someone who has a scientific approach to the game, and someone who can make adjustments when the evidence is compelling.  Really, that's all I can ask for.

In any case, I have one short Bryan Price story.  This year, and I don't remember when, I was watching one of Homer Bailey's starts.  It was one of those games when he was just spectacular.  He was pumping good heat exactly where he wanted it, and had both his breaking ball and splitter fooling hitters all night.  When Homer was finally removed from the game, they showed a shot of Homer talking to Bryan Price in the dugout.  Price had his hand on Homer's shoulder, eyes locked on Homer's, and they were just talking.  Price had an enormous, proud smile on his face, and I imagined that he was basically asking Homer what it's like to have all of his hard work pay off.  Homer just looked so happy to get that kind of sincere praise.

I remember thinking about how remarkable that little interaction was.  I can't remember the last time I had an interaction like that.  It's not just that he was telling Homer that he'd been great.  It seemed clear that he and Price had developed an extremely close, working relationship.  It was one that allowed a kind of quiet, but sincere, effective, and personal praise.  How much better is that than the standard slap on the butt?  I remember thinking how lucky the Reds were to have him as their pitching coach.

That's what I keep thinking about when I think about Price as the Reds' manager.  I'm hoping he can develop that kind of relationship with all of the Reds' players.  It would go a long way toward satisfying that important part of managing: getting your players to buy into you as the manager, and allowing the manager to unify the club on a common path toward the ultimate goal.  If he can do that as well as Dusty did, at least in Dusty's earlier years with the club, and also be a sound tactical manager, the Reds could have someone pretty special here.

It's a time for optimism.  And I'm sure by next year, people will be frustrated with Price, just as they are with any manager.  But I can't help but feel like the Reds are pretty lucky to have Price, this time as their manager.

How much does Mat Latos matter?

Image via Wikipedia

I'm still thrilled about the Latos deal.  I know I'm probably more down on Alonso than most others, and for that reason I'm probably wrong.  But the main loss I see in the deal is Grandal.  I love Grandal, but that's an acceptable price for an outstanding pitcher of Latos's age and contract.  It bears repeating: the contract is a huge deal.  Without it, Latos is a top-30 pitcher (maybe top-15).  With it, he's one of the most valuable pitchers in baseball.

The Reds' rotation is currently looking like this:
1. Latos
2. Cueto
3. Leake
4. Bailey
5. Arroyo I guess.
6. Wood/LeCure/Chapman

Latos and Cueto make a very good #1/2, and Leake/Bailey are solid mid-rotation starters if they can last the season.  Arroyo's sort of a disaster, but at least his xFIP was still in the mid-4 range last season.  I still think Wood can contribute something, and wouldn't be surprised to see him take Arroyo's job by the end of the season.

To me, this is an average to above-average rotation.  If coupled with good offense and good fielding, this should result in an above-average Reds ballclub.  And if they get to the playoffs, I feel pretty good having Latos and Cueto going 1 & 2 in the rotation against most rotations in the league.  And that's even acknowledging that I'm pretty skeptical of Cueto's 2011 season.

Does this trade make the Reds good enough to make the playoffs, though?

Last year, the Reds went 79-83 in what was a very disappointing season.  Baseball Prospectus's adjusted standings, however, has them at between 82 and 83 wins depending on which set of data you use (83 wins based on runs scored/allowed, or component stats...82 if you include strength of schedule).  While obviously the win that's on the books is what matters for last season, I tend to think (with some data to back this) that estimated wins are a better forecaster of future team performance.

Let's be simple-headed here.  Latos is essentially slotting in for what was replacement-level performances from Volquez and hopefully some of Arroyo's dreadful outings.  If we assume the rest of the team will perform as it did last year (it won't), and that Latos performs at his typical 3-4 WAR level next year, we can reasonably expect that this deal improves the Reds from an 83ish win team to an 86-87ish win team.

Is that enough?  The Brewers (90-93 wins by BPro-adjusted standings) and the Cardinals (88-90 wins) are both losing big pieces this offseason.  I expect that the Cardinals, at least, will replace Pujols with above-replacement production.  And there's a decent bet that the Brewers will do the same.  The Cardinals lose more by losing Pujols, but then they also are gaining a starter next year in Wainwright.  Therefore, I think that we can ballpark that both teams will drop 4 wins or so off their BPro estimated standings pace

This puts all of three of the Reds, Cardinals, and Brewers in the 85-88 win range.  So we're back to a three team heat to start the 2012 season.  That's where I thought we'd be last season, so this is nice to see.  I guess.

To get the Reds to the point that they are the realistic favorites, however, they really need to add another significant piece.  Unless Mesoraco breaks out in a huge way (and it has to be huge to be an improvement, given how good Hernnadez/Hanigan were last year (~4 fWAR!)), I just don't see a position where the Reds stand to get better next season.  And declines are pretty likely at a few positions: hell, Phillips was a 6-fWAR player last year, which is awesome but quite likely his peak.  The most obvious candidate position for an upgrade is left field, though I will say that you can do worse than running Chris Heisey out there.

I don't know how realistic it is that the Reds could add someone who could make a big difference.  I don't think there's room in the budget for an impact signing, and free agent prices seem kind of crazy to me this offseason (3yr/$31.5 M for Michael Cuddyer?  Wow).  And in terms of trades, who do the Reds have left to deal after this deal?  I can see a team being interested in Travis Wood, but how much will they pay for him?  And is that return enough to ditch the Reds best insurance option in the rotation?  I'd be fine with trading away Juan Francisco or Billy Hamilton, but I think the Reds like them as much as any other team could be expected to.

My guess is that what we have is probably the team we'll see on opening day.  That's a team that can compete.  But I don't think they can be ranked as a favorite.  And frankly, I have this feeling that this team is held together by a shoestring.  I don't see a lot of depth to withstand injury here.  So, we'll hope for the best and see what happens.

A late look at the new CBA

Image via WikipediaJust some thoughts on the new CBA, going item by item.

Astros move to the AL West, Interleague all season long.

I'm sort of "meh" on this.  I think Interleague is tremendously overrated by MLB.  Aside from the big ticket match-ups (Mets/Yankees, Cubs/ChiSox, ...  dare I say Cleveland/Cincinnati?), most of the series are no better attended than any other.  As a pure fan, though, I generally enjoy interleague.  I like seeing new teams and players throughout the year.  I do not like facing the Astros 18 times per season.  I haven't checked it, but my hope is for a more balanced schedule within the league with the addition of interleague.  Something tells me that's not what they have in mind, unfortunately, as that would mean less Yankees/Red Sox games.

From an analyst's point of view, one thing I always like about interleague is that it serves as a good way to weight the leagues against one another.  The AL has been dominant since roughly 2005 (before that, the leagues were close to even), and despite the constant protests to the contrary by the excuse-makers, I think it serves as the best measure of the league disparity that we have.

Also, I'm sorry for the Astros fans.  They're already a bad team.  This is not going to go well for them.

Expanded Wild Card system, both teams play in a 1-game playoff for access to the postseason.

I love this.  Love love love it.  I like the extra team in the playoff, though that's not the main point.  What I love about it is that this puts a huge premium on winning your division.  Previously, the wild card was essentially equivalent to winning a division.  Sure, you don't get home team advantage, but you aren't assured that anyway if you win your division.  Now, if you don't win the division, and you capture a wild card, you are subjected to an crazy, single-game playoff that determines whether you get to play in the real postseason.  This is far more of a wild card, and a far worse option than it previously had been.

Furthermore, despite the massively increased uncertainty that goes with a wild card, it also puts the wild card teams at a considerable disadvantage.  Most of the time, you would expect that the teams will have to throw their best starting pitcher in that single-game playoff.  This means that a wild card team, like, say, the Cardinals, won't be able to throw their ace as often in the next series.  In a five-game division series, we might be talking only one appearance.  That's a major disadvantage.

No more type A and type B free agent.  Now, compensation requires teams to offer a salary equal to the average of the top 125 players in the prior season.  

This is great.  First, the type-A/B system used on an absolutely horrible ranking system.  It was based, for example, on things like RBI's, stolen bases, etc, and varied by position.  That it goes away is a great thing.

Second, it removes a substantial penalty for signing mid-tier free agents.  A team like the Reds was unlikely to sign a free agent that would result in only a small upgrade but required compensation, as you might lose more out of your lost pick than you gain by signing a player.  This is good for signing teams, and is also good for the players themselves.  Some legitimately good players (Orlando Hudson a few years ago comes to mind) haven't been able to get a decent contract because part of signing them requires a team to give up draft picks.

Third, it still offers protection to small market teams who lose big money players.  When Joey Votto walks a few years from now (assuming they don't trade him), the Reds can still get compensation for his departure if they offer him a halfway decent contract.  This is the main point of free agent compensation, and my feeling is that this new system will work far better.  And there's still protection for top-10 picks, which means that teams in the bottom third the prior year have a slight advantage when it comes to signing top-tier free agents, in that they won't lose their first round pick.  That's great.

Teams that go over slot in the amateur draft will encounter a taxation system, based on the degree to which they go over slot.  And no major league contracts will be offered.

This is stupid.  Stupid stupid stupid.  The amateur draft, even after the rise in singing bonuses we've seen the lats few years, is still a drop in the bucket compared to other expenses of a major league team.  What this new adjustment fixes is that it reduces the degree to which the draft can be leveraged by small market teams as a means of procuring talent.  Going over slot, offering major league contracts, etc, are all ways that small market teams can add extra talent in an economically advantageous manner.

What this basically means is that, for the same amount spent in the draft last year, amateur players will get less money and poorer contracts next year.  That means that more players will opt to go to college, or pursue another sport, because the incentives aren't as good for baseball as they once were.  I see the main effect of this change a reduction in the talent coming into MLB.  I really don't understand how that can be good for the game.

MLB minimum salary goes from 411k to 500k.

It's a small thing, but it's almost certainly the case that 500k is still too little.  From the player's standpoint, this is a gross underpayment for services rendered.  But as the fan of a small market team, the fact that minimum salaries are still "only" a half of a million dollars means that the Reds have a shot at a contention against richer teams.  I'm reluctant to see that change for selfish reasons.

Instant Replay includes home run calls (as before), fair/foul calls, and trapped ball calls

Yay.  I'd like to see it expanded further, but these are baby steps.  We just need a tv/tablet viewable on the field, though...this running into the dugout thing is awkward.  Some of those umpires really should not run on camera.

Blood testing for hGH

As far as I can tell, this is a complete waste of time, money, and privacy (can privacy be wasted?  It makes sense to me).  I've yet to see a credible scientific study demonstrating that hGH has meaningful performance enhancing effects.  In fact, in acromegaly, which is caused by pathologically elevated hGH levels in adults, we actually see a weakening of muscles.  The data just aren't there--it seems to essentially be an extremely expensive placebo.  And the more expensive a placebo is, the more "effective" it will be.  If you want to ban it, fine--if nothing else, taking it is probably unhealthy.  But until there's scientific evidence that it actually has performance-enhancing effects, I don't see a reason to test for it.

My Answers for Reds Blogger Roundtable

This week, Blog Red Machine has organized a roundtable discussion of sorts that included many of the major Reds blogs.


Anyway, the nature of the beast dictated that many of the answers that I submitted were never published.  If they published everything that everyone submitted, the post would be too long.  So, since the original pieces have already run, I decided to publish all of my answers for those who may be interested.


The National League Central Division


1. I am of the opinion that the Pittsburgh Pirates are the division’s biggest surprise and that our Reds are the biggest disappointment. Would you agree or disagee? If you disagree with either, please state why.

The Pirates are hands-down the biggest surprise.  Unfortunately, I think they're unlikely to continue their success. But it's nice to see Pirates fans having fun in July for once.


The Reds have been disappointing, no question. But I think they are tied for disappointing-ness with the Cubs. I think most had the Cubs around .500 this year--not in the hunt, but respectable. Instead, they've been nothing short of dreadful.

2. What one player that plays for an NL Central team do you feel is the most underrated player within the NL Central and why?

Can I cheat and go local with Drew Stubbs? All I hear about when I watch broadcasts is his strikeouts. And they're frequent, no question--the Reds knew that they would be when they drafted him.  I see people talking about sending him down to AAA. But even so, his hitting line of .252/.323/.391 is better than league average (wRC+ of 102) in the lower offensive environment we're experiencing, and he plays outstanding defense in center field. FanGraphs has him as a 2 WAR player while B-Ref has him as a 1.6 WAR player already this season.

I think Drew Stubbs certainly has some room to grow on his performance this season, especially in the power department. But even as he has been this year (and last!), the guy has put up above-average major league numbers. I don't think that's the current perception.

If you want non-Reds, you can pick one of the other NL Central Center Fielders: Andrew McCutcheon, Colby Rasmus, or maybe even Marlon Byrd!

3. For the first half of the season, if you had to select an MVP just from the teams in the NL Central, who would that be?

There are about 7 guys that I think have a good case, but I'll go with Andrew McCutcheon.  He leads the division in both fWAR (fangraphs) and rWAR (at baseball-reference).  I'm a little skeptical of the WAR data, as I don't know if the fielding numbers that you see at FanGraphs or B-Ref are real.  In past seasons, his UZR, TZ, etc, have not been good.  But even so, he's leading the division in oWAR (WAR, ignoring the fielding), plays a premium defensive position, and is arguably the biggest reason that the Pirates are where they are.

4. And what about a Cy Young type candidate from those in the NL Central...Is there one?

There are a bunch of guys in the mix as tops in the division, but none of them holds a candle to Roy Halladay or his ilk. I'll go with Shaun Marcum in the Central, though. While Greinke got more press when he arrived, Marcum has been outstanding this year. He gets more than his share of strikeouts, doesn't walk anyone, and even hit a home run in his start last weekend. And he does all of it despite only having an upper-80's fastball. Also in the running: Johnny Cueto, Jaime Garcia, Chris Carpenter and maybe even Kyle Lohse?

5. Finally, who is the division favorite for the remainder of the season and why...

There is no clear favorite.  BPro's playoff standings have the Cardinals odds to win the division at 46%, with the Brewers at 40%.  The Reds, meanwhile, have division-winning odds of 11%.  Interestingly, the Reds have the highest 3rd-order winning percentage in the NL Central (barely).  But their current win deficit, coupled with the fact that they're so close in quality level with those other teams, makes it pretty tough to compete.

I think the Brewers' rotation is being underrated in those rankings.  Greinke, in particular, is a major puzzle, and I think is likely to have a monster second half.  I don't see any team competing with that rotation, their offense is top drawer, and they even seem to be catching the ball better this year than in years past.  That's the team to beat, as I see it.  

That said, I also think the Reds have a run left in them.  Four games back is just not that big of a deficit, and Walt has done some interesting things at the trade deadline.  

Baseball In General

1.  No question that year after year we see at least one ASG starter voted in due to his popularity with the fans. And this year more than ever, we see many players pulling themselves out of the midsummer classic due to various reasons, ala the NFL Pro Bowl. Now, players that have no business playing are now participating. Is the ASG now migrating into a joke like the Pro Bowl?

It sort of depends on what you mean by "no business playing." Depending on the data you use, some guys can go from ridiculous selections to perfectly legitimate. Are you talking about performance in 2011? Most seem to think this should be the measure by which we judge worthiness, but I think it's ridiculous to put that much weight on 2-3 months of data.  Using only first half data means you're guaranteed to have guys riding lucky streaks into the All Star Game, which makes any complaints about worthiness seem silly to me. I'd prefer to at least use past calendar year stats (at least then we're not ignoring half of the players' work!), if not projections to pick the best players in baseball to represent in the game. But I realize I'm in a strong minority on that one.

As for guys bowing out, I really don't mind in the slightest. It's an exhibition game, and a player's season has to take precedence. No one should really care about who actually plays in the game or what actually happens anyway. I'd be concerned if one of my team's players played in the game out of some feeling of obligation when he really just needed to rest. The guys bowing out are doing their job.

2. Not many people like the fact that the ASG determines home field advantage for the World Series. What’s you best way to award home field for the WS?

I'd just give it to whichever team had the better regular season record, like they did from 1998-2002.  That makes it something that teams have to earn.  I also liked that wild card teams could never have home team advantage in the playoffs.  The current system is beyond stupid.

3. A big discussion was waged over that of interleague play. For or against and why...

I may be in the minority among blogger-types, but I've always enjoyed interleague. I like seeing new teams and players from the other league. And I enjoy playing the Indians every year. And it's fun to see teams have to adjust to a new set of rules for a handful of games, be it AL teams having to bench Travis Hafner and David Ortiz, or NL teams looking at their bench of defensive replacements and trying to find a DH in there.

Also, I love the wild card, and support adding a second one to the playoffs--especially if it screws up the wild card team's pitching rotation for the Division Series. And I think realignment is always fun to think about, although I didn't like the most recent proposal. But the DH sucks (see? I have some traditionalism in me!).

4. So it looks like the Los Angeles Dodgers could be yours in the not too distant future. Would you have a problem if Mark Cuban were to buy the team because apparently...a) he might be interested and b) baseball has not wanted him in the past. Mark Cuban as an MLB team owner. Thoughts...

People seem to love Mark Cuban because he lives a more public life than most owners and is apparently friendly to sabermetrics (at least, based on his basketball ownership this seemed to be the case).  I think most of the excitement about him is just hype.  He's clearly very good at manipulating public opinion.

I really don't have a strong opinion on him either way.  My goal for major league baseball would be to make sure that whoever is allowed to buy the team would buy it and run it as a viable business rather than breaking it into pieces and extracting all of its value like the McCourt's did with the Dodgers.  I'm not in a position to know whether Cuban would be good in that respect or not.  Probably.  But is he the best option for the Dodgers?  I have no clue.

5. You’re a GM of a team. You can make a deal for one player for your team, no restrictions. Who ya got and why?

Is this completely open ended, i.e. pick the player you'd most want in baseball and don't worry about who you have to send away to get him?  If so, I'll go with Evan Longoria.  He's probably the best (offense + fielding) third baseman in baseball moving forward, and his position has become unbelievably shallow.  And he has the most team-friendly contract in the history of major league baseball.  The guy is in his fourth year, and is making $2 million.  Next year, he's making $4.5 M.  He'll make a total of $12.5 million over the next three years, and then the Rays have three MORE years of very reasonable club options at $7.5 million, $11 million, and $11.5 million.  If you're going to build a team around a guy, get the guy who is both awesome at baseball and is locked into a deal that is waaaay below market value.

The Reds

1. We’ve all thought (or most of us anyway) that the Reds are just a move or two away from repeating as NL Central champs. What are those moves?

I think we're all going to have the same answer: starting pitching and shortstop. I don't know if Zack Cozart is going to hit--hope so, but he's not elite-level talent. I do wish we would have had a few months to figure that out. But shortstop has been a huge black hole in the line-up, and upgrading to someone like Jose Reyes could mean a 3 win boost to the Reds in just a half-season. That's an enormous upgrade.

The Reds could also use a top of the rotation starter. I think the Reds' rotation is better than it has shown thus far, so if it's going to be upgraded I think you really need a top-flight talent. A #3 starter isn't really a meaningful upgrade as I see it, because the Reds may well get that kind of performance in the second half from the guys they already have. Erik Bedard should be available, but he's hurt (though with a leg injury, not arm), expensive, and will only have a start or two before the trade deadline to show he's healthy.  

Rumors surfaced yesterday that the Reds are interested in Ubaldo Jimenez. I don't think the Rockies would be interested in trading him, as he's done well in Denver, has a good contract, and the Rockies should be good next year. But if he can be had, I'd give pretty much anything in the Reds' farm except for Devin Mesoraco for him. Would Leake/Grandal/Alonso/Frazier do it? I'm not sure, but I'd pay that for a guy like Jimenez. 8+ career k/9, 50% career GB%, and an acceptable walk rate? Yes please.

2. Most frustrating aspect of the 2011 Reds is...

The fact that their rotation has just not come together like it should have. This is a talented group of pitchers, and they have as a group underperformed both their projections and their peripheral statistics. I expected the Reds' starting depth to overcome their lack of an ace, but instead of a bunch of #3's we've had a bunch of #4-5's. That's the biggest difference between what they've done and what I expected to see this year. Maybe we'll get something else in the second half...hope so.

3. Assign a letter grade for the following (and yes, you can explain your grades):

a. Dusty Baker: B. I really don't hate the guy like so many seem to. I think he's a terrific clubhouse presence, and has done a good job of defending and supporting his young players throughout his time with the Reds. While I disagree with some of his moves, I haven't been consistently frustrated with something this year like in years past. I'd like to see Heisey get a lot more PA's than Gomes over the rest of the season, and I'd like Cordero to not pitch when the Reds have more than a three run lead (warmed up or not). But those are really my only complaints.

b. Walt Jocketty: B-. I don't like making moves for the sake of making moves, and Jocketty isn't someone who does that. I think they've done well in using a patient approach to handle both Volquez's struggles and Chapman's. Willis has looked like a good find, and I think the Reds' outfield situation has been a best-of-a-bad-situation thus far. He hasn't made any desperation trades (yet). I think you have to give him credit for building what he has, and sticking with it. But I doubt I'll ever understand what the heck took so long with Cozart. That move came at least a month late. I don't know if it really will matter, but it's frustrating. I also would hope we'll see him make a move soon to bring in some talent...this grade is based on the assumption that he will do something.

c. Bob Castellini: A. For the most part, he's cheered the team on and kept his bottom out of the front office's business. That's what I want from an owner.

d. the Reds fans: C. I'll just say despite it all, we're four games back people!

4. You’re Walt. Brandon Phillips: extension or no? Why?

I love Brandon Phillips. Good bat, good fielding, important position. So yes, I'd be interested in extending him. But the question is the price tag, right?

Without doing anything rigorous, I'd project Phillips to be something like a 3 WAR player next year in his age-31 season. If we do a five year contract extension, and apply a "standard" 0.5 WAR/yr aging curve, and include inflation, Phillips would be worth somewhere in the vicinity of five years/$60 M. That's a big chunk of change, but he's probably worth that price. Assuming there's room in the Reds' budget for it...

That's pretty similar to Dan Uggla's 5 yr/$62 M deal, of course. I'm sure that deal will be front and center in Phillips' negotiations, and so far, that's not going very well for the Braves (which might be good for the Reds). But Phillips is a very different kind of player than Uggla: Phillips has some power, but is also very athletic and gets a lot of value from his fielding. Hopefully he won't drop off a cliff like Uggla apparently has.

Even if not extended, I pick up Phillips' option. If he's a 3 WAR player next year, he's probably worth $16 M or so, and the Reds would "only" have to pay $12 M. It's a pretty obvious move, I think.

5. It’s highly unlikely Francisco Cordero will be back next season (and I suppose a decent portion of the fanbase is glad for that), who’s the closer for 2012 and going forward?

Who's available as a free agent? I could survive with Nick Masset or Logan Ondrusek as a closer, but ideally you'd like someone who has a bigger arm. Maybe the Reds could acquire someone like Matt Thornton...?

I'm sure the Reds will probably look to Aroldis Chapman to be the closer next year provided he doesn't stink in the second half. They shouldn't. See below.

6. Should Aroldis Chapman be in the minors working on becoming a starter (provided you did NOT say Chapman was the answer for #5)? Is the starter’s role where he would benefit the organization the most?

Yes.  If a pitcher has a shot to be a successful starter he should be used as such until such time that he proves he's incapable of doing that.  Even average starters are as valuable as most of the better closers.  Closers pitch during important times in ballgames, but the number of innings they throw is so small compared to the number of innings starters throw that it's really no contest.  If a closer throws 70 innings and a starter throws 210, the closer's innings would need to be THREE TIMES as important as the starter's.  We can measure that with Leverage Index, and, in general, closers' innings are roughly twice as important.  

Chapman should be starting.  That would give the Reds a guy who is capable of being a top of the rotation pitcher if he can find a change-up.  Don't the Reds have to see if that can happen?

7. A silly question, really. Who wins a Reds only HR Derby?

Bruce!  Votto's got tremendous power, but I think Bruce has him beat in terms of raw muscle.  I'd love to see this.  The Reds should do this sometime...

Why fandom?

One of the things that came up in the Reds Blogger Roundtable today was a grade for the Cincinnati Reds' fans.  Generally speaking, the bloggers were not particularly complementary of ourselves.  Too impatient, too much complaining, bitching... etc, etc, etc.

That's probably all true.  I'm not sure that other fanbases are all that different, but I've seen a tremendous about of griping and complaining this year.  I've run across people who use their twitter accounts to do nothing but rant about the team, and put down anyone expresses anything positive about the team.  It really makes one wonder why they even follow the team when it clearly causes them so much anguish.

That's a question I've been asking myself lately.  Following Wayne Krivsky's firing in 2008, I sort of stepped back from the Reds for a while.  I'm always going to be a fan; the team is basically family, and being a Reds fan is a part of my identity.  But it's definitely the case that I didn't pay nearly as much attention to them on a day to day basis during the 2008 and 2009 seasons.  I'm sure I checked the score every day, and watched the few games that came onto TV.  But I was spending at least as much time being a baseball fan as I was being a Reds fan.

Last year, it probably took until July before I really started to believe that this team might win.  That's when I started following every inning again.  And this year, I went all in with an mlb.tv package, which I have used to watch at least part of almost every game this season.

It's been a lot of fun.  But it's also been mind-bogglingly frustrating at times.  Maybe I don't scream quite as loud as some others, but when the Reds are losing it can put me in a pretty negative mood.  There are other things that I enjoy doing besides watching the Reds blow it...things that are pretty much guaranteed to make me happy and put me in a good mood.  So why do I bother?

I guess the answer is that the good times, when they happen, are just so incredibly good that they keep you around during the bad times.  It's sort of like an abusive relationship that way.  But when Jay Bruce hit that home run last September, I don't think I've felt that amazing since I saw Todd Benzinger jumping up and down after he caught the ball in 1990.  At least, not from a baseball game.  That's the kind of payout you're looking for when you emotionally invest in a team.  But when you do it, you also open yourself up to anguish when they utterly and completely fail.

As I write this, the Reds are now parked 4 games behind the Brewdinals.  I'm trying to gear myself up for the second half.  So I look at the numbers, and I see that the Reds' overall performance, as measured by run differential or their component statistics, is right there with those two teams.  And I know that a four-game deficit just isn't that much when there are still two and a half months of games left.  And that the Reds have some terrific depth from which they can deal to upgrade the team.  The Reds' losses have been painful lately...but a couple of big series, and they can be right back in this.

The question is, am I ready to go all in with this team in the second half?  I honestly don't know if I can.  But I'm going to try.

Who is an All-Star?

Tuesday, I had a piece run at Hardball Times that used projections to pick the participants in the All-Star Game.  The premise is to get away from just using 2-3 month samples to select our players, and instead use projections to pick the players who have the most talent.

One alternative to doing this, which came up in a round-table discussion between myself and Dave Cameron at FanGraphs on this subject, is to instead choose players based on past calendar-year performance.  The advantage here is that it's a bit more straightforward: assuming we can properly measure everything that happens on the field (that's a big if!), all a player needs to do is produce better than the other players in the league at his position to get the nod.  We don't have to worry about aging curves and regression and luck.  Just produce, and you'll be rewarded.

Here's a comparison for how the three approaches would differ (and be similar), comparing my projection-based roster to one according to FanGraphs' WAR Calendar-Year splits, as well as Vince Caramela's first-half All Star selections.

American League

Position	True Talent All Star	Past-162 G All Star	First-Half All Star
C	Joe Mauer	Victor Martinez	Alex Avila
1B	Miguel Cabrera	Adrian Gonzalez	Adrian Gonzalez
2B	Ben Zobrist	Ian Kinsler	Howard Kendrick
3B	Evan Longoria	T-Adrian Beltre & Evan Longoria	Alex Rodriguez
SS	Yunel Escobar	Alexei Ramirez	J.J. Hardy
LF	Josh Hamilton	T-Brett Gardner & Josh Hamilton	Josh Hamilton
CF	Curtis Granderson	Curtis Granderson	Curtis Granderson
RF	Jose Bautista	Jose Bautista	Jose Bautista
SP	Felix Hernandez	Justin Verlander	Justin Verlander
RP	Mariano Rivera	Jonathan Papelbon	Jonathan Papelbon

While you see different names in many of the positions, if you go back and look at my THT article, every single one of the FanGraphs' WAR picks are within the top tier of the projections.  The same is true if you look at the FanGraphs' WAR leaderboards.  Most of the time, even when there's disagreement, the true talent selection is very close.  Heck, at 3B and LF, they were in a tie with someone else!

On the other hand, we do see some putative small-sample selections in the first-half All Star picks.  Alex Avila's an interesting player and has had a great first half, but he ranks 7th by projections and is in a tie for second by the past-162 splits.  Howard Kendricks' even more extreme, ranking 11th by projections (behind even guys like Nishioka and Jason Kipnis) and 4th by past-162 game WAR.

National League

Position	True Talent All Star	Past-162 G All Star	First Hall All Star
C	Brian McCann	Brian McCann	Brian McCann
1B	Albert Pujols	Joey Votto	Prince Fielder
2B	Chase Utley	Rickie Weeks	Rickie Weeks
3B	Ryan Zimmerman	Chase Headley	Ty Wigginton
SS	Troy Tulowitzki	Troy Tulowitzki	Jose Reyes
LF	Matt Holliday	Matt Holliday	Matt Holliday
CF	Andres Torres	Michael Bourn	Matt Kemp
RF	Jayson Werth	Mike Stanton	Lance Berkman
SP	Josh Johnson	Roy Halladay	Roy Halladay
RP	Mike Adams	Carlos Marmol	Craig Kimbrel

There were two fairly major disagreements here between the projections and the past calendar year picks.  First, Chase Headley at 3B by FanGraphs' WAR, who ranked 10th in the projeciton rankings (Zimmerman ranked 2nd by FanGraphs' WAR).  The second was Michael Bourn in CF, who ranked 12th in the projection rankings (Torres ranked 6th in the WAR rankings).  Beyond that, again, there was good agreement pretty much across the board.

Among the first-half All Stars, the biggest outlier pick is Ty Wigginton, but Chase Headley would be my selection based on the extra playing time this season if nothing else.  You can also complain about Lance Berkman, although he was effectively in a tie with Jason Werth for the projection's choice...and a lot of his merit comes down to how good (or bad) you think his fielding is.

In the end, I have no argument with people who want to use past-162 game splits.  In most cases where they disagree with projections, they do so within the margin of error in either measurement or projection (or both).  Where they disagree, however, I side with the projections.  They seem more obviously to be selecting players with the best talent, and those are the players that I prefer to see make it to the All Star Game.

But insisting on using first-half statistics to justify an all-star game roster?  There, I just don't get it.

Changes I'd like to see in baseball

Wishlist for the next CBA, in bullet form:

• No more home plate collisions.
• Bats should be equipped with something like the batglove to prevent spears from flying around the field (or stands).  No more Tyler Colvin incidents.  Next time, somebody is going to die.
• Add a second wild card team and the wild card series, but structure it so that the winning wild card team will have a disrupted pitching rotation for the division series.  The easiest way is to do a 1-game wild card series.
• (this isn't actually a change, but...) Do not implement a hard slotting system for the draft.  Its main effect will be to send players to other sports.
• Allow for the trading of draft picks, though no more than two drafts in advance.

Home Plate Collisions

Buster Posey broke his leg last night in a collision with Scott Cousins. The play was deemed "clean," but it nevertheless means that Posey will likely miss the rest of the season.

Last year, Carlos Santana injured his knee on a similar play. He missed the rest of his rookie season.

I just don't get why this has to continue: there is no obvious reason to me why collisions at home plate should continue be permitted. If they did not exist, would they be invented? No, I don't think they would. And it isn't like they remove all excitement from the game. Rather than a collision, wouldn't you instead want to see something like this?

Players are getting hurt. Beyond this being a workplace issue for them, their injuries means that we don't get to see exciting players play. Let's fix this.

It's an easy solution too.  The play is already illegal.  Catchers shouldn't block the plate without the ball, and baserunners should never be permitted to crush the opposing team's catcher.

Follow-ups
After writing this, I discovered I was not the only one having these same thoughts:

• Rob Neyer talks about it, and he's right. 
• Tom Tango talks about it, and proposes and an even more extreme solution.  I don't think force-outs are necessary.  Let's just enforce the rules that are already on the books and keep baserunners from knocking over catchers.
• Also, Dave Cameron.  Nice quote from Kevin Millar.