January 17, 2010

Phil Watch: Dusty And Crede Updates

Why do I do this to myself?

Why spend this much time going line by line, countering the ramblings of a baseball columnist the likes of Phil?

The short answer is I don't know.

Today we get our first updates on Dusty Baker and Joe Crede with sprinkles of Scott Rolen for 2010.

If I were asked to name favorites from this weekend's offering, I don't think I could. It's just chockablock with Philisms and utter wrongness. Wrongness even when compared to what Phil wrote just a week ago.

Let's get started.

Cincinnati Reds make shrewd move signing Cuban pitcher

Aroldis Chapman could make them a contender under Dusty Baker

Some think the Reds just took the biggest risk in franchise history. I think they made the shrewdest acquisition of the offseason.

Um...every reaction I read kinda congratulated the Reds for landing Chapman with a few reservations about the reported overall size of the contract. Then people pretty much congratulated the Reds for the structure of the deal when the details came out:
Chapman gets $1.5 million of his signing bonus when his contract is approved by Major League Baseball, $1.5 million each Nov. 1 from 2010 to 2013 and $1.25 million each Nov. 1 from 2014 to 2020.

–Chapman gets annual salaries of $1 million this year and next, $2 million each in 2012 and 2013 and $3 million in 2014. Within five days of the 2014 World Series, he must decide whether to exercise a $5 million player option for 2015.
Flexibility abounds year to year with those annual commitments.

So...these "some people" Phil is talking about allude me.

Cuban lefty Aroldis Chapman, signed away from the Blue Jays, Red Sox, Angels and other suitors at a cost of $30 million, is a difference-maker, and there were darn few of those available on the free agent market.

Whoa! Let's cool our jets a bit here. He's 21 and hasn't pitched in the minors let alone the majors yet. Rave about his potential, sure. But let's keep it in the potential realm until he actually does something.

Give general manager Walt Jocketty and the team's owner, Bob Castellini, tremendous credit for investing so heavily in a guy who would have been ranked 1A to Stephen Strasburg if he had stood alongside North American talent in last year's draft.

Gonna need a source on this one.

One of baseball's most veteran scouts told me in March, immediately after the World Baseball Classic, that Chapman was the best pitching prospect he had seen. And Chapman had not been sharp for Cuba in Mexico City.

Well hell! If one scout says so! A ton of scouts, not just one, said Billy Beane was the next Mickey Mantle. Scouts are known to exaggerate.

Chapman has a triple-digit fastball, a power slider that whispers Steve Carlton and a verified passport that shows he turns 22 next month. He walked away from the Cuban team during a tournament in Europe over the summer.

And the body of a young Marlon Brando with the swagger to match!

Geesh. Clean up after yourself, Phil.

Jocketty has made a strong career out of finding bargains, first as an assistant to Sandy Alderson with the A's in the Bash Brothers era...

Bah! Recent events tell us much about the Bash Brothers era. Jus' sayin'.

...and then with the Cardinals...

Bah! Bah! Strike two!

...where his deals for Chris Carpenter and Jeff Suppan put a World Series ring on Albert Pujols' finger. He was able to do the Chapman deal because it required only $1 million in salary in 2010, the rest coming from a budget for amateur scouting and the payroll flexibility that will be created when Aaron Harang comes off the books in the fall.

I know! Jocketty compiled a spectacular team in 2006 that bulldozed their way through the NL Central with an 83-78 record. One team was above .500 outside of the Cardinals in the division that year with the Astros at 82-80. I tip my hat to the Cardinals for winning the World Series, but...it was a bit of a fluke.

Under Jocketty, the Reds already had made more progress than most realized. Their 27-13 mark after Aug. 22 was the best in the National League last season, and it was done while ace Edinson Volquez was out after Tommy John surgery.

I LOVE that he used the "after August 22" date because the Reds just lost two straight to the Pirates on August 21 and 22. And the fact that they lost three of four to the Nationals just a week before.

But let's look at the Reds opponents "after August 22".

40 Games (27-13 record):

Pirates - 11 games - 10-1 record
Astros - 6 games - 5-1 record
Rockies - 4 games - 0-4 record
Marlins - 4 games - 2-2 record
Brewers - 3 games - 3-0 record
Braves - 3 games - 3-0 record
Cubs - 3 games - 1-2 record
Dodgers - 3 games - 1-2 record
Cardinals - 3 games - 2-1 record

So...10-1 against the 99-loss Pirates. 5-1 against the terrible Astros. That's 15-2 against two unmitigated disasters of teams. Take that out and the Reds went 12-11 against the rest of the schedule. Oh, and the Padres were the second-best team in the NL during that team with a 23-14 record. The Padres were and are a bad baseball team.

In another context: 18-2 against teams that finished over .500 and 9-11 against teams over .500.

They're gonna be awesome!

Jocketty said in November he felt the Reds were "close" to being able to contend against the Cardinals and Cubs (and maybe the Brewers) in the NL Central. It's not far-fetched to think Dusty Baker will make that happen in 2010.

Just a few days ago, Phil declared the Cardinals the "Class of the Central" and have a "Huge Edge" after the Holliday signing. This was the now-famous Win Shares argument that has become legendary at the offices of Phil Watch. He lists the Cardinals with 230 Win Shares, the Brewers with 180 and the Cubs with a "meager" 166. The Reds are never mentioned.

The Reds are never mentioned because the Reds, using Phil's formula of combined WS for the eight starters in the field, four starting pitchers and the four best relievers are as follows.

Let me reiterate. This is Phil's system used to make the case only one week ago that the Cards are the class of the NL Central and uses only 2009 numbers to do so. I don't see why we can't:

Votto, Phillips, Janish, Rolen and Herandez - 24+19+4+5+11 = 63

Dickerson (the best in WS), Stubbs and Bruce = 7+9+5 = 21

Harang, Cueto, Arroyo and Bailey = 7+7+13+5 = 32

Cordero, Masset, Rhodes and Herrera = 13+10+7+5 = 35

Total = 151

I'd say that's more "meager" than the Cubs' 160. You?

Remember that the Cardinals were at 230 and the Brewers at 180.

So...in Phil's world, for 2010, the signing of a 21 year-old guy who hasn't thrown a single pitch yet on American soil, the only move the Reds made this off-season, will be worth at least 59 Win Shares, a number (210) that would put them exactly in the middle of the Cardinals and Brewers, thereby "contenders."

Albert Pujols led the majors last year with 39 Win Shares.

Zack Greinke had 26 Win Shares and Tim Lincecum had 22.

Bronson Arroyo and Johnny Cueto were solid for 30-plus starts last season.

Arroyo had a 5.38 ERA and a 1.48 WHIP in his first 18 starts. Bad.

Cueto had a 6.72 ERA and a 1.62 WHIP in his last 17 starts. Real Bad.

But yes. "Solid."

Homer Bailey, who like Cueto is 23, stoked the imagination by going 6-1 with a 1.70 ERA in his last nine starts, a night-and-day reversal from previous form (6-12, 7.05 ERA in his first 28 starts).

4-0 with a 2.13 ERA against the Pirates in those nine starts. Bailey was good to finish the season. He seemed to figure something out. But I'm gonna need a little more before declaring Bailey even a league-average ML pitcher.

Before those last nine starts:

6-12 with a 7.07 ERA and a 1.73 WHIP in the majors
12-12 with a 3.85 ERA and a 1.38 WHIP in his last two seasons in the minors. Not exactly stellar.

With Chapman, Volquez and 2009 first-rounder Michael Leake, a huge winner at Arizona State, the Reds may have the best stable of young pitchers in the majors.

They certainly have pitching. At least in an ideal world. For 2010 - which is the premise of this column - they do not have a good collection of starting pitching. Chapman will probably not initially break with the club out of Spring Training. Volquez had TJS and isn't expected back until late summer. Cueto was fucking abysmal for the last four months of the season. Bronson Arroyo is Bronson Arroyo and Aaron Harang's time is over, my friend. We discussed Bailey.

The Reds were 11th in the NL in scoring last season but hope to improve with Scott Rolen at third base. Joey Votto and Jay Bruce should be hitting their big league strides and Chris Heisey, a high-energy player who could fill holes in left field and at the top of the order, could provide a huge lift. The bullpen is already the best in the Central.

Rolen? Oh, I forgot. Phil loves him sum Scott Rolen. He said in 2008 that the acquisition of Rolen by the Blue Jays made them a contender.

Heisey is a name to watch. But let's look over that offense. I count four players in Hanigan, Stubbs, Heisey and Janish that are poised (hey, I used a Phil term) to grab starting positions in 2010 that haven't even seen 350 major league at-bats in their careers.

Good. Luck. With. All. That!

This is a solid team, and Chapman proves its commitment to get better.

If you were going to make an argument that the Reds are going to contend in 2010, here's how you do it (and it has nothing to do with Dusty).

Check out the Reds' individual UZR/150s. Third in baseball behind the Mariners and Rays. That's just absolutely stellar. They catch the ball. Couple that with what should be a decent enough rotation and a good bullpen and the Reds will stop people from scoring runs at an above league-average rate.

It's too bad they'll score runs at a below league-average rate. That smells like a .500 team to me. Five games over with a little luck and a couple of breakout performances. Five to ten games under with a couple of injuries. In other words, exactly what they were last year.

Contender?

No.

Catch the ball, please: There's a lot of talk around Boston about the Red Sox's newfound emphasis on fielding, thanks in part to the increasing ability of senior adviser Bill James and others to quantify defensive performance.

Mike Lowell's lack of range and poor health has made third base a weakness since 2007, and there's no doubt Adrian Beltre will be a huge improvement. Beltre has averaged a plus-18.4 Ultimate Zone Rating the last two years, compared with Lowell's minus-14.4 last year.

(ka-lomp)...
...
...
...
...

(Three hours later) Eeeh, my head. What time is it? Seems like I've been unconscious for days.

The last thing I remember is reading Ultimate Zone Rating in a Phil Rogers column. What that real?

...Holy Crap! It was!

Well then. I'll ask. Why wasn't that mentioned in his "Reds Are A Contender Now" instead of chronicling the gross inexperience of the offense and the injured/previously bad/fluke year/hasn't pitched in America - ness of the rotation relating to 2010. Well...I did that while Phil said they will be good because they're young, full of energy and scrappy. That's really it.

I should point out, though, that Phil only almost got it right. UZR is context-neutral. It only shows what one player did over a season no matter how many innings he played at a particular position.

UZR/150 takes that number and extrapolates it out to a full-time season (150 games) at the position, making it able to compare between two or more players.

BUT...Lowell isn't a slouch at third. Last year, his defense was obviously affected by his glove thumb injury as he put up a 15.6 UZR/150 in 2008 and had numbers of 8 and 7.7 in the two years before that. Beltre's better, maybe historically better. He might be one of the top-three best third basemen to ever play the hot corner according to some.

The Red Sox also believe they will get a huge lift with Mike Cameron in center field and Jacoby Ellsbury in left. It's hard to believe given Ellsbury's athleticism, but the Red Sox ranked last in the majors in center field UZR last season. The Red Sox were 25th in left, where Jason Bay was the regular.

And Phil's Whispers. Ear to the ground and all that crap.

The Orioles are talking to Joe Crede -- a curious development given they already have two right-handed-hitting third basemen in Ty Wigginton and Garrett Atkins and a solid DH option in Luke Scott . They're trying to move their surplus for relief pitching. ...

Who does Phil think is playing first base?

Wigginton or Atkins will with the other playing third - both badly, BTW. Atkins has a career minus-5 UZR/150 at third while Wigginton has an abysmal minus-16.4 (Crede - career 10.4).

And both are iffy in every sense of the word, offensively. Crede could easily be plugged into the mix because of that. His back's made of glass but it could be a good fit on a part-time basis at a minimal commitment (Crap! That's two Philisms!).

The Phillies are taking former White Sox reliever Ehren Wassermann to camp. Brad Lidge's knee surgery could help him win a job out of spring training. ...

Ehren Wassermann update?

A Christo update along the same lines. Today, I had meatloaf for lunch. It was the first time in six months that I've eaten meatloaf.

Why do teams hate the arbitration process? The Diamondbacks' Conor Jackson is getting a raise after hitting .182 in 2009.

Jackson dealt with Valley Fever all year, making only 110 plate appearances.

In each of his three years before 2009, Jackson had an above - .800 OPS. In fact, in 2008, his Wins Above Replacement (3.4) was valued at $15.4 million, squeezed between Justin Morneau (3.5) and Ryan Howard (3.3) for the leaders among first basemen. He was paid $400,000.

He was given a $50,000 raise over 2009, from $3.05 million to $3.1 million, basically the absolute minimum raise a guy could get if he went to arbitration.

A player, if he goes to arbitration, can only see a decrease in salary worth 80% of his previous contract ($2.44 million). That's the floor.

The D'backs avoided going to arbitration because Jackson had a very good chance of seeing a bigger raise than he got, probably a ceiling of $3.8 million given it would have been his second arb year (he avoid arbitration last year as well and had a potential ceiling of $3.65 million then). His three-year comparables to the rest of the league were somewhat favorable to Jackson.

With this sentence, Phil believes that a player who unfortunately catches an infection that utterly saps your body of strength and hangs around for a prolonged period of time should see a dramatic decrease in salary no matter what he's done in the past when healthy. I'd hate to see how Phil would run a health insurance company (Christo gets political!)

That's the only conclusion I can come to given the raise was a measly $50,000 and the D'backs probably saved a few dollars by not going to arbitration.

That or Phil simply was being Phil and didn't do any research.

Probably a fusion of the two.

There are plenty of reasons to hate the arbitration process (i.e. - a player becomes bad instead of sick/injured).

Jackson is not one of them.

January 09, 2010

Phil Watch: WTF!


Oh, Holy Shit!

This piece of poo made it to a newspaper.

When I read the opening salvo, I thought it was curious to do such a piece at this point in the off-season.

Then I saw #12!

And then I knew. Then I followed everything that's been rolling around in Phil's melon over the last few weeks. Then I knew the impetus of this column. Then I knew that Phil needed to proclaim from the highest peak that he doesn't think the White Sox rotation is a strength. In fact, at #12, their rotation, in Phil-world, is merely a hair above league-average.

So, he can talk about the rotations around baseball but we know what he's really talking about.

For this list, Phil uses a "simple statistical analysis comparing wins, ERA, innings and K/9 in 2009" to rank his rotations. My head hurts thinking about the dippiness of those statistics to do anything. My head hurts even more thinking about analyzing each slot step by step.

So...we'll put it into context. This weekend, Phil discusses the Cardinals' Holliday signing and says it makes the team the "class of the NL Central" based on Bill James Win Shares, again using only 2009 numbers to determine this:
For comparison's sake, group eight starters in the field, four starting pitchers and the best four relievers from each team. Then evaluate them strictly on their 2009 performance based on Bill James' measure of Win Shares. The Cardinals are at 230, led by Pujols' best-in-the-game rating of 39 and Holliday's 25.

The Brewers are at 180, thanks to the contributions from Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder, along with valuable pitching additions Randy Wolf and LaTroy Hawkins -- and Melvin probably will add at least one more arm from baseball's overstocked bargain bin.

The Cubs total a meager 166, with Derrek Lee (24) and new center fielder Marlon Byrd (20) the most valued players.
That's mildly interesting as a reflection of 2009. And Phil's using Bill James again. That's a move in the right direction.

But a question. Why not use Win Shares to analyze the rotations? ERA? Innings? Wins!!??

I could also ask why Phil didn't use Phil-Math this year but I think he took a sufficient enough beating over that stupidity to stop any impulse wanting to revisit it.

I'll tell you why he didn't use Win Shares. It doesn't allow him to make the wrong case that the White Sox rotation is the 12th-best rotation in the majors.

Here is Phil's list of rotations (top 4 in each). Click here to see the reasons cuz I ain't chronicling them.

1. Yankees - Sabathia, Burnett, Vazquez, Pettitte
1. Giants (tie) - Lincecum, Cain, Zito, Sanchez/Bumgartner
3. Phillies - Halladay, Hamels, Happ, Blanton
4. Cardinals - Carpenter, Wainwright, Lohse, Penny
4. Rockies (tie) - Cook, Jimenez, De La Rosa, Francis (?)
6. Red Sox - Lackey, Beckett, Lester, Matsusaka/Buchholz
7. Tigers - Verlander, Scherzer, Porcello, Galarraga
8. Mariners - Hernandez, Lee, Snell, Rowand-Smith
8. Cubs (tie) - Zambrano, Lilly, Dempster, Wells
10. Rays - Shields, Garza, Price, Niemann
11. Braves - Jurrjens, Hanson, Lowe, Hudson
12. White Sox - Peavy, Buehrle, Danks, Floyd
13. Angels - Weaver, Santana, Kazmir, Saunders

Bah! I literally spit out my coffee when I first read this. Show your hand more, Phil. Yes, you don't like the White Sox. I can see not liking their offensive chances. But rotation? Overall, it matches up well with anyone and is certainly better than the Rockies, Cubs, Mariners (Snell and Rowland-Smith?), Tigers, Braves, Cardinals (Lohse and Penny?) and Rays staffs.

So...since Phil didn't use Win Shares to calculate such things because it's too inconvenient for the real reason he wrote the column, I shall do it for him.

Combined Win Shares for the top 4 in each rotation based on 2009 numbers:

1. Giants - 59 (using Sanchez, not Bumgartner)
2. White Sox - 58 (using Jake Peavy's five-year average before 2009 - 15)
3. Yankees - 57
4. Phillies - 57
5. Red Sox - 55 (assuming the Red Sox get 10 Win Shares from the four-slot)
6. Mariners - 55
7. Cardinals - 52
8. Rockies - 52
9. Cubs - 49
11. Braves - 48 (using Tim Hudson's three-year average before 2009 - 13)
10. Tigers - 46
12. Angels - 46
13. Rays - 41

Can you assume a 15 Win Share from Peavy? I think so, especially when you consider the fact that Buehrle and Danks both had 16 Win Shares last year and the fact that Peavy's injury had nothing to do with his arm last year.

So we have Phil using Win Shares when it suits his argument and using Wins, ERA, Innings and K/9...when it suits his argument.

Pick a lane, Phil.