An old post on Larkin

COOPERSTOWN, NY (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

A long time ago, long before I started this blog, I made a few posts on a personal website of mine about baseball. With the recent announcement that the Reds are retiring Barry Larkin's number following his induction into the hall of fame, I thought I'd post it. That old site is gone, but I found it via the internet's wayback machine. At the time I wrote this, the Reds were intending to trade Barry. It didn't end up happening.

7/19/00--- A Rough Couple of Weeks 

Being a Reds fan isn't always easy...in fact, it seems that it is rarely so. Sure, we can't complain of infinite mediocrity like Boston or Chicago Cubs fans can (check out Steve Goodman's "A dying Cubs fan's last request"), but the 90's were a roller coaster ride, and it doesn't look like it's going to get better any time soon. In 1990 we won the World Series, going "wire to wire" and never falling out of first place. The next season, primarily due to injuries, we set a record for the worst record of a defending champion (later shattered by the Florida Marlins). We were in first place when the strike robbed the fans of the World Series in 1994. We won our division in 1995, but then got creamed in the playoffs. We sank back to mediocrity until '99, when we lost a tiebreaker game to the New York Mets, which was forced after we were beaten up by the Milwaukee Brewers the weekend before. We signed Griffey and traded for Bichette over the winter, but our makeshift pitching staff finally fell apart this season. And now, a week after the all star break, we have already traded Denny Neagle and Hal Morris, and Barry Larkin -- Mr. Red -- will be lost by season's end, most likely to a trade before the July 31st trading deadline.

Losing Barry hurts. He's definitely the team leader, and he's the sort of player that every team needs. He can hit for average, hit for power, steal bases, snare anything hit to the left side of the infield, and fire off a good, accurate throw to first to get the out. And he can do that as well as he ever has at 36 years of age. He's the ideal #2 hitter. He's patient, has decent power, and can give you the ground ball to the right side to advance the runner to third. On-the-field issues aside, this is a guy who deserves to have his number retired and to get elected into the hall of fame. No one should ever wear #11 as a Cincinnati Red again. He has been the mainstay, and until this year (with Griffey's arrival), the best player in the Reds' lineup for over a decade. I'm 22 years old. When I started to get interested in baseball (around '86), Larkin was the starting shortstop for the Cincinnati Reds. That is who he has always been, and frankly should always be. 

But if I step back from my emotional response to losing Larkin, I think the Reds' decision not to sign him is a good one. They have a stud defensive player in Gookie Dawkins at AAA who should eventually hit a little better than Pokey Reese (though no one pretends that he'll hit like Larkin does) who's just about ready for The Show. They're building for a championship team in 2003, and frankly, Barry will be 39 years old that year. Will he still be able to pick it like he does now, or will he have moved over to third base or left field by then? Barry's a guy who can command a young stud from a contending team looking to acquire the best shortstop in the National League. It's these young studs we should be concentrating on. 

If things go as we hope they do, our 2003 team will probably still have players like Sean Casey, Dmitri Young, Pokey Reese, Rob Bell, Aaron Boone, and, of course, Ken Griffey Jr. But other names will most likely be on the club...players like Dawkins, Adam Dunn, Austin Kearns, Ty Howington, Brandon Larson, Ben Broussard, Jackson Melian, and (assuming he's smart and goes for baseball) Drew Henson. These are the players that we should be banking on to bring a championship to Cincinnati. If we can win a few games between now and then, that's wonderful. But the goal is to have a contending team when we move into our new stadium. 

The fact that we are already having good success with our young talent demonstrates that we are definitely on the right track. The key, of course, will be to make sure we can sign our young guys...which may mean losing some of our older guys. Larkin will be sorely missed, but the decision not to sign him should be interpreted as a decision by the Reds to sign the young players instead...players like Casey and Young, both of whom are up for arbitration this winter. So suck it up, Reds fans. You gotta have faith in The Plan and take joy in watching our young guys mesh into what should eventually be the best team in baseball.

::sigh:: Blissful optimism. The Reds wouldn't have a winning season again until 2010. Dunn and Kearns panned out, but Dawkins, Howington, Larson, Broussard, Melian (who?  I have no memory of him, had to look him up), and Henson did not.

After stopping a deadline deal (to the Mets, I think?) due to his 10/5 status, Barry ended up re-signing with the Reds, and earned $27.7 million over the next four years until his retirement, which accounted for more than a third of all the money he made during his career.  He'd play in just 371 games over those four years, all of them at shortstop, and posted a .266/.334/.385 line in that time (0.8 rWAR total--his fielding also had slipped substantially).

And yet, given what happened with those teams (66, 78, 69, and 76 wins from 2001-2003), I have to say I really don't mind that the Reds made what really can only be described as a bad baseball decision in re-signing him.  Those teams wouldn't have won anyway.  And because of the extension, he was a Red for life.  That makes the emotional part of me pretty happy.

Meanwhile, this year, the Reds are currently in first place, with the second-best record in the National league despite a current 3-game losing streak.  And Barry Larkin is in the Hall of Fame, and soon will have his number retired--both things I hoped for more than a decade ago.  It's a good time to be a Reds fan!

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.

I'm done, at least for this year

I feel liberated.  Image via WikipediaA little over a month ago I wrote an impulsive little post describing some of my internal struggles with being a baseball fan, and especially being a fan of a particular team.  Baseball is a game designed to break your heart.  It builds you up, gives you false hope, and then crushes you.  I mean, look at what the poor Pirates fans are dealing with right now with their 10-game losing streak.  The point of the post is that investing emotionally in a team is a tough thing to do, and is usually a thing that will end up causing one anguish.  But I pledged to keep trying.

The Reds have gone 10-12 since the All-Star break, with nearly a third of those victories coming in one series against the Giants.  They've lost series to the Mets (swept!), Astros, and Cubs over the past two weeks.  It's been a rough haul.  It's only a couple of games below .500 in that stretch, but it feels much worse.

I think the one that finally broke me was the Mets.  Part of it was that I was at a work conference that week, so I had the awesomeness of what's going on in my scientific field contrasting with the misery of fandom staring me in the face all week.  And part of it was that it was the Mets, who I still haven't forgiven for 1999.  And part of it, I think, is that it was just time.  The Reds have done nothing to discourage me of this since that Mets series, despite the fun sweep of the Giants that weekend.

As it is, the Reds are 9.5 games out of first place.  There are still two very good teams in front of them.  They are, for all intents and purposes, out of the race.

I still think they are better than they've shown.  I'm going to continue to root for them to get back to .500 by the season's end.  And I will continue to try to do my little series preview bits for Red Reporter whenever I can.  But at this point, I've decided that it no longer matters to me personally if they win or lose.  I'm pulling my emotions out of it.

Instead, I'm going to watch the players I like, and enjoy some of the new faces we'll see.  I'm looking forward to seeing Sappelt play (couldn't watch the game today, though I was glad to see he picked up a hit), and I can't wait to see Devin Mesoraco next month.  There's still a lot to look forward to with this team as they build for a run in 2012.

If you haven't quite given up hope yet--good for you.  Don't let me dissuade you from that.  I'll be back with you next year.

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.