The Bullpen Has Blown 7 Games for Trachsel

[Sports Guy]

I've never thought that past mistakes were good justification for making more mistakes, but thats just me.

Well, if you are an Orioles fan, they are.

[Flosman]

But a 10 year performance should be looked at before a 3 year performance, right?

Shouldn't we ignore those trends of the last 3 years??

SG you are just being hard headed. Shack is not making the point you are attributing to him. Part of looking at an individuals historic stats would be the trends reflected in the stats. So expected age/performance trends that were actually reflected in the data would have to be considered. No where did Shack say that you look at the stats over the players entire career, solely, to make your assessment. Shacks point is correct in that the actual players stats are the best indicator of future performance. Jon is correct that more information can be obtained by looking at a players numbers compared to similiar players at the same point in thier careers with similiar numbers and trends. Shacks main point is that none of this is a certainty.

[DrungoHazewood]

So what I take from this is stats really just aren't very reliable to predict what will occur in the future as there are just too many variables. I distinctly recall a few years ago on this forum many posters were all hyped up about Kurt Ainsworth because he had a great ERA in pre-season and looked like a future Cy Young. I commented at the time that I thought this guy looked like there was something wrong with him (based on observation) and he was damaged goods when the Orioles got him.

I was pretty much derided for that view because of his great "stats." Well, we all know who turned out to be right on that now don't we? I don't care about being right or wrong, but I do think way too much emphasis is placed on stats which overall are not reliable enough to accurately predict much of anything other than general possibilities. In other words they are a better history of a players performance than a future indicator, hence not very reliable regarding future performance?

Would you agree with my take expressed thusly?

I disagree with your assessment that stats should take a backseat to scouting when analyzing players. Scouting reports are crucial, but they're also very subjective. A player with a long track record is likely to repeat that performance, and that's measured with stats. You need to verify those stats with scouting regarding health and level of competition and weaknesses.

But the numbers are vital. GMs who ignore them do it at their own peril.

[RShack]

Just trying to figure out what little logic you have.

Basically, you are saying that stats mean something if you want them to mean something...That is how i am taking it.

That while things will likely normalize, you don't really know.

You also said past performance is the biggest key...I gave you an example and yet you sit there and don't really answer me.

So, which is it? When does past performance matter? How far back do you go?

And if you do it over a few years(like in my example), aren't you then looking at trends, both historical and current? And isn't this going against what you are saying?

I realize that you don't like uncertainty, but it's a very real and important part of life, including baseball. Sadly, the most useful perspective does not reduce to a simple soundbite, because it it multi-dimensional. It is not reducible to one bullet point, there are several:

• Stats are a valuable tool. It would be dumb to not consider what they suggest.
• Previous performance is the best predictor of future performance, but it is nonetheless an unreliable predictor.
• For a given individual, the previous performance of that individual is a better indicator than normative data for a group, but even that is still an unreliable predictor (i.e., low r-value)
• The sensible thing to do is to consider multiple factors, including past performance and detailed observations of current performance by knowledgeable observers/evaluators.

Applying the proper weight to the various factors is something that is still more art than science, and is likely to continue that way for the foreseeable future. The error that is routinely made around here is to pretend otherwise.

[Frobby]

You have a luxury that the Baltimore Orioles most certainly don't.

So the Rangers can pay $10 mm a year for Vicente Padilla and the Orioles can't afford $4.75 mm for Trachsel?

I'm far from blind to Trachsel's faults, his age, and the statistics you cite that indicate he could fall off the end of the earth. But I also have a hard time ignoring the fact that this guy is (probably) about to complete yet another season with a sub-5.00 ERA -- for the 13th time in 15 major league seasons and the 8th season in a row. He's going to pitch enough innings to qualify for the 11th time in the last 12 seasons. If he was 32 and had good peripherals, he'd be making Padilla/Meche/Lilly money for that. The $4.75 mm is a salary that takes into account all of the risks you mentioned.

I'm not yet advocating that the Orioles should exercise the option. First, there is a month to play, let's see how he's looked after 162 games have been played. If he's really been as lucky as you think, maybe he'll get bombed in his 6 remaining starts.

Second, it depends on the overall plan for next year. If we are in rebuilding mode, and aren't even trying to compete, then go ahead and let Olson and Penn take their lumps with no safety net other than a bunch of other unproven pitchers. That's not a bad strategy in the right circumstances.

[tywright]

If we're talking about bullpens blowing leads, Milwaukee takes the cake especially since they are in a division race.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=506

The Brewers have blown a lot of leads this year — 13 times they have been ahead by at least three runs, and gone on to lose the ballgame. Even more remarkably, nine of those losses have come since July 28, which is the sort of thing that gets managers and pitching coaches fired.

If we're talking about why teams are trading for Trachsel...be patient

[DrungoHazewood]

So the Rangers can pay $10 mm a year for Vicente Padilla and the Orioles can't afford $4.75 mm for Trachsel?

That's worked out well for them, hasn't it? In fact, you could make the argument that giving $10M to Vincente Padilla is one of the major reasons the Rangers are 60-72, 18.5 games out of first place.

One of my pet peeves is paying $millions for players who're not going to push you towards more wins. You don't pay $5M a year for placeholders. You don't pay $5M for people with 50% or 75% collapse rates. You can get placeholders for $500k, and spend the $4.5M that's left over on something that'll help you win more ballgames.

[BigDawg819]

Wait now we want to be on the same scale of the Rangers in terms of overpaying for mediocre talent? Hope is no longer fading, its gone............

[tim27]

That's worked out well for them, hasn't it? In fact, you could make the argument that giving $10M to Vincente Padilla is one of the major reasons the Rangers are 60-72, 18.5 games out of first place.

One of my pet peeves is paying $millions for players who're not going to push you towards more wins. You don't pay $5M a year for placeholders. You don't pay $5M for people with 50% or 75% collapse rates. You can get placeholders for $500k, and spend the $4.5M that's left over on something that'll help you win more ballgames.

You could make that argument but you'd be very, very wrong. With or without Padilla the Rangers are 60-72; hell, without him they're probably worse as hard as that is to believe. They stink this year because Millwood has been terrible, because McCarthy's been hurt a lot and stunk when he did pitch, because Robinon Tejada has stunk since April, because Mike Young has had a subpar season, because Blalock's been hurt, because Kinsler hasn't developed quite as they hope, and, imo, the biggest reason, because they went into the season with a 39 yo Kenny Lofton as their best outfielder. It had nothing to do with Padilla's struggles. He could be on pace for 200 inn and a 3.50 era and they'd still be right where they are. You do realize that Traschel would be FAR and AWAY the best starter in their rotation this year? FAR and AWAY.

So, sure, we could not exercise Traschel's option and save a few million. Big F'In deal. We still aren't going to sign A-Rod or Hunter or Jones (Not that you would advocate that anyway) and we run the risk of JJ Johnson throwing 150 innings next year at a 6.5 era.

[Frobby]

That's worked out well for them, hasn't it? In fact, you could make the argument that giving $10M to Vincente Padilla is one of the major reasons the Rangers are 60-72, 18.5 games out of first place.

One of my pet peeves is paying $millions for players who're not going to push you towards more wins. You don't pay $5M a year for placeholders. You don't pay $5M for people with 50% or 75% collapse rates. You can get placeholders for $500k, and spend the $4.5M that's left over on something that'll help you win more ballgames.

Like who, Jay Payton?

I don't know what a "placeholder" is. Every player has an expectation, an upside, a downside, and risk. I think you and I probably agree on Trachsel's upside (a repeat of this year) and his downside (Chen 2006). We probably differ significantly on expectation (I'd say, 5.00-5.25 for 2008) and risk (you say 50-75% collapse rate, I say 25-50%).

Where I think we differ more is the risk associated with the $500k "placeholders" as you put it. Every year several of these guys come through and have seasons like the ones Trachsel typically has had maybe better. But every year a lot of them have seasons like Chen. Russ Ortiz or worse.

[tim27]

I've never thought that past mistakes were good justification for making more mistakes, but thats just me.

Is it a mistake to pay a guy 4.5 million for 160 innings of 4.5 era? I don't think so- not in today's market.

Now you can tell me he's going to fall off but I bet you said the same thing six months ago, right? You can't be certain that he will and if he is capable of reproducing his year this year next year then it will be a mistake to let him go over 4.5 mill.

[DrungoHazewood]

Now you can tell me he's going to fall off but I bet you said the same thing six months ago, right? You can't be certain that he will and if he is capable of reproducing his year this year next year then it will be a mistake to let him go over 4.5 mill.

Certain? No. Pretty darn sure? Yep.

[tim27]

Certain? No. Pretty darn sure? Yep.

Were you or were you not pretty damn sure he'd be terrible for the O's in April 07?

[DrungoHazewood]

Like who, Jay Payton?

I don't know what a "placeholder" is. Every player has an expectation, an upside, a downside, and risk. I think you and I probably agree on Trachsel's upside (a repeat of this year) and his downside (Chen 2006). We probably differ significantly on expectation (I'd say, 5.00-5.25 for 2008) and risk (you say 50-75% collapse rate, I say 25-50%).

Where I think we differ more is the risk associated with the $500k "placeholders" as you put it. Every year several of these guys come through and have seasons like the ones Trachsel typically has had maybe better. But every year a lot of them have seasons like Chen. Russ Ortiz or worse.

I'll take a supposedly risky $350k placeholder over a Payton or his ilk all day long. If Payton fails... well, we've seen what happens. He just keeps getting plugged into the lineup all year and he'll probably get 300 PAs next year, and no matter what we're out $10M.

If you instead went with Jon Knott, and he fails you release him or send him to the minors and plug in Jason Dubois. If Dubois fails you dump him and plug in Tike Redman. If Tike Redman fails... you get the point. You've saved $millions that can be spent elsewhere, and you've gotten the same performance in the field.

[DrungoHazewood]

Were you or were you not pretty damn sure he'd be terrible for the O's in April 07?

I thought it was very unlikely he'd pitch as well as he has.