Possible Lowell suitor

[a700hitter]

But how close? And how much would that value be diminished if he were pitching in the AL East instead of AAAA?

 

His numbers would be obviously worse in the AL, probably the reason they traded him away in the first place. Mentioning him in the same breath as Josh Beckett is jaw-dropping.

The difference between the two leagues is usually not more than one-quarter of a run. Would pitching in the AL East further skew this difference? Yes, it would, but the offenses in AL East, other than the yanks or Sox, were not quite so powerful prior to the last 2 seasons. In 2006 and 2007, other than the Yanks and the Sox, the other teams were not juggernauts. One thing you don't factor in is that if he played on the Sox, he wouldn't have to face them at all. Other AL East pitchers face the Sox and Yankees about 4 times each in a season. Not having to face the 2006-2010 Sox 4 or 5 times each season would have been a huge thing. The orioles, Jays and Rays have not been consistently great from an offensive standpoint. Arroyo is a good starter. If he pitched in Safeco or Detroit, his results would be even better.

 

You got entrenched in this argument by you jumping in on the side of RedSox Rules who just made an asinine remark about the Arroyo/Pena trade by saying that both suck. One sucks. The other is a good major league pitcher who will hit 100 victories this season. Now, don't swallow your tongue about victories not being a good measure of a pitchers value. I am not saying that, but guys who reliably take their turns for several years have a tendency to build up some wins. Guys who are not good and reliable never get that opportunity. Someone once said that you have to be pretty good to lose 20 games in a season. It sounds ridiculous, but it is true. A major league pitcher that gets to 100 victories clearly had something going for himself. As steady as Arroyo has been he could get 150-200 wins. That's not a suckbag. Wily Mo Pena was and is a suckbag. That wasn't just somewhat of a bad trade. It was a terrible one. The FO has acknowledged its mistake. I don't know why posters will not acknowledge how bad it was The fact that Arroyo is not Josh Beckett or Sandy Koufax doesn't make the trade any less bad.

[Dipre]

The difference between the two leagues is usually not more than one-quarter of a run. Would pitching in the AL East further skew this difference? Yes' date=' it would, but the offenses in AL East, other than the yanks or Sox, were not quite so powerful prior to the last 2 seasons. In 2006 and 2007, other than the Yanks and the Sox, the other teams were not juggernauts. One thing you don't factor in is that if he played on the Sox, he wouldn't have to face them at all. Other AL East pitchers face the Sox and Yankees about 4 times each in a season. Not having to face the 2006-2010 Sox 4 or 5 times each season would have been a huge thing. The orioles, Jays and Rays have not been consistently great from an offensive standpoint. Arroyo is a good starter. If he pitched in Safeco or Detroit, his results would be even better.[/quote']

 

Nope, but he would have probably had to face teams like the Tigers, White Sox, Angels and Rangers who were better offenses in 2007, 08 and 09 than basically anything you could find in the NL outside of Philly.

 

You got entrenched in this argument by you jumping in on the side of RedSox Rules who just made an asinine remark about the Arroyo/Pena trade by saying that both suck. One sucks. The other is a good major league pitcher who will hit 100 victories this season. Now, don't swallow your tongue about victories not being a good measure of a pitchers value. I am not saying that, but guys who reliably take their turns for several years have a tendency to build up some wins. Guys who are not good and reliable never get that opportunity. Someone once said that you have to be pretty good to lose 20 games in a season. It sounds ridiculous, but it is true. A major league pitcher that gets to 100 victories clearly had something going for himself. As steady as Arroyo has been he could get 150-200 wins. That's not a suckbag. Wily Mo Pena was and is a suckbag. That wasn't just somewhat of a bad trade. It was a terrible one. The FO has acknowledged its mistake. I don't know why posters will not acknowledge how bad it was The fact that Arroyo is not Josh Beckett or Sandy Koufax doesn't make the trade any less bad.

 

Incorrect. I jumped into the argument when i saw someone had the gall to compare Bronson Arroyo to Josh Beckett. The key to the argument was the comparison between this trade and Doiji's proposed Napoli for V-Mart trade because this FO is "That kind of FO, the one that traded Arroyo for Pena" hindsight is 20-20, and Arroyo. while not a suckbag, has benefitted from playing in the NL, and his numbers in the AL wouldn't be as good as they were in the NL. Reliability doesn't mean effectiveness. You know who's reliable? Javier Vasquez. What has he done in the AL besides one good year? Just like Arroyo.

 

He would have helped this team. Specially in 2006, it was a bad trade, but comparing Arroyo to Beckett and using his NL numbers which would have clearly not been as good in the AL is ridiculous. What's funny is that if we'd kept Arroyo and he got his ass kicked 2007 and 2008 (as a 1,4 WHIP would indicate) if information leaked that we could have had WMP for Arroyo, those criticizing the move would now be all for it: "Man, this FO sucks, this Arroyo guy is horrible". Hindsight is 20/20.

 

Oh, and i don't know about you, but i wouldn't want any pitcher who loses 20 games in my rotation, that's Mike Maroth territory of suck right there.

[a700hitter]

Nope' date=' but he would have probably had to face teams like the Tigers, White Sox, Angels and Rangers who were better offenses in 2007, 08 and 09 than basically anything you could find in the NL outside of Philly.[/quote']The AL offenses are superior and that translates to 0.25 higher ERA in the the AL. Allowing for that difference, Arroyo would still be good.

 

Incorrect. I jumped into the argument when i saw someone had the gall to compare Bronson Arroyo to Josh Beckett. The key to the argument was the comparison between this trade and Doiji's proposed Napoli for V-Mart trade because this FO is "That kind of FO' date=' the one that traded Arroyo for Pena" hindsight is 20-20, and Arroyo. while not a suckbag, has benefitted from playing in the NL, and his numbers in the AL wouldn't be as good as they were in the NL. Reliability doesn't mean effectiveness. You know who's reliable? Javier Vasquez. What has he done in the AL besides one good year? Just like Arroyo.[/quote']That might be when you jumped in, but it was only after the main point got diverted. The main point was that the FO made a terrible trade for Arroyo. Therefore there is the possibility of future bad trades. You and others turned this into an examination of Arroyo's career and contributed to deflecting from the main point which was that the FO can and has made some pretty bad moves.

 

What's funny is that if we'd kept Arroyo and he got his ass kicked 2007 and 2008 (as a 1' date='4 WHIP would indicate) if information leaked that we could have had WMP for Arroyo, those criticizing the move would now be all for it: "Man, this FO sucks, this Arroyo guy is horrible". Hindsight is 20/20.[/quote']This is pure conjecture. You have no way of knowing how it would have turned out if he hadn't been traded after 2005. The way it has turned out, based on the actual facts, is that it has been a terrible trade. The defenders of the Arroyo trade always resort to conjecture, because the facts don't back them up. If you want to load 0.25 onto his ERA that is fair and supported by statistics. Under that scenario, he'd still be good. There are no other facts or reliable statistics to support the hypothesis that he would suck in the AL. There just are not.

[Dipre]

The AL offenses are superior and that translates to 0.25 higher ERA in the the AL. Allowing for that difference' date=' Arroyo would still be good.[/quote']

 

The problem with using overall ERA, is that with the amount of reclamation projects and teams with utmost pitching suck in the AL, it's much easier for the sample size to gear towards normalization. Hence why using a division-to-division comparison would be much better. I shall work on it.

 

That might be when you jumped in, but it was only after the main point got diverted. The main point was that the FO made a terrible trade for Arroyo. Therefore there is the possibility of future bad trades. You and others turned this into an examination of Arroyo's career and contributed to deflecting from the main point which was that the FO can and has made some pretty bad moves.

 

I said it was a bad trade, and absolutely no one has denied it. The reason why this has turned into an examination of Arroyo's career is because of the over-valuing of his skills to prove a point that doesn't exist. Arroyo is what he is. Not near Josh Beckett, not a 4.50 ERA, 200 IP pitcher in the AL.

 

This is pure conjecture. You have no way of knowing how it would have turned out if he hadn't been traded after 2005. The way it has turned out, based on the actual facts, is that it has been a terrible trade. The defenders of the Arroyo trade always resort to conjecture, because the facts don't back them up. If you want to load 0.25 onto his ERA that is fair and supported by statistics. Under that scenario, he'd still be good. There are no other facts or reliable statistics to support the hypothesis that he would suck in the AL. There just are not.

 

It was a hypothetical scenario. I think it was clear enough when reading that part of the post.

 

As to the "facts" about him sucking in the AL (which was never the basis of the argument, but rather the fact that he'd be an average pitcher, and i have stated so numerous times), his 2007 and 2008 peripherals (which you are conveniently ignoring) specifically that 1.4 WHIP, and 4.57 and 4.50 ERA moved from the NL Central to the AL East suggest, with let's say, a modest downgrade in performance, an ERA nearing five, and with said ERA nearing five, less turns through the rotation and less IP. It is what it is. You can try to downgrade the NL to AL argument all you want, but like Jacko, you were comfortable using it when critizing the Penny and Smoltz signings. Can't have it both ways.

[Dipre]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/sports/baseball/14score.html

 

This article is a good read on the differences between pitchers changing from the NL to the AL and vice-versa:

 

From 2000 through 2005, 57 starting pitchers (those with at least 20 starts that season) switched leagues the next year — 29 to the N.L. from the A.L. and 28 in the other direction. Their statistics moved with them: Combined E.R.A.s for the new National Leaguers decreased to 3.94 from 4.79, or 0.85 of a run, while their counterparts’ increased to 4.64 from 3.94, a move of 0.70.

 

This almost certainly helped with last season’s emergence of Bronson Arroyo, traded to Cincinnati from Boston; and Chris Young, who went to San Diego from Texas. It also provides fuel to the recent argument that the N.L. lags behind the A.L. in the overall level of talent. Weaker competition results in better relative performance.

 

And Arroyo is specifically mentioned there.

 

More literature:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=2521701

 

"Anyone watching the two leagues can notice the difference in the quality of the lineups," said an American League GM. "You have to be very careful."

 

National League lineups, as a general rule, aren't nearly as menacing as their AL counterparts. Among the top seven scoring teams in baseball, six are from the AL.

 

"NL lineups are a lot weaker, top to bottom," said one advance scout. "The bottom third of a lot of NL lineups are pretty easy to pitch to."

 

That's not the case in the AL, where there are fewer automatic outs, even at the bottom of the order.

 

Cases in point: recent free agent and trade busts such as Matt Clement, Carl Pavano, Randy Johnson, Esteban Loaiza and many other pitchers who have made difficult transitions from the NL to the AL. All have seen their ERAs rise significantly since coming to the AL over the last two years. Loaiza's struggles (3.77 ERA in 2005; 6.34 ERA this year) with the A's have been the most pronounced of the group.

 

Enough to back up the point IMO. Pitchers coming from the NL to the AL usually struggle, while the opposite is also true.

[jacksonianmarch]

But I thought wins and losses were neanderthal stats? Now they're relevant? Seriously, you need to learn the words, "I was wrong."

[Dipre]

But I thought wins and losses were neanderthal stats? Now they're relevant? Seriously' date=' you need to learn the words, "I was wrong."[/quote']

 

If you read a700's post (of course you didn't), he makes the point that while wins and losses are useless, you gotta be a good pitcher to lose 20 games, (someone said that before apparently) hence the inserted Mike Maroth joke. Take the time to read. You need to say the words: "I am going to read before i run my mouth" and stick to them.

 

Guys who are not good and reliable never get that opportunity. Someone once said that you have to be pretty good to lose 20 games in a season. It sounds ridiculous' date=' but it is true.[/quote']

[jacksonianmarch]

It is absolutely hilarious how militantly wrong you are. Have you ever noticed that you start every fight here?

[Dipre]

It is absolutely hilarious how militantly wrong you are. Have you ever noticed that you start every fight here?

 

It is absolutely hilarious how, instead of the approach a700 takes (stats and insight) you keep running your mouth and baiting. Have you noticed how you reflect your ability to piss people off on me?

 

Unless you're going to add something to your argument, you may as well not say anything. Look at your prior post. Had you taken the time to read a700's post, you would have gotten where the joke came from, how can you call me wrong and support the other argument, if you aren't even reading what's being said.

 

What's funny is you don't deny the fact the fact that the NL is a weaker league and helps mask pitcher's weaknesses because you can't. Prove me wrong.

 

Besides, not only have you misinterpreted the argument, put words in other people's mouths, said stuff without putting it into context because you don't read before you post, and acted with a modicum of douchebaggery, but you're also playing the victim, because no one was fighting until you came along. The laughter makes my side hurt.

 

Further info from credible, unbiased sources:

 

http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-much-better-is-al-than-nl.html

 

In his “Keeping Score” column in last Sunday’s New York Times, Alan Schwarz looked at starting pitchers who switched leagues between 2000-01 and 2005-06. He found that the ALers who moved to the NL chopped 0.85 off their ERA, while those who went the other way had their ERA jump by 0.70.

 

Of course, much of this is due to the DH. The old Bill James rule of thumb is that the designated hitter adds half a run per game. Half a run is about 0.45 of an earned run. It might be reasonable to bump that back up to 0.50 because of increased scoring since the 80s. Anything above that – or the 20 to 35 points that Schwarz found – might have something to do with the relative caliber of the two leagues.

 

Hmmm......Bill James and Alan Schwarz......i believe them.

[rhet]

I'd rather have Hanley Ramirez and Bronson Arroyo than Josh Beckett' date=' Mike Lowell and Wily Mo Pena.[/quote']

 

Don't forget our throw-in, Anabel Sanchez, who is having a nice year so far.

[rhet]

Do you honestly think with Arroyo's peripheral numbers he'd be a 4.50 ERA, 200 IP pitcher in the AL?

 

When i speak of average, i speak of the Todd Wellemeyer's of the world.

 

Btw, interesting how you define him as "solid".

 

His numbers didn't change much after he changed leagues. He had a 112 ERA+ with the Sox, a 110 ERA+ with the Reds.

[a700hitter]

You can try to downgrade the NL to AL argument all you want' date=' but like Jacko, you were comfortable using it when critizing the Penny and Smoltz signings. Can't have it both ways.[/quote']I don't think I ever used that argument with Smoltz and Penny. My problem with them was that they were bargain basement acquisitions who were injured or recovering from surgery. That was my problem with those guys. Physically they were damaged.

[rhet]

But how close? And how much would that value be diminished if he were pitching in the AL East instead of AAAA?

 

His numbers would be obviously worse in the AL, probably the reason they traded him away in the first place. Mentioning him in the same breath as Josh Beckett is jaw-dropping.

 

It's called hyperbole. Of course I'd rather have Beckett than Arroyo. But those who think Arroyo "sucks" should put his performance in the proper perspective. He was MUCH better than the guy he was traded for. That's not even debatable.

[Dipre]

His numbers didn't change much after he changed leagues. He had a 112 ERA+ with the Sox' date=' a 110 ERA+ with the Reds.[/quote']

 

ERA+ doesn't account for league, it accounts for ballpark adjustment.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/statpages/glossary/#era+

 

ERA+: ERA measured against the league average, and adjusted for ballpark factors. An ERA+ over 100 is better than average, less than 100 is below average.

 

Doesn't account for league-to-league differences, but rather uses an ML average.

 

For an actual example of the massive league difference from AL to NL, read a couple posts above, from 2000-2005, 57 starting pitchers changed leagues, those who moved to the AL suffered an increase in ERA of 0.85, those who went to the NL enjoyed a decrease in ERA of 0.70. It's not coincidence, the NL is the weaker league, and that doesn't mean Arroyo flat-out sucks, but he wouldn't have been as good in the AL the past couple of years.

[Dipre]

It's called hyperbole. Of course I'd rather have Beckett than Arroyo. But those who think Arroyo "sucks" should put his performance in the proper perspective. He was MUCH better than the guy he was traded for. That's not even debatable.

 

Whoever says we didn't get the short end of the stick in that trade is incorrect. But it wasn't a "fleecing" of massive proportions. Putting his career in the proper perspective (league difference, 2007 and 2008 seasons) would allow you to do that. And trying to compare Beckett to Arroyo is jaw-dropping. Wasn't hyperbole, since you went to the trouble of using ERA+ (which doesn't account for league difference) to sustain the point.

[rhet]

Whoever says we didn't get the short end of the stick in that trade is incorrect. But it wasn't a "fleecing" of massive proportions. Putting his career in the proper perspective (league difference' date=' 2007 and 2008 seasons) would allow you to do that. And trying to compare Beckett to Arroyo is jaw-dropping. Wasn't hyperbole, since you went to the trouble of using ERA+ (which doesn't account for league difference) to sustain the point.[/quote']

 

Arroyo's ERA+ was better in the AL than the NL. So what point are you trying to make?

[Dipre]

Arroyo's numbers were better in the AL than the NL.

 

Arroyo had one really good year as a starter, which was 2004, it's what we call an "outlier". Against the rest of his career, his AL numbers are a much smaller sample size supported by one good year.

 

In 2005, his peripherals regressed, but he maintained his ERA in a respectable range, but the warning flags were the reason they dealt him away. If you think about, the fact that he had that horrible two-year stretch in a vastly inferior division (it is an inferior division) doesn't support your argument, but mine.

 

He had back to back 9.9 H/9 years in the NL Central and maintained an ERA under 5.00, he's a miracle worker if he pulls that off in the AL East.

[a700hitter]

Arroyo had one really good year as a starter, which was 2004, it's what we call an "outlier". Against the rest of his career, his AL numbers are a much smaller sample size supported by one good year.

 

In 2005, his peripherals regressed, but he maintained his ERA in a respectable range, but the warning flags were the reason they dealt him away. If you think about, the fact that he had that horrible two-year stretch in a vastly inferior division (it is an inferior division) doesn't support your argument, but mine.

 

He had back to back 9.9 H/9 years in the NL Central and maintained an ERA under 5.00, he's a miracle worker if he pulls that off in the AL East.

I don't know why you continue to argue this. The claim that Arroyo for Pena was a terrible trade cannot be countered with any reliable stats. One guy is a very serviceable major league starter that has had success in both leagues. The other was a flop in both leagues. All of this conjecture about how he would have pitched in the AL East misses the point entirely. Arroyo had and continues to have value in the major leagues, regardless of whether he can perform in the AL East. The FO got no value for him -- -zero. I don't know why people think there were only two choices-- trade Arroyo for Wily Mo or keep Arroyo for the next 3 or 4 years. He was a highly sought after trading chip in the 2005 offseason. Certainly, there were other offers for him. Also, he could have been traded at any point. Not trading him for Wily Mo doesn't mean that Arroyo would still be with the team. My final word on this is that the FO traded something of value and got no value in return. That's a bad trade. That is the issue and it really can't be debated despite any amount of deflection and conjecture. Can the trade be explained? Yes, I would hope that the FO had good reasons for making the trade. Was it a bad trade? Based on the outcome, it was a terrible trade without question.

[rhet]

Arroyo had one really good year as a starter, which was 2004, it's what we call an "outlier". Against the rest of his career, his AL numbers are a much smaller sample size supported by one good year.

 

In 2005, his peripherals regressed, but he maintained his ERA in a respectable range, but the warning flags were the reason they dealt him away. If you think about, the fact that he had that horrible two-year stretch in a vastly inferior division (it is an inferior division) doesn't support your argument, but mine.

 

He had back to back 9.9 H/9 years in the NL Central and maintained an ERA under 5.00, he's a miracle worker if he pulls that off in the AL East.

 

His bad year was the outlier, not his good ones.

 

Fact is, he was a decent innings eater starter who was traded for a nobody. Bad trade any way you slice it. That trade was one of the things that shaped my opinion of Theo as a major league talent evaluator.

[Dipre]

His bad year was the outlier, not his good ones.

 

Fact is, he was a decent innings eater starter who was traded for a nobody. Bad trade any way you slice it. That trade was one of the things that shaped my opinion of Theo as a major league talent evaluator.

 

Not a player you can compare you can compare to Josh Beckett. Also, how can his bad year be an outlier if he had multiple bad years in an inferior league? That's a massive contradiction.

 

Also, your "opinion of Theo as a ML talen evaluator" is interesting, given as how you don't value players such as Drew, and had a pre-conceived notion about Beltre before he started playing. If the team keeps winning and making the playoffs as it has, said opinion has little objective value.

[rhet]

Not a player you can compare you can compare to Josh Beckett. Also, how can his bad year be an outlier if he had multiple bad years in an inferior league? That's a massive contradiction.

 

Also, your "opinion of Theo as a ML talen evaluator" is interesting, given as how you don't value players such as Drew, and had a pre-conceived notion about Beltre before he started playing. If the team keeps winning and making the playoffs as it has, said opinion has little objective value.

 

One can compare and contrast any two players, Dipre. It's what we do every day. Is the fact that Arroyo's ERA+ is essentially the same as Beckett's troubling you?

 

Anyway, you're not going to get me to say Arroyo is better than Beckett. On the contrary, I've said several times that of course I'd rather have Beckett. The point was that Arroyo doesn't "suck" and he should not have been traded for a player that does. By a GM you worship.

[ORS]

Dipre, when they reference "league average" in the computation of ERA+, they are talking about National League/American League, not all of the Major League. It absolutely accounts for league effect.

 

In retrospect, it was a bad trade. At the time though, WMP was still looking like an unfinished product that would be quite good if he could add the final coat of polish to his game. They took a risk on that happening. It didn't.

 

I'd be curious to see how some react the next time a Rule V draftee is handed a starting rotation gig, though. Just for the sake of consistency and all.

[Dipre]

Dipre, when they reference "league average" in the computation of ERA+, they are talking about National League/American League, not all of the Major League. It absolutely accounts for league effect.

 

In retrospect, it was a bad trade. At the time though, WMP was still looking like an unfinished product that would be quite good if he could add the final coat of polish to his game. They took a risk on that happening. It didn't.

 

I'd be curious to see how some react the next time a Rule V draftee is handed a starting rotation gig, though. Just for the sake of consistency and all.

 

 

The formula *100(League ERA/ERA) adjusted to the player's ballpark can not be an effective way to measure the difference of pitcher performance if compared to the pitchers in the other league. While i was wrong in the reading of the "League" component, the point still stands.

 

Also, there's no denying the fact that it was a bad trade, but comparing Arroyo to Beckett to raise the point that it was a fleece of massive proportions is downright silly.

[Dipre]

One can compare and contrast any two players, Dipre. It's what we do every day. Is the fact that Arroyo's ERA+ is essentially the same as Beckett's troubling you?

 

Anyway, you're not going to get me to say Arroyo is better than Beckett. On the contrary, I've said several times that of course I'd rather have Beckett. The point was that Arroyo doesn't "suck" and he should not have been traded for a player that does. By a GM you worship.

 

Oh, so i "worship" the GM because i don't find reasons to bitch, whine and moan about every move ever while trying to ascertain the fact that i'm a better talent evaluator than the GM of a ML team who has won two WS rings, and has built a consistent 95-game winner for the past decade. Then worship i do. It was a bad trade, but the Arroyo-Beckett comparison is troubling because it's ridiculous. Just as comparing Adrian Beltre to Butch Hobson, or trying to diminish JD Drew's value because of the RBI argument, or calling the team's roster poorly constructed and several other bitch, whine and moan scenarios.

[ORS]

The formula *100(League ERA/ERA) adjusted to the player's ballpark can not be an effective way to measure the difference of pitcher performance if compared to the pitchers in the other league. While i was wrong in the reading of the "League" component, the point still stands.

 

Also, there's no denying the fact that it was a bad trade, but comparing Arroyo to Beckett to raise the point that it was a fleece of massive proportions is downright silly.

Sure it can. The league average will vary between the AL and NL. The player's performance is thus relative to the strength of the league.

[Dipre]

Sure it can. The league average will vary between the AL and NL. The player's performance is thus relative to the strength of the league.

 

But that's pretty much the point. The NL is a weaker league (offensively) than the AL, when you try to compare ERA+ from player to player with such varying degrees of difficulty in the division that they toil in, then unless the NL player absolutely sucks, the NL-AL factor will always present him with a slight advantage, Arroyo being a case in point.

 

Don't get me wrong, he's a decent pitcher, but no way you get away with a 9.9 H/9 in the AL East and sustain and ERA in the Mid-4's. Bill James said it best: "In the AL, the DH alone constitutes a .50 difference in runs scored per game", not to mention the bottom of NL lineups as compared to the bottom of AL lineups. It's a vastly different league, and while i'm not saying ERA+ is a flawed stat (I like it) i usually tend away from using it to compare players who toil in divisions as different as the AL East and NL Central.

 

Answer me this: If you were a pitcher, and you had to choose a division to pitch in to pad your stats, where would you pitch?

[a700hitter]

In retrospect' date=' it was a bad trade. At the time though, WMP was still looking like an unfinished product that would be quite good if he could add the final coat of polish to his game. They took a risk on that happening. It didn't.[/quote']At the time of the trade, I was not opposed to it, but as you have pointed out with regard to FA signings, it's not the first year of the contract that matters. It's how the move looks after the contract is over. The final verdict is in on this trade. It was really really bad. It goes on the negative side of the ledger for the FO.

I'd be curious to see how some react the next time a Rule V draftee is handed a starting rotation gig' date=' though. Just for the sake of consistency and all.[/quote']I can't even begin to understand what you mean by this. I don't know how I would feel about a Rule V guy being given a starting gig, and why would I have to be consistent with how I felt about Arroyo? It would be a different guy and different circumstances, so I might have a different opinion. How would that be inconsistent. Also, speaking of consistency, how do you know how I felt about handing Arroyo the starting job? I haven't discussed that in this thread in the slightest. By the time he was traded, he had been a starter for almost two seasons, so the "handing a starting gig to a Rule V guy" was no longer an issue. He had earned his spot over the two years. Honestly, I don't even remember what my opinion was when Arroyo initially was put in the rotation, but that opinion would have been totally irrelevant by the time he was traded. I hope you entertained yourself with your pointless snide remark. Hopefully, you know what you meant.

[Dipre]

Come on now, this is interesting discussion, control testosterone levels plz.

[ORS]

No, there's no advantage. The players ERA is a ratio to an adjusted (for park) AL or NL average.

 

When that league is a stronger offensive league, that player can have a higer ERA to score 1.10 ratio. When that league is a weaker offensive league, that player must have a lower ERA to score a 1.10 ratio. It's that simple.

 

The flaw is that with the unbalanced schedule, it doesn't account for divisional strength within the league. A pitcher in the AL East will have his ERA+ computed to the same AL average as a pitcher in the AL West, which isn't really fair. Yes, it's imperfect, but it's not an ineffective way of accounting for the differences in leagues like you suggest.

[Dipre]

No, there's no advantage. The players ERA is a ratio to an adjusted (for park) AL or NL average.

 

When that league is a stronger offensive league, that player can have a higer ERA to score 1.10 ratio. When that league is a weaker offensive league, that player must have a lower ERA to score a 1.10 ratio. It's that simple.

The flaw is that with the unbalanced schedule, it doesn't account for divisional strength within the league. A pitcher in the AL East will have his ERA+ computed to the same AL average as a pitcher in the AL West, which isn't really fair. Yes, it's imperfect, but it's not an ineffective way of accounting for the differences in leagues like you suggest.

 

The problem with the bolded part is, that given the sheer amount of suck of a lot of organizations in the NL (Pittsburgh, Natinals etc) over the last few year, the league average ERA, regardless of the actual offensive strength of each league, has been nearly identical.

 

AL/NL league ERA 07-09:

 

2007: 4.82/4.73

 

2008: 4.68/ 4.63

 

2009: 4.75/4.49

 

Overall league ERA's (which are used in the formula for calculating ERA+) are extremely similar as a whole when comparing both leagues, so in reality, a pitcher in the AL will not be allowed much leeway in terms of actual ERA value in regards to the statistic with the league ERA numbers being so similar due to the poor roster construction of many of the AAAA circuit's teams, unless i'm actually missing something from the formula.