Is Jo-Jo Reyes this season's Josh Towers?
by BrownMagician on May 31, 2011 1:58 AM EDT
Email
PrintNot that either of them are bad guys, but I'm starting to think based on the talent in the AL East, heck in the AL in general, that Jo-Jo Reyes will perform at the level that Josh Towers did. Mediocre at his absolute best, hanging a pitch or two or three at the wrong time, all of the time. I know he pitched well recently, but so did Josh Towers.
Does anyone have any quick stats to prove me wrong?
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
JoJo has been extremely unlucky. He was garbage to start the season, but I think he has come around. Hopefully the curse is now broken.
by Jeremywilhelm on May 31, 2011 9:18 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
I wouldn't say extremely unlucky
Maybe a bit unlucky, but considering is ERA and his FIP are almost identical (4.15 to 4.10), I wouldn’t call Reyes unlucky. The BABIP is a bit high, but it’s not drastically higher than his career average (.335 vs. .317). And his HR/FB rate is likely unsustainable at 6.5%. Considering that, I think that you can make the argument that Reyes has actually been a little lucky – the BABIP might regress to career norms, but so will the HR/FB rate.
by masterkembo on May 31, 2011 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
JoJo
has struck out about 1.25 more batters per nine innings than Towers did in their careers. that’s significant, and Reyes is a lefty too which probably helps, though Reyes has been super unlucky on balls in play vs LHB
why not?
he’s worth probably $10M if he keeps up his current production (though we probably have younger, cheaper, equally effective alternatives in the farm)
Jo-Jo Reyes is worth $10 million?
How did you calculate that?
(and side note: doesn’t $10M = $10,000 and $10MM = $1,000,000? I’m not correcting you, I just get confused because many people, including in the print media, use it interchangeably)
I don't steal when Jose Bautista is at bat.
by Minor Leaguer on May 31, 2011 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions
(and side note: doesn’t $10M = $10,000 and $10MM = $1,000,000? I’m not correcting you, I just get confused because many people, including in the print media, use it interchangeably)
According to the Chicago Style Guide, M and MM are both acceptable for ‘million’. $10,000 would be $10K.
Damn you Latin and Greek!
I don't steal when Jose Bautista is at bat.
by Minor Leaguer on May 31, 2011 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
FanGraphs figures
that teams pay about $5M per win above replacement (WAR). it doesn’t always work out perfectly (of course) but it’s a good guideline for how much a player is worth, and has been shown to be the case in the current free agency market
I'm not sure he'd be worth $10 million to the Jays, though
because they may have other players who can do the same job for the league minimum, and could better use the money to upgrade elsewhere.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
In finance, M is standard for 000
So 10MM is 10 million.
In finance?
I dunno, I’ve got a business degree, and I’ve taken more accounting, financial management, financial planning, financial analysis, and managerial accounting classes than I care to remember, and I’ve never once seen that. I’ve seen 10M stand for 10,000,000 (or B standing for billions).
In the field working with insurance and securities I’ve also never seen it. Is it from some part of the industry I’m not familiar with?
In roman numerials, M stand for 1,000 – but I’ve never seen it used in any aspect of Canadian financial dealings. I think you might be mistaken, and that 10M stands for millions in the financial world (to be consistant with B standing for billions, and not being the only double letter entry in the whole system, which would be a very unusual system, going M, MM, B, T, instead of K, M, B, T). Just a shot in the dark.
Also, 1 billion = 1MMM
At least in the world I work in.
And what world is that?
Not trying to be sarcastic, I’ve really never encountered it. Do you work in Canada? Even studying international business I’ve never seen notations like that used in a swap transaction. It’s not my area of expertise, but I’m shocked I haven’t come across it if it’s commonly used in our banking system or any exchange market.
More to the point, I’m amazed I could go through school, use the international software, take the government exams, and work in the industry myself and never have encountered it. Obviously I’ve missed something along the way :P
Without getting into specifics, I work in trading. I’ve been based out of Canada, Europe, Asia, and the US (my current location).
I’ve seen this notation everywhere I’ve worked so it seems to be standard practice.
I can say with certainty that it's not standard in Canada
at least not within the last 5 years, and longer I’d imagine if it’s completely vanished from all post-secondary texts.
I searched the internet, and it may have to do with you not using the metric system. Regardless of what you’re used to, in the metric system, M=millions. Period. Since Canada has adopted the metric system, the correct way to do any notation in which you were indication a million of something, would be with one M after the number. Looking at any metric chart, such as this one will indicate that:
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/common.html
If you’re trading in primarily american currency, or in a market that’s using the USD as its primary exchange, then you very well could be 100% correct. I’m quite sure that when conducting domestic business in Canada though that the metric system is the standard, and if you’re involved in any form of financial services, the use of a foreign notation system to domestic clients would open you up to tremendous liability.
Very Different Pitchers
Josh Towers lived and died by his control; working both sides of the plate, mixing in his slider and change, and keeping the ball on the ground. At his best, he was a back of the rotation guy pushing thirty. I actually liked Towers a lot – a hard luck control specialist hanging on to the back of the rotation by his fingernails is easy to root for. If he had ever learned to focus properly, he could have been a very effective starter for years. Instead, he never got past his inability to cope with guys onbase. (.330 BAA with RISP)
Reyes, on the other hand, is a lefty with a low to mid 90s two and four seam fastball, and decent offspeed pitches. His biggest issue is control; keeping the ball down. But he’s got a solid arm, is in his mid-twenties and is a lefty. He’s a guy who could be a middle of the rotation starter if he puts everything together.
So, not really. It’s not so much a question of stats as it is a question of makeup and projectability. Reyes is still developing as a pitcher, where as Towers was pretty much the pitcher he was going to be by 2005.
Why is Reyes starting?
It’s not like we don’t have another lefty in the rotation, who should be there for at least a couple seasons (Romero). And the guy who would take his place (Cecil) is a lefty anyway.
Hard throwing left hander with good movement and questionable control is exactly how I’d describe a pitcher that should be a 6-7th inning reliever :/
Since I often asked why Towers was starting instead of being the long man out of the pen, I can see some similarities.
oops
lowest*. and also, 4.6 xFIP and 4.1 FIP are hardly poor, especially for a back of rotation guy. I think Cecil should come up for either Drabek or Villanueva though
Let's put that in perspective...
…taking the best 60 innings of his career, he proves himself as about 6% worse than an average pitcher. Since we have FIP-, and xFIP-, which are league and park adjusted (which should work in Reyes’s favor!) I’ll just use those. In this, his best season by far, Reyes is about 4% worse than the average pitcher or 15%(!) worse, depending on if you’re looking at FIP- or xFIP-, respectively.
Looking at his career numbers, and using his homerun rate, FIP- figures he’s about 25% worse than an average pitcher. That’s very substantial suckage. It looks a bit better if you assume he’ll change completely and start keeping the ball in the park more, but xFIP- still hates him. And considering his GB rate has dropped for 4 consecutive years, I’m not sure assuming drastic regression to the mean for his home run rates is a safe bet.
He’s also a career 4.13BB/9 pitcher. I’d take he career numbers as a better sign of his control than his best 60 innings.
He’s got all the makings of a pitcher who will consistantly post an ERA in the high 4s if he’s left to start.
his previous numbers
came with a ridiculous amount of luck (including in FIP) and also came pitching in the Majors at age 23. he’s now 26 years old and has shown for 1/3 of a season that he can be at least a serviceable back of rotation innings eater. his career numbers are terrible, but he’s done a great job limiting walks thus far and I see no reason he won’t be able to do so.
besides, a high-4 ERA at the back of the rotation is well above average for a 5th starter
It really depends on how you project him I guess
I see him regressing to closer to his previous levels, and you obviously see him maintaining or improving upon his flash of quality performance. Obviously AA agrees with you ;)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bluebird Banter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
