so, does that make the romero trade better or worse for will young?

As long as Casilla has a pulse and isn't named Terry Mulholland, this trade makes my life better.

Will, off topic, since you're going to be in here, did your site die?

Topic: Bud Black's done a lot with worse relievers, so Romero could rebound.

My site isn't dead, I'm just switching servers but behind in schoolwork at the end of the semester. It will be back up eventually.


Topic: Bud Black's done a lot with worse relievers, so Romero could rebound.

The same could be said for Rick Anderson (Hawkins, Fiore, Joa Roa, Guerrier, heck even Romero all performed better than expected).

With the market for relievers what it has been this winter, and with Romero due only $2.2 million this season, I'm shocked that this was the best deal out there.

Romero could rebound.

Well, his ERA+ the last two seasons is 132, so it's not like he's fallen apart.

I like this deal. I remember Romero from 2002, when he was awesome. Since that year I haven't had reason to pay as much attention to the Twins, so I see that year was a fluke.

Still, he's a pretty usefil pitcher. ERA's in the mid 3's last 2 years, and he held lefties to a .198 average last year.

Angels have done well enough against their #1 divisional enemy, with right handed releivers who can get lefties out, but it should help to have a real lefty against a team with as many lefty hitters as the A's.

Romero may be a bit of a jerk, but it sure seems that a lot of guys are chafing under the world-class managerial and communications skills of on Ronaldo "Chauncey" Gardenerhire. We may look back at this as analogous to a certain story involving Larry Bowa and Scott Rolen. OK, not that important. I mean, that 132 doesn't say anything about the inevitability with which inherited runners circled the bases. Still, guys don't seem to love bein' a Twin like in the good old days.

Here's the thing about JC Romero that isn't evident in the stats...

-he allows every single inherited runner to score
-he's constantly bailed out by other pitchers with his inherited runners
-he fueds with his catcher/coaching staff/management/etc.
-he's a moron
-he adjusts himself way more than is humanly possible
-he's a giant d-bag
-I hate him

'Course, that's what they said about AJ. 'Course the Twins got Nathan and Liriano for him.

I mean, that 132 doesn't say anything about the inevitability with which inherited runners circled the bases.

True, but he's allowed hits to only 19% of opposing hitters the last two seasons, which is pretty damn good. He has allowed 40 out of 87 inherited runners to score the past two years, though, which seems a bit high ... though maybe those were tough situations, I don't know ...

But Will, how do you really feel?

'Course, that's what they said about AJ. 'Course the Twins got Nathan and Liriano for him.

Not true, most people loved AJ and were sad to see him go (although we knew Mauer was around). It was just one or two reporters helping the Twins pull a Lucchino and badmouth him that got all the press.

Here's an old binomial distribution problem I did with JC Romero on my temporarily broken blog...

When JC Romero pitches, there are two possible outcomes. He can either kinda suck (walk two batters, throw a wild pitch and adjust himself sixteen times) or really suck (allow three inherited runners to score, then allow twelve more runs and adjust himself thirty-six times). Let’s say that the probability that Romero will kinda suck is .75 and the probability that he will really suck is .25. Now let’s say that the Twins go deep into the postseason and Romero has to make 7 appearances. What is the probability that Romero will not have a single appearance in which he really sucks in the playoffs?

7!/(7-0)!0! * (.75)^7 + (.25)^0 = 1 * 0.133 * 1 = 0.133

Thus, there is just a thirteen percent chance that Romero will not have a single game in which he really sucks. Of course, there is also a 100 percent chance that he will at least kinda suck in every game.

Use the word "disrespected" when speaking to a reporter and prepare to be...disrespected.

When I pointed out the one near us that Romero tried to use, she told me she had just been there but the door does not lock and she wouldn’t use it. Thus, JC Romero effectively was too stupid to figure out how to get into a door that could not lock.

There is another conclusion that could be drawn from this story... :-)

Here's the thing about JC Romero that isn't evident in the stats...

-he allows every single inherited runner to score
-he's constantly bailed out by other pitchers with his inherited runners
-he fueds with his catcher/coaching staff/management/etc.
-he's a moron
-he adjusts himself way more than is humanly possible
-he's a giant d-bag
-I hate him

Well, things like "I hate him" and "he's a moron" obviously can't show up in the stas, but BPro's metrics bear out your comments about inherited/bequeathed runners -- he was brutal in 2005.

The wierd thing is that he seemed to alternate between good years (2004) and lousy (2003, 2005).

The wierd thing is that he seemed to alternate between good years (2004) and lousy (2003, 2005).

2004 was not as good as advertised. His ERA in 2004 by month (IP)

Apr: 3.97 (11.1)
May: 5.06 (16.0)
Jun: 12.27 (3.2)
Jul: 0.00 (13.0)
Aug: 0.00 (17.1)
Sep: 7.36 (11.0)
Oct: 4.50 (2.0)

This is what is meant by "drive-you-insane-with-inconsistency" ... and as that is just ERA his inherited runners rate still sucked even during the "good" months

True, but he's allowed hits to only 19% of opposing hitters the last two seasons, which is pretty damn good.

It's true that no one hits him that well. But is missing the issue of how generous he is with giving teams free bases, etc. There was a point this year, I think in May, where he had pitched ~20 innings. During that time (if I recall correctly) he had given up a total of 18 walks, HBP, errors, and passed balls. That's basically one free chance per inning. His hit-rate was great during that time, but the overall performance was not. He got a little better as time went on, but not enough.

And it seems like it's always the first guy he faces who get walked, or he throws a passed ball, or air-mails one past the first baseman on a pick off....which isn't ideal for a LOOGY. It's almost like he's too geeked up when he comes into the game. If there's no one on, or he's starting an inning, he seems fine, though.

This is why I hate "inhereted runners scored" and all that BP crap about relievers. The only thing that has any predictive value for any pitcher is ERA (ERC is better for small samples).

Romero is an OK pitcher overall, which means he is a LOOGY, as are all OK lefties, unless they happen to throw a screwgie or something like that. Romero does not have a huge platoon split, but enough to make him only effectiove versus a LHB, although he can stand a RHB or two...

This is why I hate "inhereted runners scored" and all that BP crap about relievers. The only thing that has any predictive value for any pitcher is ERA (ERC is better for small samples).


mgl, does BB/9 tell you anything? HR/9 adjusted for park? Don't you mean ERA+ (or some variant?)... I assume you do, because you as much as anyone are all about park factors (rightly so).

This is why I hate "inhereted runners scored" and all that BP crap about relievers.

I should add that I agree... "inherited runners scored" smacks of "clutch"

North Side, yes of course ERA adjusted for context (park, etc.). Yes, inhereted runners scored is no different from any other "context" stat, RBI, BA with RISP, etc.

If someone wants to know what kind of an influence a pitcher or batter actually had in the past, that's fine with me. Personally, I have no interest in such things. But, please, don't talk about such things in the same sentence as talent, projections, dollar value, etc. (i.e., anything in the future).

BP (which I respect greatly) goes through all that trouble with these goofy "past value" stats and all of a sudden everyone starts quoting them when talking about trades, acquisitions, and contracts...

MGL,

Are you going to the Blackjack Ball this year?

-he adjusts himself way more than is humanly possible

So did this guy....

Best Regards

John

I should add that I agree... "inherited runners scored" smacks of "clutch"

In 2005, Romero allowed 3.2 more inherited runners to score than expected while getting bailed out with his own runners 13.6 times more than expected. (Net total of 16.8 runs not reflected in ERA which would have left him with an ERA of 6.13)

In 2004, Romero allowed 4.9 more inherited runners to score than expected while getting bailed out with his own runners 1 more time than expected. (Net total of 5.9 runs now reflected in ERA which would have left him with an ERA of 4.23)

In 2003, Romero actually allowed 1.4 fewer inherited runners to score than expected while getting bailed out with his own runners 7.5 times more than expected. (Net total of 6.1 runs now reflected in ERA which would have left him with 5.87)

In 2002, Romero was absolutely outstanding. He allowed 11.8 fewer runners than expected and got bailed out 9 times more than expected. (Net total of 2.8 runs in ERA would have left him at 2.20)

Whether it is a skill or not, Romero has been trending more and more poorly in his ability to handle inherited runners. And do these ERAs in chronological order represent a pitcher who should be making nearly $3 million?:

Year    IP       ERA
2002    81      2.20
2003    63      5.87
2004    74.1    4.23
2005    57      6.13
Total  275.1    4.30
03-05  194.1    5.17

In 2005, Romero allowed 3.2 more inherited runners to score than expected while getting bailed out with his own runners 13.6 times more than expected.

To give more context for these numbers, the only pitcher worse in both categories was Trevor Miller of the Devil Rays. 15 pitchers had allowed more inherited runners to score, but only 4 pitchers got bailed out more. Miller was the only pitcher worse in both categories.

Incidentally, two of the pitchers who got bailed out more than Romero were Ricardo Rincon and Neal Cotts, who are near the top of the list of stranding inherited runners -- apparently, they were very good at coming into messes, but not starting the next inning (at least according to BPro).


(Net total of 16.8 runs not reflected in ERA which would have left him with an ERA of 6.13)

Of course, if you did this for every pitcher, it would radically change their ERAs. I don't think it's fair to do it solely for Romero.

Of course, if you did this for every pitcher, it would radically change their ERAs. I don't think it's fair to do it solely for Romero.

True, however for fun I'm going to look at the Twins other top two relievers recently - Joe Nathan and Juan Rincon...

Rincon:
2005, 5.3 fewer inherited runners scored than expected and 0.7 fewer of his runners scored than expected
2004, 7.8 fewer inherited runners scored than expected and 1.9 fewer of his runners scored than expected
2003, 2.8 fewer inherited runners scored than expected and 4.8 fewer of his runners scored than expected

Year   IP   ERA   aERA
2005   77   2.45  1.92
2004   82   2.63  1.99
2003  85.2  3.68  3.89

Nathan:
2005, 4.3 fewer inherited runners scored than expected and 0.4 more of his runners scored than expected
2004, 1.6 fewer inherited runners scored than expected and 0.6 more of his runners scored than expected
2003, 3.0 fewer inherited runners scored than expected and 1.1 fewer of his runners scored than expected

Year   IP   ERA   aERA
2005   70   2.70  2.10
2004  72.1  1.62  1.37
2003   79   2.96  2.75

Not a definitive study obiously, but clearly Romero has his performance masked by his ERA than either of these two.

Whether it is a skill or not, Romero has been trending more and more poorly in his ability to handle inherited runners. And do these ERAs in chronological order represent a pitcher who should be making nearly $3 million?:

Well, if it is not a skill, which I believe it isn't, then the "trend" is irrelevant to his future performance, ne'st pas?

Actually there is no predictive value to any "trends" in player performance.

You will likely see wild fluctuations in reliever performacne from year to year simply because they pitcher so few innings each year. That is why it is especially important to use multi-year numbers to try and project reliever performance and why relievers are so often mis-evaluated by teams...

Well, Romero's performance has in fact not fluctuated tremendously, it has been fairly consistent since his great 2002. Rincon and Nathan save him a lot of his runners from scoring, they get the credit for that not he. The number of runners left on who score is pretty easy (IOW) to credit or debit to another pitcher, and in this case its Rincon and Nathan. Romero's inherited runners scoring go on the starting pitcher's ERA.

The fact that Nathan's runners left on score more than expected is simply because he only leaves runners on if he's blown a save, and Rincon is already used up, so now you're looking at Terry Mulholland.

So returning to Romero, keeping inherited runners from scoring may not be a skill, but getting batters out is, and Romero's inherited runners scoring means he is not getting batters out for 3 years now. That is somewhat predictive I think.

I'm not sure if Romero allowing or not allowing inheritted runners to score is a repeatable skill or not. It seems like it should be, but perhaps not...it might have as much to do with the batters he is facing as his performance, for example. But I can't see how the pitchers after him not allowing his inheritted runners to score can be a skill attributed to Romero (which is what it seems like is being done by ignoring the effect of that on his ERA). I don't see how ERA can really be all that predictive for a particular reliever that has been helped so much by the other relievers on his team (or other factors). I just don't get that aspect of it at all.

Now as far as his overall consistancy,it seems like he's been really quite consistant and good versus lefties (my personal recollection not withstanding). And he's been more inconsistant and less good versus righties.

Year - versus Lefties - versus Righties
2005 - .198 .300 .267 - .268 .410 .446
2004 - .261 .341 .351 - .199 .316 .273
2003 - .214 .333 .291 - .314 .424 .500
2002 - .216 .300 .224 - .211 .313 .337

He seems like he's got a pretty consistantly high walk rate....but I don't know if that has really hurt his team that much. But as mgl says, he still looks like a pretty good LOOGY. Of course he doesn't want to be a LOOGY. And Gardenhire didn't use him as a LOOGY. And I doubt he would have used him moreso as a LOOGY next season in Minnesota.

Whether another situation will end up with him being used more exclusively as a LOOGY is uncertain. I don't expect Romero will be happy if that is the case. But he wasn't exactly happy in Minnesota either....both sides seem to be quite happy to have ended this relationship. As a fan, I am too.

As far as how "consistent" he has been from year to year, it depends on what "performance" you are looking at.

Looking at context neutral pitching (NERC or normalized component ERA):

2002 2.34
2003 4.99
2004 2.79
2005 3.89

I don't know about ERA, ERA+ or anything else, as I don't look at those numbers and they don't mean anything to me.

Then again, as I have stated, consistency or not means nothing in terms of projecting future performance. 3.23, 3.38, 3.14, 3.33 looks a lot nicer than 3.07, 4.21, 2.86, 4.13, but it doesn't project any differently, and there is no reason to believe that we have more or less confidence in one or the other pitcher's projection either.

Wild random fluctuation is a fact of life when looking at subsets of 60 innings or so. There is nothing a pitcher can "do" about it. Theoretically a pitcher has control over how much his talent fluctuates from day to day, pitch to pitch, or year to year, but he has NO control over the random fluctuations.

If we looked at small enough subsets of two pitchers - one whose true talent was 100% consistent all the time, and one whose true talent fluctuated by a half a run in ERA all the time - their respective "subset to subset" fluctuations would be indistinguishable to the naked eye...

ne'st pas?

N'est-ce pas.

TY. It's been a long time since I wrote any French...

Here's a serious question for y'all.

I've definitely bought into the whole "There is no such thing as a clutch hitter" orthodoxy. However, I'm not so sure the same thing applies to a pitcher.

My theory is as such: As a hitter, you're reacting. A pitcher, though, is acting. And the things Will describes... those seem to me (and I'm probably buying into Will's reasoning without critical analysis) to be quite possibly due to some personality trait. I mean, if you're overamped every time you come into a game, isn't it likely that yuo're going to have more BBs, HBPs, errors, etc? At least to the first few batters? Or that you'll go 3-0 on the first hitter and then groove a fastball so you don't walk him.

While I'm generally leery of trying to figure out what's going on in a player's head, and I'm extremely dubious of sportswriters telling me that this player is a "good guy" and that player is a "bad guy", this just makes sense to me.

Thoughts?