Jeremy Reed

[DBAHO]

"Freddie, you've been traded to White Sox, but as part of the deal you have to leave 4 mph of your fastball behind so we can distribute it to some our other pitchers."

To Shingo.

[The Critic]

Reed is most likely going to be a very good player, I like him, I still wish we had him but are we going to get the same exact thread popping up every time he has a good game??  and just for the record I'd still rather have Freddy.

Yep.

Congrats to Reed, but the Sox needed a front-of-the-rotation pitcher and Freddy was the best one available.

Pitching > Outfielders

[winninguglyin83]

for the record, Reed made an out in his final at bat, dropping his average to .426.

 

He's not hitting for much power, expected for a rookie in Safeco. Four doubles, no HRs, four RBIs.

 

but he's only whiffed once.

[DBAHO]

but he's only whiffed once.

Prediction: Borchard will have more K's in this season with the White Sox than Reed will with the M's ALL of next season.

[SuperSteve]

Is he blowing up like their old stadium (the name escapes me). That'd be pretty neat, but I'm sure someone will get in trouble for blowing a baseball player up.

[witesoxfan]

Is he blowing up like their old stadium (the name escapes me). That'd be pretty neat, but I'm sure someone will get in trouble for blowing a baseball player up.

Kingdome, IIRC

[ZoomSlowik]

I wouldn't get too excited about Reed just yet. As someone said early in the thread, this is a very small sample size. No one knows what he will do for the rest of his career. Yeah, I'd have liked to have kept him, but we desperately needed pitching.

 

Don't use the media as a basis for analysis of this trade, most of them are completely biased. All we heard leading up to the deal was how much of an impact Freddy was going to have when the Yankees got him, and then suddenly Kenny gave up to much for him. Even then, several of them said it was a solid move for the Sox. You can bet that if the Yankees got him they would still be hyping up the trade, even if they gave up Sheffield and Jeter. Remember how many people were scolding us for giving up Loaiza, and how they said the Sox got screwed?

 

I don't buy the whole velocity thing. No matter who the player is, there is always argument of how fast a player's fastball really is. I've watched Freddy pitch at pretty much every stage of his career, and I'm almost certain he never threw more than 96. Even then, it fluctuates so much it's hard to tell what it really is. I've seen guns that have Damaso anywhere from 88-94 on the fastball, or anywhere between 80 and 88 on Shingo. All you need to see to know that most of the guns aren't reliable is to see one of those pitches on TV when it registers like 46 on a Roger Clemens fastball. That happens all the time. That would be the reason that teams often use multiple radars when scouting prospects, so a bunch of guys on a board arguing about Freddy's velocity probably means nothing(just for my 2 cents, Freddy was hitting 94 or 95 most of the time when I was still watching every game). Even assuming he used to throw 98, who cares if he still gets guys out? There are tons of guys that throw in the 90-95 range that are very effective. The only time that seems to matter is when someone is returning from injury(like Freddy right now). How about we use more than half a season for Freddy on the Sox, and more than 50 at bats for Reed before we start judging the deal?

[danman31]

What did we desperately need pitching for? Oh right, another one of those failed playoff runs. The fact of the matter is that we didn't get to the playoffs. That was why the Sox made the trade when they made it. Garcia has been solid on the road (5-1, 3.86) but terrible at home as you might expect (3-3, 5.37). What's really troubling to me about Garcia's home stats is that of our current rotation (Garcia, Buehrle, Garland, Contreras, Grilli) only Grilli has been worse.

[witesoxfan]

What's really troubling to me about Garcia's home stats is that of our current rotation (Garcia, Buehrle, Garland, Contreras, Grilli) only Grilli has been worse.

That's do to him being a fly-ball pitcher.

 

His GO-AO ratio is under 1.00.

[Yossarian]

What did you people expect when acquiring a pitcher who pitches in the large park in Seattle?  Not one baseball expert believed that Garcia would be a dominant pitcher at the Cell.  Nearly every person that knows anything about baseball blasted the deal.  KW's history of overpaying is coming back to haunt him due to the lack of depth we have in the minors.  Anyone that says we couldnt use Olivo, Francisco, or Reed is in serious denial.

You are absolutely right. KW has a bad habit of making it known that he wants a specific player and then getting held up by the opposing teams GM. I'll say it again. This trade has the potential to be the modern day version of Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio.

[MurcieOne]

From the baseball I've watched in my 18 years on this planet, I always take what I see in April and September and throw it away when judging a prospect.

[elrockinMT]

Reed's only 9 hits behind Borchard... There's a chance he catches him in the final week of the season.

OUCHHHHHHHH!!

 

But, Joe B has 7 homers and has shown some good possibilities.

[danman31]

That's do to him being a fly-ball pitcher.

 

His GO-AO ratio is under 1.00.

Well yeah, but that's KW's fault for paying so much for a pitcher that he should have known would struggle in this park.

[whitesox61382]

What did you people expect when acquiring a pitcher who pitches in the large park in Seattle?  Not one baseball expert believed that Garcia would be a dominant pitcher at the Cell.  Nearly every person that knows anything about baseball blasted the deal.  KW's history of overpaying is coming back to haunt him due to the lack of depth we have in the minors.  Anyone that says we couldnt use Olivo, Francisco, or Reed is in serious denial.

Fathom, everyone knew that a move from one of the best pitchers parks(Safeco) to one of the best hitters parks(USCF) would result in a few more HR's and a higher ERA. Garcia is probably not as good as his Safeco ERA, but probably not as bad as his USCF ERA, and that is why you need to take park factor into consideration. According to the park factor stats, no other park has yielded more home runs than USCF, and it also ranks 4th in runs scored per park(behind Coors, Fenway, and Arlington). Its fair to say that USCF has developed into one of the top 5 hitter parks in baseball(and maybe the best). Based on this, you can make an arguement that any pitcher that is added to the Sox will see an increase in HR's and ERA, yet this fact is never mentioned when people complain about Garcia. Personally, I have been impressed with Garcia. His stuff is easily some of the best stuff in the AL. His peripherals have been execelent and suggest that he is better than his ERA would suggest. Finally, the arguement that holds true time and time again is that quality pitchers are harder to find than quality hitters.

 

Furthermore, before you claim that the Sox have traded away 5-6 future HOF, why don't you wait until the players that the Sox traded away have a couple of years in the majors under their belt.

 

I bet you were one of those guys that complained about giving away Fogg a couple years back after his 2002 season. Since that season he has posted a 5.05(03 and 04 combined) ERA, .290 Opp BA, and 105/147 BB/SO ratio in the NL(and a good pitchers park). He is a perfect example of drawing inaccurate conclusions based on small sample sizes.

 

Do you really think the Sox have missed Olivo's .192 BA since being traded? Even more disturbing is his 55 SO in only 156 AB. Olivo has the potential to be a decent everyday catcher and has good raw tools, but he has shown no improvement, can't stay away from breaking balls away, and can't hit lefties. He has a ton of improvement he has to make if he wants to be a solid everyday catcher.

 

Reed has 47 major league AB, and you are calling him the best thing since sliced bread. After the trade, I voiced my opinion and said that I wished they would have traded Borchard instead of Reed, but you have to give something to get something. While I think Reed will be a solid major league player for years to come, but I truely believe that you are making too much out of his first 47 AB. What if he was hitting .200 in his first 47 AB? Would that mean he is a terrible major league player? Of course not, the point is that the sample size is too small to make accurate judgements.

 

Mark my words, Morse will never be a good everyday major league player. The only asset he has is power. Until this year, he has never hit for average, he has poor plate disipline, has below average speed(especially for a middle infielder), and he is a below average defensive player that will probably have to move to 3B because of a lack of range. He is a one dimensional player that will never be a good major leaguer.

 

I thought that the Sox gave up a little too much for Everett(both times). No one could have predicted that Francisco was going to be this good. The guy always had a good arm and did well in A ball, but 2 years in a row he really struggled in AA once he was promoted. We will have to see if this season is a sign of things to come or if he is another Fogg, not to mention the chair throwing incident. The jury is still out on Webster and Rupe since they are still in the minors. It will be another 3-4 years before we truely know how this trade will play out.

 

I have always like Rauch, and I think he has the most potential of all the Sox young pitchers in the upper minors. However, injuries and attitude have held him back and continue to plague him in Montreal. If he can ever get past those two things, than he could be a solid major league pitcher. I am also eager to see how Majewski pitches. He could be another Francisco, but only time will tell.

 

I will stick with my opinion that proven major league talent is worth more than POTENTIAL minor league talent. The proven major leaguer(Garcia, Everett, ect) have already proven themselves at the major league level, while the majority of minor league prospects never amount to anything in the majors, and in the end only major league production matters. KW has been agressive and probably follows a similar opinion. He has put together solid major league rosters, but injuries, inconsistant play, and underachieving have stalled those plans. I will give him one more year to put together a winner.

[greg775]

KW should never have traded Reed.

Freddie might have signed with us anyway in

offseason, considering his ties with Oz.

Very very stupid deal.

Many posters here were shocked at how much

we gave up at the time.

 

I just wish we'd cut our losses with KW and move

on.

[jackie hayes]

Reed has 47 major league AB, and you are calling him the best thing since sliced bread. After the trade, I voiced my opinion and said that I wished they would have traded Borchard instead of Reed, but you have to give something to get something. While I think Reed will be a solid major league player for years to come, but I truely believe that you are making too much out of his first 47 AB. What if he was hitting .200 in his first 47 AB? Would that mean he is a terrible major league player? Of course not, the point is that the sample size is too small to make accurate judgements.

This is just not a fair assessment. You're using classical ideas ("sample size") when clearly there is some information that we can gain from his minor league experience. That is, there are prior beliefs on his ML ability. There's no reason to throw away that information. In other words, if this were a nobody, coming out and hitting out of his mind like this, okay, I agree with you, small sample etc. But what Reed is doing now is exactly what lots of people said he was capable of. It's not a total surprise. You can't just look at the # of ML abs.

[winninguglyin83]

exactly.

 

the guy was the only guy to hit .400 in the minors last season.

[ZoomSlowik]

This is just not a fair assessment.  You're using classical ideas ("sample size") when clearly there is some information that we can gain from his minor league experience.  That is, there are prior beliefs on his ML ability.  There's no reason to throw away that information.  In other words, if this were a nobody, coming out and hitting out of his mind like this, okay, I agree with you, small sample etc.  But what Reed is doing now is exactly what lots of people said he was capable of.  It's not a total surprise.  You can't just look at the # of ML abs.

I'll back up whitesox on this one. Minor league performance is not a quality indicator of major league success. Yes, you would take someone that did well in the minors over someone that didn't (assuming neither has done much in the majors), but there are a ton of players that do very well in the minors that did little or nothing in the pros, despite everyone's belief to the contrary. A prime example is our own Jon Garland. He absolutely dominated in the minors, but has yet to do anything of importance on the Sox. In my book the jury is still out until Reed has a solid full season, and even then he could turn out to be a one year wonder.

 

The idea that Garcia would have signed here in the offseason is possible, but is far from certain. Numerous teams were trying to trade for him, all of which would have signed him long term. If we had stayed put, there is at least a decent chance Seattle deals him to the Yankees(or someone else with money) and he signs long term. Even if he stayed put, we'd have to deal with teams like the Yankees, Orioles, and probably Red Sox in the offseason that have more money to throw around. In that case, it is unlikely he would take less money (one of them certainly would have outbid us) just to play under Ozzie. Plus, at the time we were still in good shape for the playoffs and an above average starter looked like it would put us over the top. If we knew at the time of the trade that Frank and Maggs would be gone, that's another story, but with the pitching upgrade and our explosive offense he took a shot. We had young talent at the positions the Mariners wanted that the Yankees and others didn't, and we took advantage of that instead of waiting until the offseason where we lose a lot of ground. I still don't have a problem with the move. Neither has proven to be a perennial All-star yet, so I'm going to lean toward the pitcher that we need instead of a minor leaguer that we probably would have buried behind Borchard for the moment.

[Rowand44]

From the baseball I've watched in my 18 years on this planet, I always take what I see in April and September and throw it away when judging a prospect.

Or how about a pitcher who's pitching meaningless games in september?

[jackie hayes]

I'll back up whitesox on this one. Minor league performance is not a quality indicator of major league success. Yes, you would take someone that did well in the minors over someone that didn't (assuming neither has done much in the majors), but there are a ton of players that do very well in the minors that did little or nothing in the pros, despite everyone's belief to the contrary. A prime example is our own Jon Garland. He absolutely dominated in the minors, but has yet to do anything of importance on the Sox. In my book the jury is still out until Reed has a solid full season, and even then he could turn out to be a one year wonder.

He used formal statistics ("sample size") to make an argument, and I pointed out that his statistical theory was wrong here -- Bayesian inference is much more natural in this case, and I think most priors on Reed were fairly positive. Examples don't cut it as a counterargument.

[whitesox61382]

He used formal statistics ("sample size") to make an argument, and I pointed out that his statistical theory was wrong here -- Bayesian inference is much more natural in this case, and I think most priors on Reed were fairly positive.  Examples don't cut it as a counterargument.

Jackie Hayes, Zoom is exactly right in his post, and you need to use a little common sense. I don't know one analysis or so-called expert that would agree with you in your belief that 47 AB's are enough to make an accurate opinion. If you put money on every youngster that came into the majors and put up solid numbers in their 1st 50 or so AB's, than you would lose a lot of money. Furthermore, an 0-4 night would drop his average by .03. Such a significant change in BA from AB to AB should be a sign that the sample size is too small to make accurate judgements. Another example of how a sample size of that quantity can be inaccurate is Uribe. In the first month of the season(61 AB) he hit .393 with a 1.030 OPS. Is that month a big enough sample size to make an accurate judgement? Of course not, since his BA has dropped down to .279 with a .824 OPS. Some question whether an entire year is a large enough sample size for a rookie/youngster. Look at the Fogg example that I gave. He had a good rookie year, but since than he has been a terrible player. Both Uribe and Fogg had solid minor league numbers as well, which is another topic.

 

You need to follow the minor leagues a lot closer if you think minor league stats are a good indication of major league sucess. There are literally thousands and thousands of prospects that consistantly put up good numbers in the minors and never amount to anything in the majors(and sometimes not even make the majors), so basing your opinion on his minor league stats makes a extremely weak arguement on your behalf. A good example is Jay Gibbons of Baltimore. Did you know that he hit over .330 in 1000+ minor league AB's? Yet, he has a career BA of .254 in the majors. Furthermore, if you read any advanced scouting reports or talk/read the opinions of experts on the minor league system, than you will find that they all argue that Reed's minor league stats are better than his talent and aren't a good indicator of what to expect in the majors. I think that Reed will be a solid major league player, but if you are saving a space for him in the HOF, than you could be waiting for the rest of your life because its not going to happen.

[winninguglyin83]

not putting him in the Hall of Fame.

 

I would put him in the Sox lineup for six years -- until he became a free agent and left town.

 

The feeling of many of us is it would have been nice if Garcia could have been acquired without giving up the best hitting prospect in the White Sox system.

 

That's all.

 

I like Garcia fine. He should be a solid pitcher for us next season.

 

But we needed a left-handed bat and could have used Reed.

 

For the record, he has a single, a walk, a strikeout and an error into the sixth inning tonight.

[jackie hayes]

Jackie Hayes, Zoom is exactly right in his post, and you need to use a little common sense. I don't know one analysis or so-called expert that would agree with you in your belief that 47 AB's are enough to make an accurate opinion. If you put money on every youngster that came into the majors and put up solid numbers in their 1st 50 or so AB's, than you would lose a lot of money. Furthermore, an 0-4 night would drop his average by .03. Such a significant change in BA from AB to AB should be a sign that the sample size is too small to make accurate judgements. Another example of how a sample size of that quantity can be inaccurate is Uribe. In the first month of the season(61 AB) he hit .393 with a 1.030 OPS. Is that month a big enough sample size to make an accurate judgement? Of course not, since his BA has dropped down to .279 with a .824 OPS. Some question whether an entire year is a large enough sample size for a rookie/youngster. Look at the Fogg example that I gave. He had a good rookie year, but since than he has been a terrible player. Both Uribe and Fogg had solid minor league numbers as well, which is another topic.

 

You need to follow the minor leagues a lot closer if you think minor league stats are a good indication of major league sucess. There are literally thousands and thousands of prospects that consistantly put up good numbers in the minors and never amount to anything in the majors(and sometimes not even make the majors), so basing your opinion on his minor league stats makes a extremely weak arguement on your behalf. A good example is Jay Gibbons of Baltimore. Did you know that he hit over .330 in 1000+ minor league AB's? Yet, he has a career BA of .254 in the majors. Furthermore, if you read any advanced scouting reports or talk/read the opinions of experts on the minor league system, than you will find that they all argue that Reed's minor league stats are better than his talent and aren't a good indicator of what to expect in the majors. I think that Reed will be a solid major league player, but if you are saving a space for him in the HOF, than you could be waiting for the rest of your life because its not going to happen.

You are fantastically misrepresenting my point. According to your logic, 47 abs from Reed are equal to 47 abs from Kelly Dransfeldt. That's classical statistics -- do you take that literally??? In fact, taking the classical theory seriously, if I were to go up to the ML and k 47 times in 47 po -- and I would -- and Reed did the same, you would rank us equally.

 

C'mon, if the minor leagues meant nothing (which is your argument), there'd be no reason to have minor league teams at all.

 

It's not right to make a statistical argument, then say, look, I found a guy who didn't forecast right! That's just a misunderstanding of statistics. There is always some variance. You have to argue that there is no signal of ML talent in minor league performance. No reasonable person, including yourself, would really do that.

 

EDIT: I want to point out that "your belief that 47 AB's are enough to make an accurate opinion" is just plain wrong. I did not say that at all. My point is that we have more information than that.

[whitesox61382]

You are fantastically misrepresenting my point.  According to your logic, 47 abs from Reed are equal to 47 abs from Kelly Dransfeldt.  That's classical statistics -- do you take that literally???  In fact, taking the classical theory seriously, if I were to go up to the ML and k 47 times in 47 po -- and I would -- and Reed did the same, you would rank us equally.

 

C'mon, if the minor leagues meant nothing (which is your argument), there'd be no reason to have minor league teams at all.

 

It's not right to make a statistical argument, then say, look, I found a guy who didn't forecast right!  That's just a misunderstanding of statistics.  There is always some variance.  You have to argue that there is no signal of ML talent in minor league performance.  No reasonable person, including yourself, would really do that.

 

EDIT:  I want to point out that "your belief that 47 AB's are enough to make an accurate opinion" is just plain wrong.  I did not say that at all.  My point is that we have more information than that.

It really has nothing to do with how a person performs in the 47 AB's as much as it is the fact that it is such a small sample size, which makes it inaccurate. The sample size alone makes your arguement extremely weak to say the least, but when the numbers are skewed(ie a guy hitting above .400) they become even more inaccurate. The point is that the knowlegible fan takes Reed's 47 AB's with a grain of salt and says get back to me in 2 years when we can make an accurate judgement of the kind of MAJOR LEAGUE player Reed is. Are you nieve enough to suggest that Reed is going to be a career .400 hitter because he has done so in his first 47 major league AB's and did so in about 200 AB's at AA?

 

Jackie, Jackie, Jackie...follow the minors for a couple of years and get back to me. The minor leagues aren't completely worthless. It is a place for young players to develop their talents. Stats in the minor leagues are almost complete worthless when it comes to projecting major league talent. Why? Because over 3/4th of the players Reed(for example) played against will never reach the majors. The talent level between AA and the majors is so drastic that it becomes impossible to accurately project stats. The Gibbon's example was simple one example to prove my point. There are litterally thousands of examples of prospects putting up good numbers in the minors and never amounting to anything in the majors or coming close to duplicating those stats. Conversely, some of the biggest major league stars put up rather ordinary minor league numbers(see Maggs for example). Most knowlegible baseball fans understand that minor league stats are not a good indicator of future major league stats.

[jackie hayes]

It really has nothing to do with how a person performs in the 47 AB's as much as it is the fact that it is such a small sample size, which makes it inaccurate. The sample size alone makes your arguement extremely weak to say the least, but when the numbers are skewed(ie a guy hitting above .400) they become even more inaccurate. The point is that the knowlegible fan takes Reed's 47 AB's with a grain of salt and says get back to me in 2 years when we can make an accurate judgement of the kind of MAJOR LEAGUE player Reed is. Are you nieve enough to suggest that Reed is going to be a career .400 hitter because he has done so in his first 47 major league AB's and did so in about 200 AB's at AA?

 

Jackie, Jackie, Jackie...follow the minors for a couple of years and get back to me. The minor leagues aren't completely worthless. It is a place for young players to develop their talents. Stats in the minor leagues are almost complete worthless when it comes to projecting major league talent. Why? Because over 3/4th of the players Reed(for example) played against will never reach the majors. The talent level between AA and the majors is so drastic that it becomes impossible to accurately project stats. The Gibbon's example was simple one example to prove my point. There are litterally thousands of examples of prospects putting up good numbers in the minors and never amounting to anything in the majors or coming close to duplicating those stats. Conversely, some of the biggest major league stars put up rather ordinary minor league numbers(see Maggs for example). Most knowlegible baseball fans understand that minor league stats are not a good indicator of future major league stats.

ws61382, ws61382, ws61382... You still don't even understand my point. I am not basing any opinion of Reed on 47 abs. Period. End of story.

 

Nor did I say he was a HOFer... Nor did I say he was a career .400 hitter...

 

But you like to put words into my mouth. What am I saying?

 

I'm saying that we all have a probability distribution over his future production (which will depend on ballpark, teammates, etc), which is influenced by Bayes' law, p(x|y)=p(y|x)p(x)/p(y). In this case, y="being as good a minor league player as Reed was", x="being a good ML". Use whatever definition of "good ML" you like. You are claiming that p(x|y)=p(x), because minor league stats are "almost complete worthless" -- that is, y does not tell us anything about x. That implies also that p(y|x)=p(y). I dare you to test that theory, using any dataset of all minor league players at some point, and tell me that there is no correlation between minor and major league performance -- it should be pretty easy to do if you have the data. Then tell me that I know nothing about the minors.

 

As for Maggs, he had ups and downs in A, but he was good in AA and exceptional in AAA. He wasn't a shocking revelation, just not a sure thing. Examples don't prove anything, but if you use them, you should at least use someone who had awful stats in the minors, but was great in the majors.