Is There Anything To Like About Tim Redding?

by Meddler on Feb 2, 2009 12:13 AM EST Comment 39 comments

(bumped from fanposts --eric)

A little while ago, the Mets extended a $2.5 million contract offer to Tim Redding, which he accepted. At the time, it was assumed the Mets would add another starting pitcher, most likely on a far more lucrative deal. For this reason, I declined to take a close inspection of Redding and what he might be. While its still likely that the Mets will add an arm, its only two weeks until pitchers and catchers, and perhaps its time to submit Mr. Redding to a bit more scrutiny.

Just glancing at Redding's basic career numbers, there's not much to get excited about. His 4.95 ERA in 2008 was right in line with his career mark, and was well supported by a 5.93 K/9, 3.21 BB/9 and 1.43 WHIP. His FIP of 4.93 agrees with his ERA extraordinarily well, essentially meaning the Nationals gave defensive support that was almost exactly in line with the league averages. This idea is further driven home in his .299 BABIP. Based on this data, it appears 2008 was a very accurate representation of what Tim Redding is.

There is an interesting dimension to Tim Redding that gets overlooked, however, because its not really one you'd expect to stand out with such a mediocre NL pitcher. According to BP, Redding had the 12th most difficult schedule in all of MLB by Quality of Opponents OPS (min. 150 IP). Tim Redding actually seems to somehow have faced tougher competition than guys like Josh Beckett, Zack Greinke, Daniel Cabrera, Mike Mussina, James Shields, and Daisuke Matsuzaka. Not only that, but if you go down the list of pitchers who had the toughest schedules in MLB by opponents' OPS, you have to go all the way to 36th just to find another NL pitcher. The aggregate OPS of all of Tim Redding's opponents was an astounding .014 higher than any other pitcher on the Senior Circuit. Here's how the 10 toughest NL pitcher's schedules by opponents' OPS looked by comparison:

Pitcher - AVG / OBA / SLG / OPS

1. Tim Redding - .259 / .334 / .425 / .759
2. Brian Moehler - .258 / .332 / .414 / .745
3. Jorge Campillo - .257 / .331 / .414 / .745
4. Ian Snell - .257 / .331 / .411 / .743 / .743
5. Bronson Arroyo - .257 / .331 / .411 / .739
6. Derek Lowe - .256 / .329 / .409 / .738
7. John Lannan - .256 / .331 / .407 / .738
8. Brandon Backe - .255 / .329 / .409 / .738
9. Scott Olson - .259 / .331 / .406 / .737
10. Odalis Perez - .256 / .328 / .409 / .737

If you play around with the various sorters on BP's stats page, you find that Redding not only had the toughest schedule by opponents' OPS, but also by each of AVG (tied with Olson), OBP, and SLG. You also find that the greatest disparity was in Redding's opponents' SLG. If you were to graph all the NL pitchers in this regard, Redding would be way off on his own, a monster deviation from the rest of the field. It seems that a combination of bad luck and the fact that Redding pitched in the most offense-heavy division in the NL lead to this result. While he may be staying in the NL East with his move to the Mets, he will not be facing them anymore, and instead facing his former team, the punchless nationals.

This is all reflected in Redding's SNVLAR as well, which stood at a solid 3.2 last year. That puts him ahead of other "innings eaters" such as John Garland, Jason Marquis, Andy Sonnanstine, and Joe Blanton, as well as just a bit behind Javier Vazquez, Gavin Floyd, and Randy Johnson. If you also consider that Redding should get a boost in having an improved defense behind him, he might actually be a bit more useful than most of us (myself included) have been anticipating. Its still hard to see him being much more than average, but especially at $2.5 million, this may turn out to be a rather shrewd signing by Minaya, and a great bargain even in this market.

I did a little more playing around with Pitcher's quality of opposition as well. Here are some other NL Notables:

12. Johan Santana - .256 / .328 / .408 / .737
14. Cole Hamels - .258 / .331 / .405 / .736
16. Oliver Perez - .256 / .329 / .405 / .734
18. Jamie Moyer .255 / .328 / .408 / .733

And by contrast, here were some of the NL's easiest schedules by quality of opposition:

44. Jason Marquis - .251 / .321 / .400 / .721
47. Brandon Webb - .254 / .325 / .393 / .718
48. Jair Jurrjens - .246 / .324 / .391 / .715
49. Randy Johnson - .252 / .319 / .388 / .707

Johnson marks the easiest schedule among all NL pitchers with at least 150 IP. His opponents had an aggregate OPS .052 lower than Redding's. Its also pretty clear that the NL East is the best offensive division in the NL. 5 of the 10 hardest schedules in the NL were for pitchers in the East, as well as 11 of the 20 toughest.

5 recs | Comment 39 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Very interesting post

this is the kind of analysis I love. I’m not much into delving deep into these stats to say that Redding was really better than Brandon Webb last year b/c he faced tougher competition – to me, what happened on the field is what happened on the field. But I love looking deeper into the stats to try to find the diamonds in the rough or to know which overrated players to avoid going into next year. Hopefully this signing works out well for us – I like Redding as a potential #5/spot starter/Darren Oliver-type out of the bullpen. And it sounds like he really wants to pitch in NY, which makes him easy to root for.

by cjmulrain on Feb 2, 2009 2:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

well yeah, I don't think there's any chance Redding is comparable to Webb

but if there’s maybe a possibility that he could be as good as Jair Jurrjens, that would be cool

by JoshNY on Feb 2, 2009 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Right

My point was really that he’s more comparable to a guy like Joe Blanton than we might have originally suspected. Blanton is the Phillies 4th best starter at worst, while depending on how Garcia and Niese perform, Redding is anywhere from the 5th to 7th best the Mets have. Also that someone like Jason Marquis, while he may look a bit more appealing on the surface (not to mentioned another native to the state of NY), probably wouldn’t have been as good of a choice. Besides the fact that he may be at least a little bit better than he looks at first glance, Redding’s much, much cheaper than a lot of the other guys the Mets could have gotten instead, such as Marquis, Javier Vazquez, or John Garland.

I know its easy to say that, now that Perez is back in the fold, the Mets have done little to upgrade their rotation. They certainly didn’t bring in any high end talent. But they did create some nice depth. Assuming Redding is your #5 on opening day, the top of your callup list is now Niese and maybe Garcia, rather than Quad-A retreads like Figueroa and Armas.

by Meddler on Feb 2, 2009 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Marquis is pretty crappy

I was a little nervous that Omar would be all “OMG he hit a grand slam against the Mets he is TEH AWES0M” and sign him for too much money

by JoshNY on Feb 2, 2009 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah definitely true

He pretty much did what Redding did last year, except with one of the easiest schedules in the NL. Just at first glance though, and not taking dollars into account, I would have prefered Marquis to Redding. He has a longer track record, having reached 200 IP a few times in his career while regularly taking the ball every 5th day. But otherwise, I do like Redding quite a bit better. Obviously the cost is a big plus for Redding, not to mention his K rate is much closer to a tolerable level than Marquis, Garland or Blanton, though Vazquez has a pretty big edge over all these guys in that department.

by Meddler on Feb 2, 2009 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

This is a great post and gives us some food for thought. Could be a pretty decent No.5 as far as I’m concerned.

by deadspy3 on Feb 2, 2009 2:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nice work, I'm a fan of the Redding signing

But I think the contract is for $2.25 million + incentives. Splitting hairs here.

by James Kannengieser on Feb 2, 2009 8:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Excellent analysis

What’s depressing, though, is that I doubt anyone in the Mets front office is even aware of this.

by ams258 on Feb 2, 2009 9:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

That's what makes me think that anyone of us could do a decent job as a baseball GM.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Feb 2, 2009 10:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I liked

the signing when it happened, but like it even more now. This is excellent insight. Though I have to agree with ams258, I doubt the front office even knows this. But we can only hope they have a couple of young saber guys in a Citi Field boiler room pouring over the numbers. And maybe next year they’ll get a real office.

by whynot on Feb 2, 2009 10:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Long time lurker, first time poster

I like this analysis, and it gives me hope. But I have a question. Are these numbers independent? To what degree do Redding’s opponents have the highest OPS because they were facing Redding? Does that make sense? Am I interpreting the numbers right?

by raffscallion on Feb 2, 2009 11:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

It's a fair question

But you have to consider the data sets. It’s possible that facing Redding had some influence on his opponents’ OPS, but not enough to shift it dramatically one way or another. Most hitters would only have seen Redding in one game for maybe three plate appearances last year.

by Eric Simon on Feb 2, 2009 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Just for a sense of scale, I looked at Tim Reddings Batter vs. Pitcher on Yahoo. I hate that they don’t use PAs, but the hitter who had the most ABs against Redding in 2008 was Jimmy Rollins with 14. So when factoring Rollins’ effect on Redding, your taking the composite statistical total total of all of his 556 ABs and multiplying it by a factor of 14. By contrast, Xavier Nady had 5 ABs against Redding. So you’d take the composite total of all of his 555 ABs and multiply it by a factor of 5. You do that for every hitter Redding faced in 2008 and then put it back in AVG / OBP / SLG and thats basically your formula here. Those 14 times Rollins faced Redding will have a small effect on Rollins final numbers, but the scale by which this will effect Reddings Quality of Opposition numbers is tiny.

What might be a bit more useful is to take Reddings actual opponent’s batting line: .275 / .340 / .449, and compare it both to the NL League average batting numbers: .260 / .331 / .414 and Redding’s aggregate Quality of Opposition batting line: .259 / .334 / .425.

What you can do with this is essentially alter Redding’s batting line by the same factor his aggregate Quality of Opposition is altered from the NL Average. That gives you .276 / .337 / .438 as a kind of Second Order Expected Opponents Batting Line for Tim Redding. Its still not pretty, but its quite a bit better than what he actually did. If you also figure maybe his BABIP improves marginally with better defense, that would make for a nice little improvement in Redding’s ability to prevent runs.

by Meddler on Feb 2, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also

I forgot to mention, here are the players that had 10 or more ABs against Redding in 2008:

Jimmy Rollins (14)
Ryan Howard (13)
Shane Victorino (13)
Kelly Johnson (12)
Jorge Cantu (12)
Jeremy Hermida (12)
Hanley Ramirez (12)
Josh Willingham (12)
Mike Jacobs (12)
Chase Utley (12)
Chipper Jones (11)
Dan Uggla (10)
Pat Burrell (10)

Suffice to say, that is not an easy group to have to face so often, and clearly supports the numbers you find on BP, especially the inflated SLG of Redding’s opposition.

The most ABs a Mets hitter had against Redding was also David Wright with 8, followed by Jose Reyes and Ryan Church with 7 apiece.

by Meddler on Feb 2, 2009 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

the issue for me is – does this really have any value in the fuller context of Redding’s career?

In other, blunter, terms: has Redding ever been good? If not, why does this matter? He’s a high-WHIP guy who doesn’t miss bats and doesn’t induce ground balls.

by jasondg on Feb 2, 2009 12:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think

it just lends credence to the assumption that the Mets can get a league average, innings eater season from him out of the 5th spot. Cy Young he’s not, but you could do worse form the 5 spot.

by whynot on Feb 2, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess

But you could do better, too. He’s “just a guy,” as the Tuna would say.

Ideally, it’d be great to have a stronger “5th starter” in light of Pelfrey’s 2008 workload and Maine’s supposed need to be babied (as per Rick Peterson). I’m not particularly inclined to want to skip them in favor of more Tim Redding starts.

by jasondg on Feb 2, 2009 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

We can skip them in favor of more Perez starts.

whipee.

by Gina on Feb 2, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Super

just saw SNY’s reporting the Mets and Perez have more or less agreed to terms. Yay.

by jasondg on Feb 2, 2009 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure

you could do better. But since at some point there are payroll constraints, having a 5th spot that is league average pretty darn good. Who else can you get for $2 million to give you that performance? League average nowadays will generally cost you $7-8 million.

I’d like one more arm for a just in case scenario, but with Johan, Pelfrey, Maine, Perez, Garcia, Redding, and Niese it looks like we have better depth than we’ve had in ages.

Here’s to hoping Ollie is on the rise and can match what Lowe would’ve given the Mets.

by whynot on Feb 2, 2009 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

If you go by the SNLVAR ratings, Redding is pretty much a clone of Joe Blanton and Javier Vazquez, both of whom are considered higher than #5 in the Phillies and Braves rotations, not to mention the fact that they both cost more than twice as much in terms of dollars (Blanton will earn $5.5 million in 2009 and Vazquez $11.5 million). That’s pretty much just the cost of a longer track record for these two guys, not actually what they’re going to be in 2009.

by Meddler on Feb 2, 2009 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good points

All this really means is that Redding happened to face a tougher set of hitters in 2008 than others in the NL, especially in terms of power. Despite a solid ERA in 2007, Redding really hasn’t had any good seasons aside from 2003 with the Astros.

Still, what this also mean is that despite the high ERA and even FIP in 2008, Redding was a bit better than he seemed to be. SNLVAR ranked him ahead of two Phillies starters who made 30+ starts (Kyle Kendrick: 2.1, Joe Blanton: 3.0). Brett Myers wasn’t much better (3.6), though he didn’t quite reach 30 starts. The Cubs had Jason Marquis make 29 starts for a 2.8 SNLVAR. And all these guys have FIPs in the same range as Redding’s.

While it would always be nice to have a better #5 starter, and before looking at this I was pretty unhappy with the Mets offseason strategy, I’ve definitely warmed to it. Redding could actually be one of the better #5 starters in the NL, and the depth behind him in guys like Garcia and Niese is much more appealing than the options we’ve gotten used to under the Minaya regime. Guys like Jose Lima, Jorge Sosa, and Nelson Figeuroa.

Would you be happier using Kyle Kendrick and Chan Ho Park to skip some of Cole Hamels starts or fill in for Brett Myers when he flies off the deep end? Or use Jorge Campillo and Jojo Reyes to give Jair Jurrjens or Tom Glavine an extra day? How about calling up Ian Kennedy or Phil Hughes to fill in for A.J. Burnett when he needs a DL trip? This is a problem almost all teams in MLB have.

And what were the other options? We could have traded Aaron Heilman and Pedro Feliciano to pay Jason Marquis around $10 million to do the exact same thing Redding will. We could have signed a declining John Garland for $6 million citing his track record of durability, but with a K/9 that dropped all the way to 4.12 in 2008 those innings look more like a sign of mileage and decline than durability. We could have traded for Javier Vazquez, but his $11.5 million salary would have meant he was taking Perez’s spot, not Redding’s.

Unless the Wilpons were willing to spend a bit more on a guy like Wolf or Sheets to compliment Perez, Redding may actually have been one of the better remaining options. I do feel the Mets missed an opportunity on Lowe, but as far as the #5 spot goes, given the budget limitations, I’m very comfortable with Redding.

by Meddler on Feb 2, 2009 10:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Once upon a time...

Redding was considered a top prospect with the Astros. According to Baseball America, he was their 10th ranked prospect in 2000 and 3rd (!) ranked prospect in 2001.

by SQUAD on Feb 3, 2009 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is There Anything To Like About Tim Redding?

Just check out Redding’s stats against the Phillies over the last couple of years. He looked like the second coming of Walter Johnson when he pitched against them.

by dwill66 on Feb 2, 2009 12:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Redding will be decent #5

I think Redding will be ok. He will most likely match up against lower level pitchers from other teams (not their ace). And if he can pitch well against the Phils (which dwill66 points out that he has done well in the past), I think he’s be fine.

by kerelcooper on Feb 2, 2009 1:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah exactly

Joe Blanton is the Phillies 4th best starter at worst, and unless Jamie Moyer can continue to defy the aging process and Brett Myers can stick to form, he could be as high as their 2nd best.

On the other hand, if Garcia is healthier than he was a year ago, Redding might actually be the 7th best starter the Mets will bring to camp. Even if he beats out Niese and Garcia for the opening day roster, he’s still the 5th best starter in the Mets rotation, and there’s a very strong chance he comps out favorably to Blanton.

by Meddler on Feb 2, 2009 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Other "innings eaters"

One thing Redding is NOT is an innings eater. He’s a 5 inning pitcher. Limit him to 5 innings a start and his numbers will look pretty good in the end.

by acerimusdux on Feb 2, 2009 4:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

While that's true

I used the term pretty loosely. Redding threw more innings last year than Marquis, and none of Blanton, Sonnanstine, or Garland actually reached 200 IP last year either. Given an easier schedule, health, and more than 30 starts, 190 innings should be within reach for Redding.

by Meddler on Feb 2, 2009 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Awesome post

Insightful, informative, and provocative. That other blog about the Mets is simply becoming a rumor mill while you all are bringing the heat.

by djbutler73 on Feb 2, 2009 6:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Great post.

I think I remember hearing Ron or Keith mentioning Redding’s tougher schedule last year. Funny how we all overlooked it.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Feb 2, 2009 9:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Tim Redding

The Mets will be very happy with Redding. He pitched very well in the first half, He dis falter in the secong half but he injured his free foot (landing) and had surery in the off season. I see him him winning 15 -17 games for the Mets

by flanny on Feb 5, 2009 4:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Um, no. I disagree.

But I could see double digit wins. I think he’ll be a really effective 5th starter.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Feb 5, 2009 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I like Redding as the No:5….really don’t like him as the No:4

by Ohpityme on Feb 7, 2009 8:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Redding pitched great the first half of 2008. True he faltered in the second half but he injured his free foot (landing) and had off season surgery for it. Don’t be surprised if he wins 15 to 17 games for the Mets

by flanny on Feb 9, 2009 5:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Dude, who are you?

All of your posts have been about Tim Redding. Are you Tim Redding? Because if so…that would be pretty cool.
:)

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Feb 9, 2009 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"Don't be surprised if he wins 15 to 17 games..."

Don’t be surprised? I’ll be freaking flabbergasted. I think Tim Redding would be shocked if Tim Redding won more than 13 games this season.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Feb 9, 2009 8:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well,

Steven Trachsel won 15 in 2006, so there is a precedent for a guy who is a consistent 5th starter winning 15 games for this team.

by SQUAD on Feb 10, 2009 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

I had the same thought. Still, if Tim Redding winds up second on this team in GS like Trax did in 2006, I think we’ll be in trouble. Its really amazing how that 2006 team did so well with just two reliable starters and no #1 after Pedro’s injury cascade started (which was basically when the calendar flipped to June).

by Meddler on Feb 10, 2009 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Three reliable starters

in the second half I guess after Maine threw that CG SHO against the Stros. I remember because I was at that game. To think, after finding my seat that day I was disappointed when I saw that they were skipping El Duque for some kid I’d barely even heard of named John Maine.

by Meddler on Feb 10, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs