Kim to the pen, Barmes/Sullivan to the farm

[Heltonfan]

OK, I haven't looked crunched the numbers, but how about this one -- and I'm really digging here for some rational basis for preferring Fogg -- "Fogg makes it through at least 5 innings more frequently than Kim." Any truth to that?

Fogg: 24/31 = 77%. Kim: 19/27: 70%. So that one is actually true. Of course, if you want to go down that road, we could start cherry-picking stuff ("Fogg has a lower walk rate"), and this could go on forever. But it's certainly possible that the Rockies organization doesn't understand that.

If I had to choose, though, I'd guess that it's a combination of the "BK is a jackass" thing and the "we prefer the American guy" thing.

[Roxpert]

Heltonfan, this is why I posted the PQS story in the first place: to get you to think and come up with a better formula.

And indeed you have. You never disappoint me in that regard, and I think game-by-game WAR with the standard deviation is pretty verifiable proof that Kim doesn't lack much of anything, compared to Fogg. Thanks for sharing that with us.

As to why the Fogg bias versus Kim, one attribute that neither you nor Jackass have picked up on is track record of wins per season. Fogg has four seasons in his track record of double-digit wins, whereas Kim has none (of course we know that Kim has spent much of his MLB career as a closer, which goes far in explaining his lack of 10+ wins in a season).

We all know that "wins" is as flawed a "junk stat" as there is, but I think that Hurdle and O'Dowd likely placed some value on that in their decision. Due to the four seasons with 10+ wins, Fogg is perceived more as a proven starting pitcher for the bottom of the rotation, while Kim is viewed as a swingman.

It's unfair, it's stupid, but it is what it is. They seem to have opted for the guy THEY think is more likely to get the 10+ W's from the bottom of the rotation. In fact, I've read that in a couple articles regarding Fogg this spring, so it has clearly been a factor.

Having said that, I'm also pretty sure they view Fogg as a better "cultural" fit with the rest of the team than Kim as well. As to whether Fogg is a good Christian, I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me either.

[BigRapidsJackass]

Roxpert, I think you're right.

Those of us who frequent these boards and keep up to date on sabermetrics just don't pay any attention to W-L record. And it's hard to imagine that a guy like O'Dowd puts any credence in "wins" as a stat, either.

But let's be honest: is it hard to imagine that Clint Hurdle puts great stock in "wins" as a measure of a starter's effectiveness?

Not at all. In fact, you and I are imagining him saying it right now. The quote would go something like this: "Fogg's a guy who's been in double figures in wins 4 out of the 5 years he's been in the big leagues ... ."

And I'm sure Hurdle is given a lot of say in this type of decision. He was allowed to choose Tom Martin last year, and probably had the final say on Fogg vs Kim this year. Just another example of how Hurdle continues to harm this club's ability to compete in lots of ways.

What's even more inexplicable is how O'Dowd makes things worse. Sure, O'Dowd let Hurdle choose to keep Martin as the 12th man on the staff last year. Martin was predictably crappy, but not really any more crappy than you'd expect a 12th man to be. But then O'Dowd bizarrely signs Martin to a guaranteed 2007 contract worth almost a million bucks. And the Rockies are stuck either eating that salary or wasting it on a guy who's throwing so poorly he can't be used in anything other than mop-up duty.

And I never understood why they offered arbitration to Fogg. Lots of NRIs are not really distinguishable from him: Jamey Wright, Mark Redman, etc, etc. O'Dowd panicked when he saw the early free agent signings, and he's left grossly overpaying for the likes of Fogg and Martin. Which in and of itself isn't perhaps such a big deal, but it has repercussions on the roster as a whole, such that a useful guy like BK will probably be dumped for nothing and a potentially valuable arm in the pen (Ramirez?) will be pitching in the Springs until they finally have the guts to waive Martin.

[Heltonfan]

Yep, I think Roxpert is right about the 10-win thing. Sad, but true.

Martin was predictably crappy, but not really any more crappy than you'd expect a 12th man to be.

In O'Dowd's defense, Martin was far from "crappy" last year. The guy had a 3.61 ERC; if that's the 12th man on your pitching staff, you're in fantastic shape indeed. Does Martin project well for '07? Of course not. I wouldn't have re-signed him either. But I'm not going to rake O'Dowd over the coals for spending $420K (the amount that Martin is making above the league minimum, which is really the way we ought to be looking at these things) on a guy who, if he can repeat what he did last year, will be worth about three times that amount.

And as for Fogg: you have your one-note act, I have mine. And mine is to point out that for every Redman/Wright making less than Fogg, there are a few high-paid guys (Weaver, Eaton, Meche, Marquis, Wolf, Mulder, Igawa, Woody Williams) who make Fogg look like a real asset by comparison. And there are still plenty of teams out there who could really use Fogg, even if they don't realize it. Offering arbitration to Fogg was a no-brainer; yes, O'Dowd appears incapable of turning our rotation depth into an advantage, but that's not an indictment of the Fogg decision itself. When having six legit MLB starting pitchers is causing you headaches, the problem isn't that you have six legit MLB starting pitchers, it's that you're an idiot.

[Heltonfan]

Jason Hirsh got shelled today: 6 IP, 6 H, 1 BB, 0 K, 3 HR. For the spring, he now has a 5/8 K/BB in 17 innings, with 4 HR allowed and a poor G/F ratio to back it up - taking my "he doesn't do anything particularly well" comment to a frightening new level. Between this and his horrendous cup of coffee with the Astros last fall, I think it's pretty tough to argue that he's meaningfully better than Fogg, let alone Kim.

Do we have anything to lose by sending Hirsh down to Colorado Springs and giving rotation spots to both Kim and Fogg? I don't think so. It's not going to happen, since Hirsh has already been named the #4 starter, but it's a nice illustration of the point that Fogg's contract shouldn't be a problem, and that starting pitching depth is only a problem if you let it be one. These things have a way of sorting themselves out.

[BigRapidsJackass]

Wow, 3 HRs off Hirsh today ... I have to agree that the solution here is obvious: Hirsh to start in AAA, BK and Fogg to resume their old roles as 4th/5th starters.

[Roxpert]

It's ironic......The two best starters in Rockies history were both traded to Houston. The first one, Pedro Astacio, was traded for Scott Elarton. The second one, Jason Jennings (a younger pitcher than Astacio) was traded for a younger version of Scott Elarton (albeit with two other players coming here).

Let's hope Hirsh, unlike Elarton, eventually finds his groove here.

[RMF]

I'm just amazed at the way the Rockies have mishandled Kim this season. Why would they do that? They're going to need him. When Kim's pissed off he pitches very poorly. They knew he was a Diva, they know he wants to start. They also know that LH hitters own him. Nothing has changed.

I think the Rockies have a chance to be pretty good this season. But I don't want to see O'dowd and Hurdle start us off on the wrong foot.

[BigRapidsJackass]

Spring Training is over and I realize I haven't even ripped on Ringolsby yet.

So why not start now. From today's RMN:

Right-hander Byung-Hyun Kim not only lost out in the battle for the fifth spot in the rotation, but the Rockies couldn't find any team with the slightest interest in taking his $2.5 million contract off their hands. They decided to try to minimize the loss by putting Kim in the bullpen, then he complained, saying he didn't feel it necessary to think about baseball every day.

Now, that's not exactly what Kim said. He only gave one interview as far as I can tell, to Thomas Harding on the official site. And that went like this:

When he struggled in middle relief before, he explained that he was more comfortable with the more easily defined assignments of a starter or a closer. Kim said he did not know if he could make the mental adjustment to his new role.

"They got my option, and then they say, 'You're going to stay in the bullpen,'" Kim said. "I don't want to. It's not fair. It's not right.

"That's my opinion. It's not baseball's way. It's just personal. Baseball is a business. I don't like business. I like sport. But it's a business."

Did he really say he "didn't feel it necessary to think about baseball everyday?" Of course not. He said he likes a defined, regular schedule so he can prepare properly. Are the Rockies within their rights to be annoyed with him? Sure. The decision's been made, and Kim might as well accept it. If he pitches well, the job is his again just like when Chacon went down in April 2005.

Do I have a problem with Ringolsby's cheap-shot comments? Not really. In fact, I wish he'd do more of that. But remember on the old board, when he posted a comment saying that he's "just a beat writer" and he just reports the news (unlike a columnist like Krieger)? I had taken him to task for never calling out O'Dowd and Hurdle. He said that's not his job.

Kim may deserve criticism. But surely at some point over the last 5 years O'Dowd and Hurdle have deserved similar criticism. I dare anyone to find it coming from Ringolsby's mouth.

Meanwhile, Renck has become much more secure and confident in his reporting -- you'll see some interesting comments/opinions blended into his ST blog. Cowboy, you've got the knowledge and the status; don't let your career close as mouthpiece for Rockies management.