Cozart

[JohnU]

I think a lot of folks who threw Cozart under the bus in the off-season were the same ones who thought the Reds could just "sign" G. Stanton or Yelich, or Upton or damned near anybody who was next on the list. I actually got booted off RedlegNation for ridiculing this lack of sense -- by the admin of the group who was the one with all the "metrics" and head cheerleader for 'let's get this guy!' meme every week. (The guy claimed batting average is not a good indicator of a player's ability to hit!)

In any case, nobody had a shortstop in mind after the Reds traded Cozart, other then "Suarez or somebody else."

 

[chico ruiz]

so, let me get this straight. they 86'd you from the board for simply disagreeing with the idea of trading cozart?
it sounds like nonsense. i remember hoping the reds would get yelich back in the latos trade, but you can't just sign any old player. it's frustrating on these boards sometimes. especially when you're trying to make a legitimately informed point, and you're met with madness. seriously, there is no other way to describe it. it's lunacy.

 

[JohnU]

The ongoing "let's get this guy to play left field" was always followed by 'let's bitch at Walt for not signing this guy" followed by, 'oh, here's a DIFFERENT left fielder so let's sign him ...." and so forth. Really, the incessant complaining about the GM was annoying, even if partially valid.

The amazing part of it is, don't DARE criticize the sabrmetrics point of view. DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT mentioning RBIs or WHIP to the Redleg Nation experts.

 

[chico ruiz]

yes. technology in the wrong hands can be a dangerous thing. like the smartphone, and the personal computer before it, they should be viewed, and used, as one tool of many. over reliance on one instrument of evaluation is shortsighted and potentially catastrophic. it's a tool, not a panacea.

 

[JohnU]

The discussion about RBI is one that grates on me. The metrics dotheads will -- by GOD -- never acknowledge that the stat has value. No matter what argument presented, they are just like the climate change deniers. I just ask: If you have a guy on base and somebody gets a hit to knock him him, is that a good thing or a bad thing? If it's a good thing, then do you not reward the guy who did the good thing? Yeah, I get it about the RBI being a stat of opportunity, but so is scoring a run. If you aren't on base, the opportunity will not avail itself.
Either way, Mancuso, who runs Redleg Nation, wouldn't even discuss with me some of this ... had the audacity to tell me I was ignorant because I wasn't all that giddy about a .240 average -- said batting averages weren't a relevant stat anyhow ... apparently since an OBP of .500 can only be achieved by taking a base on balls.
He finally just froze me off the board. Not like I really cared. The Reds forum on mlb.com is just as bad.

 

[Redsfan1507]

Well, have you ever seen a tool that couldn't also be made into a weapon ? Sometimes, it's not a physical hammer, but a verbal bludgeon. Venues like this probably have fewer prerequisites than voting or getting a drivers license. You could be in jail or the assylum, and appear here...and I'm sure there have been people on here or similar that should have been.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and have the right to express it, with or without any pertinent knowledge of the subject matter. If this venue was a physical room of people talking face to face, it would indeed be different, possibly no more intelligent, but probably more polite.

When these guys can predict in spring training that Yunel Escobar will hit.300 or Stephen Strassberg will have a 6.00 ERA, or even derive some statistical gem previously uncovered,I'll give them more respect.

IMO, there are far more baseball metrics recorded, than can be translated into absolutes, or even counted on as reliable decision making fodder outside the fantasy sports business....AndI think they sell there better than in the real game...

I'm sure they intend on these metrics being useful for comparison, or evaluation, but they are far short of predictive, IMO. In the real game, does it help you today, to know a guy hits .350 with RISP, if he doesnt get to the plate with anyone on ? He's going to be unsuccessful anyway 65% of the time, even if he does have runners on, statistically speaking. I'm going to hit hitters as often as possible, in predictively run producing lineup spots. Pitchers hitting .135 hitting 8th isn't an epiphany I believe is changing the fortunes of teams employing that tactic.

You can rank value on just about any valid metric- BA has been valid about as long as 60'6" has. OBP has too, maybe more IMO, because it counts all PA. Personally, I don't care what a guys average is when he puts the ball on play, or if he hits a grounder or flyball, if he strikes out 30% of his PA, is hitting .220, and never walks...I'm going to sit his ass at the first opportunity. OPS just tells you a guys on base frequency considering extra base power. It must be a metric for guys that can't relate TB, BA, BB and AB. I guarantee coaches or even everyday fans can tell who's spanking the ball deep regularly, getting on base, and who's not. I can tell by the sound off some guys bats.

RBI isn't all the guy hitting. Phillips had 100 out of the blue without changing anything, except the guys he had in front of him in the lineup. Go figure. Guys that perennially have 100 regularly hit, hit long, have a team that gets on base in front of him, and at least a player hitting behind them that prevents walking the 100 RBI guy too much to get that many. It is a valid stat. I could say a pitchers Wins are not directly in his control, but it's the one stat that determines who wins and loses, gets to and wins the World Series, so it isn't unimportant. A guy with lots of wins goes better deeper into games than a guy with lots of losses, or no-decisions- offense, defense and bullpens assumed alike, of course.

I despise WAR. I don't want to know my weak ass LF gets me 3 wins a year more than the "average" replacement, because it doesn't help me or make me feel better about his .230 hitting ass making $9M/yr. Besides, Wins aren't isolated to single players. There are a universe of variables that effect them, including the pitch by pitch performance of the other 25 humans in the game, what they ate, the weather, the wind, and any other distraction in the 3rd row or on Twitter.

There are some handy stats- BAA for instance. ERA doesn't tell nearly the whole story, and WHIP doesn't account for ability to toss a DP ball. If a pitchers BAA is .280, I don't care if his ERA is 2.00-he isn't fooling hitters enough. Ratios without frequencies are useless. Several GM's and managers and Fantasy Prognosticators alike have been made to look foolish extrapolating
a guys 2014 21 HR in 250 AB's to 550 AB in 2015..when that everyday play wound up dropping his average without improving his HR much.

I want to know if a hitter has 25 hits in 55 at bats against a certain pitcher though. It doesn't mean I would give him 55 more AB against other pitchers, especially with terrible LR splits.


I do care about L/R splits, but coaches don't need to know them to recognize a guy that can't hit a breaking ball. The stats just substantiate it. Honestly, a lot of non switch hitters that hit both LRpitchers equally, either hit the breaking ball well, or put the fastball in play before they have to hit the same armed curveball. Billy Hamilton shouldn't give up hitting lefty, he should just stop going 0-2 so much...maybe by dragging a few 1st pitch bunts from that side. He hasn't really tried that much yet.

 

[JohnU]

The constant about those who follow the really advanced metrics that are used mostly for fantasy leagues is that they are pretty smug when they talk to folks who say "Bruce only has 23 RBIs."
"RBI is a useless stat," they boast. So if you say, OK, what's his +BABIP and his oWAR against Garcia," they will say they have to look it up.
If you are at the ballpark and don't have your computer spreadsheets in front of you, what you want to see is Bruce drive in a run. You are not too likely to say, "gee we scored a run but how we got it isn't relevant" because you got the damned run.
But the metrics freaks are like atheists, long-distance runners and vegans -- you know who they are because they will volunteer that information right up front.
As far as that goes, if teams rely on the advanced metrics to evaluate talent, I'm all for it. Extrapolating decline or trends, pretty useful when it comes to trading Brock for Broglio or whether to sign Marquis or Iglesias -- provided it's all apples to apples. Catchers who never have to throw anybody out are sort of hard to figure. If they are throwing a lot of guys out, maybe the pitchers need some work.

 

[Redsfan1507]

5,000 scouts and 50,000,000 fans would have taken a look at the 85 mph reading on the gun trained on Kevin Gregg or Jason Marquis, and NOT signed either.

It isn't a subjective evaluation. It's eighty-fucking -five, from a technologically proven, calibrated instrument. It didnt take advanced metrics or a fantasy statistician. I could pick a couple high school kids from damned near any varsity game in the U.S. and found 2 that could toss 85. The Reds signed them because they had a MLB record, and had recourse if they failed- they could DFA them and bring up the farm. If you bring up the farm first, and they fail, you're stuck...so unless the Reds thought a month more "seasoning" from farmhands was worth the millions they spent on those 2 sad roster spots, there wasn't much "advanced" methodology working there.

I would appreciate a brilliant new formula overlooked for a century for predicting baseball success. I simply don't believe it exists.

If I'm drafting young pitchers, I take the guy throwing 96, even without a breaking ball or much control, over the guy topping out at 86, 100% of the time. You can't teach 86 to 96, but you can improve control from 96 to 93, and probably teach a change or breaking ball or slider too, if he doesn't have mouse sized hands.

Ballplayers retire at 35, they don't come back. If the young roster needs player leadership, find an all-star, not a washed up scrub to lead them. If you have to scout and sign on a budget, I'm not opposed to using metrics, advanced or otherwise...but you just can't take stats from Dickweed High, or Arizona State, or even the Midwest League and plug in a universal translator to see future MLB production. There are accepted 5 tools in "old" baseball. Pitchers only need 1.
It appears our Reds draft better than they sign at the MLB level, for whatever reason..,If our Reds brain trust signs Gregg and Marquis, all bets are off for me.

I saw Frazier and Hamilton both play the minor league infield, and saw them as future outfielders. I was wrong on Frazier-he is a fine 3b, and has twice the HR output I would have expected back then. I thought Hamilton could hit .280 if he had 40 bunt hits...he won't get 40 attempts though. Raw skills are one thing, how they are developed, another. Prediction ? By people that studied it from the inside for a lifetime, is barely possible. By others armed with a spreadsheet ? That is a fantasy.

 

[chico ruiz]

i'm always struck by the lack of consideration from both sides of this debate. it's not an all or nothing debate. it's not a us against them war. pun intended. sabermetrics is intended to be a objective study of the game. you use logical reasoning in sabermetric arguments. a hypothesis or projection can be developed from statistics and observation. a claim which cannot be directly tested can be evaluated by studying the conclusions which would follow. where the red-leg nation guy goes wrong -much like mlb network's brian kenney- is, he applies it subjectively. bottom line; the stat user needs to have a good understanding of how statistics can be used and misused.

this is a great subject and something i have strong opinions about, mostly because it's easy to see which organizations have used these applied stats successfully. let me start with this; bill james is frequently incorrect. i've read and seen many of his interviews. he rates players, in very general terms, according to his metrics only. he doesn't consider what team x, y, or z's specific needs may be. to be clear; a savvy mlb personnel department will use those stats to 'help' guide them toward a player that fits a specific positional need. OPS doesn't mean jack squat if you're looking for a corner outfielder with good speed, defense, and that elusive unquantified metric of 'hitting the ball' regularly. that very simple fundamental part of the game that is sometimes forgotten, overlooked, or -more likely- ignored, by the saber-types. it's better posed as a question: does player x hit the ball? you know, actually put wood on horsehide or cowhide? does player x usually put that hit ball into play? does player x do this with greater frequency than the mlb average? of course this "hitting the ball' stat is recorded. it's just not held in very high regard by many of the saber-types. why has brandon phillips been moved around the lineup like a yo-yo since he's been a red? say it with me: 'he hits the freekin ball.'

here's another thing about james that is conveniently ignored. so-called sabermetric sophistication encouraged, directly or indirectly, steroid use. sabermetricians like james (along with ownership, commissioners, broadcasters, writers, and most fans) overwhelmingly turned a blind eye to the causes of the absurd statistics of the 1990's and 2000's. owner x whispers, 'holy crap, look at the turnstiles spin. by god, we can turn this great game into the wwf and make a bundle. yes sir.' this is where the statistical analysis of baseball becomes a load of shit or -at best- a exercise in futility, and goes to the ancient debate over baseball strategy between ty cobb (make contact, hit line drives, and steal bases) and babe ruth (hit homers, take walks, or strike out). the babe was right, just like his tens of millions of fans believed. baseball insiders found cobb's athletic style more elegant, but fans liked the professional wrestling aspects of a huge man bashing the long ball. what the blind followers of metrics conveniently forget is lou gehrig hit behind ruth for a decade. ahem, excuse me mr. metric man, i say……..LOU motherlovin GEHRIG !!! argued by some, and legitimately so, as the best all-around player of all-time. no analysis -metric or otherwise- can be taken seriously without mentioning this. and what did lou do with regularity? you got it; he hit the freekin ball. if you're a pitcher for the indians in 1931, and you have a choice of pitching to ruth or gehrig at yankee stadium, in a tie ball game, who would you want to pitch to the least? probably not a good choice to have to make, but the saber metric answer is gehrig. there's a modern day irony there that leaves metric nuts with blank looks on their faces. but, that's not what was, or is, important. what's important is yankee stadium was sold out, and -as well- the yards that the yankees visited. what's important is that yankee stadium is always sold out.

with runners on 1st and third and less than two outs how often does player x hit the ball? you can consider spray charts and splits, if you want to employ slight defensive shifts. but, a walk does not get the run in (dead ball, dead weight, dead game). how often does player x deliver the rbi in that situation? easier question; how often does he hit the freekin ball? maybe team y wants a really good 3 tool corner outfielder. maybe team y doesn't need a guy who hits 30 home runs, and k's 200 times, a year. 'but, his OPS is good,' the metricating fiend will say. so, he walks enough to make the overall number look above average. huh? but, he disappears for 3 or 4 weeks at a time, seemingly void of any hitting skills at all (dead ball, dead weight, dead game). can team y, based on every other piece of their team, afford to have such an albatross? these questions aren't given much consideration by the excessive metric types. and how does this remotely fit into the concept of 'team'? this is something that is grossly undervalued, or not considered at all, by overly metric types.

maybe i'm biased, but i like as much action on the field as possible. running, hitting the freekin ball, more defensive chances. nothing really happens when you strike out, walk, or hit a dinger. a lot of motion is what i prefer. a large part of the grace and elegance in the game is still missing. those beautiful nuances that were part of every game out of 162 a year have eroded and, in some cases, completely disappeared. i think, to some extent anyway, that saber metrics heavy applications have made baseball less elegant. baseball used to have customs about how things were done that were generally good for the game overall, if not for the individual team. but, today's emphasis on exploiting weaknesses in the structure of the rules to win, win, win is making baseball more of a stand-around base to base bore. writing this is like a dagger to my old baseball purist heart. when I was a kid, there was slow pitch softball semi-pro circuit where various businesses hired giant oafs to try to hit three or four homers per game. i don't hear about it anymore, but it seems like a lot of the kind of guys who would have been stars, in this sideshow game circa 1968, are now gainfully employed as MLB designated hitters. seriously, it wasn't that long ago that sideshow freaks like bonds, mcgwire, and sosa were coming to a mlb park near you. get your tickets now. they're going fast. these guys truly were freaks. you could have entered bond's head in the indiana state fair cantaloupe contest. it wasn't a game of baseball. it was a spectacle.

i am, of course, exaggerating the point. but, not by much. can advanced statisticians be blamed solely for the trajectory the game has taken? no. 'hitting to the opposite field is a lost art following the PEDs era,' keith hernandez says - as johnu posted. it's interesting because it -the lost art- has also occurred at the advent of more sabermetric application. btw, that 'lost art' effects many other aspects of the game as well. bat control, bunting, hit and run, moving runners, tags, etc etc etc.

this isn't rocket science. these advanced stats can be invaluable in the right hands. the same stats, in the wrong hands, can potentially ruin a team or the 'game.' hell, it can ruin a conversation about baseball. i've hit the remote on mlb network analysis many times. but, more importantly, as usual, and in the parlance of america, 'follow the money' and the metrics explanation and justification becomes much more clear.

 

[JohnU]

I am often reminded of a comment made by somebody once -- about how hard it is to hit a rotating round object being thrown with intent toward a person holding cylindrical object.

But I do think that there are "metrics freaks" who intend to force baseball to be something it has to be on paper, or else. Simply declaring that the RBI is a useless statistic will not make it any less important.

I have always been fascinated with the Ruth-Gehrig dynamic, seeing the numbers they achieved, wondering if seeing the same pitcher 12 times a year like they did in the days of 22-game season series, 3-man rotations and complete games all around ... wondered if their numbers were worse, better or about the same after the 6th inning of the second game of the obligatory Sunday doubleheader against the Senators or the Browns.

No matter. It was all day baseball.

Which brings me to Billy Hamilton, who clearly knows how to win at baseball but hasn't mastered the elements of Rubik's Cube yet. He's on base and steals 4 more. He's popping up to left field and he's going back to the bench. If I were BH's coach, he'd bunt every single time up (with rare exceptions) and bunt and bunt and bunt until the defense was literally scalded by it. The more he bunts, the more he gets better at it.

Metrics be damned. IF Billy is on base, he's driving pitchers nuts and stealing runs.

He scores a run about 60 percent of the time he's on base. He scores 0 from the dugout.

I think the metrics crowd has done what it wanted -- to stop enjoying the game and begin gloating over whether their fantasy league teams are winning against 15 other fantasy league guys who go 'yawn, RBI isn't a real statistic.'

Lou Gehrig drove in 180 runs one year.

No shit?

To further localize this, watching our Reds bumble through the season, it is -- to me -- less a matter of metrics than it is a team that has simply not learned to enhance its strengths and minimize its weaknesses. That can't be done in a computer. Hitting with men on base, getting an out at second base, reading a blooper to LF ... when one thing works, the other doesn't.

Cueto gives up 2 hits and gets beat 1-0. Leake gets 9 runs behind him and decides to throw BP to the Twins. Nate Adcock throws 40 pitches in one inning. The defense is standing around watching him rub up another ball since the hitter has fouled off 8 pitches because Adcock can't get him out.

Suarez coughs up a granny hop on a DP and the next 4 guys get line-drive singles.

Bruce gets a double to LCF ... and stands there while the rest of the lineup goes down like plastic ducks at a county fair.

If and when a metrics guy crunches the numbers on a typical Reds 7th inning and concludes "this team is snake--bitten," I can say, the metrics suggest not standing too close to a snake.

 

[Redsfan1507]

Good points by all above.

Billy Hamilton hits too many balls in the air and too few on the ground. He will never walk much because no pitcher wants to walk a guy that fast who is also 20 times more likely to strikeout than hit a homer. He isn't going to get on base many times on errors, because big Leagers field the ball, but he's more likely to get infield hits on grounders others make outs on. Hes trying yo hit after getting down 0-2 too much...I'm sure the metrics support this, but the fact is, Hamilton doesn't bunt that often, especially avoiding dragging to the right side as a lefty, his weaker side. It's stubborness or stupidity, but it's a failing they don't appear to be addressing. That isn't a bad break, it's bad planning.

Hitting coaches do often get bad raps, as do managers. Players don't listen often, when it requires doing something different. They aren't "comfortable" with changing what is failing them, because it doesn't "feel" right. They prefer coaches that praise them for doing whatever the hitter wants to do, regardless of likelihood of success. Improving hitters most often is reduced to better pitch recognition. It speaks to the general evolution of kinder, gentler, but frankly, less personally responsible, and less productive behavior in our society in General. It's baseball's version of common core. When math and science scores, and OBP and BAA actually improve, wake me up. So far, I'm still waiting, and under the belief that what worked for the century before these "new" failures were recognized might be more work, but a shorter path to definition of success or failure.

Managers are often as stubborn- after all, they're all former players. For any system to work, it takes the whole organization working more together than individually, IMO. GM's have to sign the right players, the instructional staff and minor league dugouts have to develop them correctly, and MLB managers have to get them to execute to the game plan within the role they are used in.

IMO, most teams are still playing tactics best used in the PED era, but are slowly adapting back to the same game it's been otherwise. I like the metrics, if they identify an area that can be improved (they all can), and you have personnel that will implement well. Defensive shifts are valid-and effective, mostly because hitters refuse to change, and managers refuse to make them try. It's offensive suicide by stubborn stupidity, and unacceptable to me.

It's a game of adjustments. I believe that baseball failures are far more inability to execute better fundamentals, than inability to synthesize statistical data. knowledge is useless if not acted upon. Teams, players, etc. that fail aren't adjusting, they're just hoping for someone else's mistake allows them to do the same things and get by. To over-state: I don't think bad baseball is because players / managers are stupid, I think it's 1) talent is deficient and 2) because they are too lazy and/or sensitive to do much about it.

 

[JohnU]

All of this speaks to the general nature of the game.
But I observe the differences between the Reds and the Cardinals.
OK, they have better pitching -- somehow.
They do not have a better lineup. Not even.
So how does one team win 68 percent of its games and the other lucky to win 1 out of 5 on a road trip?

 

[Redsfan1507]

I hear you.

They do have a left SP I think (Garcia) now. Their SS hits cleanup, kind of speaks to an unimpressive lineup...but they do score enough to win. The Cardinals make errors, just usually at game deciding time. They make the routine plays. They hold runners fairly well, and don't give up a lot of walks or homers. They put the ball in play at a consistent rate. They probably have more productive outs, and although they dont steal a lot, they dont get a lot of runners thrown out either. I haven't checked the record, but suspect they don't lose against sub .500 teams much, and probably play decent on the road, better at home, and might actually win a few interleague games. The Reds struggle with all of those things.

It also appears to me, they have a better punt plan- when they have a guy hurt, they replace him with someone that still produces. The Reds lose Phillips and replace him with DeJesus or Negron or Schumaker. It appears they haven't done badly with Cozart/Suarez, but although I don't dislike Pena or Barnhart, they can't come close to a healthy Mesoroco.

 

[chico ruiz]

good pitching and defense, with sound fundamentals, is one answer. another shorter answer is: they do have a better line-up. they've pieced together a team (1 thru 9 plus 16) that plays more consistently. a team thoughtfully put together that is greater than the individuals. fundamentally sound. the cards don't beat themselves very often. i suppose if you are comparing individual stats head-to-head there may not appear to be much difference between the cards and the reds. in the national league, the reds are dead last in batting average with runners in scoring position with a .211 ba. cards bat .270. it's worse with 2 outs and runner(s) in scoring position. again, the reds are dead last with a .185 ba. i don't think this needs any extrapolation. why is this? again, the short answer is: the cards consistently put together a better line-up, and they have better overall depth. if you want to see a really scary stat, compare the reds v. cards #1 slot numbers. makes you want to cry if you're a reds fan. i'm welling up as i write this. this board has touched on many of the organizational reasons for this disparity. good, well maintained organizational system v. what appears to be -possibly- no system at all. the cardinal way v. the wrong way. as of right now, i honestly don't see a 'way' being implemented by the reds at all. by that, i mean a process, methodology, overall strategy, or system. no viable plan in place to assuage on-going or near future weaknesses.

i watch the cardinals when they're down 5-0, and it feels like they're still in the game. it feels like they will get a few key hits and be back in the game. i can't say the same about the reds. the cards have a catcher that is arguably one of the ten best that has ever played the game (defensively and offensively). a field general with acute baseball instincts who would run through a brick wall to win a game. their left fielder is one of the best pure hitters in the game. their shortstop has more hits than any other ss in mlb. their 3rd baseman gets on base consistently at well over a .350 clip. their 2nd baseman gets on-base at a comparable .350 pace. the average OBP, for their cf's, is .320. the cards did not have to take their lead-off hitter and drop him to the 9 spot. i don't want to sound like a broken record, but that is a huge overall line-up problem for the reds. growing pains, making adjustments to mlb pitching, not bunting enough, popping up too much (mechanical), all of the above, or whatever it is the OBP is still .270. this is a big part of the offense the reds were counting on (.300 OBP at the very least) that is just not there.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

You had me at pitching Chico.....the Reds pitching staff has allowed 114 more runs than the Cards while the two offenses have scored roughly the same number of runs per game.

The Cards pitching has been dominant against lefties and righties. Offensively they lead the NL is hitting versus RHP which has been a trademark of their success most seasons. But overall the Cardinals have been a weaker offensive club the past two years than they've been throughout their extended successful run. IMO, they still miss Carlos Beltran's production....the offense hasn't been the same since they traded Freese and Beltran went FA. The loss of Allen Craig after the injury had a impact as well. This season's pitching staff has been lights out which is rather amazing when you consider they loss Wainwright and traded Shelby Miller who is having a pretty good season himself in Atlanta sporting a 2.20 ERA.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

BTW Chico...
Did you see where Amir Garrett was named to the Future's Team to be played All Star Sunday?

 

[JohnU]

A little on pitching when one considers the ballparks, though that's probably overrated. In the case of the 2015 Reds, this is not a good pitching staff for a couple of reasons -- mostly inexperience. I am just seeing that there is a culture of winning in St. Louis that should be easy enough to identify. It's not all just math.

 

[chico ruiz]

exactly john. thank you for distilling what i thought was the obvious point of my post. sorry about the numbers, but i don't how they can be ignored. dead last with runners in scoring position. some baseball fans misconstrue the on-base % as well. the team stat, not the individual stat. the real analytic benefit of those numbers is how they compare to the number of pitches thrown by the opponents starter, and how much he's throwing from the stretch. the last desclafani start is the perfect example. he got out of some jams, but he threw a ton of pitches. these are all things we know. the numbers just highlight the obvious, but they also indicate how bad a particular potential 'win' indicator has become. it's why price took hamilton out of the #1 slot. you can slice, dice, mince, chop, or mash it anyway you want to. leaving him at lead-off was suicide. and how do you, as a reds fan, feel when jay bruce comes to bat with two outs and two on? i don't like the odds when he's going good, and forget about it when he does his disappearing act, which can last for weeks. is he a product of his time? maybe. why do you think fans & writers alike get excited when jay occasionally hits a ball to left field? it saddens me. it saddens me for the 'game.'

"situational hitting." you rarely hear that phrase used anymore, and apparently there are precious few players that possess the elusive 'bat control' ability. defined the 'lost art', as referenced on another thread. what's left of the 'lost art' the cardinals apply and do better than the reds.
call it fundamentals if you want to. that's actually what they are. watch 3 or 4 random cardinal games and see how well they execute bunts. see if they hit to all fields more consistently than other teams. hell, just look at the spray charts. you don't need to hit a bunch of taters if you're hitting line drive gappers, with runners that get good reads off the bat. why are the cards -year after year- in the top 5 of nl teams in sacrifices? why do they draw so many intentional walks?

carlos beltran? the cards miss beltran like they miss having shingles. he's the perfect example of why the cards are a successful organization. letting him go was an excellent organizational move. he was becoming a defensive liability in right field. he very rapidly became antiquated in the senior circuit. david freese was clutch, but i would take carpenter over him everyday and twice on sunday. (btw, as a long time fan, i real want double-headers back.we deserve it. we've put up with enough bull$hit.) the cardinals needed to make the moves, they made the moves, and the transitions were near seamless. i believe they call that organizational continuity. it's hard to argue with such sustained success. in the end, the only number that really matters is w's, and the cards have the most in the national league since 2000. they didn't skip a beat when they lost larussa, pujols, jocketty, mcgwire, edmonds, rolan, eckstein, freese, carpenter, wainwright, beltran, etc etc etc.

it's not just a money thing. the reds and cards total payrolls for 2015 are about the same. 122 - 123 million. seems like the cards spend it more efficiently. cards have no dead $. reds have 7 million in dead $. some say the reds have to structure contracts like that. i say that's a load of shit. when you're paying for nothing, you get nothing. it's a 'lose - lose' anyway you want to cut it. bad executive management that any one of us, in our respective disciplines, would have been fired for long ago. writing this sucks. i think i'll stop now.

 

[JohnU]

I don't know if I can say that the Cardinals have zero dead dollars ... but they don't seem to have much of that on the field.

Looking back at the season, the Reds bullpen disaster for April-May is probably a 5- or 6-game turnaround in the record. That doesn't get you in first place but it gets you in the conversation for contention. 2nd place is useful in early July.

Yeah yeah yeah ... for every game you kick away, you get a gift in return. Actually, if you plan to be in a pennant race, you don't.

Reds knew on O.D. that two and possibly three of their relievers were duds, and at least one starter was useless, another was a rookie and one of them had been on the shelf all winter. The other two are free agents.

They knew Byrd, Bruce, Hamilton, and their replacements would strike out 540 times.

We all knew they knew that. The experts even knew it. I suppose the questions I have are, if everyone knew it and it didn't get fixed, why did it not get fixed? The answers are probably complicated because not every team was able to upgrade at every position.

And if you look at MLB, only a couple of teams are exceeding the norm. Those 5 or 6 games the Reds pen choked up are really the problem. How anybody couldn't see that coming is a mystery to me.

I do get it about the so-called "high leverage" pitching ... as if throwing 100 pitches out of a windup is the same as those off a stretch to a bunch of .218 hitters who are skilled at fouling off 8 pitches against guys who don't have a putaway pitch.

Lineup churn is really underrated. When the 5-6-7 guys don't reach, the lineup doesn't get back to Votto.

Cincy just doesn't hit very well.

Now the defense is beginning to turn sour.

When Cueto gets that really sore elbow, it's like trading your 50-ruble czar's gold piece for a bottle of vodka (which my ex-wife's uncle actually did!)

 

[Redsfan1507]

The Reds organization isn't a well oiled machine. I think the Castillini family has done plenty, but the people running the organization are showing their failings right now. It's not a complete failure, but there is lots of fixing to do. The Reds need a better farm system, and the good sense to know when and how to use it. They have to just say no sometimes to players that can't be afforded or carry the team by themselves. The Cardinals have income, but they can spend better because they typically have more valid options from within. It takes time, but it also takes vision I'm not sure is 20:20 right now. The tough part is keeping afloat financially while they rebuild.