Current State of Reds and Beyond

[Hit-n-Run]

I'm not sold on Dick Williams. He's good with the press and fans in live furums, but as much as he talks about change, he generally circles back to defend the old guards past practice. Whether that's out of loyalty and respect or it's going to be business as usual, it's too early to tell.

I'd imagine most fans would agree the Reds are at least a few years away from seriously contending. With that in mind, the current 25 man roster is probably 80% irrelevant to the future success of the team. Some will be traded to acquire additional prospects and a few will be here 5-6 years down the road, while others will simply have their team control/contracts expire or be released due to non-performance. It's difficult to accurately predict who will be tomorrow's Reds' stars and it's impossible to predict the roster personnel beyond that 5-6 year window. But I think the speculation makes for interesting discussion.

There are pieces in place that at least suggest there's a method to the madness.

 

[Redsfan1507]

I don't know...sometimes I think the "strategy" is to add as many prospects as possible, throw them all against the wall and hope some stick. What complicates what we see on the big club, are those pesky MLB contracts. Votto and Bailey are longest, but Phillips, Bruce and Mesoraco have contracts that may make them inconvenient for the Reds to pay, and other teams to take- unless better performance from them comes into view for longer than a few weeks.

"Prospects" are no sure thing- ratings fluctuate on them all the time. The higher level they go, the more weaknesses are exposed, as are their ability to adjust and overcome. They get injured. They get blocked by MLB or higher ranked prospects. They run out of options.

Sometimes, scouts are right...Todd Frazier never impressed anyone as a minor league infielder, and really only hit for power occasionally. He did develop into a pretty solid all around player though. Sometimes they blow it. On one hand, the Reds do seen to get lots of guys to MLB...on the other, many dont seem to be that great when they arrive though. This year may not be a good judge, because the Reds have so many holes...if an established team has 2 open opportunities, better chance of filling them both successfully, than filling 12 holes successfully at the same time. I don't think any organization could do that.

 

[Redsfan1507]

Besides, if the Reds could plan 3-4-5 years ahead, would they have lost an entire starting rotation to free agency at once ? They planned on Chapman to start, and never did. They signed MLB reclamation projects for years to play LF, the easiest OF spot to fill from within, I would guess. They went from Larkin to Cozart (assuming he will stick-literally and figuratively) without a real SS. That's a long time.

So, a fresh perspective is welcome, IMO.

 

[eburg5000]

I think they will trade Bruce. Maybe Phillips if he would except a trade. and maybe a catcher. I like Barnhart, but he is tradable, Mesoraco is to.
The other side to this is. Fans come to the ball park to see stars. So IMO they need to hold on to more than Votto

 

[JohnU]

I can buy into this thread.
So far, I see three guys who I like -- Suarez, Barnhart and Duvall. Sustainable contracts for 3 or 4 years. All have upside, none will be overly expensive.

The issue is whether the guys you have are as good as the guys you don't have, or haven't found yet. It's easy to just say, 'let's draft better' and hope that answers all the questions. We all know the fluidity of baseball contracts makes that a conversation best served with a bottle of your favorite whiskey. Who the hell knows which guy is going to be league average or better in 3 years?

We keep pretending that the teams currently in contention have somehow turned over a rock and found the diamond. Pittsburgh and KC were the worst teams in baseball for half my lifetime. They had BETTER have found some talent after 3 decades.

Cincy has 6 or 7 potentially good MLB pitchers, two or three of whom will end up looking good in a couple of years. I see Lorenzen becoming the closer, and soon. The rest of the bullpen will be jettisoned after these young guys get healthy enough to showcase. Are they going to win? Maybe not.

What continues to bug me is this incessant rant about how the Reds don't use the metrics properly. If I could evaluate the "metrics" of anything, I'd say ... sign guys who look like they can play baseball and expect them to do that.

In 2017, the Reds can probably count on five position players. I think Winker will get a shot at right field. Peraza could play 2B and after that ... this could become a consistent team. Consistent teams occasionally get the acorn, not unlike the blind squirrel. You don't win it all very often.

For the moment, I think the problem is still in the dugout.

 

[Redsfan1507]

The problem with most "metrics", is they help fantasy owners a lot more than real ones. I don't need a spreadsheet to tell me BP doesn't walk, but is a good 2 strike hitter. I also don't need one to tell me Billy Hamilton hits too many balls in the air. I get .290/.200 L/R splits beg for a platoon, and Matt Carpenter swings at fewer pitches than anyone else. I get the shift, but it doesn't prevent Matt Adams from making you look bad employing it.

I want a metric to tell me how to fix something, other than getting someone with a better WAR.

 

[JohnU]

Alleging that every team has essentially the same tools in place and all are looking at the same players, what separates the ones who sign a guy from the ones that don't? Money? Immediate need? Long-term need?

From that list, money is a finite topic. You either invest in a player or you don't.
Immediate needs are easier to define, but signing a 20-year-old pitcher who isn't going to be ready for 2 years doesn't seem to address that topic.
Long-range needs depend on knowing the future. You hire a manager and 2 years later, you fire the guy. The whole project is modified.

Of the 30 MLB franchises, only so many can get the pick of the litter each year. You also have to have organizational depth. You draft 40 guys, sign half of them and send them all to the minors. What happens after that has almost nothing to do with metrics.

Farm systems don't win pennants. What wins is getting a Joey Votto from the farm system every couple of years and hoping a few guys fill in around him.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

Looking at metrics as someone outside of the MLB, I imagine the data and it's usefulness to be applicable in two different forms. Teams may be using it in a totally different manner than I imagine, but here's my two cents worth.

Managers can benefit from spreadsheet data in determining matchups by referencing hitter tendency charts and splits, etc. etc. This form of data gives the manager the option to make informed decisions, but doesn't guarantee results.

GM's and scouts can use proprietary software to narrow the field when searching for potential talent scattered across the landscape. The numbers are daunting when you stop and think there are nearly 500,000 kids playing High School and College baseball in this country alone. Only 1 in 200 High School Seniors are even drafted.

I don't think teams are using the metrics to project a prospects ability to perform at the MLB level, that's where the scouts come into play. All the number crunching gives the scouting department a manageable number of prospects that match the team's profile preference.

All the teams have the availability of unphatomable amounts of statistics. A team's proprietary software most likely breaks down the stats based on the code of the program using a weighted system to find players that match each team's specific preference.

Depending on a team's skill set preference and how the data is weighted, every team doesn't value each player the same.

 

[eburg5000]

I like the way baseball run and played 50 years ago. Throw the ball, hit the ball, catch the ball, No DH, No pitch count, No sliding or blocking the plate rules. No f-ing replays. No lights in Chicago, I might as well piss all the players off to and say No free agency. Don't get me wrong I understand metrics a little, and can see why they use it. I just like old fashion hardball baseball. I don't like change. And there has been a bunch of it in baseball

 

[Hit-n-Run]

Can't say I disagree with you Eburg.

I miss the cigar smell at the ballpark. Not a smoker, just seemed like part of the experience..... that and old man Jim Shelton's roasted peanuts. If you remember Jim, there's one of his carts at Arnold's on 8th Street. Arnold's is the oldest bar and grill downtown, I'd recommend it if you're taking in the sights.

 

[JohnU]

For all that advanced metrics has accomplished, it's created a society of geeks who wouldn't go near a cigar or a salted peanut. It hasn't improved the game an iota other than establish a new set of obstacles. We'd be better off with the spitball. Hitting is worse now, pitchers are a 70-30 risk of having elbow surgery and there are more pitchers in the bullpen than ever before -- and half of them pitch about 7 innings a month.

If it wasn't for PEDs, we'd have almost nothing to compare the game to now.

 

[Redsfan1507]

I think us old geezers hate change because changes always seem to take a more expensive shortcut to easier entitlement for those we don't believe deserve it, and they still expect us old stupid people to pick up the check.

 

[JohnU]

What gets at me after all this time is that I just want to go to the ballpark and watch the game. I don't need the nachos or the noise. There should be a section for us, at ticket prices that reflect it. A buck for a program and just tell me where I can find the pisser. Otherwise, I'm good to go. I find it amusing that the new metrics geeks are so down on the RBI as a stat. I would love to go to a game and ask one of them what a hitter's WRC+ is ... I'm sure they'd have to get their iPad out. Me? I just look up at the scoreboard and see that the guy has 32 RBI.

 

[Redsfan1507]

I heard an old guy once describe two kinds of changes. He had a beautiful old Antebellum style home- restored with modern electric lighting and appliances to make life easier, but restored the old brick and stone fireplaces, marble windowsills. The hardwood floors and woodwork, he finished himself with great pride. It took him over 2 years from start to finish.

Those were changes he felt honored the homes heritage. He left the outside as a project for his 25 year old grandson, a recent graduate of a $250,000 education paid by grandpa.

The kid had the home covered in vinyl siding that weekend.

 

[JohnU]

How about a little mindbending trade talk?

If the Reds were to package Jay Bruce and Dan Straily, which might not be a bad deal, who do they want in return? Clearly, there are names and there are just "names." Where do the Reds need depth that can help the team in 2 years? Infield defense, probably. Maybe catching depth. For the moment, do they need pitching? Can't get too much of that.

Would need to replace Bruce with Winker or Schebler. Is DuVall a keeper? (I think he's a .270/30/90 guy.)

Third base is tough to fix.

 

[chico ruiz]

it's fascinating and frustrating reading some of the threads on this board sometimes. i'm referring to the overall mlb forums, not just the reds pages. 'metrics' seems to discombobulate many posters. it's nebulous & varied statistical applications by non-purposeful design. it's a ongoing search and experimental process to help clubs in a myriad of ways. but, it remains the dialectic formed by people, and resulting implementation, that determines the success of each experiment. because, at it's core, that's exactly what it is. a trial. a test. an evaluation. distilled further; it is simply the process of conducting research. ironically, in some applications, players occasionally simply need a placebo. you can have all the data in the world, but if it's read wrong it is useless. what 'metrics' are increasingly revealing is, the game hasn't really changed very much. h-n-r's post #8 on this thread is a fair overview and emphasizes the importance of judicious effective reading and team proprietary utilization.

joe maddon is a manager that gets directly involved with research. but, more importantly, he came from the al east and was obliged to seek any little advantage he could muster in tampa. the second half of this interview with manager price illustrates my point perfectly:
Price on loss to Cubs

 

[eburg5000]

Hoover is in "a little" down spot?

 

[Redsfan1507]

Hoover is in "a little" down spot?

lol...You don't want to ruin his confidence... or his feelings, by saying he SUCKS, do you ?

I been on and coached and managed winners, and losers. Although talent was 98 % of the REASON for winning and losing ... there were LOTS of similarities- managers of BOTH were ASS-HOLES when you lost and looked bad doing it. Not friendly at all...and not too tolerant of laughter, loud music or even smiles if they were obvious.

The differences were also apparent. Winners don't suffer repeated failures too long, losers do. ( Good) Winning managers keep the work ethic bar high, but don't notice too much as long as performance meets expectations.

(Bad) Losers either talk tough and live with increasing lower expectations, or try to be sympathetic and get ran over. Both these scenarios are called "losing the team". That really means players obviously don't give a shit, and no one can or will, do anything about it. It is a different scenario than a (good) manager of a losing team that has players at 3 hour practice every day, work and play hard fundamentals, and they just get out-talented every game. If he has the backing of the front office to ship out a few lackadaisical cancers, good managers can lose without "losing the team".

It is clear Bryan Price is a losing manager, but not sure if he is a good manager or bad one yet. Great talent, and poor talent, both often hide which a manager truly is.

 

[JohnU]

I can simplify what is wrong with the Reds. There is no metric necessary.

It is known as the base on balls.

 

[Redsfan1507]

In manufacturing, root cause analysis often follows the 5 WHY reasoning.
1. Why do the Reds lose ? Because they score less than they give up.
2. Why ? They have substandard pitching.
3. Why is pitching substandard ? They walk too many hitters.
4. Why ? Because they have lousy control.
5.Why ? Because they aren't very good.

Maybe 5 isn't enough..

6. Why aren't Reds pitchers good ? They can't afford good pitchers.
7. Why not ? Because 5 players ( only 1 is a pitcher and he's hurt) make 80% of the payroll budget.
8. Why ? Because the Reds front office isn't that good either.

Deduction: root cause of Reds losing isn't pitchers control, it is front office control.