By the numbers 20% in...

[Redsfan1507]

Only 20% of the season in... Here are the numbers:
18-15 .548 PCT
3rd-NLC, 5th- NL

R-2nd
HR-9th
BAV-8th
OBP-3rd
SB-14th
K-2nd most
BB-1st
LOB-1st ( most in NL)

Pitching- 3rd in ERA and QS, most K's and 3rd fewest walks. Opponent BA is 4th lowest.

Defense-5th in FLDPCT and 5th lowest E
13th in DP though.

 

[Redsfan1507]

I didn't include RISP, because it doesn't consider how many outs, and the MLB BA with 2 outs is about .200...IMO, making a valuable stat deceptively insignificant. I'd like to know what percentage of Reds RISP " opportunities" were with 0,1&2 outs. Might also be valuable to know how many of those LOB were leadoff base runners and how many we're 2 out base runners.

As one that makes lots of snide comments about Dusty not knowing how to make a left turn w/o a HR, this team had scored without the HR quite a bit. The LOB rate and W-L suggests my point though, they aren't doing it enough to win more.

I think there are a lot more clues in those metrics as to what's wrong with the offense that belies being 2nd in runs. They don't give W's for that, they give them for scoring more than your opponent each game.

 

[JohnU]

RISP is overrated but it's a favorite broadcasters' stat, which is about as far off the metrics line as most of them are willing to go. At least some of them are talking about OBP now and they're stuck on quality starts. RISP is an opportunity, not a statistic.

RISP is useless part of the time ... if a guy hits a 2-run homer and the runner ahead of him is on 1st base ... yeah, you get the point.

More important to me is actual results. In the 9th, 2 on, 1 out, the two top hitters on deck, Cozart swings at the first pitch and poops it up. Yeah, it's an out, a specific kind of out and all that, but the 3 runs Ondrusek gave up on groover balls kinda makes all that discussion irrelevant.

Games are won in the first inning -- 83 percent of teams that score first are winners. So the Reds go up and down without a whimper in the first three innings.

 

[Cincy the Red]

Good stuff. Appreciate the statistical update Redsfan1507!

 

[Redsfan1507]

I'm a fan of scoring early too. A .190 #2 hitter makes that tougher than it has to be. Glad to see Cozart hitting last night. If he's going to stay in that spot, I'd prefer he hit something.

 

[chico ruiz]

this is a good post. i'm surprised there weren't more follow-ups. some are nebulous and used more by scott boras in contract negotiations than managerial clipboards. the numbers reveal weaknesses, as 1507 points out, when you cross-reference them. the k's and lob's are glaring. and the lack of 2 out base hits, which dusty himself has commented on -saying, we'll starting get those batted balls to fall more often. i'm not sure, but it seems reasonable to believe, if ludwick was in the line-up @ #4 -just being average- the reds would have a couple more wins. i thought cozart would develop into a better hitter, in terms of use of all fields, and circumstantial handling of the bat. he hasn't yet. his hitting charts are more revealing than numbers. he's had 1 hit to right field. maybe 2 for the entire year. pitchers have no problem coming after him. with strikes. he may very well get better, but as of now, he's grotesquely misplaced in the 2 hole.

 

[Redsfan1507]

I said early on, based on what I see in the talent, and the dugout philosophy the #2 spot would be critical to, as JohnU calls it, offensive "churn". It's why I believed Phillips might prefer the more stat worthy 4 spot, but the Reds would have produced better with him in the 2 spot. I still believe it, wether it's Ludwick, Bruce, Frazier or even Lutz in the 4 spot. I'd try to put frequent runners in scoring position with LESS than 2 outs, and make the 4 hole a more frequent sac fly execution spot, instead of requiring more 2 out hits, just because of the odds of success.

 

[Redsfan1507]

... And IMO, as with Stubbs, Cozart is trying to respond with what this offensive philosophy says between the lines; hit more homers. It's condusive to far more strikeouts and popups than the homers it produces.

 

[chico ruiz]

right. it's not just the reds. i saw a interview with harold reynolds a couple of weeks ago, and they were talking about this very thing. what are young hitters being taught in the lower leagues? it is frustrating as a fan watching these guys take so many pitches. mlb seems to be in a bizarre transition stage. it's like they don't know what to be or who they are. to some degree, more concerned with what they think the younger fan base might want to see. i can tell them. it's baseball. and you're right 1507 about more k's & pop-ups. taking that to it's logical conclusion: it's a potential big-inning killer virtually every time.

 

[Redsfan1507]

Ask fans what they want to see from players,and they'll say done form of "drama".. homers, diving catches, strikeouts. What they REALLY want, is for their team to win. I think there is a century of sample size telling us how to win, I'd concentrate on that, and leave the drama up to chance. It seems to be working the other way, and MLB might be happier with that, because large markets can pay more for drama and stil win. I think the are lessons to the contrary out there, predominantly in smaller markets where common sense has to work harder than healthier checkbooks.

 

[chico ruiz]

that's precisely the question. but, what demographic wants to see that specific drama? and we could get into a unending social & cultural discussion about why. the first game i saw and remember vividly was on june 7, 1967. 19 year old gary nolan v. juan marichal. nolan k'd willie mays 4 times. it was the pitcher's game. this was before nolan's arm problems. he had a very good fastball. anyway, in the later innings he left one over the plate that mccovey skied toward i-75. reds eventually lost. not a lot of offense. i wonder how many younger fans would appreciate a game like that and have the attention span (lack of immediate gratification) to stay past the 5th inning, if that? more recently, i was watching mike mussina pitch a absolutely masterful game. 2007 or 08. you guys would have loved it. one of those games where he just had everything working. it seemed like 6 or 7 different pitches. ungodly breaking stuff. a knuckle-curve (actually, i'm not sure what it was) that was starting in then going out. he pitched all nine innings. it was a indescribable treat for a baseball fan. at least, that's what i thought. over half the crowd had exited before 'god bless america.'

 

[JohnU]

This team looks every bit like an 84-win team and I will be surprised if we aren't 6-7 games behind St. Louis by the All-Star break.

Sorry for being negative about that, but I have seen zero reason to be optimistic that this team can suddenly start getting lucky.

St. Louis is lucky and they harvest it. They won on Wednesday on a 2-out blooper by Molina, who went to second on a wild pitch and scored on a single up the middle.

In the bottom, the Cubs had man on 1st, and a bunt for a hit. Carpenter threw the ball away at first base -- 2nd and 3rd, none out. Right? Wrong. Borbon was called out for running inside the line. Runner goes back to first base, batter is out ... they didn't even get a sniff after that. Bad baseball? Sure, but guess who capitalized on it? Yeah, our friends the Cardinals. I watch St. Louis play. They score runs early and they put the foot to the throat. The Reds are lucky to get a baserunner by the fourth inning.

The Reds are lucky to win one game a month like that and so far, other than the comeback on Tuesday, I see ZERO evidence Dusty and his minions can effect that sort of miracle. Not once, or twice, clearly not over a 21-game stretch, where they are happy to finish .500 on a road trip.

Second place, tops, this year.

 

[Redsfan1507]

Good teams make mistakes occasionally, and USUALLY take advantage of the oppositions mistakes.
Bad teams are opposite. Mediocre teams are a coin toss... that's my opinion of luck... much luck is what you made for yourself. Ted Williams said in response to how much luck contributes to a .400 season, "The harder I work, the luckier I get".

Coincidence is a coin toss coming up heads. Predictability is saying its going to happen every other toss, on average. This team seems to struggle more accomplishing even simple execution, every other year. Coincidence or predictability ? I guess it depends on your perspective... and maybe, their motivation.

 

[Redsfan1507]

...I also don't like hearing Reds saying that the goal is to play .500 and wait to get hot and make a move. Dusty is a prescriber to this excuse making underperformance sound like a game plan. It goes opposite to winning philosophy... Winning in the longest season in sports, isn't luck, it's execution... Of the TEAM as a whole... and I don't think that is as easy to accomplish just winging it and leaving it all up to other teams going in a slump, or players getting hot. Sometimes, you gotta GRIND... SIMPLIFY... eliminate variables and work the equasion...work harder and think smaller, smarter and win AT BATS. You don't do that waiting. You do that working.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

I personally don't care for Dusty's managing style and see it as a flawed concept. But either ownership or the GM or both must be on the same page or they wouldn't have hired him. He was a known commodity when they brought him in.

From an offensive philosophy are we to assume the organization has a flawed concept? I hate to think so, but I'm starting to wonder.

If you look a little deeper, the problems may begin with Terry Reynolds and Chris Buckley. Those would be the two most responsible for scouting and player development along with Jocketty in recent years.

 

[Redsfan1507]

I think the Reds have scouted well..look at 2005- over a dozen MLB players the Reds drafted, and that's tough to improve. They've done pretty well since, too. On the development side, I'm really pessimistic. I don't think the Reds have done nearly enough there. I don't care for Dusty's style only because I think it's too singular, easy to defend, and because his offensive philosophy relies so heavily on HR and 2 out hits, by definition isn't likely to be consistent.

The good news is, I think the Reds only have to tweak to be a lot better. The bad news is, Dusty is very reluctant to change much, and has absolutely terrible timing trying to manufacture runs. It's a matter of perspective- no one would be picking on Dusty if the Reds players were hitting better, would they ?

 

[JohnU]

The hitting philosophy, right, wrong or experimental, has nonetheless shown similar results routinely to the point of it being an obvious trend.

Other teams play the Reds that way because they know the strategy is the same, regardless. Lefties own this offense and soft-tossers who go for a strike on the first pitch are going to get low-hit, low-pitch, low-stress outings.

I'd like to be able to say that this will turn around when the weather heats up, as the drone-bait, homer-paid TV announcers are wont to spew out, but there is almost no evidence that this team has made an inch of progress since 2010.

I also weary of saying Votto is going to be OK, so not to worry. Votto appears lost at the plate this year and he's back to doing what he did before Choo came in -- hitting with 2 outs and nobody on, even with the guy who has the highest OBP in the world.

After the 4 spot, this team is lucky to get 2 baserunners. They can't bunt, they don't know how to steal and they are clearly confused at third base -- if they ever get to third base.

Honestly, I'd like to be able to say that this is a good ballclub. In truth, it is NOT a good ballclub. There is a lot of talent on this team. That and a buck, I can get change for a dollar.

 

[WvuDieHard]

Dusty manages to obscurity. Dont try to do too much to get the blame and never blame the players. His PR skills are unbelievable.

If you notice around the league, strikeouts are up. I saw a statistic that showed strikeouts up year over year for the last 10 years. So what does that tell us? Are we micro analyzing the Reds or is baseball becoming more like the Reds in terms of inconsistent hitting?

 

[JohnU]

Strikeouts are up for a couple of reasons. The main one is that the pitchers are all learning to throw cutters and splitters. The hitters are basically screwed.

Because of the other reason: Umps are calling a computer strike zone now and they are being graded against it. That strike zone does not give the hitter the high pitch and the high pitch is all but impossible for most guys to hit. They just can't get the bat around quickly enough. I've seen strikes called on pitches up in the guy's armpits. How in f*** is that hittable? Umps know this but the grading isn't up to them. The objective is to meet techno criteria and take the subjective game calling out of the umps' hands. That's good as far as it goes.

So if a pitcher can come in with a high fastball and get a strike, then the hitter has one chance to see something he can handle. If it's close, he takes. It's a strike. After that, the splitter does the rest.

The Reds pitchers are getting 12 or so K's a game and that's almost unheard-of.

That aside, you have to play the game better than the other guy does. Our pitchers have been good enough. If a coaching staff isn't on this problem, they are waiting around for somebody else to fix it.

Guess what? Ain't nobody gonna do that.

 

[Redsfan1507]

All of the above, and more. There are fewer PEDs and more hard throwers. That may show up in worse offense, fewer homers and more injured pitchers than "normal" over the last 2 decades. There are fewer managers that manage well. Coaches prioritize small park plate philosophy, leading to more K's, worse situational hitting and baserunning.

Smaller parks, lighter bats, the DH, lower mounds, eliminating the fake pickoff move, are all geared toward aiding hitters...but can't make up for what PEDS gave them. People are trying to do what they saw MLB doing for 20 years, and they're whiffing... and falling short. Go figure.