36 times

[BluegrassRedleg]

This team has scored 2 runs or less through 108 games, exactly one out of every three times it takes the field.

22 times 1 run or a shutout.

It's hard to believe we actually had a debate earlier this season about whether the offense was subpar. Clearly, it has proven to be. Reds are down to 12th in MLB runs scored now and 13th in team OPS.

Help us, Walt.

[jojo]

This team has scored 2 runs or less through 108 games, exactly one out of every three times it takes the field.

22 times 1 run or a shutout.

It's hard to believe we actually had a debate earlier this season about whether the offense was subpar. Clearly, it has proven to be. Reds are down to 12th in MLB runs scored now and 13th in team OPS.

Help us, Walt.

Wouldn't that still make their offense above average?

[BluegrassRedleg]

Sure, if your idea of good company going into the season was teams like the Dbacks, Padres, Mets and Mariners.

The Above Average pennant will look great at GABP.

[edabbs44]

This team has scored 2 runs or less through 108 games, exactly one out of every three times it takes the field.

22 times 1 run or a shutout.

It's hard to believe we actually had a debate earlier this season about whether the offense was subpar. Clearly, it has proven to be. Reds are down to 12th in MLB runs scored now and 13th in team OPS.

Help us, Walt.

4th in the NL. Comparing offense team stats to AP teams is unfair.

[Red in Chicago]

they were 2nd in runs scored, then 3rd in runs scored, now 4th in runs scored...

[Raisor]

As the Reds don't play inter-team games, don't we have to compare the Reds against the other teams in the division and the league?

[improbus]

Hopefully this posts well...


≥2 ≥1 Wins w/ ≥2 Winning Percentage in those games
Pirates 38 23 9 0.236842105
Dodgers 35 16 8 0.228571429
Padres 44 21 9 0.204545455
Braves 32 19 6 0.1875
Brewers 35 22 6 0.171428571
Marlins 53 30 9 0.169811321
Giants 42 26 7 0.166666667
Reds 36 21 6 0.166666667
Dbacks 33 20 5 0.151515152
Mets 33 16 5 0.151515152
Rockies 38 20 5 0.131578947
Cards 31 14 4 0.129032258
Cubs 32 14 4 0.125
Nats 49 29 6 0.12244898
Phills 34 19 3 0.088235294
Avg. 37.7 20.7 6.13 0.163

[improbus]

Hopefully this posts well...

2 or less 1 or less Wins w/ 2 or less runs Winning Percentage when scoring 2 or less
Pirates 38 23 9 0.236
Dodgers 35 16 8 0.228
Padres 44 21 9 0.204
Braves 32 19 6 0.187
Brewers 35 22 6 0.171
Marlins 53 30 9 0.169
Giants 42 26 7 0.166
Reds 36 21 6 0.166
Dbacks 33 20 5 0.151
Mets 33 16 5 0.151
Rockies 38 20 5 0.131
Cardinals 31 14 4 0.129
Cubs 32 14 4 0.125
Nats 49 29 6 0.122
Phillies 34 19 3 0.088
It didn't...

[Always Red]

they were 2nd in runs scored, then 3rd in runs scored, now 4th in runs scored...

I agree, there's no denying this trend.

This team is squandering some great pitching right now.

Bone headed baserunning like Cozart's gaffe last night are maddening to me in an era of baseball where every run seemingly counts more, as less are scored.

[texasdave]

Pirates 38 23 9 .236
Dodgers 35 16 8 .228
Padres 44 21 9 .204
Braves 32 19 6 .187
Brewers 35 22 6 .171
Marlins 53 30 9 .169
Giants 42 26 7 .166
Reds 36 21 6 .166
Dbacks 33 20 5 .151
Mets 33 16 5 .151
Rockies 38 20 5 .131
Cards 31 14 4 .129
Cubs 32 14 4 .125
Nats 49 29 6 .122
Phils 34 19 3 .088

First column = Two runs or less.
Second column = One run or less.
Third column = Wins when scoring two runs or less.
Fourth column = Winning percentage when scoring two runs or less.

[improbus]

Pirates 38 23 9 .236
Dodgers 35 16 8 .228
Padres 44 21 9 .204
Braves 32 19 6 .187
Brewers 35 22 6 .171
Marlins 53 30 9 .169
Giants 42 26 7 .166
Reds 36 21 6 .166
Dbacks 33 20 5 .151
Mets 33 16 5 .151
Rockies 38 20 5 .131
Cards 31 14 4 .129
Cubs 32 14 4 .125
Nats 49 29 6 .122
Phils 34 19 3 .088

First column = Two runs or less.
Second column = One run or less.
Third column = Wins when scoring two runs or less.
Fourth column = Winning percentage when scoring two runs or less.

Thanks, I think I fixed it. Nothing like a little trial and error.

[improbus]

Hopefully this posts well...


≥2 ≥1 Wins w/ ≥2 Winning Percentage in those games
Pirates 38 23 9 0.236842105
Dodgers 35 16 8 0.228571429
Padres 44 21 9 0.204545455
Braves 32 19 6 0.1875
Brewers 35 22 6 0.171428571
Marlins 53 30 9 0.169811321
Giants 42 26 7 0.166666667
Reds 36 21 6 0.166666667
Dbacks 33 20 5 0.151515152
Mets 33 16 5 0.151515152
Rockies 38 20 5 0.131578947
Cards 31 14 4 0.129032258
Cubs 32 14 4 0.125
Nats 49 29 6 0.12244898
Phills 34 19 3 0.088235294
Avg. 37.7 20.7 6.13 0.163


I am so glad I'm not a Nats fan. Their fans SHOULD be writing this thread.

[Hoosier Red]

I am so glad I'm not a Nats fan. Their fans SHOULD be writing this thread.

I think you have the signs backward. Runs are less than 2. SO 2>=Runs or Runs <=2.

[jojo]

Sure, if your idea of good company going into the season was teams like the Dbacks, Padres, Mets and Mariners.

The Above Average pennant will look great at GABP.

Any comparison needs a valid baseline. I don't really see a baseline in the OP.

[RedsManRick]

This team has scored 2 runs or less through 108 games, exactly one out of every three times it takes the field.

22 times 1 run or a shutout.

It's hard to believe we actually had a debate earlier this season about whether the offense was subpar. Clearly, it has proven to be. Reds are down to 12th in MLB runs scored now and 13th in team OPS.

Help us, Walt.

And how does that rate of low scoring games compare to other teams? In general? Other teams that score as much as we do in aggregate?

Sorry, but without context, stuff like this is sort of pointless.

Form B-R: http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/inning_summary.cgi?year=2013&team_id=NL&submitter=1

- The Reds have low scoring games less than the average NL team
- The Reds win approximately the same amount their low scoring games as the average NL team



% of Games Win%
Runs Reds NL Reds NL
0 7% 7% 0% 0%
1 12% 13% 15% 9%
2 14% 16% 27% 29%
3 10% 14% 36% 42%
4 16% 12% 65% 54%
5 15% 11% 75% 72%
6 8% 9% 89% 78%
7 4% 6% 75% 84%
8 4% 4% 100% 84%
9 1% 3% 100% 91%
10 2% 3% 100% 100%
11 3% 1% 100% 100%
12 1% 1% 100% 100%
13 3% 1% 100% 100%
14 0% 0% - 100%
15 1% 0% 100% 100%
16 0% 0% - 100%

Don't get me wrong, 5 runs in 5 games is horrible. But I just don't know what people expect Walt to do. Right now the offense has 2 studs (Votto, Choo), 1 above average guy (Bruce), 2 average guys (Frazier, LF), 2 below average guys (Phillips, Rocco) and 1 black hole of suck (Cozart). With the talent spread like that, you're bound to have some pretty ugly streaks.

Adding Hunter Pence isn't to fix Cozart or Phillips. The trade options that out there simply don't address our glaring weaknesses. Troy Tulowitski isn't walking through that door.

[Raisor]

Rick, you've just ruined the narrative that the Reds are an inconsistent run scoring team versus the league!

Quick reboot!

[Ironman92]

And how does that rate of low scoring games compare to other teams? In general? Other teams that score as much as we do in aggregate?

Sorry, but without context, stuff like this is sort of pointless.

Form B-R: http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/inning_summary.cgi?year=2013&team_id=NL&submitter=1

- The Reds have low scoring games less than the average NL team
- The Reds win approximately the same amount their low scoring games as the average NL team



% of GamesWin%
RunsRedsNLRedsNL
07%7%0%0%
112%13%15%9%
214%16%27%29%
310%14%36%42%
416%12%65%54%
515%11%75%72%
68%9%89%78%
74%6%75%84%
84%4%100%84%
91%3%100%91%
102%3%100%100%
113%1%100%100%
121%1%100%100%
133%1%100%100%
140%0%-100%
151%0%100%100%
160%0%-100%

Don't get me wrong, 5 runs in 5 games is horrible. But I just don't know what people expect Walt to do. Right now the offense has 2 studs (Votto, Choo), 1 above average guy (Bruce), 2 average guys (Frazier, LF), 2 below average guys (Phillips, Rocco) and 1 black hole of suck (Cozart). With the talent spread like that, you're bound to have some pretty ugly streaks.

Adding Hunter Pence isn't to fix Cozart or Phillips. The trade options that out there simply don't address our glaring weaknesses. Troy Tulowitski isn't walking through that door.

I wouldn't mind if he jogged through it.

[westofyou]

Dear Baseball Fans

The game changes right before your eyes, what you think is normal is not, what you think is strange and rare is not, what you think you think you know about baseball trends you most likely overestimate, what you think you know about other teams trends besides the one you focus on is probably very little.

Signed a guy who played on a Little League team named The Senators

[DaytonFlyer]

I'd rather go through a streak like this now than in October. Maybe once Ludwick comes back, things start to fix themselves.

I doubt it, but it could happen.

[Ironman92]

Ludwick was productive last year....but I'm a little concerned that the 35 year old with 805 career hits, coming off an injury won't be much help.

[BluegrassRedleg]

Any comparison needs a valid baseline. I don't really see a baseline in the OP.

If you don't, you're not watching every third game.

[Raisor]

And how does that rate of low scoring games compare to other teams? In general? Other teams that score as much as we do in aggregate?

Sorry, but without context, stuff like this is sort of pointless.

Form B-R: http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/inning_summary.cgi?year=2013&team_id=NL&submitter=1

- The Reds have low scoring games less than the average NL team
- The Reds win approximately the same amount their low scoring games as the average NL team



% of Games Win%
Runs Reds NL Reds NL
0 7% 7% 0% 0%
1 12% 13% 15% 9%
2 14% 16% 27% 29%
3 10% 14% 36% 42%
4 16% 12% 65% 54%
5 15% 11% 75% 72%
6 8% 9% 89% 78%
7 4% 6% 75% 84%
8 4% 4% 100% 84%
9 1% 3% 100% 91%
10 2% 3% 100% 100%
11 3% 1% 100% 100%
12 1% 1% 100% 100%
13 3% 1% 100% 100%
14 0% 0% - 100%
15 1% 0% 100% 100%
16 0% 0% - 100%

Don't get me wrong, 5 runs in 5 games is horrible. But I just don't know what people expect Walt to do. Right now the offense has 2 studs (Votto, Choo), 1 above average guy (Bruce), 2 average guys (Frazier, LF), 2 below average guys (Phillips, Rocco) and 1 black hole of suck (Cozart). With the talent spread like that, you're bound to have some pretty ugly streaks.

Adding Hunter Pence isn't to fix Cozart or Phillips. The trade options that out there simply don't address our glaring weaknesses. Troy Tulowitski isn't walking through that door.


Just did some looking:
The Reds score four or more runs 58% of the time. The NL average (which includes the Reds 58%) is 50%

Interesting

[BluegrassRedleg]

And how does that rate of low scoring games compare to other teams? In general? Other teams that score as much as we do in aggregate?

Sorry, but without context, stuff like this is sort of pointless.

Form B-R: http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/inning_summary.cgi?year=2013&team_id=NL&submitter=1

- The Reds have low scoring games less than the average NL team
- The Reds win approximately the same amount their low scoring games as the average NL team



% of GamesWin%
RunsRedsNLRedsNL
07%7%0%0%
112%13%15%9%
214%16%27%29%
310%14%36%42%
416%12%65%54%
515%11%75%72%
68%9%89%78%
74%6%75%84%
84%4%100%84%
91%3%100%91%
102%3%100%100%
113%1%100%100%
121%1%100%100%
133%1%100%100%
140%0%-100%
151%0%100%100%
160%0%-100%

Don't get me wrong, 5 runs in 5 games is horrible. But I just don't know what people expect Walt to do. Right now the offense has 2 studs (Votto, Choo), 1 above average guy (Bruce), 2 average guys (Frazier, LF), 2 below average guys (Phillips, Rocco) and 1 black hole of suck (Cozart). With the talent spread like that, you're bound to have some pretty ugly streaks.

Adding Hunter Pence isn't to fix Cozart or Phillips. The trade options that out there simply don't address our glaring weaknesses. Troy Tulowitski isn't walking through that door.

Some decent points there, and appreciate the effort to have an actual discussion about it. I suppose the part that puzzles me is how the "league average" thing is often thrown out there as some sort of justification for the problem. We all expected this team to perform at a higher level this season, not to be league average. Stating that does not mean you're unaware that pitching has come to the forefront in MLB, as others have suggested here. We all know that is the case. But we still should be frustrated when we see the same poor approaches at the plate that consistently lead to missed scoring opportunities, a boatload of stranded runners and empty frames on the scoreboard. Those are going to come occasionally against the Kershaws of the world, but not the last three guys the Reds have faced. Those games have been far too frequent this season while our starters have pitched their rear ends off.

[jojo]

I suppose the part that puzzles me is how the "league average" thing is often thrown out there as some sort of justification for the problem.

The OP essentially provided a rate stat with no context in which to judge it by other than intuition.

It's your intuition that the Reds are doing poorly and should do better. Giving the observation some context reveals that they aren't doing as poorly relative to their competition as intuition might lead one to believe.

And that is the point of baselines-they allow meaningful comparisons which provide useful context.

[Raisor]

Here's the thing, all season, and not just the past week, people have been complaining how bad the offense is, and that their high numbers of runs are the result of a few blowouts.

Now we have something concrete. The Reds score 4+ runs/game at a much higher than average level. They're on pace to do so in 94 games this season.

I don't think anyone is saying that there isn't room to improve, but the narrative couldn't be more wrong.

[BluegrassRedleg]

Championship teams don't operate on baselines or league averages. That was the point of the OP. this team needs help to be what we thought it could be entering the season.

[westofyou]

Championship teams don't operate on baselines or league averages. That was the point of the OP. this team needs help to be what we thought it could be entering the season.

1987 Twins say hey

[jojo]

Championship teams don't operate on baselines or league averages. That was the point of the OP. this team needs help to be what we thought it could be entering the season.

I think in your need to vetch, youre completely missing the point.

[Brutus]

Championship teams don't operate on baselines or league averages. That was the point of the OP. this team needs help to be what we thought it could be entering the season.

Every advanced measure or statistic in baseball that is used by anyone with an ounce of credibility establishes a baseline in which to compare.

Are you familiar with marginal dollars in either actual or fantasy baseball? Again, they use a baseline for league-wide dollars spent at replacement level (or a baseline) to judge value.

Baselines are important to compare what the rest of the league is doing. The rest of the league, after all, is your competition.

[BluegrassRedleg]

Here's the thing, all season, and not just the past week, people have been complaining how bad the offense is, and that their high numbers of runs are the result of a few blowouts.

Now we have something concrete. The Reds score 4+ runs/game at a much higher than average level. They're on pace to do so in 94 games this season.

I don't think anyone is saying that there isn't room to improve, but the narrative couldn't be more wrong.

True, although I've not been counted among that group. Also why I chose "subpar" instead of bad. It's just not good enough to contend.

I'd like to see it broken down by legitimate contenders rather than the league at large. Maybe that would provide a different view I had not considered.

[BluegrassRedleg]

Every advanced measure or statistic in baseball that is used by anyone with an ounce of credibility establishes a baseline in which to compare.

Are you familiar with marginal dollars in either actual or fantasy baseball? Again, they use a baseline for league-wide dollars spent at replacement level (or a baseline) to judge value.

Baselines are important to compare what the rest of the league is doing. The rest of the league, after all, is your competition.

I'm not saying that doesn't have value. I'm saying that being at or slightly above league average is not typically what a championship contender is measuring itself by.

[Brutus]

I'm not saying that doesn't have value. I'm saying that being at or slightly above league average is not typically what a championship contender is measuring itself by.

If you actually look at what constitutes a championship contender, it's usually a club that is above average in offense, defense and pitching. Above average, after all, means you're in the top 10-15 in the league, sometimes higher.

If you look at the Reds in those areas:

8th in MLB in runs scored
5th in MLB in FIP
4th in MLB in defensive efficiency ratio

That, my friend, is a championship caliber club.

[BluegrassRedleg]

So you feel they're squarely in the discussion?

[durl]

If you actually look at what constitutes a championship contender, it's usually a club that is above average in offense, defense and pitching. Above average, after all, means you're in the top 10-15 in the league, sometimes higher.

If you look at the Reds in those areas:

8th in MLB in runs scored
5th in MLB in FIP
4th in MLB in defensive efficiency ratio

That, my friend, is a championship caliber club.

I haven't researched this but I'd like to see those stats on a chart. My guess is you'd see a nice slope pointing downward. Stats at any given time don't always show what's going on. (For example, a hitter could have a .270 BA but he's hitting .360 for the past month.) Championship-caliber now? Yes. If the trend doesn't change? Probably not.

Still, your info does show what this team is capable of. It would just be nice to see them return to that form.

[Brutus]

So you feel they're squarely in the discussion?

Absolutely. They aren't playing like it at the moment, but I don't think the past week is representative of their overall ability.

Fact is, in 2010, who really thought the Giants were a championship contender? In 2011, who thought the Cardinals were? Heck, the Cardinals weren't even in the playoff chase with a month to go but only made it because of a miracle collapse. Last year, the Giants weren't all that good an offensive club. They won the World Series.

The Reds are better than either of those three teams.

[Brutus]

I haven't researched this but I'd like to see those stats on a chart. My guess is you'd see a nice slope pointing downward. Stats at any given time don't always show what's going on. (For example, a hitter could have a .270 BA but he's hitting .360 for the past month.) Championship-caliber now? Yes. If the trend doesn't change? Probably not.

I think you're confusing slumps with trends. If you looked at the Reds' offense on such a scatter plot, I imagine you'd see ups and downs just like any club.

[Raisor]

Baselines are important to compare what the rest of the league is doing. The rest of the league, after all, is your competition.

This is EXACTLY correct.

[RedsManRick]

This just in: The Reds are better than average, but are not the best team in baseball. This is a problem, because if you aren't the best, you aren't championship caliber. And if aren't championship caliber, you can't win the championship. That's the goal.

As part of not being the best team, they haven't scored the most runs. In fact, the Reds sometimes don't score very many runs at all, especially in the last week. They should score more runs because that's what winners do, score more runs than everybody else. So, yeah, more runs. That would be good. Because if we don't score more runs... no championship.

Insightful thread.

[BluegrassRedleg]

Absolutely. They aren't playing like it at the moment, but I don't think the past week is representative of their overall ability.

Fact is, in 2010, who really thought the Giants were a championship contender? In 2011, who thought the Cardinals were? Heck, the Cardinals weren't even in the playoff chase with a month to go but only made it because of a miracle collapse. Last year, the Giants weren't all that good an offensive club. They won the World Series.

The Reds are better than either of those three teams.

I would like nothing more than to come back and sing your praises in October. :)

[Brutus]

I would like nothing more than to come back and sing your praises in October. :)

Well, the problem is I'm not saying they will win anything. I'm just saying they are a contender, hence I think they're good enough to win. The playoffs guarantee nothing to anyone. So while the Reds could win it all, I fully recognize they could lose in the wildcard game and be out after one night.

But I do think the Reds have as good a shot as anyone. In baseball, if you have a couple of aces, a good pitching staff, good defense and a couple of great hitters, you are a serious threat to win the championship.

[BluegrassRedleg]

Well, you can't do it without great pitching, so I'm glad we have that working in our favor. For years and years, we knew the lack thereof eliminated us from the discussion before it could even begin.

One nice move by Walt could pull me closer to your optimistic stance.

[RedsManRick]

Well, the problem is I'm not saying they will win anything. I'm just saying they are a contender, hence I think they're good enough to win. The playoffs guarantee nothing to anyone. So while the Reds could win it all, I fully recognize they could lose in the wildcard game and be out after one night.

But I do think the Reds have as good a shot as anyone. In baseball, if you have a couple of aces, a good pitching staff, good defense and a couple of great hitters, you are a serious threat to win the championship.

I can simplify it for you: All championship teams have one thing and only one thing in common: they made the playoffs. If you make the playoffs, you are a serious threat to win the championship. The end.

People have done the "math", there's no magic formula to team construction that confers a particularly notable advantage in the playoffs. People have looked at having aces, having a great bullpen, having a balanced lineup vs. a top heavy one. The reality is that playoff caliber baseball teams are so closely matched in terms of talent and the nature of the sport is balanced such that the "random" variance of player performance in a best-of-7 series grossly trumps any variance resulting from the "kind" of good team you have.

Yes, in the new playoff system, there is a distinct advantage to winning the division vs. taking a wildcard, since the latter is equivalent to half of a spot in the divisional round. But beyond that, just worry about getting there - nothing you can do beyond that (and being healthy when you get there) makes much of a difference.

[PuffyPig]

It's hard to believe we actually had a debate earlier this season about whether the offense was subpar. Clearly, it has proven to be. Reds are down to 12th in MLB runs scored now and 13th in team OPS.



It's hard to believe that there is still a debate that a team that is 4th in RS in the NL are "subpar".

Even if you use the stats for all of MLB they are above average, and that's without the benefit of the DH.

[PuffyPig]

This just in: The Reds are better than average, but are not the best team in baseball. This is a problem, because if you aren't the best, you aren't championship caliber. And if aren't championship caliber, you can't win the championship. That's the goal.



You might want to look at the teams who have been winning the world series.

Are you telling me that they are the most elite teams each year?

Otherwise, why play the playoffs, wouldn't the best team always win?

[BluegrassRedleg]

It's hard to believe that there is still a debate that a team that is 4th in RS in the NL are "subpar".

Even if you use the stats for all of MLB they are above average, and that's without the benefit of the DH.

There's a lot of different ways you can look at it, a lot of different stats that can be used.

All due respect, if we can't agree that they've got some major offensive issues that make one wonder if they're a legit contender, I don't know where to go with the conversation.

[RedEye]

All due respect, if we can't agree that they've got some major offensive issues that make one wonder if they're a legit contender, I don't know where to go with the conversation.

Here's the thing though -- the numbers just don't back up the assertion that this team has "major offensive issues." Frankly, I think that if they did, they would not be in the position they are currently. We might not be happy that the Reds are in third place in the Central, but that doesn't mean they have major issues. It means there are two other really good teams in the same division this year, and the bounces just haven't gone the Reds' way as of yet. I know that's a less attractive narrative to some, but it can also be uplifting. Free your soul! LOL.

[BluegrassRedleg]

You might want to look at the teams who have been winning the world series.

Are you telling me that they are the most elite teams each year?

Otherwise, why play the playoffs, wouldn't the best team always win?

Sure, much depends on getting there and getting hot, but I think you'd find some attributes about those recent winners (especially stuff like hitting with RISP and overall Ks) that were stronger than what the Reds have shown.

[RedEye]

Sure, much depends on getting there and getting hot, but I think you'd find some attributes about those recent winners (especially stuff like hitting with RISP and overall Ks) that were stronger than what the Reds have shown.

To my knowledge, regular season hitting with RISP and team Ks do not correlate reliably with results in the playoffs. Sure -- teams in the playoffs tend to get timely hitting. But there is no necessary link between what they've done earlier and what they do when they get there.

[BluegrassRedleg]

To my knowledge, regular season hitting with RISP and team Ks do not correlate reliably with results in the playoffs. Sure -- teams in the playoffs tend to get timely hitting. But there is no necessary link between what they've done earlier and what they do when they get there.

Not sure about that. Seems like certain traits would carry over, especially against an elevated level of pitching.

[Always Red]

Here's the thing though -- the numbers just don't back up the assertion that this team has "major offensive issues." Frankly, I think that if they did, they would not be in the position they are currently. We might not be happy that the Reds are in third place in the Central, but that doesn't mean they have major issues. It means there are two other really good teams in the same division this year, and the bounces just haven't gone the Reds' way as of yet. I know that's a less attractive narrative to some, but it can also be uplifting. Free your soul! LOL.

Lets put it this way then; the offense is slipping. They were 2nd in the NL in runs scored for a long time, then 3rd for a time and now 4th.

Maybe not major offensive issues, but there is a trend happening.

[RedEye]

Lets put it this way then; the offense is slipping. They were 2nd in the NL in runs scored for a long time, then 3rd for a time and now 4th.

Maybe not major offensive issues, but there is a trend happening.

Are you sure there weren't just a couple of other teams who got ridiculously hot? 2nd to 4th out of so many teams doesn't seem that significant of a slide to me. I could be wrong.

[Always Red]

Are you sure there weren't just a couple of other teams who got ridiculously hot? 2nd to 4th out of so many teams doesn't seem that significant of a slide to me. I could be wrong.

Or maybe the Reds scored 5 runs in 5 games?

It's no secret this team is struggling at the plate the last 2 series and its ok to say so. They looked like world beaters against the Giants. Hopefully they will again soon.

[RedEye]

It's no secret this team is struggling at the plate the last 2 series and its ok to say so. They looked like world beaters against the Giants. Hopefully they will again soon.

Sure. They also scored like crazy in the series before that. I wasn't going crazy then and I'm not losing it now.

The Reds just finished the dreaded West Coast Roadtrip 5-5. That's not a reason to panic for me, much less to change the story arc of this season.

[Always Red]

Sure. They also scored like crazy in the series before that. I wasn't going crazy then and I'm not losing it now.

The Reds just finished the dreaded West Coast Roadtrip 5-5. That's not a reason to panic for me, much less to change the story arc of this season.

5-6

I'm not panicking, I'm just pointing out that the offensive output is indeed slipping and that it's ok to say so.

Lots of folks are pointing out how the offense is doing so well compared to the rest of the NL and I've been on board with that all year. Fact is, as of right now, they are starting to regress, compared to the rest of the league, in the runs scored department.

[New York Red]

The Reds offense has been drastically up and down the entire season. Lets not pretend this just started recently.

[RedEye]

Not sure about that. Seems like certain traits would carry over, especially against an elevated level of pitching.

There's no reason RISP would carry over since it has not even been proven to carry over from season to season. It is not proven to be a statistically significant stat relative to regular performance by batters.

[RedEye]

5-6

I'm not panicking, I'm just pointing out that the offensive output is indeed slipping and that it's ok to say so.

Lots of folks are pointing out how the offense is doing so well compared to the rest of the NL and I've been on board with that all year. Fact is, as of right now, they are starting to regress, compared to the rest of the league, in the runs scored department.

5-6 you count the game where the Reds were making up the Giants game, yeah. For some reason, I still just think of it as 5-5 on the regular schedule with that other game earlier.

I don't think a five-game slump counts as a regression. It's expected variation of outcomes. But others have already made that point.

[BluegrassRedleg]

That the Reds still have decent positioning in the runs scored column is impressive, given these circumstances I'd deem as "major issues":

* Leadoff man is .176 vs LHP (Overall, extremely pleased with Choo in comparison to Stubbs and the cast of clowns we used to run up there in this position, but it has to be considered a concern if you get in a one-game scenario and the other team has a really good LHP.)

* 2 Hole is .234 AVG (13th NL), .622 OPS (13th NL and 26th MLB) ahead of the most talented hitter on the team. Could not find the exact numbers, but it *feels* like Joey Votto has led off an inordinate amount of times this season.

* LF OPS .709 (13th NL); SS OPS .620 (11th NL); 3B OPS .701 (10th in NL); C OPS .628 (14th NL). This essentially gives you a 4-man lineup. You're getting next to nothing from half of your 8-man everyday positions.

* .200 AVG, .302 SLG, .577 OPS in losses. Not sure if this means a whole lot. Every team is certainly weaker in their losses, but THIS much?

* Home OPS .741, Road .707. Pretty substantial difference.

* Team AVG RISP .251 (7th NL); with 2 outs .199 (14th NL)

* Ks 848 (5th most in NL)

* Baserunning gaffes. Hard to document all of them with stats, but we've seen them in bunches lately. They only have 33 SB. Not much running going on in MLB these days, but still among the worst in either league. And they've been nabbed almost as much (26) as they've stolen.

Sooooooo...

A couple of those, you could probably shrug off. But the whole list? I don't see how anyone can still watch this team play and not be concerned with all the red flags. These numbers don't paint the picture of a legit contender.

[RedEye]

The Reds offense has been drastically up and down the entire season. Lets not pretend this just started recently.

No one is pretending anything. Lots of evidence has been presented as to why what your arguing is not the case.

[New York Red]

No one is pretending anything. Lots of evidence has been presented as to why what your arguing is not the case.
I called it before the end of April and it's been going on ever since. Just as I called the "no leadership" situation months ago that so many others have since started seeing. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[RedEye]

That the Reds still have decent positioning in the runs scored column is impressive, given these circumstances I'd deem as "major issues":

* Leadoff man is .176 vs LHP (Overall, extremely pleased with Choo in comparison to Stubbs and the cast of clowns we used to run up there in this position, but it has to be considered a concern if you get in a one-game scenario and the other team has a really good LHP.)

* 2 Hole is .234 AVG (13th NL), .622 OPS (13th NL and 26th MLB) ahead of the most talented hitter on the team. Could not find the exact numbers, but it *feels* like Joey Votto has led off an inordinate amount of times this season.

* LF OPS .709 (13th NL); SS OPS .620 (11th NL); 3B OPS .701 (10th in NL); C OPS .628 (14th NL). This essentially gives you a 4-man lineup. You're getting next to nothing from half of your 8-man everyday positions.

* .200 AVG, .302 SLG, .577 OPS in losses. Not sure if this means a whole lot. Every team is certainly weaker in their losses, but THIS much?

* Home OPS .741, Road .707. Pretty substantial difference.

* Team AVG RISP .251 (7th NL); with 2 outs .199 (14th NL)

* Ks 848 (5th most in NL)

* Baserunning gaffes. Hard to document all of them with stats, but we've seen them in bunches lately. They only have 33 SB. Not much running going on in MLB these days, but still among the worst in either league. And they've been nabbed almost as much (26) as they've stolen.

Sooooooo...

A couple of those, you could probably shrug off. But the whole list? I don't see how anyone can still watch this team play and not be concerned with all the red flags. These numbers don't paint the picture of a legit contender.

I don't necessarily care about any of this stuff as long as runs are being scored at a decent rate. Any MLB team is going to have strengths and weaknesses, peaks and valleys. What you've just done is list off a bunch of the (supposed) negatives without mentioning the positives. Actually, come to think of it, there's no context for the stats you've posted either -- they're just numbers. How do I know whether a "difference" in OPS is a net negative or positive without knowing what the comparisons are to other teams?

[BluegrassRedleg]

There's no reason RISP would carry over since it has not even been proven to carry over from season to season. It is not proven to be a statistically significant stat relative to regular performance by batters.

Do you consider it more of a flukish thing?

I don't think there's any coincidence why the Cards' number is higher (despite their recent struggles). They put the bat on the ball a lot more consistently than almost anyone in the league, and especially more than the Reds.

[RedEye]

I called it before the end of April and it's been going on ever since. Just as I called the "no leadership" situation months ago that so many others have since started seeing. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Called what before the end of April?

What "no leadership" problem?

[BluegrassRedleg]

I don't necessarily care about any of this stuff as long as runs are being scored at a decent rate. Any MLB team is going to have strengths and weaknesses, peaks and valleys. What you've just done is list off a bunch of the (supposed) negatives without mentioning the positives. Actually, come to think of it, there's no context for the stats you've posted either -- they're just numbers. How do I know whether a "difference" in OPS is a net negative or positive without knowing what the comparisons are to other teams?

Given those stipulations, it's impossible to argue it, either way.

I respect your efforts here and appreciate the legitimate debate. I'm just going with those numbers and what my eyes tell me. :)

[RedEye]

Do you consider it more of a flukish thing?

I don't think there's any coincidence why the Cards' number is higher (despite their recent struggles). They put the bat on the ball a lot more consistently than almost anyone in the league, and especially more than the Reds.

Hitting with RISP is basically no different than hitting itself. There will be variations between the two numbers from year to year, but those are most likely due to random variation. No reason the playoffs would be any different, since they are an even smaller sample.

The Cards have a better group of hitters overall, so they are better hitters w/ RISP. It's basically that simple.

[RedEye]

I'm just going with those numbers and what my eyes tell me. :)

Fair enough. I would just warn you that you are using the numbers here to fit a narrative, and not the other way around. You've decided that the Reds have "major issues" and plied the number to fit that story when they say nothing of the sort necessarily.

Believe me, if the numbers said the Reds were a team with "major issues" I'd be the first one to agree with you. But that's just not what they say.

[New York Red]

Called what before the end of April?

What "no leadership" problem?
:laugh:

Not interested in one of your multi-page peeing contests, bud. HAGD :beerme:

[BluegrassRedleg]

Hitting with RISP is basically no different than hitting itself. There will be variations between the two numbers from year to year, but those are most likely due to random variation. No reason the playoffs would be any different, since they are an even smaller sample.

The Cards have a better group of hitters overall, so they are better hitters w/ RISP. It's basically that simple.

I think I follow you.

Let's say both teams have a .333 hitter. Reds guy gets his 1-for-3 knock with nobody in scoring position. Cards guy gets his with a man on third. Am I reading this right? RISP more about random circumstance?

[RedEye]

:laugh:

Not interested in one of your multi-page peeing contests, bud. HAGD :beerme:

I ask you some honest questions, request that you back up your (highly dubious) claims, and you respond to me with a disrespectful laughing emoticon? Charming.

[BluegrassRedleg]

Fair enough. I would just warn you that you are using the numbers here to fit a narrative, and not the other way around. You've decided that the Reds have "major issues" and plied the number to fit that story when they say nothing of the sort necessarily.

Believe me, if the numbers said the Reds were a team with "major issues" I'd be the first one to agree with you. But that's just not what they say.

I believe they do, indeed, say that against the kind of competition they'll be facing for playoff spots or in the postseason should they make it.

[RedEye]

I think I follow you.

Let's say both teams have a .333 hitter. Reds guy gets his 1-for-3 knock with nobody in scoring position. Cards guy gets his with a man on third. Am I reading this right? RISP more about random circumstance?

As I understand it, yes.

It's not to say that some hitters aren't better than others. They absolutely are. It's just that they are better hitters, period, whether or not runners are on base.

When you look at seasonal samples, sometimes the stats seem to say a player has had amazing success with RISP, but usually when you look at larger samples, over seasons, that change turns out to be too minute to indicate a real situational change in skill.

I believe there's a lot of discussion of this issue on the Erardi thread recently, if you are interested (or didn't happen to see it).

[RedEye]

I believe they do, indeed, say that against the kind of competition they'll be facing for playoff spots or in the postseason should they make it.

Not sure I follow this. What are you saying again?

[kaldaniels]

I keep hearing the title of the thread in Jeffery Jones voice.

/and I am aware of his extracurricular activities...just too lazy to write something halfway clever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F0rPFASUXY

[Kc61]

I see the whole discussion as a straw man. The question of being above league average has an obvious answer. Of course the Reds are. They are clearly in the top four or five teams in the league right now. No reasonable issue on that.

Whatever offensive problems they have had do not change this. The stats I do every ten games show the Reds to be about fourth on average in most major statistical offensive categories. That doesn't change the overall view of a top five NL team.

But it's not the issue I see. The issue is the expectation that the Reds would be, clearcut, one of the top one or two teams in the league this year. The Reds have not met that test by any measure.

Now -- some say it's irrelevant, make the playoffs, and it doesn't matter. Fair point. Some, like me, want a great team that will be a favorite going into the playoffs. Also a fair goal.

Saying that the Reds are above the average in a league with the Cubs, Brewers, Padres, Mets, Marlins, etc., tells me nothing new. Whether a team with the Reds makeup is likely to win in the post-season, particularly with this wild card system, is the more genuine debate.

[RedsManRick]

You might want to look at the teams who have been winning the world series.

Are you telling me that they are the most elite teams each year?

Otherwise, why play the playoffs, wouldn't the best team always win?

I think my sarcasm may have been a bit too subtle.

[kaldaniels]

I see the whole discussion as a straw man. The question of being above league average has an obvious answer. Of course the Reds are. They are clearly in the top four or five teams in the league right now. No reasonable issue on that.

Whatever offensive problems they have had do not change this. The stats I do every ten games show the Reds to be about fourth on average in most major statistical offensive categories. That doesn't change the overall view of a top five NL team.

But it's not the issue I see. The issue is the expectation that the Reds would be, clearcut, one of the top one or two teams in the league this year. The Reds have not met that test by any measure.

Now -- some say it's irrelevant, make the playoffs, and it doesn't matter. Fair point. Some, like me, want a great team that will be a favorite going into the playoffs. Also a fair goal.

Saying that the Reds are above the average in a league with the Cubs, Brewers, Padres, Mets, Marlins, etc., tells me nothing new. Whether a team with the Reds makeup can win in the post-season, particularly with this wild card system, is the more genuine debate.

There are fair points throughout this.

But I take major exception that the Reds were predicted as the clear cut top 1 or 2 teams in the league this year. If there was one clear cut #1, it was the Nats. From that point it is debatable if the Reds were #2, but in no way clear cut.

[RedEye]

I see the whole discussion as a straw man. The question of being above league average has an obvious answer. Of course the Reds are. They are clearly in the top four or five teams in the league right now. No reasonable issue on that.

Whatever offensive problems they have had do not change this. The stats I do every ten games show the Reds to be about fourth on average in most major statistical offensive categories. That doesn't change the overall view of a top five NL team.

But it's not the issue I see. The issue is the expectation that the Reds would be, clearcut, one of the top one or two teams in the league this year. The Reds have not met that test by any measure.

Now -- some say it's irrelevant, make the playoffs, and it doesn't matter. Fair point. Some, like me, want a great team that will be a favorite going into the playoffs. Also a fair goal.

Saying that the Reds are above the average in a league with the Cubs, Brewers, Padres, Mets, Marlins, etc., tells me nothing new. Whether a team with the Reds makeup is likely to win in the post-season, particularly with this wild card system, is the more genuine debate.

Well, that's sort of where the conversation has been lately. More recently, though, we've been discussing whether or not their recent struggles constitute reason for panic -- whether they have "major issues". Sounds like you don't think so either.

I don't think the entire conversation is a strawman though. It's not like we're debating with some position that doesn't actually exist. Folks on this board are actually claiming that the team has serious offensive problems. Others, like me, disagree. No strawmen there. Actual positions and argumentation.

[RedEye]

There are fair points throughout this.

But I take major exception that the Reds were predicted as the clear cut top 1 or 2 teams in the league this year. If there was one clear cut #1, it was the Nats. From that point it is debatable if the Reds were #2, but in no way clear cut.

I think they were #2 overall in the ESPN preseason rankings, behind the Nats. FWIW.

[kaldaniels]

Nm

[kaldaniels]

I imagine that if you averaged out all the respectable power rankings the Reds would be the #2, but like I said, not clear cut. For instance fox sports had SF and LA over the Reds...I don't agree just an example.

But if I am being open it just struck a nerve when the poster talking about strawmen posited that the Reds were possibly the number one clear cut team heading into the year.

And I didn't post that to jump on kc...more than anything wanted to remind everyone who the overall preseason top ranked team in the NL was

[RedEye]

But if I am being open it just struck a nerve when the poster talking about strawmen posited that the Reds were possibly the number one clear cut team heading into the year.


Yeah, I agree, I think it's unfair to call the entire conversation a strawman -- not to mention I don't think that's really what a strawman is rhetorically. I see what Kc is saying, but I think he's being a bit dismissive of what we've been talking about.

There are two different debates:

1) Whether or not the Reds are in a serious offensive funk.
2) Whether or not the Reds have the right kind of team to win in the playoffs.

#2 doesn't have to trump #1.

[Kc61]

There are fair points throughout this.

But I take major exception that the Reds were predicted as the clear cut top 1 or 2 teams in the league this year. If there was one clear cut #1, it was the Nats. From that point it is debatable if the Reds were #2, but in no way clear cut.

I don't think I used the word predicted, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

My point wasn't what the pundits predicted, my point was about my own expectation and, I believe, what some others who follow the team and post on RedsZone expected.

I felt after the Choo acquisition and after last season that the Reds would clearly be one or two in the league this year and would win the division. I am disappointed. That was my point when I referred to expectations.

[RedEye]

I don't think I used the word predicted, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

My point wasn't what the pundits predicted, my point was about my own expectation and, I believe, what some others who follow the team and post on RedsZone expected.

I felt after the Choo acquisition and after last season that the Reds would clearly be one or two in the league this year and would win the division. I am disappointed. That was my point when I referred to expectations.

Understood. But why does this make the entire debate a strawman? That's where you lost me.

[kaldaniels]

I don't think I used the word predicted, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

My point wasn't what the pundits predicted, my point was about my own expectation and, I believe, what some others who follow the team and post on RedsZone expected.

I felt after the Choo acquisition and after last season that the Reds would clearly be one or two in the league this year and would win the division. I am disappointed. That was my point when I referred to expectations.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't read it that way, but if that's how you felt I have no beef with it.

[Roy Tucker]

I think they were #2 overall in the ESPN preseason rankings, behind the Nats. FWIW.

And they were looking like it till key guys got hurt.

[New York Red]

Folks on this board are actually claiming that the team has serious offensive problems.
I don't see anyone claiming that. Do you have a link?

[RedEye]

I don't see anyone claiming that. Do you have a link?

In this very thread. Care to read it?

[Kc61]

Well, that's sort of where the conversation has been lately. More recently, though, we've been discussing whether or not their recent struggles constitute reason for panic -- whether they have "major issues". Sounds like you don't think so either.

I don't think the entire conversation is a strawman though. It's not like we're debating with some position that doesn't actually exist. Folks on this board are actually claiming that the team has serious offensive problems. Others, like me, disagree. No strawmen there. Actual positions and argumentation.

Well, again, in the context of the regular season I don't think there's an issue. Without checking, my stats reports steadily show the Reds at about fourth in the league in most major stats categories.

In the regular season context, there is really no issue that the Reds offense is good enough to make the playoffs, and they probably will.

Now, the post-season, different question and much more worthy of debate.I have serious doubts there because I think the Reds team is too easy to pitch to.

Too late at night for a full debate, but I think the team stats are heavily influenced (on the upside) by three excellent hitters, two of whom are superb in the OBP category.

When a top team faces the Reds with its top pitchers, and a good game plan, in a big game, I have serious doubts because I just think that everybody can be pitched to rather easily except the big three and maybe, on a given day, Phillips.

And if you throw a lefty, then you can control Choo as well.

Again, how the Reds might fare on a big stage against the top teams is a worthy subject. Some people will say it's all random in a given game, which has validity as well. Regular season? All is pretty obvious.

[RedEye]

And they were looking like it till key guys got hurt.

Yes, they were. But wait... Ludwick got hurt so early that it's hard to factor that in; Cueto has been replaced well by Cingrani; the bullpen guys... I suppose, may have helped to avoid that June swoon...

Hmmm. I agree injuries have been a factor, but not sure that's been the main one.

[RedEye]

Again, how the Reds might fare on a big stage against the top teams is a worthy subject. Some people will say it's all random in a given game, which has validity as well. Regular season? All is pretty obvious.

Okay, gotcha. What you meant by "strawman" is clear now. Thanks.

Looking forward to the "Are the Reds a playoff caliber team?" thread you will post tomorrow then. ;)

[Kc61]

Understood. But why does this make the entire debate a strawman? That's where you lost me.

Regular season offensive prowess is, IMO, an obvious discussion. It's a debate over nothing. A straw man because it's not what many of us mean (I think) when we critique the offense.

Ultimate ability of this offense to succeed in big games including the playoffs? Fair ground for debate. That's what I meant in a nutshell.

[New York Red]

In this very thread. Care to read it?
I have read it. I don't see anyone claiming this team has serious offensive problems. If you see it, it should be easy enough to provide a link? Maybe I missed it. If so, I apologize.

[Kc61]

Okay, gotcha. What you meant by "strawman" is clear now. Thanks.

Looking forward to the "Are the Reds a playoff caliber team?" thread you will post tomorrow then. ;)

RedEye, we have to save something for later in the season, LOL.

But I think the thread would read:"Are the Reds Built for Success In Big Games?"

Or something like that.

[RedEye]

Regular season offensive prowess is, IMO, an obvious discussion. It's a debate over nothing. A straw man because it's not what many of us mean (I think) when we critique the offense.


Well, I think there have been a few posters here on this very thread who think it's more than nothing -- that these five games on the West Coast spell doom, and that the team has serious problems on offense. So... no strawmen here. :)

[Kc61]

Well, I think there have been a few posters here on this very thread who think it's more than nothing -- that these five games on the West Coast spell doom, and that the team has serious problems on offense. So... no strawmen here. :)

I think the Reds will start to hit more reasonably now that they are home.

[RedEye]

RedEye, we have to save something for later in the season, LOL.

But I think the thread would read:"Are the Reds Built for Success In Big Games?"

Or something like that.

Ha! I can't wait until later in the season because I won't have time to post once classes start. :laugh:

Perhaps "Are the Reds built for success in a one-game playoff" would be the best. That way we'd really define the matter at hand. I think your points about the lineup in a very small sample are pertinent. A top LH could really shut them down IMO. Like Francisco Liriano. :eek:

[RedEye]

I have read it. I don't see anyone claiming this team has serious offensive problems. If you see it, it should be easy enough to provide a link? Maybe I missed it. If so, I apologize.

I am not going to link to the same thread we are writing on right now. The basis of the OP, as I understand it, is to address the Reds' offensive woes due to lack of scoring. It spirals from there to our recent discussion of "major issues", etc.

EDIT: Here's the OP for reference:


This team has scored 2 runs or less through 108 games, exactly one out of every three times it takes the field.

22 times 1 run or a shutout.

It's hard to believe we actually had a debate earlier this season about whether the offense was subpar. Clearly, it has proven to be. Reds are down to 12th in MLB runs scored now and 13th in team OPS.

Help us, Walt.

[New York Red]

Well, I think there have been a few posters here on this very thread who think it's more than nothing -- that these five games on the West Coast spell doom, and that the team has serious problems on offense. So... no strawmen here. :)
You might want to go back and read the original post, instead of constantly changing the subject and putting words in other posters' mouths.

[RedEye]

You might want to go back and read the original post, instead of constantly changing the subject and putting words in other posters' mouths.

Just reposted it above, thanks, "Help us, Walt" and all.

[kaldaniels]

You might want to go back and read the original post, instead of constantly changing the subject and putting words in other posters' mouths.

The opening post say the Reds offense has been proven to be subpar.

Now is that equivalent to saying the Reds have serious offensive problems? I'd say yes, but I suppose you could wiggle out of the idea that the 2 ideas are equal.

The offense has been bashed on this board by a select few, let there be no doubt.

[New York Red]

I am not going to link to the same thread we are writing on right now.
You won't link it because it doesn't exist. You're doing the same thing here that you do in every thread you post in.

[RedEye]

You won't link it because it doesn't exist. You're doing the same thing here that you do in every thread you post in.

New York Red, with due respect, I just posted the entire OP above. Please stop accusing me of shenanigans. I've just been discussing this very topic with several other posters on this thread. They really do believe that there are serious problems with the offense.

What other threads have I done this in? If so, I apologize.

Care to back up any of the claims you throw out there, or are you just going to attack me personally?

[Wonderful Monds]

they were 2nd in runs scored, then 3rd in runs scored, now 4th in runs scored...

Best record in baseball, best record in the NL, 2nd best record in the NL, 2nd place, 4 games up on the 2nd wild card...

[New York Red]

The opening post say the Reds offense has been proven to be subpar.

Now is that equivalent to saying the Reds have serious offensive problems? I'd say yes, but I suppose you could wiggle out of the idea that the 2 ideas are equal.

The offense has been bashed on this board by a select few, let there be no doubt.
No, the comments, both in the OP and the entire season on this site, have been about the wild inconsistency of the offense. I have yet to see anyone say the offense is bad overall. What I see is, a lot of you guys bashing individual players for their offensive shortcomings, yet when those same concerns are raised about the team overall, you suddenly become cheerleaders who bash any poster who doesn't agree with you.

[BluegrassRedleg]

Still not sure how you can easily dismiss the list of issues I offered. If anything, they suggest that the foursome of Choo, Votto, Bruce and Phillips have been pretty amazing in carrying the load this season. That's the positive. Those guys have kept them in the hunt. But it also might suggest what can happen when any of the four go into a prolonged funk like Phillips was for most of July. Ten games with 3 runs or fewer and 14 with 2 runs or less, and, perhaps more importantly, against some better clubs than they've faced at other stretches in the season. Outside of April, this was arguably the most difficult month of the schedule. Does it say something about their postseason chances, should they hang on for a spot?

[RedEye]

No, the comments, both in the OP and the entire season on this site, have been about the wild inconsistency of the offense. I have yet to see anyone say the offense is bad overall. What I see is, a lot of you guys bashing individual players for their offensive shortcomings, yet when those same concerns are raised about the team overall, you suddenly become cheerleaders who bash any poster who doesn't agree with you.

You are using the term "bash" pretty liberally here. The OP talks about "major issues" with the offense. I disagree with him, respectfully, and offer some counter-arguments. Others have chimed in with more important contributions. That's all that has happened.

So if you want to use the description "wild inconsistency", that's fine, too. And I'll disagree and say that the offense is actually experiencing fluctuation like any other team in MLB. And there will be no bashing.

[kaldaniels]

No, the comments, both in the OP and the entire season on this site, have been about the wild inconsistency of the offense. I have yet to see anyone say the offense is bad overall. What I see is, a lot of you guys bashing individual players for their offensive shortcomings, yet when those same concerns are raised about the team overall, you suddenly become cheerleaders who bash any poster who doesn't agree with you.

We were not discussing whether or not anyone has said "the offense is bad overall", but whether anyone has said (or to be fair implied) that the "offense has serious problems."

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2924199&postcount=625

Does this read like a post that doesn't think that is the case? One of many like it.


I can't wait for the post that states we are third in runs and second (or what're) in run differential. Pollyanna. This team is endemic at bat without the occasional outburst against lousy pitching. I don't think this is a playoff team.

[nate]

The Reds offense has been drastically up and down the entire season. Lets not pretend this just started recently.

Here's how often the Reds have scored a certain number of runs:



Runs Games %
0 8 7%
1 13 12%
2 15 14%
3 11 10%
4 17 16%
5 16 15%
6 9 8%
7 4 4%
8 4 4%
9 1 1%
10 2 2%
11 3 3%
12 1 1%
13 3 3%
15 1 1%


And the NL



Runs Games %
0 107 7%
1 201 13%
2 257 16%
3 225 14%
4 196 12%
5 179 11%
6 138 9%
7 95 6%
8 62 4%
9 46 3%
10 42 3%
11 17 1%
12 10 1%
13 10 1%
14 5 0%
15 1 0%
16 2 0%


If the Reds are inconsistent, how would you describe the rest of the NL?

I think what you've discovered here is a "baseball season."

.300 hitters don't get three hits every ten ABs.

A "3.00" pitcher doesn't "allow" three runs every nine innings.

Take the bigger view; living and dying on innings, games, weeks and months is no way to take in the enormity of a baseball season.

Much like the appetizer isn't indicative of the entire meal.

Although my Dad says you can always tell a good restaurant by how good the bread is.

I'll workshop the above analogy.

[BluegrassRedleg]

How would I describe the Cubs, Marlins, Dbacks, Brewers, Phillies, Mets, Nats, Padres, Giants, etc.?

Well... "Non-contenders" for an appetizer. ;)

[New York Red]

No one is talking about the averages. Good try though, Nate

[RedEye]

No one is talking about the averages. Good try though, Nate

Actually, that's what a lot of us are talking about, NYR. What are you talking about?

[Brutus]

Why wouldn't averages matter?

Whether what the Reds are doing is good or bad is based on the context of what other baseball teams do, is it not? How can the Reds be considered "bad" at something if you have no context in which to compare? Averages are very relevant. They define what exactly is good and bad.

[BluegrassRedleg]

Why wouldn't averages matter?

Whether what the Reds are doing is good or bad is based on the context of what other baseball teams do, is it not? How can the Reds be considered "bad" at something if you have no context in which to compare? Averages are very relevant. They define what exactly is good and bad.

Because the context of the discussion is not based on being average in the National League. Most of this league is less-than-flattering when it comes to hitting. I want to know how we look compared to the average of the Cards, Rockies, Braves, Dodgers. Information about the Reds' standing that involves the Marlins, Cubs, Brewers, and that ilk doesn't tell me anything in relation to the ballclub's preseason goals and expectations.

[BluegrassRedleg]

For comparison's sake, it would be like a college basketball coach saying it's OK for his team to shoot 65% at the free throw line because "that's what my conference average is."

Do you want to be lumped in with them, or do you want to be great?

[RedEye]

For comparison's sake, it would be like a college basketball coach saying it's OK for his team to shoot 65% at the free throw line because "that's what my conference average is."

Do you want to be lumped in with them, or do you want to be great?

Except that by most any measure the Reds are well above average on offense. They are in no real danger of being other than that except in the minds of those who want to tell a particular story.

[Brutus]

If there was evidence that the Reds were scoring fewer runs more consistently than other teams, or that they were scoring fewer runs as a whole, then by all means the concerns would be founded. But right now, the evidence suggests neither. In my opinion, ignoring this evidence is the only way to rationalize the frustration as being anything more significant than naturally-occurring frustration borne from being a fan of any professional baseball team, given the difficulty of the sport. It is, after all, a sport built on failures by offensive players.

[GAC]

If the season ended today we'd be in the post-season via the WC. And the way our pitching has been this year, a real strength, low scores, keeping us in games, I still like our chances in those short series. Anything can happen.

[Raisor]

I want to know how we look compared to the average of the Cards, Rockies, Braves, Dodgers. .

Feel free to post that information. I think it will be interesting.

[texasdave]

Feel free to post that information. I think it will be interesting.

It is interesting. If you compare the Reds' offense to the other four playoff (at this point in time) teams' offenses, they come up lacking. OPS+ and wRC+ are both park and league-adjusted. wOBA is not. How we looking?


TEAM OPS+ wOBA wRC+
LAD 104 0.316 103
STL 103 0.322 106
ATL 100 0.324 106
PIT 99 0.307 96
CIN 95 0.316 96

[Raisor]

It is interesting. If you compare the Reds' offense to the other four playoff (at this point in time) teams' offenses, they come up lacking. OPS+ and wRC+ are both park and league-adjusted. wOBA is not. How we looking?


TEAM OPS+ wOBA wRC+
LAD 104 0.316 103
STL 103 0.322 106
ATL 100 0.324 106
PIT 99 0.307 96
CIN 95 0.316 96



And I get that.

But the current discussion seems to be about run distribution.

[nate]

No one is talking about the averages. Good try though, Nate

Actually, you were.

If you're talking about "inconsistent," you're saying there is a team or teams that are consistent.

So who is consistent?

My point is that every team and every player is inconsistent which is amplified when one chooses stretches represented by PAs, innings and games rather than seasons and careers.

[nate]

Because the context of the discussion is not based on being average in the National League.

It should be. How else would one know what "good" and "bad" looks like?


Most of this league is less-than-flattering when it comes to hitting. I want to know how we look compared to the average of the Cards, Rockies, Braves, Dodgers.

Blaze that trail and we'll talk about it.


Information about the Reds' standing that involves the Marlins, Cubs, Brewers, and that ilk doesn't tell me anything in relation to the ballclub's preseason goals and expectations.

The Reds are one of the NL's best teams at scoring and preventing runs. We don't even need Excel to tell us that.

Expectations are personal and have no bearing on reality.

[Raisor]

It should be. How else would one know what "good" and "bad" looks like?



Blaze that trail and we'll talk about it.



The Reds are one of the NL's best teams at scoring and preventing runs. We don't even need Excel to tell us that.

Expectations are personal and have no bearing on reality.


High five!

[Raisor]

Anyone can say "Jay Bruce is inconsistent" (or the Reds are inconsistent...or your mama is inconsistent, etc), but you can't be inconsistent in a vacuum.

Unless you have a baseline, or are comparing against something tangible, then inconsistent doesn't actually mean anything.


Most of us agree Joey is a great player. It doesn't mean anything unless he's compared to the other players in the league.

[New York Red]

Our pitching has been a lot more consistent than our offense this year. Can we all agree on that? :D

[Raisor]

Our pitching has been a lot more consistent than our offense this year. Can we all agree on that? :D

Compared to what? That's the issue.

[New York Red]

Oy Vey. :rolleyes:

And I'm not even Jewish.

[Raisor]

Oy Vey. :rolleyes:

And I'm not even Jewish.

If someone wants to say a team is inconsistent, shouldn't they also try to explain what they are inconsistent compared to?


I like to eat steak. If I say "this is the best steak I've ever had, then I'm obviously comparing that steak to every steak I've ever had.

If I say say the restaurant is inconsistent, then I'm comparing that meal to the other times I've been there.

If I say a team is inconsistent in scoring runs, then I have to ask, inconsistent to what? Other teams in the league? Last season? Etc.

[Brutus]

If someone wants to say a team is inconsistent, shouldn't they also try to explain what they are inconsistent compared to?



Yes indeed. Something can't be "inconsistent" without defining what is consistent.

[New York Red]

You guys are too hung up on comparing the Reds to the rest of the league. I don't care about the rest of the league. I compare the Reds to the Reds. The fact is they've been extremely consistent pitching-wise this year, but an obvious roller coaster offensively. If you deny that, then you're watching a different team than I am.

We have the pitching to be a serious WS contender, but which offense will show up come playoff time? We haven't exactly lit it up versus playoff-caliber teams, so it could easily go either way. That's the concern about our offense most of us have. Is that being picky? Maybe so, but it's what fans do. It seems this site is the only place that's frowned upon.

[RedEye]

The fact is they've been extremely consistent pitching-wise this year, but an obvious roller coaster offensively. If you deny that, then you're watching a different team than I am.

Actually, the facts disagree pretty directly with what you are saying here about the offense.

[Raisor]

You guys are too hung up on comparing the Reds to the rest of the league. I don't care about the rest of the league. I compare the Reds to the Reds. The fact is they've been extremely consistent pitching-wise this year, but an obvious roller coaster offensively. If you deny that, then you're watching a different team than I am.

We have the pitching to be a serious WS contender, but which offense will show up come playoff time? We haven't exactly lit it up versus playoff-caliber teams, so it could easily go either way. That's the concern about our offense most of us have. Is that being picky? Maybe so, but it's what fans do. It seems this site is the only place that's frowned upon.

Ok so they are inconsistent versus themselves.

At least now we have something to work with.

Now that might be more important if they didn't play other teams.

Thing is, they do.

What is it you want them to do? Score exactly 4.5 runs a game? Every game?

Be kind of hard to do.

[New York Red]

Actually, the facts disagree pretty directly with what you are saying here about the offense.
OK. :laugh:

[RedEye]

OK. :laugh:

Great response. Want to provide an actual opinion other than your usual trolling laughter?

[Brutus]

So the Reds are inconsistent based on... what? Because you say so?

Help us to understand how you're defining inconsistent if we're unable to use other teams to define exactly what constitutes consistency.

[Raisor]

Great response. Want to provide an actual opinion other than your usual trolling laughter?

I think I have it figured out:

He wants to express his opinion. He doesn't want to be challenged about it, nor does he want to defend his opinion.

In the old days of RedsZone we had an automatic response to this:

gO rEDs!

It's short hand for people that aren't really here for discussion but are here for other reasons.

[westofyou]

OK. :laugh:

Really?

Let's at least try instead of wasting zeros and ones

[westofyou]

You guys are too hung up on comparing the Reds to the rest of the league. I don't care about the rest of the league. I compare the Reds to the Reds.

The reason they are compared to their peers is because they play their peers and their peers play each other to establish what is called "competition" it's pretty simple, IIRC the reason the National League was created was to foster competition between a group of clubs instead of practicing against your own players.

Word has it in the end the team that "wins" the most games against the competition also "wins" the competition title.

Otherwise it's just a practice

Nifty idea eh?

[New York Red]

The reason they are compared to their peers is because they play their peers and their peers play each other to establish what is called "competition" it's pretty simple, IIRC the reason the National League was created was to foster competition between a group of clubs instead of practicing against your own players.

Word has it in the end the team that "wins" the most games against the competition also "wins" the competition title.

Otherwise it's just a practice

Nifty idea eh?
Sorry, but ... :laugh:

I hope you (and a few others in this thread) have more important things going on in your life than the silliness you spend hours a day arguing on this site.

[Raisor]

Sorry, but ... :laugh:

I hope you (and a few others in this thread) have more important things going on in your life than the silliness you spend hours a day arguing on this site.

We are all baseballs fans. Some of us like to talk about the why's instead of just the what's.

None of us are really sure why you are here.

[westofyou]

Sorry, but ... :laugh:

I hope you (and a few others in this thread) have more important things going on in your life than the silliness you spend hours a day arguing on this site.

Excuse me?

I'm pretty sure the "silliness" is emitting from your side in this case.

I have lots of stuff to do, I'm even doing some of it now...Now why would you assume I have time to do that and also answer your obvious lack of enthusiasm in discussing baseball beyond the usual simple navel gazing moment that seems to make you content?

[New York Red]

We are all baseballs fans. Some of us like to talk about the why's instead of just the what's.

None of us are really sure why you are here.
Some of us are just Reds fans who like to talk about Reds baseball. Then there's the dozen or so who ruin the site by destroying every thread with arguing. Other than coming across as a 12-year old, which category are you in?

[dougdirt]

Some of us are just Reds fans who like to talk about Reds baseball. Then there's the dozen or so who ruin the site by destroying every thread with arguing. Other than coming across as a 12-year old, which category are you in?

What some call arguing, some call discussing.

[Brutus]

Some of us are just Reds fans who like to talk about Reds baseball. Then there's the dozen or so who ruin the site by destroying every thread with arguing. Other than coming across as a 12-year old, which category are you in?

There are several people trying to discuss Reds baseball. But they're basically being told that their opinions are worthless because they're trying to contextualize what the Reds are doing or not doing.

Surely I trust your definition of discussing the Reds doesn't mean they have to agree with every point, even if they think it's mistaken?

[westofyou]

Some of us are just Reds fans who like to talk about Reds baseball. Then there's the dozen or so who ruin the site by destroying every thread with arguing. Other than coming across as a 12-year old, which category are you in?

So wait... now we're "destroying" the site?

Personally I find that insulting. Pray tell how are you contributing to the site?

[Raisor]

Some of us are just Reds fans who like to talk about Reds baseball. Then there's the dozen or so who ruin the site by destroying every thread with arguing. Other than coming across as a 12-year old, which category are you in?


To quote Marty: I was here before you, and I'll be here when you're gone.

[New York Red]

So wait... now we're "destroying" the site?

Personally I find that insulting. Pray tell how are you contributing to the site?
I don't care about contributing and I don't care if you're insulted. I've been on this site for over ten years and it hasn't changed. I used to keep my opinion to myself, but this time around I tell the truth. We have civil conversation on every other forum on this site, but it's impossible on ORG -- and it's because of a dozen or so posters who, for some reason, think they're above everyone else.

[RedEye]

I don't care about contributing and I don't care if you're insulted. I've been on this site for over ten years and it hasn't changed. I used to keep my opinion to myself, but this time around I tell the truth. We have civil conversation on every other forum on this site, but it's impossible on ORG -- and it's because of a dozen or so posters who, for some reason, think they're above everyone else.

If you are so insulted by what goes on in the ORG, why come here? Others seem to be able to have civil discussion just fine.

[Raisor]

If you'd be happier elsewhere, feel free.

Thanks for stopping by. Have a good day.

[NebraskaRed]

I don't care about contributing and I don't care if you're insulted. I've been on this site for over ten years and it hasn't changed. I used to keep my opinion to myself, but this time around I tell the truth. We have civil conversation on every other forum on this site, but it's impossible on ORG -- and it's because of a dozen or so posters who, for some reason, think they're above everyone else.

Do you see that you're doing the exact thing that you're complaining about?

[Raisor]

I'm on my phone, or else I'd do it myself. Someone link to the RedsZone 10 thread.

Creek was our queen.

[dabvu2498]

This thread has gone down a path it doesn't need to.

Continue baseball discussion only, please. The personal jabs need to stop immediately.

[westofyou]

I don't care about contributing and I don't care if you're insulted. I've been on this site for over ten years and it hasn't changed. I used to keep my opinion to myself, but this time around I tell the truth. We have civil conversation on every other forum on this site, but it's impossible on ORG -- and it's because of a dozen or so posters who, for some reason, think they're above everyone else.

Caring is where a community starts, if you don't care then don't waste my time with questions or replies, in fact just place all of your dozen or so on ignore and move on.

Surely YOU have better things to do than engage all the folks that make your life miserable here in a tit for tat.

Surely I do.

[New York Red]

Caring is where a community starts, if you don't care then don't waste my time with questions or replies, in fact just place all of your dozen or so on ignore and move on.

Surely YOU have better things to do than engage all the folks that make your life miserable here in a tit for tat.

Surely I do.
My life is pretty awesome actually. Like I said, every other forum on this site is civil. Why can't ORG be that way?

[Puffy]

I'm on my phone, or else I'd do it myself. Someone link to the RedsZone 10 thread.

Creek was our queen.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44283

[RedEye]

My life is pretty awesome actually. Like I said, every other forum on this site is civil. Why can't ORG be that way?

If you are interested, there's a thread devoted to this elsewhere. I started it because of some of the growing pains I thought were happening here since the merger:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101445

FWIW, this thread was very civil until you claimed it wasn't. Some pretty interesting discussion, actually. Wish you could see that, too.

[dougdirt]

I'm on my phone, or else I'd do it myself. Someone link to the RedsZone 10 thread.

Creek was our queen.

Yeah, but the Redszone 10 actually existed and I refuse to believe otherwise.

[kaldaniels]

A lot of respectable posters engaging with NY Red I see.

Take my advice which I figured out last night. Bow out immediately as you have been trolled.

[dougdirt]

A lot of respectable posters engaging with NY Red I see.

Take my advice which I figured out last night. Bow out immediately as you have been trolled.

I don't bow out until I've been Rick Rolled.

[Brutus]

I don't bow out until I've been Rick Rolled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awB9doH4piM

[BluegrassRedleg]

Hate to see the discussion turn the way it did in the last page or two. I was enjoying hearing both sides, even if I strongly disagreed with a few. It's only baseball, folks. (But I Like It.)

This is the kind of stuff most could enjoy and just laugh about if we were at a bar or our seats at GABP talking Reds, but it tends to lose something in cyberspace.

[RedEye]

This is the kind of stuff most could enjoy and just laugh about if we were at a bar or our seats at GABP talking Reds, but it tends to lose something in cyberspace.

I enjoy discussing baseball with posters like you. Disagreement is what makes it more interesting. What fun is discussion if we agree about everything? :beerme:

I don't enjoy discussing baseball with people who just plug their ears and then insult me periodically. Or with posters who respond to my (good faith attempt at) thought-out posts with :laugh:.

[jojo]

If the argument was that the Reds brand of baseball this season hasn't been aesthetically pleasing, that would be one thing. But to argue about the significance of trends in their production while refusing to contemplate baselines that give such trends meaning is another thing altogether.

Those arguing for baselines aren't ruining discussion. They are actually trying to establish a basis for having a meaningful discussion.

[texasdave]

And if we didn't have baselines how would the players know where to run when they hit the ball? :p

[Roy Tucker]

My daughter is an art major. She saw the title of this thread when I was reading it and thought we were talking about Andy Warhol...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethel_Scull_36_Times

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/Ethel_Scull_36_Times.jpg

Somehow after discussing all this and going off on to many tangents (who? me?), I agreed to buy here a t-shirt of Andy Warhol and the Exploding Plastic Inevitable.

Life is funny.

[westofyou]

My daughter is an art major. She saw the title of this thread when I was reading it and thought we were talking about Andy Warhol...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethel_Scull_36_Times

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/Ethel_Scull_36_Times.jpg

Somehow after discussing all this and going off on to many tangents (who? me?), I agreed to buy here a t-shirt of Andy Warhol and the Exploding Plastic Inevitable.

Life is funny.

An artist is somebody who produces things that people don’t need to have.
-Andy Warhol

[RedEye]

Yes, of all the RZ threads I've been a part of, this is certainly one of them. The plot arc actually resembles a lot of European art films, to tell you the truth... starting right off with the title. :D

36 Times

a film by

Frederico Fellini

starring

Marcello Mastroianni (westofyou)
Alain Delon (Kc61)
Billy Bob Thornton (BluegrassRedleg)
Phillip Seymour Hoffman (RedEye)
Mickey Rourke (jojo)
James Woods (New York Red)

and introducing

Joey Votto as Raisor

[BluegrassRedleg]

Yes, of all the RZ threads I've been a part of, this is certainly one of them. The plot arc actually resembles a lot of European art films, to tell you the truth... :D

And all this time I was aiming for Police Academy IX. :)

[westofyou]

Yes, of all the RZ threads I've been a part of, this is certainly one of them. The plot arc actually resembles a lot of European art films, to tell you the truth... starting right off with the title. :D

36 Times

a film by

Frederico Fellini

starring

Marcello Mastroianni (westofyou)
Alain Delon (Kc61)
Billy Bob Thornton (BluegrassRedleg)
Phillip Seymour Hoffman (RedEye)
Mickey Rourke (jojo)
James Woods (New York Red)

and introducing

Joey Votto as Raisor

I'm more of a Japanese film buff myself

I'm Ozu in this

[Roy Tucker]

I always had severe hots for Catherine Deneuve.

[mbgrayson]

I actually counted 37 times that the Reds scored two or fewer runs. Here is a breakdown:

This has happened to the Reds:

At home: 13 times
On the road: 24 times

In April: 12 times
In May: 5 times
In June: 10 times
In July: 10 times

Another fun stat: The Reds have now played:
60 games on the road: 22 remaining. (28-32)
49 games at home, 32 remaining. (32-17)

After tonight's Cards-Pirates game, they have:
Pirates have 28 home games left (36-19), and 29 road games left (29-24).
Cardinals have 33 home games left (32-17), and 24 road games left (31-27).

[texasdave]

Another fun stat: The Reds have now played:
60 games on the road: 22 remaining. (28-32)
49 games at home, 32 remaining. (32-17)

I saw this somewhere and it is not right. They did not count that one game in SF as a home game. Reds have 31 at home and 23 on the road. Not a big deal, I know.

[RedEye]

I'm more of a Japanese film buff myself

I'm Ozu in this

Aha! So you actually directed the film... I should have known. :D

And BTW, I agree, Ozu is terrific. I was fortunate enough to watch a retrospective of his work a few years ago. Wow.

Anyway, I just thought 36 Times sounded like a Fellini.

[RedEye]

I always had severe hots for Catherine Deneuve.

Severe hots is right! Heck, she still looks great.

[Norm Chortleton]

Billy Bob Thornton (BluegrassRedleg)


:roll:

[Raisor]

and introducing

Joey Votto as Raisor

Wait, the guy I named my cat after is going to play me in the movie?

Mind. Blown.

[Raisor]

Yeah, but the Redszone 10 actually existed and I refuse to believe otherwise.

Yes. We even have business cards.

[RedEye]

Wait, the guy I named my cat after is going to play me in the movie?

Mind. Blown.

Well, it is a European art film. ;)

[RedEye]

Yes. We even have business cards.

I need an explanation of this. Was there ever an application process? Secret handshake? How come I never heard? :D

[BluegrassRedleg]

:roll:

Well, I did at one time in my life consume many French-fried puh-taters.

I'm more of a Doyle Hargraves type when I read that the Reds don't have offensive issues. ;)

[RedEye]

I'm more of a Doyle Hargraves type when I read that the Reds don't have offensive issues. ;)

I can just imagine Dwight Yoakam saying "36 times, 36 times!"

[nate]

And if we didn't have baselines how would the players know where to run when they hit the ball? :p

Solid.

[GAC]

It is interesting. If you compare the Reds' offense to the other four playoff (at this point in time) teams' offenses, they come up lacking. OPS+ and wRC+ are both park and league-adjusted. wOBA is not. How we looking?


TEAM OPS+ wOBA wRC+
LAD 104 0.316 103
STL 103 0.322 106
ATL 100 0.324 106
PIT 99 0.307 96
CIN 95 0.316 96


Interesting.

Can someone find a similar comparison (stats) from last year on the Giants, around the same point in the season, and how they stacked up vs those playoff contending teams?

I don't discount stats; but once a team crosses that "threshold" and makes it into the post-season, just how relevant are some of these stats?

How many times have we seen teams, when looking at them from a statistical analysis standpoint, and in comparison to the other teams in the post-season, that don't "stack up" vs that competition, yet they go on to win because, basically, things just start to click for them and go their way, they get hot.

Yet you're still left shaking your heads because, from an analysis standpoint, and on paper, the teams that seem to have the advantage, the ones everyone picks to advance/win, don't.

It's anybody's ballgame once you get into that post-season.

[Puffy]

Yes. We even have business cards.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[BluegrassRedleg]

Eight more times in August so far. Total at 44 now in 131 games, if my math is right.

The 1 or 0 games has risen to 25. Twenty-five! :eek:

Pirates' numbers are almost identical, 44 and 26. :eek::eek:

Cards are at 36 and 18, respectively.

Braves 39 and 22.

Dodgers 42 and 19.

[oregonred]

New era of baseball since the dawn of the cable TV age, 2-1, 3-2 and 2-0 games are happening all over the place. 3 runs seems to be the new 4 or 5 runs where you have a good chance to eek out a tough win.

The Dodgers/Braves/Cards ability to avoid as many 2 run or less games seems to mirror the difference in the total wins.