PDA

View Full Version : Freak Show Reds (By two of our own)



Chip R
05-28-2003, 03:43 PM
From BP today. Nice job, M2 and WOY. :thumbup:

http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1938

Redsland
05-28-2003, 03:46 PM
Statistical legwork for this article was performed by Brian Erts.
What?! WOY was robbed!

traderumor
05-28-2003, 04:00 PM
I guess that's how the numbers pan out when your losses have often been blowouts and your wins are nailbiters. Interesting observations M2.

The phenomenon I would like explained is why the 1-2 hitting teams in the NL (Atl & StL) are struggling against our starting pitching yet the rest of the league pounds them?

Redsfaithful
05-28-2003, 04:01 PM
Nice article guys. :thumbup:

red-in-la
05-28-2003, 04:05 PM
The question I have is, by how many runs were the Reds outscored while they went 5-13?

And by how many runs have they been outscored since?

Then compute the "pace" based on how they have played since going 5-13....then write stupid....and I mean STUPID articles like this.

GIK
05-28-2003, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by red-in-la
then write stupid....and I mean STUPID articles like this.

"Is there a problem, red-in-la?"



Great work, guys.

princeton
05-28-2003, 04:15 PM
from an extreme minor league gig (teaching OPS to Richard Hand and Drew Nelson) to the big leagues (a BP article) in a mere five seasons? Nice progression-- congrats

does that coffee taste good?

Chip R
05-28-2003, 04:20 PM
Not even a subtle plug of the Zone? :nono: ;)

M2
05-28-2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Chip R
Not even a subtle plug of the Zone? :nono: ;)

Should've used the word "serpentine."

TeamDunn
05-28-2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Chip R
Not even a subtle plug of the Zone? :nono: ;)

Think about all the trolls you won't have to deal with! :D

red-in-la
05-28-2003, 04:24 PM
You are right GIK, I think stupid was uncalled for...and I apologize.

I was thinking it but I shouldn't have typed it.

I just find it "interesting" when STAT type people point at stats, which according to them MOST of the time are suppose to provide the answers, and use those stats to call the Reds a WORST TEAM.

The Reds aren't playing that poorly right now, and their 3.5 games back, that make them a "contender" only make them a contender because they play in the same division with 3 other WORST contending teams.

In fact, the Cubs are the only division leader not playing .600 or better ball.....so, why didn't these guys choose to write an article about how the Cubs are the WORST divsion leader in baseball right now?

The Cards, a team that the WORST contender has absolutely tatooed so far this year, is ONLY 2 games over .500 and they are a BAD contender.

Did it matter to these authors that the Reds have play better than even with the BEST team in baseball?

Just gets me OK....so, I am sorry for saying stupid......guess I should have stuck will TOTALLY ILLOGICAL!

Terry
05-28-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by traderumor
The phenomenon I would like explained is why the 1-2 hitting teams in the NL (Atl & StL) are struggling against our starting pitching yet the rest of the league pounds them?

We've shut down the Braves offense in the current series, but in the series last week at GAB, the Braves scored 20 runs in 3 games, including 8 in Game One and 9 in Game Three.

Larkin Fan
05-28-2003, 04:33 PM
Great job guys. :thumbup:

M2
05-28-2003, 04:38 PM
The Reds are at a -2 run differential since going 5-13. So they've played above expectations during this most recent stretch.

Though why you'd ignore the larger pool of data (unless you were performing some sort of self-delusion) is beyond me.

BTW r-i-l, a small amount of enterprise and you could look these things up yourself.

LvJ
05-28-2003, 04:44 PM
So much stats, so much nonsense.

Winning is the only thing that counts. Its not how you win, nor is it by how much you win, its that you win. The Reds are playing good ball right now, and they've beat some of the better teams in the NL.

I'm with LA on this one.

And, if you're a Reds fan, whats the point in writing this crap about your team? Garbage.

BCubb2003
05-28-2003, 04:45 PM
We're going to see some oddities in the Reds' stats that are based on a pace or projections for the season. There's the freaky Manzanillo, ailing Anderson and Haynes part of the season that skews the stats, then came the solid Danny Graves, surprising no. 2 starter, strengthening bullpen, late-inning heroics part of the season. RILA is right, although rudely worded, to suggest that we should look closer at the two seasons the Reds have had so far. We should also look at the disparity between the games of the top 2 starters for the Reds, whoever they are, and the games of the rest of the starters. There's probably a huge drop-off. Maybe that's a sequel to what is actually a fun article.

Redsfaithful
05-28-2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by LvJ
So much stats, so much nonsense.

Winning is the only thing that counts. Its not how you win, nor is it by how much you win, its that you win. The Reds are playing good ball right now, and they've beat some of the better teams in the NL.

I'm with LA on this one.

And, if you're a Reds fan, whats the point in writing this crap about your team? Garbage.

Let's ignore the fact that run differential is probably the greatest predictive tool as far as a team's record.

There's a real anti-intellectual bias in America for some reason, and it's funny how it even carries over into baseball discussions.

M2
05-28-2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by BCubb2003
We're going to see some oddities in the Reds' stats that are based on a pace or projections for the season. There's the freaky Manzanillo, ailing Anderson and Haynes part of the season that skews the stats, then came the solid Danny Graves, surprising no. 2 starter, strengthening bullpen, late-inning heroics part of the season. RILA is right, although rudely worded, to suggest that we should look closer at the two seasons the Reds have had so far. We should also look at the disparity between the games of the top 2 starters for the Reds, whoever they are, and the games of the rest of the starters. There's probably a huge drop-off. Maybe that's a sequel to what is actually a fun article.

That's the hope BCubb.

The key sentence to me is "An early season run deficit does not equal fate."

The Reds have dodged a bullet (actually more like a mortar). That's good news. Just don't try doing it again.

Raisor
05-28-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by LvJ
So much stats, so much nonsense.

Winning is the only thing that counts. Its not how you win, nor is it by how much you win, its that you win. The Reds are playing good ball right now, and they've beat some of the better teams in the NL.

.


Let me ask you a simple simple question.


How is a team supposed to win, in the long run (ie, over a 162 game schedule) when said team is being outscored by that much per game?

PSR

Chip R
05-28-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by LvJ
And, if you're a Reds fan, whats the point in writing this crap about your team? Garbage. So you enjoy going through life with blinders on?

LvJ
05-28-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Raisor
Let me ask you a simple simple question.


How is a team supposed to win, in the long run (ie, over a 162 game schedule) when said team is being outscored by that much per game?

PSR Blow outs effect these stats greatly. When the Reds are playing their best ball, they are close - and they playing 1 run games.

I just don't like these stats. They mean very little, since team changes, and things change over time.

Raisor
05-28-2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by M2
The Reds are at a -2 run differential since going 5-13. So they've played above expectations during this most recent stretch.

.

M2, as of today, they're at -9 since the 5-13 start..

81-130 vs 180-189


PSR

BuckeyeRedleg
05-28-2003, 05:03 PM
"Technically they should be 21-31 at the moment"





They are 25-27.

We're talking 4 games. Big deal.

Take away a few walk-off HR's and they probably WOULD BE 21-31 right now.



Weren't they horribly outscored last year at this time as well, despite a above 500 record?

It's called lack of pitching.

letsgojunior
05-28-2003, 05:04 PM
Excellent work guys, ignore the potshots.:thumbup:

Raisor
05-28-2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by red-in-la
And by how many runs have they been outscored since?

Then compute the "pace" based on how they have played since going 5-13.....


If you look at how many runs per game the Reds have scored since the 5-13 start (5.29/game), the Reds will score 582 more runs this year and give up 612 more runs, a -30 diff.

That would make the team -79 for the whole year.

It's really hard to make the playoffs when you're outscored by 79 runs for the year.

PSR

red-in-la
05-28-2003, 05:06 PM
RILA is right, although rudely worded

OK, I apologized for my rude language.....how about "two of our own" apologizing for their 40 point pronouncement, "Freakshow Reds"

This is the REAL burr under MY saddle. Other than Chip posting the link without even letting us Redszone amatuers in on M2 and WOY's association with BP.

Now I know why WOY wanted me to fork over my hard earned bucks for a subscription a couple of months ago.

Anyway, I find it rather disheartening when "Reds fans" resort to this kind of billboard "journalism to sell e-copies of their "information and insight."

And yes M2, with....what did you call it, "a small amount of enterprise" I could have looked up the REST OF THE STORY......yeh, and you could have also and maybe put it in your article.....but I wanted to see if you knew the information, which clearly you did.

And your your point about ignoring the larger sample size is total BS. A journalist would have included how the Reds have played SINCE their awful start.....

Chip R
05-28-2003, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by red-in-la
This is the REAL burr under MY saddle. Other than Chip posting the link without even letting us Redszone amatuers in on M2 and WOY's association with BP. Well, sor-ry. I wasn't aware of any association they had with BP. I wasn't posting it to pimp BP, I was posting it because 2 of our "local boys" have made good. When you get something on line and I find it, I would be more than happy to post it.

M2
05-28-2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by red-in-la
OK, I apologized for my rude language.....how about "two of our own" apologizing for their 40 point pronouncement, "Freakshow Reds"

This is the REAL burr under MY saddle. Other than Chip posting the link without even letting us Redszone amatuers in on M2 and WOY's association with BP.

Now I know why WOY wanted me to fork over my hard earned bucks for a subscription a couple of months ago.

Anyway, I find it rather disheartening when "Reds fans" resort to this kind of billboard "journalism to sell e-copies of their "information and insight."

And yes M2, with....what did you call it, "a small amount of enterprise" I could have looked up the REST OF THE STORY......yeh, and you could have also and maybe put it in your article.....but I wanted to see if you knew the information, which clearly you did.

And your your point about ignoring the larger sample size is total BS. A journalist would have included how the Reds have played SINCE their awful start.....

Hey, I don't tell you how to flip the hamburgers.

Quick note on our "association" with BP, this is the first time either of us has done a thing for BP. They also don't pay contributors, only staff gets coin.

So you don't have to worry about inadvertently giving your money to folks like me or WOY.

And what's not freaky about having the worst run differential of any .500 or better team after a quarter season in baseball history? Let me stress NO TEAM'S EVER DONE THIS. Kind of heady stuff when you get right down to it.

BCubb2003
05-28-2003, 05:14 PM
Hey, freak shows can be fun. And I think the barbs are past and we're back to arguing about stats. Pace-type declarations are always somewhat of a grain-of-salt thing, even for those making them. Otherwise, there'd be a .400 hitter or a 60-homer guy every year. We really do need to think about the pre-Puerto Rico Reds and the post-Puerto Rico Reds. It's a different team, without Manzanillo and guys with ERAS above 12.00.

I feel like the catcher trying to keep the batter away from the pitcher after a brushback pitch.

Raisor
05-28-2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by M2

So you don't have to worry about inadvertently giving your money to folks like me or WOY.


Thank goodness! I don't think I could live with myself if M2 and WOY were making any money off me.

:D

VR
05-28-2003, 05:16 PM
Congrats M2 & woy for an excellent article. Freakshow may be a little harsh for Reds fans to hear, but it is exactly what you get with the 2003 version. The smashmouth Tigers of the early 90's and the Rockies of the mid-90's 'only' needed a couple of solid starters as well, let's hope the Reds vision is clearer than what their fate ended up being.

It speaks so well to the long term concern of this team and it's blatant lack of pitching. I just hope this has been passed on to the Red's front office.

A 12-2 win, that's what this team needs a few of!:)

BuckeyeRedleg
05-28-2003, 05:18 PM
Thanks for the post.

I just came across this sight last week. I may have to give it a look see.

M2. No offense, about what I said above, I just think that they could very easily be 21-31 right now. 4 games going the other way doesn't seem "freakish".

I think we could have said the same thing about the Reds last year at this time.

Anyway, congrats on your writing gig.

Hey, maybe you both will be noticed by Theo, J.P., Billy, or someone else and given a job in a front office. (another "Moneyball" reference) :)

kvance
05-28-2003, 05:20 PM
as a longtime reds fan I have seen some bad teams. and over the last ten years the reds have had some really poor teams and some of those teams have contended for a good portion of the season. Last year was an example. Ray Knight managed a team or two that "contended" to the extent that stayed within 5 or 6 games of the top of a bad division into late summer.

My point is this team we're watching now is potentially a much better team than some of the bad teams I've mentioned above. This team is much better than last year's team, for instance, or at least it should be. This may be so far the worst pitching staff ever assembled in cincinnati, but its also one of the best offensive teams.

to just write an article and completely trash the team based on some stats through a schizophrenic 2 months doesn't tell much. I'm not one to ignore stats, but a small sample size doesn't take into account slumps and other abnormalities that won't hold true for the course of the season.

if you just watch this team play you can see they are not one of the "worst" teams ever to contend.

Raisor
05-28-2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by BuckeyeRedleg
M2. No offense, about what I said above, I just think that they could very easily be 21-31 right now. 4 games going the other way doesn't seem "freakish".

:)

It's the difference between winning 78 games or winning 65 games.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-28-2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Raisor
It's the difference between winning 78 games or winning 65 games.

Only if that pace were maintained.

Falls City Beer
05-28-2003, 05:26 PM
Wow. Some people really like grapes...and are really short.

Nice work, gentlemen. You make the Zone proud.

For the record, this really helped settle a nagging question of mine--what is the likelihood that contention is a real possibility for this team? I suspected much of what you researched, but research is where the work is done. Thanks.

M2
05-28-2003, 05:27 PM
kvance, the real key is that the Reds are a contending team. That they're doing it uglier than anyone in previous history is just the kind of thing that hopefully makes for a good read (your mileage may vary).

Interesting sidelight: I've received a number of e-mails from friends and family and all of them ask the same question: So what do you think will happen with the Reds? None of these people are Reds fans (until this board I was the only Reds fan I knew). So what I'm hearing from others without a rooting stake in the team is that the piece left the question of what they'll do next open-ended.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-28-2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Raisor
It's the difference between winning 78 games or winning 65 games.


Then it would be freakish. All I'm saying is that 4 games out of 62 is a small sample size to define abnormal. Those 4 games could have been flukes. If they continued to get outscored at the rate forementioned then the won/loss record will even out over time.

Raisor
05-28-2003, 05:43 PM
Just for the information, here's how every team in the majors are doing against their "expected number of wins" using the pythig thm.


Atlanta +4
CINCINNATI +4

Kansas City +3
San Fransisco +3

Boston +2
NY Mets +2
Minnesorta +2
Chicago (A) +2
Texas +2

Tampa Bay +1
Montreal +1

Clevland even
Houston even
Seattle even

Toronto -1
Detroit -1
Pittsburgh -1
Milwaukee -1
Los Angeles -1
Colorado -1

NY Yanks -2
Baltimore -2
Florida -2
Chicago (N) -2
Anaheim -2
Arizona -2
San Diego -2

Philadelphia -3

Oakland -4

Falls City Beer
05-28-2003, 05:45 PM
What about T'aint Louis?

Legion of Dunn
05-28-2003, 05:48 PM
I thought it was an interesting read except for labeling the Reds "contenders." They may be hanging around in the standings (due to their early power surge and inconsistency of the division favorites) but that pitching staff will not have the Reds in the hunt for a whole season. It's a pipe dream.

Raisor
05-28-2003, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Falls City Beer
What about T'aint Louis?


Do they still have a team?

ummmmmmmmm

-5

Looks like the A's (again) and the Cards are the teams to be on the lookout for.

PSR

Chip R
05-28-2003, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Raisor
Do they still have a team? Well, thank you, Bill Terry. ;)

westofyou
05-28-2003, 05:52 PM
Thanks to all.

Folks they're just numbers and words, it's up to you to decide what they tell YOU.

I went all the way back to 1903, no team has ever been 20-20 and had scored 50 less runs than their opponents. That's 1430 teams who have never done it.

That's a freak show.

Just like the Turtle Man I saw at the Ohio State Fair, he rolled a cigarette with his mouth and lit it.

RILA, the "reason" I wanted you to "fork over some bucks" is innocent enough, you can give a man a fish but if you teach him to fish......... don't worry I won't waste my time on you anymore, it's obvious your disdain is enough to keep you fueled.

traderumor
05-28-2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Terry
We've shut down the Braves offense in the current series, but in the series last week at GAB, the Braves scored 20 runs in 3 games, including 8 in Game One and 9 in Game Three. Agreed Terry, and I recalled that when I posted, which is why I specified "starters", because the 8 in Game One was primarily off of the bullpen. Overall, you would have to say the starters have done surprisingly well against the league's top 2 offensive teams. Even the Thursday game, Dempster's E was the only thing that kept him from putting up decent starter #s (must have been the injury ;) )

traderumor
05-28-2003, 06:12 PM
M2 and WOY,

Despite RILs bitterness, I must admit that I have lost many debates to you two because you deal with facts, while many of us just want to spew our opinions regardless of the the facts and then say "grumph, statistics--you can make em say anything you want."

Fact is, anyone who follows this team has to be amazed at the W-L record despite what the numbers are saying. Pretty soon, enough of the season will have been played so folks can quit crying for the Manzanillo factor (our pitching still stinks with or without his numbers) to be accounted for, and we will still be amazed that despite our team ERA hovering in the 5.50 range, its the All Star Break, we're 40-42 and 5 games out of first. We'll still be trying to figure out what stud pitcher we can trade for with the Castro-Stinnett-Casey package deal (who could turn that down), and we'll be riding our tied for the season high 5 game winning streak. Our run differential at that point will prob still be in the 50s range (notwithstanding the Manzanillo factor or the Puerto Rico factor). Maybe we could include the Boone factor, and heck, we'd be undefeated at this point since every loss has been his fault somehow thus far.

:p

Stormy
05-28-2003, 06:16 PM
A very interesting article, and the statistical research really puts it into a nice historical perspective. It's nice to see some exploration into records and numbers which seem anomalous.

I may be wrong, but I believe that when M2 and WOY started compiling this piece, the Reds were still on the 500+ upswing which preceeded much of the recent 4 of 5 losing skid. So, at the outset the disparity looked even more "freakishly" skewed than it does now.

Again, a really enjoyable and insightful read. Thanks fellas.

M2
05-28-2003, 06:24 PM
BTW, thanks to those who've said kind words (and even those who haven't).

The purpose of a piece like this is to impart a little information, to entertain and to get people thinking.

When someone like BCubb, who is a great writer, gives you props on your prose, it's a good day. Same goes with plenty of others,

I was flattered that BP thought it was worth running. I'm even more flattered that so many people I respect on this site gave it a compliment.

creek14
05-28-2003, 06:25 PM
I guess I'm going to have to dump Dunn and Reitsma as the objects of my affection and become a M2 and WOY groupie. :hat: ;)

Nice job, boys.

red-in-la
05-28-2003, 06:28 PM
Just for the information, here's how every team in the majors are doing against their "expected number of wins" using the pythig thm.

Looks like the formula needs A LOT of work.....it appears to "predict 3 out of 30.

WOY, I have no distain....and I am not bitter.

I would however be willing to pay the price of the subscirption to see you and M2 show your article to Adam Dunn, Austin Kearns, Bob Boone and JR, in quiet little room with no press and a guarentee to them that what they thought of your little write up...especially the title, wouldn't leave the room.

I just think you could have made your historical, statistical points without the negative sensationalism.

And I found the the statement that the Reds record should "technically" be worse then it is to be just plain silly.

Technically, airplanes are dangerous because they crash and the engines are the cheapest ones available. Is this a responsable statement to print in an article with a headline of something like, "Airline passengers die by the thousands"?

Again, I think you took stats to your own use and got some ink out of trying to sensationalize a negative....especially one based on only a 33% sample size....

BuckeyeRedleg
05-28-2003, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by westofyou
I went all the way back to 1903, no team has ever been 20-20 and had scored 50 less runs than their opponents. That's 1430 teams who have never done it.

That's a freak show.


Interesting. I guess that would be freakish then.

Great work!

M2
05-28-2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by red-in-la
Looks like the formula needs A LOT of work.....it appears to "predict 3 out of 30.

WOY, I have no distain....and I am not bitter.

I would however be willing to pay the price of the subscirption to see you and M2 show your article to Adam Dunn, Austin Kearns, Bob Boone and JR, in quiet little room with no press and a guarentee to them that what they thought of your little write up...especially the title, wouldn't leave the room.

I just think you could have made your historical, statistical points without the negative sensationalism.

And I found the the statement that the Reds record should "technically" be worse then it is to be just plain silly.

Technically, airplanes are dangerous because they crash and the engines are the cheapest ones available. Is this a responsable statement to print in an article with a headline of something like, "Airline passengers die by the thousands"?

Again, I think you took stats to your own use and got some ink out of trying to sensationalize a negative....especially one based on only a 33% sample size....

Less caffeine perhaps.

You know what I think Adam Dunn would say?

"Who's Frank Lentini?"

"Three legs? Wow."

TeamDunn
05-28-2003, 06:59 PM
Can I have ya'lls autograph? :D :thumbup:

LvJ
05-28-2003, 07:02 PM
Wow, if one could get this much love for looking up some useless stats and then adding alot of negative comments about your own team, then we'd all be kings. :thumbup: ;)

Raisor
05-28-2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by red-in-la
Looks like the formula needs A LOT of work.....it appears to "predict 3 out of 30.



No one is saying that it's a perfect system, but over the last three years (all the energy I could find to put into looking), it's been accurate to within 3 games (or 2% of a 162 game season) 70% of the time.

That's not bad at predicting wins/losses. You take those odds if you go to Vegas.

gm
05-28-2003, 07:05 PM
What the stats tell me is that when the Reds lose, they have a tendency to get stomped (first series against Pitts, the 3 blowouts in Chi-town, etc) and when they win it's by a small margin (record in 1-run games pretty good so far--will it last?)

The 2003 Reds have shown a tendency to comeback from deficits, so they shouldn't 'throw in the towel' and leave their starters/relievers in the game to get shelled...still, early in the season this scenario was happening at an alarming rate...hence the RS deficiency

TeamDunn
05-28-2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by LvJ
Wow, if one could get this much love for looking up some useless stats and then adding alot of negative comments about your own team, then we'd all be kings. :thumbup: ;)

Stick to the banners and I'll send you all the cyber love you want! ;) :D :evilgrin: :smokin:

Raisor
05-28-2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by LvJ
Wow, if one could get this much love for looking up some useless stats and then adding alot of negative comments about your own team, then we'd all be kings. :thumbup: ;)

Yeah, Runs Scored and Runs Against are certainly "useless" stats.

:rolleyes:

LvJ
05-28-2003, 07:08 PM
gm, we are a much different and better team since those blowouts, so those stats speak nothing but history IMO. How many blowouts have we lost in since the big shakeup? 1; and that was the Dempster game in Milwaukee.

LvJ
05-28-2003, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Raisor
Yeah, Runs Scored and Runs Against are certainly "useless" stats.

:rolleyes: Not totally useless, but pretty close.

Wins are the only thing that counts.

TD, ;)

Raisor
05-28-2003, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by LvJ
gm, we are a much different and better team since those blowouts, so those stats speak nothing but history IMO. How many blowouts have we lost in since the big shakeup? 1;.


and since the big shakeup, the Reds are still -9 RS/RA in that time span.

Once again, since "the big shakeup", the Reds have scored 5.29 runs a game (very very good), but have still allowed 5.56 runs/game (very very bad).

That's still a -44 over the course of a 162 game season.

That's translates into being a bad team, unfortunatly.

Trivia question time: How many teams have made the playoffs since 1990 with a negative run diff.

M2
05-28-2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Raisor
and since the big shakeup, the Reds are still -9 RS/RA in that time span.

Once again, since "the big shakeup", the Reds have scored 5.29 runs a game (very very good), but have still allowed 5.56 runs/game (very very bad).

That's still a -44 over the course of a 162 game season.

That's translates into being a bad team, unfortunatly.

Trivia question time: How many teams have made the playoffs since 1990 with a negative run diff.

Normally I'd check up on this, but I'm going with none, zero, zip, zilch, nada.

D-Man
05-28-2003, 07:27 PM
Great job on an interesting article. It was well written and well researched. More importantly, the issue offers two extremely important implications for the 2003 Reds--the Reds are either going to start losing more often, or they're going to have to improve the run differential. Something's gotta give.

I have a few areas of research for you guys to consider if you choose to continue looking into this issue further.

1.) park effects. Although the early data on the GABP has shown it to be a neutral-hitters park, I'm not convinced that that is really the case. By the time the season ends, I believe it will end up being a hitters park, which would likey skew the run-differential data. Teams that play in hitters parks score more runs and play in higher scoring games (e.g., 8-5 games, as opposed to 2-0 games). Naturally, they are going to have run differentials that are not as nice. Using the Pythagorean projections might not necessarily present an accurate picture of reality, which is certainly the case in extreme parks like Coors.

2.) home runs. HRs tend to cause teams to "bunch" their run scoring together because HRs clear the bases of all the runners. This results in scoring pattterns than are high and low from inning to inning, and by implication, scoring patterns that are highly uneven from game to game. (As an aside, the 2001 Mariners are a great example to illustrate the contrast here. That club that outperformed its projections by scoring in smaller bunches across many more innings, whereas the Rockies score in bunches every year and never can perform up to their Pythagorean expectations.) Similarly, the 2003 Reds have hit the most taters in the NL this year (78), but the pitching staff has also given up the most homers in the NL (73). This means that the team is scoring more and getting scored against in bunches, relative to other teams. This penchant to hit (and give up) HRs suggests that the runs scored differential might be a little uneven, relatively speaking, at this point in the season.

The HRs and park effects go a long way to describing why the Colorado Rockies underperform their Pythagorean projections every year--they hit a ton of taters and play in an extreme hitters park, which combine to make the run differential more "lumpy." Similarly, the Pythagorean projections might not be presenting an accurate picture of the who these 2003 Reds actually are. At this point I am a bit ambivalent as to how the homers and park effects will affect the run scoring differential for the Reds, but my intuition leads me to believe that they will split the difference--they will improve their run scoring differential somewhat and also come closer to their Pythagorean projections. Let's face it, a team can't continue to win 90% of its extra-inning games. This is really a .500 ballclub (good hitting, atrocious pitching), which is about where the club's current record stands right now.

Finally, I'm not convinced that two months of runs differential data is sufficient to consider it a trend. The 1999 Reds were way outperforming their Pythagorean projections (+5 games, or something like that) through the end of August, 1999. At the time, analysts (Neyer included) were saying how the Reds were not going to be serious playoff contenders because of this key data point. Not sure if everyone remembers, but Sept-Oct 1999 was one of the best stretch runs ever seen, when Greg Vaughn led the club by hitting something like 16 homers in September and October. In the end, the Reds actually ended up *underperforming* the Pythagorean projections by one game, indicating that some teams might need a little more time for these data to correct themselves, either by the club losing more games or scoring more runs.

There are other issues to consider, like offensive and defensive efficiency (e.g., the value of a good bullpen, bullpen usage patterns by a manager, timely/untimely hitting, etc.). For more in-depth discussion on these points, people might want to check out this Diamond Mind article:
http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/tmeff02.htm

I think the run differential can help us provide insight into *why* the Reds have been winning (i.e., close games, HRs, etc.) more than it can offer definitive evidence that the Reds have been "monumentally lucky." Again, well done, and I hope to see more insight like this in the future.

Raisor
05-28-2003, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by M2
Normally I'd check up on this, but I'm going with none, zero, zip, zilch, nada.


According to my records, there's been exactly ONE team since 1990 to be outscored in the Regular Season, the 1997 San Fransisco Giants (784/790)

Chip R
05-28-2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Raisor
According to my records, there's been exactly ONE team since 1990 to be outscored in the Regular Season, the 1997 San Fransisco Giants (784/790) Rockies came close in 1995. Scored 785 runs and gave up 783 runs.

Raisor
05-28-2003, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Chip R
Rockies came close in 1995. Scored 785 runs and gave up 783 runs.

ah, but a) it's the Rockies and b) they were still over the "magic number"!

:D

LvJ
05-28-2003, 07:40 PM
So it can be done. Those stats are useless.

:D ;) :D ;) :thumbup:

traderumor
05-28-2003, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by LvJ
So it can be done. Those stats are useless.

:D ;) :D ;) :thumbup:

Sounds like you've been watching too many LA Law reruns ;)

LvJ
05-28-2003, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by traderumor
Sounds like you've been watching too many LA Law reruns ;) I never watched L.A. Law, thank you very much. :D :smokin:

gm
05-28-2003, 07:51 PM
"the issue offers two extremely important implications for the 2003 Reds--the Reds are either going to start losing more often, or they're going to have to score more runs. Something's gotta give"

Or, 3) the Red's pitching staff (esp. the rotation) needs to reduce their runs allowed. Fortunately, Don Gullett's starters usually start performing decently, beginning in the month of June. Don't ask me why they consistently suck in April/May 'cause I've got no excuses to offer yah. I merely observe

Raisor
05-28-2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by gm
"the issue offers two extremely important implications for the 2003 Reds--the Reds are either going to start losing more often, or they're going to have to score more runs. Something's gotta give"

Or, 3) the Red's pitching staff (esp. the rotation) needs to reduce their runs allowed.


I'm glad you posted this, since I was just running the numbers :)

First, let's assume that the Reds' offense of the past 34 games (Post "Big Shakeup") is the "Real" Reds offense (scoring 5.29 runs/game). If that's the case, then the Reds can look to score 843 runs for the season (by the way, Arizona led the NL last year with 819 RS). For the Reds pitching to get even with that, they're going to have to go from giving up [currently for the season] 6.13 Runs/Game (or 5.56 runs/game since "the big shakeup") down to 4.76 runs/game (a difference of either 1.37 runs/game or 0.80 runs/game, depending on your point of view)

Either way, without a major change in personel on the pitching side, I don't see that happening.

PSR

NYMoose
05-28-2003, 08:10 PM
Nice job guys. The talent level on this board is outstanding.

Congrats

Fil3232
05-28-2003, 08:17 PM
Congrats to M2 and WOY on a good article and a very nice opportunity. Keep it up.

gm
05-28-2003, 08:23 PM
"without a major change in personel on the pitching side, I don't see that happening"

Well you'd think so, but (I'm offering hope, here) St. Don typically starts making lemonade out of JimBo's "lemons" about this time, every season. Hang with 'em, Red's fans

J "Cooper"
05-28-2003, 08:35 PM
First let me say (write) -congrats to M2 and WOY. You guys produce the best work and the most informative posts on this site. It's way cool you got your stuff on BP. It was a dang good article.

I noticed that BP in their stats section has a metric on where teams would be if you take into account base runners and situations. IIRC, the Reds fair even worse in this metric.

The negative over the top response was/is waaay rude. Almost unbelievable -2 of our own hit the big time and they get this type of grief. Not cool -nor gracious.

Boss-Hog
05-28-2003, 11:55 PM
The negative over the top response was/is waaay rude. Almost unbelievable -2 of our own hit the big time and they get this type of grief. Not cool -nor gracious.

I was thinking the same thing. Thanks for an interesting read, WoY and M2.

REDREAD
05-29-2003, 12:46 AM
Congratulations WestofYou and M2.. pretty cool article.

Really, I don't see it as being negative at all.. Look at it this way, this team's chemistry/character/luck/whatever has allowed it to overachieve in the win column.

I think this will be a very streaky team all through the year, due to unreliable pitching and a streaky HR-based offense..

We're going to have some amazing comebacks, and unfortunately we are going to have more blowouts like tonight..
That's what the stats can show you, that our pitching is pretty weak.. and now, with Austin shown the door, it looks like we have a huge blackhole in the #5 slot right now.

That's what really did us in in 2001.. Rieth, Reyes, and Bell went something like 1-16 in the fifth starter slot.. We are in danger of a simliar catastrophe at the bottom of the rotation this year (#4 and #5 slots)..

oregonred
05-29-2003, 02:21 AM
Great stuff M2 and WOY. I just read the article after I posted the run differential stat in one of the other threads.

This helps answer some questions I was wondering.

:beerme:

creek14
05-29-2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by REDREAD
Really, I don't see it as being negative at all.. Look at it this way, this team's chemistry/character/luck/whatever has allowed it to overachieve in the win column.


That's the way I took it too.

guernsey
05-29-2003, 09:08 AM
Beats the heck out of my "Ask Hal" questions!

:lol:

RFS62
05-29-2003, 11:25 AM
Boy, I didn't take it as negative at all. In fact, it's pretty much a tribute to the character of the team that they have won as many close games as they have.

I can see BCubbs point of view too. It looks to me like there are two definite periods of time to study in the season so far. Pre and Post Puerto Rico.

And what an excellent job of writing and research by two highly esteemed Zoners!!!!


:beerme:

15fan
05-29-2003, 11:26 AM
Ok...who's going to take it upon themselves to fill out these forms (http://www.pulitzer.org/Entry_Forms/entry_forms.html) ?

Bang up work, fellas.

(And I'm glad you ran the numbers prior to last night's drubbing...)

halcyon
05-29-2003, 12:14 PM
Im a bit late to the thread because I'd already read the piece on the BP site. I enjoyed the article and thought it was quality work and well written, without realizing who'd wrote it. Nice work, gentlemen.

MattyHo4Life
05-29-2003, 12:17 PM
I agree is a well written and researched article. I don't know how I passed over this huge thread, but I saw the article posted on the Cardinal forum (St. Louis Sports Forum) first.

M2
05-29-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by MattyMo4Life
I agree is a well written and researched article. I don't know how I passed over this huge thread, but I saw the article posted on the Cardinal forum (St. Louis Sports Forum) first.

Just curious, what kind of response did it get there?

MattyHo4Life
05-29-2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by M2
Just curious, what kind of response did it get there?

M2,

The article was posted over there until this morning so there aren't many responses yet.

Here's a link to the post. (http://www.stlouissportsforum.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=10110&)

BCubb2003
05-29-2003, 03:01 PM
Well, Wednesday night's game should be a lesson in how this freakish stat can happen. After two epic one-run games, going the distance with the team with the best record in baseball, we get a 15-3 blowout. That's enough to skew the stats for at least 6 one-run games. And the loss, as awful as it was, counts the same in the loss column as the 10-inning one-run loss the day before. I'm beginning to think it's the drop-off in pitching that's the major factor. This run differential is really the difference between Gabe White's amazing showdown with Javy Lopez vs. Chris Reitsma's ineffectiveness, or quality starts by Graves and Riedling vs. nightmares by Jeff Austin and Joey Hamilton.

Falls City Beer
05-29-2003, 03:17 PM
"This run differential is really the difference between Gabe White's amazing showdown with Javy Lopez vs. Chris Reitsma's ineffectiveness, or quality starts by Graves and Riedling vs. nightmares by Jeff Austin and Joey Hamilton."

No question.

But ask yourself: how many quality starts are we going to get from Graves and Reidling the rest of the season? Then ask yourself: how many quality starts are we going to get from Wilson, Haynes, Reitsma, Anderson, Austin, or whatever detritus or flavor of the week? I suspect the answer to the first question is approximately a league average number of quality starts, maybe below average.
And I suspect the answer to the next question is well, well below league average. The problem is that the pitchers in the second question outnumber the pitchers in first question 3 to 2. So 60% of rotation will give us far fewer quality starts than quality starts and the remaining 40% will give us approximately a league average number at best.

I guess my point is that what you saw last night is more likely to happen going forward than what you saw in the first two games of the series, provided the rotation doesn't change its constituents very soon.

Raisor
05-29-2003, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by BCubb2003
I'm beginning to think it's the drop-off in pitching that's the major factor. .


I'd like to nominate this sentance for the "Understatement of the Year" award.

:D

Anyway, I wanted to look at some numbers a little closer. If you eliminate all the games where the Reds were either defeated by five runs or more, or won by five runs or more, the team has a -2 Run Differential (over a 162 game season, that translates to -8), which is about two games under .500

westofyou
05-29-2003, 03:19 PM
How many blowouts have we lost in since the big shakeup?

1, and that was the Dempster game in Milwaukee.

What's a definition of a "Blow out"?

In the 34 games since the Reds left PR they are 19-15,(-21 in the runs differential)

17 of those games have resulted in the Reds giving up 6 runs or more.

When the total ERA of all of Baseball is 4.65 giving up almost a run and 1/2 above (or beyond) that in 17 of your past 34 games is what I'd call "A red flag"



Weren't they horribly outscored last year at this time as well, despite a above 500

record?

It's called lack of pitching.




Last year at the 40 game mark (note the Cards record and run differential) and the

way it looked after 53 games, 64, 77, 128 (last time the Reds were .500), 162




Team Name G W L PCT GB RS RA
Cincinnati Reds 40 25 15 .625 - 182 153
St. Louis Cardinals 40 20 20 .500 5.0 180 185


NL Central
Team Name G W L PCT GB RS RA
Cincinnati Reds 53 32 21 .603 - 241 217
St. Louis Cardinals 53 30 23 .566 2.0 242 229


NL Central
Team Name G W L PCT GB RS RA
Cincinnati Reds 64 36 28 .562 - 280 279
St. Louis Cardinals 64 35 29 .546 1.0 296 280


NL Central
Team Name G W L PCT GB RS RA
St. Louis Cardinals 75 41 34 .546 - 335 312
Cincinnati Reds 77 41 36 .532 1.0 321 341


NL Central
Team Name G W L PCT GB RS RA
St. Louis Cardinals 98 55 43 .561 - 459 413
Cincinnati Reds 101 53 48 .524 3.5 450 451

NL Central
Team Name G W L PCT GB RS RA
St. Louis Cardinals 127 71 56 .559 - 590 539
Houston Astros 129 68 61 .527 4.0 616 570
Cincinnati Reds 128 64 64 .500 7.5 584 607

NL Central
Team Name G W L PCT GB RS RA
St. Louis Cardinals 162 97 65 .598 - 787 648
Houston Astros 162 84 78 .518 13.0 749 695
Cincinnati Reds 162 78 84 .481 19.0 709 774

BCubb2003
05-29-2003, 03:35 PM
I think we'll see a lot of series go the way this one with Atlanta did, maybe a little better if we aren't going up against the best record in baseball: A likely win when Graves starts, although he'll have a clinker once in awhile; a chance to win when Reidling starts, if the offense isn't flat and the bullpen holds on; a rare chance to win but probably a close loss when Wilson starts, but a few more clinkers likely; then a couple of blowouts.

In other words,
No. 1, a win.
No. 2, a win.
No. 3, a close loss, but we won the series and we feel like a contender and we're hanging in there.

Next series:
No. 4, a blowout.
No. 5, a blowout, we've already lost the series, probably to a last-place team, we've lost three in a row, and the sky is falling.
No. 1, a win, but the sky is still falling.

Next series:
No. 2, a win, maybe.
No. 3, a loss.
No. 4, a blowout, this is it, we're out of it, trade for next year, etc.

M2
05-29-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by BCubb2003
Well, Wednesday night's game should be a lesson in how this freakish stat can happen. After two epic one-run games, going the distance with the team with the best record in baseball, we get a 15-3 blowout. That's enough to skew the stats for at least 6 one-run games. And the loss, as awful as it was, counts the same in the loss column as the 10-inning one-run loss the day before. I'm beginning to think it's the drop-off in pitching that's the major factor. This run differential is really the difference between Gabe White's amazing showdown with Javy Lopez vs. Chris Reitsma's ineffectiveness, or quality starts by Graves and Riedling vs. nightmares by Jeff Austin and Joey Hamilton.

There is another possibility. It's probably the answer that no one wants to hear.

Pastings like last night are how you get such ugly run differential numbers and we all know that teams with ugly run differential numbers usually end up losing more than they win.

So maybe pastings like last night, if they happen on too frequent a basis, are the hallmark of a not-so-good club.

It's one thing to lose by five or more runs every now and then. These Reds have done it 11 times (more than 20% of their total games), six since the Puerto Rico purge.

gonelong
05-29-2003, 05:17 PM
Nice article M2, good legwork WOY.

Its nice to see someone have the stones to submit something like this to BP. Its even better to see they have deemed it worthy of publishing. I'd bet you guys have another article published within a few months.

I know you guys aren't discouraged by the few rude comments here. The chasm between providing the numbers and evaluating them honestly to ... you guys suck ... is wide and deep, and I know you realize it as easily as the majority of us RZers do.

Rock on. http://www.saintsreport.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/ylsuper.gif

TheBurn
05-29-2003, 06:08 PM
I may be wrong or something (it's happened before!) but what I got out of it is that despite all that, we're still contending...
Isn't that a good thing?
Congrats M2 & WOY :beerme:

backbencher
05-29-2003, 06:44 PM
Congratulations, M2 and WOY. They always had sharp folks at BP, and now it seems they found two more.

M2, one of your posts a while back made me think that you were looking to address Pythagoras. I am glad your efforts made their way back here.

I also think you might have pre-empted Rob Neyer's annual "X team is going to fall apart because Pythagoras says so" article, which I find good, because he writes the same piece with different team names each year.

I, perhaps unsurprisingly, am not overly fond of the macro-level runs-creates/runs allowed formulations for those who watch a team on a daily basis; I find that a little watching provides context that the macro level does not. (OK, I will go further: It seems to be one area in which statheads could give bugger-all about sample size.) I'm talking, by the way, about the predictive pieces, not the semi-whimsical, look-at-the-anomaly-in-the-making that you provide. As your article (e.g., in mentioning Oakland) and others here (discussing roster shakeups, injuries, etc.) have pointed out, the RC/RA calculus can change substantially in the course of a few weeks.

Following up on D-Man's exceptional post [where have you been?], I would be VERY interested in profiles, to the extent that they can be determined, of the teams that bust the Pythagorean "truth." I too suspect that those teams have shaky rotations, stronger pens, walk-dependent OBP and homer-dependent slugging. (As well as aberrational late-inning close BA.) The anecdotal example of yesterday's game shows how a short staff can lead to massive run producing disparities -- just pick a stiff you don't care about and let him get boxed around the ears until PETA intervenes. Presto, a double-digit loss that is not particularly representative of a team's future ability to win games.

MDRed
05-29-2003, 07:38 PM
Behind on my news so I just got to your article. Great job, guys. It's spawned some interesting replies in this thread.

J "Cooper"
05-29-2003, 07:40 PM
As i understand it, the only teams that bust through pythag. RS/RA are teams that are truly lucky (teams that are out scored). I've seen teams do it for the year, but the next year it tends to even out.

It's a good tool that correlates well to a teams true status. the Reds have been extremely lucky.

Also, IIRC (and I know this will be heresy for about 85% of the posters here) a teams record in games decided by 1 run is usually a function of luck. Really good teams aren't a function of how they do in 1 run games -but how often they blow out the opposition. Our record in 1 run games will probalby even out toward .500. When that happens, we'll be hurting cause it means we are getting blown out.

backbencher
05-29-2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by J "Cooper"
As i understand it, the only teams that bust through pythag. RS/RA are teams that are truly lucky (teams that are out scored). I've seen teams do it for the year, but the next year it tends to even out.

It's a good tool that correlates well to a teams true status. the Reds have been extremely lucky.

Also, IIRC (and I know this will be heresy for about 85% of the posters here) a teams record in games decided by 1 run is usually a function of luck. Really good teams aren't a function of how they do in 1 run games -but how often they blow out the opposition. Our record in 1 run games will probalby even out toward .500. When that happens, we'll be hurting cause it means we are getting blown out.
I think you mean "teams that look lucky from 60,000 feet." Things "even out" for lots of predictable reasons -- injuries, free agency, career years -- that are obvious to micro-watchers. "Luck" is code for "something that we cannot (yet) explain statistically," not for "something we cannot explain."

A lot of trees have been killed in the cause of explaining one-run games, but I think all would agree that (1) strong relievers and (2) HR hitters both suggest better-than-expected performance in one-run games.

At a bottom line, pythagoras depends on a pretty key assumption: That the game in which a team scores or yields runs is pretty much arbitrary. I can think of plenty of reasons (Boone's Sunday specials, e.g.) that is not the case. That does not make RC/RA meaningless; only overused in some circles (and obviously grotesquely underused in others).

J "Cooper"
05-29-2003, 08:06 PM
Backbencher: don't mean to offend, but i read your post 3 times and i don't understand your first paragraph. The stuff in quotes went right over my head--I'm kinda slow today.

AFAIK, good relievers/HR hitters have no real effect on how teams do in 1 run games. Anybody got any studies to refer to? Maybe i missed it.

insider
05-29-2003, 11:02 PM
I'm guessing much of the run differential can be associated with an injured Jimmy Haynes, an injured Ryan Dempster, Jimmy Anderson, Josias Manzanillo, and more recently, Jeff Austin.

It's very simple.....if the Reds keep scrambling from starter to starter and nobody outside of Graves/Wilson steps us.....the run differentials will grow and this team will fall well short of .500.

If John Reidling and a healthy Jimmy Haynes 'step up'.....and either a trade is made for a starter or Ryan Dempster comes back competitive again.....then maybe, just maybe, this team has an outside shot, although we could still use some help from the Cards bullpen, an injured Oswalt and an injured Sosa.

Reidling and Haynes don't have to be lights out......but they have to give us a chance to win every game the way Graves and Wilson typically do, the way Parris and Villone did in '99. W/ a good bullpen and a team that can score quickly, just keep us close for 6. We've dodged the bullet for now - our W/L record could be much worse - but we won't dodge it much longer if this rotation doesn't take shape real soon.

I'm not giving up just yet.

D-Man
05-30-2003, 12:45 AM
Backbencher: Thanks for the kind words! I always appreciate your posts as well. I've been on a long hiatus because I enrolled in business school last August. . . Let's just say my first year was a life-consuming event. I've been forced to enjoy the Reds from the "nosebleeds" for nearly a year. Hopefully I will be able to contribute this summer.

J Cooper: I believe that Bill James details his findings about the appropriateness of the RC formula and the implications of what it tells us in one of his articles in the WIN SHARES book. I believe the article is about halfway or one-third of the way through the book. [Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, as I do not have the book with me.] The Diamond Mind article, http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/tmeff02.htm, details offensive efficiency--how we can normally expect offensive events (e.g., singles and doubles) to translate into runs.

M2 and West of You: Great job on bringing up an excellent discussion. I've thoroughly enjoyed it. It just goes to show that no matter what happens in baseball, there are a hundred ways to explain the events--what a beautiful game. The efficacy of the RC formula (when it is appropriate, when it isn't) is one of my "pet" topics, and I look forward to seeing more examination of the issue in the future.

backbencher
05-30-2003, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by J "Cooper"
Backbencher: don't mean to offend, but i read your post 3 times and i don't understand your first paragraph. The stuff in quotes went right over my head--I'm kinda slow today.

AFAIK, good relievers/HR hitters have no real effect on how teams do in 1 run games. Anybody got any studies to refer to? Maybe i missed it.

J Coop -- Sorry, I was not clear enough. One of my pet peeves about the SABR movement is that it has coopted the term "luck." To them, luck is not the same as pure chance; it is something that cannot be explained with a STATS, Inc. subscription and a calculator. They are not the same thing. In the context of RC/RA and the Reds, I like the way M2 and WOY have put it -- the Reds are quite aberrational. That does not mean that we cannot explain the aberration or, more important, that the aberration will not continue into the future. If the early-season past were prologue, the A's would never make the playoffs.

As for teams that tend to do better in one-run games, every article I have seen on the subject gives a nod to strong bullpens as a common link between teams that do well in such situations. One problem with repeating that performance over the course of multiple years is that bullpens do not necessarily stay together, or maintain health, or perform at peak level for long stretches of time. I also have read the slugger theory once or twice, and I happen to like it. It is less discussed/accepted, though.

cincinnati chili
06-02-2003, 06:10 PM
Jeez. If this is what people say when you guys write a GOOD article, I'd hate to see the level of criticism if you guys wrote a lousy article.

This goes to show that you can't please everybody.

As for the article, I'd see this as an opportunity for the Reds' front office. They've effectively dodged a bullet. By continuing to make the team better (they did so when they dumped Manzy, Anderson, and Austin), they could be a legitimate contender. They're 2 or 3 players away, and they probably won't get those players, but this article shows me that they've made the most of some pretty lousy run output.

red-in-la
06-02-2003, 06:16 PM
I am beginning to join with your sentiment chili.....I think the Reds are going to need 2 or 3 more real players to get to the next level.

This WMP thing has got to get fixed.....it is embarrassing.

Hopefully, Dempster can come back and take Austin's place.

And I think they need to fix the Guillen/Dunn/Casey thing.

If in that effort, they can get one more solid starting pitcher and return Riedling to where he belongs, as the replacement for Scott Sullivan, I think they are most of the way there.

Other than tat, either Lopez has to start hitting again or somebody has to play SS who can lead off....that would be the other guy they need.

remdog
06-03-2003, 03:31 AM
Having been out of town, I'm pretty late to the party on this thread so I'll say this:

Nicely written article by M2 & WOY (is this going to be a 'Siskel & Ebert' type of tandum?). Congrats on being 'published'. Although I don't particularly hold BP in high esteem, it's nice to see some 'locals' getting a wider audiance.

Having said all of that, IMO, the article, basicly, simply sent the pig the long way around the barn to get to the trough----the trough being that if, in the long run, other teams out score you, you're going to lose more games than you win. (shrug) No disrespect there WOY & M2, I simply don't get a big thrill out of pages of numbers that end up stating the obvious. That's just me. I'm aware that some folks like that sort of thing and I have no gripe about it. Good for them.

For some people the 'devil is in the details'. For others, the 'devil is in the happening'. Some people like to get up in the morning and look at the game strictly by the numbers. Others like to stay up late and watch the action and the numbers be damned (except in the win loss/column). (Once again, shrug.)

Obviously, the thread garnered a lot attention. Kudos. There must be some interest here over and above the 'local boy makes good' angle.

BTW, just my opinion but the most interesing insight (including the original article) in the whole thread came from posts by D-Man and backbencher. You two guys might also want to become another 'dynamic duo' spawned by Redszone. :)

Rem

Raisor
07-08-2003, 02:10 PM
Things are still freaky, even with the club being 7 games under. That's still SIX games over what they project to be..

Raisor
04-13-2004, 07:44 PM
I was going through the MB today and found this thread. M2 & WOY, are you guys working on anything new for BP or elsewhere?

westofyou
04-13-2004, 07:58 PM
I was going through the MB today and found this thread. M2 & WOY, are you guys working on anything new for BP or elsewhere?

Right now Sandy and I are preparing a Verbal/Multimedia presentation for SABR 34 - Day 1, 3:00, Subject: The first over the fence home runs at Redland Field.

M2
04-13-2004, 08:03 PM
I've been swamped with articles where I regularly get to write the word "vaporware" with far too much regularity.

There's something, not numbers based, that I'd like to put together, but it's on a back burner at the moment.

wheels
04-13-2004, 08:13 PM
Ahhh...The life of a freelancer.

My roomate is one of your kind. Hours of hard work, and in the end, not really getting paid for it.

Of course, he's a music writer, which is a lot different.

Sorry I didn't chime in with props last year. I don't know where my head could have been at that time.

I'm a subscriber, so I'll know who to look for from now on.

M2
04-13-2004, 08:25 PM
Ahhh...The life of a freelancer.

My roomate is one of your kind. Hours of hard work, and in the end, not really getting paid for it.

Of course, he's a music writer, which is a lot different.

I can tell you it's a lot more fun to do what your roommate's doing (I once staged a public trial and execution of Hootie and the Blowfish), but I've got mouths to feed and bills to pay, thus my foray into enterprise IT architecture.

wheels
04-13-2004, 08:31 PM
I'd really like to read that!

Are you familiar with Jim DeRogatis? He go into lots of trouble with Rolling Stone because of his loathing of that band.

M2
04-13-2004, 08:45 PM
I'd really like to read that!

Are you familiar with Jim DeRogatis? He go into lots of trouble with Rolling Stone because of his loathing of that band.

I don't think it exists in electronic format. Otherwise I'd post a link. I've got it lurking in a clip file in the attic of a relative's house.

DeRogatis sounds vaguely familiar. Music writers have it tough because, in order to get the PR folks to feed you interviews, you've got to kiss a lot of keister.

I actually thought I launched a winning defense of Hootie in my piece (I also made the case for the prosecution). I argued that they were just a bar band that hit it big, kind of like John Cafferty and Beaver Brown on popularity roids, and what people really hated wasn't the band so much as its white-bread, yuppie scum fans. The public was not swayed, causing me to muse that if I staged a mock public trial of Mother Theresa, she'd have gotten the gallows as well.

RedFanAlways1966
04-14-2004, 08:46 AM
I was going through the MB today and found this thread. M2 & WOY, are you guys working on anything new for BP or elsewhere?

SABR-tism 101!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist! :D