PDA

View Full Version : BP on Reds/Krivsky



flyer85
04-03-2006, 12:11 PM
24th on the Hit List


Plus he's let Tony Womack linger around the roster within reach of Ryan Freel's starting job. That's not just decisive, that's decisively stupid.

BRM
04-03-2006, 12:26 PM
What? You mean Redszone isn't the only one that thinks this is a terrible decision?

flyer85
04-03-2006, 12:29 PM
What? You mean Redszone isn't the only one that thinks this is a terrible decision?They probably picked it up from visiting redszone, kind of like a case of the clap

westofyou
04-03-2006, 12:38 PM
Not to defend Womack, whom I agree is the teams first cut.

But the Reds aren't very high on Freel's play in the IF, that is abundently clear, any ignoring of that is just tail chasing the subject, why Tony Womack is playing can not be discussed without discussing WHY Ryan Freel isn't playing, and calling the GM/Manager an Idiot/Slash Fill-in-the-Blank only avoids the real question.

Why isn't Ryan Freel good enough to be the starter?

BP has Freel at a robust .260/.345/.356 6.1 projection in VORP, Baseball Info Solutions has him at .259/.355/.365 in their projections.

Neither is something to boast about when your fielding is being questioned by the team, neither is much to boast about over 600 at bats either

That would put him in this neighborhood in the post strike world.


RUNS CREATED/GAME YEAR RC/G SB OBA SLG
1 Tom Goodwin 2000 4.94 55 .346 .352
2 Darren Lewis 1998 4.65 29 .352 .362
3 Otis Nixon 1995 4.61 50 .357 .338
4 Chuck Knoblauch 2001 4.47 38 .339 .351
5 Andy Fox 2002 4.17 31 .338 .333
6 Otis Nixon 1997 4.16 59 .337 .318
7 Tony Womack 2002 4.08 29 .325 .353
8 Tom Goodwin 1999 4.03 39 .324 .341
9 Dave Roberts 2003 4.01 40 .331 .307
10 Mark McLemore 2000 3.95 30 .353 .316

I'm of the opinion that neither of the guys are what the Reds really want at 2nd base, and that despite the fact that Narron and his world view still finds the water bug as the most important trait a 2nd baseman can possess. Freel's unrestrained water bug routine hasn't grow on Narron, whose Huckelberry Hound sensibilities leans towards a more controled manner of play.

So IMO it's not really why is Womack starting as much as why isn't Freel starting.

flyer85
04-03-2006, 12:47 PM
which makes it seems if they are willing to trade offense for ??whatever??, then just give it to Bergolla(who is an excellent defensive player) and bat him 8th.

And even though Freel's PECOTA is anemic his VORP is ~15 higher than Womack

Red Leader
04-03-2006, 12:51 PM
I can see the argument of why not Freel. I don't think he'd be a good everyday 2B option for them either. So why not Rich Aurilia at 2B? Maybe not as much range as Freel, but better than Womack, and provides better offense than Womack.

flyer85
04-03-2006, 12:54 PM
I can see the argument of why not Freel. I don't think he'd be a good everyday 2B option for them either. So why not Rich Aurilia at 2B? Maybe not as much range as Freel, but better than Womack, and provides better offense than Womack.The stuff I read all spring said the Reds liked Freel as a super-utility kind of player. Now I read today that Narron says Freel and Womack are the 2nd basemen and Aurilia is the utility guy that will play all the infield positions(including 1st when a lefty is pitching). Make up your mind.

Johnny Footstool
04-03-2006, 12:55 PM
Not to defend Womack, whom I agree is the teams first cut.

But the Reds aren't very high on Freel's play in the IF, that is abundently clear, any ignoring of that is just tail chasing the subject, why Tony Womack is playing can not be discussed without discussing WHY Ryan Freel isn't playing, and calling the GM/Manager an Idiot/Slash Fill-in-the-Blank only avoids the real question.

Why isn't Ryan Freel good enough to be the starter?

BP has Freel at a robust .260/.345/.356 6.1 projection in VORP, Baseball Info Solutions has him at .259/.355/.365 in their projections.

Neither is something to boast about when your fielding is being questioned by the team, neither is much to boast about over 600 at bats either

That would put him in this neighborhood in the post strike world.


RUNS CREATED/GAME YEAR RC/G SB OBA SLG
1 Tom Goodwin 2000 4.94 55 .346 .352
2 Darren Lewis 1998 4.65 29 .352 .362
3 Otis Nixon 1995 4.61 50 .357 .338
4 Chuck Knoblauch 2001 4.47 38 .339 .351
5 Andy Fox 2002 4.17 31 .338 .333
6 Otis Nixon 1997 4.16 59 .337 .318
7 Tony Womack 2002 4.08 29 .325 .353
8 Tom Goodwin 1999 4.03 39 .324 .341
9 Dave Roberts 2003 4.01 40 .331 .307
10 Mark McLemore 2000 3.95 30 .353 .316

I'm of the opinion that neither of the guys are what the Reds really want at 2nd base, and that despite the fact that Narron and his world view still finds the water bug as the most important trait a 2nd baseman can possess. Freel's unrestrained water bug routine hasn't grow on Narron, whose Huckelberry Hound sensibilities leans towards a more controled manner of play.

So IMO it's not really why is Womack starting as much as why isn't Freel starting.

Even if Freel manages to hit only .260 (which I think would be a worst-case scenario), his OPB will still be 40 points higher than Womack's. 40 points of OB is well worth any shortcomings Freel might have with the glove. The argument shouldn't need to go any farther than that.

Comparing Freel to the Tom Goodwins and Otis Nixons of the world is fair, but not really germaine to the situation. He's the better of two available options.

Red Leader
04-03-2006, 12:58 PM
Make up your mind.

That, IMO, will lead to the demise of Jerry Narron. His inability to make up his mind. He commits to one thing, and then changes his mind before fully carrying out his "plan". I think those 3 player's roles were clear as a bell back in December. Aurilia should be the starting 2B. Freel should be the super-sup, and Womack should be a bench guy, PH and PR when needed.

flyer85
04-03-2006, 12:59 PM
That, IMO, will lead to the demise of Jerry Narron. His inability to make up his mind. He commits to one thing, and then changes his mind before fully carrying out his "plan". I think those 3 player's roles were clear as a bell back in December. Aurilia should be the starting 2B. Freel should be the super-sup, and Womack should be a bench guy, PH and PR when needed.obviously spring training didn't decide anything. The Cards are going to dump Spivey, they really need Womack back in town.

traderumor
04-03-2006, 01:02 PM
The stuff I read all spring said the Reds liked Freel as a super-utility kind of player. Now I read today that Narron says Freel and Womack are the 2nd basemen and Aurilia is the utility guy that will play all the infield positions(including 1st when a lefty is pitching). Make up your mind.
Not defending the specific decision, but what is wrong with a manager making conjecture about where guys might play, but then once things start happening on the field, he goes another direction? Should he just stubbornly stick to his word?

flyer85
04-03-2006, 01:07 PM
Not defending the specific decision, but what is wrong with a manager making conjecture about where guys might play, but then once things start happening on the field, he goes another direction? Should he just stubbornly stick to his word?only if what he saw made him change his mind. If it did I am not sure what he saw. I find it interesting that I heard Marty and Stewie say a number of times that they were pretty sure that Womack wasn't going to be playing 2b because of his extremely poor defense in the spring(they both thought Aurilia would be the starting 2b). I guess Jerry saw it differently and now realizes that Womack is his best option thanks to his impressive spring.

westofyou
04-03-2006, 01:09 PM
The argument shouldn't need to go any farther than that.

Sorry, that's too absolute for me.

Something plays in to it aside from the OB% and the glove, maybe it's his K's maybe it's lack of faith in Lopez and Freel aside each other?


Comparing Freel to the Tom Goodwins and Otis Nixons of the world is fair, but not really germaine to the situation. He's the better of two available options.
Then why isn't he getting the call? That's all I'm asking.. and as you can see from my first sentence I'm not backing Womack, so instead of talking down Womacks game I'm just pondering why Freel doesn't get the start.

BRM
04-03-2006, 01:11 PM
which makes it seems if they are willing to trade offense for ??whatever??, then just give it to Bergolla(who is an excellent defensive player) and bat him 8th.

And even though Freel's PECOTA is anemic his VORP is ~15 higher than Womack

Good point. If they are looking for the best defensive option, I'd think Bergolla would be the guy when he's healthy. If they are looking for the best offensive option, Freel or Aurilia would have to be the choice. It just seems odd that the worst offensive and defensive player of the group is the one Narron chose. I guess some could argue that Freel is worse defensively than Womack but I'm not sure I'd agree with that.

Reds Nd2
04-03-2006, 01:12 PM
which makes it seems if they are willing to trade offense for ??whatever??, then just give it to Bergolla(who is an excellent defensive player) and bat him 8th.

That's the option I would go with. Does anyone else think that platooning 2B adversely affects Lopez' defense at SS?

flyer85
04-03-2006, 01:13 PM
Then why isn't he getting the call? That's all I'm asking.. and as you can see from my first sentence I'm not backing Womack, so instead of talking down Womacks game I'm just pondering why Freel doesn't get the start.Seems to me the most obvious answer is the Narron doesn't like him as a 2b (which makes one wonder what he likes about Womack as a 2b). Aurulia seemed to be a favorite of Narron last year at 2nd and now he is seemingly the odd man out. Maybe the Reds are still going to make another move.

flyer85
04-03-2006, 01:15 PM
That's the option I would go with. Does anyone else think that platooning 2B adversely affects Lopez' defense at SS?not really. I suppose it could affect the timing of the DP but with Womack and his lack of arm strength they won't be turning that many anyway.

BRM
04-03-2006, 01:18 PM
Seems to me the most obvious answer is the Narron doesn't like him as a 2b (which makes one wonder what he likes about Womack as a 2b). Aurulia seemed to be a favorite of Narron last year at 2nd and now he is seemingly the odd man out. Maybe the Reds are still going to make another move.

I'd love to know the answer to that. I can understand if Narron doesn't like Freel at 2B if his defense is the issue. However, what does he like about Womack? Narron must love something about Womack enough to make him the starter. I'd love to know what it is. Maybe Womack won by default due to Jerry simply not liking Freel there?

flyer85
04-03-2006, 01:22 PM
Maybe Womack won by default due to Jerry simply not liking Freel there?or he decided Aurilia is more valuable as a utility guy. Womack can only play 2b and Freel 2b/3b. If Womack is not the starter there is certainly no reason to keep him around in a utility role because he doesn't fit.

westofyou
04-03-2006, 01:23 PM
Narron must love something about Womack enough to make him the starter.Yep, you'd think that watching Bobby Gritch play all those games at 2nd for the Angels would have dissuaded him from falling in love with Rob Wilfong's game.

Reds Nd2
04-03-2006, 01:24 PM
not really. I suppose it could affect the timing of the DP but with Womack and his lack of arm strength they won't be turning that many anyway.

Turning the DP was my primary concern but also being comfortable fielding balls up the middle. Of course, with any no-range 2B that won't be a problem either.

Johnny Footstool
04-03-2006, 01:54 PM
Then why isn't he getting the call? That's all I'm asking.. and as you can see from my first sentence I'm not backing Womack, so instead of talking down Womacks game I'm just pondering why Freel doesn't get the start.

I think the problem is that you're searching for logical, defensible reasons when there are none.

Narron likes Womack's "veteran presence." Womack "knows how to win." That's the extent of it.

BRM
04-03-2006, 01:57 PM
I think the problem is that you're searching for logical, defensible reasons when there are none.

Narron likes Womack's "veteran presence." Womack "knows how to win." That's the extent of it.

Those same two things have been said about Aurilia. Why Womack over Aurilia?

Falls City Beer
04-03-2006, 01:58 PM
The two things I'm holding out hope for viz the Womack situation are these:

1. Krivsky didn't acquire him.

2. Krivsky, at this point, is giving his on-the-field manager the leverage to make roster decisions.

I just hope that behind these two points is Krivsky's impatience and desire to get more output from the second base position.

Falls City Beer
04-03-2006, 02:00 PM
Those same two things have been said about Aurilia. Why Womack over Aurilia?

"Speed"/veteran = lead-off hitter. That's Narron's thinking process.

Parsing it beyond that will just give you vertigo.

BRM
04-03-2006, 02:02 PM
"Speed"/veteran = lead-off hitter. That's Narron's thinking process.

Parsing it beyond that will just give you vertigo.

I can see that from Narron. He dislikes Freel at 2B so the choice is between RA and Womack. Womack has speed therefore he can leadoff (since Freel is benched). Makes perfect sense.

westofyou
04-03-2006, 02:18 PM
"Speed"/veteran = lead-off hitter. That's Narron's thinking process.

Parsing it beyond that will just give you vertigo.

Though Narron was a catcher, I get a distinct feeling 3 of Narron's managers as a player are what he sees in a 2nd baseman. The three would be Billy Martin (Rich Aurilia) Maury Wills (Tony Womack) and Gene Mauch (Ryan Freel)

Of course Mauch only played 304 games in MLB, so that might explain where Freel starts today.

OldXOhio
04-03-2006, 02:24 PM
Those same two things have been said about Aurilia. Why Womack over Aurilia?

Righty on the hill today

flyer85
04-03-2006, 02:29 PM
Righty on the hill todayWomack doesn't discriminate, his splits are almost the same taking 2003-2005 into account

OldXOhio
04-03-2006, 02:31 PM
Womack doesn't discriminate, his splits are almost the same taking 2003-2005 into account

No argument here. If the notion of starting LH Womack against RHP Zambrano seems pointless and simplistic, that's probably b/c it is.

BRM
04-03-2006, 02:35 PM
Righty on the hill today

Aurilia has better numbers against lefties and righties over the last three years.

Roy Tucker
04-03-2006, 03:11 PM
Though Narron was a catcher, I get a distinct feeling 3 of Narron's managers as a player are what he sees in a 2nd baseman. The three would be Billy Martin (Rich Aurilia) Maury Wills (Tony Womack) and Gene Mauch (Ryan Freel)

Of course Mauch only played 304 games in MLB, so that might explain where Freel starts today.


There is a theory around that everyone's personality is like one of the Three Stooges.

Reading this, it struck me that Aurilia is Moe, Womack is Larry, and Freel is Curley.

OldXOhio
04-03-2006, 03:13 PM
Aurilia has better numbers against lefties and righties over the last three years.

What does logic have to do w/ it? The fact that Womack's even on the team kills that concept.

westofyou
04-03-2006, 03:17 PM
There is a theory around that everyone's personality is like one of the Three Stooges.

Reading this, it struck me that Aurilia is Moe, Womack is Larry, and Freel is Curley.
But who is Shemp.. and Curly Joe has to be whoever is the 25th guy.

buckeyenut
04-04-2006, 07:21 AM
I am as hard on Womack as anyone and I don't believe he belongs in the lineup, but I will give him props for a very good day at the plate. He did exactly what I want a leadoff hitter to do, get a base hit and two walks.

Unfortunately, it will probably be the only time all year Womack gets two walks, but for today, good job.

Steve4192
04-05-2006, 11:51 AM
2. Krivsky, at this point, is giving his on-the-field manager the leverage to make roster decisions.
I think this is correct.

Krivsky knows this team has a gigantic hole at 2B and there is no good solution currently in the pipeline. Hence, he has chosen to let Narron make the call on who plays 2B rather than step on his manager's toes over a matter as trivial as 'which crappy player do I put at 2B'? The fact of the matter is all three guys are pretty bad, so why alienate/emasculate your manager over the decision of who to play?

Krivsky is choosing his battles, and he doesn't think this one is worth fighting.

registerthis
04-05-2006, 12:40 PM
The fact of the matter is all three guys are pretty bad, so why alienate/emasculate your manager over the decision of who to play?.

Womack isn't even in the same league as Aurilia or Freel...if Narron can't realize that on his own, someone should step forward and force him to.

Steve4192
04-05-2006, 02:24 PM
Womack isn't even in the same league as Aurilia or Freel...if Narron can't realize that on his own, someone should step forward and force him to.
Womack sucks. I agree. However, a good boss will delegate authority, even to the extent where he lets his employees make a few minor mistakes. He should only step in when those mistakes could harm the long-term outlook of the organization. No matter who Narron puts at 2B, it is unlikely to change the short-term or long-term outlook of the Cincinnati Reds.

Even though some of the Reds 2B options are less offensive (pun intended) than the others, none of them are a solution to the problem. It's not like Womack is blocking an EE-level prospect or anything. None of those three guys figures to be on this team in three years. Why risk alienating your field manager over something as trivial as which lousy option he chooses? Better to let him play whoever he wants while you (the GM) go about the business of finding a better option for that position. Once that solution is found THEN you step in and tell the manager 'this guy starts'.

Until the Reds have a quality player at 2B (and some pitching), they are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.