PDA

View Full Version : Hope for the 2007 offense



texasdave
11-29-2006, 02:47 PM
I was messing around with various Run Estimation Formulas and came to the conclusion that even if the Reds' offense puts up the same counting stats they should score about 40 more runs in 2007 than they did in 2006. For whatever reason :cough: (clutch) :cough: the Reds scored a lot fewer runs than any of the Run Estimators predicted. One point of interest is the Lineup Analysis. (On the attachment this is BMLA). This is a feature on www.BaseballMusings.com. You put in the OBP and the SLG for all nine hitters and it gives you how many runs per game the best, the worst and average lineups would have scored. Using the Reds OPS and SLG numbers per lineup position for 2006 showed that the worst possible lineup would have scored 4.62 runs per game. This is exactly what the Reds average run per game was last year. Yikes! Jerry Narron might take a good long look at his lineup construction next year.

M2
11-29-2006, 02:51 PM
Using the Reds OPS and SLG numbers per lineup position for 2006 showed that the worst possible lineup would have scored 4.62 runs per game. This is exactly what the Reds average run per game was last year. Yikes! Jerry Narron might take a good long look at his lineup construction next year.

No doubt about it, Jerry maximized his minimization of the talent he had on hand.

Strikes Out Looking
11-29-2006, 02:56 PM
As I've said before, a monkey pulling names out of a hat could have managed the 06 Reds to an 80-82 record. TexasDave's numbers prove my point.

flyer85
11-29-2006, 02:59 PM
a lot of times the difference between what should have happened versus what actually did is nothing more than randomness.

BRM
11-29-2006, 03:00 PM
The Reds need to bunt more in 2007. That will spike run scoring. :devil:

flyer85
11-29-2006, 03:09 PM
The Reds need to bunt more in 2007. That will spike run scoring. :devil:... and take less walks. Swing the damn bat. :thumbup:

BRM
11-29-2006, 03:11 PM
... and take less walks. Swing the damn bat. :thumbup:

Swinging the bat more should produce more sac flies and productive outs. A necessity in today's game. ;)

Redsland
11-29-2006, 03:13 PM
It wouldn't kill them to choke up a little, too.

RedLegSuperStar
11-29-2006, 03:19 PM
What I think you all are saying is we need to play "small ball" and have a team of "baseball guys"

BRM
11-29-2006, 03:20 PM
What I think you all are saying is we need to play "small ball" and have a team of "baseball guys"

Absolutely. Small ball rocks. Especially when playing in a HR park.

RichRed
11-29-2006, 03:51 PM
What I think you all are saying is we need to play "small ball" and have a team of "baseball guys"

...Guys who know how to put their socks on "the right way."

terminator
11-29-2006, 03:57 PM
But don't lose sight of the fact that based on the Pythagoran they should have gone 76-86 with their RS/RA. So, they were unlucky that they should have scored more runs, but lucky that they won more than they should have anyway.

If you're right about the 40 runs, instead of a -53 run differential we'd have a -13 run differential. Still a slight losing record. And that's before we account for Aurilia being gone and Gonzo, Castro and Bubba being given AB's.