PDA

View Full Version : Pathetic Offense??



WVRedsFan
04-06-2007, 03:46 AM
I hate to admit that I've only seen parts of the three games and had to miss today's game entirely. Anytime the season starts, i get busy at work and forget to turn on the TV or we have a day game and I forget...you get the picture. Work gets in the way of baseball, unfortunately.

Having said that, I do search for the boxscores and try to analyze what has happened. It's a shocking picture. A year ago, we scored runs in bunches. The pitching was horrible, but there was never any worry about scoring runs unless we ran into a "quirky lefhander" or a guy who couldn't get anyone out against any other team. :) And we struck out a lot, something that bothers most everyone but me and you. Times have changed.

To date, our Cincinnati Reds have played three games and have scored a total of 11 runs, an average of (gasp) 3.66 runs per game. Fortunately, the hapless Cubs only scored 7 runs, an average of 2.33 per game. so, on average, we win by a margin of 1.33 runs per game. That's why we took two out of three games from the Cubbies, but it's troubling to me. We won today's game because of Cub mistakes (wild pitches, etc) and a late Hatteberg home run. Yesterday, we lost a close game because we couldn't score and the unwise 8th inning when a certain pitcher was out of gas and certain administrative people didn't realize it. Not a good start IMHO. So what is the deal? I think this team is offensively challenged due to false hopes and what appears to be a fragile defense.

Stay with me here. I know that the vision that Krivsky and whoever else seems to be in charge has is pitching and defense. We've sacrificed offense for those two commodities. Now I say this without actually watching more than 10 innings this year, but who unless you're just a little insane bats Brandon Phillips at the top of the order? It's only three games, but looking as his track record, you just know he's going to obp low. He's a streak hitter who now is 1-10. And he's been in the three or four hole every day. Insane? Maybe. Truth is, we've traded offense for defense and pitching, but (and I realize it's only three games, gang) we've commited 3 errors in three games (Freel, Dunn and Griffey). Our pitching has been noteworthy, but in 27 innings, we still give up a lot of hits (27) and make many mental errors during the course of a game. We've gone from a team who could score to a team who cannot score and a pitching staff that is, if not shaky, is not up to the task of allowing less runs and hits than the opposition.

I realize this is a work in process, but it bothers me that with all the optimism of the first series, we won it, but it deosn't seem that obvious things are ignored and others are rationalized as being good.

Maybe I'm overreacting, but I don't like what I see. If this club, created in the mind of Wayne Krivsky is to win more than they lose, it must find some offense. So far, the Reds have collected a grand total of 19 hits (an average of 6.3 per game). If it doen't get any better than this, we're in for a long season. I can't get the image out of my mind of Ted (for crying out loud) Lilly looking like Cy Young on the mound in our own ball park. I guess the fact that we've only struck out 20 times gives comfort to some, but unless runs are scored you don't win games. Or am I wrong?

GAC
04-06-2007, 05:35 AM
Lets be somewhat objective here. Was the weather a factor? It's not just been 3 games... and we won 2 of the 3 by the way... but 2 of the 3 games were played in very dismal (freezing) weather. The temps, as well as the wind chill w/ the wind, was brutal. They've been playing in warm, sunny Florida for the last month.

In the second game I give credit to Lily for really mixing up his pitches and using his off-speed effectively that kept our guys off guard when he did throw that 88 mph fastball. I liked Nuxy's post games comments where he mentioned that our guys have never faced Lily, and they obviously had problems picking up his arm action/positioning. But he had some help from the weather too. I saw four balls that were nailed by our players that would have been out of the park if it wasn't for the weather (wind). You couldn't hit a ball any better then what Ross did late in the game. It just died.

Lets not worry after three games. Pretty small window. ;)

Ltlabner
04-06-2007, 08:08 AM
To date, our Cincinnati Reds have played three games and have scored a total of 11 runs, an average of (gasp) 3.66 runs per game. Fortunately, the hapless Cubs only scored 7 runs, an average of 2.33 per game.

Maybe I'm overreacting, but I don't like what I see. Or am I wrong?

If you were a Cubs fan would you be wringing your hands about the Cubs, a team that is obstensivley built for offense, and only scored 2.33 runs per game in the opening serries of the season against the Reds? Does that mean that Sweet Lou has lost his touch? Does it mean Sorianno, Lee, Rameriz, Murton and others have forgotten how to hit a ball? Does it mean they are in for a long season?

Face it folks, we are not going to have the high run scoring offense. Maybe that's a good idea, maybe that's a bad idea considering their home park. But that does not mean that winning is impossible.

Ltlabner
04-06-2007, 08:12 AM
The pitching was horrible, but there was never any worry about scoring runs unless we ran into a "quirky lefhander" or a guy who couldn't get anyone out against any other team...

Or a pitcher in the month of Septmeber.

Or a pitcher making his major league debut.

Or a pitcher that had read the book on Dunn, Phillips and Ross (and earlier in the season AK and FL).

It's almost as if a myth is developing that the "old" Reds scored 8 runs per game. Yea they scored a lot of runs over the course of the season. But they came in bunches and the team had plenty of dry spells. They got stumped by plenty of pitchers. There were many times where they got shut down and hits were hard to come by.

Oh yea, there was plenty of times when they lost too.

MaineRed
04-06-2007, 08:24 AM
I'm overreacting

I agree.

jmac
04-06-2007, 10:18 AM
Me too !

Falls City Beer
04-06-2007, 10:24 AM
I think if this team had better pitching, this offense would be sufficient to make a good run in this division. I'm not in love with the offense, but I can live with it.

REDREAD
04-06-2007, 10:29 AM
Maybe I'm overreacting, but I don't like what I see. If this club, created in the mind of Wayne Krivsky is to win more than they lose, it must find some offense.

I agree. While everyone believes pitching and defense needed improved from the DanO era, offense is important too.

I think it was a mistake for Wayne to put so much faith in Ross, Freel, and even Phillips. The Reds are basically counting on them all to have good years offensively. Logic would indicate it's more realistic to expect one to have a good year, and maybe one to be ok, and the last to be disappointing.

Jr-Dunn-EdE is a respectable middle of the order, but there's not much around them. If Freel continues to struggle, there's no top of the order hitter.
The bottom of the lineup is definitely a black hole.

Likewise, I think it was a big mistake to discard LaRue for nothing. All in the name of saving 2 million. Since I have to accept that Wayne loves Ross, I would've prefered to trade or nontender Valentine and kept LaRue. Yes, LaRue had a bad year last year for whatever reason we want to say, but he's a better plan B than Valenin or Moeller. Like I said in other posts, LaRue also makes picking up Conine unnecessary or less necessary.

That's other thing about these first 3 games. We got an unexpected pickup from Conine in one of the wins. I don't think we can count on that on a regular basis.

Wayne really needed to pick up a bat this past winter, and failed to do it.

Redmachine2003
04-06-2007, 10:40 AM
The Reds will always have trouble with junk ball pitchers. I don't know why any team would through mostly fastballs at these guys, because they can hit the fastball it is the pitchers that can get the breakup balls and off speed pitches in for strikes the the Reds hitter will struggle with.

Hoosier Red
04-06-2007, 10:40 AM
Except Larue wasn't going to be happy backing up Ross and let it be known.

Wayne did what was best for clubhouse chemistry, and got Larue out of town into the best possible situation. Of course he isn't exactly starting in KC but that's their problem, not ours.

M2
04-06-2007, 10:44 AM
I think if this team had better pitching, this offense would be sufficient to make a good run in this division. I'm not in love with the offense, but I can live with it.

I generally agree. My caveat to that is a single injury to Freel, Dunn, Phillips, Jr. or Encarnacion and this goes from a mediocre offense to a poor one. This offense is working without a net.

Falls City Beer
04-06-2007, 10:46 AM
I generally agree. My caveat to that is a single injury to Freel, Dunn, Phillips, Jr. or Encarnacion and this goes from a mediocre offense to a poor one. This offense is working without a net.

That's fair. I'd want to add a bat at the deadline if they're still in it, without a doubt.

RBA
04-06-2007, 10:50 AM
Three Words: Small Sample Size!

RedsManRick
04-06-2007, 10:52 AM
Three Words: Small Sample Size!

Quoting for truth!

The real problem doesn't have to do with Freel, Griffey, Dunn, EE, or Phillips. It's that Alex Gonzalez won't match Rich Aurilia's great year and Dave Ross will return the earth. Without significant improvement from a number of guys, this offense will be mediocre.

Falls City Beer
04-06-2007, 11:04 AM
Quoting for truth!

The real problem doesn't have to do with Freel, Griffey, Dunn, EE, or Phillips. It's that Alex Gonzalez won't match Rich Aurilia's great year and Dave Ross will return the earth. Without significant improvement from a number of guys, this offense will be mediocre.

Maybe, but after watching San Fran, San Diego, Atlanta, and Houston make the postseason with some regularity in this decade with the offenses they've trotted out, I don't wring my hands too badly about this offense.

I do wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of this bullpen after Coffey has been pulled.

Marc D
04-06-2007, 11:23 AM
I think we are going to be fully in the "manufacture" category after years of being a 3 run homer type team. To echo M2, imo it all rests on Dunn and EE to have highly productive and healthy seasons. If they do we should be fine, if they don't we are in the hurt locker.

I expect nothing from Jr, regression from Phillips and Ross with Hamilton being the great unknown wildcard. IF by some miracle we get the production he has no business delivering this year to go with monster seasons from EE and Dunn we could be much better than just OK. *

* All statements are of course imho, no stats to back it up, its all purely anecdotal.

westofyou
04-06-2007, 11:48 AM
Over 50 years of league above average hitting and league below average pitching. Reds fans like offense like Walter Cunningham Jr. liked syrup.

paulrichjr
04-06-2007, 12:03 PM
I think Hamilton is the key to the offense. If he is starting in CF in June and doing 1/2 what he is capable of doing this team could be average to slightly above at offense. I think Freel needs to be a 350 at bat guy not a 550 at bat guy. A combo of Hamilton, Dunn, EdE, Griffey, and Hatteberg would generate a lot of offense.

penantboundreds
04-06-2007, 12:48 PM
I posted a thread stating the runs per game issue. There was a break down of how many times we scored 2-3, 4-5, or 6+ runs in the thread. It wasn't as disturbing as I thought when I first started my research, to be honest. Can someone bring this back up? I looked for it but couldn't find it on the site. I think it's relevant here though. Thanks.

As for the offense I think we do have an offense that will score 8 runs 10% of the time and will score 2-3 runs probably more times than is going to make the fans happy.

No reason for over reacting though, it's the first three games. I know getting off to a good start is important, but I don't think you can judge the team after 3 games, lets give it at least a couple weeks.

PuffyPig
04-06-2007, 01:27 PM
How can you get extremely upset about 11 runs in 3 games, yet discount the 7 runs allowed as being "a small sample size"?

We allowed 7 runs to an extremely good offensive team. The 3 errors doesn't reflect the fact that our defense has improved dramatically when you consider the balls caught.

Using errors to judge a teams defensive prowess is like using batting average to determine how good your offense is. Yes, it's a measure, but a very small measure. Suggesting that our defense hasn't really improved because of 3 errors in 3 games is a silly judgement to make, when watching the actual games has suggested something entirely different.

Yes Lilly shut us down, but pitchers do that all the time. We had 3-4 balls which would have been HR's in warmer weather easily, the Cubs had none. It's not time to panic yet, considering we are scoring well more than we are giving up.

How good does a team's offense need to be? Just a little bit better than the runs you give up.

edabbs44
04-06-2007, 02:30 PM
I'm not sure why, when people say "we want to win with pitching and defense", it means that their offense has to suck.

M2
04-06-2007, 02:31 PM
How good does a teams offense need to be? Just a little bit better than the runs you give up.

Yep, though over the long haul that means these Reds will need a fairly decent offense.

reds44
04-06-2007, 02:43 PM
There were about 3 balls we hit on Wed. night there would have been homers 95% of the time at GABP. The other 2 games we scored 5 runs.

The offense is as good as it used to be, but it will be fine. The pitching and defense is better.

RedEye
04-06-2007, 03:25 PM
I think this team is offensively challenged due to false hopes and what appears to be a fragile defense.


I tried to stay with you on this sentence... but you lost me.

edabbs44
04-06-2007, 03:33 PM
The pitching and defense is better.

Not so sure about the pitching. I think we are all assuming something that is very unproven.

I think Harang will get better and Arroyo will hit a speed bump. Zero faith in Lohse and #4-5 you can only hope. The bullpen, IMO, is not much better than last year.

Will M
04-06-2007, 03:42 PM
Over 50 years of league above average hitting and league below average pitching. Reds fans like offense like Walter Cunningham Jr. liked syrup.

Not me. I want to watch a team that is fundamentally sounds and wins.
Pitching, defense, the sac bunt followed by the clutch single, suicide squeeze, etc - this is watch the Cards have been doing the last few years.

Ltlabner
04-06-2007, 03:45 PM
A year ago, we scored runs in bunches. The pitching was horrible, but there was never any worry about scoring runs unless we ran into a "quirky lefhander" or a guy who couldn't get anyone out against any other team. :) And we struck out a lot, something that bothers most everyone but me and you. Times have changed.

Thought about this post a lot today.

Our one loss to date was to a lefty. I don't know if Lilly qualifies as "quirky" but we didn't score (m)any runs against him. So where's the big change from last year? (at least, acording to the picture of the 2006 offense you painted).

The two other games we scored 5 runs in each game. Doesn't 5 runs in a game qualify as "a bunch" any more? Especially when the other team is held to either 1 or 2 runs in the game.

So it seems to me our offense is operating much as you would like it to. Is it not? What's the big complaint then? That the runs per game average is "pathetic" over the course of a huge sample of 3 games? That Wayne isn't doing things the way you want him to? I really fail to see the problem as evidenced by you laying out a case based on 3 games.

M2
04-06-2007, 04:31 PM
Not me. I want to watch a team that is fundamentally sounds and wins.
Pitching, defense, the sac bunt followed by the clutch single, suicide squeeze, etc - this is watch the Cards have been doing the last few years.

Now, I was suggesting years ago that the Reds look over at St. Louis as a reference model for how to play a well-rounded game of baseball. Yet the Cardinals are far from a little ball team. During their current run they have been 6th, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 4th and 4th in the NL in runs scored.

I believe they've scored the most runs in the NL over the past seven years (it's either them or the Rockies, who of course play at a farcical elevation). They've averaged 829 runs a season over that stretch with a season low total of 781. So far from the being some Little Engine That Could, the Cardinals have been an offensive Super Chief.

The Reds have only been above 750 runs twice in that stretch (2000 and 2005), never once besting what the Cardinals have averaged. The Reds offense would have to improve by 32 runs just to match the Cardinals' worst season and I can guarantee you that extra bunting isn't going to help in that department.

Raisor
04-06-2007, 04:38 PM
Not me. I want to watch a team that is fundamentally sounds and wins.
Pitching, defense, the sac bunt followed by the clutch single, suicide squeeze, etc - this is watch the Cards have been doing the last few years.


I want to see the Reds score a bunch. I don't want them giving up outs.

Reds1
04-06-2007, 04:46 PM
I agree only 3 games. I have noticed so far our runs have come from HRs. This is the same trend as last year, but we'll see. I do think this team is more balanced and I am hopeful this is the best pitching we've had in years. And hopefully next year you'll see a rotation like
Harang
Arroyo
Livingston/Homer
Belise
Loshe.
It could be very very sold. I also like the young arms I've seen. If Burton works out with the likes of Santos, Burton, Coffey, etc - we won't need to put up 6 runs every game.

The fact is now we are 2-1. Key HRs and good pitching are the reason. Like someone said - I'd be more concern to be a Cubs fan with all that offense and only scoring 2.33 runs a game. Give the starters credit. We aren't used to it, but the Reds might actually have some starting pitching. I'm really looking forward to Belise tonight.

BRM
04-06-2007, 04:58 PM
The Reds have struck out 20 times the first three games. That's good for 7th in the NL. That's the problem with the offense right there. Not nearly enough stikeouts.

PuffyPig
04-06-2007, 05:16 PM
I'm not sure why, when people say "we want to win with pitching and defense", it means that their offense has to suck.

Agreed, but it's tough to improve every facet of your team without the ability to spend huge amounts of money.

It's hard top find (afford) players who are great on both offense and defense. So, if you want to improve the defense on a limited budget, you likely have to sacrifice some offense.

Same for pitching. To improve the pitching, you have to allocate more of the budget to pitching. That means you get rid of Aurillia and bring on Conine. That saves some money but makes the first place platoon (and our overall depth) not as good offensively.

Replacing Lopez at SS with Gonzalez greatly improves the defense, but we give up some offense (and get some pitching in return).

At the end of the day, you hope that the increase in pitching/defense makes up for the loss of offense.

jimbo
04-06-2007, 05:37 PM
Maybe, but after watching San Fran, San Diego, Atlanta, and Houston make the postseason with some regularity in this decade with the offenses they've trotted out, I don't wring my hands too badly about this offense.

I do wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of this bullpen after Coffey has been pulled.

Also consider such teams as last year's Indians who had some incredible offensive numbers yet couldn't finish above .500. This offense is adequate enough, as usual it will come down to pitching and defense. I am not so down on this staff as you are though.

TeamSelig
04-06-2007, 08:48 PM
I agree, we will be pretty upset with our offense as the season progresses. Check it out....

Freel... OBP skills, speed, etc., all in all a good lead off hitter... downside? alot of people question him being able to play a full season (not me) but an injury is very possible

Dunn... great hitter... can't complain about him, and I really dont see a bad case scenario w/ him

Phillips... could have just been a fluke last year, that is always a possibility, lacks that track record, doesn't walk at all

Encarnacion... great prospect, doubles machine, I look for him to be great all season, but there is always that chance with young players that he won't improve much

Griffey... he's still pretty good, but there is a HUGE chance he will degress or get injured for most of the season

Hatteberg... just not that great of a player, gets on base though, pretty old and had a career year last year

Conine... yuck
A-Gon... yuck
Ross... career yr last year, and I think we're already tired of him this season lol
Valentin... a good pinch hitter, not a good starter

Only person on the bench that intrigues me is Hamilton who IMO has a small chance to succeed (I think he will)

Basically there is a good chance our offense will be below average.

From last year we've went from Aurilia (who put up pretty good numbers) to Alex Gonzalez... and we're banking on career years from Phillips & Ross again, along with the "getting old" factor w/ Griffey & Hatteberg.

That said, I think our pitching has greatly improved, and we will be satisfied with it this year.

WVRedsFan
04-07-2007, 02:21 AM
Three Words: Small Sample Size!

I'd go along with that except for one thing. It's been going on since last July. And I'll agree with the poster who said the team before Krivsky could score in bunches and then go without hits for long periods. Yep--true. But with a little pitching they scored enough runs to win 100 games. Now we have the pitching (or so it appears to be so) and the offense is lacking. And I agree with GAC that the cold weather has something to do with it right now, but it doesn't stop me from worrying. When guys like Lilly and Maholm (early) can shut us down, it worries me. Our starting pitching has been outstanding and the bullpen has been adequate (only the performance of Wednesday stands out as really bad), how long will it last? That's the question.

WVRedsFan
04-07-2007, 02:26 AM
I tried to stay with you on this sentence... but you lost me.

False hopes = Ross amd Phillips

Fragile defense = Junior in right (he's not comfortable and may never be) and Freel in center (sorry, but the false dives for effect and ESPN highlights make me sick).

Ross had one hit this year in four games (and I don't expect it to get much better) and Phillis in the three hole is simply ignorant with his plate discipline.

Yet, 3-1 is a good start. To maintain that the pitching has to be as good as it has been which is quite a stretch.

Just to let you know, I said the same thing (almost) in 1975. So YMMV.

Razor Shines
04-07-2007, 02:54 AM
False hopes = Ross amd Phillips

Fragile defense = Junior in right (he's not comfortable and may never be) and Freel in center (sorry, but the false dives for effect and ESPN highlights make me sick).

.

Yeah maybe, but it's certainly better than the alternative: Griffey comfortable but bad in CF and Freel in RF. And we won 80 games with it that way last year.

GAC
04-07-2007, 06:20 AM
False hopes = Ross amd Phillips

Philips is a relatively young player who has alot of potential offensively, while there is no doubt about his defense. This kid really got jerked around by Cleveland who showed no patience at all with a 21 yr old. But I certainly wouldn't label him a false hope. That is pretty premature IMO.

And I have no problem at all with the catching tandem of Ross/Valentin over Larue, whom I liked, but IMHO, was on the downhill slide. Plus, we're paying Ross/Valentin 2.8 Mil, which is almost half of LaRue's salary.


Fragile defense = Junior in right (he's not comfortable and may never be) and Freel in center (sorry, but the false dives for effect and ESPN highlights make me sick).

Who says Jr is not comfortable? Where is that reported? Not from Jr. He'll do fine out there. and has been so far. Freel = false dives for effect? C'mon WV, I don't think you're being fair one bit as far as Freel's defensive superiority (covering ground) over an aged Jr. Our middle defense has improved. I don't see where it's fragile at all. And what about Josh Hamilton? Is it a gamble? Sure. But as far as his defensive abilities, they are there in the OF. He possesses the glove and the arm.


Ross had one hit this year in four games (and I don't expect it to get much better) and Phillis in the three hole is simply ignorant with his plate discipline.

I think people are underestimating David Ross. I'm not saying he is going to go out and have a year like he did last year with the Reds. He obviously had an excellent year after everyone was wraggin' on him early in '06. He proved them wrong. So now the reasoning (excuse) is... "He had a career year."

He played in 90 games for the Reds last year. The closest he has ever came to that was in 2004 with LA, when he apeared in 70. If he can put up the overall totals (below), and I think that is very possible at GABP, then we should all be very happy. I'll wait and see.


TEAM G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
2002 LA 8 10 2 2 1 0 1 2 2 4 0 0 .200 .385 .600 .985
2003 LA 40 124 19 32 7 0 10 18 13 42 0 0 .258 .336 .556 .892
2004 LA 70 165 13 28 3 1 5 15 15 62 0 0 .170 .253 .291 .544
2005 Pit 40 108 9 24 8 0 3 15 6 24 0 0 .222 .263 .380 .643
2005 SD 11 17 2 6 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 .353 .389 .471 .860
2006 Cin 90 247 37 63 15 1 21 52 37 75 0 0 .255 .353 .579 .932
2007 Cin 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 .000 .000 .000 .000

Total -- 261 678 82 155 34 3 40 102 73 215 0 0 .229 .310 .465 .775

GAC
04-07-2007, 06:27 AM
I'd go along with that except for one thing. It's been going on since last July. And I'll agree with the poster who said the team before Krivsky could score in bunches and then go without hits for long periods. Yep--true. But with a little pitching they scored enough runs to win 100 games. Now we have the pitching (or so it appears to be so) and the offense is lacking. And I agree with GAC that the cold weather has something to do with it right now, but it doesn't stop me from worrying. When guys like Lilly and Maholm (early) can shut us down, it worries me. Our starting pitching has been outstanding and the bullpen has been adequate (only the performance of Wednesday stands out as really bad), how long will it last? That's the question.

You worry too much WV. Gray hairs and wrinkles should come naturally. Not from following baseball. :mooner:

Lily just may very well, due to being an AL pitcher, have a solid "rookie" season in the NL. We'll have to wait and see. He's gonna have a hard time pitching at Wrigley though. He better hope the wind blows in alot from the OF. ;)

RedsBaron
04-07-2007, 10:34 AM
Not me. I want to watch a team that is fundamentally sounds and wins.
Pitching, defense, the sac bunt followed by the clutch single, suicide squeeze, etc - this is watch the Cards have been doing the last few years.

The Cardinals have had decent pitching and defense, but they have not been scoring runs the last few years primarily with the "sac bunt followed by the clutch single, suicide squeeze, etc."
In 2003 the Cards ranked second in the NL with 876 runs, primarily produced through 196 HRs (3rd in the NL) and a .454 S.Pct. (2nd in the NL). In 2004 St. Louis ranked first in the NL with 855 runs and a .460 S. Pct., along with 214 HRs (3rd in the NL). In 2005 the Cards were third in runs with 805, 4th in S. Pct. with .423 and 7th in HRs with 170. In 2006, St. Louis ranked 5th in runs scored with 781, 5th in HRs with 184, and 8th in S. Pct. with .431. The only season I could find with a league rank in sacrifices was 2006, and that year the Cards had 61, ranking 9th in the NL. During his career, the man who primarily makes the Cards' offense go, Albert Pujols, has exactly one sacrifice (he does have some sacrifice flies as well).
So-called "small ball" can complement an offense, but if a team tries to build its offense around sac bunts and suicide squeezes, it will primarly sacrifice any hopoe of winning and will commit suicide.

westofyou
04-07-2007, 11:14 AM
Yep--true. But with a little pitching they scored enough runs to win 100 games. Now we have the pitching (or so it appears to be so) and the offense is lacking.Problem is they had no defense and nothing of worth in the minors to get more pitching. As for the offense only teams, you can have them.. I hated the Reds teams the last 5 years, painfully one sided hitting teams with no baseball acumen. It was downright painful to watch, so what if they led the league in Runs scored, whoop de doo, they also lost every single year that they scored all those runs, all the while playing some of the worst baseball I've watched in my lifetime. Mostly because the players could only hit and no one gave a crap about the nine million other things a team does to win the damn game.

VR
04-07-2007, 12:40 PM
hey woy....from a historical standpoint, what is the most anyone's OPS has dropped a year after being over .932 w/ as many ab's as Ross had last year?

westofyou
04-07-2007, 12:53 PM
hey woy....from a historical standpoint, what is the most anyone's OPS has dropped a year after being over .932 w/ as many ab's as Ross had last year?

Not sure on the the definitive answer

However


Alex Ochoa

YEAR TEAM AGE G AB R H 2B 3B HR HR% RBI BB SO SB CS AVG SLG OBA OP
2000 Reds 28 118 244 50 77 21 3 13 5.33 58 24 27 8 4 .316 .586 .378 .964
2001 Reds 29 90 349 48 101 20 4 7 2.01 35 24 53 12 9 .289 .430 .337 .767

Highlifeman21
04-07-2007, 01:23 PM
Alex Ochoa, the gift that never quite gave

jimbo
04-07-2007, 03:02 PM
Freel = false dives for effect? C'mon WV, I don't think you're being fair one bit as far as Freel's defensive superiority (covering ground) over an aged Jr.

I know I'll be in a big minority here, but I have to agree with the poster who you are responding to. The only thing that Freel has over Griffey in center is speed, and speed alone does not equal "defensive superiority." There is so much more to playing the outfield than speed, and those who have played it on a regular basis knows that. I played the outfield all through my youth and high school career, was always the slowest player on the team but always the best outfielder because I was good at judging the ball off the bat, getting good jumps on the ball, positioning myself, and judging the ball in the air.......all things that Griffey is far better at than Freel is. Which I believe makes up for his lack of speed.

I was all for moving Griffey, if the Reds found a better center fielder, but I just don't think Freel is. The diving catches are great for tv, but a lot of them are the result of getting bad jumps, he plays wreckless which will get him or someone else seriously hurt eventually, and he makes a lot of bad baseball decisions. Bash me all you want, but I think Griffey is still the better center fielder when compared to Freel.

WVRedsFan
04-07-2007, 06:24 PM
You worry too much WV. Gray hairs and wrinkles should come naturally. Not from following baseball. :mooner:

Lily just may very well, due to being an AL pitcher, have a solid "rookie" season in the NL. We'll have to wait and see. He's gonna have a hard time pitching at Wrigley though. He better hope the wind blows in alot from the OF. ;)
And you are correct, of course, but today's game really gave me hope for the first time. The offense clicked to the tune of 11 hits and scored enough runs to overcome a bad outing by Aaron Harang. Jerry Narron even seemed to intelligently make moves.

I sincerely hope Phillips and Ross repeat their numbers in 2006, but the evidence so far indicates that won't happen, and I'll admit it's early, too.

And for your information, I have little gray hair and wrinkles. I really don't worry, GAC, but I would like to see the Reds in the WS again and I think they're gong to need to get another right-handed bat with power to do it. Of course, at 4-1, no one wants to talk about that, but you can bet Krivsky is thinking about it right now.

pedro
04-07-2007, 06:28 PM
Personally I think Freel's speed makes all the difference in CF. I've already seen him catch a couple of balls that would have been doubles against Griffey. Yeah, his instincts aren't as good and he'll probably never win a gold glove but don't kid yourself, the reds are better off without KGJ in CF.

WVRedsFan
04-07-2007, 06:29 PM
I know I'll be in a big minority here, but I have to agree with the poster who you are responding to. The only thing that Freel has over Griffey in center is speed, and speed alone does not equal "defensive superiority." There is so much more to playing the outfield than speed, and those who have played it on a regular basis knows that. I played the outfield all through my youth and high school career, was always the slowest player on the team but always the best outfielder because I was good at judging the ball off the bat, getting good jumps on the ball, positioning myself, and judging the ball in the air.......all things that Griffey is far better at than Freel is. Which I believe makes up for his lack of speed.

I was all for moving Griffey, if the Reds found a better center fielder, but I just don't think Freel is. The diving catches are great for tv, but a lot of them are the result of getting bad jumps, he plays wreckless which will get him or someone else seriously hurt eventually, and he makes a lot of bad baseball decisions. Bash me all you want, but I think Griffey is still the better center fielder when compared to Freel.

Of course, since I was the guy who GAC was responding to, I agree. Junior basically said the same thing. "Find a good center fielder and I'll move to right," meaning you don't have one. And you don't in Freel, IMHO. Freel is at his best when he fills in positions where he is needed.

jimbo
04-07-2007, 06:36 PM
Yeah, his instincts aren't as good and he'll probably never win a gold glove but don't kid yourself, the reds are better off without KGJ in CF.

I'm not kidding myself. The topic is debatable and not as absolute as so many here seems to think.

pedro
04-07-2007, 06:42 PM
I'm not kidding myself. The topic is debatable and not as absolute as so many here seems to think.

Ask yourself this then. If Griffey really was the best option in CF how come he's not still playing there?

jimbo
04-07-2007, 06:46 PM
Ask yourself this then. If Griffey really was the best option in CF how come he's not still playing there?

Because his manager disagrees with my opinion. It isn't the only time a RedsZoner disagrees with Narron and it won't be the last. Just as the majority here believes that Conine shouldn't even be on the roster.

Cooper
04-07-2007, 06:53 PM
Griffey is barely getting around in RF.

pedro
04-07-2007, 06:55 PM
Because his manager disagrees with my opinion. It isn't the only time a RedsZoner disagrees with Narron and it won't be the last. Just as the majority here believes that Conine shouldn't even be on the roster.


FWIW, if you just go by their defensive statistics (zone rating, range factor) Griffey rated as pretty much the worst starting CF in the majors last year. Freel's statistics OTOH rated him among the best. Coupled with the Reds OPS against with Freel in CF vs. Griffey in CF and I really don't think it's debatable, although you are certainly free to have you're own opinion.

RedsManRick
04-07-2007, 07:01 PM
At the end of the day, if you take arm strength, ability to back up the corner guys, and dropped balls out of the equation (because frankly, while those things matter -- any difference between Jr and Freel in those regards is a very small piece of the defensive pie), it's a simple question of balls caught and balls not caught.

Yes, Junior gets better jumps and takes better routes. Sometimes that does make a slower OF better than a quicker one. Sometimes it's not enough. The only thing that really matters is how many balls Junior couldn't get to that Freel can and the effect of those balls dropping in or not. I'd be shocked to see a ball that Junior could get to and Freel couldn't because of a bad jump or bad route.

By most measurements of this, Griffey has been one of the, if not the, worst regular CF in baseball the last few years. Is Freel a gold glover? I certainly don't think so. But when your CF can't get to balls in the gap, those turn in to doubles and runs driven in.

I'm not giving Freel and extra credit for diving for balls. However, if Freel takes a bad route after a slow jump, runs full speed, and then lays out, I think Junior still would've been a step or 3 short due to his slow acceleration and mediocre speed. We'll need more evidence before we can say for sure, but given how bad Junior was in CF by nearly every objective measure, it would be hard for Freel to be worse.

A great jump and good route doesn't matter simply cannot make up for horrendous range. It's like saying your car gets great gas mileage but only has a 3 gallon tank and tops out at 50 mph. At the end of the day, you still have to get there.

jimbo
04-07-2007, 07:01 PM
FWIW, if you just go by their defensive statistics (zone rating, range factor) Griffey rated as pretty much the worst starting CF in the majors last year. Freel's statistics OTOH rated him among the best. Coupled with the Reds OPS against with Freel in CF vs. Griffey in CF and I really don't think it's debatable, although you are certainly free to have you're own opinion.

I respect your opinion very much, but I just disagree. For one, and I don't mean any disrespect, but I give defensive statistics very little consideration because I think they are way too subjective. I don't disagree in that Griffey is not nearly the center fielder he used to be and that the Reds should have found a better option during the offseason. I just don't feel that Freel is a better option given that his speed is that the only that he has going for himself when playing centerfield.

westofyou
04-07-2007, 07:27 PM
I respect your opinion very much, but I just disagree. For one, and I don't mean any disrespect, but I give defensive statistics very little consideration because I think they are way too subjective. I don't disagree in that Griffey is not nearly the center fielder he used to be and that the Reds should have found a better option during the offseason. I just don't feel that Freel is a better option given that his speed is that the only that he has going for himself when playing centerfield.

Just ask yourself this.

How many teams that win championships have 37 year old center fielders?

membengal
04-07-2007, 07:29 PM
Um, none? Next to none?

One of the reasons this team is 4-1 is Jr. is no longer limping around CF allowing outs to become hits. Amazing what a difference that can make.

By the way, the reds offense seems pretty spry to me...

jimbo
04-07-2007, 07:38 PM
Just ask yourself this.

How many teams that win championships have 37 year old center fielders?

The first one that comes to mind is Jim Edmonds, St. Louis, 2006. I think he is like 6 months younger than Junior, but close enough.

I'm not really going to research any further because I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm just comparing Freel and Griffey.

Ltlabner
04-07-2007, 07:54 PM
I respect your opinion very much, but I just disagree. For one, and I don't mean any disrespect, but I give defensive statistics very little consideration because I think they are way too subjective.

I kinda of looked at it the same way for a while jimbo, however, many different guys have posted many different defensive measurement sytems over the past year I've been around. Jr almost always is last or dead last. If it were only one measuring stick I'd agree that the measuring stick might be flawed, but when you see it over and over and over from various metric systems it starts to tell the tale.

westofyou
04-07-2007, 08:45 PM
The first one that comes to mind is Jim Edmonds, St. Louis, 2006. I think he is like 6 months younger than Junior, but close enough.

I'm not really going to research any further because I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm just comparing Freel and Griffey.

True, but Jim only logged 99 games in the OF last year and only accounted for 22% of the PO's by the Cardinals OF, if he was younger he might have stayed healthier and played more. There has been 2116 guys to play CF in the modern era for at 100 games in a season, only 46 of those guys were over 36, that's 2% and out of those guys only 3 played for a team that won at least their division.

Sure it can be done again, but Griffey isn't the one who will get it accomplished

Here's the list of the guys who have played CF at the age of 37 or older for at least 100 games in the season

It's chock full of guys like Griffey whom fans didn't see or want to admit had seen better days as a CF.



GAMES YEAR G AB AGE
1 Steve Finley 2004 162 628 39
2 Ty Cobb 1924 155 625 37
3 Craig Biggio 2003 153 628 37
T4 Tris Speaker 1926 150 539 38
T4 Steve Finley 2002 150 505 37
6 Willie Mays 1968 148 498 37
7 Steve Finley 2003 147 516 38
T8 Marquis Grissom 2004 145 562 37
T8 Bill Bruton 1963 145 524 37
T8 Otis Nixon 1997 145 576 38
11 Kiki Cuyler 1936 144 567 37
12 Doc Cramer 1944 143 578 38
T13 Tris Speaker 1927 141 523 39
T13 Doc Cramer 1945 141 541 39
15 Doc Cramer 1943 140 606 37
T16 Steve Finley 2006 139 426 41
T16 Willie Mays 1970 139 478 39
T16 Dode Paskert 1920 139 487 38
19 Willie Mays 1971 136 417 40
20 Dummy Hoy 1901 132 527 39
T21 Mike Kreevich 1945 129 453 37
T21 Kenny Lofton 2006 129 469 39
T21 Brett Butler 1995 129 513 38
24 Robin Yount 1993 127 454 37
25 Devon White 2001 126 390 38
26 Otis Nixon 1996 125 496 37
27 Johnny Cooney 1941 123 442 40
28 Ty Cobb 1925 121 415 38
29 Jimmy Ryan 1902 120 484 39
30 Al Bumbry 1984 119 344 37
31 Johnny Cooney 1939 118 368 38
T32 Kiki Cuyler 1937 117 406 38
T32 Tris Speaker 1925 117 429 37
T32 Willie Mays 1969 117 403 38
35 Jimmy Ryan 1903 114 437 40
36 Steve Finley 2005 112 406 40
37 Brett Butler 1994 111 417 37
T38 Otis Nixon 1998 110 448 39
T38 Kenny Lofton 2005 110 367 38
T40 Max Carey 1928 108 296 38
T40 Johnny Cooney 1940 108 365 39
42 Tommy Leach 1915 107 335 37
43 Bill Bruton 1964 106 296 38
T44 Willie Wilson 1993 105 221 37
T44 Brett Butler 1997 105 343 40
46 Edd Roush 1931 101 376 38

jimbo
04-07-2007, 09:05 PM
It's chock full of guys like Griffey whom fans didn't see or want to admit had seen better days as a CF.


Thanks for the stats, but again I'm not disputing what you are saying for the most part. I agree his better days as a CF are well gone. I'm just doubting the opinion that most here have that Freel is a better CF.

RedsManRick
04-07-2007, 09:27 PM
Thanks for the stats, but again I'm not disputing what you are saying for the most part. I agree his better days as a CF are well gone. I'm just doubting the opinion that most here have that Freel is a better CF.

Jimbo, you are completely entitled to your opinion. And I mean this with no animosity, but other than your "feel", I'm curious what this opinion is based on. Have you seen Freel fail to get to balls that you think Junior would've have gotten to? Have you seen Junior get to balls that Freel wouldn't have?
I know defensive stats are inconsistent and can understand your aversion, but conclusions based on qualitative assessments still have to follow logical reasoning

Yes, Junior gets better jumps and takes better routes, but those have to translate in to balls caught or they simple aren't as valuable relative to speed as you apparently judge them to be.

It would be like saying a guy has a great batting eye and therefore is a better hitter than the free swinger with a bit more power. But when he's hitting .250/.320/.400 and the free swinger is hitting .300/.320/.450, the available evidence suggests otherwise. Sure, there's a part of his game that is qualitatively better, but the best measurements of effectiveness we have suggest that the whole package is just not as good.

Given that your qualitative assessment is counter to every quantitative one I've seen, I'm hoping you can expound on the basis of your opinion.

GAC
04-08-2007, 06:18 AM
IMHO, we're arguing/debating two ballplayers (Freel, Jr) who aren't the longterm answer the Reds need in CF. And each for their own obvious reasons/weaknesses. And I think Krivsky/Narron knows this - this is why Hamilton is on the roster - and Narron is simply trying to make the best of the situation, maximize it, with what he has.

Simple question: Are we better or worse with the current situation of Jr in RF and Freel in CF? Did it weaken us? How?

I agree with jimbo that defensive statistics are somewhat incomplete; but it is all we have to go on for now, and they are not in Jr's favor. I say stick with the current slots and see what happens. My biggest reason for wanting Jr out of CF was not only due to his age/range, but to help him as far as endurance and keeping him in that lineup. The guy still is an offensive threat.

They need to find a way to get Hamilton into the game in this "crowded" OF. Defensively, I think he puts both to shame. My opinion. But he now finds himself in the same position as Wiley Mo and Deno have. And with Freel's style of play, Deno on the DL, he may very well get that time. Ryan came out of ST already banged up because of it. Not trying to jinx the guy, just going on his history, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him spend some time this season on the DL himself.

In my "fantasy world" I see Hamilton panning out in CF, and then Bruce taking Jr's spot in RF in '09. It's a dream I have. ;)

mth123
04-08-2007, 10:19 AM
I have to agree with everybody to some degree (that's a first, huh?).

The team is better with Griffey out of CF. I think the difference is most evident on shallow balls hit over 2B and SS. These "Texas Leaguers" have been falling for hits far too often in the last 5 years. I've already seen a few of these go for outs that would have been hits with Griffey.

TMBS, I agree that Freel is poor technically, but his speed compensates and makes him about average (which is far superior to the Griffey we've seen in Cincy). Make no mistake though, Freel is by no means a "plus" defender out there. I share the opinion that he is better as a multi-position fill-in (and would be even better if he was a good baserunner).

The Reds have a couple of "plus" defenders for that spot. Too bad the best one will be on the DL all year. But Josh Hamilton is a plus as well and I'm anxious to see him out there. If he could hit, it would solve a number of problems.

Cooper
04-08-2007, 12:54 PM
Freel and Griffey both deserve a little time to get the nuances of the postion. We are judging them a little too early in the game. Reading the angle of a ball off the bat takes some time. That said, Freel has made the adjustment better than Griffey.

As for Hamilton, i saw him play 3 times in Florida and 3 times on tv and i couldn't begin to tell you how good of an outfielder he is as it relates to range. It's easier to see that he has a good arm, but there's no way i could judge how good someone is in 6 games -especially when he played differing positions. Not to make enemies, but i just don't see how you can judge a skill in that small of a sample size. IMO, we have no idea how good/bad Hamilton's range.

westofyou
04-08-2007, 12:58 PM
but there's no way i could judge how good someone is in 6 games -especially when he played differing positions. Not to make enemies, but i just don't see how you can judge a skill in that small of a sample size. IMO, we have no idea how good/bad Hamilton's range.Judging outfield defense judged via television is similar to judging the taste of Rahel Ray's latest 30 minute meal via television.

You get a sense of the greater whole, but the nuances are too great to be captured without a closer look.