Great American Ballpark: Will the Reds ever be successful?

[WVRed]

I know people are making a bigger deal about Narron, Krivsky, and the team as a whole, and I believe that they all play a major role in the equation, some to a larger degree than others.

The question I have lingering in my mind is, can we ever be successful on a consistent basis playing in Great American Ballpark. I know the first model that will be used is the Houston Astros, and while the two ballparks are somewhat similar, I don't see how we can consistently field a team that can win in this ballpark.

Its a situation that we are obviously going to have to live with for probably the next 30 years or more, just judging based on the lifespan of ballparks, but unless changes can be made to ballpark dimensions(which I doubt would be easy), I have a feeling this is what we are going to be stuck with for a long time.

The only remedy I see to this situation is revamping the scouting department and bringing up players through the minors and possibly retooling the major league pitching staff to where we can have pitchers who are sinkerballers that can induce ground ball outs. That might be the only way we have a chance.

Thoughts?

[Kc61]

I know people are making a bigger deal about Narron, Krivsky, and the team as a whole, and I believe that they all play a major role in the equation, some to a larger degree than others.

The only remedy I see to this situation is revamping the scouting department and bringing up players through the minors and possibly retooling the major league pitching staff to where we can have pitchers who are sinkerballers that can induce ground ball outs. That might be the only way we have a chance.

Thoughts?

Here are some questions raised by your very insightful and interesting post. I would love to know the answers.

Why do the Reds lose so much at home? With an extreme ball park like GABP, you would think the team would be built with a home field advantage. Yet they seem to have a home field disadvantage.

Why do many Reds hitters perform so poorly on the road? Does playing in GABP cause them to swing for home runs, thereby impacting road hitting? Or are they just not very good hitters, who do better in the home run launching pad?

Are the Reds pitchers really this bad, or does the stadium impact their performance? Does that impact carry over to road games?

Is there a way to structure a team that will succeed in this stadium? If so, none of the three GMs who have run teams at GABP have figured it out so far. Or is it simply a case of putting together a great ballclub, which will win anywhere.

IMO, any GM of this franchise needs to study and understand the answers to these questions.

[OnBaseMachine]

IIRC, Comiskey Park played as the biggest hitters park (or very close to it) in 2005 and yet the White Sox still won the World Series. It's not the ballpark, it's the pitching.

[RedsManRick]

Flyballs fly a little bit further. Period. The end. It's really that simple. At the end of the day, this team loses because it doesn't have enough guys who are good enough to regularly outplay our opponents. When we had the offense, we didn't have the pitching. Now we have neither. This isn't Colorado where Cy Youngs because Cy Yuks or where Vinny Castilla and Dante Bichette become MVP candidates. Where guys get screwed up because of the effect of the park.

Every game we play against our opponents we're at the same advantages and disadvantages as they are. Unless the park makes us play worse on the road, there simply isn't an argument to be made.

Avoid pitchers who give up lots of fly balls and otherwise just build a good team. Put the Red Sox, Mets, Padres, Angels, etc. in GABP and they're still division winning teams. Ballparks don't give up walks or fail to strike people out. Ballparks don't swing and miss. Ballparks don't make errors. Ballparks don't get thrown out on the basepaths. Get a team of guys who don't those things so much and then we can talk about the effect of the park.

[flyer85]

it's the pitching.... or the lack thereof.

[KronoRed]

Adapt to the ballpark, extreme parks have been around since the beginning of baseball, teams have won in them.

[OldRightHander]

A good team will win in any park, and a lousy team will lose in any park.

[flyer85]

and a lousy team will lose in any park.the Reds are proving that to be true

[Always Red]

the ball park is the same for both teams; the home team plays there 81 games a year, so should be able to build their team around the strengths or weaknesses of the park. So the Reds should have a lineup that can hit for power, and pitchers who don't throw flyball outs.

Adapt. It's part of life, adaptation!

[paintmered]

The home field should never be an issue. It is one of the few constants from one season to the next. It is the responsibility of the front office to find and sign the personnel to fit the ballpark, not the other way around. Besides, it's much easier to spend $15 million on personnel rather than demolition and construction. It's also easier to cut losses.

It doesn't make much sense to value small ball in a park that promotes 3-run home runs.

[OldRightHander]

It doesn't make much sense to value small ball in a park that promotes 3-run home runs.

Are you saying that Jerry needs to "manage the game the right way"? ;)

[gonelong]

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showp...26&postcount=8


Originally Posted by gonelong
I stated day one that they should have built the most cavernous park MLB would allow. It would allow you to capitalize on so many fronts.

The game is offensive minded right now. You can get defense and speed at a discount, while big bats and pitching are at a premium. You neutralize the other teams big bats and run them ragged. You don't have a pile of good catchers in the league at this point, you go contrary and run like rabbits.

Your pitchers put up pretty good numbers which allows you to trade them for a premium to what they are probably worth.

IMO, the Reds built a park that they cannot possibly string together any kind of year-to-year success story. Don't worry, the park will likely only stand for 30-40 years.


GL

[paintmered]

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showp...26&postcount=8



GL

John Allen et. al. built GABP with the bats of Ken Griffey Jr. and Adam Dunn in mind. It was an inexcusably short-sighted decision and the Reds probably would have been better off going the opposite route as you suggest.

But here we are and we're stuck with the decision for a few decades. Let's make lemonade, or something.

[pedro]

That'll really depends on the Reds management and ownership more than the park IMO.

[cincinnati chili]

I personally don't think it was shortsighted, paint, because I don't think it's all that much of an offensive ballpark. The park got the reputation early on because Jimmy Haynes was our #1 starter in the innaugural season.

The stats don't really bear that out. GAB is pretty neutral offensively in terms of runs scored. The right field porch isn't THAT short. It's not like the initial LF porch at Enron or something like that.

I didn't get Baseball Prospectus this year. Does anyone know how they rated the ballpark after 2006? In all previous years, it was very neutral when you controlled for the terrible pitching.

[paintmered]

I personally don't think it was shortsighted, paint, because I don't think it's all that much of an offensive ballpark. The park got the reputation early on because Jimmy Haynes was our #1 starter in the innaugural season.

The stats don't really bear that out. GAB is pretty neutral offensively in terms of runs scored. The right field porch isn't THAT short. It's not like the initial LF porch at Enron or something like that.

I didn't get Baseball Prospectus this year. Does anyone know how they rated the ballpark after 2006? In all previous years, it was very neutral when you controlled for the terrible pitching.

My understanding of it is GABP is a home run heavy park while being a doubles and triples light park. The two sides are polarized to more or less cancel each other out.

[Kc61]

Looked up the stats. Park factor in 2006 -- GABP was number one in major league baseball in runs scored, third in home runs. 2007 -- GABP was number one in homers, third in runs. Don't know how this stat is calculated, but GABP has been very pro offense the last two seasons.

[Wheelhouse]

My solution for winning at GABP (five steps):

1) Fire Narron. Hire Girardi.

2) Get players with 10-15 HR power who play excellent defense--they'll become 20-25 HR guys at GABP and can be gotten for less $. An example of that type of player is Alex Gonzalez--$4.7 MM per/yr.

3) Trade Dunn, Griffey, Freel. What team would be an excellent trading partner for Adam Dunn? San Diego and Colorado. In both parks you have to really jack a ball to get it out--he's one of a few players whose HR numbers wouldn't have a steep decline in those parks. His ability to hit a ball a long way makes less of a impact at GABP. Griffey to the White Sox. Freel to the Yankees, who are in desperate need of a fiery, excellent defense outfielder.
The talent those three players could yield would be enormous.

4)Call up Votto, Keppinger, Bellhorn, Bailey, Dumatrait, McBeth, Ricky Stone. Release or trade: Saarloos, Stanton, Weathers, Lohse, Milton, Moeller, Castro.

5)Trade for and sign long-term Carl Crawford. He's be a monster at GABP and the leadoff answer (unless you move him down later as he has power) with 12 SBs and a .386 OBP so far this year.

So the lineup:

Crawford LF
Phillips 2B
Hamilton CF
Encarnacion 3B
Votto 1B
Gonzalez SS
Hopper RF
Ross C
Analysis: See what ya got. You could have a young team rally and blossom like the Phillies last year after they traded Abreu, or there could be a good deal of learning. It's also a situation Girardi has dealt with. Note: this lineup is completely alternating L/R hitters.

Bench:
Valentin
Conine
Keppinger
Hatteberg
Bellhorn
Analysis: You now have a deeper bench with some power from both sides of the plate--severely lacking in recent times.

Rotation:
Arroyo
Harang
Belisle
Bailey
Dumatrait
Analysis: Rewarding good performances and punishing bad ones would do the organization a world of good. Again, see what ya got.

Bullpen:
McBeth (closer)
Stone
Majewski
Salmon
Santos
Burton
Coutlangus
Analysis: Just got younger by a bunch. Give McBeth a taste of closer 'til Guardado gets back. End the Geritol phase and put some younger live arms out there.

Overall analysis: This year, with this plan, the Reds would have it tough. But I see here a more athletic, hard-nosed team. Who knows. It would be enough of a shakeup that the remaining players could find a new, winning identity of their own making.

Things achieved, whether the Reds win games or not:
1) They would have a manager much more in line with what the fans, and I really believe the owner, wants. Fire, clarity, consistency, discipline, and no fear of enacting it.

2) They would be creating extra cash and stocking the minors to address needs in the off-season.

3) They would get real clarity as to the position they are in with their younger players--who's really ready for prime-time and who is not.

4) It would give us 'Zoners something to talk about, rather than banging our heads against the wall.

[cincinnati chili]

Looked up the stats. Park factor in 2006 -- GABP was number one in major league baseball in runs scored, third in home runs. 2007 -- GABP was number one in homers, third in runs. Don't know how this stat is calculated, but GABP has been very pro offense the last two seasons.

You'd have to account for the bat pitching or good hitting that inhabit the park. For example, the 1927 Yankees probably made Yankee stadium look like a great home run park. But Ruth & Gehrig had more to do with that.

Clay Davenport has some kooky math formula for it.

I found this from DocScott's excellent review of this past year's BP annual


http://www.redsandblues.com/?p=241
Great American Ball Park is given a park factor of 1038 (3.8% more offense than average) [for 2007], or a “moderate” hitter’s park; this is up a few points and one notch from the past couple of years.

[SteelSD]

It's not the park. It's the team talent level. There's nothing wrong with the GAB that better players wouldn't fix. I've long held that teams too often fool themselves into thinking they need to build a team to "fit" rather than focusing on putting together a roster that fits any park.

In short, I've seen more than one GM think that either he needs to get a certain "type" of player or gets fooled into thinking a component (offense or pitching) is better than it is because he doesn't understand how his park affects either. Forget the park and get players who'll produce regardless. That's the ticket.

[KronoRed]

It was an inexcusably short-sighted decision and the Reds probably would have been better off going the opposite route as you suggest.


I dunno if it was that bad of a plan to build like they did, building a cavern might make us happier today but what if in 10 years when the team has great pitching and no FA offense wants to come near the place?

[RedsBaron]

I personally don't think it was shortsighted, paint, because I don't think it's all that much of an offensive ballpark. The park got the reputation early on because Jimmy Haynes was our #1 starter in the innaugural season.



Yep. Jimmy Haynes could make any park look like a hitters park.

[RFS62]

Yep. Jimmy Haynes could make any park look like a hitters park.

Including Yellowstone Park.

[GAC]

It's not the park. It's the team talent level. There's nothing wrong with the GAB that better players wouldn't fix. I've long held that teams too often fool themselves into thinking they need to build a team to "fit" rather than focusing on putting together a roster that fits any park.

Bingo! Why does Dante Bichette's name keep coming up when I think of this? :lol:

[KronoRed]

Including Yellowstone Park.

Bet attendance would be GREAT there :D

[wheels]

It's not the park. It's the team talent level. There's nothing wrong with the GAB that better players wouldn't fix. I've long held that teams too often fool themselves into thinking they need to build a team to "fit" rather than focusing on putting together a roster that fits any park.

In short, I've seen more than one GM think that either he needs to get a certain "type" of player or gets fooled into thinking a component (offense or pitching) is better than it is because he doesn't understand how his park affects either. Forget the park and get players who'll produce regardless. That's the ticket.

Well......That seems simple enough.

Of course, we root for an organizaiton that has no idea of what you just said.

[Always Red]

Every single time the Reds play at GABP, someone wins a baseball game there. I know, sounds simplistic, but it really is.

GABP is a fine ballpark; I love going to games there. I've been to games at Riverfront and Crosley (ok, I was young then) but GAPB blows them both away.

As stated by many above; when the Reds have better players, they will win more games than the opposition does.

[WVRedsFan]

... or the lack thereof.

I find it interesting that everyone still concentrates on pitching (and rightly so!), but no one ever mentions how what pitching we have is used. I won't go into details because we all know what I'm talking about, but how you use what pitching you have and when as well as good gut instincts go a long way toward pinching wins out of a club like this, IMHO.

That said, I don't see any hope that the people who can make these decisions will get any better nor change their ways or develop that "gut" that tells them when to make the right decisions. IOW's, it's gong to be a long time before we will ever see a really good team in Cincinnati again.

And I hate it.

[Caveat Emperor]

Forget the park and get players who'll produce regardless. That's the ticket.

Yup. Seems to be such a delightfully simple concept, doesn't it? Pitchers who miss bats will miss bats in any park. Hitters that get on base will get on base in any park.

If it were just the park, the team wouldn't be so godawful outside of Cincinnati too.