PDA

View Full Version : Out Machines



mth123
06-03-2007, 07:19 AM
Lost in the season of bullpen meltdowns, poor streaks from starters, lousy defense and curious managerial decisions is a substandard offense that hasn't really gotten enough blame for the Reds problems so far in 2007. The Reds have amazingly slugged pretty well. Of the 10 players with 100 plate appearances through June 1, six have a slugging % higher than .475 (Griffey, Dunn, Hamilton, Gonzalez, Phillips and Hatteberg). The problem is that the team simply doesn't get on base enough. Through June 1, 282 players in major league baseball have 100 or more plate appearances. Those players range in on base percentage from .495 (Barry Bonds) to .230 (Jason Kendall). In the middle of the pack at number 141 sits Josh Bard with an OBP of .338.

Looking at the list, the Reds have 3 players in the top half and 7 players in the bottom half of those rankings.




Rank Name OBP
22 Griffey 0.397
43 Hatteberg 0.387
107 Dunn 0.352
145 Hamilton 0.336
154 Conine 0.333
156 Encarnacion 0.331
157 Phillips 0.331
181 Gonzalez 0.319
196 Freel 0.313
271 Ross 0.266


Beyond that, the team has been caught stealing 14 times (4th most of 30 teams) and picked-off 7 others (Tied for 7th most -Ryan Freel with 6 CS and 4 PO so far), and hit into 54 Double Plays (11th of 30 Teams) and 1 Triple Play (one of only 2 teams to hit into one).

The Reds are 5th in the NL in Runs scored so far, but that is deceiving playing in GABP. This team simply makes too many outs IMO and players who are more successful at getting on base are needed. The outs on the bases need to stop as well.

Opinions?

oneupper
06-03-2007, 08:22 AM
My favorite stat: Win Probability Added, indicts the offense quite seriously.

http://www.fangraphs.com/winss.aspx?team=Reds&season=2007

From FanGraphs.com here's the summary of WPA for the REDS:

Offense: -4.16
Starters: -0.73
Relief: -1.61

Total: -6.50 (x2 = 13 games under .500)

The offense has not performed in leveraged situations.
We know about the bullpen, sure..its usually more obvious, but in a tie or close game not scoring is as bad as being scored upon (almost, at least).
And the offense has done that late in games, time after time.

LoganBuck
06-03-2007, 08:30 AM
Further evidence as to why we don't need a team of "eight Ryan Freels".

Kc61
06-03-2007, 08:49 AM
Relying on a traditional stat, for many years the Reds have been a low BA team. Right now they are 9th in the league in walks -- not good -- but 11th in BA, which is even worse.

They hit the long ball (GABP and all) but they don't have enough truly good all around hitters. It's really that simple.

GAC
06-03-2007, 09:26 AM
We are 10th in the NL in OB% at .323 (21st overall). Slightly below the league avg (.327). Last year we had an OB% of .336 (7th) in the NL. So in comparison to last year there has been a dip.

But with Runners in Scoring Position, in the NL, we are....

- 16th (.229)
- 16th in Hits (97)
- 15th in XBH (33)
-15th in TBs (161)
-14th in SLG% (.381)


So while we may have somewhat of a problem getting men on - the larger problem looms once we get them on.

But our pitching just isn't where we want it to be.

We are 5th in the NL in Runs (256). But Runs Allowed? 281 (#1 in the NL).

This offense may have it's problems; but it's compounded by the pitching IMHO.

The way this offense is performing you'd need 5 Oswalts in the rotation. ;)

oneupper
06-03-2007, 10:51 AM
Good post, GAC
We bicker every night about lineup construction (well, I do), and here is where it comes to fruition.

If you give the opposing pitcher/manager a chance to put the weight of the offense on Conine, Castro, Gonzalez and Ross...they will.

You put your best hitters TOGETHER. Linking hits TOGETHER is what gets you runs in baseball. Three total bases in an inning (three singles, double+single, triple, etc.) are more likely than not going to get you at least a run.
Two total bases is most likely going to get you a goose egg.

It's so simple, even an ex-catcher could understand it.

Inserting out producers between your base producers is a sure-fire way to poor run production.

Far East
06-03-2007, 11:40 AM
Looking at the Reds ranked according to OBP, there is no catcher or SS in the top 8.

OBP SLG OPS

Griffey 0.390 0.528 0.918
Hatteberg0.387 0.477 0.864
Dunn 0.351 0.528 0.879
Hamilton 0.336 0.521 0.857
Encarnacion0.335 0.370 0.705
Conine 0.331 0.406 0.737
Hopper 0.328 0.385 0.713
Valentin 0.328 0.393 0.721
Phillips 0.325 0.469 0.794
Gonzalez 0.318 0.507 0.825
Freel 0.313 0.363 0.676

Everyone probably agrees that it would be a disaster, let's say, to put Hatteberg behind the plate just so the 6th best OBP guy, Conine, could play
1B or to play Phillips play at SS and Hopper at 2B just because their OBP of .328 and .325 tops the .318 of Gonzalez. So, short of those defensive disasters, perhaps a compromise to get a little more offense would be to substitute Valentin -- granted, only their 3rd best defensive catcher -- for Ross, who doesn't even make the top 12 list for OBP.

My hunch is that Valentin -- given enough PT -- would even hit southpaws better than Ross currently is doing. What are their splits, anyway?

Falls City Beer
06-03-2007, 11:57 AM
Yeah, this team is bad in every conceivable way--but GAC's right: worrying about a handful of underperforming guys on offense just kind of misses the point.

This offense is plenty enough to win with if the pitching's there. And yet here we are, 17 months into Krivsky's tenure, and absolutely NOTHING has been done about it. And no, keeping the kids on the farm healthy is not Krivsky's doing; it's DanO's drafting.

It seems like we get these threads a lot when the offense gets schooled by a brutally tough lefty (Francis). It happens--really good pitchers like Francis are going to school even the best of offenses, not just okay ones like the Reds.

(I will say this: having Hamilton back is going to help).

RedsBaron
06-03-2007, 01:35 PM
Further evidence as to why we don't need a team of "eight Ryan Freels".

Freel is fun to watch, but a guy who has little power, a .313 OBP, and is barely over 50% in his ratio of stolen bases to caught stealing isn't helping you that much, and has no business batting leadoff.

RedsManRick
06-03-2007, 02:00 PM
The problem with the Reds offense, as has been shown elsewhere, is that it is too inconsistent. Sure, the total number of runs scored is just fine (5th in the NL & on pace for 728). But two 4 run games are better than a 7 run game and a 1 run game. Because of our low OBP (and because our best OBP guys are batting low in the order ahead of guys who can't drive them in), we're simply more volatile than would be ideal.

TeamBoone
06-03-2007, 02:09 PM
Good post, GAC
We bicker every night about lineup construction (well, I do), and here is where it comes to fruition.

If you give the opposing pitcher/manager a chance to put the weight of the offense on Conine, Castro, Gonzalez and Ross...they will.

You put your best hitters TOGETHER. Linking hits TOGETHER is what gets you runs in baseball. Three total bases in an inning (three singles, double+single, triple, etc.) are more likely than not going to get you at least a run.
Two total bases is most likely going to get you a goose egg.

It's so simple, even an ex-catcher could understand it.

Inserting out producers between your base producers is a sure-fire way to poor run production.

Excellent post! It's maddening. And no protection for Dunn doesn't help. He rarely gets a decent pitch to hit, so he has to swing at borderline pitches that would be called strikes if he doesn't.

Forget lefty/righty. Put 'em together, and I agree that we'd see more production from the offense.

Makes me crazy every single game.

KronoRed
06-03-2007, 02:19 PM
Further evidence as to why we don't need a team of "eight Ryan Freels".

A team of 8 Ryan Freels would probably challenge the Cleveland Spiders for most losses in a season if the team had avg pitching.

But they sure would be scrappy :D

mth123
06-03-2007, 02:40 PM
Yeah, this team is bad in every conceivable way--but GAC's right: worrying about a handful of underperforming guys on offense just kind of misses the point.

This offense is plenty enough to win with if the pitching's there. And yet here we are, 17 months into Krivsky's tenure, and absolutely NOTHING has been done about it. And no, keeping the kids on the farm healthy is not Krivsky's doing; it's DanO's drafting.

It seems like we get these threads a lot when the offense gets schooled by a brutally tough lefty (Francis). It happens--really good pitchers like Francis are going to school even the best of offenses, not just okay ones like the Reds.

(I will say this: having Hamilton back is going to help).

This thread has nothing to do with last night. The point is that the offense is not in good shape either and it shouldn't go unnoticed. I suppose it could be passable if everyone performs. The implications that I see:

1. There isn't an excess of offense to trade for needed pitching.
2. The only two plus offensive players on the horizon will be replacing the top two guys on the OBP list that I posted.
3. Counting on the additions of Bruce and Votto to "fix" the offense to allow a trade of Dunn is misguided. The offense needs all three and EdE, Hamilton and Phillips to have a chance.
4. Established pitching will need to be acquired with cash and the place to get it is from Griffey, Hatte, Milton, Lohse, Larue, Freel, Stanton, Cormier, Weathers, Castro, Javy and hopefully Ross and Gonzalez money. If Dunn is traded any money freed from such a move will need to be plowed right back into the offense to bring an established run creator.
5. Any trades that can be made should be for cheap options for SS and C to free up more money as well as young arms to throw into the mix.
6. I suppose that the team could try to get a younger cheaper run producer back in a trade involving Dunn, but I just don't imagine anyone being willing.

This team is awful everywhere and IMO Ross and Freel are the offensive equivalents of Milton and Lohse.

RedsBaron
06-03-2007, 04:37 PM
You put your best hitters TOGETHER. Linking hits TOGETHER is what gets you runs in baseball. Three total bases in an inning (three singles, double+single, triple, etc.) are more likely than not going to get you at least a run.
Two total bases is most likely going to get you a goose egg.

It's so simple, even an ex-catcher could understand it.

Inserting out producers between your base producers is a sure-fire way to poor run production.

Amen, and you should not only put your best hitters together, you should give them as many at bats as possible. That means a Freel or a Phillips does not bat as high in the order as does a Griffey or a Dunn. The Reds have had a succession of managers who seem to be unable to grasp that simple concept.
I understand that a batting order only has so much effect on an offense, but even if a proper batting order gained the Reds but a few wins on the season, this team needs every possible edge that it can get.
I absolutely agree with TeamBoone that it is maddening how the Reds managers have misused Dunn. Even when he is slumping, Dunn still has a decent OBP as a result of his tendency to get a lot of base on balls. When he bats fifth or sixth, those walks tend to go to waste as there is no one who is likely to drive him in, and batting Dunn fifth or sixth merely increases the chances that the pitcher will not give him anything good to hit. I'd probably bat Dunn second most games, followed by Junior. For that matter, and while I hate to pick on Freel, Dunn would be a better leadoff hitter than Freel.

Sea Ray
06-03-2007, 05:23 PM
Looking at the list, the Reds have 3 players in the top half and 7 players in the bottom half of those rankings.

Rank Name OBP
22 Griffey 0.397
43 Hatteberg 0.387
107 Dunn 0.352
145 Hamilton 0.336
154 Conine 0.333
156 Encarnacion 0.331
157 Phillips 0.331
181 Gonzalez 0.319
196 Freel 0.313
271 Ross 0.266

I don't see where you've identified a glaring weakness here. In fact, it shows the offense to be quite average.

First of all, let's agree that 1) the bench is very weak offensively and 2) that no one is having a career year offensively

So let's look at the starting 8. If you count Hamilton as a starter, he is right at the median for OBP. Then you have 4 under it. That's what you would expect from an average offensive team. In that bottom half you have middle infielders and the catcher. I would have to assume that league wide that would be the norm.

EE has had an awful year so far but I think we need to keep playing him. That leaves catcher as an obvious hole and I'd love to see them improve that position but the fact is most of the league is looking for a decent defensive C who can produce some offense. It's not an easy combination.

So we get back to this question: What position is a glaring hole in this lineup?

I would like to see if more ABs from Hamilton and improvement from EE help this O.

mth123
06-03-2007, 06:43 PM
I see outs too often from all but three spots in the line-up. One of those spots is a platoon guy. I think that is a big weakness. Add in the baserunning gaffes and the DP and there are just too many outs made to get anything going.

I also agree with those who are questioning how these guys are "deployed." Not sure I understand Dunn hitting 6th while Freel and Phillips hit in the top 2 and Gonzalez bats 5th. I'll never understand Conine hitting clean-up. I agree that if EdE gets going it won't be as bad, but as RedsManRick said, I see too much of the stats being accumulated in an "eruption" while day-in and day-out they struggle to score.

My point would be that the talk of trading Dunn to free money ignores the fact that he produces. Meanwhile Freel, Conine and Ross soak up about $6 Million and offer very little. When people are talking about freeing cash for pitching, I think they should be looking to cut out the dollars that offer little or no production. Saving money by cutting production doesn't really accomplish much. I also find it interesting that the Reds really have two players who are viewed as offensive plusses coming along in Votto and Bruce. While I agree that they are, they are basically going to be replacing Griffey and Hatteberg. Bruce and Votto save money and Votto's power should help, but they won't improve the offense much since the guys they are replacing are two of the more productive guys.

Yachtzee
06-03-2007, 07:24 PM
I've been of the opinion that, if he's healthy and you could get a decent middle reliever out of it, Freel should be dealt ASAP, even if it would be unpopular with the fans. He's one of those players who appears to be better than he is. He may have value for a team "on the brink" as a catalyst. He's one of those players who can make an outstanding play in a short series that can rally the team and make things happen, but for a team as bad as the Reds, his OBP and baserunning lapses are a long-term problem.

Phillips is another player who seems to be popular, but based on his OBP and tendency to hit into DPs, I have a feeling he has a short shelf-life as a run producer. Dealing him or Freel isn't going to get you that top-of-the-rotation starter or maybe not even a starter at all. However, I think they could at least try to get some reasonably young middle relief to upgrade the bullpen.

Sea Ray
06-03-2007, 08:39 PM
Phillips is another player who seems to be popular, but based on his OBP and tendency to hit into DPs, I have a feeling he has a short shelf-life as a run producer. Dealing him or Freel isn't going to get you that top-of-the-rotation starter or maybe not even a starter at all. However, I think they could at least try to get some reasonably young middle relief to upgrade the bullpen.

Why deal Phillips? As you stated, we won't get a whole lot for him. He plays good defense, runs, hits and is cheap. What do you have to replace him with?

Sea Ray
06-03-2007, 08:41 PM
I see outs too often from all but three spots in the line-up. One of those spots is a platoon guy. I think that is a big weakness. Add in the baserunning gaffes and the DP and there are just too many outs made to get anything going.


So which OF spot do you include in this all too often out machine? Hamilton, Griffey or Dunn?

mth123
06-03-2007, 09:00 PM
So which OF spot do you include in this all too often out machine? Hamilton, Griffey or Dunn?

Freel

Sea Ray
06-03-2007, 09:05 PM
Freel

In that case I'll fix that hole right now. I annoint Josh Hamilton as the starter. Hole filled.

I like Freel as a guy off the bench but if you on him as starter that's not good.

flyer85
06-03-2007, 09:07 PM
don't worry, the Reds have Happy Hopper riding to rescue. I expect to see him playing a lot as he fits the WK/Twins mold as a player.

mth123
06-03-2007, 09:14 PM
In that case I'll fix that hole right now. I annoint Josh Hamilton as the starter. Hole filled.

I like Freel as a guy off the bench but if you on him as starter that's not good.

Agreed, but through June 1 he had 196 PA. That's near 600 for a season. That is an every day OF IMO. I agree that Hamilton, Dunn and Griffey should be the OF, but even Hamilton needs to get on base more. He has power but has had some stretches where he makes a lot of outs.

Again, I'm not saying go out and get a big bat. Getting some pitching help is a bigger priority. What I am saying is if you try and trade one of the desirable bats to get that pitching, the offense will be way short. Trading Dunn to spend his money on pitching won't work IMO. You'll just need to spend that $15 Million per year on another big bopper if you take him out of the line-up. If you can get pitching by trading Freel, Ross, Conine or even Hatte (Votto can backfill) then have at it. I don't think you'll get anything better than Lohse or Belisle (if that).

Sea Ray
06-03-2007, 09:19 PM
Trading Dunn to spend his money on pitching won't work IMO. You'll just need to spend that $15 Million per year on another big bopper if you take him out of the line-up. If you can get pitching by trading Freel, Ross, Conine or even Hatte (Votto can backfill) then have at it. I don't think you'll get anything better than Lohse or Belisle (if that).

I would not like to see this lineup without Adam Dunn but I'm so disgusted everyone is on the table in a trade as far as I'm concerned. In other words I would move Dunn if the price is right but I wouldn't give him away.

Yachtzee
06-03-2007, 09:20 PM
Why deal Phillips? As you stated, we won't get a whole lot for him. He plays good defense, runs, hits and is cheap. What do you have to replace him with?

Those are all good reasons to keep him, but his OBP and DP tendency lead me to believe that he's always going to be a streaky hitter with a short shelf-life in the majors. I say deal him for decent middle relief if you can. The Reds have been on the road to building half of a decent starting rotation and my concern is that the bullpen is so bad that the starters will begin to get overworked from being left in too long to compensate. I think they'll get much farther with better pitching and keeping their big bats than selling off their big bats now for less return than they might get if they wait until the offseason.

GAC
06-03-2007, 09:37 PM
It's obvious that we miss a Hamilton in this lineup. I'm kinda keeping my eye on Hopper. I don't know that much about this kid, but what I've seen so far I like. But it's still a very small window to make much of a valued observation.

But I would rather have a Hopper, DeWise, and even Votto, sitting on my bench at this point (along with Freel), then a Castro, Conine, and Moeller. I look at this team in the late innings, when we need someone to hit off of this bench in critical situations and I've got Castro staring me in the face. Not good. He came up with the bases loaded in Sunday's game and I said to mself "Just our luck". Thank God the LFer misplayed the ball. That's what Castro needs to survive. ;)

Right now, this team projects out to 739 Runs by seasons end. That is a slight drop from 2006 (749). That would be fine if you have the defense behind you (which we don't), and a pitching staff like a Padres who leads the NL with only 180 Runs Allowed. You got a shot. Again - we don't. We've allowed 292 (worst in the NL). We're on a pace in Runs Allowed of 817. Do the math. It's not a pretty sight....


2006 2007

Runs Allowed 801 817
Runs Scored 749 739


Now the question can be asked as to who is the culprit for this? Is it the starting rotation or the bullpen?

So while we can sit back and discuss all types of variables and offensive categories where this team is weak and struggling - our offense is really not off that much from last year overall. The problem is, if you are going to go with a team, constructed offensively in this way, then you had better be strong on defense (in the field & pitching). And so far we are not.

Our pitching has, overall, seen little improvement at all in comparison to last year....


2006 2007

ERA 4.51 4.72
WHIP 1.41 1.39
SLG% .457 .423
OB% .337 .337
OPS .794 .760
BAA .277 .278

mth123
06-03-2007, 09:47 PM
Agree. The pitching is awful. But you can't plan on having the leagues best staff either. If the pitching was average, this offense probably isn't good enough.

GAC
06-03-2007, 10:07 PM
Agree. The pitching is awful. But you can't plan on having the leagues best staff either. If the pitching was average, this offense probably isn't good enough.

That's true. This offense, as someone mentioned earlier, is too erratic/inconsistent. We are feast or famine. Will the further development of kids like EE and Hamilton (getting them on track) help us in that offensive areas?

I have no problem with a Gonzo at SS. Davey Concepcion was a sub .700 OPS player his whole career. You just can't have too many of those players starting and/or on the bench IMHO. We do.

I still say the problem with this team offensively is not necessarily OB% or SLG%, but in batting average. Especially in critical/clutch situations. We get people on and don't hit. Now that is not a very "scientific" observation, but simply an observation from a fan who has watched practically every game this year.

Is there a stat for men stranded/LOB? I'd love to know what it is for this team.

But here is an interesting stat....

We are on a pace to draw far less BB's this year then in comparison to 2006....

2006 - 614 (2nd in the NL)
2007 - 504

Big Klu
06-03-2007, 10:56 PM
The big problem that I had with today's lineup is that both Dunn and Phillips were sitting. I understand that Dunn was sick, but if he were healthy then it would have been Phillips and Griffey sitting, and that's just as bad.

At three positions--C, 1B, and CF--the dropoff from playing a backup is not really significant.

C: It doesn't really matter who starts at this point. Ross is the best overall player, and should play most of the time, but he has struggled at the plate (except for his power). Valentin is the most consistent offensively (not that that's saying much), but he's the most inconsistent defensively. Moeller is a lesser version of Ross--nearly as good defensively, but even worse offensively. However, the dropoff from one catcher to another is not significant, and the catcher (no matter who he is) needs to take a break now and then, so it doesn't really matter who starts (offensively speaking).

1B: Either Hatteberg or Conine starts each game, and both are competent batsmen. I'll give you that Hatteberg is having the better season, but he is also getting the lion's share of the PT. The issue with Conine is not that he starts against lefties, but his spot in the order. I would prefer to see him in the #6 or #7 spot. But no matter who starts, the Reds are assured of having a "professional hitter" (I hate that phrase!) at 1B.

CF: With Freel and Hamilton out, this has been the exclusive province of Norris Hopper. If he were to sit out, then Dewayne Wise would start--not really a significant dropoff from Hopper. (Norris' hot streak notwithstanding.)

However, at the other five positions--2B, SS, 3B, LF, and RF--there is a major dropoff when a backup starts. (Castro in the INF, or Wise in the OF.) I understand that sometimes a player needs a day off (like Dunn today), but I think that the Reds cannot afford to sit more than one of Phillips, Gonzalez, Encarnacion, Dunn, and Griffey at any one time. If Dunn couldn't go, then Phillips should have been in the starting lineup.

Of course, getting Hamilton back can't hurt.

Sea Ray
06-04-2007, 12:01 AM
Those are all good reasons to keep him, but his OBP and DP tendency lead me to believe that he's always going to be a streaky hitter with a short shelf-life in the majors. I say deal him for decent middle relief if you can. The Reds have been on the road to building half of a decent starting rotation and my concern is that the bullpen is so bad that the starters will begin to get overworked from being left in too long to compensate. I think they'll get much farther with better pitching and keeping their big bats than selling off their big bats now for less return than they might get if they wait until the offseason.

I disagree. I think there is plenty of depth in the system to address middle relief. The only reason I'd trade Phillips is if we could get a bonafide closer in return. Since we agree that ain't happenin' I'd keep him. I think Phillips will be a Red for a long time.

RichRed
06-04-2007, 11:05 AM
I still say the problem with this team offensively is not necessarily OB% or SLG%, but in batting average. Especially in critical/clutch situations. We get people on and don't hit. Now that is not a very "scientific" observation, but simply an observation from a fan who has watched practically every game this year.

Is there a stat for men stranded/LOB? I'd love to know what it is for this team.




Your eyes don't deceive you, in that the Reds are 15th in the NL in batting average with runners on base. However, they still manage to be 5th in runs scored, 6th in RBI, 3rd in SLG and 8th in OPS - all with runners on base.

So I don't know how their team LOB% ranks but it appears that they are not doing that terrible a job driving runners in, at least relative to the other teams in the NL.

It actually surprises me to learn that.

EDIT: The stats above don't distinguish between "clutch" and "non-clutch" sitations - that's difficult to define anyway - but I thought it was interesting regardless.

Eric_Davis
06-04-2007, 05:32 PM
But with Runners in Scoring Position, in the NL, we are....

- 16th (.229)
- 16th in Hits (97)
- 15th in XBH (33)
-15th in TBs (161)
-14th in SLG% (.381)


But Runs Allowed? 281 (#1 in the NL).



Boy, if that doesn't say it all. We can't get a hit when we need a hit and we can't pitch at all, and I'm sure we're near the bottom of the league in defense, too.

Wow!

GAC
06-05-2007, 07:56 PM
Maybe a huge part of the problem can be pointed towards our team struggles versus LHers? A 7-17 record.


BA OBP SLG OPS BAbip


vs LHP as RH .254 .300 .404 .704 .291

vs LHP as LH .267 .346 .460 .806 .321

Sea Ray
06-05-2007, 09:09 PM
Maybe a huge part of the problem can be pointed towards our team struggles versus LHers? A 7-17 record.


BA OBP SLG OPS BAbip


vs LHP as RH .254 .300 .404 .704 .291

vs LHP as LH .267 .346 .460 .806 .321


I don't know. They haven't been too impressive vs RHPs either. My bet is a lot of teams struggle vs LHPs. That's why they're such a valuable commodity

GAC
06-06-2007, 09:07 AM
Last night's game was simply the epitome of what is wrong with this team. Card's pitching walks 9 + 1 hit batter, and we can't capitalize. I simply cringe when I saw Castro coming up with bases laoded and 0 outs. We were lucky enough to score 2 runs in the 4th without ever putting as ball in play and due to some Card shoddy defense.

We are 5th in the NL in LOB. We average 8/game.

Now I hope I'm reading the box score from last night's game wrong (ESPN); but it shows we left 35 men on base last night??? That can't be true. The leaders were Castro (5), Dunn (4).

http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270605124

And our team numbers w/ RISP continues to decline...

.229 BA .333 OB% .379 SLG%

RedFanAlways1966
06-06-2007, 09:16 AM
Last night's game was simply the epitome of what is wrong with this team. Card's pitching walks 9 + 1 hit batter, and we can't capitalize.

Now I hope I'm reading the box score from last night's game wrong (ESPN); but it shows we left 35 men on base last night??? That can't be true. The leaders were Castro (5), Dunn (4).

The REDS actually had 15 LOB last night, GAC. The 35 LOB is the total for all individuals regardless of which out they made in an inning. The total of 15 LOB is how many were left on when an inning ended, which is the true definition for LOB.

The REDS are now 1-2 in games this year in which they have received 9 walks. A week ago Sunday they lost to the Pirates 14-10 while receiving 9 walks. Someone needs to call Elias Stats and see if the REDS are approaching some sort of record for this sort of thing.

membengal
06-06-2007, 10:14 AM
Out of curiosity, is Juan Castro on his way to racking up one of the worst seasons ever for a batter with more than 200 at-bats? (i think he will have more than 200 at-bats before all is said and done)

westofyou
06-06-2007, 11:14 AM
Out of curiosity, is Juan Castro on his way to racking up one of the worst seasons ever for a batter with more than 200 at-bats? (i think he will have more than 200 at-bats before all is said and done)

He's on his way that's for sure.

.159/.179/.206/.385



OPS YEAR OPS AB
1 Bill Bergen 1911 .337 227
2 Bill Bergen 1910 .357 249
3 Malachi Kittridge 1905 .411 238
4 Fritz Buelow 1905 .413 236
5 Harry Pearce 1919 .427 244
6 Bill Bergen 1905 .431 247
7 Joe Stanley 1906 .435 221
8 Jerry Zimmerman 1967 .436 234
9 Rich Morales 1973 .438 248
10 Jim Mason 1975 .438 223

membengal
06-06-2007, 11:38 AM
Thanks woy.

And, oof. Really, just oof.

Cyclone792
06-06-2007, 12:19 PM
Juan Castro's line: .159/.179/.206/.385
2007 NL Pitchers line: .145/.180/.183/.363

Juan Castro really is the modern day infield version of Bill Bergen.

BRM
06-06-2007, 12:25 PM
Juan Castro's line: .159/.179/.206/.385
2007 NL Pitchers line: .145/.180/.183/.363

Juan Castro really is the modern day infield version of Bill Bergen.

Good thing Wayne signed him to a two year deal.

Sea Ray
06-06-2007, 12:28 PM
Good thing Wayne signed him to a two year deal.

Is Juan signed for next year too?

BRM
06-06-2007, 12:32 PM
Is Juan signed for next year too?

Yes. There is even a team option for 2009.



signed 2-year EXTENSION thru 2008 worth $2M on 9/25/06- + he receives salaries of $925K in 2007 and $975K in 2008- + the deal includes a Team Option for 2009 worth $1.1M or a $100K buyout- + he can earn performance bonuses annually: $50K each for 400, 450 and 500PA

smith288
06-06-2007, 12:47 PM
Juan will be DFA'd before he will reach 200 ABs and still sub .200 ba. Mark it down.

There is NO WAY the Krivsky will hang on to that...right? *sigh*

BRM
06-06-2007, 01:07 PM
Juan will be DFA'd before he will reach 200 ABs and still sub .200 ba. Mark it down.

There is NO WAY the Krivsky will hang on to that...right? *sigh*

Juan was stinking up the joint in Minnesota when Krivsky acquired him. I think he finishes 2007 in Cincinnati. 2008? I don't know.

RichRed
06-06-2007, 01:44 PM
He's on his way that's for sure.

.159/.179/.206/.385



OPS YEAR OPS AB
1 Bill Bergen 1911 .337 227
2 Bill Bergen 1910 .357 249
3 Malachi Kittridge 1905 .411 238
4 Fritz Buelow 1905 .413 236
5 Harry Pearce 1919 .427 244
6 Bill Bergen 1905 .431 247
7 Joe Stanley 1906 .435 221
8 Jerry Zimmerman 1967 .436 234
9 Rich Morales 1973 .438 248
10 Jim Mason 1975 .438 223


So he's literally on his way to the 3rd worst OPS in baseball history, INCLUDING the dead-ball era.

Awesome, I'm so glad he's ours. Suck it, everyone else.

RedsBaron
06-06-2007, 02:10 PM
So he's literally on his way to the 3rd worst OPS in baseball history, INCLUDING the dead-ball era.

Awesome, I'm so glad he's ours. Suck it, everyone else.

Yeah, but he knows how to play the game. He's scrappy.

Cyclone792
06-06-2007, 02:11 PM
So he's literally on his way to the 3rd worst OPS in baseball history, INCLUDING the dead-ball era.

Awesome, I'm so glad he's ours. Suck it, everyone else.

Let's take it a step further.

Juan Castro's RC/27 so far for 2007 is 1.16. The National League's RC/27 so far in 2007 is around 4.54. That means Castro's rate of production in terms of RC/27 relative to the National League is around 0.26 (or simply 26, with a league average rate being 100).

Here's the 25 worst single seasons in major league history since 1900 in terms of RC/27 rate of production relative to the league (minimum 200 plate appearances) ...


SEASON
MODERN (1900-)
Non P
PLATE APPEARANCES displayed only--not a sorting criteria

RUNS CREATED/GAME YEAR RATE PLAYER LEAGUE PA
1 Frank O'Rourke 1912 17 0.87 5.03 216
2 Bill Bergen 1911 18 0.88 4.79 250
3 Bob Ramazzotti 1949 20 1.03 5.13 214
4 Bill Bergen 1909 21 0.83 4.01 372
5 Bill Killefer 1910 22 0.88 4.00 215
6 Bill Bergen 1910 24 1.03 4.38 273
7 Bill Bergen 1906 24 1.01 4.27 372
8 John Black 1911 25 1.29 5.16 201
9 Doug Strange 1998 26 1.33 5.09 201
10 Merv Shea 1934 27 1.55 5.69 202
11 Jim Mason 1975 28 1.17 4.26 251
12 Hughie Critz 1935 28 1.44 5.20 227
13 Jack O'Neill 1902 28 1.25 4.42 211
14 Ray Oyler 1968 28 1.05 3.68 247
15 Bill Bergen 1901 29 1.48 5.13 326
16 Benny Zientara 1948 29 1.47 5.08 204
17 Brandon Inge 2001 29 1.47 5.04 202
18 Harry Smith 1903 29 1.55 5.31 234
19 Felix Fermin 1995 29 1.53 5.19 219
20 Dud Lee 1921 30 1.67 5.59 201
21 John Vukovich 1971 30 1.29 4.27 233
22 Mike Ryan 1968 30 1.14 3.74 314
23 Harvey McClellan 1921 30 1.70 5.59 215
24 Al Weis 1966 31 1.25 4.08 213
25 Jack Ryan 1902 31 1.35 4.42 284

Juan Castro is currently on pace to put up one of the 10 worst single seasons of offensive performance the game has seen in over the last 100 years.

RichRed
06-06-2007, 02:23 PM
Let's take it a step further.


I wish you hadn't. :)

BuckeyeRedleg
06-06-2007, 02:23 PM
Where does Juan's career .606 OPS rank for hiiter with 2000+ AB's. It has to be close to rock bottom, right?

I'd be curious to see where Moeller is as well.

This whole thing is bordering on hilarious.

westofyou
06-06-2007, 02:30 PM
Where does Juan's career .606 OPS rank for hiiter with 2000+ AB's. It has to be close to rock bottom, right?

I'd be curious to see where Moeller is as well.

This whole thing is bordering on hilarious.

Castro is number 95 since 1900, number 51 since 1946.

Moeller has 1100 ab's, he doesn't even touch the top 100 worst since 1946.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-06-2007, 02:39 PM
Thanks, WOY.

It's pretty apparent to me. All you have to do is look at just a few of his acquisitions and re-signs to see what we have as a GM. I think it's safe to say that just Castro, Stanton, Saarloos, and a 3-headed catching monster of Moeller, Valentin, and Ross (all players targeted or signed spending millions of precious dollars on) are indictments of Krivsky's utter incompetence as captain of a ship that is now perpendicular to the water on it's way down.

Patrick Bateman
06-06-2007, 02:45 PM
It's pretty apparent to me. All you have to do is look at just a few of his acquisitions and re-signs to see what we have as a GM. I think it's safe to say that just Castro, Stanton, Saarloos, and a 3-headed catching monster of Moeller, Valentin, and Ross (all players targeted or signed spending millions of precious dollars on) are indictments of Krivsky's utter incompetence as captain of a ship that is now perpendicular to the water on it's way down.

I'd agree with that. I don't see a competent GM could think Juan Castro would be a good use of a roster spot.

If he can't connect the dots on such basic concepts, then I don't like his potential in the other areas.

westofyou
06-06-2007, 02:49 PM
Thanks, WOY.

It's pretty apparent to me. All you have to do is look at just a few of his acquisitions and re-signs to see what we have as a GM. I think it's safe to say that just Castro, Stanton, Saarloos, and a 3-headed catching monster of Moeller, Valentin, and Ross (all players targeted or signed spending millions of precious dollars on) are indictments of Krivsky's utter incompetence as captain of a ship that is now perpendicular to the water on it's way down.

Not to me, I see a bunch short term answers failing, but I also see Valentine more as LH PH who can catch so I don't worry about him after years of Cruz and Sweeny types coming and going. To me the others are short term acquisitions that are failing, including Ross who also catches. Sure they are failing, but combined they hardly equal the free agent follies of Dan O'Brien, who didn't bring one impact player into the Reds system at the MLB level while he signed Milton.

Incompetent?

I wouldn't go that far myself.

Chip R
06-06-2007, 02:56 PM
Juan will be DFA'd before he will reach 200 ABs and still sub .200 ba. Mark it down.



Bet ya a case of beer he won't.

RedsManRick
06-06-2007, 02:59 PM
I often get the impression that GMs have so many responsibilities and so much information that they often lose the forest for the trees. They have the data which says "Juan Castro is a horrible offensive player and sharply declining defensive player" and it just gets lost (in terms of appropriate weight) relative to everything else.

I can't fathom how a GM can possible handle all their responsibilities if they are coordinating minor league teams, evaluating talent first-hand, managing scouts, dealing with in-house personnel/staffing, etc. on top of the basic management of the 25/40 man roster.

I would think that too little consideration goes in to the biggest decisions (like who is on the 25 man roster and giving 2 year deals to scrubs) because of the other "distractions". I know all those other things are very important, but I'm very curious how a GM handles it all. How does Krivsky decide how to weight all of the things he is responsible for and, in terms of player evaluation, how does he balance the competing issues of statistical analysis, scouting reports, finances, personalties, etc.

It's easy for us to say Castro isn't good, it's plainly obvious -- but perhaps the most basic, obvious things are harder to see when you're buried in all of the information available to the GM and have so many other things on your plate. Not an excuse of course, but perhaps an explanation.

RichRed
06-06-2007, 03:00 PM
Incompetent?

I wouldn't go that far myself.

I think incompetent may be a bit strong myself; I'm thinking "troubling." The fact that Castro is not only on the roster but signed through '08 with a club option for '09 raises the question of whether Krivsky even thinks of Castro as short-term.

Yep, troubling.

TOBTTReds
06-06-2007, 03:05 PM
I'd agree with that. I don't see a competent GM could think Juan Castro would be a good use of a roster spot.

If he can't connect the dots on such basic concepts, then I don't like his potential in the other areas.

I think signing Royce Clayton to a two year deal to be your starting SS is worse. The Jays did that this winter.

westofyou
06-06-2007, 03:07 PM
I think signing Royce Clayton to a two year deal to be your starting SS is worse. The Jays did that this winter.

Every team has a Boo Radley standing behind a door in their clubhouse, it's unavoidable, the nature of the game depends on so many little variables that it's more likely that your team has more players failing miserably then succeeding wildly.

Ltlabner
06-06-2007, 03:51 PM
I often get the impression that GMs have so many responsibilities and so much information that they often lose the forest for the trees. They have the data which says "Juan Castro is a horrible offensive player and sharply declining defensive player" and it just gets lost (in terms of appropriate weight) relative to everything else.

I can't fathom how a GM can possible handle all their responsibilities if they are coordinating minor league teams, evaluating talent first-hand, managing scouts, dealing with in-house personnel/staffing, etc. on top of the basic management of the 25/40 man roster.

I would think that too little consideration goes in to the biggest decisions (like who is on the 25 man roster and giving 2 year deals to scrubs) because of the other "distractions". I know all those other things are very important, but I'm very curious how a GM handles it all. How does Krivsky decide how to weight all of the things he is responsible for and, in terms of player evaluation, how does he balance the competing issues of statistical analysis, scouting reports, finances, personalties, etc.

It's easy for us to say Castro isn't good, it's plainly obvious -- but perhaps the most basic, obvious things are harder to see when you're buried in all of the information available to the GM and have so many other things on your plate. Not an excuse of course, but perhaps an explanation.

And a very good one.

Our division manager has about 50 people that ultimatley reports to him. And he's constantly burried in work, and never is able to keep up with things. I don't mean that he's bad at what he does, just that with the volume of work he has to acomplish he's not going to be able to sit down and discect the performance of sales guy out in podunk. If RZ was looking at our company, and likely any one of any size, they could see that Mr. Podunk out in the Guam territory was a non-performer who didn't earn and easily make the case that the boss is "incompetant". Often I'll check in with him and he'll come back with a suggestion or directive that leaves me scratching my head...mostly because he's not able to keep track of the nuances and customer of my particular territory. Again, doesn't mean he's an idiot, just means he's comming from a different place.

That said, the division manager has district guys that better know what's going on with their 7 or 8 guys. So he's no totally without blame, but from a big picture perspective it's easy to see how taking one player, out of the context of an entire team and in a vacume and say, "this GM is an idiot".

That says nothing for Kriv's track record which is clear to see and spotty. But I think RMR makes a good point.

Sea Ray
06-06-2007, 04:11 PM
Yes. There is even a team option for 2009.

Ughh.

So Kriv keeps repeating his same mistakes...signing over 35 yr old ball players to multiyear guaranteed deals. What's the list up to now? Stanton, Cormier, Weathers, Castro

BTW, where can I get a Bill Bergen baseball card? Sounds like quite a ballplayer...

Sea Ray
06-06-2007, 04:16 PM
Another fact that's not as obvious as an OPS number is that Castro is not the defensive whiz he once was. My guess is he'd grade out about average amongst major league middle INFs

BRM
06-06-2007, 04:27 PM
BTW, where can I get a Bill Bergen baseball card? Sounds like quite a ballplayer...

http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/bbc/1600/1640/1648fr.jpg

Chip R
06-06-2007, 04:29 PM
Another fact that's not as obvious as an OPS number is that Castro is not the defensive whiz he once was. My guess is he'd grade out about average amongst major league middle INFs


BLASPHEMER!

Sea Ray
06-06-2007, 04:52 PM
Good one BRM. :)You guys can find anything on the internet. Of course they show him fielding. I'll have to assume he was quite a glove man.

BRM
06-06-2007, 04:58 PM
Good one BRM. :)You guys can find anything on the internet. Of course they show him fielding. I'll have to assume he was quite a glove man.

Here is one with a bat in his hands.

http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/bbc/0600/0680/0687fr.jpg

Redsland
06-06-2007, 04:59 PM
I wonder what his batting average might have been if he'd taken off his overcoat.

;)

TOBTTReds
06-06-2007, 05:01 PM
He was once a Red. http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/B/Bergen_Bill.stm

BRM
06-06-2007, 05:02 PM
He was once a Red. http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/B/Bergen_Bill.stm

A career .463 OPS as a Red. What a slugger.

pedro
06-06-2007, 05:19 PM
I think signing Royce Clayton to a two year deal to be your starting SS is worse. The Jays did that this winter.

I wouldn't want to be paying Adam Kennedy 10 million to be my 2nd baseman for the next three years either. The Cardinals did that.

westofyou
06-06-2007, 05:25 PM
A career .463 OPS as a Red. What a slugger.

His brother was one of a kind too.

January 19, 1900: Marty Bergen, Boston's regular catcher, kills his wife and two children, then takes his own life. Bergen, 28, had suffered an apparently career-ending broken hip during a game last season.

Redsland
06-06-2007, 05:32 PM
I can't decide which Bergen makes a better Red: The one who actually played for the Reds and hit .170, or the one with the broken hip.

:)

dabvu2498
06-07-2007, 10:11 AM
Something else that I was curious about and looked up this morning relates to this thread as much as any: Reds offense in "close and late" (as defined by ESPN.com) situations.

Reds team line in those situations: .203 .272 .322 .594
Opponents line in those situations: .299 .380 .463 .843

Some individual OPS numbers for "close and late":
Hatte: 1.114
Javy: .900
Hopper: .846
Phillips: .752
Hamilton: .718
Junior: .544
Dunn: .544 (with 0 HR in 33 PA)
Freel: .510
Gonzo: .463
Conine: .459
EE: .414
Castro: .333
Ross: .243

Is there such a thing as "team clutch?"

RichRed
06-07-2007, 10:22 AM
Is there such a thing as "team clutch?"

If there is, it's not the Reds. They rank dead last in the NL in "close and late" OPS. The dreaded Cardinals, of all teams, rank first with a .914 OPS in "close and late" situations.

Chip R
06-07-2007, 02:50 PM
I can't decide which Bergen makes a better Red: The one who actually played for the Reds and hit .170, or the one with the broken hip.

:)


I'd go with either Edgar Bergen or Candice Bergen.

BoydsOfSummer
06-09-2007, 10:31 PM
I often get the impression that GMs have so many responsibilities and so much information that they often lose the forest for the trees. They have the data which says "Juan Castro is a horrible offensive player and sharply declining defensive player" and it just gets lost (in terms of appropriate weight) relative to everything else.

I can't fathom how a GM can possible handle all their responsibilities if they are coordinating minor league teams, evaluating talent first-hand, managing scouts, dealing with in-house personnel/staffing, etc. on top of the basic management of the 25/40 man roster.

I would think that too little consideration goes in to the biggest decisions (like who is on the 25 man roster and giving 2 year deals to scrubs) because of the other "distractions". I know all those other things are very important, but I'm very curious how a GM handles it all. How does Krivsky decide how to weight all of the things he is responsible for and, in terms of player evaluation, how does he balance the competing issues of statistical analysis, scouting reports, finances, personalties, etc.

It's easy for us to say Castro isn't good, it's plainly obvious -- but perhaps the most basic, obvious things are harder to see when you're buried in all of the information available to the GM and have so many other things on your plate. Not an excuse of course, but perhaps an explanation.


But good grief, you'd think there would be someone else around to say, "Uh...Are you sure you want to do that, Wayne?" If there isn't someone around like that, without a doubt one is needed.