PDA

View Full Version : Wayne Krivsky and On-Base Percentage



Cyclone792
07-31-2007, 05:51 PM
As I sit here contemplating what in the world Wayne Krivsky must be thinking by not cashing in certain chips, and also contemplating what in the world Wayne Krivsky sees in Jorge "Out Machine" Cantu, I got to thinking about Wayne Krivsky and on-base percentage. And I've also noticed one disheartening trend since Krivsky was hired, and now I'm wondering where in the world this future offense could be headed.


On-Base Percentage

Reds NL

Full Yr 2005: .339 .330
----------------------------
1st Half 2006: .342 .334
2nd Half 2006: .328 .334
Thus Far 2007: .324 .330

The National League has hovered around the .330 to .334 mark for on-base percentage during the last two plus seasons. In 2005, the Reds were well above average with a .339 on-base percentage. During the first half of 2006, the Reds were still well above average with a .342 on-base percentage.

But something happened last July, and it's still happening now: this team just flat out cannot get on base anymore.

The Reds' on-base percentage during the second half of 2006 dipped all the way down to .328, below league average, and it's dropped even further down to .324 thus far in 2007. Granted, the National League on-base percentage also dipped a tad from .334 last season to .330 this season, but it's a bad sign when a team's fuel for an offense is disappearing into thin air. If a team isn't getting on base, then it's choking its own ability to score runs and win games. Usually where on-base percentage goes, run scoring soon follows.

What's happened? Well since the beginning of 2006, here's some notable lost on-base percentage ...

Austin Kearns: .351 on-base percentage in 2006 1st half
Felipe Lopez: .355 on-base percentaeg in 2006 1st half
Rich Aurilia: .349 on-base percentage in 2006
Chris Denorfia: .356 on-base percentage in 2006

Those four players combined for around 1,350 plate appearances in 2006, and their combined on-base percentage was up over .350. All of them are gone now as a result of trades or free agency.

Now, I'm not highlighting those four players and criticizing Krivsky over getting rid of those players. Even if the move is wholly necessary, such as letting Rich Aurilia walk after last season, the main point is when you lose such a key ingredient to run production and team success as on-base percentage, you better figure out a way to replace it. What we're seeing now is with the departure of those players above, there has been very little in the way of replacing all that lost on-base percentage.

How about the future? Well, this is interesting ...

Ken Griffey, Jr.: .386 on-base percentage
Scott Hatteberg: .406 on-base percentage
Adam Dunn: .361 on-base percentage

Their combined on-base percentage for 2007? Try a whopping .382 over 1,166 plate appearances. And those 1,166 plate appearances represent nearly 30 percent of the Reds' total offensive plate appearances.

Now what's the team on-base percentage excluding those three players? Did you guess a dismal .300 on-base percentage? Doubtful, but that's what it is. Pretty ugly, eh?

But here's the ugly aspect, which is what do those three players have in common? The answer is they're all likely to not be in Reds uniforms and/or playing key roles for the Reds by 2009.

Griffey is 37-years-old, and I can't see this team picking up his $16 million option in 2009 when he'll be 39-years-old. He's likely gone.

Hatteberg is also 37-years-old, and with a combination of Joey Votto pushing him from the minors, his age, and only having a team option for 2008, it's not likely he'll be around in 2009 either.

And Adam Dunn, well apparently Krivsky's been trying to trade him for quite some time now. Fortunately he hasn't yet done so, but given his contract status I'd still be shocked if he's around in 2009 (the Reds should make sure he is around then, but that's another topic).

Now I'm high on both Joey Votto and Jay Bruce, and I like them as hitting prospects, but this team really has little to no other means of hitting in its upper minors. Plus, those two players alone won't encompass 30 percent of the team's total plate appearances, and if anybody is expecting them to combine for a .382 on-base percentage, then they'll just be setting themselves up for disappointment. They could both hold their own very well early in their big league careers and still only toss up .350ish on-base percentages. And that means this offense is going to need significantly more on-base percentage help than just Joey Votto and Jay Bruce.

Wrap all the above together, and what we know is within 18 months that fuel for the team offense is likely gone. That big .382 on-base percentage from three guys who represent nearly 30 percent of our offense will no longer be around. And this is on the heels of losing other key on-base contributors in the last 12-13 months.

Wayne Krivsky has found a few guys under rocks who have worked out well, but he needs to stop screwing around with high out machine stiffs such as Jorge Cantu and start focusing on finding guys who have an ability to get on base. The on-base percentage void has already appeared with a 15-20 point drop since the first half of 2006, and if the on-base abilities of Dunn, Griffey, and Hatteberg are all gone by 2009, then that team on-base percentage void will grow even larger. And as much as I like Joey Votto and Jay Bruce, they won't come close to filling that massive void by themselves.

cincinnati chili
07-31-2007, 06:09 PM
I've had the same concerns, cyclone. I'm hoping that Wayne's pitching evaluation skills are strong enough to offset his apparent underappreciation of the value of on-base skills.

I don't ever advocate going after low-obp "rbi guys" like Cantu of 2005.

I also don't advocate overpaying for "athletes" whom one hopes will turn into effective hitters. It's fine to pick up a guy like Brandon Phillips, just don't pay too much for them. For every Brandon Phillips, there's 3 or 4 Corey Pattersons.

The guys on this team with secondary skills (Dunn/Griffey) are not the problem. Their on-base and power skills offset their defensive deficiencies.

Puffy
07-31-2007, 06:09 PM
I said this very thing, in many, many less words, in the Cantu thread.

Always Red
07-31-2007, 06:18 PM
Cyc, great post, I'd rep you if I could.

Not making outs is certainly the name of the game.

What kind of effect has Jacoby had on this team, rather than Chris Chambliss? Can that be the cause of some of the drop in OBP?

The more I see of Kriv, the more I believe that he is a truly a scout at heart, and has no use for numbers. If he sees it with his eyes, it's true, and that's all.

The perfect GM is a blend between the two, I think. A guy who can use the numbers to tell you if your eyes are lying to you or not.

I certainly do no expect perfection of Wayne Krivsky. But this is a team that needs to make some moves. Doing nothing is not an option, is it? No one wants bad trades, or trading just for trading's sake, but it's a GM's responsibility to improve his team, especially when they're mired in 5th place.

Not improving your team on a day when the market was right for getting a good price for certain parts is a failure.

Not realizing the importance of OBP is a failure, too.

I've been very gentle with Kriv to this point. I have to think he's on his way out. The only way this would be acceptable (ie- not improving the Reds today) is if Castellini put the brakes on moves that Krivsky proposed. We will never know that, of course. If Cast stopped Krivsky from trading today, it can only mean that Wayne is gone after this year, and Cast no longer trusts him with his team.

And if Wayne has done this on his own (ie- doing nothing today), then he needs to be shown the door, and someone who can improve this team needs to be brought in, STAT.

flyer85
07-31-2007, 06:22 PM
someone who can improve this team needs to be brought in, STAT.Cast is waiting so Jocketty and Larussa can save the team. :help:

princeton
07-31-2007, 06:24 PM
it's a shocker that as we put more emphasis on defense and pitching, the offense begins to slide.

edabbs44
07-31-2007, 06:26 PM
He needs to focus more on pitching, if possible.

edabbs44
07-31-2007, 06:27 PM
it's a shocker that as we put more emphasis on defense and pitching, the offense begins to slide.

The Reds are 7th in the NL in runs scored this year, as opposed to 9th last year. The shocking thing is that the pitching has slid after putting so much "attention" on it and the defense.

flyer85
07-31-2007, 06:29 PM
The Reds are 7th in the NL in runs scored this year, as opposed to 9th last year. ... that is while playing in a hitters park.

RedsManRick
07-31-2007, 06:52 PM
SLG actually correlates more highly with run scoring than does OBP. Of course, we're down across the board...

2007 (NL Rank)
BA: .253 (11)
OBP: .324 (11)
SLG: .424 (5)
R/G: 4.61 (8)

2006
BA: .257 (15)
OBP: .336 (7)
SLG: .432 (6)
R/G: 4.62 (9)

The offense, especially adjusted for park is league average. As Cyclone said, it doesn't look promising. And for me, I'm not convinced that Krivsky understands at all that this is a problem.

Cyclone792
07-31-2007, 07:13 PM
it's a shocker that as we put more emphasis on defense and pitching, the offense begins to slide.

Apparently that emphasis isn't working.


Pythag Winning %

2005 .463
-----------------------
2006 1st Half .469
2006 2nd Half .470
2007 .449

It's never a good sign when the pythag winning percentage is going backwards rather than forwards.


The Reds are 7th in the NL in runs scored this year, as opposed to 9th last year.

They're merely league average thanks only to a big time hitter's park. Their 95 OPS+, which is tied for 12th in the NL, does a pretty good job assessing how lousy the offense has been.

Additionally, the Reds average 4.28 runs per game on the road, which is bad enough to rank 12th in the National League. Despite an emphasis on pitching that isn't working (and I agree, it isn't working), the team on-base percentage is heading squarely in the wrong direction, and as a result, the team offense is also heading squarely in the wrong direction itself.

RedsManRick
07-31-2007, 07:18 PM
it's a shocker that as we put more emphasis on defense and pitching, the offense begins to slide.

Now if only the pitching and defense had actually improved. At this point, all he's done is sacrificed offense for nothing.

ochre
07-31-2007, 07:37 PM
Apparently that emphasis isn't working.


Pythag Winning %

2005 .463
-----------------------
2006 1st Half .469
2006 2nd Half .470
2007 .449
It's never a good sign when the pythag winning percentage is going backwards rather than forwards.



They're merely league average thanks only to a big time hitter's park. Their 95 OPS+, which is tied for 12th in the NL, does a pretty good job assessing how lousy the offense has been.

Additionally, the Reds average 4.28 runs per game on the road, which is bad enough to rank 12th in the National League. Despite an emphasis on pitching that isn't working (and I agree, it isn't working), the team on-base percentage is heading squarely in the wrong direction, and as a result, the team offense is also heading squarely in the wrong direction itself.
I can't help but think that even the offensive performance is a bit of a mirage. You've pointed out the OBP woes, but how much of the SLG boon has come from unlikely (sources) performances? I, personally, consider the power numbers players such as Gonzalez, Phillips, Hamilton (at least at this juncture), and even Ross to some degree, to be marginally "fluky". Sure, any of them are capable of that, but for all of them to do it at largely the same time, with really only Encarnacion under performing power expectations, seems to be something less than an ideal foundation for the future of the offense, particularly if the OBP trend continues downward in the aggregate.

Eric_Davis
07-31-2007, 08:21 PM
Addition by subtraction:

Kearns OBP 2007: .335 (not to mention that ugly .373 SLG :) )

Lopez OBP 2007: .296 (not to mention his putrid .343 SLG :) )

Denorfia OBP 2007: broken body completely useless

Aurilia OBP 2007: .293 (not to mention his ugly .368 SLG :) )

Four players you can say, "Good Riddance".

RedsManRick
07-31-2007, 08:27 PM
Addition by subtraction:

Kearns OBP 2007: .335 (not to mention that ugly .373 SLG :) )

Lopez OBP 2007: .296 (not to mention his putrid .343 SLG :) )

Denorfia OBP 2007: broken body completely useless

Aurilia OBP 2007: .293 (not to mention his ugly .368 SLG :) )

Four players you can say, "Good Riddance".

Going from one of the best hitters park in a solid lineup to two of the best pitchers in weak lineups don't help.

Stormy
07-31-2007, 08:27 PM
Now if only the pitching and defense had actually improved. At this point, all he's done is sacrificed offense for nothing.

True. For a guy who preaches the mantra of 'pitching and defense', Krivsky's about 2-for-30 in successfully identifying either during his tenure with the Reds.

As for the initial post in the thread, that was both exceptional (and terrifying) cyclone. With the likely departure of our top 3 OBP threats in the next year+, we could see an offense far less productive than the somewhat volatile mix we currently 'enjoy.'

Cyclone792
07-31-2007, 08:39 PM
I figured what the heck, let's take a look at every player Krivsky has acquired during his tenure and see what type of 2007 production those players are producing ...

Position Players: David Ross, Scott Hatteberg, Brandon Phillips, Alex Gonzalez, Josh Hamilton, Jeff Conine, Juan Castro, Jeff Keppinger, Chad Moeller, Pedro Lopez, Enrique Cruz

Those players have combined for 2,094 plate appearances in 2007, which is 53.3 percent of all the position player plate appearances for the 2007 Reds (i.e. all plate appearances by non-pitchers). The bulk of those plate appearances are by four primary starters - Hatteberg, Phillips, Gonzalez, and Ross - and one part-time starter in Josh Hamilton.

Their combined 2007 batting line? .259/.320/.440, and that .320 on-base percentage by Krivsky-acquired position players is particularly disturbing.

2007 Position Players not acquired by Krivsky: Edwin Encarnacion, Adam Dunn, Ryan Freel, Ken Griffey, Jr., Norris Hopper, Javier Valentin, DeWayne Wise

Those players have combined for 1,794 plate appearances in 2007, which is 46.1 percent of all the plate appearances by Reds position players this season. The bulk of those plate appearances are by three regular starters - Edwin Encarnacion, Adam Dunn, and Ken Griffey, Jr. - and one part-time starter in Ryan Freel.

Their combined 2007 batting line? .260/.345/.438

FTR, I've done the same split with the pitching staff comparing 2007 statistics for pitchers Krivsky has acquired compared to 2007 statistics for pitchers Krivsky did not acquire.

I'll let people take a few guesses which group's ERA is better, and I'll also let people take a few guesses what the ERA is for Krivsky's group. Hint: It isn't pretty.

Always Red
07-31-2007, 08:51 PM
I figured what the heck, let's take a look at every player Krivsky has acquired during his tenure and see what type of 2007 production those players are producing ...

Position Players: David Ross, Scott Hatteberg, Brandon Phillips, Alex Gonzalez, Josh Hamilton, Jeff Conine, Juan Castro, Jeff Keppinger, Chad Moeller, Pedro Lopez, Enrique Cruz

Those players have combined for 2,094 plate appearances in 2007, which is 53.3 percent of all the position player plate appearances for the 2007 Reds (i.e. all plate appearances by non-pitchers). The bulk of those plate appearances are by four primary starters - Hatteberg, Phillips, Gonzalez, and Ross - and one part-time starter in Josh Hamilton.

Their combined 2007 batting line? .259/.320/.440, and that .320 on-base percentage by Krivsky-acquired position players is particularly disturbing.

2007 Position Players not acquired by Krivsky: Edwin Encarnacion, Adam Dunn, Ryan Freel, Ken Griffey, Jr., Norris Hopper, Javier Valentin, DeWayne Wise

Those players have combined for 1,794 plate appearances in 2007, which is 46.1 percent of all the plate appearances by Reds position players this season. The bulk of those plate appearances are by three regular starters - Edwin Encarnacion, Adam Dunn, and Ken Griffey, Jr. - and one part-time starter in Ryan Freel.

Their combined 2007 batting line? .260/.345/.438

FTR, I've done the same split with the pitching staff comparing 2007 statistics for pitchers Krivsky has acquired compared to 2007 statistics for pitchers Krivsky did not acquire.

I'll let people take a few guesses which group's ERA is better, and I'll also let people take a few guesses what the ERA is for Krivsky's group. Hint: It isn't pretty.

If you take the OBP differences (pre-Wayne v. Wayne), the ERA differences (pre-W, and W) and the run differential (pre Wayne and since Wayne http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1429279&postcount=47),
they all point to the same thing:

This team is worse now than when Wayne Krivsky took over.

edabbs44
07-31-2007, 09:09 PM
They're merely league average thanks only to a big time hitter's park. Their 95 OPS+, which is tied for 12th in the NL, does a pretty good job assessing how lousy the offense has been.

Additionally, the Reds average 4.28 runs per game on the road, which is bad enough to rank 12th in the National League. Despite an emphasis on pitching that isn't working (and I agree, it isn't working), the team on-base percentage is heading squarely in the wrong direction, and as a result, the team offense is also heading squarely in the wrong direction itself.

Their splits were just as bad, if not worse, last season.

2006 home: .271/.354/.459, 6th in runs scored
2006 away: .244/.319/.407, 11th in runs scored.

Without better pitching, this team will not be competing anytime soon. The offense isn't the biggest issue.

puca
07-31-2007, 09:13 PM
Their splits were just as bad, if not worse, last season.

2006 home: .271/.354/.459, 6th in runs scored
2006 away: .244/.319/.407, 11th in runs scored.

Without better pitching, this team will not be competing anytime soon. The offense isn't the biggest issue.

But its quickly catching up. That is the scary thing. Remove Dunn from the equation for 2008 - still VERY likely IMO - and it may be a dead heat.

Cyclone792
07-31-2007, 09:15 PM
Their splits were just as bad, if not worse, last season.

2006 home: .271/.354/.459, 6th in runs scored
2006 away: .244/.319/.407, 11th in runs scored.

Without better pitching, this team will not be competing anytime soon. The offense isn't the biggest issue.

Which tells us that the offense is bad and getting worse. And that's a serious problem for this organization.

I'm not arguing about the pitching; it's also bad. But the game isn't 100 percent pitching, 80 percent, or even 60 percent pitching. The team needs to score ~100 runs more than it allows each season to be a playoff contender. That means it needs to hit, it needs to pitch, and it needs to catch the ball.

The correct statement is without better hitting, pitching, and defense, this team will not be competing anytime soon.

edabbs44
07-31-2007, 09:25 PM
But its quickly catching up. That is the scary thing. Remove Dunn from the equation for 2008 - still VERY likely IMO - and it may be a dead heat.

Not really...Dunn isn't exactly steady across the board in '07.

2007 away: .231/.324/.473
2007 home: .289/.396/.610

But anyway, taking Dunn and Griffey out of the equation in '08 isn't the biggest issue, IMO. They are currently in the equation in '07 and this team isn't exactly tearing it up. Bottom line is that the FO has a few things to accomplish before they can even fathom making a run at the post-season, and the biggest thing is to make a decision as to whether they expect to do that with Dunn and Grif or without.

Look at what Texas got in return for Teixeira. Texas knew they weren't going to compete in the next 2 years, so they will probbaly be getting production from Tex for years after he is gone. The FO should have the same thought in mind.

edabbs44
07-31-2007, 09:26 PM
Which tells us that the offense is bad and getting worse. And that's a serious problem for this organization.

I'm not arguing about the pitching; it's also bad. But the game isn't 100 percent pitching, 80 percent, or even 60 percent pitching. The team needs to score ~100 runs more than it allows each season to be a playoff contender. That means it needs to hit, it needs to pitch, and it needs to catch the ball.

The correct statement is without better hitting, pitching, and defense, this team will not be competing anytime soon.

Absolutely...they need help everywhere. But I'd rather be pitching rich anyday. Just my opinion.

harangatang
07-31-2007, 11:19 PM
The team needs to score ~100 runs more than it allows each season to be a playoff contender.Oh come on, you've got to be kidding me. The Reds allowed 52 more runs than they scored in 2006 and they should've won the World Series. ;);)(Wink, Wink)

I think with the passing of the July 31st trade deadline it provides a little hope. I think that with the Reds hanging on to some key players shows that someone in the Reds FO may know what they are doing. I don't know if Krivsky decided that making many prior moves was ineffective in improving the ballclub or if BobC put his foot down and said no more. I would guess and say it is the latter given Krivsky's past but it is only an educated guess. With that though, Dunn wasn't shipped off which is great in keeping OBP totals higher. The rest of your posts were enlightening which is quite scary as a Reds fan to say the least.

cincinnati chili
08-01-2007, 12:15 AM
SLG actually correlates more highly with run scoring than does OBP.



While I don't have studies to cite at my disposal, I'm certain that this is incorrect for almost every era in the history of baseball including the modern era.

Using regression analysis, some statheads argue about whether on-base percentage is TWICE as important as slugging, only 1.5 times more important, etc. However, I thought it was a given that it's more important.

I guess it's possible that slugging could become scarce and on-base skills could become readily available. It's just never happened, as far as I know.

Patrick Bateman
08-01-2007, 12:21 AM
While I don't have studies to cite at my disposal, I'm certain that this is incorrect for almost every era in the history of baseball including the modern era.

Using regression analysis, some statheads argue about whether on-base percentage is TWICE as important as slugging, only 1.5 times more important, etc. However, I thought it was a given that it's more important.

I guess it's possible that slugging could become scarce and on-base skills could become readily available. It's just never happened, as far as I know.

I agree. Everything I have shown (including many correlation tests done on Redszone) have shown OBP to be a high correlate to run scoring. It's been unanimous accross the board.

It's also why runs created has a higher correlation than OPS. It's because the OBP aspect is weighed more highly than the SLG component.

RedsManRick
08-01-2007, 08:04 AM
While I don't have studies to cite at my disposal, I'm certain that this is incorrect for almost every era in the history of baseball including the modern era.

Using regression analysis, some statheads argue about whether on-base percentage is TWICE as important as slugging, only 1.5 times more important, etc. However, I thought it was a given that it's more important.

I guess it's possible that slugging could become scarce and on-base skills could become readily available. It's just never happened, as far as I know.

Well, that's in a straight correlation. I imagine that tests which show OBP as more influential are multi-variate regressions that control for the correlation between OBP and SLG.

Bottom line, WK has sacrificed offense at the altar of pitching and defense, but has failed to actually improve either, arguably due the poor evaluation methods that led to him believe that Rheal Cormier was a major league pitcher and that Alex Gonzalez was still a top defender.

Yes, WK could not predict that Freel or Ross would regress so heavily. However, he also has taken no actions which suggest that he understands the value of OBP in run scoring.

Ltlabner
08-01-2007, 08:07 AM
Well, that's in a straight correlation. I imagine that tests which show OBP as more influential are multi-variate regressions that control for the correlation between OBP and SLG.

Yea, I've got something to say........what!?!?!?! :confused:

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/telebuddy/archives/caveman.jpg

Falls City Beer
08-01-2007, 08:09 AM
But its quickly catching up. That is the scary thing. Remove Dunn from the equation for 2008 - still VERY likely IMO - and it may be a dead heat.

Very true.

Ltlabner
08-01-2007, 08:13 AM
SLG actually correlates more highly with run scoring than does OBP. Of course, we're down across the board...

2007 (NL Rank)
BA: .253 (11)
OBP: .324 (11)
SLG: .424 (5)
R/G: 4.61 (8)

2006
BA: .257 (15)
OBP: .336 (7)
SLG: .432 (6)
R/G: 4.62 (9)

The offense, especially adjusted for park is league average. As Cyclone said, it doesn't look promising. And for me, I'm not convinced that Krivsky understands at all that this is a problem.

Is it odd that the OBP and SLG are down by a number of points, while the R/G are only down a fraction?

Great post Cyclone. In a round-about-way that's what I was getting at in my "ah-ha moment" thread. The teams offense, while run of the mill, is being proped up by two players who are ageing and one player who may or may not be here long term (although after yesterday, will be here at least till June 2008). Not good.

redsmetz
08-01-2007, 08:31 AM
I've been very gentle with Kriv to this point. I have to think he's on his way out. The only way this would be acceptable (ie- not improving the Reds today) is if Castellini put the brakes on moves that Krivsky proposed. We will never know that, of course. If Cast stopped Krivsky from trading today, it can only mean that Wayne is gone after this year, and Cast no longer trusts him with his team.

And if Wayne has done this on his own (ie- doing nothing today), then he needs to be shown the door, and someone who can improve this team needs to be brought in, STAT.

I've snipped your post to these closing points. I understand you are speculating, but I think your conclusions are a little bit of a reach. Why is it "the only way this would be acceptable" (standing pat) is because Castellini put the brakes on?

Earlier you mentioned that yesteday was "a day when the market was right for getting a good price for certain parts". I don't think that is evident. I think Ltlabner noted that RZ screamed bloody murder when "The Trade" happened last year because we didn't hold out for a better deal. Someone else noted yesterday that ball clubs seem to be holding on to their prime prospect chips (we are) this year. That would seem to put a huge damper on the market. I, for one, am glad that Krivsky didn't pull the trigger on a deal that didn't improve us. We've got talented players that can be valuable to another team. Let's allow the market to come to us. This season is lost; but there's no need to be throwing ballast overboard to save the ship.

Maybe what we witnessed was a GM being astute and not getting fleeced because we're so lousy at this moment. The ML market has thrived off of that situation for a long time. We're not in this to be the super farm club for the richer clubs. We're in it to win a pennant. Standing pat in what seems to be to have been a weakened market works for the time being.

Speaking of which, I wonder whether the Rangers/Braves trade coupled with Houston DFA'ing Ensberg shifted the market just a little bit viz. our players. Just a conjecture on my part.

That said, I disagree that Krivsky's inaction indicates that he was drawn in by the owner or is inept. Those might the case, but it's not a conclusion that can be made on the limited info we presently have.

Always Red
08-01-2007, 09:26 AM
I've snipped your post to these closing points. I understand you are speculating, but I think your conclusions are a little bit of a reach. Why is it "the only way this would be acceptable" (standing pat) is because Castellini put the brakes on?

Earlier you mentioned that yesteday was "a day when the market was right for getting a good price for certain parts". I don't think that is evident. I think Ltlabner noted that RZ screamed bloody murder when "The Trade" happened last year because we didn't hold out for a better deal. Someone else noted yesterday that ball clubs seem to be holding on to their prime prospect chips (we are) this year. That would seem to put a huge damper on the market. I, for one, am glad that Krivsky didn't pull the trigger on a deal that didn't improve us. We've got talented players that can be valuable to another team. Let's allow the market to come to us. This season is lost; but there's no need to be throwing ballast overboard to save the ship.

Maybe what we witnessed was a GM being astute and not getting fleeced because we're so lousy at this moment. The ML market has thrived off of that situation for a long time. We're not in this to be the super farm club for the richer clubs. We're in it to win a pennant. Standing pat in what seems to be to have been a weakened market works for the time being.

Speaking of which, I wonder whether the Rangers/Braves trade coupled with Houston DFA'ing Ensberg shifted the market just a little bit viz. our players. Just a conjecture on my part.

That said, I disagree that Krivsky inaction indicates that he was drawn in by the owner or is inept. Those might the case, but it's not a conclusion that can be made on the limited info we presently have.

RM, you're a very reasonable, level-headed poster, and usually I try to be, too. I admit I was a little whacked out yesterday; I probably should have not posted anything.

None of us will know what was available and what was not except for the GM's and their staffs who were involved.

This is a poor team, do you agree? Wk did not do much last offseason, and he has done very little this season to make this team better. My frustration stems from inaction. If "nothing was available" then WK needs to make things happen. Good GM's make things happen.

This is a team that can not afford to stand pat. It needs to change- either add payroll and talented established players (unlikely, I know), or add younger cheaper, talented players. Wayne told us yesterday that he was basically satisfied with the talent level on this team. No, I did not expect the Reds to add relief help yesterday- July 31 is when decent relief help will cost you the most. He might have taken advantage of that and dealt Weathers? You and I will never know what kind of offers were out there for Dave Weathers. I agree with those who say Weathers will probably not be able to pitch next year like he is right now.

How do the Braves get Dotel and Tex, and the Red Sox get Gange? Do teams just line up and try to make these powerhouse teams better? I don't think so- I think the guys who run these teams target the players they want, and then go out and make it happen. Apparently, if you believe reports, they almost succeeded in talking Krivsky into trading Arroyo. I'm glad he resisted. I was originally OK with Arroyo for Salty, mostly because I think Salty is a very rare talent. So, I'm glad Arroyo is still here.

I'm very glad that Krivsky did not trade Dunn, Griffey, Harang, Phillips, and Arroyo. EE, I might have traded, for the right return. If the return is not there, then yes, he should not trade anyone just for the sake of change.

I'm interested in building a winning team. That means getting guys off the roster who are not going to be here next year, and getting guys on the team (ie- Votto) who are going to be expected to help next year.

I can't believe there was no market for a guy like Hatte, Conine or Weathers. Good guys, to be sure, and they have certainly done well as Reds, but they are not a part of the future, IMO.

I don't feel any better today, but I am less...emotional about it. I'm sure Wayne is a very nice man, but much like DanO, I think he is a middle manager type who is out of his element. It is my belief that his scorching by the national media last year following "the trade" has scarred him to the point that he's afraid to pull the trigger on anything other than minor deals like Cantu, or picking Hamilton (Rule 5) and Livingston up (waiver).

I think I'm going to penalize myself and give the Reds a break for a while; they're starting to drive me crazy...

redsrule2500
08-01-2007, 09:47 AM
Well, when we leave 12 out of 15 on base, does it really matter.

pahster
08-01-2007, 10:00 AM
Well, that's in a straight correlation. I imagine that tests which show OBP as more influential are multi-variate regressions that control for the correlation between OBP and SLG.

If I'm missing something obvious, let me know. Sometimes I have blond moments in the morning.

I'm not sure that a standard multiple regression model can control for such a high covariance. OBP and SLG correlate with each other at a rate far to high to trust the results of such a model.

GAC
08-01-2007, 10:00 AM
I'm not going to go somewhat overboard, it's a trend, or say "we don't know how to get on base anymore", when or OB% is only .006 below the league average.

We're 6th in the NL in BB's (353) and Runs (492). 5th in Total Bases (1562).

We finished 2nd in the NL in BB's in '06 (614). And at the rate we are going our BBs will be down in '07.

So the contention is we're just not walking enough, or are there also other variables that drive down team OB%?

ochre
08-01-2007, 10:27 AM
Is it odd that the OBP and SLG are down by a number of points, while the R/G are only down a fraction?


That's what I was alluding to with my previous post. I think the spikey homerun numbers from the players I mentioned have served as grout on the crevasse that the Reds offense has become. Unless these performances are repeatable, the offense is in a world of hurt by most historical indicators. The low team OBP is going to lead to some extreme production swings I would think. which, given the volatile pitching, could lead to some long days/seasons ahead.

pahster
08-01-2007, 10:30 AM
So the contention is we're just not walking enough, or are there also other variables that drive down team OB%?

So far this year, the Reds have a lower IsoD and are hitting for a lower AVG than they did last year. Fewer hits, fewer combined walks and HBP. Also less power.

Not good.

dfs
08-01-2007, 10:31 AM
I guess it's possible that slugging could become scarce and on-base skills could become readily available. It's just never happened, as far as I know.

The dead ball era. It gets confounded because in addition to slugging vanishing the error rate is so much higher.

A meaningless mathematical curiosity. Since Ruth, OBP is certainly more important than slugging and Cyclone has every reason to be concerned.

Thread of the month.

westofyou
08-01-2007, 10:31 AM
So the contention is we're just not walking enough, or are there also other variables that drive down team OB%?

Batting average, the Reds have too few players who hit for average, those would be Freel and EE (and Ross) three guys who could deliver a better BA and thus push the OB%

This team could use a 150 game a year player who hits over .300.


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
2000-2006
WALKS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
OBA vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

AVERAGE YEAR AVG BB OBA
1 Reds 2000 .274 -86 -.007
2 Reds 2001 .262 -104 -.015
3 Reds 2005 .261 60 .000
4 Reds 2006 .257 50 -.007
5 Reds 2002 .253 -10 -.009
6 Reds 2004 .250 24 -.010
7 Reds 2003 .245 -51 -.023

RedsManRick
08-01-2007, 10:43 AM
I'm not going to go somewhat overboard, it's a trend, or say "we don't know how to get on base anymore", when or OB% is only .006 below the league average.

We're 6th in the NL in BB's (353) and Runs (492). 5th in Total Bases (1562).

We finished 2nd in the NL in BB's in '06 (614). And at the rate we are going our BBs will be down in '07.

So the contention is we're just not walking enough, or are there also other variables that drive down team OB%?

This is a fair point, OBP is comprised more of hits than walks. The problem is that we've got some guys who either do one of them horribly, or both of them poorly. Let's look at our guys below .335 OBP with more than 100 PA.

Brandon Phillips: .279/.325/.473, 455 PA. For an above average defensive 2B, this line is just fine. The problem of course is that he's hitting cleanup, and doing a poor job of setting the table for the guys behind him, usually Dunn and EE. Funny, you'd think you'd put the low OB%, high SLG guy behind your higher OBP guys. BTW, I can't help but think "Jacque Jones plays IF" every time I see Phillips.

Norris Hopper: .276/.321/.342, 161 PA. A horribly empty mediocre BA. Few walks. No power.

Jeff Conine: .274/.333/.416, 209 PA. Mediocre BA, mediocre walk rate, mediocre power. Poor production for a 1B, especially one taking advantage of a platoon and hitting cleanup. Uggh.

Javy Valentin: .254/.302/.356, 126 PA. Low BA, mediocre walk rate, little power. Yeah, he's had a couple of clutch singles, but overall, he's sucked.

Ryan Freel: .248/.309/.350, 292 PA. Perhaps nobody has done more harm offensively this year than Freel. His BA is down, he's walking half as much, and he's running in to more outs than he's creating on the bases.

Dave Ross: .209/.267/.413, 275 PA. Yikes. His horrible average is obviously a drag. He's also walking half as often as last year. At least the power is there and he's not creating more outs on the bases. Unlike Freel, his BABIP is .242 compared to an expected BABIP of .312 suggests he's been horribly unlucky.

Alex Gonzalez: .251/.297/.444, 330 PA. If I was Denny Green, you'd be getting a nice little rant right now. You all know the story. This is who AGone is. Enjoy!

Juan Castro: .180/.211/.236, 93 PA. Ok, I lied. He has less than 100 PA, but he has sucked historically hard. If he were able to make it to 100 PA, it would be one of the worst 100 PA seasons in major league history. Never saw a pitch he couldn't hit but wanted to swing at anyways.

flyer85
08-01-2007, 10:54 AM
RMR, that's a scrappy bunch you got there. I'm sure, however, that they are "playing the game the right way".

rdiersin
08-01-2007, 10:57 AM
While I don't have studies to cite at my disposal, I'm certain that this is incorrect for almost every era in the history of baseball including the modern era.

Using regression analysis, some statheads argue about whether on-base percentage is TWICE as important as slugging, only 1.5 times more important, etc. However, I thought it was a given that it's more important.

I guess it's possible that slugging could become scarce and on-base skills could become readily available. It's just never happened, as far as I know.

I know that I've used data from 1960 to 2004 and found that the correlation coefficient for SLG is higher than OBP. In particular the correlation coefficient between SLG and runs scored is 0.8165, while the correlation coefficient between OBP and runs scored is 0.7802. Similarly if you look at the coefficients between SLG and OBP with R/PA, we find 0.9304 and 0.8834 respectively. I think the difference in OBP being twice or 1.5 times more important than slugging is through the variance of those two things in a season. I made a post about that awhile back in which game log data for several seasons was used. While, I am not exactly in love with the approach taken, I think it might give a little reason about the 1.5*OBP+SLG.
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1398815&postcount=66

nate
08-01-2007, 11:06 AM
This team could use a 150 game a year player who hits over .300.


You ain't just whistlin' "Dixie." It might be more than a notion to get one of these dudes, though:



Cnt Player Year BA G Age Tm
+----+-----------------+----+-----+---+---+---+
1 Michael Young 2006 .314 162 29 TEX
2 Garrett Atkins 2006 .329 157 26 COL
3 Miguel Cabrera 2006 .339 158 23 FLA
4 Matt Holliday 2006 .326 155 26 COL
5 David Wright 2006 .311 154 23 NYM
6 Vernon Wells 2006 .303 154 27 TOR
7 Freddy Sanchez 2006 .344 157 28 PIT

flyer85
08-01-2007, 11:12 AM
In 2007,

Young has a OPS of 744, Sanchez 727, Wells 745(.254BA), Atkins 775(.263 BA) and in Colorado.

Which leaves only Cabrera, Wright and Holliday as guys really worth having. The true .300 hitter with a non-empty is OPS is hard to come by.

The Reds are paying the price for a farm system that has failed in all areas.

nate
08-01-2007, 11:21 AM
In 2007,

Young has a OPS of 744, Sanchez 727, Wells 745(.254BA), Atkins 775(.263 BA) and in Colorado.

Which leaves only Cabrera, Wright and Holliday as guys really worth having. The true .300 hitter with a non-empty is OPS is hard to come by.

The Reds are paying the price for a farm system that has failed in all areas.

Yes...looking at this year:



2007
Younger than 29
Active Players
Bats RH
BA>=.300
OBP>=.400
OPS>=.800
At least 300 plate appearances
sorted by greatest BA

Cnt Player BA OBP OPS PA Year Age Tm
+----+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+---+----+---+---+
1 Miguel Cabrera .336 .406 1.016 444 2007 24 FLA
2 B.J. Upton .331 .410 .975 308 2007 22 TBD
3 Albert Pujols .319 .419 .985 451 2007 27 STL
4 Kevin Youkilis .304 .402 .874 423 2007 28 BOS


Getting these guys would require a rabbit and a hat.

westofyou
08-01-2007, 11:24 AM
Getting these guys would require a rabbit and a hat.



http://blogs.zdnet.com/images/bullwinkle.jpg

redsmetz
08-01-2007, 11:24 AM
Always Red, I appreciate your thoughts on this. You're right, none of us know for sure what all was offered and what was turned down. I, too, was surprised that a Conine or a Stanton couldn't find a new home.

While I was reading your post, an analogy occurred to me. Perhaps this is like the renovation of a dilabidated old house. It looks awful to begin with, but to really do the renovation well, you've got to tear it apart. The beginning stage of that work is going to look worse. Then you continue the rebuilding. I'm sure this analogy has loads of places it can break down viz a baseball team, but you get the picture.

Of course, WK could be an inept Tim Taylor. I'm hoping not.

flyer85
08-01-2007, 11:31 AM
When you look at the Reds situation, it is really bleak moving forward. Both from a hitting and pitching perspective.

Johnny Footstool
08-01-2007, 11:35 AM
When you look at the Reds situation, it is really bleak moving forward. Both from a hitting and pitching perspective.

...which is why the GM needs to seize any opportunity to make the team better.

flyer85
08-01-2007, 11:39 AM
...which is why the GM needs to seize any opportunity to make the team better.I would agree, 3 of the 4 players driving the offense are unlikely Reds by 2009.

Did WK miss an opportunity? We really don't know. For the last few years the trading deadline has been a buyers market.

WVRedsFan
08-01-2007, 11:53 AM
I'm trying to stay gone and keep quiet. It isn't easy.

The question Bob Castellini has to ask himself is, "Is there a plan for this club to get to where they can contend?" If there is, it needs to be re-evaluated. If there is not, Krivsky most likely would be told to move on. Is Castellini asking this question? Or is he satisfied with the old mantra, "to get good"?

That will be the deciding factor on Krivsky's future here.

As for me, I think he has a plan. It's just faulty and won't work.

Other opinions may vary, but Cyclone's post is very interesting.

KronoRed
08-01-2007, 11:58 AM
When you look at the Reds situation, it is really bleak moving forward. Both from a hitting and pitching perspective.

Indeed it is, teams that need a fresh infusion of young talent need backups and more backups to the "rising stars"

The Reds have Votto, Bruce, Cueto, and Bailey on the near radar that's not enough talent to count on turning this boat around anytime soon.

westofyou
08-01-2007, 11:58 AM
The Reds don't hit the ball enough, and haven't for some time. More hits matter as much as more walks, probably more since they are more interesting in the long run.


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
2001-2006
WALKS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
EXTRA BASE HITS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
HOMERUNS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
SECONDARY AVERAGE vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
RUNS CREATED/GAME vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

HITS YEAR DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE BB EBH HR SEC RC/G
1 Reds 2005 -44 1453 1497 60 58 50 .034 0.39
2 Reds 2001 -58 1464 1522 -104 -38 -24 -.031 -.59
3 Reds 2002 -106 1386 1492 -10 -15 -5 .001 -.36
4 Reds 2006 -113 1419 1532 50 -22 29 .021 -.23
5 Reds 2004 -138 1380 1518 24 -21 4 .005 -.36
6 Reds 2003 -171 1349 1520 -51 -81 0 -.020 -.70

RedsManRick
08-01-2007, 12:07 PM
I think one of the biggest mistakes GMs make in constructing a roster is paying too much attention to the top 10 spots and not enough the bottom 15. The Reds could improve their runs scored SIGNIFICANTLY by simply replacing some of the absolute crap with decent players. Stop giving ABs to guys who can't OBP over .330 or SLG over .400 unless they are young guys who are in the process of improving. If you simply replaced our below replacement production with replacement level production, this team would be near .500.

Screwing up your "free" talent can be just as disastrous, if not more so, than screwing up expensive talent. The opportunity cost of wasting playing time on sub-replacement players is huge.

Regarding the "more hits" point being made. We absolutely would benefit a ton from more hits, but only if those hits come as replacement for outs. If we trade walks for hits, the impact is less. If we trade walks and big hits for lots of little hits (read: replace Dunn with a Michael Young type bat), we're actually moving backwards.

We need to increase all 3 of our split stats, but don't sacrifice OBP for either SLG or BA and don't sacrifice SLG for BA.

OBP > SLG >> AVG.

RedsManRick
08-01-2007, 12:25 PM
Here's an interesting article on the relative values of OBP and SLG from beyondtheboxscore.com: http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2006/2/12/133645/296

The tables don't paste, so I'll let you look. If you aren't a stats guy, the bottom line is this: the value of OBP and SLG change depending on where a guy is batting in the order. It's intuitive, but it makes sense.

For a leadoff hitter: value of OBP > value of SLG
For a middle lineup guy: value of OBP = value of SLG
For a down the order guy: value of OBP < value of SLG

That is, Ryan Freel's crap OBP at the top of the order hurts us a lot more than Dave Ross's batting 7th or 8th. It's also why the Cubs are stupid to continue batting Soriano leadoff when in practice he's the ideal guy to bat behind Lee and Ramirez.

flyer85
08-01-2007, 12:35 PM
That is, Ryan Freel's crap OBP at the top of the order hurts us a lot more than Dave Ross's batting 7th or 8th. It's also why the Cubs are stupid to continue batting Soriano leadoff when in practice he's the ideal guy to bat behind Lee and Ramirez.
Hey, but they are fast. :rolleyes:

dougdirt
08-01-2007, 12:40 PM
The fact that Soriano has hit lead off so much continues to boggle my mind. The guy hits 40 HRs a year and you bat him leadoff because he is fast? Seriously, the stupidity of the move makes my head hurt.

flyer85
08-01-2007, 12:45 PM
The guy hits 40 HRs a year... and doesn't walk much.

Theriot would not be a bad leadoff hitter(.350 OBP) and Derosa has an OBP over .360 as well. They would be a better 1-2 combo.

It so easy a ...

nate
08-01-2007, 12:46 PM
Here's an interesting article on the relative values of OBP and SLG from beyondtheboxscore.com: http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2006/2/12/133645/296

The tables don't paste, so I'll let you look. If you aren't a stats guy, the bottom line is this: the value of OBP and SLG change depending on where a guy is batting in the order. It's intuitive, but it makes sense.

For a leadoff hitter: value of OBP > value of SLG
For a middle lineup guy: value of OBP = value of SLG
For a down the order guy: value of OBP < value of SLG

That is, Ryan Freel's crap OBP at the top of the order hurts us a lot more than Dave Ross's batting 7th or 8th. It's also why the Cubs are stupid to continue batting Soriano leadoff when in practice he's the ideal guy to bat behind Lee and Ramirez.

Not being snarky at all but how much does that matter after the first time through the order?

Patrick Bateman
08-01-2007, 12:54 PM
Not being snarky at all but how much does that matter after the first time through the order?

I think because the leadoff guys are stll going to be in front of the big mashers. Getting on base in the 1-2 slots will still be the most important thing after the 1st few innings.

Likewise, for the most part, the 6-8 hitters are still going to generally have a lot of guys on base because of the hgh OBP guys ahead of them, and knocking the runners in is the primary objective. Plus with a pitcher at the end of the order you can't rely on them to get runs in as often, and perhaps the value of OBP will be wasted there.

dougdirt
08-01-2007, 12:54 PM
Not being snarky at all but how much does that matter after the first time through the order?

Well you still want high OB guys in front of high SLG guys. So it matters still. Odds are you arent going to get 1-2-3 to start off the 4th inning, but you still want guys on base as often as possible for the guys with the high SLG.

BRM
08-01-2007, 12:55 PM
That is, Ryan Freel's crap OBP at the top of the order hurts us a lot more than Dave Ross's batting 7th or 8th.

You mean having fast out-machines batting in front of your sluggers isn't a good idea? It's amazing how many teams do it though.

edabbs44
08-01-2007, 01:08 PM
The Reds have scored about the same amount of runs as the Cubs have. The laughter when Lilly and Marquis signed with Chicago has quieted down a bit, no?

Without acquiring gobs of pitching, the future looks bleak. This FO has shown no willingness to focus on pitching in the 1.5 years it's been in place. Expect more of the same.

flyer85
08-01-2007, 01:12 PM
The Reds have scored about the same amount of runs as the Cubs have. The laughter when Lilly and Marquis signed with Chicago has quieted down a bit, no?also a lot of success has to do with a quartet of Dempster, Howry, Marmol and Wuertz in the bullpen. The only pitcher that has been bad for the Cubs is Eyre.

Ltlabner
08-01-2007, 01:15 PM
The Reds have scored about the same amount of runs as the Cubs have. The laughter when Lilly and Marquis signed with Chicago has quieted down a bit, no?

No the laughter hasn't quieted down. If Wayne signed those contracts and these guys weren't having carear years you'd be screaming from the mountain tops about how he's sunk the orginization and signed rediculous long term contracts.

Lilly and Marquis are having suprisingly good years yes. Does that make their contracts any less risky or unwise? No.

BTW, a good friend who is a Cubs fan (and isn't a typical one) hates those signings. He likes that they are doing well now....but is waiting for that other shoe to drop...be it tomorow or next year sometime. So it isn't like the rest of the planet is jumping for joy and pretending that Wayne missed the boat.

The laughter hasn't stopped. You just keep trotting out the same tired old agrument about what Wayne should have done (but you would have crucified him for doing so).

edabbs44
08-01-2007, 01:29 PM
No the laughter hasn't quieted down. If Wayne signed those contracts and these guys weren't having carear years you'd be screaming from the mountain tops about how he's sunk the orginization and signed rediculous long term contracts.

Lilly and Marquis are having suprisingly good years yes. Does that make their contracts any less risky or unwise? No.

BTW, a good friend who is a Cubs fan (and isn't a typical one) hates those signings. He likes that they are doing well now....but is waiting for that other shoe to drop...be it tomorow or next year sometime. So it isn't like the rest of the planet is jumping for joy and pretending that Wayne missed the boat.

The laughter hasn't stopped. You just keep trotting out the same tired old agrument about what Wayne should have done (but you would have crucified him for doing so).

I don't know about that...I was in the Lilly camp last offseason. Not really Marquis, but definitely thought Lilly was a solid pickup if they were actually going to try and improve the team.

But it's a moot point anyway, as they didn't really try to improve this off-season. They just tried not to get a lot worse...and still failed.

RedsManRick
08-01-2007, 01:51 PM
Not being snarky at all but how much does that matter after the first time through the order?

Because the likelihood of having guys on base ahead of you is somewhat the same. Even the 2nd or 3rd time through the order, the leadoff guy still is less likely to have guys on base ahead of him than does the #5 hitter.

You're right. The effect is great the first time through because the leadoff hitter is guaranteed to have nobody on base. However, the effect is still present throughout.

Being on base is most valuable when the guys behind you are most likely to drive you in. Slugging is most valuable when there are guys on base ahead of you.

Therefore, batting a high SLG, low OBP ahead of a high OBP guy is a sub-optimal arrangement. The Reds have made the mistake of focusing too much on Dunn's (and EE's expected) SLG and not enough on his OBP. Other than handedness, there is very little reason for Phillips to ever bat higher than Dunn.

Phillips destroys lefties to the tune of .338/.371/.606 this year, where as Junior just holds his own and Dunn is getting mauled.
Against righties, Phillips is a very pedestrian .251/.304/.409. He has a pretty massive platoon split. I'd be batting Phillips 2nd or 3rd versus lefties and no higher than 5th against righties.

RedsManRick
08-01-2007, 01:55 PM
You mean having fast out-machines batting in front of your sluggers isn't a good idea? It's amazing how many teams do it though.

I've never quite understood why people discount the value of speed at the bottom of the lineup. The bottom of the lineup is where I'm likely going to have to manufacture a run. A guy like Phillips who isn't great at getting on base but can knock in some runs with an extra base hit and create ones himself when he's on alone in front of poorer hitters just makes too much sense.

Why do I want a guy stealing a base and risking an out when Ken Griffey Jr. and Adam Dunn are coming up? 1st base is scoring position when your sluggers are coming up.

RANDY IN INDY
08-01-2007, 02:04 PM
The Reds don't hit the ball enough, and haven't for some time. More hits matter as much as more walks, probably more since they are more interesting in the long run.


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
2001-2006
WALKS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
EXTRA BASE HITS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
HOMERUNS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
SECONDARY AVERAGE vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
RUNS CREATED/GAME vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

HITS YEAR DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE BB EBH HR SEC RC/G
1 Reds 2005 -44 1453 1497 60 58 50 .034 0.39
2 Reds 2001 -58 1464 1522 -104 -38 -24 -.031 -.59
3 Reds 2002 -106 1386 1492 -10 -15 -5 .001 -.36
4 Reds 2006 -113 1419 1532 50 -22 29 .021 -.23
5 Reds 2004 -138 1380 1518 24 -21 4 .005 -.36
6 Reds 2003 -171 1349 1520 -51 -81 0 -.020 -.70

:beerme:

RedsManRick
08-01-2007, 02:06 PM
Re: Lilly and Marquis...

I don't think too many people were laughing at the Lilly signing. The market certainly has gotten a bit nuts when a #3 starter gets 10M, but at least that's the market. Marquis is just crap. He did good in Wrigley field in April and May... what a shocker. Nobody hits well in Wrigley in the spring. Since June 1st Marquis has an ERA of 6.67 including a 41/36 K/BB ratio and nearly 2 HR/9. I'm still thrilled we passed on Marquis.

Redsland
08-01-2007, 03:24 PM
The bottom of the lineup is where I'm likely going to have to manufacture a run.
I love having speed in the #7 slot. The big boppers have all batted and it's time to get something going again. The pitcher can bunt the #8 guy over, so basestealing speed is wasted in that slot. But if your #7 man can get on and swipe a bag, now you can really make something happen down there. Especially late in the game, when you can hit for the pitcher.

Unless you have our bench, of course. ;)

edabbs44
08-01-2007, 03:31 PM
Re: Lilly and Marquis...

I don't think too many people were laughing at the Lilly signing. The market certainly has gotten a bit nuts when a #3 starter gets 10M, but at least that's the market. Marquis is just crap. He did good in Wrigley field in April and May... what a shocker. Nobody hits well in Wrigley in the spring. Since June 1st Marquis has an ERA of 6.67 including a 41/36 K/BB ratio and nearly 2 HR/9. I'm still thrilled we passed on Marquis.

Almost every contract signed this off-season was met with laughter on this board. Lilly, Meche, Matthews, Marquis, etc etc etc. Look at the archives.

I'll tell you what, some of those contracts have worked out pretty well. Better than some of the ones that took place around here.

pedro
08-01-2007, 03:41 PM
Almost every contract signed this off-season was met with laughter on this board. Lilly, Meche, Matthews, Marquis, etc etc etc. Look at the archives.

I'll tell you what, some of those contracts have worked out pretty well. Better than some of the ones that took place around here.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Let's see how they play out over the length of those contracts.

edabbs44
08-01-2007, 03:56 PM
You're comparing apples and oranges. Let's see how they play out over the length of those contracts.

My original thought on this thread was that Cincy has scored about the same amt of runs as the Cubs. The difference is that Chicago is winning because of pitching. Give the Reds better pitching and they will improve much more than if their OBP gets better.

That's where Lilly and crew came in. All I was saying was that many posters laughed when teams were dropping millions on players like Lilly and Meche. They are two of the biggest reasons why their respective teams have improved so much from last year.

Lilly '07 is Arroyo '06 and most here were doing cartwheels when Arroyo was locked up. Same difference in this instance, except the Cubs got Lilly a little cheaper.

pedro
08-01-2007, 03:58 PM
My original thought on this thread was that Cincy has scored about the same amt of runs as the Cubs. The difference is that Chicago is winning because of pitching. Give the Reds better pitching and they will improve much more than if their OBP gets better.

That's where Lilly and crew came in. All I was saying was that many posters laughed when teams were dropping millions on players like Lilly and Meche. They are two of the biggest reasons why their respective teams have improved so much from last year.

Lilly '07 is Arroyo '06 and most here were doing cartwheels when Arroyo was locked up. Same difference in this instance, except the Cubs got Lilly a little cheaper.

Lilly has never thrown 200 innings in a year. Meche either. I still think they were both bad deals, results to date notwithstanding.

Johnny Footstool
08-01-2007, 04:26 PM
Lilly has never thrown 200 innings in a year. Meche either. I still think they were both bad deals, results to date notwithstanding.

Ah, but it's only money. It's easily replaced.

If Lilly helps the Cubs into the World Series, the money will be well-spent.

Ltlabner
08-01-2007, 04:33 PM
Ah, but it's only money. It's easily replaced.

If Lilly helps the Cubs into the World Series, the money will be well-spent.

And then he sucks the next 3 or 4 years?

Seems to me that will eat up some of that World Series profit.

BRM
08-01-2007, 04:34 PM
And then he sucks the next 3 or 4 years?

Seems to me that will eat up some of that World Series profit.

I'd trade 3 years of Ted Lilly sucking for a WS championship.

Ltlabner
08-01-2007, 04:36 PM
I'd trade 3 years of Ted Lilly sucking for a WS championship.

I know we are talking about hypotheticals, but I'd rather have a team that is in the hunt every year, rather than a team that wins it all next year, only to finish 4th the following 4.

BRM
08-01-2007, 04:40 PM
I know we are talking about hypotheticals, but I'd rather have a team that is in the hunt every year, rather than a team that wins it all next year, only to finish 4th the following 4.

I'd take the championship.

pedro
08-01-2007, 04:42 PM
I prefer sustained success. It makes each year more interesting.

BRM
08-01-2007, 04:46 PM
I can see your point pedro and I'd like to see that too.

Speaking of hypotheticals, would you prefer 1 championship surrounded by 4 losing/mediocre seasons or 5 straight 1st round playoff exits? What's the ultimate goal? To win it all or to just be in contention?

Ltlabner
08-01-2007, 04:50 PM
I can see your point pedro and I'd like to see that too.

Speaking of hypotheticals, would you prefer 1 championship surrounded by 4 losing/mediocre seasons or 5 straight 1st round playoff exits? What's the ultimate goal? To win it all or to just be in contention?

Just be in contention. You stay in contention long enough you will win it all eventually.

If you aim everything at one season...and something goes amiss...you are screwed for years to come.

BRM
08-01-2007, 04:55 PM
Just be in contention. You stay in contention long enough you will win it all eventually.

Not necessarily. It's possible but not a certainty.


If you aim everything at one season...and something goes amiss...you are screwed for years to come.

Good point.

pedro
08-01-2007, 04:58 PM
I can see your point pedro and I'd like to see that too.

Speaking of hypotheticals, would you prefer 1 championship surrounded by 4 losing/mediocre seasons or 5 straight 1st round playoff exits? What's the ultimate goal? To win it all or to just be in contention?

I look at it this way. I'm pretty sure it's been more interesting being a Braves fan over the last 15 years than to a Marlins fan. And yet the Marlins have won more championships.

VR
08-01-2007, 05:02 PM
Great topic Cyclone.

One component I keep going back to is the hitting coach. It was clear that Chambliss preached patience and waiting for a pitch to hit. Perhaps he just didn't teach situational hitting enough.

Is this years decline a result of Jacoby's influence? Outside of Griffey's unbelievable new found eye...who else has improved in any area of hitting?

The bigger questions....are hitting coaches relevant anymore?

edabbs44
08-01-2007, 05:10 PM
I know we are talking about hypotheticals, but I'd rather have a team that is in the hunt every year, rather than a team that wins it all next year, only to finish 4th the following 4.

I'd take either right now.

Patrick Bateman
08-01-2007, 05:41 PM
Lilly is basically having the 1st above average season in his career. I would be hugely shocked if this continued. He'll likely fall back towards sub league average. It's a major stretch to suggest he was a good signng.

For it to work it well, he needs to consistently pitch like a pitcher he hasn't been for the previous 6 seasons. He could be an exception by suddenly becoming a quality pitcher, but Lilly isn't going to get any better than this. This is the peak.

edabbs44
08-01-2007, 05:50 PM
Lilly is basically having the 1st above average season in his career. I would be hugely shocked if this continued. He'll likely fall back towards sub league average. It's a major stretch to suggest he was a good signng.

For it to work it well, he needs to consistently pitch like a pitcher he hasn't been for the previous 6 seasons. He could be an exception by suddenly becoming a quality pitcher, but Lilly isn't going to get any better than this. This is the peak.

Is there much of a difference between Lilly of '07 and Arroyo of '06?

RedsManRick
08-01-2007, 06:42 PM
Almost every contract signed this off-season was met with laughter on this board. Lilly, Meche, Matthews, Marquis, etc etc etc. Look at the archives.

I'll tell you what, some of those contracts have worked out pretty well. Better than some of the ones that took place around here.

Let's also see how those contracts look this time next year and in 2009. 3 months of success hardly validates a 4 year contract. Milton had some real nice stretches too...

westofyou
08-01-2007, 06:43 PM
Is there much of a difference between Lilly of '07 and Arroyo of '06?

6.25 million dollars is a good starting point.

RedsManRick
08-01-2007, 06:47 PM
I'd trade 3 years of Ted Lilly sucking for a WS championship.

Do you trade 3 years of Ted Lilly sucking for 86 wins and a 2nd place, non-playoff finish? Cause that's a very real possibility too. Let's wait for them to raise the banner before we say it justifies the cost.

Here are some other reasons why the Cubs pitching is better:

Carlos Marmol: 38.2 IP, 1.63 ERA
Sean Marshall: 69.2 IP, 3.10 ERA
Michael Wuertz: 48.2 IP, 3.51 ERA
Angel Guzman: 30.1 IP, 3.56 ERA
Rich Hill: 123 IP, 3.59 ERA

How much were those guys in FA?

redsmetz
08-01-2007, 06:52 PM
Do you trade 3 years of Ted Lilly sucking for 86 wins and a 2nd place, non-playoff finish? Cause that's a very real possibility too. Let's wait for them to raise the banner before we say it justifies the cost.

Here are some other reasons why the Cubs pitching is better:

Carlos Marmol: 38.2 IP, 1.63 ERA
Sean Marshall: 69.2 IP, 3.10 ERA
Michael Wuertz: 48.2 IP, 3.51 ERA
Angel Guzman: 30.1 IP, 3.56 ERA
Rich Hill: 123 IP, 3.59 ERA

How much were those guys in FA?

The only one acquired as a free agent was Guzman and that's wasn't a standard FA signing. He was originally signed as a FA by the Royals in 1999 at the age of 17. That signing was voided by MLB and the Cubs signed him as a FA that fall.

All of these guys came up through the Cubs system.

edabbs44
08-01-2007, 07:21 PM
6.25 million dollars is a good starting point.

And Arroyo will catch up to Lilly in salary pretty quickly...that was my point. The only difference btw the two is that Lilly got his extension a year earlier.

Patrick Bateman
08-01-2007, 08:04 PM
Is there much of a difference between Lilly of '07 and Arroyo of '06?

Besides the massive salary differential that WOY noted, I would suggest that Arroyo had a better track record.

Peripheral wise, Lilly was basically a bad pitcher for the last 3 seasons. Below average.

Arroyo was coming off a similar season, but had a very good 2004. So firstly, Arroyo was coming with a 3 year contract where he was very cheap, plus it was more likely he would rebound into effectiveness. Even without considering money, Arroyo was the better bet.

Considering how much Lilly cost, it was a major gamble for the Cubs. So far it's paid off, but the odds suggest that a guy coming off of 3 terrible seasons, and throughout his career has been below average, that he will regress.

I'm not suggesting Arroyo is light years ahead. Overall they have been pretty similar calibre pitchers, but I think there is a slight, but noticeable edge in Arroyo's direction. For one thing, he never had a stinker like Lilly in 2005.

The main thing is the salaries. If Lilly was available for 3 years at Arroyo's price, he would have been a fantastic target, much like Arroyo was. Considering the contract it took to get him, he was not a good gamble for the Reds. Much like Arroyo would not have been a great target if it took 10M per season to land him. Arroyo had a very good season before the Reds gave him the big bucks. Considering the year Lilly has had, his contract now looks more desirable. So far he's earned the money, but let's see if he can keep up the new found success for the next 3 and a third seasons.

Patrick Bateman
08-01-2007, 08:06 PM
And Arroyo will catch up to Lilly in salary pretty quickly...that was my point. The only difference btw the two is that Lilly got his extension a year earlier.

edabbs, it wasn't just a one year deal of being cheap. Arroyo had 3 years at sub market rates. You are grossly undervaluing that fact.

edabbs44
08-01-2007, 08:20 PM
edabbs, it wasn't just a one year deal of being cheap. Arroyo had 3 years at sub market rates. You are grossly undervaluing that fact.

You aren't getting my point. Lilly and Arroyo were roughly the same pitcher before moving to the NL. Arroyo had a career year last season, Lilly the same this year. The only difference is that Lilly was signed to a big money deal before switching leagues and Arroyo got the extension after, which is obviously more risky for the Cubs than the Reds.

My point is that it's basically the same scenario. But while Krivsky was lauded for signing BA to the extension (which isn't looking very good again, btw), the Cubs were ripped. There isn't much of a difference.

Patrick Bateman
08-01-2007, 08:28 PM
You aren't getting my point. Lilly and Arroyo were roughly the same pitcher before moving to the NL. Arroyo had a career year last season, Lilly the same this year. The only difference is that Lilly was signed to a big money deal before switching leagues and Arroyo got the extension after, which is obviously more risky for the Cubs than the Reds.

My point is that it's basically the same scenario. But while Krivsky was lauded for signing BA to the extension (which isn't looking very good again, btw), the Cubs were ripped. There isn't much of a difference.

Not really. Arroyo's best season peripheral wise was actually 2004 (with 2006 right behind that). What Arroyo did last seaosn wasn't all that surprising (except for the fact that he was really lucky). Arroyo was never really pitching all that much better. He has roughly been the same pitcher in the AL and NL. It wasn't a league change suddenly boosting him into a great pitcher.

Lilly has simply pitched better this season. What he has done with the Cubs was miles ahead of his Blue Jays stint. Arroyo's success was much more predictable than Lilly's. That's why Krivsky handing out a bunch of money for Arroyo was better. He was a better pitcher than Lilly was when the 10M+ contracts were handed out. That's the difference.

GAC
08-01-2007, 09:08 PM
Batting average, the Reds have too few players who hit for average, those would be Freel and EE (and Ross) three guys who could deliver a better BA and thus push the OB%

This team could use a 150 game a year player who hits over .300.


So far this year, the Reds have a lower IsoD and are hitting for a lower AVG than they did last year. Fewer hits, fewer combined walks and HBP. Also less power.

Not good.

I fully agree guys. I was wondering (and hoping) someone would allude to batting average. It is obviously a combination of sevetral variables, as pahster has shown. And BA is one of them.

Thank you.

edabbs44
08-01-2007, 09:17 PM
Not really. Arroyo's best season peripheral wise was actually 2004 (with 2006 right behind that). What Arroyo did last seaosn wasn't all that surprising (except for the fact that he was really lucky). Arroyo was never really pitching all that much better. He has roughly been the same pitcher in the AL and NL. It wasn't a league change suddenly boosting him into a great pitcher.

Lilly has simply pitched better this season. What he has done with the Cubs was miles ahead of his Blue Jays stint. Arroyo's success was much more predictable than Lilly's. That's why Krivsky handing out a bunch of money for Arroyo was better. He was a better pitcher than Lilly was when the 10M+ contracts were handed out. That's the difference.

The end result hasn't been determined yet. Perception at the beginning of the contract is one thing, perception at the end of the contract is what really counts.

And the league change did help BA succeed last year. There is no way that it didn't.

GAC
08-01-2007, 09:29 PM
So how are the D'Backs and Padres able to accomplish what they have in the NL West with OB% of .316 and .312 respectively?

Simple. Pitching.

In the NL, SD is #1 in ERA (3.50), while the D'Backs are 4th (3.96). Sd has given up the least ERs (372). D'backs are 4th (425). Note: the Reds are last (508).

SD has issued the least amount of BBs in the NL (290). This is surprising though - the D'Backs are 14th in the league at 382. The Reds are 8th (333).

Other pitching stats....

OB% .... SD is #1 (.308), D'Backs 8th (.334), Reds are 15th (.345)

SLG% ... SD is #1 (.367), D'Backs are 8th (.411), Reds are 14th (.436)

Total Bases .... SD has given up the least (1321). Reds have given up the 3RD most (1635).

We get the "picture". :lol:

vaticanplum
08-01-2007, 09:46 PM
I prefer sustained success. It makes each year more interesting.

I do too, but we're not Cubs fans. For many, many reasons.

edit: This is my final post of hate. I'm becoming a bitter baseball fan.

Patrick Bateman
08-01-2007, 09:56 PM
The end result hasn't been determined yet. Perception at the beginning of the contract is one thing, perception at the end of the contract is what really counts.

So why should we even discuss this? Why don't we wait 3 years and have this discussion?

I think there is enough statistical evidence available to make pretty fair judgements at the beginning of contracts. You don't need to wait 3 years to come t the conclusion that givng Milton 9M per season was a bad idea.

Basically for the Lilly deal to work out, he needs to be a pitcher he hasn't been his entire life (until now) for 4 seasons. In Arroyo's case, he mainly needs to continue what he has done provided his arm isn't overly ridden by management.

I'm not saying it can't happen, and considering the Cubs' payroll it really doesn't matter if they get a bargain, but the Arroyo contract was a much better 'risk' at the time of it. It's simply hindsight analysis to suggest otherwise. There was nothing in Lilly's numbers in the last 3 seasons that would suggest he would improve this much so quickly. I expect some level of regression in the meantime, but his chances of success are better now then when the contract was set.




And the league change did help BA succeed last year. There is no way that it didn't.

Of course there is always a small difference in a league change, but he was basically still the same pitcher.

Always Red
08-01-2007, 10:26 PM
I'm becoming a bitter baseball fan.

I am too, vp.

That's why I have decided to just read for a good long while. :)

Stormy
08-01-2007, 10:29 PM
I am too, vp.

That's why I have decided to just read for a good long while. :)

Welcome to the dark side of the moon, Always Red. ;)