PDA

View Full Version : What's the Difference in the Cardinals and Reds??



WVRedsFan
08-19-2007, 01:05 AM
AFter suffering through a really frustrating night watching baseball, I had to ponder why the Cardinals, who appear to be no better than our team, are contending and we are just out ot lunch. So I went to the stats and figured out something.

Hitting

The Cards hit for average better (.272 vs. our .260), slightly get on base more often (.337 vs. 330), and actually get more base hits (1102 vs. 1099 and we have 46 more ABs!). We score more runs (580 vs. 534), hit way more HRs (161 vs. 106), and have a better OPS (.760 vs. .740). We have 14 less singles than they do, for what it's worth.

Pitching

They've played two less games than us, but we've played 32 moe innings. They've allowed an average of 9.41 hits per 9 innings and we've allowed 10.04 hits. They've alloweed 549 ER and we've allowed 600. We've allowed 46 unearned runs while they've allowed 54. Interesting. Our staff has allowed 18 more HR's. They have a 4.65 ERA and we have a 4.93 ERA.

The difference? Pitching. Our staff is very hittable while theirs is less so. It's all in the pitching. And it means 5 moe wins and a difference in 6 games in the standings. It all goes back to the bullpen (I know, you're thinking, Doh!), but that's what it is.

Think we could lure Dave Duncan over here? that might be the difference.

dougdirt
08-19-2007, 03:05 AM
The Reds and the Cardinals are roughly the same team. The Reds have been outscored by 62 runs. The Cardinals have been outscored by 64 runs. The difference? Luck.

TOBTTReds
08-19-2007, 03:11 AM
Coaching. Dave Duncan to mention mostly. They get the most out of the garbage they put out there.

camisadelgolf
08-19-2007, 04:15 AM
I blame it all on Jerry Narron, basically.

GAC
08-19-2007, 07:37 AM
The Reds and the Cardinals are roughly the same team. The Reds have been outscored by 62 runs. The Cardinals have been outscored by 64 runs. The difference? Luck.

Yep. The "intangibles" are/can be a factor; but I've got a pretty good clue as to why we're in the position we're in..... (based on NL ranking)


STARTER
ERA 4.90 16th
WHIP 1.45 15th
OB% .335 8th
SLG% .448 14th
OPS .794 15th
RA 638 1st
ERS 592 1st
BAA .282 16th (tied with PITT)
TB 1909 2nd
HRS 133 4th



and it gets better.....


BULLPEN

ERA 5.16 16th
WHIP 1.56 16th
OB% .366 16th
SLG% .444 16th
OPS .810 16th
RA 224 1st
ERS 209 1st
BAA .280 16th
TB 629 3rd
HRS 48 3rd

I just found out I may have a torn left tricep.... so I've decided to send in my resume to this FO. http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/whacky007.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

Kc61
08-19-2007, 09:29 AM
Excellent thread. The two teams have had relatively close stats on runs scored/allowed all year, yet the Cards are better. Why?

There is one glaring statistical difference. As of this morning, the Reds bullpen has a 5.24 ERA. The Cards is 3.83. This is the difference in the teams. The bullpen WHIP difference is 1.27 v. 1.56 in favor of the Cards. (Reds 1.56 bullpen WHIP is quite a number.)

The Cards pen is 21-8 in WL. The Reds is 18 -21. That's 13 fewer bullpen losses for the Redbirds (and three more wins too). There is only a 6 game difference between them in the standings, so this bullpen difference is huge.

The Reds have the worst overall team ERA in the National League. But the starting ERA is 4.77 which is 11th. Not good. But better than the Cards and a number of other teams.

A 5.24 bullen is particularly bad because in close games, with all other things being equal, it gives a late inning advantage to the opposition. As the year moves on, and the sample size becomes larger, the Reds bullpen becomes more and more the issue.

It's interesting that the Cards' bullpen has 10 fewer decisions than the Reds'. That pen is so good that the team might be better served if LaRussa used it earlier in games.

For next year, the Reds must fix this bullpen problem. 5.24 and 1.56 are just not even close.

Hoosier Red
08-19-2007, 09:52 AM
And yet surprisingly, it's the bullpen I feel okay about going into next year.

I think Weathers, Burton, and Bray will take care of the late innings in some combination. Then you probably have Belisle for long relief stints and Coutlangus and (Mcbeth/Salmon/a multitude of challengers) for the other spots.

The big key is getting a third starter who can give the innings Arroyo and Harang give you so you don't have to see the back end of the bullpen so much.

Kc61
08-19-2007, 10:03 AM
And yet surprisingly, it's the bullpen I feel okay about going into next year.

I think Weathers, Burton, and Bray will take care of the late innings in some combination. Then you probably have Belisle for long relief stints and Coutlangus and (Mcbeth/Salmon/a multitude of challengers) for the other spots.

The big key is getting a third starter who can give the innings Arroyo and Harang give you so you don't have to see the back end of the bullpen so much.

We shouldn't kid ourselves. Bullpen guys get hurt, have bad years, get overused. Weathers, Bray and Burton-- plus several maybes --is just not enough. Not nearly.

This year, I feel that if Coffey had done well and Bray had been healthy it would have made a big difference. Those guys can pitch often and multiple innings. But it didn't happen. The pen was too thin to recover from this. They can't count on only two or three guys. And the Reds can't count on AAA kids with no track record, not for the main bullpen slots.

The Reds need to add good relievers from outside the organization. And more than one. Leave open one or two spots for kids coming up, but that's about it. They need another starter too.

VR
08-19-2007, 10:52 AM
Advance scouting has always been a major focus for the Cardinals.

WVRedsFan
08-19-2007, 11:49 AM
We shouldn't kid ourselves. Bullpen guys get hurt, have bad years, get overused. Weathers, Bray and Burton-- plus several maybes --is just not enough. Not nearly.

This year, I feel that if Coffey had done well and Bray had been healthy it would have made a big difference. Those guys can pitch often and multiple innings. But it didn't happen. The pen was too thin to recover from this. They can't count on only two or three guys. And the Reds can't count on AAA kids with no track record, not for the main bullpen slots.

The Reds need to add good relievers from outside the organization. And more than one. Leave open one or two spots for kids coming up, but that's about it. They need another starter too.

Good point and what I was getting at when I started this thread. After Arroyo and Harang, we have no starting pitching. We have either soft tossers (Livingston), head cases (Belisle), unproven phenoms (Homer, others). Two do not make a starting staff. That is important to fix and not with a band-aid of washed up pitchers who you get and cross your fingers, which has been the custom around here for longer than I can remember. And Kc61 is correct in that bullpens are for the most part iffy at best.


I think Weathers, Burton, and Bray will take care of the late innings in some combination. Then you probably have Belisle for long relief stints and Coutlangus and (Mcbeth/Salmon/a multitude of challengers) for the other spots.

And the above is another reason for worry. Weathers has shown that he is very hittable. Not the best thing for a reliever, even though he has performed very well this year. All those innings will in time cause him to be ineffective. You just don't know about Burton the head case and Courlangus. They have had their bad moments too (Burton has 19 walks in 26 innings--ouch!). And Bray, for all the ballyhoo, has proved nothing.

One thing is clear. Fix the pitching and we are 10 games over .500 and all the moaning about hitting with RISP and Adam Dunn goes away. Once again, it can't be done with has beens and guys who don't miss bats. It can't be picking a guy off the trash bin and, like I say, crossing our fingers.

that's what frustrates me so much. Give Mike Stanton and Cromier the world and skimp on the rest. It's a flawed philosophy.

Advance scouting has always been a major focus for the Cardinals.

And good scouting at that. And having pitchers grasp the scouting report, which seems non-existant here. Of course, our advance scout is now managing and wasn't replaced, which may show a deep philosophical difference in the two team's front office.

mth123
08-19-2007, 11:57 AM
And yet surprisingly, it's the bullpen I feel okay about going into next year.

I think Weathers, Burton, and Bray will take care of the late innings in some combination. Then you probably have Belisle for long relief stints and Coutlangus and (Mcbeth/Salmon/a multitude of challengers) for the other spots.

The big key is getting a third starter who can give the innings Arroyo and Harang give you so you don't have to see the back end of the bullpen so much.

Agree. If the Reds can only add one thing because they don't have the bucks or talent to acquire more than one player, then a starter (preferrably some one better than Arroyo) needs to be added.

But I'd like to see at least one reliable late inning reliever (prefer a power stud, but even a decent reliable type would be ok). In this day and age even 3 good relievers isn't enough. Teams that win need to run-off long winning streaks and with starters going only 6 these days, that would lead to pitching the same three guys every day.

Of course this assumes Dunn stays around. If he goes they'll need offense too.

traderumor
08-19-2007, 01:42 PM
And good scouting at that. And having pitchers grasp the scouting report, which seems non-existant here. Scouting reports and game plans are only as good as execution. Bad pitchers do not know where the ball is going, so they may fully intend with any one pitch to pitch to the scouting report, but cannot execute it. This isn't rocket science, its about ability moreso than coaching and brains.

Matt700wlw
08-19-2007, 01:44 PM
Since July 3rd (the first day of the Mackanin era), the Reds are the best team in the division....the record says so.

I don't make this stuff up :D

TOBTTReds
08-19-2007, 02:57 PM
And good scouting at that. And having pitchers grasp the scouting report, which seems non-existant here. Of course, our advance scout is now managing and wasn't replaced, which may show a deep philosophical difference in the two team's front office.


Trust me, they have many more advance scouts than people know about. They have guys doing video advancing, which I feel is more important than having someone go watch a game. They chart their opponents and go over it with the coaches before every game.

BoydsOfSummer
08-19-2007, 05:09 PM
One million in attendance?

WVRedsFan
08-19-2007, 06:13 PM
Trust me, they have many more advance scouts than people know about. They have guys doing video advancing, which I feel is more important than having someone go watch a game. They chart their opponents and go over it with the coaches before every game.

But are they any good? Some say they are not. Obviously, i don't know.

Eric_Davis
08-19-2007, 06:23 PM
The Reds and the Cardinals are roughly the same team. The Reds have been outscored by 62 runs. The Cardinals have been outscored by 64 runs. The difference? Luck.


It's not luck, it's skill or a greater lack of it. They have had a much better bullpen, too.

It's not how many runs you get, but when you get your runs, and that's skill.

jojo
08-19-2007, 06:53 PM
It's not luck, it's skill or a greater lack of it. They have had a much better bullpen, too.

It's not how many runs you get, but when you get your runs, and that's skill.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/confused002.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

pahster
08-19-2007, 07:01 PM
It's not how many runs you get, but when you get your runs, and that's skill.

Then why don't they just score all the time and win every game?

GAC
08-19-2007, 09:32 PM
We shouldn't kid ourselves. Bullpen guys get hurt, have bad years, get overused. Weathers, Bray and Burton-- plus several maybes --is just not enough. Not nearly.

This year, I feel that if Coffey had done well and Bray had been healthy it would have made a big difference. Those guys can pitch often and multiple innings. But it didn't happen. The pen was too thin to recover from this. They can't count on only two or three guys. And the Reds can't count on AAA kids with no track record, not for the main bullpen slots.

The Reds need to add good relievers from outside the organization. And more than one. Leave open one or two spots for kids coming up, but that's about it. They need another starter too.

Maybe some of the kids we're trying to use as starters culd find careers in the bullpen? Like Belisle, Livingston, and maybe Rameriz?

Falls City Beer
08-19-2007, 09:39 PM
Better pen; equally good, if not better rotation than Cincy. Comparable offense.

OnBaseMachine
08-19-2007, 10:17 PM
Better pen; equally good, if not better rotation than Cincy. Comparable offense.

And yet they have an equal run differential. The Cardinals wish they had two starters like Bronson Arroyo and Aaron Harang. Let's start using some facts before we praise the crapy Cardinals.

camisadelgolf
08-19-2007, 10:30 PM
Right now, St. Louis' rotation is at least stable. I'd give them the slight edge in that respect. However, between these two ballclubs, the bullpens aren't even close.

Johnny Footstool
08-20-2007, 09:36 AM
It's not how many runs you get, but when you get your runs, and that's skill.

Ah, DanO's favorite stat: Win-Efficient Runs. :beerme:

bucksfan2
08-20-2007, 10:11 AM
I hate to say it but the difference is the amount of time given to Narron. Every team seems to play better when a manager is fired and replaced by a new one. Unfortunatly the reds hung on to Narron too long and that resulted in them being too far out in the race to really make a difference. If they would have fired Narron earlier in the season before the season was totally lost I think you may have seen a club that had an outside chance of contending in the central.

BRM
08-20-2007, 10:20 AM
Ah, DanO's favorite stat: Win-Efficient Runs. :beerme:

I believe a former poster had a donut comparison for Win-Efficient Runs as well. What a great thread that was.

VR
08-20-2007, 12:58 PM
The big element in the day to day...is the Cards know how to put players in situations they will succeed in.

It's a byproduct of great scouting....but they have their share of garbage players coming through that look like all-stars under LaRussa. Perhaps it's communication, or maybe it's just a 'plan' (gasp) in which players KNOW their roles, and are thusly better prepared to execute them.

Falls City Beer
08-20-2007, 01:20 PM
It's also that they never do things willy-nilly. They figured on Wainwright struggling for a while as he adjusted to MLB starting, and they stuck with him, knowing his pedigree; now they have a front of the rotation starter as a result.

The Reds send higher ceiling arms (Salmon, Coutlangus) to the minors in favor of vet garbage. Because, as we all know, vets give immediate "results."

PuffyPig
08-20-2007, 01:41 PM
It's also that they never do things willy-nilly. They figured on Wainwright struggling for a while as he adjusted to MLB starting, and they stuck with him, knowing his pedigree; now they have a front of the rotation starter as a result.



There's some truth to that statement, but it's not like the Cards had any choice.

When Wainwright was posting a high 4-5+ ERA, they had guys like Wells, Maroth and Reyes who were posting ERA's in the 6's and beyond.

If they had replaced Wainwright, they would have had to stand in line, and replace the other 4 first.

And if the Cards figured on Wainwright struggling for a while as he adjusted to MLB starting, they must have forgotten to tell you.

I seem to remember you telling us that the Cards were unbeatable this year becuase after Carpenter, they had the #2 and #3 parts of their rotation "locked-down" with Wainwright and Reyes.

You don't normally associate "locked-down" with "figuring to struggle". :confused:

flyer85
08-20-2007, 01:43 PM
Cardinal is a bird(unless you are from Stanford) and a Red is a commie.

KronoRed
08-20-2007, 01:43 PM
I thought the Reds were just guys who liked loud socks

Falls City Beer
08-20-2007, 01:44 PM
There's some truth to that statement, but it's not like the Cards had any choice.

When Wainwright was posting a high 4-5+ ERA, they had guys like Wells, Maroth and Reyes who were posting ERA's in the 6's and beyond.

If they had replaced Wainwright, they would have had to stand in line, and replace the other 4 first.

And if the Cards figured on Wainwright struggling for a while as he adjusted to MLB starting, they must have forgotten to tell you.

I seem to remember you telling us that the Cards were unbeatable this year becuase after Carpenter, they had the #2 and #3 parts of their rotation "locked-down" with Wainwright and Reyes.

You don't normally associate "locked-down" with "figuring to struggle". :confused:


I'm saying they likely know more about Wainwright than I do, yes. That's not that hard to figure out.

PuffyPig
08-20-2007, 04:54 PM
I'm saying they likely know more about Wainwright than I do, yes. That's not that hard to figure out.

Query:If you didn't know then that the Cards knew that Wainwright would struggle, how do you know it now?:confused:

It's not necessarily good management to leave a struggling starter in for more games when he's still better than your other 4 guys.

When your options include bringing up Randy Keisler to fill in, 30 out of 30 teams easily make the same descision.The Cards were grabbing at the like of Maroth/Wellemeyer/Pineiro. Wainwright was the least of their problems.

Sea Ray
08-20-2007, 05:20 PM
We shouldn't kid ourselves. Bullpen guys get hurt, have bad years, get overused. Weathers, Bray and Burton-- plus several maybes --is just not enough. Not nearly.


Clearly I'd like to add some pitching in the off season and I don't mean folks like Stanton and Frenchie, but right now a 2008 bullpen might project to Weathers, Burton, Salmon, Bray, Coutlangus and Belisle. You could do a lot worse than that.

Eric_Davis
08-20-2007, 09:30 PM
I hate to say it but the difference is the amount of time given to Narron. Every team seems to play better when a manager is fired and replaced by a new one. Unfortunatly the reds hung on to Narron too long and that resulted in them being too far out in the race to really make a difference. If they would have fired Narron earlier in the season before the season was totally lost I think you may have seen a club that had an outside chance of contending in the central.


This is the best assessment of what the difference has been this year between St. Louis and Cincinnati.

edabbs44
08-20-2007, 09:50 PM
Clearly I'd like to add some pitching in the off season and I don't mean folks like Stanton and Frenchie, but right now a 2008 bullpen might project to Weathers, Burton, Salmon, Bray, Coutlangus and Belisle. You could do a lot worse than that.

I think the same thing was said this year...how Wayne couldn't do much worse than last season.

Maybe trying to actually get a proven arm could work. You know, the kind that aren't one pitch away from the glue factory.

remdog
08-20-2007, 11:21 PM
Cardinal is a bird(unless you are from Stanford) and a Red is a commie.

Off topic but funny none the less: At Stanford, Cardinal refers to the color (as 85 implied) rather than the bird but there is no official mascot at Stanford University. Many think it is 'The Tree' but it isn't. I did find the following article humerous (especially with the recent experiences with the astronaut program. ;)




STANFORD
University's tree mascot gets the ax for drinking on the job against Cal
Female student had blood alcohol level of 0.15, police say
Steve Rubenstein, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, February 17, 2006

The Stanford University tree has been toppled for being drunk on the job.

The student wearing the costume of the legendary mascot was suspended from duty after UC Berkeley police observed her drinking from a flask during a Stanford-Cal basketball game last week, officials said Thursday.

"She was taking drinks inside the tree,'' said Kevin Klintworth, assistant athletic director at Cal. "The officers could see the flask through the costume.''

Erin Lashnits, 23, a fifth-year undergraduate biology student, was given a breath test shortly after halftime of the Feb. 9 game at Haas Pavilion. Authorities said the test showed she had a blood alcohol level of 0.15 percent, nearly twice the legal limit for driving. She was cited for public drunkenness and told to leave the court but was allowed to watch the rest of the game from the grandstand.

Lashnits acknowledged that she was intoxicated but denied that she had a flask or that she had been drinking during the game.

"I apologize,'' she said. "I made a bad decision, and I wish I could take it back.''

The defrocked tree, who plans to apply to become an astronaut and hopes one day to walk on the moon, said she could not believe the results of the breath test.

"I don't think these things lie, but I felt fine, and I was certainly able to do my job,'' she said. "I'd like to put this whole thing behind me. The last thing I want to do is hurt the Stanford band.''

The band oversees the tree. Spokesman Sam Urmy said the incident began as a misunderstanding when Lashnits began prancing in the middle of the court, as she is allowed to do at Stanford, instead of confining her routines to under the basket, as Cal requires. That's when officers began observing her more closely, Urmy said.

"She wasn't doing anything offensive,'' Urmy said. "She was just jumping and dancing. The tree's movement is usually consistent with that of someone who's had something to drink.''

The imbibing tree violated the terms of the band's three-year alcohol ban, which Stanford administrators imposed after band members got drunk on a notorious bus ride home from a USC football game in Los Angeles in 2003.

Urmy said the band would be picking a new tree next month. He said the band had relieved the tree of duty on its own accord, before the university took action.

"We wanted to take care of this ourselves,'' he said. "It's not that big a deal.''

Rem

Sea Ray
08-22-2007, 02:54 PM
I think the same thing was said this year...how Wayne couldn't do much worse than last season.

Maybe trying to actually get a proven arm could work. You know, the kind that aren't one pitch away from the glue factory.

I didn't like starting the year with Stanton, Cormier and Co in the pen. I didn't expect much out of Burton, Majewski/Bray/Guaradado were out and Coffey ended 2006 very shaky. I did not feel good about this pen in early April.

camisadelgolf
08-22-2007, 03:10 PM
Bottom line: The Reds can't afford great pitching in free agency. If they spend millions of dollars on a top-tier player, it might work out, but the risk outweighs the reward (see: Eric Milton). Wayne Krivsky and Co. is developing pitching and trading for pitching prospects because it's the only way the Reds will be able to compete. Not only do they have to do what's expected of them anyway, but they must make up for the regimes before them who failed to do so. Krivsky and Co. haven't been perfect, but the good they've done has far outweighed the bad, and if you refuse to see that, I think you're looking for reasons not to like them.