PDA

View Full Version : Reds need more hits



Kc61
07-08-2008, 03:07 PM
The Reds are 12th in the NL in runs scored. Team is 8th in OBP, 11th in slugging.

The OBP numbers are helped by walks. Reds are fifth in walks.

The runs, OBP and slugging numbers are hindered by a lack of base hits. Reds are 14th in the league in base hits.

It's not a lack of HR power. Reds are fifth in the league in homers. This could be better given GABP, but still fifth is not bad.

Reds are 12th in extra base hits overall. 12th in doubles. 12th in triples. And, again, 14th in base hits.

Reds have only two players in the league's top fifty in base hits. Phillips is 8th with 101. Votto is tied for 49th with 81. With 16 teams in the league, an average team should have 3 guys in the top 48. Reds have only one.

Griffey is tied for 72nd; EE for 77th; Dunn for 90th; Hairston for 98th.

Presumably Kepp would be up there if he hadn't missed so much time. Dunn compensates with power. Hairston has played only a partial season.

Feel free to discuss.

RedsManRick
07-08-2008, 03:10 PM
I'm just going to throw lineup order out there. The Reds have buried a good deal of their OBP down in the lineup, behind their SLG. That doesn't help.

I wonder where our IsoD and IsoP rank? I fear that we have a very high IsoD, which is good, but that unfortunately it's not paired with a high IsoP. Combine infrequent multiple base advancement events, which can include singles, with a batting order that inefficiently distributes opportunities and you have a recipe for scoring fewer runs than your peripherals might otherwise suggest.

Kc61
07-08-2008, 03:20 PM
I'm just going to throw lineup order out there. The Reds have buried a good deal of their OBP down in the lineup, behind their SLG. That doesn't help.

I wonder where our IsoD and IsoP rank? I fear that we have a very high IsoD, which is good, but that unfortunately it's not paired with a high IsoP. Combine infrequent multiple base advancement events, which can include singles, with a batting order that inefficiently distributes opportunities and you have a recipe for scoring fewer runs than your peripherals might otherwise suggest.


This isn't a batting order issue. The team is 14th of 16 teams in getting hits. Maybe they could score a few more runs with a better order, but 14th in hits is a terrible statistic. The team needs better hitters.

RedsManRick
07-08-2008, 03:23 PM
This isn't a batting order issue. The team is 14th of 16 teams in getting hits. Maybe they could score a few more runs with a better order, but 14th in hits is a terrible statistic. The team needs better hitters.

If you needed a whole thread to make that point, I guess I'll keep it on that level.

This team needs better hitters, no doubt. But looking at batting average confuses the issue. Adam Dunn has a horrible batting average but he isn't part of the problem. Sorry KC, it's not that simple.

hebroncougar
07-08-2008, 03:23 PM
This isn't a batting order issue. The team is 14th of 16 teams in getting hits. Maybe they could score a few more runs with a better order, but 14th in hits is a terrible statistic. The team needs better hitters.

While I'll agree it can't be blamed totally on batting order, I think is point is valid to an extent. When you have Patterson leading off, and god knows who in the 2 hole, then you've got more AB's going to those guys than to guys like Phillips and Votto. The lack of a leadoff hitter really is telling when you look at the stats in the thread, no one to make consistent contact at the top of the order.

Kc61
07-08-2008, 03:32 PM
If you needed a whole thread to make that point, I guess I'll keep it on that level.

This team needs better hitters, no doubt. But looking at batting average confuses the issue. Adam Dunn has a horrible batting average but he isn't part of the problem. Sorry KC, it's not that simple.

Maybe it is that simple. Team is fifth in the league in homers and in walks. Yet it's 12th in runs scored. Why? Batting order?

On a teamwide basis, the Reds lack base hits. Singles, doubles, triples. And while I don't disagree that Dunn compensates for his lack of hits, most of the others don't.

Look at Griffey, EE and the catcher's spot, for example.

pahster
07-08-2008, 03:57 PM
Encarnacion has been a bit of a disappointment this season, but I don't think he should shoulder too much of the blame based on how he's fared compared to his peers.

ML 3B: .267/.337/.440
Edwin: .247/.334/.452

He's been an ML average 3B this year. Hopefully he picks it up and ends the year with a line similar to the one he had in 2006.

redsrule2500
07-08-2008, 04:10 PM
Take Corey Patterson and Griffey out of the lineup for the whole year, and you have a COMPLETELY different offense.

nate
07-08-2008, 04:10 PM
This isn't a batting order issue. The team is 14th of 16 teams in getting hits. Maybe they could score a few more runs with a better order, but 14th in hits is a terrible statistic. The team needs better hitters.

But if the guys who are hitting batted higher in the order, wouldn't they have more opportunities to get hits and thus, err...well...get more hits?

For example:

A. .291.355/.466 in 326 AB for 95 hits
B. .264/.320/.387 in 382 AB for 101 hits

A. Reds #7 hitters
B. Reds #1 hitters

nate
07-08-2008, 04:10 PM
Encarnacion has been a bit of a disappointment this season, but I don't think he should shoulder too much of the blame based on how he's fared compared to his peers.

ML 3B: .267/.337/.440
Edwin: .247/.334/.452

He's been an ML average 3B this year. Hopefully he picks it up and ends the year with a line similar to the one he had in 2006.

He's been coming around the past month: .295/.377/.525

_Sir_Charles_
07-08-2008, 04:23 PM
If you needed a whole thread to make that point, I guess I'll keep it on that level.

This team needs better hitters, no doubt. But looking at batting average confuses the issue. Adam Dunn has a horrible batting average but he isn't part of the problem. Sorry KC, it's not that simple.

As usual, this topic gets turned into a "batting average isn't a good stat" issue. It IS that simple. Good teams HIT the ball. Teams that generate base hits have higher batting averages. I don't give a damn about what saberstat is better or what is worse. What I care about is results. And getting base hits will generate results over the long haul.

I like Adam Dunn as much as the next guy. I love that he gets on base at such a nice clip. But I just don't see any major league teams out there that put out a starting lineup with batting averages like we do and still manage to succeed. Having 2 or 3 regulars with mediocre to poor BA's is fine, but to have 4 or more...that's too many black holes in your lineup to be successful. Junior, Edwin, Suck-a-backstop, Dunn, Patterson, etc are way too many in one lineup to have much of a chance. Now if several of them had a ridiculously high walk-rate like Dunn...it might be passable. But the lack of hitting on this team is the biggest glaring problem we have. And say what you will about Batting Average, but it's still a very telling stat.

_Sir_Charles_
07-08-2008, 04:26 PM
Encarnacion has been a bit of a disappointment this season, but I don't think he should shoulder too much of the blame based on how he's fared compared to his peers.

ML 3B: .267/.337/.440
Edwin: .247/.334/.452

He's been an ML average 3B this year. Hopefully he picks it up and ends the year with a line similar to the one he had in 2006.

I agree that there isn't one player we should point the finger at. But comparing Edwin to his peers doesn't really show the problem. Because on teams where they have a very poor 3b batting average, they have other position players with very good ones. In the one-to-one comparisons we don't look THAT bad...it's when taken as a whole that it's telling.

_Sir_Charles_
07-08-2008, 04:32 PM
But if the guys who are hitting batted higher in the order, wouldn't they have more opportunities to get hits and thus, err...well...get more hits?

For example:

A. .291.355/.466 in 326 AB for 95 hits
B. .264/.320/.387 in 382 AB for 101 hits

A. Reds #7 hitters
B. Reds #1 hitters

Yes and no. More opportunities, yes. More hits...not necessarily. BA gives us a decent idea of how often they'll get a hit. More PA's for a poor average hitter will only mean more PA's not hits. And you can't move EVERYBODY up in the lineup. Who do you move down? Won't moving a stuggling hitter down mean even fewer hits for them with that theory? Batting order doesn't have anything to do with what Kc61 is saying. It's our simple lack of ability to get base hits...regardless of the situations. We suck at putting the bat on the ball. And for all you Dunn-lovers out there...he does too. When you get down to the bottom line for a hitter, the goal is to get a base hit. The Reds as a team fail miserably on that front.

Nugget
07-08-2008, 04:36 PM
And just who would you have batting instead of CPat and Junior?

Another thing is that everyone in the order is a problem - outside of Votto and Bako (of the regulars - I have not counted Hairston and Kepp).

Phillips is performing below expectations (although he may be performing to his norm and his other years were more of an aberration). Junior is not up to his usual standard - even Dunn is not have a good a year as he can. The REDS need to hit better across the board - we have been saying that the bats will heat up - well they will hopefully do so soon otherwise that will continue to be their problem. Its not too late for the REDS to make a run but they will need to hit better first.

Spring~Fields
07-08-2008, 04:45 PM
KC,

I thought that it had already been supported on the board that many poor batters, or batters that have struggled this season were given many AB and PA. Which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with batting order.

The very decision to continuously give those batters the AB and PA over others would lead to your conclusions here below, would it not?

"On a teamwide basis, the Reds lack base hits. Singles, doubles, triples."

Of course this team like any other could always use better hitters who accumulate better stats.

Do you mean aggregate or individually?

The quickest way I know to find out is by checking the split stats for each # position in the batting order, though I am not talking about batting order here, that place in the sortables links will show who has not done their job as an offensive player and who has, nailing it down to certain individual players, that management decided to play despite the results, and how often they were allowed to bat.

Which will effect the count in hits, singles, doubles, triples etc. Which will effect runs, which effects the loss record especially in games where they have lost those games by 2 runs or less.

Am I way off base here ??????

Runs / Hits
2000 runs - 825/ 1545
2001 runs - 735/ 1464
2002 runs - 709/ 1386
2003 runs - 694/ 1349
2004 runs - 750/ 1380
2005 runs - 820/ 1453
2006 runs - 749/ 1419
2007 runs - 783/ 1496
2008 runs - 384/ 751
after 90 games (384/90=4.2666666*162) 691.2 runs projected
after 90 games (751/90=8.344444*162) 1351.8 hits projected
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?sort=runs&split=0&group=8&season=2008&seasonType=2&statType=batting&type=reg


KC you’re right about the hits, they are down. No I won’t say it, but you already know what I am thinking, “’management decisions”, Spring training, March, April, May, June, etc.


I don’t know the answers to these questions that I pose below, I don’t expect any of us too, but are they factors?

Are competitor singles, doubles, triples, down this year also?
What offensive personnel are different with this team than the past few seasons?
Our the players that have been with the team in past seasons having bad year as compared to past seasons?
Has the opposition pitching made a significant improvement?
Has manager/coaching changed batters approaches at the plate this season as opposed to past seasons?

Season Individual and Team Hits
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=cin&cat=hits&order=false&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg

Season BA Stats
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=cin&cat=avg&order=false&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg

Season OBP stats
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=cin&cat=onBasePct&order=false&season=2008&split=0&seasonType=2&type=reg

Showing the hits, doubles, triples in ascending order etc. per each individual batter who hit in the batting position and compares to the opponents.
Batting #1
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=cin&season=2008&seasonType=2&split=109&cat=hits&order=false&type=reg
Batting #2
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=cin&season=2008&seasonType=2&split=110&cat=hits&order=false&type=reg
Batting #3
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=cin&season=2008&seasonType=2&split=111&cat=hits&order=false&type=reg
Batting #4
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=cin&season=2008&seasonType=2&split=112&cat=hits&order=false&type=reg
Batting #5
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=cin&season=2008&seasonType=2&split=113&cat=hits&order=false&type=reg
Batting #6
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=cin&season=2008&seasonType=2&split=114&cat=hits&order=false&type=reg
Batting #7
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=cin&season=2008&seasonType=2&split=115&cat=hits&order=false&type=reg

Batting #8
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=cin&season=2008&seasonType=2&split=116&cat=hits&order=false&type=reg

Jpup
07-08-2008, 04:52 PM
The Reds starting pitchers just plain and simply give up too many runs to be successful. Yes, the Reds offense could compensate for that, but that is asking a little much.

Reds starters:

Runs Against 13 of 16
Batting Average Against 13 of 16
Innings Pitched 13 of 16
ERA 13 of 16
OPS against 14 of 16
HR against 14 of 16
Doubles 15 of 16

As it always has been for the Reds, it's the starting pitching.

Spring~Fields
07-08-2008, 04:54 PM
Reds have only two players in the league's top fifty in base hits. Phillips is 8th with 101. Votto is tied for 49th with 81. With 16 teams in the league, an average team should have 3 guys in the top 48. Reds have only one.

Griffey is tied for 72nd; EE for 77th; Dunn for 90th; Hairston for 98th.

Presumably Kepp would be up there if he hadn't missed so much time. Dunn compensates with power. Hairston has played only a partial season.



It looks like to me that you are saying that the offense has been the major player in hurting this teams chances of wining ballgames this year. Because their primary players are not producing enough.

Spring~Fields
07-08-2008, 04:56 PM
Take Corey Patterson and Griffey out of the lineup for the whole year, and you have a COMPLETELY different offense.

That's too easy :)

RedsManRick
07-08-2008, 04:56 PM
As usual, this topic gets turned into a "batting average isn't a good stat" issue. It IS that simple. Good teams HIT the ball. Teams that generate base hits have higher batting averages. I don't give a damn about what saberstat is better or what is worse. What I care about is results. And getting base hits will generate results over the long haul.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1680819&postcount=198

Firstly, we all care about results. The whole "saberstat" movement is about figuring out what stats best measure and predict real results. If you'd like to go with your gut instead of math, fine, that's your prerogative. But don't for a moment think that stats based approaches to answering these questions are just math geeks trying to make themselves look smart.

Secondly, we've covered this specific issue ad nauseum. I could run the numbers for past years as well if you'd like, but of BA, OBP, and SLG, batting average correlates with run scoring the least.

Your assertion is not back by reality. Now, if the Reds were to improve their OBP and SLG, it would likely come as a result of hitting for a higher BA because they're already decent at taking walks and hitting homers. So in a sense, you're right in the specific circumstance of the Reds in 2008. But generally speaking, simply hitting for a higher average is not the best predictor of scoring more runs unless it's accompanied by increases in OBP and/or SLG.

Again, it's not that successful teams don't hit for average. It's that if they hit for average but they don't get on base and don't slug (see HOU, LAD, SFG (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL_2008.shtml)), the hits won't lead to that many runs. You're better off hitting for a lower average and getting higher OBP and SLG than visa versa.

Lastly, don't let the ranks confuse you. Not every spot in the league rankings is created equal. The difference between 5th and 10th might be smaller than the difference between 10th and 11th. The Reds have a team OPS+ of 94 and score 95% of the runs as an average team. Those are directly in line. The Reds problem is a general one of not getting on base enough and not slugging enough. Hitting for a higher average could very well be a way to drive both of those things up and that would lead to scoring more runs -- but simply hitting for a higher average should not be the goal in and of itself.

We're currently hitting .248/.325/.401. Hitting .268/.325/.401 would not significantly alter our run scoring. Hitting .248/.335/.411 would. Of course, hitting .268/.348/.441 would be even better....

Kc61
07-08-2008, 04:57 PM
The point I try to make here is that there are a few variables. One is walks, Reds are ok there. Another is homers, Reds are ok there. Not super in either respect, but certainly ok or better.

The obvious missing piece is base hits, higher average hitters. 14th in the league in base hits is sufficiently awful to warrant some change.

Rick says slugging is the most important stat. I don't disagree, but if you are twelth in doubles and triples and 14th in hits it hurts slugging percentage. The numbers are all related.

I think this obvious deficiency should be an important guide to the off-season, trades and free agents.

Spring~Fields
07-08-2008, 05:00 PM
But if the guys who are hitting batted higher in the order, wouldn't they have more opportunities to get hits and thus, err...well...get more hits?



and more plate appearances and more at bats, and more singles, doubles and so forth over players who do not hit well,

yes. :)

plus additional outs, I mean the guys hitting behind them would pick up some more opportunities also.

Spring~Fields
07-08-2008, 05:06 PM
The point I try to make here is that there are a few variables. One is walks, Reds are ok there. Another is homers, Reds are ok there. Not super in either respect, but certainly ok or better.

The obvious missing piece is base hits, higher average hitters. 14th in the league in base hits is sufficiently awful to warrant some change.
Rick says slugging is the most important stat. I don't disagree, but if you are twelth in doubles and triples and 14th in hits it hurts slugging percentage. The numbers are all related.

I think this obvious deficiency should be an important guide to the off-season, trades and free agents.

I have always wondered about that on this board, the hits never seemed to matter, just the walk, it always confused me, I thought that I was just misperceiving what they meant.

:confused:
Baseball,
man with bat,
man with bat, hits the ball,
base hits are a important part of the game,
here, no, walks is important, :confused:
Man with bat that hits the ball desirable,
man with the bat that misses the ball undesirable. :confused:
no, that doesn't matter,
man who walks is king in baseball,
not man who hits the ball. :confused:

Even a caveman could not understand it.

Men with bat pretty lousy when they are 14th out of 16 in hitting the ball.

You guys will get pOD at me but I have to ask.

Just how much OBP and SLG will there be if the batters can't hit the ball a higher percentage of times than the other batters?

I think I get your point KC, I tried to bring that up before, but the board turns it into a batting average argument, when I was only trying to suggest by looking at the BA, that these guys just don't hit well, I was not talking about BA, just the fact that they don't hit the ball enough where there are no defensive players.

RedlegJake
07-08-2008, 05:11 PM
I think the lack of any one of the big three - On base, Slugging and Batting will hurt a team's offense. Low on Base means few opportunities, lack of slugging means 1 run at a time offense, and no hits means runners are advanced either one base at a time via walks or by the occasional homer. BA IS the least important stat of the three, of that I have no doubt but it IS an important stat regardless. Offense is like a tripod structure. The stoutest legs may be slugging and On Base Percent but if you remove Batting Average or weaken it a great deal the whole thing wobbles. The Reds lack steady hitters. Kepp and Hairston's injuries have hurt in that regard, so has the over use of Corey who provides a tad of slugging but nothing else. The lineup, in any iteration, tends to be weakest in simply getting ordinary hits. The lineup's power, and it's ability to get on by walking is not sufficient to overcome the lack of hits. As for Dunn let's face it - he's a great offensive force at any time but when he's hitting .220 his OBP tends to stay the same. In other words he replaces hits for walks when his BA drops. His power remains stable. At .220 and .380 he's a good player - at .260 and .380 he's a great player.

RedsManRick
07-08-2008, 05:27 PM
RLJ, once you control for OBP and SLG, batting average makes virtually no difference in a team's run scoring.

A .240/.330/.430 team and a .260/.330/.430 team project to score a nearly identical number of runs.

Check out the link I provided earlier in the thread to see the analysis behind it. If you lower the batting average, but keep OBP and SLG the same, you're trading some hits for walks, but some of hits you keep become better hits. It all evens out in the end.

A low average might be a sign of why your OBP and SLG are low -- but the average doesn't necessarily need to go up to change your run scoring if you can walk more and hit for more power when you do get hits.

Spring~Fields
07-08-2008, 05:29 PM
BA IS the least important stat of the three, of that I have no doubt but it IS an important stat regardless.

Offense is like a tripod structure.

The stoutest legs may be slugging and On Base Percent

but if you remove Batting Average or weaken it a great deal the whole thing wobbles.

The Reds lack steady hitters.

Kepp and Hairston's injuries have hurt in that regard,

so has the over use of Corey who provides a tad of slugging but nothing else.

The lineup, in any iteration, tends to be weakest in simply getting ordinary hits.


The lineup's power, and it's ability to get on by walking is not sufficient to overcome the lack of hits.





Slowly, line for line, NOW that I can understand, seems right to me.

nate
07-08-2008, 05:32 PM
Yes and no. More opportunities, yes. More hits...not necessarily.

You don't think, given the same number of at bats, Joey Votto would have more hits than Corey Patterson? That's basically the weighting of my previous example.


BA gives us a decent idea of how often they'll get a hit. More PA's for a poor average hitter will only mean more PA's not hits.

No. It can also mean not making outs, extending the inning, providing more opportunities to score and getting on base.


And you can't move EVERYBODY up in the lineup. Who do you move down?

The least productive hitters.


Won't moving a stuggling hitter down mean even fewer hits for them with that theory?

Not if they stop struggling.


Batting order doesn't have anything to do with what Kc61 is saying.

Giving better hitters more opportunities to hit will most likely yield more hits.


It's our simple lack of ability to get base hits...regardless of the situations. We suck at putting the bat on the ball.

Our 5-8 hitters avoid outs and slug at league average or better. Our 1-4 hitters avoid outs and slug below league average.

What we suck at is scoring runs. If we put the guys who do things that score runs like hit for extra bases and don't make outs higher in the batting order, we'll suck less at scoring runs.


And for all you Dunn-lovers out there...he does too.

Please don't make this another Dunn-bashing thread.


When you get down to the bottom line for a hitter, the goal is to get a base hit. The Reds as a team fail miserably on that front.

The bottom line for a hitter is to score runs, acquire bases and avoid outs.

Higher batting averages? Sure, great. I'd rather they score more runs myself.

RedsManRick
07-08-2008, 05:35 PM
If I see any more assertions that the Reds hitters are particularly inconsistent, without anything to back that up, I swear my head might explode.

I have not seen a single shred of evidence regarding offensive consistency relative to league average. Just one conjecture and assertion after another.

westofyou
07-08-2008, 05:37 PM
the 1972 Reds were 7th in the league in hits... in a 12 team league

Kc61
07-08-2008, 05:41 PM
RLJ, once you control for OBP and SLG, batting average makes virtually no difference in a team's run scoring.

A .240/.330/.430 team and a .260/.330/.430 team project to score a nearly identical number of runs.

Check out the link I provided earlier in the thread to see the analysis behind it. If you lower the batting average, but keep OBP and SLG the same, you're trading hits for walks, but the hits you keep become better hits and it pretty much evens out.

It's not about batting average v. OBP/SLG.

More hits help OBP. More hits help slugging. They are not enemies. They are friends.

But in the Reds' case, the type of hitting achievement that is missing is the base hit. They hit homers. They walk. But they don't get hits. So it is a reasonable way to help all of these -- OBP, SLG, and BA -- to get more hits.

I agree, it's not about clutch; or consistency; or strikeouts.

It's about a failure to get hits in sufficient quantity over the course of a season to help this offense. They need hitters who can help fix this problem.

Spring~Fields
07-08-2008, 05:42 PM
I think that we get into problems in discussion when we try to or appear to be trying to isolate, on one specific area, or one issue, or one situation, or one problem, or one variable, “as the cause” of the teams failure to win ballgames.

Because the group will naturally respond to comments that imply that one area, one problem, one issue etc, is “the cause”, because there are a grocery list of causes, because no one item on the grocery list by itself is the sum total of the causation.

You say pitching, you’re right
You say defense, you’re right
You say hitting, you’re right
You say manager/coaches, you’re right
You say individuals, you’re right
Your say ownership, you’re right
You say past decisions by management at the higher levels, you’re right
If you say them all together, but if you isolate and leave some of those out, you will be open to challenge, and correctly so.
Each area does need reviewed, and corrective actions taken.

RedsManRick
07-08-2008, 05:46 PM
It's not about batting average v. OBP/SLG.

More hits help OBP. More hits help slugging. They are not enemies. They are friends.

But in the Reds' case, the type of hitting achievement that is missing is the base hit. They hit homers. They walk. But they don't get hits. So it is a reasonable way to help all of these -- OBP, SLG, and BA -- to get more hits.

I agree KC. The fastest way to getting a higher OBP and higher SLG is through a higher BA. You've correctly pointed out that the Reds are particularly poor at hitting for average despite very good Isolate Discipline (OBP-BA, 0.077, T-1st) and solid Isolated Power (SLG-BA, 0.153, T-6th). Thus, if we're going to improve our OBP and SLG, it's likely going to come from turning outs in to hits because it isn't likely that we're going to walk more or significantly improve the on the quality of the hits we're already getting.

My point is that, despite the constant citing of the "slash stats", BA, OBP, and SLG don't really belong as a triumvirate. BA is a feeder, a subset, of the other two, not something to consider along side of them.

Practically, I think you're right in identifying the likely solution.. But I don't want us to confuse the solution, more hits, with the problem, too few men on base and too few bases acquired per AB leading to too few runs scored.

dougdirt
07-08-2008, 05:48 PM
the 1972 Reds were 7th in the league in hits... in a 12 team league

How did they finish in the league in runs scored? Oh, 1 run behind the team that led the league? Gotcha.

Kc61
07-08-2008, 05:56 PM
I agree KC. The fastest way to getting a higher OBP and higher SLG is through a higher BA. You've correctly pointed out that the Reds are particularly poor at hitting for average despite very good Isolate Discipline (OBP-BA, 0.077, T-1st) and solid Isolated Power (SLG-BA, 0.153, T-6th). Thus, if we're going to improve our OBP and SLG, it's likely going to come from turning outs in to hits because it isn't likely that we're going to walk more or significantly improve the on the quality of the hits we're already getting.

My point is that, despite the constant citing of the "slash stats", BA, OBP, and SLG don't really belong as a triumvirate. BA is a feeder, a subset, of the other two, not something to consider along side of them.

Practically, I think you're right in identifying the likely solution.. But I don't want us to confuse the solution, more hits, with the problem, too few men on base and too few bases acquired per AB leading to too few runs scored.

I agree with this. And it's not too difficult to see where changes can be made to fix the problem.

And if the higher BA guys Reds acquire happen to hit some homers and walk occasionally, I wouldn't mind it either.

Spring~Fields
07-08-2008, 05:59 PM
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1680819&postcount=198

The Reds problem is a general one of not getting on base enough and not slugging enough. Hitting for a higher average could very well be a way to drive both of those things up and that would lead to scoring more runs -- but simply hitting for a higher average should not be the goal in and of itself.

We're currently hitting .248/.325/.401. Hitting .268/.325/.401 would not significantly alter our run scoring. Hitting .248/.335/.411 would. Of course, hitting .268/.348/.441 would be even better....

I am certainly glad that you wrote that line in there, because I was about ready to demote myself to cincy.com, figuring that this place was way over my head, and that maybe ciny.com was more my speed, with cap locks and all. ;)

Spring~Fields
07-08-2008, 06:03 PM
I agree KC. The fastest way to getting a higher OBP and higher SLG is through a higher BA. You've correctly pointed out that the Reds are particularly poor at hitting for average despite very good Isolate Discipline (OBP-BA, 0.077, T-1st) and solid Isolated Power (SLG-BA, 0.153, T-6th). Thus, if we're going to improve our OBP and SLG, it's likely going to come from turning outs in to hits because it isn't likely that we're going to walk more or significantly improve the on the quality of the hits we're already getting.
My point is that, despite the constant citing of the "slash stats", BA, OBP, and SLG don't really belong as a triumvirate. BA is a feeder, a subset, of the other two, not something to consider along side of them.

Practically, I think you're right in identifying the likely solution.. But I don't want us to confuse the solution, more hits, with the problem, too few men on base and too few bases acquired per AB leading to too few runs scored.

:clap::clap::clap:

jojo
07-08-2008, 06:05 PM
Truthfully sabermetrics have passed OPS by......

RedsManRick
07-08-2008, 06:12 PM
Truthfully sabermetrics have passed OPS by......

A very helpful observation....

You have to learn to walk before you can run. One step at a time.

Unless you have the key to getting the more casual fan directly from crawl to run? You seem particularly adverse to being constructive lately.

fearofpopvol1
07-08-2008, 06:15 PM
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1680819&postcount=198

Firstly, we all care about results. The whole "saberstat" movement is about figuring out what stats best measure and predict real results. If you'd like to go with your gut instead of math, fine, that's your prerogative. But don't for a moment think that stats based approaches to answering these questions are just math geeks trying to make themselves look smart.

Secondly, we've covered this specific issue ad nauseum. I could run the numbers for past years as well if you'd like, but of BA, OBP, and SLG, batting average correlates with run scoring the least.

Your assertion is not back by reality. Now, if the Reds were to improve their OBP and SLG, it would likely come as a result of hitting for a higher BA because they're already decent at taking walks and hitting homers. So in a sense, you're right in the specific circumstance of the Reds in 2008. But generally speaking, simply hitting for a higher average is not the best predictor of scoring more runs unless it's accompanied by increases in OBP and/or SLG.

Again, it's not that successful teams don't hit for average. It's that if they hit for average but they don't get on base and don't slug (see HOU, LAD, SFG (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL_2008.shtml)), the hits won't lead to that many runs. You're better off hitting for a lower average and getting higher OBP and SLG than visa versa.

Lastly, don't let the ranks confuse you. Not every spot in the league rankings is created equal. The difference between 5th and 10th might be smaller than the difference between 10th and 11th. The Reds have a team OPS+ of 94 and score 95% of the runs as an average team. Those are directly in line. The Reds problem is a general one of not getting on base enough and not slugging enough. Hitting for a higher average could very well be a way to drive both of those things up and that would lead to scoring more runs -- but simply hitting for a higher average should not be the goal in and of itself.

We're currently hitting .248/.325/.401. Hitting .268/.325/.401 would not significantly alter our run scoring. Hitting .248/.335/.411 would. Of course, hitting .268/.348/.441 would be even better....

I mostly agree with a lot of this, but I think the one thing overlooked is that the Reds simply cannot live and die by the home run, which is seemingly what they have done in the past and the present. I'd have to double check, but I believe they have won 3 or less games this season where they haven't hit a home run. 3 games! That is downright attrocious. If you're facing a good team with good pitching, you simply cannot live and die by the home run. You're going to have to play small ball and situational hitting sometimes and that is something that the majority of Reds position players are horrible at.

Rojo
07-08-2008, 06:20 PM
Lack of doubles and triples may point toward tired legs and extinquished flames.

RedsManRick
07-08-2008, 06:23 PM
I mostly agree with a lot of this, but I think the one thing overlooked is that the Reds simply cannot live and die by the home run, which is seemingly what they have done in the past and the present. I'd have to double check, but I believe they have won 3 or less games this season where they haven't hit a home run. 3 games! That is downright atrocious. If you're facing a good team with good pitching, you simply cannot live and die by the home run. You're going to have to play small ball and situational hitting sometimes and that is something that the majority of Reds position players are horrible at.

I'm curious, how many HR-less wins does the average team have?

jojo
07-08-2008, 06:23 PM
A very helpful observation....

You have to learn to walk before you can run. One step at a time.

Unless you have the key to getting the more casual fan directly from crawl to run? You seem particularly adverse to being constructive lately.

Not sure where that is coming from....

RedsManRick
07-08-2008, 06:25 PM
Not sure where that is coming from....

Sorry -- should have been a PM. Just seems like I've noticed a lot of short, arguably snarky, dismissive posts from you recently.

I'm trying to help further the general understanding of offensive performance and you just dismiss it with a written wave of the hand.

It would be beneficial for us all if you shared the wealth. If not OPS by way of OBP and SLG breakdowns, at what and where would you have us look?

Simply putting down other people's attempts to further the conversation seems counter-productive. Part of the problem, in my estimation is that sabermatricians try to force people in to taking too big of a conceptual leap. The beauty of say, Bill James, is that he holds your hand along the way. I'm trying to use what I feel like I have a good understanding of to help people get from say, AVG to OPS, or W-L to FIP. Sure, I know there are better metrics out there. But most of them require a greater understanding of concepts that aren't well established here in the greater RZ community. I'm not writing an academic paper. I'm having a conversation with other fans. Comments like "sabermetrics have passed OPS by......" add nothing to the conversation.

jojo
07-08-2008, 06:38 PM
Sorry -- should have been a PM.

Just seems like I've noticed a lot of short, arguably snarky, dismissive posts from you recently.

Apology accepted and I'd suggest you're dealing with sample size issues because I've spent a lot of words on the ORG trying to spread the wealth concerning many of these issues.

RedlegJake
07-08-2008, 06:48 PM
I can see where BA is a subset of OBP and Slg. Increase walks and Slugging doesn't go up although OBP does. Walks add nothing to slugging while even an infield single adds to slugging as a single base (although singles don't add to IsoP). A team that had equal Slg and OBP but different BA - yes that would likely mean very close numbers in scoring. But the point I am making is that increasing BA should increase slugging. Dunn is a nice example. This year he is .228 and .386 - last year his OBP WAS identical while his BA was higher ie = .264 and .386 OBP. His slugging was higher last year by almost an identical margin meaning, to me, that he replaced a few singles for walks last season as opposed to this year and that drove his Slugging higher point for point (which is why its easy to see he replaced walks with singles last year NOT any difference in extra base hitting verses this year) .515 Slg this year and .554 last year.
Hits. Dunn's OBP isn't impacted by his lower BA but his slugging is. My point is this teams OBP is largely walks driven and hits starved which impacts the low Slugging percentage, and that finally means less scoring.

RedsManRick
07-08-2008, 06:53 PM
Apology accepted and I'd suggest you're dealing with sample size issues because I've spent a lot of words on the ORG trying to spread the wealth concerning many of these issues.

Right, I know you've spent many a word. But what does a post like your one here accomplish? As far as I'm concerned, any post like that one is one too many. I'm not an angel by any stretch and surely are guilty of the same on occasion.

But couldn't you at least point people in right direction rather than forcing them to root around 1000's of pages of posts to find the right ones? A little hint would go a long way. Instead, many people just see that sort of one-off comment as sabermatricians on their high horse, too busy and self-important to lower themselves to the level of the lay people. It's annoying at best and erodes the lines of communications at worst.

jojo
07-08-2008, 06:57 PM
Right, I know you've spent many a word. But what does a post like your one here accomplish? As far as I'm concerned, any post like that one is one too many. I'm not an angel by any stretch and surely are guilty of the same on occasion.

But couldn't you at least point people in right direction rather than forcing them to root around 1000's of pages of posts to find the right ones? A little hint would go a long way. Instead, many people just see that sort of one-off comment as sabermatricians on their high horse, too busy and self-important to lower themselves to the level of the lay people. It's annoying at best and erodes the lines of communications at worst.

It's every bit as useful as stating BA isn't the best way to evaluate a hitter and if it motivates someone to look deeper, it's tremendously valuable. BTW, "wading through the archives" should be encouraged much more than it is IMHO-it's not a pejorative but rather an invitation to a gold mind of collective observation. I don't think it's asking too much to suggest that some digging be done as a matter of curiosity.

I wasn't trying to be snarky then and and I'm not now. Please, you'll just have to trust me.

In lieu of more posts taking a tangent train concerning my intentions, lets discuss this further in private if you want.

Spring~Fields
07-10-2008, 05:13 PM
I agree with this. And it's not too difficult to see where changes can be made to fix the problem.

And if the higher BA guys Reds acquire happen to hit some homers and walk occasionally, I wouldn't mind it either.

KC
Here is a bit of an update with stats for your thread topic.



July
NAME GP AB H BA OBP SLG OPS
J. Keppinger 7 26 2 .077 .143 .077 .220
Paul Bako 6 16 3 .188 .316 .188 .503
E. Encarnacion 6 20 4 .200 .238 .250 .488
Jay Bruce 8 29 6 .207 .281 .448 .730
K. Griffey Jr. 8 27 6 .222 .382 .370 .753
C. Patterson 5 4 1 .250 .250 .250 .500
David Ross 3 8 2 .250 .455 .500 .955
Adam Dunn 7 25 7 .280 .357 .680 1.037
Joey Votto 8 26 7 .269 .387 .308 .695
J. Hairston Jr. 7 27 10 .370 .433 .370 .804
B. Phillips 8 31 11 .355 .382 .516 .898
J. Valentin 5 5 2 .400 .400 .800 1.200
Totals 8 260 61 .235 .320 .358 .677
Opponents 8 278 76 .273 .344 .432 .776
*excludes 07/10 game

SteelSD
07-11-2008, 01:11 AM
I can see where BA is a subset of OBP and Slg. Increase walks and Slugging doesn't go up although OBP does. Walks add nothing to slugging while even an infield single adds to slugging as a single base (although singles don't add to IsoP). A team that had equal Slg and OBP but different BA - yes that would likely mean very close numbers in scoring. But the point I am making is that increasing BA should increase slugging. Dunn is a nice example. This year he is .228 and .386 - last year his OBP WAS identical while his BA was higher ie = .264 and .386 OBP. His slugging was higher last year by almost an identical margin meaning, to me, that he replaced a few singles for walks last season as opposed to this year and that drove his Slugging higher point for point (which is why its easy to see he replaced walks with singles last year NOT any difference in extra base hitting verses this year) .515 Slg this year and .554 last year.

Actually, that's not what's happening. Dunn isn't replacing Hits with Walks. He's replacing Outs with Walks. Dunn's BABIP last season was .305. This season it's .244 coming into today's game; which is the lowest it's been over the last five seasons. Dunn's IsoD this season is .157. That's a tremendous number when coupled with his IsoP of .291 (in-line with his norms); producing an incredible Secondary Average (SecA) of .541. Right now, Dunn is 21st in the NL in total Runs Created and 15th in RC/27 Outs. He leads MLB in SecA. The variance in BA you're seeing has nothing to do with Dunn's BB rate and pretty much everything to do with his BABIP.

WVRedsFan
07-11-2008, 02:16 AM
Actually, that's not what's happening. Dunn isn't replacing Hits with Walks. He's replacing Outs with Walks. Dunn's BABIP last season was .305. This season it's .244 coming into today's game; which is the lowest it's been over the last five seasons. Dunn's IsoD this season is .157. That's a tremendous number when coupled with his IsoP of .291 (in-line with his norms); producing an incredible Secondary Average (SecA) of .541. Right now, Dunn is 21st in the NL in total Runs Created and 15th in RC/27 Outs. He leads MLB in SecA. The variance in BA you're seeing has nothing to do with Dunn's BB rate and pretty much everything to do with his BABIP.

And I'd like to look at Griffey's numbers, too. Those two are the keys to this team winning. As long as both turn outs into hits or not making outs, this club is sunk IMHO. WE can all bag about Phillips, Kepinger (who is as hollow as a dead log when it comes to run production), Hariston, EdE, Bruce, or whoever, but the run machine depends on Dunn and Griffey and they simply are not producing runs as they should. It's probably age with Junior, but Dunn simply baffles me. More fodder for those who want to let him go off into the sunset soon.

fearofpopvol1
07-11-2008, 08:58 PM
I'm curious, how many HR-less wins does the average team have?

That's a good question actually. I can promise you though that the good teams have more than 3 though. I'd even be willing to be the average teams have more than 3 thus far. I haven't looked officially, though.

SteelSD
07-11-2008, 11:07 PM
And I'd like to look at Griffey's numbers, too. Those two are the keys to this team winning. As long as both turn outs into hits or not making outs, this club is sunk IMHO. WE can all bag about Phillips, Kepinger (who is as hollow as a dead log when it comes to run production), Hariston, EdE, Bruce, or whoever, but the run machine depends on Dunn and Griffey and they simply are not producing runs as they should. It's probably age with Junior, but Dunn simply baffles me. More fodder for those who want to let him go off into the sunset soon.

Actually, Dunn's just fine. Last season, he produced 7.49 RC per 27 Outs and this season it's 7.05 RC/27. 2008 average Runs per Game is 4.49 versus last season's 4.71. That puts the 2007 NL at 105% of the 2008 average R/G and Dunn's 2007 at 106% of his current RC/27 output. That's well within normal league variance. Griffey, however, is an issue.

WVRedsFan
07-11-2008, 11:38 PM
After the 18 hit barrage yesterday, the Reds were back to normal tonight. Only 7 hit and the tying and winning runs were dependent on an error and a wild pitch or passed ball--your call. Many are excited about the win, but the same problem exists. No hits--or not enough hits. We stole one tonight and that's good, but it doesn't solve the problem.

Razor Shines
07-11-2008, 11:46 PM
Chalk up another homer-less win!!! Those count for more, right?

SteelSD
07-12-2008, 12:26 AM
Chalk up another homer-less win!!! Those count for more, right?

I think they count for like three regular wins.

And it's weird. That darned Brew Crew is a high-BA monster, or must be in order to have scored 30 more Runs than the Reds this season and 7 more wins coming into this game. But wait! They only had an 8-point BA advantage with the same OBP as the Reds yet have hit 16 more HR and 29 more Doubles; which is a big part of being ranked 4th in the NL in Slugging Percentage versus the Reds' 11th ranking. And the Brewers have struck out more than have the Reds (664 to 635).

The Reds ran out more .280+ BA hitters tonight (4) than did the Brewers (3). And Russ Branyan is on that Brewers team. How can any team win with that low-BA shlub getting AB? Prince Fielder isn't hitting .300. Mike Cameron is hitting .231.

And then we also have the Brewers producing a team ERA of 4.06 versus Cincinnati's 4.46.

Yet it's obviously a lack of offensive Base Hits that's keeping the Reds down.

Jpup
07-12-2008, 03:10 AM
After the 18 hit barrage yesterday, the Reds were back to normal tonight. Only 7 hit and the tying and winning runs were dependent on an error and a wild pitch or passed ball--your call. Many are excited about the win, but the same problem exists. No hits--or not enough hits. We stole one tonight and that's good, but it doesn't solve the problem.

How many balls did the Reds hit hard that were caught? How terrible was the ump?

westofyou
07-12-2008, 10:20 AM
any are excited about the win, but the same problem exists.

If the problem is someone is going to pee on the winning teams campfire after every win then yes, the same problems does exist.

Kc61
07-12-2008, 03:53 PM
I think they count for like three regular wins.

And it's weird. That darned Brew Crew is a high-BA monster, or must be in order to have scored 30 more Runs than the Reds this season and 7 more wins coming into this game. But wait! They only had an 8-point BA advantage with the same OBP as the Reds yet have hit 16 more HR and 29 more Doubles; which is a big part of being ranked 4th in the NL in Slugging Percentage versus the Reds' 11th ranking. And the Brewers have struck out more than have the Reds (664 to 635).

The Reds ran out more .280+ BA hitters tonight (4) than did the Brewers (3). And Russ Branyan is on that Brewers team. How can any team win with that low-BA shlub getting AB? Prince Fielder isn't hitting .300. Mike Cameron is hitting .231.

And then we also have the Brewers producing a team ERA of 4.06 versus Cincinnati's 4.46.

Yet it's obviously a lack of offensive Base Hits that's keeping the Reds down.

Good natured sarcasm, I assume.

There's no doubt that the Reds pitching also needs improvement, I don't think anyone has said the opposite.

The Brewers, like the Reds, are a relatively low BA team that depends heavily on power to score runs. They also get more hits than the Reds (currently by 34), more doubles (currently 29), and more homers (currently 17). So, even without the BA, they are a better offensive team.

However, I think Brewers fans would tell you that the team would be much better if they could increase the relatively low team BA of .254 and could get more hits.

The Cubs, who are leading the Brewers, have scored 62 more runs than the Brewers despite inferior power numbers. For example, the Brew Crew has 16 more homers than the Cubbies.

But the Cubs draw more walks. And the Cubs get more hits. A lot more hits. They have 104 more hits than the Brewers, 911-807.

So Brewers fan would say that the Brewers need more hits. As do the Reds.

SteelSD
07-12-2008, 05:26 PM
So Brewers fan would say that the Brewers need more hits. As do the Reds.

And yet, St. Louis- the team right below Milwaukee on the Run Scoring front- gets more hits. And, alas, they haven't scored more Runs.

That kind of stuff happens a lot. And we can figure out why if we're not looking at things quite so one-dimensionally as just "Need more hits".

Sea Ray
07-12-2008, 05:47 PM
The Reds problem is a general one of not getting on base enough and not slugging enough. Hitting for a higher average could very well be a way to drive both of those things up and that would lead to scoring more runs -- but simply hitting for a higher average should not be the goal in and of itself.

We're currently hitting .248/.325/.401. Hitting .268/.325/.401 would not significantly alter our run scoring. Hitting .248/.335/.411 would. Of course, hitting .268/.348/.441 would be even better....


It seems to me additional hits are the only way to increase OBP and SLG. I don't see any other way to increase both. It seems to me that you are in agreement with KC's point. Where are you disagreeing with him?

Raisor
07-12-2008, 05:51 PM
It seems to me additional hits are the only way to increase OBP and SLG. I don't see any other way to increase both. It seems to me that you are in agreement with KC's point. Where are you disagreeing with him?

Or you could walk more while keeping the hits consistent.

Sea Ray
07-12-2008, 06:00 PM
The Reds are 12th in the NL in runs scored. Team is 8th in OBP, 11th in slugging.

The OBP numbers are helped by walks. Reds are fifth in walks.

The runs, OBP and slugging numbers are hindered by a lack of base hits. Reds are 14th in the league in base hits.

It's not a lack of HR power. Reds are fifth in the league in homers. This could be better given GABP, but still fifth is not bad.

Reds are 12th in extra base hits overall. 12th in doubles. 12th in triples. And, again, 14th in base hits.

Reds have only two players in the league's top fifty in base hits. Phillips is 8th with 101. Votto is tied for 49th with 81. With 16 teams in the league, an average team should have 3 guys in the top 48. Reds have only one.

Griffey is tied for 72nd; EE for 77th; Dunn for 90th; Hairston for 98th.

Presumably Kepp would be up there if he hadn't missed so much time. Dunn compensates with power. Hairston has played only a partial season.

Feel free to discuss.


Let the record show that KC did mention OBP, SLG, BB and HRs as significant stats. There are those that seem to imply that he's negating such stats. He's merely stating that of the many offensive stats, BA is what's lagging behind. They're 12th in runs scored yet their OBP is 8th. Their HRs and BBs are 5th. So the point is that they lack hits (extra base hits would be even better).

Sea Ray
07-12-2008, 06:01 PM
Or you could walk more while keeping the hits consistent.

But they're already 5th in the league in walks. They're already drawing a lot of walks. They're not deficient in that area.

CrackerJack
07-12-2008, 06:03 PM
Or you could walk more while keeping the hits consistent.

Or increase your walks AND your hits. :)

RedsManRick
07-12-2008, 06:04 PM
It seems to me additional hits are the only way to increase OBP and SLG. I don't see any other way to increase both. It seems to me that you are in agreement with KC's point. Where are you disagreeing with him?

We're in agreement that more hits could lead to more runs. I certainly wouldn't begrudge a higher batting average. Where we're not in agreement is that more hits will necessarily lead to more runs. If you don't increase your OBP and SLG, you aren't going to score more, even if you up your AVG by 30 points.

AVG just isn't a good measure of how productive your offense is. You can hit for a low average and score lots of runs and you can hit for a high average and not score lots of runs. If you want to know generally where an offense is struggling, look at the OBP and the SLG.

The Reds are slightly below average at both getting on base and acquiring bases and that's why they're below average at scoring runs. If they can hit for a higher average without hurting their IsoD or IsoP, then I'm all for it. But if hitting for average means fewer walks and less extra base hits, then it's simply running place.

WVRedsFan
07-12-2008, 06:14 PM
It used to be so simple. You get a hit (single), a walk, and then a single and a run scores. You get a walk, a single, and another walk and no one scores. The bases are loaded, but unless you get another walk or a hit, no one scores.

I've bought into all that walk is good as a hit stuff and it's true, but there must be hits.

Sea Ray
07-12-2008, 06:16 PM
The Reds are slightly below average at both getting on base and acquiring bases and that's why they're below average at scoring runs. If they can hit for a higher average without hurting their IsoD or IsoP, then I'm all for it. But if hitting for average means fewer walks and less extra base hits, then it's simply running place.


The way I see it, that's the point. The team needs to maintain what they're doing in drawing walks and hitting HRs but they need more hits than what they're getting now. Let's keep the BBs and HRs at 5th in the league but raise the BA to say 8th. That's got to help.

I don't think anybody is saying that a higher BA is a good trade off for fewer walks and less extra base hits. Did you get that impression from anyone on this thread? I didn't.

Sea Ray
07-12-2008, 06:20 PM
I've bought into all that walk is good as a hit stuff and it's true, but there must be hits.

Actually this thread isn't about what stat is better than another. It's about in what stat the Reds are most lacking.

I disagree with you that a walk is as good as a hit but that has already been discussed ad nauseum on RZ.

WVRedsFan
07-12-2008, 06:31 PM
Actually this thread isn't about what stat is better than another. It's about in what stat the Reds are most lacking.

I disagree with you that a walk is as good as a hit but that has already been discussed ad nauseum on RZ.

I was being sarcastic, SR. Forgot the little emoticon. The day walks replace hits, I will give up on baseball. Walks are good in certain situations, but they cannot replace hits. Do not throw tomatoes.

Sea Ray
07-12-2008, 06:32 PM
I was being sarcastic, SR. Forgot the little emoticon. The day walks replace hits, I will give up on baseball. Walks are good in certain situations, but they cannot replace hits. Do not throw tomatoes.

:thumbup:

Raisor
07-12-2008, 06:39 PM
I don't care how a team scores runs, they just need to score them.

All I know, over the course of history, the teams that score the most are the teams that a)get on base the most b)hit for the most power score the most runs.

I don't really care how they achieve those higher OBP/SLG.

RedsManRick
07-12-2008, 07:06 PM
The way I see it, that's the point. The team needs to maintain what they're doing in drawing walks and hitting HRs but they need more hits than what they're getting now. Let's keep the BBs and HRs at 5th in the league but raise the BA to say 8th. That's got to help.

I don't think anybody is saying that a higher BA is a good trade off for fewer walks and less extra base hits. Did you get that impression from anyone on this thread? I didn't.

Perhaps not you in particular or in this thread explicitly. But such a suggestion has been made many a time, particularly in the context of Adam Dunn discussions. If as a team we can trade outs for hits, that would be wonderful.

However, that's going to come not from a change in approach from existing players but by acquiring players to replace some of the less productive ones we have, regardless of what their batting averages are. It's going to come from the development of Bruce, EE, and Votto. It's going to come from a decent catcher. It's going to come from replacing Junior and finding a better 4th OF than Corey Patterson. And it's going to come from better utilization of the players we have.

And when I look to replace those players on whom we need to improve, I'm looking at OBP and SLG, not batting average.

fearofpopvol1
07-12-2008, 07:17 PM
We're in agreement that more hits could lead to more runs. I certainly wouldn't begrudge a higher batting average. Where we're not in agreement is that more hits will necessarily lead to more runs. If you don't increase your OBP and SLG, you aren't going to score more, even if you up your AVG by 30 points.

AVG just isn't a good measure of how productive your offense is. You can hit for a low average and score lots of runs and you can hit for a high average and not score lots of runs. If you want to know generally where an offense is struggling, look at the OBP and the SLG.

The Reds are slightly below average at both getting on base and acquiring bases and that's why they're below average at scoring runs. If they can hit for a higher average without hurting their IsoD or IsoP, then I'm all for it. But if hitting for average means fewer walks and less extra base hits, then it's simply running place.

Rick, but who is to say that the team batting for a higher average (and I'm not talking Dunn specifically) wouldn't lead to more runs? It's kind of one of those things that's hard to prove in favor of either argument. If you have a team full of "all" or "nothing" kind of players, it's going to be harder to win a lot of games. You need some table setters/contact hitters in there to balance things out. I completely agree with what you said about OBP, but I think SLG sometimes is overrated.

Raisor
07-12-2008, 07:23 PM
Rick, but who is to say that the team batting for a higher average (and I'm not talking Dunn specifically) wouldn't lead to more runs?

Because we can look at real world examples that show that if a team's OBP/SLG are close then the RS are close, independent of BA.

Sea Ray
07-12-2008, 07:34 PM
Perhaps not you in particular or in this thread explicitly. But such a suggestion has been made many a time, particularly in the context of Adam Dunn discussions. If as a team we can trade outs for hits, that would be wonderful.

However, that's going to come not from a change in approach from existing players but by acquiring players to replace some of the less productive ones we have, regardless of what their batting averages are. It's going to come from the development of Bruce, EE, and Votto. It's going to come from a decent catcher. It's going to come from replacing Junior and finding a better 4th OF than Corey Patterson. And it's going to come from better utilization of the players we have.

And when I look to replace those players on whom we need to improve, I'm looking at OBP and SLG, not batting average.


I'd add Adam Dunn to the list. His OBP is exactly what his career avg is yet his BA is .022 pts lower. His baseball card tells us he can hit for a higher avg and not lose his OBP.

*BaseClogger*
07-12-2008, 07:39 PM
More hits? Sounds good to me. I'm suprised this thread has created so much discussion. Kc says the Reds need more hits, I agree. More hits raises the OBP and SLG, which in turn will lead to more runs...

Raisor
07-12-2008, 07:42 PM
I'd add Adam Dunn to the list. His OBP is exactly what his career avg is yet his BA is .022 pts lower. His baseball card tells us he can hit for a higher avg and not lose his OBP.

but will that lead to more runs?

Check out Dunn's 05 and 07 seasons.

GAC
07-12-2008, 07:45 PM
I would just like to see Baker give the most ABs (plate appearances) to those guys who have shown they can get on base.

fearofpopvol1
07-12-2008, 07:50 PM
Because we can look at real world examples that show that if a team's OBP/SLG are close then the RS are close, independent of BA.

I'm well aware that this is typically the case, but I'm sure there are cases where the reverse is true.

RedsManRick
07-12-2008, 08:31 PM
I'd add Adam Dunn to the list. His OBP is exactly what his career avg is yet his BA is .022 pts lower. His baseball card tells us he can hit for a higher avg and not lose his OBP.

But the point is that the added BA didn't help him create any more runs. Who cares if it's higher? If the additional BA isn't reflected in a higher OBP and/or SLG, then you aren't producing more runs.

jojo
07-12-2008, 08:33 PM
Actually this thread isn't about what stat is better than another. It's about in what stat the Reds are most lacking.

I disagree with you that a walk is as good as a hit but that has already been discussed ad nauseum on RZ.

A walk isn't as good as a hit.

Here are are average run values for the events in question (based upon run expectancy across all base/out states derived from several years of data-i.e lwts):

walk: .323
single: .475
double: .776
triple: 1.07
HR: 1.397
OUT: -.299

Hits on average lead to more runs than walks do but a walk is certainly better than an out..... and walking a lot can compensate for a lower BA......

Really one of the reasons OBP (and SLG for that matter) correlates better to run scoring than BA does is because OBP contains more information than BA (think of it as BA+).

As a starting point, I think it really is that simple.

*BaseClogger*
07-13-2008, 12:32 AM
A walk isn't as good as a hit.

Here are are average run values for the events in question (based upon run expectancy across all base/out states derived from several years of data-i.e lwts):

walk: .323
single: .475
double: .776
triple: 1.07
HR: 1.397
OUT: -.299

Hits on average lead to more runs than walks do but a walk is certainly better than an out..... and walking a lot can compensate for a lower BA......

Really one of the reasons OBP (and SLG for that matter) correlates better to run scoring than BA does is because OBP contains more information than BA (think of it as BA+).

As a starting point, I think it really is that simple.

nice post (crawling before running :thumbup:)

Kc61
07-13-2008, 01:20 AM
Advocates of certain statistics like to run down the importance of BA and base hits. But, of course, stats like OBP are heavily dependent on BA. Again, these stats are not enemies. They are friends.

The four top teams in OBP in the NL are Chicago, StL, Atl, New York.
The four top teams in BA in the NL are Chicago, Stl, Atl, New York.
The four top teams in hit in the NL are Chicago, Stl, New Yor, Atl.

In recent days the Reds have improved their runs scored. They are now up to 10th in the league. This has not come due to an increase in hits. They are still 14th. It comes primarily from an increase in home runs. They are still fifth but just one behind the Cubs and after today the Reds could be fourth.

Fourth in homers but still tenth in runs. The Reds need more hits.

With Dunn's fantastic power hitting this year, you have to ask how much better this team would be if the team had two more solid .280 to .300 hitters replacing, say Griffey and the catcher. I'd think quite a lot.

mth123
07-13-2008, 02:19 AM
Advocates of certain statistics like to run down the importance of BA and base hits. But, of course, stats like OBP are heavily dependent on BA. Again, these stats are not enemies. They are friends.

The four top teams in OBP in the NL are Chicago, StL, Atl, New York.
The four top teams in BA in the NL are Chicago, Stl, Atl, New York.
The four top teams in hit in the NL are Chicago, Stl, New Yor, Atl.

In recent days the Reds have improved their runs scored. They are now up to 10th in the league. This has not come due to an increase in hits. They are still 14th. It comes primarily from an increase in home runs. They are still fifth but just one behind the Cubs and after today the Reds could be fourth.

Fourth in homers but still tenth in runs. The Reds need more hits.

With Dunn's fantastic power hitting this year, you have to ask how much better this team would be if the team had two more solid .280 to .300 hitters replacing, say Griffey and the catcher. I'd think quite a lot.


KC, you just hit the nail on the head. The Reds need more hits is a given IMO. Every team could use more hits. What you've really said here is that the team needs to replace its two worst players (Griffey and the wretched catcher group) with guys who get hits. So I think this is all semantics. I say the team needs to give less playing time and plate appearances to bad players, you say the team needs more hits. I'm guessing we're saying the same thing.

RedsManRick
07-13-2008, 02:20 AM
With Dunn's fantastic power hitting this year, you have to ask how much better this team would be if the team had two more solid .280 to .300 hitters replacing, say Griffey and the catcher. I'd think quite a lot.

That is, of course, assuming they took some walks and hit for some power too. An empty .300 average would not be an improvement.

GAC
07-13-2008, 09:46 AM
Advocates of certain statistics like to run down the importance of BA and base hits. But, of course, stats like OBP are heavily dependent on BA. Again, these stats are not enemies. They are friends.

The four top teams in OBP in the NL are Chicago, StL, Atl, New York.
The four top teams in BA in the NL are Chicago, Stl, Atl, New York.
The four top teams in hit in the NL are Chicago, Stl, New Yor, Atl.

In recent days the Reds have improved their runs scored. They are now up to 10th in the league. This has not come due to an increase in hits. They are still 14th. It comes primarily from an increase in home runs.

Aren't Hrs hits? ;)

But I agree with what you are saying.

Some over emphasize BA.... and some de-emphasiz (downplay) it too much IMO. There needs to be balance.

Pete Rose had a career OB% of .375 that was BA-driven.

GAC
07-13-2008, 09:47 AM
An empty .300 average would not be an improvement.

What is an empty .300 average?

Raisor
07-13-2008, 09:53 AM
What is an empty .300 average?

Neifi Perez

Sea Ray
07-13-2008, 12:17 PM
KC, you just hit the nail on the head. The Reds need more hits is a given IMO. Every team could use more hits. What you've really said here is that the team needs to replace its two worst players (Griffey and the wretched catcher group) with guys who get hits. So I think this is all semantics. I say the team needs to give less playing time and plate appearances to bad players, you say the team needs more hits. I'm guessing we're saying the same thing.

Actually RF has been much more woeful than the "wretched catcher group" and it's not even close. The catchers have a higher BA, SLG and OPS than the Reds' right fielders do. The catchers: .234/.374/.702. RF: .230/.370/.699

In fact the catchers aren't too far off the league avg but RF has been a huge glaring hole and Dusty continues to bat that hole 3rd in the order.

mth123
07-13-2008, 12:42 PM
Actually RF has been much more woeful than the "wretched catcher group" and it's not even close. The catchers have a higher BA, SLG and OPS than the Reds' right fielders do. The catchers: .234/.374/.702. RF: .230/.370/.699

In fact the catchers aren't too far off the league avg but RF has been a huge glaring hole and Dusty continues to bat that hole 3rd in the order.

I agree that RF is the most poorly manned position on the team. Been saying it for a while. As for the catchers, Bako started hot and Ross has been hot lately, making the numbers, so far, better than what I think we can expect for the rest of the year. The clock has already struck 12 on Bako and its ticking on Ross.

RedsManRick
07-13-2008, 01:44 PM
What is an empty .300 average?

A .300/.320/.350 line for example. It's a guy who hits .300 but doesn't walk and doesn't hit for power. He's significantly less productive than a guy who hits .240/.350/.450.

Granted, most guys capable of hitting for a .300 average also take some walks and hit for some power. My point is that batting average by itself doesn't tell you very much about a guy's level of production. You can hit for a high average and not be productive and you can hit for a low average and be very productive. And once you've decided to look at OBP and SLG to complete the picture, you find that batting average doesn't really add any value to the assessment.

Will M
07-14-2008, 10:02 PM
Any interest in Pat Burrell if Dunn leaves this offseason? He is sort of a RH version of Dunn. Would look nice batting 4th between Bruce and Votto.

I know Philadelphia was been harsh on him and I expect him to move on.
He'd like playing at GABP.

nate
07-14-2008, 10:14 PM
Any interest in Pat Burrell if Dunn leaves this offseason? He is sort of a RH version of Dunn. Would look nice batting 4th between Bruce and Votto.

I know Philadelphia was been harsh on him and I expect him to move on.
He'd like playing at GABP.

Not from me. I'd rather have Tex and let Votto play LF if Dunn goes.

Will M
07-14-2008, 10:17 PM
Not from me. I'd rather have Tex and let Votto play LF if Dunn goes.

so would I but is that realistic? Tex would be ideal - switch hitter, replaces Dunn's offense & a good glove. But isn't the rumor that he wants six years/$120M?

nate
07-14-2008, 10:25 PM
so would I but is that realistic? Tex would be ideal - switch hitter, replaces Dunn's offense & a good glove. But isn't the rumor that he wants six years/$120M?

To me, he's the only FA impact player, other than Dunn (ironic, eh?) who's worth the money AND under 30 years old.