PDA

View Full Version : interesting change since Griffey and Dunn have been gone



Fon Duc Tow
08-14-2008, 09:59 PM
I could see us not having as many 8-3 type victories but winning more 4-3 games.

This may be a good thing. I had not considered this aspect at all.

Thoughts?

757690
08-14-2008, 10:21 PM
That is Jocketty's MO. He loves pitching and defense. His teams are usually very similar. Strong defensively up the middle, and with power on the corners.
He also likes projects for his middle relievers, and back of the rotation starters. But then again, he had Duncan for all those years. And he likes ballplayers better than five tool players.

I could see the Reds next year be a lot like the Cards this year. Very strong up defensively, and playing a lot of small ball offensively. I personally think that can be more fun to watch than waiting for the three run homer.

Nasty_Boy
08-14-2008, 10:34 PM
That will only happen if the pitching is good. Which if you recall has been the problem since 2001. You need all 3 parts of the game to be successful, pitching defense and offense. The timely hit junk is BS... In GABP you have to be able to out slug some people.

Ghosts of 1990
08-15-2008, 01:22 AM
Our lineup seems like a ghost town now though.

BRM13
08-15-2008, 03:22 AM
That is Jocketty's MO. He loves pitching and defense. His teams are usually very similar. Strong defensively up the middle, and with power on the corners.
He also likes projects for his middle relievers, and back of the rotation starters. But then again, he had Duncan for all those years. And he likes ballplayers better than five tool players.



I've been wondering about this. Jocketty doesn't appear to be a big Adam Dunn fan. In part, it is implied by many (not to pick on 757690, his post simply reminded me of this) because Dunn is not a complete ballplayer. But, didn't Jocketty trade for Mark McGwire? I'd say Dunn resmebles Big Mac in lots of ways. Dunn might not be quite as prolific as McGwire, but their styles are certainly similar (three true outcome guys). Of course, McGwire was parked at first base, not stumbling around in LF, so that might have made him more palatable.

keeganbrick
08-15-2008, 05:24 AM
I dont think this team is capable of playing small ball. Keppinger looks real bad anymore, BP and Bruce are free swingers, EE is a dead pull hitter meaning half his outs are pop ups, and not to mention hardly anyone knows how to run the bases properly...so many blunders. Sucks to say it but after trading Dunn and the slim hitting free agent market this team might not be a threat until Alosono (sign reasonable plz) comes up.

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 08:14 AM
You're going to lose more games if you score less runs and don't give up less runs.

I think that much is obvious.

Griffey012
08-15-2008, 08:37 AM
You're going to lose more games if you score less runs and don't give up less runs.

I think that much is obvious.

Good defense helps you to give up less runs, I think that was the brunt of this thread, we are going to win by playing good defense combined with pitching.

Focusonit
08-15-2008, 08:43 AM
I like where this team is headed. I just want to see solid defensive players who are not free swingers.

improbus
08-15-2008, 08:55 AM
Good defense helps you to give up less runs, I think that was the brunt of this thread, we are going to win by playing good defense combined with pitching.

What good defense does is it gives your pitchers confidence. If you know that any ball hit to the left side of the field is an automatic hit, you constantly go for the strikeout. Good defense benefits pitching.

improbus
08-15-2008, 09:06 AM
Dickerson looked great last night. Two doubles and a Triple. I know it is the Pirates, but I'm happy to see the guy performing. Hopefully he can keep it up.

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 09:27 AM
Good defense helps you to give up less runs, I think that was the brunt of this thread, we are going to win by playing good defense combined with pitching.

Not disputing the fact that good D gives up less runs, but you still need offense. Settling for 3.5 runs a game isn't going to get you to the playoffs.

levydl
08-15-2008, 09:56 AM
That is Jocketty's MO. He loves pitching and defense. His teams are usually very similar. Strong defensively up the middle, and with power on the corners.
He also likes projects for his middle relievers, and back of the rotation starters. But then again, he had Duncan for all those years. And he likes ballplayers better than five tool players.

I could see the Reds next year be a lot like the Cards this year. Very strong up defensively, and playing a lot of small ball offensively. I personally think that can be more fun to watch than waiting for the three run homer.

So who plays the Albert Pujols role? Think about the Cards without him . . .

redhawk61
08-15-2008, 10:01 AM
So who plays the Albert Pujols role? Think about the Cards without him . . .
Yonder Alonso...:thumbup:

Fon Duc Tow
08-15-2008, 10:02 AM
Good defense helps you to give up less runs, I think that was the brunt of this thread, we are going to win by playing good defense combined with pitching.

Agreed. I don't pretend to think the Reds are suddenly "smallball." But they have traded a lot of power for better defense. This is the first part of the equation.

But Dickerson's triple the other night is a good example of the second part of the equation. If that were Griffey it would have been a "long base hit" because he would have stopped to stare at the ball after he hit it and wouldn't really start running until after he rounded first base. But Dickerson, fast and running hard right out of the box, turned it into a triple. The "hustle" factor improves with Dunn and Griffey gone as well.

I guess what I am trying to say is I could see us putting up much worse numbers offensively, but winning more games because of improved defense and good old fashioned contagious hustle.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-15-2008, 10:07 AM
even though bruce and phillips are "free swingers" in your mind.. they both.. ESP phillips can come through on a hit and run far better than dunn or griffey.. and if we are going the small ball route.. thats what you need.. heck if you want to win, you need that kind of play..

Nasty_Boy
08-15-2008, 10:20 AM
even though bruce and phillips are "free swingers" in your mind.. they both.. ESP phillips can come through on a hit and run far better than dunn or griffey.. and if we are going the small ball route.. thats what you need.. heck if you want to win, you need that kind of play..


Come through on a hit? Huh?

If you're going to play small ball you need guys on base... which against RHP, BP can't do.

And you are not going to play small ball and win in GABP... It's not gonna happen, but good luck trying.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-15-2008, 10:40 AM
GABP is the perfect place for small ball.. because it you have a lineup with 2 or 3 20 homer/30 stolen base guys.. in GABP they immediately become 25 homer guys.. BP is far better hitting for contact than adam dunn against ANYONE..

Ahhhorsepoo
08-15-2008, 10:44 AM
I didnt mean during a hit and run bphill would get a hit.. rather hit the ball...

In 1484 Ab's
Bphill strikes out at a clip of 19% against RHP..

Dunn in 1221..
strikes out at a clip of 35% against lefties
and in 2518 AB's he strieks out 31% of the time against righties..

Nasty_Boy
08-15-2008, 10:51 AM
This year against RHP, BP makes an out .706% of the time.

AD makes an out .623% of the time.

That's much more meaningful than K's.

And you go out and get those 30-30 guys that are on every corner. And no, GABP is not the place for small ball because the opposing team is going to get theirs more often than not. You cannot win over the course of a season by only scoring 3 runs a game.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-15-2008, 10:53 AM
I was saying to do small ball you need guys who can get contact for a hit and run.. you are arguing something completely different..............

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 10:59 AM
You cannot win over the course of a season by only scoring 3 runs a game.
You can if you only give up 2.

Nasty_Boy
08-15-2008, 11:02 AM
You can if you only give up 2.

Name the last team with a team ERA of 2?

It's not gonna happen in GABP.

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 11:03 AM
It's interesting to note that league-wide ERA has dropped about .25 this season, and my guess is a lot of that has to do with the end of the steroid era.

Could we see a return of small-ball league wide? Probably at least to some degree.

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 11:04 AM
Name the last team with a team ERA of 2?

It's not gonna happen in GABP.

Name the last team to only score 3 runs a game.

It's not going to happen at GABP.

Nasty_Boy
08-15-2008, 11:06 AM
The 2009 Cincinnati Reds.

Nasty_Boy
08-15-2008, 11:09 AM
The Redlegs have averaged 4.23 runs at home, and 4.32 runs away from GABP.

Not gonna win many games doing that.

Red in Atl
08-15-2008, 11:09 AM
A couple things also to consider.

1. Without Griffey and Dunn other guys will have to step up and show what they can do. Can't rely on the big boppers to hit home runs. This could also help improve the "fundamentals", as they will play a bigger role in creating runs.

2. Low scoring games force everyone to bear down throughout the game. And create more team unity as it takes everyone; sharp pitching, good defence and good fundamentals to win the game.

3. Winning close games develops confidence. Not only in your pitching staff, but also in those guys who do "the small things" to win.

4. Edwin has to step up now, immediately or be replaced. Trade him, let Kepp play third, something. I just can't watch the guy anymore. He's had what 4 years to step up and be the man at third. At this point, 'ol Boonie looks like a perennial All Star in comparison. No more excuses for me. Wipe that wussy ass look off your face, bear down and get mean. This is a mans game and watching Edwin go up with that droopy dog face and swing at the first pitch with men on base just makes me crazy.

I will always love Griffey, and I was rather shocked to see Dunn go. But this team has needed to go this route for a long time. The brass in Cincy has thought for years they can have the big guns and then fill in the gaps with cheap labor, rejects and injury prone projects. I really like seeing some new/young blood that actually has the chance to develop and excel at the major league level.

Three weeks ago, the Reds lose that game last night. As soon as Cueto come out, the next guy lets the Pirates tie the game. I'm not saying they will have a miraculous turn this year. But they may just be able to learn a lot about each other over the next 7 weeks that could really carry over into spring training.

If we can take the money saved on Free agents that don't deserve contracts and funnel that into some good veteran leadership, role players and maybe one or two big signings, I think we have a real shot at competing next year and for sure in 2010.

Just seems amazing that it took this long to do it.

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 11:10 AM
The 2009 Cincinnati Reds.

Right. That's only if Adam Dunn's replacement finishes the season with -105 RBI.

Nasty_Boy
08-15-2008, 11:14 AM
This team has been dreadful at scoring runs. It's not going to get better, unless serious moves are made in the offseason.

Remember, if the Reds are going to score 4 runs a game then they can only allow 3. Do you see a pitching staff that will allow 3 runs or less a game? I don't... I also see an offense that could easily score less next year... That, I find a little troubling.

redhawk61
08-15-2008, 11:15 AM
Right. That's only if Adam Dunn's replacement finishes the season with -105 RBI.
eh, maybe only about 75 RBI's since his replacement will probably save 25 runs with defense, if it is a defense oriented LF

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 11:15 AM
The Redlegs have averaged 4.23 runs at home, and 4.32 runs away from GABP.

Not gonna win many games doing that.

You're not going to win the world series, but right now there are 7 teams that give up fewer runs than the Reds score.

Meaning if we were one of those teams, we'd have a winning record. The bullpen is already top-7. Can the starters be that?

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 11:16 AM
nm

Griffey012
08-15-2008, 11:18 AM
Not disputing the fact that good D gives up less runs, but you still need offense. Settling for 3.5 runs a game isn't going to get you to the playoffs.

Unless your Arizona, of LAD :D. But in all reality, with a few minor to decent acquisitions our overall lineup will score as many, if not more than the lineup we had with Grif and Dunner. That is because we have had over 1000 wasted ab's by people like Bako, CPatt, etc. If we dump those with a .270 hitter with a little pop and good D. We should be able to score more runs because we won't have multiple automatic outs.

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 11:19 AM
I didnt mean during a hit and run bphill would get a hit.. rather hit the ball...

In 1484 Ab's
Bphill strikes out at a clip of 19% against RHP..

Dunn in 1221..
strikes out at a clip of 35% against lefties
and in 2518 AB's he strieks out 31% of the time against righties..

Nevermind the fact Phillips overall out % is a lot higher than Dunn's, in fact, don't even consider it.

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 11:22 AM
Nevermind the fact Phillips overall out % is a lot higher than Dunn's, in fact, don't even consider it.

I don't think he's saying Phillips would be more productive than Dunn.

What he's saying is that the difference between the two is lessened if you play a lot of small-ball. Being able to make contact and steal bases has a lot more value when you're manufacturing runs than it does when you're sitting around waiting for somebody to hit a bomb.

texasdave
08-15-2008, 11:23 AM
So who plays the Albert Pujols role? Think about the Cards without him . . .

The simple answer would be to say that Barry Bonds is retired.

If Adam Dunn was presently wearing a red cap with a white wishbone C the Reds still would not have anyone to play the Albert Pujols role. Dunn is not only not in the same class as Pujols, he probably isn't even in the same school district. Pujols has a career OPS which is roughly 140 points higher than Dunn's OPS. If this was an SAT question then it would read something like this: Pujols is to Dunn as Dunn is to _________? And the correct answer would be something along the lines of Joey Votto. So if you were hinting that with AD being traded the Reds have no one to fill his shoes you can relax. Because, comparatively speaking, Adam's cleats will be comfortably filled by Joey Votto.

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 11:23 AM
Unless your Arizona, of LAD :D. But in all reality, with a few minor to decent acquisitions our overall lineup will score as many, if not more than the lineup we had with Grif and Dunner. That is because we have had over 1000 wasted ab's by people like Bako, CPatt, etc. If we dump those with a .270 hitter with a little pop and good D. We should be able to score more runs because we won't have multiple automatic outs.

Arizona and LAD are lucky that their division is awful. They're both only 3 games over .500. The two need to fight for the division because even the wildcard leaders are better.

If the season ended today, the Dbacks and Dodgers would be worse than 3 other teams that wouldn't even make the playoffs, and only as good as one other. The NL west sucks.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-15-2008, 11:26 AM
thank you kpres.. it must have been coming off differently to those who were arguing with me..

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 11:27 AM
I don't think he's saying Phillips would be more productive than Dunn.

What he's saying is that the difference between the two is lessened if you play a lot of small-ball. Being able to make contact and steal bases has a lot more value when you're manufacturing runs than it does when you're sitting around waiting for somebody to hit a bomb.

I don't know what he's saying half the time.

And I hate the whole concept of small ball. Outs are precious, don't give them up.

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 11:31 AM
This team has been dreadful at scoring runs. It's not going to get better, unless serious moves are made in the offseason.

Remember, if the Reds are going to score 4 runs a game then they can only allow 3. Do you see a pitching staff that will allow 3 runs or less a game? I don't... I also see an offense that could easily score less next year... That, I find a little troubling.

The assumption is that Dunn's $$ will be used on a replacement with relatively similar production. Given that I expect better years from Bruce and Votto, I don't see why we'd score fewer runs than last season.

Now, like I said earlier, can the pitching be top-7? The bullpen is there. What if Harang and Arroyo rebound, and Cueto gets better? Add a decent 5th starter (can Owings return to form?) then, yeah, I'd say we're at least close.

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 11:37 AM
I don't know what he's saying half the time.

And I hate the whole concept of small ball. Outs are precious, don't give them up.

The advantage to "small-ball" is that it's consistent. Meaning a guy who can steal a base can always steal a base. A guy who puts the ball in play will consistently put it in play. If you can hit a sac-fly, you will always hit that sac-fly (unless you strike out...).

Homeruns come in bunches. A grand-slam in the 7th-inning when you're already up by 3 doesn't help you win games.

Really, I don't have a strong opinion, although I lean to pitching and defense over offense for the reasons I stated. In the end, it just comes down to "can you score more than you give up."

UPRedsFan
08-15-2008, 11:38 AM
Well said. Bottom line is results. We weren't getting wins with the team built around Griffey and Dunn. Anyone who's badmouthing the front office for Trading Dunn's OPS away is missing the big picture. I understand it will be hard to replace his offensive production. But we weren't winning with the team and the payroll built around him.

I'm glad we're going in a different direction and looking for defense and pitching. Hopefully the offense will be adequate with a bounce for Jay Bruce and Joey Votto after getting a year under their belt. Hopefully, Walt can find a left fielder who can run them down in the outfield and OPS around .800. Could be Jerry Hairston if we find a right handed hitting centerfielder, could be Encarnacion if we move AGon to 3b and Phillips to ss, could be Votto if Walt finds a first baseman. There are options and it will be an interesting off season. Personally I think a platoon of Dickerson and Hairston in center and leading off would be fun to watch next year with Burrell signed to play left field.

Hairston/Dickerson
Votto
Bruce
Burrell
Phillips
Encarnacion
AGon
Hannigan/Castillo

I could live with that!

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 11:43 AM
The advantage to "small-ball" is that it's consistent. Meaning a guy who can steal a base can always steal a base. A guy who puts the ball in play will consistently put it in play. If you can hit a sac-fly, you will always hit that sac-fly (unless you strike out...).

Homeruns come in bunches. A grand-slam in the 7th-inning when you're already up by 3 doesn't help you win games.

Really, I don't have a strong opinion, although I lean to pitching and defense over offense for the reasons I stated. In the end, it just comes down to "can you score more than you give up."

Small ball may be consistent (that may be contentious too), but in the last 10 years teams have realized just how poor it equates to making the playoffs. It's not a long haul option. This is one of the main themes of Moneyball in that sacrificing outs for runs isn't good strategy.

Small ball is strictly for late inning close games when one run is could mean the difference of the game. In early innings, you should be swinging away.

Nasty_Boy
08-15-2008, 11:51 AM
Until Jay Bruce learns to command the strikezone he will not be the dangerous force that he can be. You can get him out without throwing him strikes.

Bruce and Votto SHOULD get better... but they are unproven, and they have adjustments to make. I hope they make them and I hope they become studs, but to count on them to replace Dunn's production next year is a stretch. Especially if there isn't a good leadoff hitter, and Dusty continues to hit Joey in the bottom third of the order.

UPRedsFan
08-15-2008, 11:52 AM
Let's not call the Reds a small ball team just because they traded Griffey and Dunn away. I don't see them trying to be the Willie McGee, Tommy Herr, Vince Coleman Cardinals from the 80's or whenever that was.

They are moving away from a big lumbering poor defensive team to one that will win with pitching and defense. They still have 4 players who are capable of hitting 25 home runs or better. Bruce, Encarnacion and Phillips are all on that pace this year and Votto is certainly capable.

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 11:56 AM
Small ball may be consistent (that may be contentious too), but in the last 10 years teams have realized just how poor it equates to making the playoffs. It's not a long haul option. This is one of the main themes of Moneyball in that sacrificing outs for runs isn't good strategy.

Small ball is strictly for late inning close games when one run is could mean the difference of the game. In early innings, you should be swinging away.

I understand that. You can't build your team on small-ball. But let's not act like the Reds have zero hitters now that Dunn's gone.

The Angels haven't built their team on small-ball, but they do it a lot because in general their hitting is mediocre at best. They also have great pitching and play great defense. It's no surprise then that they're leading the division while the power-packed Rangers are 15 games behind.

Nasty_Boy
08-15-2008, 11:59 AM
Vlad, Tex, and Garrett say hi! :)

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 12:00 PM
Bruce and Votto SHOULD get better... but they are unproven, and they have adjustments to make. I hope they make them and I hope they become studs, but to count on them to replace Dunn's production next year is a stretch. Especially if there isn't a good leadoff hitter, and Dusty continues to hit Joey in the bottom third of the order.

I'm not counting on their improvement to replace Dunn's production. I'm counting on their improvement plus whoever we add to play LF to replace Dunn's production.

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 12:06 PM
I understand that. You can't build your team on small-ball. But let's not act like the Reds have zero hitters now that Dunn's gone.

The Angels haven't built their team on small-ball, but they do it a lot because in general their hitting is mediocre at best. They also have great pitching and play great defense. It's no surprise then that they're leading the division while the power-packed Rangers are 15 games behind.

The Angels are also 15th in runs scored.

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 12:07 PM
Vlad, Tex, and Garrett say hi! :)

Names make no difference. The Angels are 15th in runs scored. The Rangers are 1st by a wide margin. Yet the Angels have run away with the division because they pitch and play defense.

Let me do an admittedly simple break-down....


.................Runs Scored...Runs Allowed.....Overall Avg.Rank
Angels...........15th................6th.......... ........11th
Rangers.........1st.................30th.......... .......15th

So you have a difference of only 4 spots overall, yet the Angels are up by 15 games? How's that? It's because "small-ball" wins close games and home runs often just pad your stats.

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 12:08 PM
The Angels are also 15th in runs scored.

Exactly. You've proven my point. A mediocre offense has the best record in baseball, yet the best record among equally mediocre pitching staffs is 67-53 by the Twins, who BTW score quite a few more runs than the Angels (meaning they should have a better record).

Ahhhorsepoo
08-15-2008, 12:09 PM
dude.. i also showed then the percentage of runs scored via homeruns.. and alot of other scoring correlated to winning stats.. and if it doesn't say 500 foot homeruns is the only way to win.. they ignore it..

Nasty_Boy
08-15-2008, 12:10 PM
The Angels are 15th, so what do they do? They go get Tex, because they haven't been able to score in the playoffs. They were lacking bats.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-15-2008, 12:12 PM
we were pretty close to the angels in runs scored at one point.. unfortunately we have been on a miami dolphinesque skid of not being able to score..

UPRedsFan
08-15-2008, 12:12 PM
I'm not counting on their improvement to replace Dunn's production. I'm counting on their improvement plus whoever we add to play LF to replace Dunn's production.

I agree. And I expect the improved defense and improved pitching (namely with Owings providing a solid option for the 5 slot) should make a big difference.

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 12:13 PM
Exactly. You've proven my point. A mediocre offense has the best record in baseball.

For one thing their run differential isn't the best in baseball (they've gotten lucky). They also have great pitching, they're 6th in runs allowed. Essentially, their offense is ok, their pitching makes up for it, and they've benefitted from luck.

Nasty_Boy
08-15-2008, 12:14 PM
What makes you think the Reds will go get someone? Who?

Ahhhorsepoo
08-15-2008, 12:14 PM
The Angels are 15th, so what do they do? They go get Tex, because they haven't been able to score in the playoffs. They were lacking bats.

it wasnt because kotchman compared to tex wasn't a no brainer? thats news to me..

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 12:20 PM
For one thing their run differential isn't the best in baseball (they've gotten lucky).

See, that's where I think you're wrong. The reason why they win with the lower run differential isn't luck, it's because they can manufacture at opportune times, which means they win the close ones.

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 12:22 PM
What makes you think the Reds will go get someone? Who?

I don't know and it doesn't matter. It could be a pitcher for all I care. The point is that there is now $16-18 million to spend improving the team that wouldn't be there if they'd have kept Dunn. Whoever they spend that money on has to be accounted for when looking at next season. One assumes they'll spend the money wisely, of course.

Nasty_Boy
08-15-2008, 12:25 PM
it wasnt because kotchman compared to tex wasn't a no brainer? thats news to me..

They've been talking about adding a bat to help Vlad for the last few seasons. They needed a bat. The haven't won in the playoffs since 2002 because they haven't been able to hit.

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 12:26 PM
One assumes they'll spend the money wisely, of course.

That's a dangerous assumption :)

Ahhhorsepoo
08-15-2008, 12:28 PM
They've been talking about adding a bat to help Vlad for the last few seasons. They needed a bat. The haven't won in the playoffs since 2002 because they haven't been able to hit.

and they wanted to wait for a guy like torii hunter who had speed and power, and was a great outfielder.. and then bring in a big hitter or 2.. notice they didnt just go after a player that was 1 dimensional only to fill a spot.. they waited until they could get one or two or three...

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 12:35 PM
and they wanted to wait for a guy like torii hunter who had speed and power, and was a great outfielder.. and then bring in a big hitter or 2.. notice they didnt just go after a player that was 1 dimensional only to fill a spot.. they waited until they could get one or two or three...

It's also important to note that they went after a guy like Tiexiera, who hits a lot of singles, plays great defense, and doesn't strike out a lot (in addition to providing the pop)...and didn't go after Adam Dunn, despite the fact that their three-year OPS's are virtually identical.

That's because Tiexeira is the better "small-ball" player of the two.

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 12:40 PM
They got Tex because he's great at getting on base and plays infield. They didn't go after Dunn because they have outfielders already.

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 12:48 PM
They got Tex because he's great at getting on base and plays infield. They didn't go after Dunn because they have outfielders already.

Not so. Kotchman was hitting a whole lot better than Gary Matthews. What they already had was a 1B. Plays a whole lot better defense, too. The reason they'd prefer Tex over Dunn has nothing to do with position, nothing to do with OPS, and everything to do with what "kind" of hitters they are.

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 12:53 PM
Not so. Kotchman was hitting a whole lot better than Gary Matthews. What they already had was a 1B. Plays a whole lot better defense, too.

Tex has 0 sac hits and 18 sac flys for his entire career, and you're telling me they got him for small ball purposes? He has a .390+ OBP and is slugging over .500.

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 12:56 PM
Tex has 0 sac hits and 18 sac flys for his entire career, and you're telling me they got him for small ball purposes? He has a .390+ OBP and is slugging over .500.

Small ball isn't just sac flies. Tex hits a lot more singles than Adam Dunn, who also has the standout OBPs and SLGs you just mentioned for Tex. Tex also doesn't strike out as much.

Hitting singles (i.e. batting average) and not K'ing are a big part of small ball.

levydl
08-15-2008, 12:57 PM
The simple answer would be to say that Barry Bonds is retired.

If Adam Dunn was presently wearing a red cap with a white wishbone C the Reds still would not have anyone to play the Albert Pujols role. Dunn is not only not in the same class as Pujols, he probably isn't even in the same school district. Pujols has a career OPS which is roughly 140 points higher than Dunn's OPS. If this was an SAT question then it would read something like this: Pujols is to Dunn as Dunn is to _________? And the correct answer would be something along the lines of Joey Votto. So if you were hinting that with AD being traded the Reds have no one to fill his shoes you can relax. Because, comparatively speaking, Adam's cleats will be comfortably filled by Joey Votto.

No, I don't think Dunn is Pujols. I was responding to the poster who said it looks like Walt's trying to make the Reds in the Cards' likeness. My point was, what are the Cards without the best offensive player in the league?

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 01:05 PM
Small ball isn't just sac flies. Tex hits a lot more singles than Adam Dunn, who also has the standout OBPs and SLGs you just mentioned for Tex. Tex also doesn't strike out as much.

Hitting singles (i.e. batting average) and not K'ing are a big part of small ball.

Tex is usually good for 100 Ks. And he has a lot of EBH.

I'm sorry, I'm not buying that Tex is a small ball player.

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 01:06 PM
Also, I don't think hitting singles is unique to small ball. Singles are part of not making outs which is also the big ball way of doing things.

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 01:10 PM
I'm sorry, I'm not buying that Tex is a small ball player.

That's because I'm not selling that Tex is a small ball player. I'm selling Tex is more of a small ball player than Adam Dunn, and that that's the big reason the Angels would have wanted Tex instead of Dunn.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-15-2008, 01:13 PM
they just dont understand it kpres.. give up... they dont understand that appeal in a small ball approach lineup..

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 01:14 PM
Also, I don't think hitting singles is unique to small ball. Singles are part of not making outs which is also the big ball way of doing things.

That's not the point. The point is that generating SLG through singles as opposed to HRs is preferable if you play a lot of small ball. The main object of small-ball is to put men in scoring position. In small ball, just getting on base isn't enough (although, getting on base obviously precedes getting into scoring position).

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 01:23 PM
That's because I'm not selling that Tex is a small ball player. I'm selling Tex is more of a small ball player than Adam Dunn, and that that's the big reason the Angels would have wanted Tex instead of Dunn.

Ok ok, I didn't read closely enough before, I apologize. Yes Dunn is less a small ball player than Tex.

But I also think that's like saying Satan is less evil than Cthulu, it doesn't mean much.

And I still contend that the overriding reason Dunn wasn't on their list was because they didn't feel a need for an outfielder (although Garret Anderson is a choad).

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 01:30 PM
That's not the point. The point is that generating SLG through singles as opposed to HRs is preferable if you play a lot of small ball. The main object of small-ball is to put men in scoring position. In small ball, just getting on base isn't enough (although, getting on base obviously precedes getting into scoring position).

Expecting to generate SLG through primarily singles is a bad bad idea. If you want slugging, you're going to have to get it through EBHs.

Extreme example: To get Tex's slugging through only singles, a guy would have to hit over .500!!! Say a guy hits .350 but it's only singles. That's only a .350 SLG! Even if you mix in some doubles and a couple homers here an there, you're probably only getting up to .425 SLG or so.

And again, getting men into scoring position isn't unique to small ball. I've equated the term "small-ball" with sacrifice plays, hit and run, low risk/low reward type plays. I don't like it because over time the averages of big ball plays produce better numbers.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-15-2008, 01:33 PM
Expecting to generate SLG through primarily singles is a bad bad idea. If you want slugging, you're going to have to get it through EBHs.

Extreme example: To get Tex's slugging through only singles, a guy would have to hit over .500!!! Say a guy hits .350 but it's only singles. That's only a .350 SLG! Even if you mix in some doubles and a couple homers here an there, you're probably only getting up to .425 SLG or so.

And again, getting men into scoring position isn't unique to small ball. I've equated the term "small-ball" with sacrifice plays, hit and run, low risk/low reward type plays. I don't like it because over time the averages of big ball plays produce better numbers.

numbers.. yes for the year.. but those "numbers" are also padded by games where you hit 7 homers.. where as small ball teams will consistently score enough to win, just depends on their pitchers, with alot less shutout or 1 runs offensive games as well as 10,11, or 12 run afternoons..

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 01:38 PM
numbers.. yes for the year.. but those "numbers" are also padded by games where you hit 7 homers.. where as small ball teams will consistently score enough to win, just depends on their pitchers, with alot less shutout or 1 runs offensive games as well as 10,11, or 12 run afternoons..

I'd say it's worked for a lot of teams lately.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-15-2008, 01:41 PM
they both work in ways.. but the teams who play long ball and small ball that WIN both play defense at least at an above average clip.. dunn gave us long ball with NO defense..

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 01:59 PM
Expecting to generate SLG through primarily singles is a bad bad idea. If you want slugging, you're going to have to get it through EBHs.

Extreme example: To get Tex's slugging through only singles, a guy would have to hit over .500!!! Say a guy hits .350 but it's only singles. That's only a .350 SLG! Even if you mix in some doubles and a couple homers here an there, you're probably only getting up to .425 SLG or so.

And again, getting men into scoring position isn't unique to small ball. I've equated the term "small-ball" with sacrifice plays, hit and run, low risk/low reward type plays. I don't like it because over time the averages of big ball plays produce better numbers.

I think you're stretching the analogy to absurdity. Tex has a three-year SLG of .550, with 290 of his hits being singles. Dunn has a three-year SLG of .527 with only 193 singles.

So TEX's SLG is much more influenced by singles than Dunn's.

I define the difference between "small-ball" and "long-ball" as this: In small-ball, the emphasis is on getting to second-base. In long-ball, the emphasis is on getting to first base (and HRs). Let the grey areas in-between be what they will.

You can see where singles would be important in both scenarios. But in small-ball, single drives in a run, which makes it much more valuable.

All the Sac bunts and SFs I just call situational hitting, obviously more emphasized in small ball, but not the core of the approach.

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 02:11 PM
I think you're stretching the analogy to absurdity. Tex has a three-year SLG of .550, with 290 of his hits being singles. Dunn has a three-year SLG of .527 with only 193 singles.

So TEX's SLG is much more influenced by singles than Dunn's.

I define the difference between "small-ball" and "long-ball" is this: In small-ball, the emphasis is on getting to second-base. In long-ball, the emphasis is on getting to first base (and HRs). Let the grey areas in-between be what they will.

I've never seen any strategy that involves just getting to first base. I certainly wouldn't advocate it.

I think by now it's no secret I'm a Moneball follower. The idea is to get on base and keep getting base and let the hits and EBH to get you big innings. If you're not making outs, you're doing it right. That's why I felt Dunn was good, he got on base a lot. He didn't make outs which is the most important thing for a hitter to do. Outs are precious, don't give them up on advancing a runner one base, which is what I equate small ball to.

Believe it or not getting a guy to first and sacrificing over actually lowers the run expectancy. The run expectency for a guy on first and no outs is higher than a guy on second and one out. The conclusion? Don't make outs.

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 02:12 PM
For the record, I'd rather have Tex than Dunn anyway.

Griffey012
08-15-2008, 02:12 PM
small ball or big ball...the biggest issue is getting a team of 9 guys on the field with fundamentals. Maybe next year when we get a runner on third with no or 1 out in the first inning he will score 80% of the time instead of probably the 10% with our current team. Preferably we would be able to play small ball when necessary and do it successfully.

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 02:25 PM
I've never seen any strategy that involves just getting to first base. I certainly wouldn't advocate it.

Well, I think we're working with slightly different ideas, then. Which is fine. I'm also a moneyball fan, but more in the sense of emphasizing production among prospects as opposed to "tools," which is what I really think generated the A's success. The whole "tools" thing had gotten so far out of hand by that point.

I'll also note that Billy Beane found a lot of his success smack dab in the middle of the steroid era, which is now over. HRs are down this year, as is scoring in general. I think in some way, teams are going to have to change their approach to account for that.

The small-ball of the 80s and the HRs of the steroid era are the extremes, and I'm not advocating trying to re-create the '85 Cardinals. But I wouldn't mind seeing more resources go to pitching and defense in the future than big bats.

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 02:35 PM
Well, I think we're working with slightly different ideas, then. Which is fine. I'm also a moneyball fan, but more in the sense of emphasizing production among prospects as opposed to "tools," which is what I really think generated the A's success. The whole "tools" thing had gotten so far out of hand by that point.

Oh absolutely, the tools idea is broken. And you're exactly right about how he made it work.


I'll also note that Billy Beane found a lot of his success smack dab in the middle of the steroid era, which is now over. HRs are down this year, as is scoring in general. I think in some way, teams are going to have to change their approach to account for that.

Well even given the era, Beane still won by letting those steroid potential guys go, guys like Giambi and Tejada. Beane isn't so much a homers guy as he is an on-base guy. He'll continue to do well because of it too. Homer guys tend to command a high salary and Beane just can't afford to do that. So he does it the smart way by maximizing stats that produce runs that are also undervalue (back then it was OBP, now it's pitch counts and defense).


The small-ball of the 80s and the HRs of the steroid era are the extremes, and I'm not advocating trying to re-create the '85 Cardinals. But I wouldn't mind seeing more resources go to pitching and defense in the future than big bats.

That's fine, defense and pitching are good (pitching critical, in fact). But it's not solely a small ball idea to have them. I think all teams want that, regardless of their offensive strategy.

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 02:47 PM
That's fine, defense and pitching are good (pitching critical, in fact). But it's not solely a small ball idea to have them. I think all teams want that, regardless of their offensive strategy.

Of course, but there are limited resources. My point is if you spend on pitching and defense, you can use small ball to "create" runs with mediocre hitters. On the other hand, if you're pitching and defense is struggling, there really isnt' much you can do.

It's all about trying to seep out whatever competitive advantage you can.

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 02:52 PM
Oh absolutely, the tools idea is broken. And you're exactly right about how he made it work.

You know the thing about "tools" was that at some point in the 80s, scouts started doubting the existence of what you might call "natural talent." Everything was supposedly learned skills. So a philosophy developed that said "Just get us the best athletes, and we'll teach them how to play baseball." I hated the idea, just like anybody with any purist inklings should have. Unfortunately, it took baseball 15 years to realize how misguided that all was. They should have picked up on it after the Michael Jordan fiasco.

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 03:06 PM
Of course, but there are limited resources. My point is if you spend on pitching and defense, you can use small ball to "create" runs with mediocre hitters. On the other hand, if you're pitching and defense is struggling, there really isnt' much you can do.

It's all about trying to seep out whatever competitive advantage you can.

Well, how do you "create" the runs? If it's by sacrificing, then it's a bad idea. Even if you have mediocre players, you should be letting them maximize their ability to get on base by not allowing sacrifices unless it's late and it's really needed.

757690
08-15-2008, 03:12 PM
I think regardless of which side of money v. Homer ball you are on, it is clear that the Reds need to vastly improve their fundamentals and defense. And it looks like Jocketty is headed in that direction with the additions of Dickerson, Hanigan, and Castillo.
Even if it is rarely used, the Reds should be able to execute small ball fundamentals like bunting and base running when they do use it.
I have seen t-ball teams with better fundamenatals than the
Reds these last few years.

kpresidente
08-15-2008, 03:24 PM
Well, how do you "create" the runs? If it's by sacrificing, then it's a bad idea. Even if you have mediocre players, you should be letting them maximize their ability to get on base by not allowing sacrifices unless it's late and it's really needed.

But see here's my point. Run expectancy, like all sabermetrics, assumes a certain league-average team, and is based on recent trends in the game. The run expectancy changes depending on who's batting, and league-wide averages. With worse hitters, bunting becomes a better idea. Even the '85 Cardinals probably didn't bunt when Jack Clark was up.

In general, I would only sac bunt with the pitcher or another bottom-of-the order hitter. I think that's always been the case. I would only sac-fly from 3rd, not from 2nd. But those situations become more important in low-scoring games, which I'm suggesting we try to create. The "late and really needed" situations you mention are more frequent on teams built around pitching and defense.

Regardless, if scoring continues to drop, you're going to see more of this type of play.

redsbuckeye
08-15-2008, 03:38 PM
But see here's my point. Run expectancy assumes a certain league-average team, and is based on recent trends in the game. The run expectancy changes depending on who's batting, and league-wide averages. With mediocre hitters, bunting becomes a better idea. Even the '85 Cardinals probably didn't bunt when Jack Clark was up.

In general, I would only sac bunt with the pitcher or another bottom-of-the order hitter. I think that's always been the case. I would only sac-fly from 3rd, not from 2nd.

Regardless, if scoring continues to drop, you're going to see more of this type of play.

It's normalized I believe so even bad offensive teams do better by not sacrificing.

You have to be a REALLY poor hitter for sacrificing to be better than swinging (like a pitcher). But you noted that, so all's cool there.

The thing about sac flies is home run hitters are naturally more gifted at getting the ball to the outfield, it's just that so many end up in the seats (oh darn!).

keeganbrick
08-15-2008, 04:40 PM
A couple things also to consider.

1. Without Griffey and Dunn other guys will have to step up and show what they can do. Can't rely on the big boppers to hit home runs. This could also help improve the "fundamentals", as they will play a bigger role in creating runs.

2. Low scoring games force everyone to bear down throughout the game. And create more team unity as it takes everyone; sharp pitching, good defence and good fundamentals to win the game.

3. Winning close games develops confidence. Not only in your pitching staff, but also in those guys who do "the small things" to win.

4. Edwin has to step up now, immediately or be replaced. Trade him, let Kepp play third, something. I just can't watch the guy anymore. He's had what 4 years to step up and be the man at third. At this point, 'ol Boonie looks like a perennial All Star in comparison. No more excuses for me. Wipe that wussy ass look off your face, bear down and get mean. This is a mans game and watching Edwin go up with that droopy dog face and swing at the first pitch with men on base just makes me crazy.

I will always love Griffey, and I was rather shocked to see Dunn go. But this team has needed to go this route for a long time. The brass in Cincy has thought for years they can have the big guns and then fill in the gaps with cheap labor, rejects and injury prone projects. I really like seeing some new/young blood that actually has the chance to develop and excel at the major league level.

Three weeks ago, the Reds lose that game last night. As soon as Cueto come out, the next guy lets the Pirates tie the game. I'm not saying they will have a miraculous turn this year. But they may just be able to learn a lot about each other over the next 7 weeks that could really carry over into spring training.

If we can take the money saved on Free agents that don't deserve contracts and funnel that into some good veteran leadership, role players and maybe one or two big signings, I think we have a real shot at competing next year and for sure in 2010.

Just seems amazing that it took this long to do it.

Why does everyone keep wanting to play Keppinger over EE or let alone leave Keppinger in the lineup next year. He has been terrible since coming off the DL (since All Star break alone he is batting .198 with .225 OBP) and provides avg to below avg defense and would be worse at 3rd becuase he has no arm. Hopefully Gonzalez looks decent next year bc he will most likely be the starting SS but I wouldnt count on him to do anything special.

texasdave
08-15-2008, 05:21 PM
No, I don't think Dunn is Pujols. I was responding to the poster who said it looks like Walt's trying to make the Reds in the Cards' likeness. My point was, what are the Cards without the best offensive player in the league?

I made a presumption here after reading a number of your posts concerning Adam Dunn in other threads. I presumed that if AD was still around you would not have posed that particular question. It appears as if I was wrong. My bad.

levydl
08-15-2008, 08:05 PM
I made a presumption here after reading a number of your posts concerning Adam Dunn in other threads. I presumed that if AD was still around you would not have posed that particular question. It appears as if I was wrong. My bad.

I think Adam Dunn is a really good player. I wish we would have kept him. I do not think he's Albert Pujols, who I think is probably the game's best player right now. Even with Dunn, I don't think the Cardinals model would work for us.

No problem, man.

4-28
08-16-2008, 08:44 AM
Why does everyone keep wanting to play Keppinger over EE or let alone leave Keppinger in the lineup next year. He has been terrible since coming off the DL (since All Star break alone he is batting .198 with .225 OBP) and provides avg to below avg defense and would be worse at 3rd becuase he has no arm. Hopefully Gonzalez looks decent next year bc he will most likely be the starting SS but I wouldnt count on him to do anything special.

Well, because his scrapiness factor (SCF) is .852, while Edwin's SCF is only .487. ;)

In all seriousness, I was hoping someone would point this out. I'll never get some of the fans around here, complain about defense and streakiness and then argue that we should put someone who plays worse defense who's "streaked" to the numbers you point out above.

kpresidente
08-16-2008, 10:12 AM
Well, because his scrapiness factor (SCF) is .852, while Edwin's SCF is only .487. ;)

In all seriousness, I was hoping someone would point this out. I'll never get some of the fans around here, complain about defense and streakiness and then argue that we should put someone who plays worse defense who's "streaked" to the numbers you point out above.

I'd rather have Gonzo/EE at this point too, but in Kepp's favor, you have to look at his history...

YEAR.................BA
2003 (A)_____.325
2004 (AA)____.339
2005 (AAA)___.337
2006 (AAA)___.316
2007 (AAA)___.367
..............................
2007 (ML)____.332
2008 (ML)____.262

So which is the outlier...2007 or 2008? Based on those numbers, this year looks like a sophomore slump.

DannyB
08-16-2008, 03:09 PM
We seem to be losing more games without those guys.