THE stat.

[Wheelhouse]

"So now the Reds are 41-39 against teams over .500 and 28-42 against teams under .500." per Hal today.

The Reds are an adjustment in approach away from winning the division next year. The question is who, player(s) or manager, will implement it. It's a decent sample size. As much as intangibles are hated on the board, here is a stat that screams that intangibles are the difference makers with the Reds.

[PuffyPig]

It's called random, and it's too small a sample sixe to draw any comparisons.

Perhaps it's the other team's approach against us?

[wolfboy]

"So now the Reds are 41-39 against teams over .500 and 28-42 against teams under .500." per Hal today.

The Reds are an adjustment in approach away from winning the division next year. The question is who, player(s) or manager, will implement it. It's a decent sample size. As much as intangibles are hated on the board, here is a stat that screams that intangibles are the difference makers with the Reds.

I think it's only screaming at you and a handful of others.

[princeton]

top of the NL is pretty bad this year. It's floating our boat.

in the AL, the Reds would really be awful.

[Redhook]

I think THE stat is the fact that Arroyo has 15 wins and Volquez has 16. If you would've told me that in March I would've been pretty confident the Reds would be in the playoffs this fall. If Harang wasn't 4-16 this could've been an exciting year.

[Ltlabner]

"So now the Reds are 41-39 against teams over .500 and 28-42 against teams under .500." per Hal today.

The Reds are an adjustment in approach away from winning the division next year. The question is who, player(s) or manager, will implement it. It's a decent sample size. As much as intangibles are hated on the board, here is a stat that screams that intangibles are the difference makers with the Reds.

Ok, I'm currious enough to risk losing brain cells reading the reply.

How does one infer a change in approach (whatever that means) from the teams record?

[MWM]

"Approach" has become a catch-all phrase to try to put the Reds woes on anything but the talent on the field. And yes, I don't think people even know what it means.

[jojo]

"So now the Reds are 41-39 against teams over .500 and 28-42 against teams under .500." per Hal today.

The Reds are an adjustment in approach away from winning the division next year. The question is who, player(s) or manager, will implement it. It's a decent sample size. As much as intangibles are hated on the board, here is a stat that screams that intangibles are the difference makers with the Reds.

To me it just screams that the current version of the Reds just aren't very good.

[Roy Tucker]

Jocketty's challenge is to sift through all this September pyrite and see if any of it is true talent and sustainable performance.

I've seen these late season surges when all is lost happen way too often to get truly enthused. I'm glad they win, but I am enormously skeptical.

[Falls City Beer]

I do think the Reds have allowed teams like the Pirates and Nats to pick their pockets by looking past them; they need to have more respect for those teams because they basically ARE those teams.

[Chip R]

I do think the Reds have allowed teams like the Pirates and Nats to pick their pockets by looking past them; they need to have more respect for those teams because they basically ARE those teams.


Quoted for truth.

[cumberlandreds]

I do think the Reds have allowed teams like the Pirates and Nats to pick their pockets by looking past them; they need to have more respect for those teams because they basically ARE those teams.

You are exactly right! It's all about focus and being professional. Part of the job of being manager is making sure your players have that type of focus. I think this manager and his coaching staff are as bad as the players at looking past inferior or equal opponents.

[RedLegSuperStar]

I'm just curious as to what the Reds record in September the past 5 years.. the Reds seem to play better when its knocking someone from a playoff birth as opposed to playing for a playoff birth.

[Johnny Footstool]

As much as intangibles are hated on the board, here is a stat that screams that intangibles are the difference makers with the Reds.

I agree -- it's all intangibles. Teams with good records don't take the Reds seriously, and thus underperform. Those teams need to improve their on-field leadership and clubhouse chemistry.

Prove me wrong.

[RedEye]

Intangibles are a very difficult thing to base a front office approach around. I think the Reds would be much better served by looking at tangible performance measurable that are less based on chance. W-L record against winning and losing teams is not one of those measurables.

[macro]

I'm just curious as to what the Reds record in September the past 5 years.. the Reds seem to play better when its knocking someone from a playoff birth as opposed to playing for a playoff birth.

It's actually nothing exceptional...


Reds September-October Record 2003-07

2003: 10-16
2004: 14-17 (three games in Oct.)
2005: 11-19 (two games in Oct.)
2006: 13-15 (one game in Oct.)
2007: 10-17

Last winning September/October was 18-11 in 2000, and 20-12 in 1999.

[HokieRed]

A couple of things. One, does anyone have the breakdown of our records vs. right-handed starters and left-handed starters? I ask because it seems to me the Pirates beat us by trotting out those left-handed starters of theirs. Second, the scheduling may be a factor, too, one that makes "the stat" not very meaningful. We play large numbers of games with the same teams at particular times in the year any more and that may skew the way the records look. We've caught the Astros, for instance, a whole lot since the All Star Break when they started playing really well (maybe, of course, in part because they were playing us).

[OnBaseMachine]

A couple of things. One, does anyone have the breakdown of our records vs. right-handed starters and left-handed starters?

I don't know the Reds record vs R/L but they have hit much better against lefties than right handers. For the season the Reds have hit .254/.336/.417 - .753 OPS vs lefties and just .243/.314/.400 - .714 OPS vs right handed pitchers.

[Falls City Beer]

If I could write an allegory that depicted "Meaninglessness," I would write a transcript of the Reds' 2008 "winning" September.

If this team is a "tweak" away from contending, then I'm a tweak away from being Clint Eastwood.

[jojo]

If I could write an allegory that depicted "Meaninglessness," I would write a transcript of the Reds' 2008 "winning" September.

If this team is a "tweak" away from contending, then I'm a tweak away from being Clint Eastwood.

Hey, a man's got to know his limitations.

[RedsManRick]

A couple of things. One, does anyone have the breakdown of our records vs. right-handed starters and left-handed starters? I ask because it seems to me the Pirates beat us by trotting out those left-handed starters of theirs. Second, the scheduling may be a factor, too, one that makes "the stat" not very meaningful. We play large numbers of games with the same teams at particular times in the year any more and that may skew the way the records look. We've caught the Astros, for instance, a whole lot since the All Star Break when they started playing really well (maybe, of course, in part because they were playing us).

This is just overall on the season for the team:

Left: .254/.336/.417
Right: .243/.314/.400

We've actually done better vL than vR.

[HokieRed]

Interesting to think about the right-left handed differentials because the majority of the significant power on the team--for most of the season--has been left-handed rather than right: Griffey, Dunn, Votto, Bruce vs. Phillips, Encarnacion (to simplify).

[Mario-Rijo]

"Approach" has become a catch-all phrase to try to put the Reds woes on anything but the talent on the field. And yes, I don't think people even know what it means.

Are we ultimately talking about the same thing here but just putting a different label on it? Just take for instance off the top of my head the Bengals, Tampa Bay Devil Rays, New York Knicks and the list goes on of "Talented" teams who haven't got a pot to piss in. What that talent lacks is the intangibles. Work ethic, desire, determination, focus (approach) etc.

When thinking talent do you include intangibles or just measurables? Because I think that's an important distinction that needs to be made before moving on in this discussion. Because if you include it as being a part of talent then we are arguing for nothing, but if not then maybe you would like to coach Zach Randolph, Chad Ocho Cinco or Elijah Dukes.

I am not comparing our team to those teams as currently constructed but still it's something we as a board should quit ignoring for the sake of being a more in tune board.

[Johnny Footstool]

Are we ultimately talking about the same thing here but just putting a different label on it? Just take for instance off the top of my head the Bengals, Tampa Bay Devil Rays, New York Knicks and the list goes on of "Talented" teams who haven't got a pot to piss in. What that talent lacks is the intangibles. Work ethic, desire, determination, focus (approach) etc.

When thinking talent do you include intangibles or just measurables? Because I think that's an important distinction that needs to be made before moving on in this discussion. Because if you include it as being a part of talent then we are arguing for nothing, but if not then maybe you would like to coach Zach Randolph, Chad Ocho Cinco or Elijah Dukes.

I am not comparing our team to those teams as currently constructed but still it's something we as a board should quit ignoring for the sake of being a more in tune board.

I disagree with your examples. Desire, ethics, etc. are not the only things keeping those franchises from performing well.

The Bengals have talented players at certain positions (QB and WR), but are lacking in talent at many key positions, like the entire defense and running game.

The D-Rays had all kinds of young talent on offense, but nothing on the mound. They brought in some pitching talent in the offseason, and now they're in the playoff hunt.

There are cases when sheer hard work, determination, etc. can overcome some deficiencies, (the 2007 Colorado Rockies, for example), but all in all, you need to have a high level of talent at key positions. If those talent levels between two teams are equal, then "approach" can become a factor.

[jojo]

When I talk about the "true talent" of a player, I'm specifically talking about measurable quantities. This is basically the range of production that his skill set will allow him to produce. Intangibles like work ethic, hustle etc impact that, but intangibles are easily and appropriately ignored once there is enough reliable data to estimate a player's true talent level.

For instance, Jose Guillen's fiery approach to the game doesn't make his replacement level production more valuable (though it might contribute some how to his production). No amount of fiery leadership in the clubhouse makes Carlos Silva's 4+ year contract a better decision.

[Mario-Rijo]

I disagree with your examples. Desire, ethics, etc. are not the only things keeping those franchises from performing well.

The Bengals have talented players at certain positions (QB and WR), but are lacking in talent at many key positions, like the entire defense and running game.

The D-Rays had all kinds of young talent on offense, but nothing on the mound. They brought in some pitching talent in the offseason, and now they're in the playoff hunt.

There are cases when sheer hard work, determination, etc. can overcome some deficiencies, (the 2007 Colorado Rockies, for example), but all in all, you need to have a high level of talent at key positions. If those talent levels between two teams are equal, then "approach" can become a factor.

Ok what about the St. Louis Cardinals for example. When I think high level of talent I don't think Cards, nobody here confuses their talent with the Cubs for example but they are always right in the thick of it.

And the Knicks have as much high level talent as anyone in the NBA, still you get a complete and utter mess because you have a lack of non-measurables.

[jojo]

Ok what about the St. Louis Cardinals for example. When I think high level of talent I don't think Cards, nobody here confuses their talent with the Cubs for example

Nor should they because the Cards are 13.5 games behind the Cubs (a veritable mountain regarding talent).

[Highlifeman21]

"So now the Reds are 41-39 against teams over .500 and 28-42 against teams under .500." per Hal today.

The Reds are an adjustment in approach away from winning the division next year. The question is who, player(s) or manager, will implement it. It's a decent sample size. As much as intangibles are hated on the board, here is a stat that screams that intangibles are the difference makers with the Reds.

The Reds are a bad team and they lose to bad teams. They are definitely more than "an adjustment in approach" away from winning the division. The Reds desperately lack talent, rather than whatever approach you feel they lack in order to win the division.

This doesn't scream intangibles. This screams that the Reds are a bad team and lose to other bad teams. Typically you'll see that bad teams lose to bad teams, and that's why they are bad teams. The fact that the Reds have a better record vs better teams is an outlier.

Or, it just says that the "good" teams they've beaten really aren't that good after all.

But yeah, adjusting the approach and doing the little things better will guarantee us the division in 2009... ;)

[Rojo]

The fact that the Reds have a better record vs better teams is an outlier.

I think it will take more than tweeks and a "new approach" as well but more than half your games isn't an "outlier".

Yes, the NL is all kinds of mediocre but doesn't that make it all that much easier to take? In the kingdom of the blind, the Reds might just be, well, blind, but not deaf.

[Highlifeman21]

I think it will take more than tweeks and a "new approach" as well but more than half your games isn't an "outlier".

Yes, the NL is all kinds of mediocre but doesn't that make it all that much easier to take? In the kingdom of the blind, the Reds might just be, well, blind, but not deaf.

Teams at or better than .500:

NL
Cubs
Philly
Mets
Brewers
Astros
Dodgers
Florida
Cards

4 of those teams are legit, and possibly a 5th. The Astros, Marlins, and Cardinals, however, are not. So, you can discount our record(s) vs. those 3 teams. Now, if we're still above .500 vs the Cubs, Phillies, Mets, Brewers and Dodgers, that's still an outlier, b/c that greatly reduces the sample size of the games played. It's also an outlier, b/c it skews the numbers to make it look like we're good against better teams, when in fact we're losing a crap load of games against bad teams.

Again, bad teams lose to bad teams at a bigger rate than good teams lose to bad teams. Every team wins 60, every team loses 60. It's what they do with the other 42 that gives a little more weight to them being "bad" or "good".

[Screwball]

Teams at or better than .500:

NL
Cubs
Philly
Mets
Brewers
Astros
Dodgers
Florida
Cards

4 of those teams are legit, and possibly a 5th. The Astros, Marlins, and Cardinals, however, are not.

I'm not sure how you can say that a team that's been over .500 for darn near an entire season isn't a legit winning team. They can't all be 30 games over. To win more games than you lose at this point in the season means you're a team that deserves respect and caution when playing against.

[Rojo]

Teams at or better than .500:
Again, bad teams lose to bad teams at a bigger rate than good teams lose to bad teams.

Errrr, ya' think?

I don't know if the W-L against winning teams means anything, but your methodology doesn't do much for me. You just chopped up the data into nuggets small enough to declare "small sample size".

It would be interesting to see if this would happen with an arbitrary factor. Say you divided by West/East of the Mississippi or by alphabettically by opponent cities.

[Highlifeman21]

I'm not sure how you can say that a team that's been over .500 for darn near an entire season isn't a legit winning team. They can't all be 30 games over. To win more games than you lose at this point in the season means you're a team that deserves respect and caution when playing against.

b/c for those 8 teams that are currently at or over .500, we have 8 teams that are under .500.

Of those 8 teams, we have 2 under .400, and 3 that are between .400 and .450.

So, that's 5 really really bad teams in the NL, based on W/L. That leaves us with the Rockies, the Reds and the Diamondbacks that by my definition would be "bad" (except I don't think the Diamondbacks are a bad team, just an underachieving team).

My theory is that your teams at or above .500 have beaten up on the teams below .500, thus padding the number of teams at or above .500, due to the fact you have those 5 absolutely horrible teams at or below .450.

[Highlifeman21]

Errrr, ya' think?

I don't know if the W-L against winning teams means anything, but your methodology doesn't do much for me. You just chopped up the data into nuggets small enough to declare "small sample size".

It would be interesting to see if this would happen with an arbitrary factor. Say you divided by West/East of the Mississippi or by alphabettically by opponent cities.

I just wish there was a better way to quantify, or analyze the 42 games that matter in a baseball season.

[Mario-Rijo]

Nor should they because the Cards are 13.5 games behind the Cubs (a veritable mountain regarding talent).

Yeah, this season.

[SteelSD]

Yeah, this season.

If you don't think Cardinals, then that's a mistake. From 2000 through 2007, the Cardinals averaged 92 Wins per season. The only year they varied more then 5 Wins versus their Pythag was last year, when they finished under .500 (78 Wins).

Prior to 2007, here are the Cardinals' Pythag Wins:

2006: 82
2005: 98
2004: 100
2003: 88
2002: 95
2001: 94
2000: 91

The Cardinals have been a solid Run Differential team for the majority of this century and their Pythag results demonstrate that. They've produced records both slightly over and slightly under their expected record during that span, but to attempt to tie anything to intangibles isn't reality. They're good when the score more Runs than they allow and they're not so good when they allow more Runs than they score. Pretty basic math, really.

[Johnny Footstool]

The Cardinals have 6 regular players who get on base at a .349 or better clip. The Reds had three (four if you count Hairston's half-season), and traded two of them away.

The Cardinals have a #3 hitter with an OPS over 1.000. The Reds wasted 420 plate appearances on a #3 hitter with a .787 OPS.

They have talent. More talent than the Reds.

[mth123]

The Cardinals have 6 regular players who get on base at a .349 or better clip. The Reds had three (four if you count Hairston's half-season), and traded two of them away.

The Cardinals have a #3 hitter with an OPS over 1.000. The Reds wasted 420 plate appearances on a #3 hitter with a .787 OPS.

They have talent. More talent than the Reds.

Now that's THE stat.

Add this observation that really states the case for talent being an issue. The Reds of 2008 have had exactly one player (1) who is average or better defensively who also contributes on offense (Brandon Phillips). They've had a guy with defensive promise who really has been pretty bad so far in the field (Jay Bruce) and a couple guys who would qualify for the few games they've been in there (Chris Dickerson, Ryan Hanigan). The only other decent defenders (Corey Patterson, Paul Janish) have been black holes on offense when they've been in there. The rest of the lot is simply pretty bad defensively (though guys like Ryan Freel, Adam Rosales and even Norris Hopper are passable, Jerry Hairston too but only in the OF) and that hurts more than people realize. Fix the defense with a couple guys who can hit as well (Bruce and Dickerson are a start). Get a real SS who isn't an automatic out, bring in some one who can help out at C, and move one of Votto or EdE to LF to upgrade the IF defense and hide the glove where it hurts the least. I'm optimistic about the talent fitting together in the near future, but there have been serious issues with about half of the position players in the line-up nearly every day. For most of the season there have been issues at SS, C, RF, and CF. 3B and LF have been spots where the team passed on defense for the sake of offense and the 1B spot is pretty shaky on defense as well even for the fairly low standard that goes with that position. That is more than an "approach" problem.

Sounds like a talent problem that was fed by poor roster construction. The previoius GM had a pretty good eye for talent (that I fully believe helped the franchise improve its overall position) while possessing little idea how to fit it all together on a roster. Its why many here viewed him as a good scout but inadequate as a GM. 2008 is proof IMO.

[Mario-Rijo]

If you don't think Cardinals, then that's a mistake. From 2000 through 2007, the Cardinals averaged 92 Wins per season. The only year they varied more then 5 Wins versus their Pythag was last year, when they finished under .500 (78 Wins).

Prior to 2007, here are the Cardinals' Pythag Wins:

2006: 82
2005: 98
2004: 100
2003: 88
2002: 95
2001: 94
2000: 91

The Cardinals have been a solid Run Differential team for the majority of this century and their Pythag results demonstrate that. They've produced records both slightly over and slightly under their expected record during that span, but to attempt to tie anything to intangibles isn't reality. They're good when the score more Runs than they allow and they're not so good when they allow more Runs than they score. Pretty basic math, really.

What you have proven there is exactly my point, they win despite being immensely talented. The last 2-3 years they haven't been as talented man for man as their counterparts around the NL yet have won anyway. It has a whole lot to do with coaching both giving it and receiving it which goes right back to intangibles. Sure those guys have enough talent to execute but no more so than the the Pirates or Reds.

Measurables (i.e talent or raw athleticism) I'll stick the Reds right up to the Cards side by side and win alot of battles. But intangibles, ha we as a team have barely started to scratch the surface just this season.

[Ltlabner]

The Cardinals have 6 regular players who get on base at a .349 or better clip. The Reds had three (four if you count Hairston's half-season), and traded two of them away.

The Cardinals have a #3 hitter with an OPS over 1.000. The Reds wasted 420 plate appearances on a #3 hitter with a .787 OPS.

They have talent. More talent than the Reds.

Wait a sec. I thought OPB and SLG didn't translate into wins?

[jojo]

What you have proven there is exactly my point, they win despite being immensely talented.

I know you didn't mean that as it's written....but are you really suggesting that the Cardinals recent history of success is essentially driven by intangibles?




The last 2-3 years they haven't been as talented man for man as their counterparts around the NL yet have won anyway. It has a whole lot to do with coaching both giving it and receiving it which goes right back to intangibles. Sure those guys have enough talent to execute but no more so than the the Pirates or Reds.

I guess you are.


Measurables (i.e talent or raw athleticism) I'll stick the Reds right up to the Cards side by side and win alot of battles. But intangibles, ha we as a team have barely started to scratch the surface just this season.

Players don't play in vacuums but rather the context of 8 other guys. I think what some might ascribe to intangibles is really the result of poor roster construction.

The Reds of the 2000's have had rosters that were collections of flawed players (most rosters are) but in general the Reds rosters where ones where flaws were exacerbated rather than mitigated. For instance, the Reds are a strong candidate for the worst defensive franchise of the decade which tends to make the impact of thin pitching much worse.

[Mario-Rijo]

I know you didn't mean that as it's written....but are you really suggesting that the Cardinals recent history of success is essentially driven by intangibles?





I guess you are.



Players don't play in vacuums but rather the context of 8 other guys. I think what some might ascribe to intangibles is really the result of poor roster construction.

The Reds of the 2000's have had rosters that were collections of flawed players (most rosters are) but in general the Reds rosters where ones where flaws were exacerbated rather than mitigated. For instance, the Reds are a strong candidate for the worst defensive franchise of the decade which tends to make the impact of thin pitching much worse.

No one is saying the Cards don't have any talent or haven't just that those guys get the most out of their physical gifts by complementing it with strong intangibles. Roster construction has nothing to do with what I am talking about. The Reds for the past let's say 3 seasons have had as many if not more players with as many or more physical gifts than the Cards. But intangibles are the difference maker that keeps the Reds losing and the Cards winning. Some of that stems from the fact that the Cards have excellent coaching, but having the coaching is only half the battle you must be receptive to it and put it to work for you.

Again I use the example of the NY Knicks:

C - Eddy Curry/Jerome James
PF - Zach Randolph/David Lee
SF - Quentin Richardson/Malik Rose
SG - Jamaal Crawford/Q Richardson
PG - Stephon Marbury/Nate Robinson

Can't get much more talented (physically gifted) than that my friend but they continue to be one of the worst teams in the NBA year in and year out. Sure there is some poor roster construction, it's because they have guys on their roster with no work ethic (sans a couple of decent guys).

[SteelSD]

What you have proven there is exactly my point, they win despite being immensely talented. The last 2-3 years they haven't been as talented man for man as their counterparts around the NL yet have won anyway. It has a whole lot to do with coaching both giving it and receiving it which goes right back to intangibles. Sure those guys have enough talent to execute but no more so than the the Pirates or Reds.

Measurables (i.e talent or raw athleticism) I'll stick the Reds right up to the Cards side by side and win alot of battles. But intangibles, ha we as a team have barely started to scratch the surface just this season.

In 2004, the St. Louis Cardinals won 105 games while fielding a unit including Albert Pujols at 1B, Scott Rolen at 3B, Edgar Renteria at SS, Jim Edmonds in CF, and Reggie Sanders in RF. At what point during the recent years have the Reds been able to field anything resembling that kind of two-way (offense/defense) talent?

Over the past few seasons, the talent level of the two clubs (Reds vs. Cards) isn't even close.

[Mario-Rijo]

In 2004, the St. Louis Cardinals won 105 games while fielding a unit including Albert Pujols at 1B, Scott Rolen at 3B, Edgar Renteria at SS, Jim Edmonds in CF, and Reggie Sanders in RF. At what point during the recent years have the Reds been able to field anything resembling that kind of two-way (offense/defense) talent?

Over the past few seasons, the talent level of the two clubs (Reds vs. Cards) isn't even close.


Well I said the past 2-3 season in one of my earlier posts, but it's no biggie. That said my original post was asking the question of what is your definition of talent. Is it merely physical gifts or does intangibles play a part in your definition? The reason I asked is because we continue to have arguments about it but we run around in circles because we don't have a clear definition amongst us about what we know talent is.

Telling me that Felipe Lopez isn't as talented as Edgar Renteria IMO is wrong, he is and perhaps moreso. FeLo has as much range, arm strength, batting eye, speed and power for example. Edgar Renteria however is more skilled and skill is brought about by putting in the work for the most part. He has taken his talent and crafted it around a technique at the plate or in the field and practiced that technique until he has perfected it as much as his god given talent will allow.

Or at least that's my definition of it and because you see it differently perhaps, then we tend to disagree for almost no reason whatsoever. I am just looking for a clear definition of the word(s), maybe it's a bit anal but it's definitely worth the debate IMO. I am not trying to be picky for the sake of it but just trying to keep from continuing to make the same mistake that I have been making which always seems to lead to an argument, assuming that others have the same thing in mind as I do when I type something.