PDA

View Full Version : Hack-O-Matics in 2009?



Ltlabner
12-20-2008, 10:40 PM
NAME PA OBP OUTR
Paul Janish 89 .270 0.71910
Jeff Keppinger 502 .310 0.68924
Ramon Hernandez 507 .308 0.68047
Jay Bruce 452 .314 0.67478
B Phillips 609 .312 0.66831
E Encarnacion 582 .340 0.64605
Jerry Hairston 297 .384 0.62626
Joey Votto 589 .368 0.62309
Ryan Hanigan 98 .367 0.60204
C Dickerson 122 .413 0.59016

Willy Taveras 538 .308 0.67658
Jermaine Dye 645 .344 0.64496
Pat Burrell 645 .367 0.62946
Yunel Escobar 587 .366 0.61840
Jeff Francoeur 653 .294 0.69066

The 2008 OBP and Out Rates of the players likely to be Reds next year and some of the names that have bandied about so-far this offseason.

Not looking so promising. Low OBP's and high Out Rates abound with the players likely to get extended playing time. Of the 5 guys who's OBP/OutRates were acceptable, only 2 are likely to repeat their performance (Votto and EE).

I foresee another season of hacking away at the plate unless some really, really different players are brought in for LF, CF and SS. A new organizational emphasis on patience and working the count wouldn't hurt either.

Always Red
12-20-2008, 11:34 PM
Well, their manager is on record as saying he doesn't care for base-clogging walks and wants them to be aggressive at the plate.

I don't think organizational patience is going to happen on Dusty's watch.

Ltlabner
12-20-2008, 11:49 PM
Well, their manager is on record as saying he doesn't care for base-clogging walks and wants them to be aggressive at the plate.

I don't think organizational patience is going to happen on Dusty's watch.

I agree. Its going to have to come from landing players who naturally acquire bases and avoid outs (and who can ignore Dustys's advice).

If we add an Escobar and Bobby Abreau (IIRC) to the roster and find a different CF than Willy Fricken Traveras then the getting on bases/avoiding outs thing is headed in the right direction. Prob still not enough firepower to close the RS/RA gap but its a step in the right direction.

But Walt has to fill the roster with better tallent, esp at CF and SS because The Dusty just can't help himself.

Always Red
12-20-2008, 11:53 PM
I agree. Its going to have to come from landing players who naturally acquire bases and avoid outs (and who can ignore Dustys's advice).

If we add an Escobar and Bobby Abreau (IIRC) to the roster and find a different CF than Willy Fricken Traveras then the getting on bases/avoiding outs thing is headed in the right direction. Prob still not enough firepower to close the RS/RA gap but its a step in the right direction.

But Walt has to fill the roster with better tallent, esp at CF and SS because The Dusty just can't help himself.

True.

I hope for Abreu, but chuckle at all the angst about Taveras- he's not a Red, yet.

I think Walt and Dusty are two different guys. Dusty pines for Taveras, and Walt is smarter than that. I hope.

Walt did not hire Dusty. I try to remember that.

Mario-Rijo
12-21-2008, 12:47 AM
Granted I now have a better understanding of what it takes to score runs and I would rather have guys who are willing to be more disciplined. But there have been teams who haven't been great walking teams and have done just fine. Take the '90 Reds for example sure they were maybe a slightly better walking group as a unit but man for man none of them were out there attempting to work walks. Granted they were propped up by stellar defense, speed and lights out pitching, but they just didn't contend, they won a w/s and never fell out of 1st place. They had 4 guys who hit into double digit, double plays even. Heck they didn't even slug all that well, not one guy over .500 slugging. They had 1 starter over a .350 OBP and 2 platoon guys.

BA/OBP
Larkin - .301/.358
Morris - .340/.381 (336 PA's)
Braggs - .299/.385 (362 PA's)

red-in-la
12-21-2008, 02:03 AM
NAME PA OBP OUTR
Paul Janish 89 .270 0.71910
Jeff Keppinger 502 .310 0.68924
Ramon Hernandez 507 .308 0.68047
Jay Bruce 452 .314 0.67478
B Phillips 609 .312 0.66831
E Encarnacion 582 .340 0.64605
Jerry Hairston 297 .384 0.62626
Joey Votto 589 .368 0.62309
Ryan Hanigan 98 .367 0.60204
C Dickerson 122 .413 0.59016

Willy Taveras 538 .308 0.67658
Jermaine Dye 645 .344 0.64496
Pat Burrell 645 .367 0.62946
Yunel Escobar 587 .366 0.61840
Jeff Francoeur 653 .294 0.69066

The 2008 OBP and Out Rates of the players likely to be Reds next year and some of the names that have bandied about so-far this offseason.

Not looking so promising. Low OBP's and high Out Rates abound with the players likely to get extended playing time. Of the 5 guys who's OBP/OutRates were acceptable, only 2 are likely to repeat their performance (Votto and EE).

I foresee another season of hacking away at the plate unless some really, really different players are brought in for LF, CF and SS. A new organizational emphasis on patience and working the count wouldn't hurt either.

based on what......

Ron Madden
12-21-2008, 02:15 AM
based on what......

Over their careers both Votto and EE have shown a fair amount of patience at the plate.

Ltlabner
12-21-2008, 04:38 PM
based on what......

The other 3 guys are named Harriston, Hannigan and Dickerson.

To believe that they will duplicate their numbers you have to believe:

1) Harriston is resigned and repeats what is essentially a career year. And stays healthy long enough to do it.

2) Hannigan and Dickerson repeat their OBP performance over an entire year, instead of a small sample. Dickerson isn't going to duplicate that performance over an entire year and it would be foolish to plan around him doing so. Hannigan? I don't know his minor league history but this is a catcher that broke into the league at age 27. Nice player but I don't see him sustaining a .367 OBP over a full year. There's usually a reason why players who break into the bigs later in life spent all that time in the minor leagues.

3) Votto and EE have traditionally shown good patience at the plate they are likely to continue their histories. Votto showed good patience despite being a rookie under a regime focused on swinging early and swinging often.

It's not a risk to think #3 will happen again. It's a big stretch to think #1 and #2 will happen again.

Ltlabner
12-21-2008, 04:41 PM
Granted I now have a better understanding of what it takes to score runs and I would rather have guys who are willing to be more disciplined. But there have been teams who haven't been great walking teams and have done just fine.

It's not all about walking. It's about getting on base. If they suddenly have some guy's who consistently hit .300 (and has a real, live history of doing so over several years) so their OBP is BA driven, I'm fine with that. High contract rates can drive OBP too.

My bigger point was that the past few teams have been real free-swinging types. That can work in the right situations. I don't see 2009 shaping up to be the "right situation".

Mario-Rijo
12-21-2008, 05:29 PM
It's not all about walking. It's about getting on base. If they suddenly have some guy's who consistently hit .300 (and has a real, live history of doing so over several years) so their OBP is BA driven, I'm fine with that. High contract rates can drive OBP too.

My bigger point was that the past few teams have been real free-swinging types. That can work in the right situations. I don't see 2009 shaping up to be the "right situation".

Fair point but as I pointed out with that Reds team only 1 full time starter with an OBP over .350 and only 2 platooners.

*BaseClogger*
12-21-2008, 06:57 PM
Fair point but as I pointed out with that Reds team only 1 full time starter with an OBP over .350 and only 2 platooners.

The 1990 Cincinnati Reds team OBP was .322. The 1990 NL OBP was .321. So, they were above-average at getting on base. You were correct with your assumtion that the team didn't have many guys who walked--the team BA was .265 and the NL BA was .256. You can conclude that the reason for the lack of players with an OBP of .350 can be attributed to the fact that it was a different era--the 2008 NL OBP was .331. The other interesting thing to note is that not only were they slightly above-average in the OBP category, but they were also slightly above-average in R/G at 4.28 conpared to the 1990 NL R/G of 4.20...

Highlifeman21
12-21-2008, 07:51 PM
based on what......

... based on the fact that Janish doesn't have a MLB level bat, Keppinger and Ramon Hernandez are who they are, Bruce has the potential to improve but needs to make that a reality, Phillips is an out-making machine (imagine all the outs he'd make if he batted 1st or 2nd, although that would help lower his GIDPs), and Hairston pretty much had a career year last year.

So, I think based on all that, it's pretty easy to say that EE and Votto are the only two that won't continue to make truckloads of outs.

westofyou
12-21-2008, 08:22 PM
Granted I now have a better understanding of what it takes to score runs and I would rather have guys who are willing to be more disciplined. But there have been teams who haven't been great walking teams and have done just fine. Take the '90 Reds for example sure they were maybe a slightly better walking group as a unit but man for man none of them were out there attempting to work walks. Granted they were propped up by stellar defense, speed and lights out pitching, but they just didn't contend, they won a w/s and never fell out of 1st place. They had 4 guys who hit into double digit, double plays even. Heck they didn't even slug all that well, not one guy over .500 slugging. They had 1 starter over a .350 OBP and 2 platoon guys.

BA/OBP
Larkin - .301/.358
Morris - .340/.381 (336 PA's)
Braggs - .299/.385 (362 PA's)

The 1990 Reds are an inside straight WS winner, a solid team they were, but not a great team and they were pretty drab offensively, the current Reds need offense more to win in today's game and their defense and pitching isn't as good as the 90 teams.

The 1990 Reds were a bad team to get a BB, and a bad team to hit high above the league average and they were a bad team at slugging above the league average. It's quite possible if the season was longer they would have faded.


NATIONAL LEAGUE
SEASON
1990
AVERAGE vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
OBA vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
SLG vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
RUNS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

WALKS DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE AVG OBA SLG R
1 Pirates 40 582 542 -.005 .000 .008 24
2 Phillies 33 582 549 -.010 -.004 -.034 -72
3 Expos 22 576 554 -.014 -.009 -.027 -63
4 Astros -2 548 550 -.022 -.018 -.052 -147
5 Mets -7 536 543 -.008 -.008 .011 65
6 Dodgers -8 538 546 -.003 -.002 -.015 14
7 Cardinals -31 517 548 -.008 -.011 -.039 -117
8 Padres -46 509 555 -.007 -.010 -.017 -54
9 Giants -61 488 549 -.003 -.008 -.001 1
10 Braves -74 473 547 -.014 -.020 -.001 -34
11 Reds -80 466 546 .001 -.006 .002 -21
12 Cubs -144 406 550 -.001 -.017 -.005 -30

Mario-Rijo
12-21-2008, 08:51 PM
The 1990 Reds are an inside straight WS winner, a solid team they were, but not a great team and they were pretty drab offensively, the current Reds need offense more to win in today's game and their defense and pitching isn't as good as the 90 teams.

The 1990 Reds were a bad team to get a BB, and a bad team to hit high above the league average and they were a bad team at slugging above the league average. It's quite possible if the season was longer they would have faded.


NATIONAL LEAGUE
SEASON
1990
AVERAGE vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
OBA vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
SLG vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
RUNS vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

WALKS DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE AVG OBA SLG R
1 Pirates 40 582 542 -.005 .000 .008 24
2 Phillies 33 582 549 -.010 -.004 -.034 -72
3 Expos 22 576 554 -.014 -.009 -.027 -63
4 Astros -2 548 550 -.022 -.018 -.052 -147
5 Mets -7 536 543 -.008 -.008 .011 65
6 Dodgers -8 538 546 -.003 -.002 -.015 14
7 Cardinals -31 517 548 -.008 -.011 -.039 -117
8 Padres -46 509 555 -.007 -.010 -.017 -54
9 Giants -61 488 549 -.003 -.008 -.001 1
10 Braves -74 473 547 -.014 -.020 -.001 -34
11 Reds -80 466 546 .001 -.006 .002 -21
12 Cubs -144 406 550 -.001 -.017 -.005 -30

So would it be fair to say that they were carried by pitching, defense and just timely hitting? I mean the main thing for me was they weren't great offensively yet managed to stay in 1st place every day of the season. I just wonder if that helps to prove the theory of getting your pitching and defense in order and your offense doesn't have to be great. Not that I necc. expect the '09 Reds to be in that argument.

RedsManRick
12-21-2008, 09:19 PM
So would it be fair to say that they were carried by pitching, defense and just timely hitting? I mean the main thing for me was they weren't great offensively yet managed to stay in 1st place every day of the season. I just wonder if that helps to prove the theory of getting your pitching and defense in order and your offense doesn't have to be great. Not that I necc. expect the '09 Reds to be in that argument.

If you consider hitting, pitching, and defense the three pillars of a team, you can win while being mediocre at one of them and being "timely" in its execution.

It still comes down to outscoring your opponents about 60% of the time, however you want to get there. No one specific combination of walking the fine line is better than another. For every 1990 Reds there's a 2008 Phillies.

My problem with the Reds of recent vintage is that we've squared away one aspect of the team but other parts have been poor with an outside shot at mediocrity. The Reds are still a good deal of luck or talent from being an average offense and aren't stellar pitching wise or defensively.

SteelSD
12-21-2008, 09:53 PM
So would it be fair to say that they were carried by pitching, defense and just timely hitting? I mean the main thing for me was they weren't great offensively yet managed to stay in 1st place every day of the season. I just wonder if that helps to prove the theory of getting your pitching and defense in order and your offense doesn't have to be great. Not that I necc. expect the '09 Reds to be in that argument.

Well, you can leave "timely hitting" out of that first sentence because that's not representative of the 1990 Reds. And yes, a team can have win with a basely league average offense if their pitching and defense can combine to lead the league in Runs Allowed per game.

And I think you're right not to expect the Reds to project that kind of position in '09; at least not at this point.

Ltlabner
12-21-2008, 10:05 PM
Based on the 2009 team as it stands now they *might* have a solid rotation and a potentially mediocre bullpen. That's if all goes well and it's a big if.

The defense, as it stands now, is not likely to improve much, if any.

So there's no way in the world they can get by being OBP challenged hack machines.