PDA

View Full Version : If Dusty Played The Best Hitters ...



Far East
06-19-2009, 04:34 PM
Here --based on OPS only -- is how the position players currently rank (with Micah Owings thrown in for comparison) and the defensive positions of the "top" 8 or 9 -- 9, if there is a platoon position in the OF:

1. Votto 1.091 1B

2. Phillips 0.850 2B

3. Gomes 0.832 OF

4. Nix 0.824 OF

5. Hanigan 0.783 C

6. Bruce 0.768 OF

7. Dickerson 0.726 OF

8. Hairston 0.700 3B

9. Janish 0.687 SS

10. Hernandez 0.665 BENCH

11. Rosales 0.618 BENCH

12. Gonzalez 0.559 BENCH

13. Taveras 0.545 BENCH

14. Owings .0.881 PH

When Joey returns, to get the top 8 OPS guys (of which there are at least 4 OFers) into the lineup, the platoon of Nix/Gomes (they do not have the best splits in the world) in LF might be needed. Who knows, Nix might hit southpaws better and Gomes righties if they got significantly more plate appearances.

Without a LF platoon, the OF becomes Gomes, Bruce, and Nix, with Bruce in CF. That weakens the OF defense, but Janish as SS instead of Gonzalez might be a defensive wash.

Taveras/Gonzalez become late inning defenders and they with Rosales and Hernandez occasional starters against southpaws -- unless and until any of them hit their way into the top 8 OPS list or any of the top 8 stop hitting.

Drastic times call for drastic measures??

Scrap Irony
06-19-2009, 05:17 PM
Why drastic? They're above .500. Expecting more from this club is wishing on a star.

nate
06-19-2009, 05:31 PM
Only 3 of the 4 outfielders can play at once but yeah, I'm all for seeing that lineup. This actually keeps the D pretty much the same while adding some offense.

PuffyPig
06-19-2009, 05:37 PM
All you really need to do to get the best lineup in, is to get Votto back, and sub Dickerson in for Taveras. Nix/Gomes platoon, and Hernandez/Hannigan share catching.

Not major surgery.

RedsManRick
06-19-2009, 05:42 PM
This really shouldn't be hard:

CF: Dickerson/Taveras platoon (Hairston instead of Taveras if you prefer)
LF: Nix/Gomes platoon
RF: Bruce
3B: EE (Hairston while EE is out)
SS: Gonzalez/Janish (Janish 2-3 times a week to give Gonzalez's legs some rest and get him some PA)
2B: Phillips
1B: Bruce
C: Hernandez/ Hanigan (Hanigan catches 2 pitchers, Hernandez 3)

vR
CF Dickerson
1B Votto
3B Encarnacion
RF Bruce
2B Phillips
LF Nix
C Hernandez/ Hanigan
SS Gonzalez/ Janish
P Pitcher

vL
CF Taveras (or Hairston if you prefer Taveras in Louisville)
2B Phillips
1B Votto
3B Encarnacion
RF Bruce
LF Gomes
C Hernandez/ Hanigan
SS Gonzalez/ Janish
P Pitcher

When Owings pitches, bat him 8th. That took me 2 minutes. I guess Dusty doesn't have 2 minutes.

Highlifeman21
06-19-2009, 07:14 PM
Only 3 of the 4 outfielders can play at once but yeah, I'm all for seeing that lineup. This actually keeps the D pretty much the same while adding some offense.

Put the 4th OF @ 1B.

Would give more offensive production than Razor Ramon, I'm guessing.

westofyou
06-19-2009, 08:15 PM
Put the 4th OF @ 1B.

Would give more offensive production than Razor Ramon, I'm guessing.

Didn't the Reds just go through an 8 year run of doing what you propose, focusing only on hitting as a the players make up?

That went well did it not?

TheNext44
06-19-2009, 10:11 PM
This really shouldn't be hard:

CF: Dickerson/Taveras platoon (Hairston instead of Taveras if you prefer)
LF: Nix/Gomes platoon
RF: Bruce
3B: EE (Hairston while EE is out)
SS: Gonzalez/Janish (Janish 2-3 times a week to give Gonzalez's legs some rest and get him some PA)
2B: Phillips
1B: Bruce
C: Hernandez/ Hanigan (Hanigan catches 2 pitchers, Hernandez 3)

vR
CF Dickerson
1B Votto
3B Encarnacion
RF Bruce
2B Phillips
LF Nix
C Hernandez/ Hanigan
SS Gonzalez/ Janish
P Pitcher

vL
CF Taveras (or Hairston if you prefer Taveras in Louisville)
2B Phillips
1B Votto
3B Encarnacion
RF Bruce
LF Gomes
C Hernandez/ Hanigan
SS Gonzalez/ Janish
P Pitcher

When Owings pitches, bat him 8th. That took me 2 minutes. I guess Dusty doesn't have 2 minutes.

It's not that Dusty doesn't have 2 minutes to examine the lineup, it's that he refuses to take any time to study the progress that has been made in stats. Dusty clearly uses stats, but just the wrong ones, the ones that people used 20 years ago. He's a smart guy, but stubborn beyond belief.

Highlifeman21
06-20-2009, 09:16 AM
Didn't the Reds just go through an 8 year run of doing what you propose, focusing only on hitting as a the players make up?

That went well did it not?

Offensively it worked.

The pitching still sucked wind.

Just seems like within the last 2 years, we've gone from trying to be an offensive 1st club with pitching as an afterthought, to a pitching and defense 1st club with offense as a distant afterthought.

Scrap Irony
06-20-2009, 09:45 AM
But the defense goes hand in hand with the pitching. And adding a poor defensive player (like you propose, in giving a fourth OF an unfamiliar spot at 1b) so that he may hit better is like robbing Peter to maybe pay Paul.

No thank you to business as usual.

This plan-- Jocketty's plan (as you surmised)--is good pitching, good defense, and catch-as-catch-can offense.

So far this season, despite the injuries, it's worked pretty well.

PuffyPig
06-20-2009, 09:51 AM
Offensively it worked.

The pitching still sucked wind.



While our pitching staff is better this year, it's not better to the degree that many think.

We are currently third in the major leagues this year with a .711 DER.

Last year we were 29th at .673, in 2007 we were 25th at .678, and in 2006 we were 21st at .682.

You knock between .038-.029 off the average pirchers BABIP and you will have exceptionally better pitching.

Defense is not overated, especially with how it effects your pitching staff.

traderumor
06-20-2009, 10:00 AM
Offensively it worked.

The pitching still sucked wind.

Just seems like within the last 2 years, we've gone from trying to be an offensive 1st club with pitching as an afterthought, to a pitching and defense 1st club with offense as a distant afterthought.If it worked offensively, then why the run of losing seasons? All the Reds illustrated was that it is not possible to build an offense so strong that all you have to do is run a warm body out on the mound to win in MLB. Even the BRM did not start winning divisions/playoffs/World Series until they got some arms and shored up the D.

nate
06-20-2009, 10:13 AM
But the defense goes hand in hand with the pitching. And adding a poor defensive player (like you propose, in giving a fourth OF an unfamiliar spot at 1b) so that he may hit better is like robbing Peter to maybe pay Paul.

No thank you to business as usual.

Please, it's not "business as usual." "Business as usual" is running Willy T out there in the leadoff spot when Chris Dickerson is just as good in CF and leagues better with the bat.

Is the net production from one of the OF'ers playing 1B > than Ramon? Then do it.

Hopefully this won't be a problem due to Votto coming back.


This plan-- Jocketty's plan (as you surmised)--is good pitching, good defense, and catch-as-catch-can offense.

So far this season, despite the injuries, it's worked pretty well.

I want it to work awesomely.

Not "pretty well."

nate
06-20-2009, 10:16 AM
If it worked offensively, then why the run of losing seasons? All the Reds illustrated was that it is not possible to build an offense so strong that all you have to do is run a warm body out on the mound to win in MLB. Even the BRM did not start winning divisions/playoffs/World Series until they got some arms and shored up the D.


The pitching still sucked wind.

Just seems like within the last 2 years, we've gone from trying to be an offensive 1st club with pitching as an afterthought, to a pitching and defense 1st club with offense as a distant afterthought.

Far East
06-20-2009, 10:46 AM
... Even the BRM did not start winning divisions/playoffs/World Series until they got some arms and shored up the D.

The biggest change, however, was moving an outfielder, Rose, to 3B in order to get slugger and future MVP Foster into the starting OF.

Today's Reds already have the arms. And Dickerson (at CF) and Janish are far better defenders than Rose (at 3B) and Foster.

On Friday, the lineup of ...

CF-Dickerson
3B-Hairston
2B-Phillips
LF-Nix
1B-Hernandez
RF-Bruce
C-Hanigan
SS-Janish

... had the top 8 OPS guys (minus Votto, of course, and minus Gomes due to the Sox righty starter), got 11 hits, defended adequately, and (perhaps even more importantly) got the requisite bullpen pitching that was typically missing last year.

RedlegJake
06-20-2009, 10:49 AM
You can't base your lineup and defensive alignment on offense alone. Leaving Dickerson out of the equation as the CFer, Far East, subs a great Rf defender into CF where he is average or worse, and replaces that good defense in right with an average or worse fielder.

I want more offense too, but Gomes at first right now instead of Hernandez would help. Then you can rest Hanigan or have a good PHer on the bench and you're back to a great catching tandem. Sub Dickerson in CF for Taveras, and you improve defense AND offense. Play JHJ at short where he looks far more comfortable, sacrificing a bit of defense for a bat - but I don't think the dropoff is all that great from AGon anymore. Send Rosales down and try Sutton on the bench. Defense at third has been the weakest spot so at least maybe Sutton can provide a better bat - he can't be worse than JHJ at third, or you can be crazy and try Janish with that rocket arm - giving up a bit of offense for the glove making the defense even tighter than it has been - on the theory you go all out to help the pitchers right now since offensive shuffling is just a band-aid with this roster, at least until Votto and EE return.

Dusty, however is anything but creative. He may be the least inventive manager I've seen. He has a book and he'll keep trying to force players to fit his scheme instead of scheming to fit his players into their best roles.

westofyou
06-20-2009, 10:52 AM
Offensively it worked.

The pitching still sucked wind.

Just seems like within the last 2 years, we've gone from trying to be an offensive 1st club with pitching as an afterthought, to a pitching and defense 1st club with offense as a distant afterthought.
An offense that won games with power and it turned out to be an offense that lost often because it was a one dimensional approach to the game.

I saw a HR centered offense comes with warts....warts that caused them to rarely win any low scoring games, get shut down regularly by junkers and high K pitchers weekly and lose games on the other side of the ball because they were an offense only centric team.

In short, bad baseball outside of the pitchers existed too and it was boring baseball, even despite the offense.

My take is that many of the younger guys on the board have never seen the game ratchet back offense, it's new and scary when the game swings against what you think it should be, and it happens right under your nose, on your watch and well... it's freaky.

I like freaky, I found the last few years of Reds baseball terribly boring myself, pushing me away more than embracing my interests. Sure the offense is boring now, but the team is more interesting and fixing it doesn't seem as much a task as it had in prior offense centric years.

westofyou
06-20-2009, 10:55 AM
The biggest change, however, was moving an outfielder, Rose, to 3B in order to get slugger and future MVP Foster into the starting OF.

Today's Reds already have the arms. And Dickerson (at CF) and Janish are far better defenders than Rose (at 3B) and Foster.



No, the Reds were a good team years prior to 1975.

The biggest change was getting a young SS up to speed, and a GG CF and GG 2nd baseman in 71. That's when the mediocre Red pitchers became better.

Sure it helped that the 2nd basemen was Joe Morgan, but the other two guys couldn't hit a lick... and they'd have their own thread for it in todays game.

RedlegJake
06-20-2009, 11:19 AM
No, the Reds were a good team years prior to 1975.

The biggest change was getting a young SS up to speed, and a GG CF and GG 2nd baseman in 71. That's when the mediocre Red pitchers became better.

Sure it helped that the 2nd basemen was Joe Morgan, but the other two guys couldn't hit a lick... and they'd have their own thread for it in todays game.

I'm laughing WOY, thinking of how Concepcion and Geronimo would have been excoriated by this board when they were youngsters.

Even the trade that brought Morgan was unpopular when it happened - Tommy Helms and the Big Bopper for Morgan and Billingham?? You're kidding right? A true slugger and gold glove second sacker for a little bitty base stealer and Billingham - a mediocre looking pitcher. How the heck does THAT deal make the team better?

That's what people were asking. Helms and May were wildly popular with fans. Morgan was seen as talented but under achieving - he hadn't really hit his stride with bat yet. Menke was a glove that couldn't hit who was moved to third. Most fans saw the deal as a blunder on a Frank Robby scale.

Even then the BRM wasn't completed. It still took Rose's move to third, the Foster steal for Duffy, and Sparky's emerging BP philosophy with a stockpile of relievers like Eastwick, McEnaney, Borbon, and Carroll to complete the painting.
Memories.

Far East
06-20-2009, 11:56 AM
No, the Reds were a good team years prior to 1975.

The biggest change was getting a young SS up to speed, and a GG CF and GG 2nd baseman in 71. That's when the mediocre Red pitchers became better...

But that offense batted its good field-no hit CF and SS 7th and 8th; the lineup could afford their weaker hitting, sporting the likes of Rose, Griffey, Morgan, Bench, Foster, and Perez. They became the BRM when they made room for their 4th OFer (Foster) by displacing a very good defender at 3B, John Vukovich, with one of their 4 best OFers, Rose.

Benching Vukovich and sacrificing his glove, for the sake of a better offense made the machine.

Scrap Irony
06-20-2009, 11:57 AM
Please, it's not "business as usual." "Business as usual" is running Willy T out there in the leadoff spot when Chris Dickerson is just as good in CF and leagues better with the bat.

Is the net production from one of the OF'ers playing 1B > than Ramon? Then do it.

Hopefully this won't be a problem due to Votto coming back.



I want it to work awesomely.

Not "pretty well."


Busines as usual" as in the past ten years, where an inadequate CF roaming three steps from his spot in the center of the diamond to catch a ball and everything else that fell between he and the statues on the corners fell for hits.

But I'm guessing you knew that already.

I'd like it to "work awesomely" as well, nate, but understand that, sometimes, kids have to crawl before they walk and walk before they run. Patience is the key.

But I'm hoping you knew that, too.

Scrap Irony
06-20-2009, 12:00 PM
But that offense batted its good field-no hit CF and SS 7th and 8th; the lineup could afford their weaker hitting, sporting the likes of Rose, Griffey, Morgan, Bench, Foster, and Perez. They became the BRM when they made room for their 4th OFer (Foster) by displacing a very good defender at 3B, John Vukovich, with one of their 4 best OFers, Rose.

Benching Vukovich and sacrificing his glove, for the sake of a better offense made the machine.

An OF that had already shown an ability to play the IF at a more demanding position and perhaps the most versatile defensive player of his era.

As to Vukovich, he was starting there because Perez just couldn't handle the hot corner defensively.

Stops and starts.

Patience.

HokieRed
06-20-2009, 12:12 PM
Some history. We also acquired Denis Menke in the trade with Houston and Menke was the primary third baseman in 1972 and 1973, allowing the move of Perez to first base. John Vuckovich played very little for the Reds, probably in 1974. This was, as I remember it, when the decision to move Rose to 3b was made.

nate
06-20-2009, 12:23 PM
Busines as usual" as in the past ten years, where an inadequate CF roaming three steps from his spot in the center of the diamond to catch a ball and everything else that fell between he and the statues on the corners fell for hits.

And no pitching.

And one or two good hitters surrounded by dreck.


But I'm guessing you knew that already. And more.


I'd like it to "work awesomely" as well, nate, but understand that, sometimes, kids have to crawl before they walk and walk before they run. Patience is the key. Nothing about the changes proposed has anything to do with "patience." It has to do with getting Willy T out of the lineup. It has to do with maybe seeing Paul Janish play more than once a month.


But I'm hoping you knew that, too.Shame on me for wanting the team to play to it's fullest potential.

westofyou
06-20-2009, 12:30 PM
But that offense batted its good field-no hit CF and SS 7th and 8th; the lineup could afford their weaker hitting, sporting the likes of Rose, Griffey, Morgan, Bench, Foster, and Perez. They became the BRM when they made room for their 4th OFer (Foster) by displacing a very good defender at 3B, John Vukovich, with one of their 4 best OFers, Rose.

Benching Vukovich and sacrificing his glove, for the sake of a better offense made the machine.

You're using the one of the top ten offenses of NL history as a barometer, that in itself sets off the measurement IMO.


NATIONAL LEAGUE
SEASON
MODERN (1900-)

RUNS YEAR DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE
1 Pirates 1902 193 775 582
2 Dodgers 1953 189 955 766
3 Reds 1976 178 857 679
4 Rockies 1996 177 961 784
5 Rockies 1997 149 923 774
6 Reds 1975 147 840 693
7 Reds 1965 138 825 687
8 Dodgers 1955 136 857 721
9 Giants 1905 135 780 645
10 Giants 1924 133 857 724

RUNS CREATED/GAME YEAR DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE
1 Reds 1976 1.47 5.75 4.28
2 Dodgers 1953 1.22 6.62 5.40
3 Pirates 1902 1.21 5.63 4.42
4 Rockies 2001 1.03 6.30 5.27
5 Rockies 1996 1.02 6.08 5.06
6 Giants 1905 1.00 5.76 4.76
7 Rockies 1997 0.99 6.12 5.12
8 Reds 1965 0.98 5.33 4.35
9 Braves 2003 0.89 6.04 5.15
10 Reds 1975 0.81 5.34 4.53

Big Klu
06-20-2009, 12:31 PM
But that offense batted its good field-no hit CF and SS 7th and 8th; the lineup could afford their weaker hitting, sporting the likes of Rose, Griffey, Morgan, Bench, Foster, and Perez. They became the BRM when they made room for their 4th OFer (Foster) by displacing a very good defender at 3B, John Vukovich, with one of their 4 best OFers, Rose.

Benching Vukovich and sacrificing his glove, for the sake of a better offense made the machine.

Those teams prior to 1975 also had a revolving door of yuck in RF that would have sent RedsZone into a full-scale feeding frenzy--Joe Hague, Ted Uhlaender, Andy Kosco, Larry Stahl, Merv Rettenmund, Terry Crowley. (Ken Griffey did not nail down the RF job until the latter part of the 1974 season.) And George Foster was a disappointment of Wily Mo Peņa proportions at that time. Additionally, the reason a good-glove, no-stick player like John Vukovich was even at 3B in the first place was that a superior offensive player, Dan Driessen, had proven he couldn't handle the position after a full season in 1974.

PuffyPig
06-20-2009, 12:40 PM
But that offense batted its good field-no hit CF and SS 7th and 8th; the lineup could afford their weaker hitting, sporting the likes of Rose, Griffey, Morgan, Bench, Foster, and Perez.

Calling Concepcion and Geronimo no-hit is simply not true.

In 74-77, Concepcion averaged .278-9-60, and Geronimo averaged .278-6-52.

And they averaged about 45 SB's between them.

Not sluggers to be sure, but pretty good in a lesser offensive era.

traderumor
06-20-2009, 01:01 PM
Some history. We also acquired Denis Menke in the trade with Houston and Menke was the primary third baseman in 1972 and 1973, allowing the move of Perez to first base. John Vuckovich played very little for the Reds, probably in 1974. This was, as I remember it, when the decision to move Rose to 3b was made.Ok, since I started the BRM allusion, we need to get the context of my comment straight. 1968 and 1969, the Reds were very good under Dave Bristol. In 1968, I imagine if you look at the offense in comparison to the rest of the leagues in the year of the pitcher, they were about as strong offensively as a team could be in that era. But, 1968, even in the year of the pitcher, the Reds ranks were thin. Jim Maloney was a valid ace, but after that, it was mediocrity to bad. Ted Abernathy had a good year in the pen, but again, a big drop off in the rest of the pen. Milt Pappas was traded for Clay Carroll, and all that did was help the bullpen but further weaken the rotation.

Then, along comes 1969, expansion and divisional play, plus the mound was lowered and the strike zone adjusted. The Reds hung around even better than the year before, but the more balanced Braves had a good offense and were just enough better pitching and defensively to leave the offensively dominating but mediocre pitching Reds in second place. The main problem here was the rotation, and the bullpen, which was very good anchored by Wayne Granger and Carroll, just had too many innings to cover. Bristol gets fired, Sparky is hired.

In 1970, the Reds smoke the league in the first half of the season with an above average rotation, with Wayne Simpson, Jim McGlothlin (trade from Angels), Jim Merritt, and Gary Nolan solidifying the staff long enough for the offense to steamroller the league. The pen was the bomb as well, with Granger and Carroll anchoring, but good support from Gullett (19) and Cloninger until he hit the rotation due to injury. The D was still average at best, with a young, error prone Concepcion, good field no hit Helms at 2b, and Perez butchering 3b, while Lee May was passable at 1b. The OF was above average, carried by Rose in RF and Tolan in CF.

Finally, in 1972, the team became balanced and lethal. Bench is Bench, they get Morgan, Geronimo, Concepcion is developing fast and Rose/Tolan combo continue to cover the OF to comprise the heart of a suddenly very good D. Gullett is a young gun in the rotation, and Billingham is probably a bit underrated around here. He was a very solid pitcher before the Reds got him from Houston, and was a good rotation anchor, much like Harang today--not an ace, but an anchor. The rotation was improving and the bullpen was still very good.

From there, it was tweaking until they ran over baseball in 75-76 with all the parts finally in place. FYI, Vuckovich was 1975 and flopped, prompting the Foster/Rose move.

Hopefully, the BRM book will refresh a lot of memories that for me are still very fresh.

Far East
06-20-2009, 01:55 PM
...As to Vukovich, he was starting there because Perez just couldn't handle the hot corner defensively...
By the time Vukowich was playing 3B, Perez was already at 1B, with May having been traded to Houston.

But the main point is that sometimes a team (depending, of course, on other variables such as pitching/ other defenders, etc.) can profit by substituting offense for defense. The '09 Reds need to score more runs.

traderumor
06-20-2009, 03:03 PM
By the time Vukowich was playing 3B, Perez was already at 1B, with May having been traded to Houston.

But the main point is that sometimes a team (depending, of course, on other variables such as pitching/ other defenders, etc.) can profit by substituting offense for defense. The '09 Reds need to score more runs.It is the other variables that turn a 3rd grade math problem (score more runs) into a multivariable equation (making improvements on the RS side without incrementally negatively impacting the RA side). Discussing finding the player(s) to accomplish that is what makes up a lot of RZ activity.

Highlifeman21
06-20-2009, 03:20 PM
If it worked offensively, then why the run of losing seasons? All the Reds illustrated was that it is not possible to build an offense so strong that all you have to do is run a warm body out on the mound to win in MLB. Even the BRM did not start winning divisions/playoffs/World Series until they got some arms and shored up the D.

When your pitching is so bad it negates your offense, you rack up a run of losing seasons.

For the sake of argument, over the Lost Decade, we'd need to plate at least 1000 runs a year to make up for that horrid pitching staff.

Highlifeman21
06-20-2009, 03:23 PM
An offense that won games with power and it turned out to be an offense that lost often because it was a one dimensional approach to the game.

I saw a HR centered offense comes with warts....warts that caused them to rarely win any low scoring games, get shut down regularly by junkers and high K pitchers weekly and lose games on the other side of the ball because they were an offense only centric team.

In short, bad baseball outside of the pitchers existed too and it was boring baseball, even despite the offense.

My take is that many of the younger guys on the board have never seen the game ratchet back offense, it's new and scary when the game swings against what you think it should be, and it happens right under your nose, on your watch and well... it's freaky.

I like freaky, I found the last few years of Reds baseball terribly boring myself, pushing me away more than embracing my interests. Sure the offense is boring now, but the team is more interesting and fixing it doesn't seem as much a task as it had in prior offense centric years.

I find the current team boring, but at least it's a change in philosophy from the Lost Decade.

Unfortunately, we need to continue to improve the pitching AND the defense, if we're not going to address the offense.

Best case scenario, we address all 3.

Worst case, I hope we address the pitching, and then figure out which of the other 2 is easier to address.

HokieRed
06-21-2009, 04:57 PM
By the time Vukowich was playing 3B, Perez was already at 1B, with May having been traded to Houston.

But the main point is that sometimes a team (depending, of course, on other variables such as pitching/ other defenders, etc.) can profit by substituting offense for defense. The '09 Reds need to score more runs.

Perez moved to 3b when we acquired Menke in the trade with Houston: Helms, May, and Stewart for Morgan, Billingham, Menke, Geronimo, and Armbrister. That was the whole trade.

HokieRed
06-21-2009, 04:58 PM
Sorry, Perez moved from 3b to 1b when we got Menke.

George Anderson
06-21-2009, 05:33 PM
As to Vukovich, he was starting there because Perez just couldn't handle the hot corner defensively.

.

Tony's numbers with the glove were much worse than I had imagined.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/perezto01.shtml

westofyou
06-21-2009, 05:55 PM
Tony's numbers with the glove were much worse than I had imagined.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/perezto01.shtml

No not good at all, check out Santo's assist total in 1967 3rd highest in modern history.


ERRORS YEAR E PCT RANGE A AGE G
1 Tony Perez 1970 35 .923 2.73 286 28 153
2 Tony Perez 1969 32 .937 2.99 342 27 160
3 Mike Shannon 1967 29 .919 2.68 239 27 122
T4 Ron Santo 1969 27 .947 2.99 334 29 160
T4 Ron Santo 1970 27 .945 3.05 320 30 152
6 Ron Santo 1967 26 .957 3.60 393 27 161
T7 Tony Perez 1968 25 .952 3.09 343 26 160
T7 Coco Laboy 1969 25 .944 2.71 307 29 156
T7 Doug Rader 1969 25 .945 2.81 307 24 154
10 Maury Wills 1967 24 .948 3.06 343 34 144

GAC
06-21-2009, 09:13 PM
I'm laughing WOY, thinking of how Concepcion and Geronimo would have been excoriated by this board when they were youngsters.

Heavens yes they would.

I have the 75 WS on DVD, and as I've watched those games I thought... "Man! If we had today's game thread on those games it would be merciless." :lol:


Even the trade that brought Morgan was unpopular when it happened - Tommy Helms and the Big Bopper for Morgan and Billingham?? You're kidding right? A true slugger and gold glove second sacker for a little bitty base stealer and Billingham - a mediocre looking pitcher. How the heck does THAT deal make the team better?

A couple years back at Redsfest I got to meet Lee May, who was one of my favorite Reds. He's a class act too. The guy has the biggest set of hands I have ever seen on a man, and even at his age his handshake crushed my hand.

But even all these many years later, after that "trade", I apologized to Lee for them trading him. :p:

traderumor
06-22-2009, 09:25 AM
When your pitching is so bad it negates your offense, you rack up a run of losing seasons.

For the sake of argument, over the Lost Decade, we'd need to plate at least 1000 runs a year to make up for that horrid pitching staff.The price for scoring runs was also that the hitters were poor defenders. Those teams were unbalanced, that is why they lost. Divvy up the blame anyway you like, but it would be very simplistic to blame it all on pitching.

Scrap Irony
06-22-2009, 11:17 AM
Yep, part of the reason Cincinnati struggled so mightily is that two-thirds of the game-- defense and pitching-- was almost completely ignored or hopes were pinned on prayers that had little to no chance at success.

That's not on the players at all either. That's all about the front office. Looking at the team from 2001- til last year you could make the assertion that they owned at least two guys each year who were Bottom Five with the leather in their respective positions.

2001: Todd Walker, Dmitri Young, Junior
2002: Walker, Dunn, Larkin
2003: Dunn, Larkin, Jiminez
2004: Dunn, Junior
2005: Aurillia, Lopez, Junior, Dunn
2006: Ross, Lopez, Junior, Dunn, EdE
2007: Ross, EdE, Junior, Dunn

None of this mentions slightly below average defenders like LaRue, Jimenez, Hamilton, Guillen and others playing out of position.