PDA

View Full Version : Reds' Projected Offense



Plus Plus
04-02-2010, 12:17 AM
Disclaimer: I'm sure there is a thread open that this might apply to, but I am not sure where it is.

Rotoauthority.com, a fantasy baseball site run by the same guy who runs MLBTradeRumors.com, has compiled a list of projected offense rankings for National League teams. The projection has the Reds averaging 4.552 runs per game, which would mean the Reds would score about 737 runs this season. That would be good for 11th in the National League, according to this site.

Read the full article here: http://www.rotoauthority.com/2010/03/national-league-projected-offenses.html

So, where would 737 *real* runs scored put the Reds this year? Would this result in a positive projected pythag when projected RA are used? Does this projection provide any new information to anyone here? I don't really know the answer to any of these questions but I hope that this provides a new perspective for the members of this board.

Ron Madden
04-02-2010, 01:15 AM
Disclaimer: I'm sure there is a thread open that this might apply to, but I am not sure where it is.

Rotoauthority.com, a fantasy baseball site run by the same guy who runs MLBTradeRumors.com, has compiled a list of projected offense rankings for National League teams. The projection has the Reds averaging 4.552 runs per game, which would mean the Reds would score about 737 runs this season. That would be good for 11th in the National League, according to this site.

Read the full article here: http://www.rotoauthority.com/2010/03/national-league-projected-offenses.html

So, where would 737 *real* runs scored put the Reds this year? Would this result in a positive projected pythag when projected RA are used? Does this projection provide any new information to anyone here? I don't really know the answer to any of these questions but I hope that this provides a new perspective for the members of this board.



I'd be thrilled if the Reds come close to scoring 740 runs.

It would be a pleasant surprise indeed, if the pitching turns out as advertised

RedsManRick
04-02-2010, 01:53 AM
Well, the team allowed 723 runs against last year and it seems our combined pitching/defense haven't gotten any worse -- if anything a bit better.

If this team scores 740, I'd put money on it being above .500.

Ron Madden
04-02-2010, 02:04 AM
Well, the team allowed 723 runs against last year and it seems our combined pitching/defense haven't gotten any worse -- if anything a bit better.

If this team scores 740, I'd put money on it being above .500.


Then we'd both be thrilled. :thumbup:

dougdirt
04-02-2010, 02:11 AM
If this team scores 730 runs, they are going to be positive on the ledger in terms of RS/RA. I think they will do just that too (score more than they allow, though I think they will be a little better than what is projected here).

Spring~Fields
04-02-2010, 03:43 AM
Roto. Projection RS +/- Increase 09 RA DIFF
Cardinals - 4.832 * 162 RS 783 +53 RA 640 + 143
Cubs - 4.688 * 162 RS 759 +52 RA 672 + 87
Reds - 4.552 * 162 RS 737 +64 RA 723 + 14
Pirates - 4.550 * 162 RS 737 +101 RA 768 - 31
Brewers - 4.751 * 162 RS 770 -15 RA 818 - 48
Astros - 4.202 * 162 RS 680 +37 RA 770 - 90

2009 Actual RPG Av’g RS RA DIFF
Cardinals - 4.506 730 640 +90
Cubs - 4.364 707 672 +35
Brewers - 4.846 785 818 -33
Reds - 4.154 673 723 -50
Astros - 3.969 643 770 -127
Pirates - 3.926 636 768 -132
09 Finish -
Cards
Cubs 7.5 GB, Brewers 11 GB, Reds 13 GB, Astros 17 GB, Pirates 28.5 GB

2008 Actual RPG Av’g RS RA DIFF
Cubs - 5.278 855 671 +184
Brewers - 4.630 750 689 +61
Astros - 4.395 712 743 -31
Cardinals - 4.809 779 725 +54
Reds - 4.346 704 800 -96
Pirates - 4.537 735 884 -149
08 Finish -
Cubs
Brewers 7.5 GB, Astros 11 GB, Cardinals 11.5 GB, Reds 23.5 GB, Pirates 30.5 GB


If that was accurate at the top, would that be having the Reds about 13 games behind St. Louis and about 7 games behind Chicago?

Scrap Irony
04-02-2010, 09:43 AM
Roto. Projection RS +/- Increase 09 RA DIFF
Cardinals - 4.832 * 162 RS 783 +53 RA 640 + 143
Cubs - 4.688 * 162 RS 759 +52 RA 672 + 87
Reds - 4.552 * 162 RS 737 +64 RA 723 + 14
Pirates - 4.550 * 162 RS 737 +101 RA 768 - 31
Brewers - 4.751 * 162 RS 770 -15 RA 818 - 48
Astros - 4.202 * 162 RS 680 +37 RA 770 - 90

2009 Actual RPG Av’g RS RA DIFF
Cardinals - 4.506 730 640 +90
Cubs - 4.364 707 672 +35
Brewers - 4.846 785 818 -33
Reds - 4.154 673 723 -50
Astros - 3.969 643 770 -127
Pirates - 3.926 636 768 -132
09 Finish -
Cards
Cubs 7.5 GB, Brewers 11 GB, Reds 13 GB, Astros 17 GB, Pirates 28.5 GB

2008 Actual RPG Av’g RS RA DIFF
Cubs - 5.278 855 671 +184
Brewers - 4.630 750 689 +61
Astros - 4.395 712 743 -31
Cardinals - 4.809 779 725 +54
Reds - 4.346 704 800 -96
Pirates - 4.537 735 884 -149
08 Finish -
Cubs
Brewers 7.5 GB, Astros 11 GB, Cardinals 11.5 GB, Reds 23.5 GB, Pirates 30.5 GB


If that was accurate at the top, would that be having the Reds about 13 games behind St. Louis and about 7 games behind Chicago?

Your problem here, SF, is that you assume pitching staffs to be static, when, in fact, they're not. St. Louis has two dynamite starters, but its last three pitchers are crapshoots with little upside, and its bullpen got career years from just about everybody, especially closer Ryan Franklin. Can they roll out a 640 RA? Perhaps. But it's not a good bet.

The Cubs lost one of their aces and another is hurt and will need some time to round back into shape. They're also replacing a good starter with a really, really questionable one. This should affect their RA as well.

The Brewers improved their rotation slightly, but are still depending on an old and unproven pen. The Pirates are the Pirates and Houston's got questions at the top and bottom of their rotation, not to mention an untested pen.

In short, when you add up everything, the Cardinals are still the team to beat, by about 10 games. (This assumes health for everyone with a modicum of depth needed over the course of a year.) The Reds are in a race for second place with the Brewers, about ten games behind.

bucksfan2
04-02-2010, 10:16 AM
I can take off my rosy colored glasses and honestly say that I see only one position that will see a regression offensively from last season. That position is 1b. Even if Rolen misses a time at 3b his backup likely will outproduce what Edwin and Rosales did last season. Cabrera is an offensive upgrade over Janish and not giving at bats to Wily and McDonald should improve the CF position. I will go even further and mention that if Votto happens to miss an extended period of time I am confident that a Alonso of Frazier could out produce what Hernandez and Rosales did at 1b last season.

Spring~Fields
04-02-2010, 10:54 AM
Your problem here, SF, is that you assume pitching staffs to be static, when, in fact, they're not. St. Louis has two dynamite starters, but its last three pitchers are crapshoots with little upside, and its bullpen got career years from just about everybody, especially closer Ryan Franklin.

Awe, you’re reading too much into what I posted. That top part is to just play out what the other party projected from the guys post who started the thread, for a curious look and see. The actual’s below that top portion is simply to see how much change the other party projects, and to see what the increases are. Nothing more, nothing less. The plugging in of the RA is just for a quick number to grab, for the look and see. It is just a simple math cross comparison, nothing special about it.

I would be nervous about making assumptions and calling other teams pitching a “crapshoot”, when the Reds are in the same boat though with five volatile question marks of their own starting.

I don’t think that we can prop up our favorite teams by diminishing or discounting the other teams.

Reds fans seem to think that the other guys can’t figure it out and find their way, every year. As if they just came into town to spend the egg money, after getting off the turnip truck. Even though they have been leading the Reds for the vast majority of the decade.

The trailer is the one to be skeptical of, not the leaders. You can’t strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong, even on paper or the imagination. They, the other guys at the top of the division, are really not as dumb as ones ethnocentricity type beliefs might want to suggest.

I was wondering where the increase for Pittsburgh was coming from in RS, but, I don’t pay enough attention to them to know what they have or have not. Now that is huge, almost as huge and grandiose as your projections for the Reds offense. :)

Most of us already knew that a Chicago or St. Louis had the opportunity to lead that division, they ought too, considering how much more they have spent for years over the Reds, and if they stay healthy. A team has to do better than simply improving against their own bad teams of the past, they have to improve to be equal to or greater than the primary competition.

RedsManRick
04-02-2010, 11:50 AM
FWIW, here's my reasonable best-case scenario for the offense. It puts us in the 790 run ballpark. Obviously I doubt everybody lives up to this and stays healthy enough to get this many at bats, but I think it's a reasonable upper bounds.

Counting Stats


Pos Player PA 1B 2B 3B HR BB K SB RC BR
C Hanigan 300 55 10 0 5 35 30 0 33 34
C Hernandez 350 55 15 0 10 25 50 0 38 38
1B Votto 700 110 45 2 30 85 130 10 127 123
2B Phillips 700 120 35 5 20 50 70 30 94 91
SS Cabrera 550 90 35 2 12 35 55 20 68 66
SS Janish 200 35 15 0 1 10 20 5 21 20
3B Rolen 500 90 20 0 15 45 75 0 65 64
IF Others 300 55 10 0 6 20 70 5 30 30
LF Balentein 500 70 25 2 15 50 110 10 60 61
LF/CF Dickerson 350 50 15 2 8 60 100 15 46 49
CF Stubbs 550 70 35 8 15 50 120 30 72 72
RF Bruce 650 90 35 3 35 65 140 5 108 105
OF Others 300 45 10 1 10 20 80 5 31 32
P All 375 40 8 1 4 10 120 0 13 14
Total 6325 975 313 26 186 560 1170 135 789 790


Rate Stats

Pos Player AVG OBP SLG OPS TB BB/PA K/PA BABIP
C Hanigan .264 .350 .358 .708 95 11.7% 10.0% .283
C Hernandez .246 .300 .385 .685 125 7.1% 14.3% .264
1B Votto .304 .389 .530 .919 326 12.1% 18.6% .345
2B Phillips .277 .329 .438 .767 285 7.1% 10.0% .286
SS Cabrera .270 .316 .416 .732 214 6.4% 10.0% .283
SS Janish .268 .305 .363 .668 69 5.0% 10.0% .296
3B Rolen .275 .340 .418 .758 190 9.0% 15.0% .301
IF Others .254 .303 .354 .657 99 6.7% 23.3% .319
LF Balentein .249 .324 .413 .737 186 10.0% 22.0% .298
LF/CF Dickerson .259 .386 .407 .793 118 17.1% 28.6% .368
CF Stubbs .256 .324 .448 .772 224 9.1% 21.8% .310
RF Bruce .279 .351 .528 .879 309 10.0% 21.5% .312
OF Others .236 .287 .386 .672 108 6.7% 26.7% .295
P All .145 .168 .205 .373 75 2.7% 32.0% .203
Total .260 .326 .420 .746 2423 8.9% 18.5% .298

dougdirt
04-02-2010, 11:53 AM
Rick,
Your reasonable best case scenario for Stubbs is a .324 OBP? You also don't have him being hit by a single pitch all season.... I find that to be fairly unlikely as well.

bucksfan2
04-02-2010, 12:00 PM
Rick you don't expect Gomes to get much PT?

RedsManRick
04-02-2010, 12:24 PM
Rick,
Your reasonable best case scenario for Stubbs is a .324 OBP? You also don't have him being hit by a single pitch all season.... I find that to be fairly unlikely as well.

It's rather simplified on purpose, Doug. I didn't feel like projecting HBP; consider them rolled in to BB. This was meant to be a rather quick and dirty way to get at some reasonable numbers.

Also, when I say upside, consider it something like 75th percentile. Yes, players could very well exceed these projections. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to. Also, I did this about 3-4 weeks ago and hadn't updated it; I've replaced Balentien with Gomes and updated my projections accordingly.

As for Stubbs, perhaps I've not given him enough singles as he had just a .309 BABIP. Given his speed, he probably merits a few more -- as evidenced by his BABIP last year. So with 10 singles added, his new line becomes .276/.341/.468. Better? The average still feels a bit high to me, but hey, we're being optimistic.

In any event, I've put my projection calculator on Google spreadsheets so people can play around with it themselves. Feel free to play around with the first sheet.

Here's the link: Reds Projections 2010 (https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ApnUejUyaK7bdHphcEgyejRhUWw3TzBQZ0lUU2lUZ 0E&hl=en) (my apologies for the number formats, Google doesn't let you do custom formats so the only choices are rounded, 2 decimals, or general (like 10+ decimals...).

PuffyPig
04-02-2010, 01:25 PM
I think we can certainly hope for a regression from the Cards starters.

Last year Carpenter, Wainwright and Pineiro averaged a 17-9 record.

Carpneter is a great pitcher, but he's one year older and his arm is hanging by one less thread.

Wainwright is great also, but when you are comiong off a great year, it's hard to match is simply base on odds.

Penny will be hard pressed to what Pineiro did last year. Pineiro would he hard pressed to match that.

I doubt that the Cards top 3 this year can give them 50+ wins again.

If the Cards starters are going to match last years production they will need good years from Lohse and Garcia. Which is certainly possible.

Spring~Fields
04-02-2010, 01:28 PM
I think we can certainly hope for a regression from the Cards starters.

Last year Carpenter, Wainwright and Pineiro averaged a 17-9 record.

Carpneter is a great pitcher, but he's one year older and his arm is hanging by one less thread.

Wainwright is great also, but when you are comiong off a great year, it's hard to match is simply base on odds.

Penny will be hard pressed to what Pineiro did last year. Pineiro would he hard pressed to match that.

I doubt that the Cards top 3 this year can give them 50+ wins again.

If the Cards starters are going to match last years production they will need good years from Lohse and Garcia. Which is certainly possible.

Good points.

What can we expect from the various Reds starters at the GABP etc?

RedsManRick
04-02-2010, 01:39 PM
Good points.

What can we expect from the various Reds starters at the GABP etc?

FWIW, here are the fan projections from Fangraphs. They only show projections for players with at least 15 fan projections, so no Leake, Wood, or Chapman.

I'm not sure that the WHIPs line up with the ERAs exactly. Given our defense, I think the hit rates are all a bit high. But everything else seems to be reasonable at least. I figure something like a 4.25 starter ERA and a 3.60 bullpen ERA -- which isn't too far off from last year. A little better in the rotation, a little worse in the bullpen (our pen was ERA lucky last year).



Name W L ERA GS G SV IP H ER HR SO BB WHIP K/9 BB/9 K/BB WAR
Aaron Harang 11 10 4.19 30 30 0 185 215 86 26 158 48 1.42 7.69 2.34 3.29 3.0
Bronson Arroyo 13 11 4.21 35 35 0 212 248 99 31 148 65 1.48 6.28 2.76 2.28 2.2
Homer Bailey 11 9 3.95 28 28 0 173 190 76 19 146 69 1.50 7.60 3.59 2.12 2.6
Johnny Cueto 13 10 4.03 31 31 0 187 210 84 25 162 63 1.46 7.80 3.03 2.57 2.7
Matt Maloney 5 6 4.48 24 29 0 99 122 49 15 76 22 1.45 6.91 2.00 3.45 1.3
Edinson Volquez 6 4 4.08 15 16 0 87 98 39 10 82 42 1.61 8.48 4.34 1.95 1.2

Micah Owings 7 9 5.01 25 56 0 116 162 65 16 79 50 1.83 6.13 3.88 1.58 0.4
Jared Burton 3 2 3.72 0 54 0 59 60 24 5 50 23 1.41 7.63 3.51 2.17 0.5
Daniel Herrera 4 4 3.57 0 62 0 68 68 27 7 55 25 1.37 7.28 3.31 2.2 0.4
Arthur Rhodes 2 1 3.06 0 45 0 49 42 17 3 45 18 1.22 8.27 3.31 2.5 0.8
Nick Masset 5 3 3.06 0 76 1 84 72 29 8 78 24 1.14 8.36 2.57 3.25 1.2
Coco Cordero 3 4 3.12 0 65 38 72 62 25 5 67 32 1.31 8.38 4.00 2.09 1.1

Spring~Fields
04-02-2010, 01:50 PM
Thanks Rick, I always have a great appreciation and respect for your input, helpful information.

Thank you.

Mario-Rijo
04-02-2010, 02:24 PM
Good points.

What can we expect from the various Reds starters at the GABP etc?

Ya know I realize it's tough to believe that the Reds pitching is on the uptick but just based on our defense alone it's bound to be as good or better than it has been. Furthermore when I look at the rotation man by man I feel confident that there is reason not only to be optimistic but to feel sure about some things. #1 is Aaron Harang, I know with certainty that what he is working on will help him because it was apparent last season that his stride wasn't right. So that coupled with the mechanic specific work Cueto is working on (that we also knew what he was doing i.e. falling off to the 1st base side) tells me that we have a really good pitching coach who knows how to recognize issues they are having and is proactive at helping them. That doesn't mean they can't have other things pop up but I believe they are fixing any and all previous issues and are better prepared for anything else that may arise than they have been.

So with those bases covered health is mainly all that's left to concern ourselves with aside from whether or not a particular former #1 draft pick is now for real, I lean towards yes although I am still a bit on the fence there. Of course then you have to point a discerning eye to the pen, whom if anyone is due for a down year....

Scrap Irony
04-02-2010, 03:17 PM
Awe, you’re reading too much into what I posted. That top part is to just play out what the other party projected from the guys post who started the thread, for a curious look and see. The actual’s below that top portion is simply to see how much change the other party projects, and to see what the increases are. Nothing more, nothing less. The plugging in of the RA is just for a quick number to grab, for the look and see. It is just a simple math cross comparison, nothing special about it.

Then it's bad math that tells you nothing. You can't compare applesauce to apples, even if apples are in applesauce.


I would be nervous about making assumptions and calling other teams pitching a “crapshoot”, when the Reds are in the same boat though with five volatile question marks of their own starting.

I don’t think that we can prop up our favorite teams by diminishing or discounting the other teams.

I diminish and discount nothing. Other staffs have, by and large, gotten worse. The Reds have improved. Most experts say this is true. Because that doesn't jibe with your opinion, you ignore it and doggedly insist (in post after post after post) everyone else is somehow being less than honest in their work.

All staffs have questions. Major ones. I believe, however, the Reds' questions are, by and large, less pressing (and more picked over) than other teams in the Central.

The Cards have lost a #3 starter who had a monster year in 2009 (Pineiro) and replaced him with an expensive question mark (Brad Penny). They also lost Smoltz and Wellemeyer, two part-time starters and replaced them with Rich Hill, a career minor leaguer who's struggled to keep a job in the major leagues, let alone pitch well. I'd realistically take six Red starters before I gambled on either of those two.

The Cubs are hurt (both Zambrano and Lilly are on the skein to start the year) and added a guy everyone panned for two years. Is that getting better?

The Brewers added a couple vets to their rotation who may do well. They're still short pitching.

The Reds, meanwhile, have a strong, young rotation that projects to only get better. Bailey found some success late last season. Cueto projects to be better than league average, as does Arroyo and Harang. The talent in the fifth starter spot is good enough that national media continues to flock to Goodyear, Arizona to write about it.

I understand that doom and gloom has been the prevailing attitude on Redszone for a number of years. Deservedly so. But I don't think most posters have a doom and gloom attitude this year. (A quick glance at the wins posters project confirm that.)

Spring~Fields
04-02-2010, 04:13 PM
Then it's bad math that tells you nothing. You can't compare applesauce to apples, even if apples are in applesauce.



I diminish and discount nothing. Other staffs have, by and large, gotten worse. The Reds have improved. Most experts say this is true. Because that doesn't jibe with your opinion, you ignore it and doggedly insist (in post after post after post) everyone else is somehow being less than honest in their work.

All staffs have questions. Major ones. I believe, however, the Reds' questions are, by and large, less pressing (and more picked over) than other teams in the Central.

The Cards have lost a #3 starter who had a monster year in 2009 (Pineiro) and replaced him with an expensive question mark (Brad Penny). They also lost Smoltz and Wellemeyer, two part-time starters and replaced them with Rich Hill, a career minor leaguer who's struggled to keep a job in the major leagues, let alone pitch well. I'd realistically take six Red starters before I gambled on either of those two.

The Cubs are hurt (both Zambrano and Lilly are on the skein to start the year) and added a guy everyone panned for two years. Is that getting better?

The Brewers added a couple vets to their rotation who may do well. They're still short pitching.

The Reds, meanwhile, have a strong, young rotation that projects to only get better. Bailey found some success late last season. Cueto projects to be better than league average, as does Arroyo and Harang. The talent in the fifth starter spot is good enough that national media continues to flock to Goodyear, Arizona to write about it.

I understand that doom and gloom has been the prevailing attitude on Redszone for a number of years. Deservedly so. But I don't think most posters have a doom and gloom attitude this year. (A quick glance at the wins posters project confirm that.)

:deadhorse

westofyou
04-02-2010, 04:26 PM
n

I understand that doom and gloom has been the prevailing attitude on Redszone for a number of years. Deservedly so. But I don't think most posters have a doom and gloom attitude this year. (A quick glance at the wins posters project confirm that.)

Go to any of the other 8 threads prior to a season and see the same 90 win predictions. There is unbridled optimism as rampent as the pessimism, every single spring.

Scrap Irony
04-02-2010, 05:49 PM
This season's projection: 85.4 average

The last few years at Old Red Guard
YR RZ Act Ptgh Delta
-- -- ---- ---- -----
09 79.0, 78, 76 (+ 1.0)
08 81.6, 74, 72 (+ 7.6)
07 81.4, 72, 75 (+ 9.2)
06 76.7, 80, 76 (- 3.3)
05 84.7, 73, 75 (+ 11.7)
04 76.8, 76, 67 (+ 0.8)
03 87.9, 69, 63 (+ 18.9)
02 79.7, 75, 75 (+ 4.7)

That said, Redszone has averaged 6+ more wins projected than actual since the inception of the poll in 02.