PDA

View Full Version : I'm happy with the way the season is going thus far



Blitz Dorsey
05-04-2010, 01:29 AM
I might be the only one, but I like how this team is coming together. The pitching is starting to pick up. We all knew the offense would struggle and be inconsistent.

It just feels like the way the Reds have played that they should be 3-4 games under .500 or something. But here we are right at .500 and I'm feeling pretty good about it. (I know, I know, 9-straight losing seasons will have you grasping for straws. I get that.)

And "the best is yet to come" thanks to a certain Cuban defector. The Reds are going to stay in the 2010 playoff race all season. That's my not-so-unbiased opinion.

11larkin11
05-04-2010, 01:31 AM
Thank you for this. Agree 100%

Ravenlord
05-04-2010, 01:32 AM
it "feels like" a good thing so far. but i'm not ready to drink that Kool-Aid, especiall after the Cardinals sereies. i do however stand by my pick of 81-81 right now.

OnBaseMachine
05-04-2010, 01:40 AM
Eh, I'm still disappointed about that first road trip and getting swept in Pittsburgh. They started out that road trip with a 2-0 record and ended up losing the final five games to finish 2-5. If they win just one of those final five games they would be sitting at 14-12 right now. I'm also a little disappointed over losing the final two games in St. Louis. They received solid starting pitching in that series but the offense and bullpen let them down. But overall, 13-13 isn't bad considering how they started. Hopefully they can go at least go 4-2 on this current homestand and head back on the road with a winning record.

Captain Hook
05-04-2010, 02:01 AM
I happy as well.:beerme:

I'm going to leave it at that because I'm sure if I try to give any explanation I will end up complaining about something.

WVRedsFan
05-04-2010, 02:08 AM
Looking at where we are now, with the pitching just being so terrible (think back), I like it. My main concern is the offense. Lots of holes there. Stubbs has been simply horrible, but I expect him to improve, Caberra is just not the answer (despite all those RBI's), the leftfield platoon blows, and even though Bruce is coming around, the outfield is a vast wasteland offensively. Votto and Rolen impress and Phillips is Phillips. Not a good recipe. Nix hit a walk off tonight, but so often he's just a liability. Gomes is a marginal player. And Cairo is simply a nuisance. Dusty seems to attract those kind of players (see Patterson or Taveras).

The starting pitching aches for Volquez (who may never be the same), but has what has to be an improving Arroyo, Harang, Bailey, and Cueto. The bullpen is inconsistent, as most bullpens are. So...

Yeah, I'm optimistic. The loss to the Pirates (as OBM already has said) was inexcusable, and the loss of Game 3 to the Cardinals was the same. Typical of a .500 club, but when did things look so good so soon? If the pitching rights itself, Bruce begins to hit, and they find someone to play left, then we've got something. Unfortunately, it still will add up to about 83-79, but I'll take it. Shows how much the last ten years have done to me.

Will M
05-04-2010, 02:12 AM
IMO the June-July swoon will come. the team will play 500 ball before & after the swoon but the swoon will kill us. the offense (i use the term loosely) just doesn't seem to be able to score more than a few runs a game. where are the 8-0, 6-1, 7-2 type easy wins? we have had one i think. when the pitching goes through a 2 week funk we'll get creamed. this team just can't win unless the pitching is excellent.

i am also a bit worried about the pen. seems they go 3-4 innings every night. we'll need 3 new arms by the All Star break.

Brutus
05-04-2010, 02:14 AM
As a team, only six other teams in the majors have a worse BABIP than do the Reds. To a small extent, they've still been a bit unlucky.

We know, up until recently, Bruce was on the short end. Orlando Cabrera has been very bad, but he's also had a little tough luck considering he's struck out so very few times this season.

Drew Stubbs has a .255 BABIP
Jonny Gomes has a .244 BABIP
Scott Rolen has a .242 BABIP
Cabrera has a .235 BABIP

I still think this offense, while having issues, is not as bad as it seems.

Captain Hook
05-04-2010, 02:24 AM
IMO the June-July swoon will come. the team will play 500 ball before & after the swoon but the swoon will kill us. the offense (i use the term loosely) just doesn't seem to be able to score more than a few runs a game. where are the 8-0, 6-1, 7-2 type easy wins? we have had one i think. when the pitching goes through a 2 week funk we'll get creamed. this team just can't win unless the pitching is excellent.

i am also a bit worried about the pen. seems they go 3-4 innings every night. we'll need 3 new arms by the All Star break.

I'm not going to say that LA is all that great but they scored a bunch of runs in that series and so did the Reds.Somehow the team found a way to win 2 out of 3 when their pitching was terrible.A good sign IMO.

Topcat
05-04-2010, 04:13 AM
Truly I am pleased as I feel the team has under achieved but yet found a way to play .500 ball .

Ron Madden
05-04-2010, 04:28 AM
When Mama aint happy... aint nobody happy.

BearcatShane
05-04-2010, 04:41 AM
They've been alright. I wish the Cardinals weren't so good. I could very, very easily seeing the Reds finishing in second place this year simply because the rest of the Central is pretty bad IMO. Even Milwaukee. My main goal for the team is to finish with over 81 wins. Getting that monkey off their back would be huge even if they don't make the playoffs. I think they have a decent shot at it.

cincrazy
05-04-2010, 07:24 AM
I'm thrilled with where we're at, because the way things have gone, we shouldn't be a .500 baseball team.

I went back and took a look at the start the 1999 team got off to, and was surprised they started off 9-14, and didn't cross the .500 mark for good until well into May. So far, I've been underwhelmed with this team, and as it's presently constituted, I can't see it in the playoff race. But I may have said that in 1999 at this point in the season too :).

Roy Tucker
05-04-2010, 07:58 AM
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100503/COL03/305030100/1007/SPT/No+reason+for+Reds+to+panic

Caveat Emperor
05-04-2010, 08:03 AM
“I’ve struggled quite a bit in the past,’’ Joey Votto said. “But the stretches I’ve been through, both in life and in baseball, helped me to apply’’ the lesson he preached in Houston last week: Go about your business properly and don’t beat yourself up. It’s May 3.

“Right after our conversation here, I could go through a two-month slump and be challenged to put that in perspective. I believe I would,’’ said Votto. “Does that make sense?’’

Sure. You’ve been through rough times, on and off the field, and came out the other side.

“That’s right,’’ Votto said. “Plus, if I had a bad two months now, I’d still have another three months to play baseball.’’


Good article by P-Doc there. This team probably isn't talented enough to catch the Cardinals, but definitely good enough to play .500 baseball. Do that, and get hot at the right time down the stretch and anything can happen.

jojo
05-04-2010, 09:00 AM
Good article by P-Doc there. This team probably isn't talented enough to catch the Cardinals, but definitely good enough to play .500 baseball. Do that, and get hot at the right time down the stretch and anything can happen.

I'm at the same place you are here.... there's some upside on the Reds roster so if everything breaks right (which it rarely does), there could be meaningful August/September games. Basically they're probably something akin to a .500 team but there is reason to hope.

But that said, right now i'm mostly hoping they don't go on an awful 10 game skid where they go from 5 back to 10+ back...

hebroncougar
05-04-2010, 09:09 AM
Well, one has to hope that the Reds have neither pitched, nor hit as well as they can. And they sit at .500, while playing some pretty good opponents in the month of April and early May. There is reason for a little optimisim. Now, if this is how they are going to play all year, all my hair will be grey, or I will lose it all. And please, please, find me a manager that MAXIMISES his teams chances of success every night.

VR
05-04-2010, 10:57 AM
“That’s right,’’ Votto said. “Plus, if I had a bad two months now, I’d still have another three months to play baseball.’’

Looks like Joey needs a little work on his math? :confused: :)


I'm ok w/ where they are at as well...especially since the pitching has completely turned around in the last 10 days.

Someone mentioned it in a game thread....but I really do wonder if the Arizona spring training had an effect on these pitchers. Leake was the only one who didn't have tremendous struggles...and he's an Arizona guy.

Interesting consideration.

Sea Ray
05-04-2010, 11:19 AM
I would put it that the Reds have struggled to play .500 ball this far and that will continue unless the offense gets some help and that help has to come from LF. Either Jermaine Dye or Juan Francisco or whoever. Without that I think it'll be a struggle to win 81 games

RedsManRick
05-04-2010, 11:38 AM
I'm happy with our record, but not really with the way we've played. While our offense hasn't be stellar it hasn't been too out of line with expectations. But our run prevention has been horrendous and I blame that on both the pitching and the defense.

I thought this team was going to be in the 725 RS, 725 RA ballpark (4.5 R/G). Instead we're pacing for 698 RS, 872 RA. That's an entire run allowed per game more than I expected.

Our team UZR is -5.6, 14th worst in the NL, a figure which comes exclusively as a result of a lack of range -- not getting to the balls we should get to. (DER has us 13th, so I'm comfortable saying our defense has stunk). If you adjust to where I think we should be, an admittedly biased exercise, I'd say that the defense is responsible for about 50% of the difference between where we are and where we should be.

Meanwhile, our pitching has put up the 14th worst ERA, 11th worst FIP, and 10th worst xFIP. In short -- bad defense and too many homers. But you dig a bit deeper and you see a high LD% and a low strike rate. If I had to make a rough diagnosis, I'd say our pitchers are falling behind too often and then getting killed when they come back in the zone. The guys on our staff generally have decent stuff -- they just need to be more aggressive with it.

With the way our pitching and defense have played, our offense doesn't stand a chance. Even if we added a good bat in LF, you're looking at no more than a 20-30 run bump - best case scenario - about .15 runs/game. That means we'd still need to shed about a full run per game on the prevention side to project to .500.

If this team competes this year, it's primarily through a turn-around on run prevention.

HeatherC1212
05-04-2010, 12:00 PM
Looks like Joey needs a little work on his math? :confused: :)

He got it right. I sounds to me like he's saying that even if he has a bad May and/or June that he would still have July, August, and September to play better baseball. That math seems fine to me. :p:

I'm happy with their record right now considering how up and down the season has been so far and hopefully things continue on the upswing as we start heading into the late spring and summer months. :)

Blitz Dorsey
05-08-2010, 11:31 PM
Still happy! Playing .500 ball and we haven't hit our stride yet.

OnBaseMachine
05-09-2010, 12:02 AM
So that's what it feels like to win a game by more than one run. Nice game by the Reds tonight. Hopefully Mike Leake can toss up another gem on Sunday and the offense can score enough runs to take two of three from the Cubs.

WebScorpion
05-09-2010, 02:19 AM
So that's what it feels like to win a game by more than one run. Nice game by the Reds tonight. Hopefully Mike Leake can toss up another gem on Sunday and the offense can score enough runs to take two of three from the Cubs.
Yeah, it was nice to see them go for the jugular... Also nice to see the return of Harangatang. If Leake can make his Mother's Day gift a 'W', then we'll be one game over .500 going into Pittsburgh for some payback. I still feel good about this team...they're weathering the storms for the most part. :thumbup:

reds44
05-09-2010, 03:54 PM
It certainly seems as if we're playing better baseball at this point.

We took 2 of 3 from the comes (and scored 26 runs) and had a 4-2 homestand. We're also 9-4 in our last 13 games. If you look at the stats, our offensive numbers have been climbing and we're starting to see guys getting back up to their career levels.

We really just need to find a way to stay in the race until July we're we can acquire some OF help. Right now the biggest weaknesses on the team are CF and LF.

VR
05-09-2010, 03:57 PM
He got it right. I sounds to me like he's saying that even if he has a bad May and/or June that he would still have July, August, and September to play better baseball. That math seems fine to me. :p:

I'm happy with their record right now considering how up and down the season has been so far and hopefully things continue on the upswing as we start heading into the late spring and summer months. :)

ahhh, a top notch Votto apologist at work there. Thanks for clarifying Heather. :cool:

Ghosts of 1990
05-10-2010, 02:26 PM
It's been tough sledding against the Pirates in Pittsburgh under Dusty Baker it seems... and as Dusty pointed out, the Pirates are pesky in the spring because their spirits aren't broken yet and they're hovering around .500 still at this time in the year. Getting them in September is often a different animal.

I'm hoping we can take 2 of 3 in Pittsburgh, which would set up for a nice little epic weekend series with the Cardinals, to see if we can best the 1 of 3 we usually take from them.

Homer Bailey
05-10-2010, 02:51 PM
It's been tough sledding against the Pirates in Pittsburgh under Dusty Baker it seems... and as Dusty pointed out, the Pirates are pesky in the spring because their spirits aren't broken yet and they're hovering around .500 still at this time in the year. Getting them in September is often a different animal.

I'm hoping we can take 2 of 3 in Pittsburgh, which would set up for a nice little epic weekend series with the Cardinals, to see if we can best the 1 of 3 we usually take from them.

Reds were 13-5 against the Pirates last year.

TRF
05-10-2010, 02:56 PM
As a team, only six other teams in the majors have a worse BABIP than do the Reds. To a small extent, they've still been a bit unlucky.

We know, up until recently, Bruce was on the short end. Orlando Cabrera has been very bad, but he's also had a little tough luck considering he's struck out so very few times this season.

Drew Stubbs has a .255 BABIP
Jonny Gomes has a .244 BABIP
Scott Rolen has a .242 BABIP
Cabrera has a .235 BABIP

I still think this offense, while having issues, is not as bad as it seems.

Does a team ever have its starting 8 with their expected BABIP? If the luck ship rights itself for these guys, you can expect a dip for Votto, Bruce, Rolen and the catchers. Luck is funny that way, in that it works both ways. Have these guys been unlucky, or is their age and skill levels showing they are prone to streaks of good and bad hitting, and not a steady performance?

Rolen may be unlucky, or his age and injury history might say this is pretty normal for him. And in a few weeks, when the weather is warmer for good, he'll likely get hot again. Cabrera was never a good hitter, and he's slower now. But he has seen something of a short resurgence in the leadoff spot. Gomes defines streaky, and he's all about power, not getting on base.

And don't get me started on Stubbs again, I just don't have the strength. (I really thought he'd thrive as the #7 hitter.)

westofyou
05-10-2010, 02:58 PM
And don't get me started on Stubbs again, I just don't have the strength. (I really thought he'd thrive as the #7 hitter.)

22 ab's .318/.375/.364 doesn't work for ya eh?

nate
05-10-2010, 03:09 PM
22 ab's .318/.375/.364 doesn't work for ya eh?

It could be the 22 ab's (last 7 days) .136/.174/.182 that's not working.

Ah, the game of chance that is miniscule splits roulette!

Never bet red!

:cool:

westofyou
05-10-2010, 03:11 PM
It could be the 22 ab's (last 7 days) .136/.174/.182 that's not working.

Ah, the game of chance that is miniscule splits roulette!

Never bet red!

:cool:
True dat, but from the 7th slot was the quantifier of the statement.

TRF
05-10-2010, 03:11 PM
It could be the 22 ab's (last 7 days) .136/.174/.182 that's not working.

Ah, the game of chance that is miniscule splits roulette!

Never bet red!

:cool:

ding ding.

I really thought he'd display some power lower in the order. but even in woy's split, he's... lacking.

nate
05-10-2010, 03:19 PM
I think the biggest point is 22 ABs.

Leave the kid in the 7-spot all year. His defense is good, let's see if he can figure it out.

Sea Ray
05-10-2010, 03:26 PM
I still don't buy that BAbip is a luck based stat. If it is then guys in the Hall like Tony Gwynn and Ted Williams were incredibly lucky.

I don't think it was a four leaf clover that got Tony Gwynn a .341 BAbip. I think it was due to how solidly he put those balls in play

Tom Servo
05-10-2010, 03:30 PM
http://knowyourmeme.com/system/icons/1253/original/everything_went_better_than_expected.jpg

Will M
05-10-2010, 06:11 PM
I still don't buy that BAbip is a luck based stat. If it is then guys in the Hall like Tony Gwynn and Ted Williams were incredibly lucky.

I don't think it was a four leaf clover that got Tony Gwynn a .341 BAbip. I think it was due to how solidly he put those balls in play

are you saying that speedy guys who hit lots of line drives get on base more than slow guys who hit lazy flyballs? i won't belive that until i see some modern stat that proves it. :D

Homer Bailey
05-10-2010, 06:24 PM
I still don't buy that BAbip is a luck based stat. If it is then guys in the Hall like Tony Gwynn and Ted Williams were incredibly lucky.

I don't think it was a four leaf clover that got Tony Gwynn a .341 BAbip. I think it was due to how solidly he put those balls in play

I don't think anyone thinks that everyone should have the same BABIP. A lot of other factors go into it (LD rate, ISOP, Speed, etc.). When evaluating BABIP, it isn't really fair to look at the rate and say it "should be" this without evaluating other factors.

Gwynn had a very high 24% LD rate (from 1988 on). That is going to lead to a high BABIP. There is clearly a talent factor that goes into BABIP, and I'm yet to see someone argue against that.

RedsManRick
05-10-2010, 06:42 PM
I still don't buy that BAbip is a luck based stat. If it is then guys in the Hall like Tony Gwynn and Ted Williams were incredibly lucky.

I don't think it was a four leaf clover that got Tony Gwynn a .341 BAbip. I think it was due to how solidly he put those balls in play

Don't confuse the stat with the analysis done using it. It's not that BABIP measures luck, per se'. As you point out, it can and does reflect differences in skill, particularly related to making solid contact and being really fast. The latter is particularly helpful if you're able to hit a lot of grounders when you're not hitting line drives.

Ichiro is the perfect example of this; his .357 career BABIP is likely the highest on record. On the flip side, if a guy isn't particularly fast or particularly adept at hitting liners, a high BABIP is likely "luck".

The "luck" part of analysis comes about because BABIP is heavily influenced by the performance of the defense. There is enough difference among defenses that in short samples, even including over a full season, it's hard to separate out the influence of defense and the player's skill. Over time, as the number of balls in play increases, the randomness of defensive performance irons itself out. So by the end of the player's career, you can be pretty confident that he earned his BABIP.

That doesn't mean a guy with a particularly high or low BABIP is necessarily lucky or unlucky (the beneficiary/sufferer of particularly bad/good defense) -- just that it's possible that he has been. And the further away from average it is (or his expected BABIP if you want to do the math based on hit types), the more likely it is that the observed different is heavily the result of "luck".

We know Gwynn had very good speed (for the first half of his career at least) and I'm willing to bet that his LD% was among the highest in baseball history -- right there with Mr. Williams. For reference, a shorthand calculation for expected BABIP is LD% + .120. If Gwynn's LD% was 24% as HB says, his expected BABIP would be .360 - there you go.

I will admit, many people who cite BABIP do so lazily and don't allow for the possibility of it being skill driven. It's important to look at the player's underlying skill set and current performance indicators (particularly batted ball types) in assessing the degree to which the observed difference is skill vs. luck.

Sea Ray
05-10-2010, 10:49 PM
I don't think anyone thinks that everyone should have the same BABIP. A lot of other factors go into it (LD rate, ISOP, Speed, etc.). When evaluating BABIP, it isn't really fair to look at the rate and say it "should be" this without evaluating other factors.

Gwynn had a very high 24% LD rate (from 1988 on). That is going to lead to a high BABIP. There is clearly a talent factor that goes into BABIP, and I'm yet to see someone argue against that.

It seems like everytime I see the BAbip stat used around here it's linked to a thought that the player(s) was either lucky or unlucky. Of course in this thread the example was as follows:


As a team, only six other teams in the majors have a worse BABIP than do the Reds. To a small extent, they've still been a bit unlucky.

We know, up until recently, Bruce was on the short end. Orlando Cabrera has been very bad, but he's also had a little tough luck considering he's struck out so very few times this season.

Drew Stubbs has a .255 BABIP
Jonny Gomes has a .244 BABIP
Scott Rolen has a .242 BABIP
Cabrera has a .235 BABIP

I still think this offense, while having issues, is not as bad as it seems.

In this case the poster is clearly linking BAbip to luck. I think the reason these BAbip are so low is not because of luck but because these guys haven't been making a lot of solid contact (sans the HRs of course).

Homer Bailey
05-10-2010, 10:58 PM
It seems like everytime I see the BAbip stat used around here it's linked to a thought that the player(s) was either lucky or unlucky. Of course in this thread the example was as follows:

On its own, a low BABIP does not necessarily mean that the hitter is unlucky. If he is hitting a ton of line drives AND has a low BABIP, then yes it is very likely that the hitter is unlikely.



In this case the poster is clearly linking BAbip to luck. I think the reason these BAbip are so low is not because of luck but because these guys haven't been making a lot of solid contact (sans the HRs of course).

This poster did clearly link BABIP to luck, but I don't think he is saying that all players should have the same BABIP. I'm not going to dig deeper for each players expected BABIP (using league averages), but I know that a few days ago, I looked into OC's poor luck here http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2075626&postcount=224.

I think it is faulty logic to automatically assume that a low BABIP means poor luck. I can completely see where you are coming from when people jump to that conclusion. However, I do believe that we can learn a lot about luck by looking at their batted ball types. I know some people have trouble using batted ball type because it doesn't truly define how hard a player hit a ball, and it only shows trajectory, but IMO, it is very useful.

Brutus
05-10-2010, 11:15 PM
It seems like everytime I see the BAbip stat used around here it's linked to a thought that the player(s) was either lucky or unlucky. Of course in this thread the example was as follows:



In this case the poster is clearly linking BAbip to luck. I think the reason these BAbip are so low is not because of luck but because these guys haven't been making a lot of solid contact (sans the HRs of course).

I think you're misrepresenting my statements as "clearly linking" the two. I posed the possibility that, in part because of the low numbers on the team level, a case could be made the Reds were having some balls not fall in for hits that will probably do so by season's end. In fact, over 95% of teams the last 20 years have finished with team BABIP between .280-.320 and usually most are within .290-.310. Because on the team level the BABIP usually encompasses all ranges of defensive skillsets of the opposition, the averages come pretty close to the center.

On the individual level, however, I do believe a link is tentative at best without further examination.

If you have read anything about my thoughts on this subject in the past, as shown in this thread (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75819), I most certainly don't see BABIP as a telltale sign of luck. I much prefer xBABIP, which is more encompassing of batted ball types.

oregonred
05-10-2010, 11:38 PM
Blitz with a bold post on the fickle RZ forum about a week ago, but the direction does seem to be looking positive. The pitching has been really solid over the past 2 weeks+ (minus the Friday stinker by Bailey). Been in almost every game and even with most being close a 10-4 record in the last 14.

Bailey's turn is coming up so FCB will find his way back to the keyboard on Wednesday night. :)

Blitz Dorsey
05-11-2010, 12:22 AM
OregonRed, I'll forget you stole my avatar thanks to those kind words.

And I must say: I'm STILL happy with the way the season is going thus far!!! Happier in fact.

oregonred
05-11-2010, 01:32 AM
Blitz - That is one sweet avatar. Rijo was the man. Consider it a compliment. Just watch out for the pitchforks if the Good Guys lose tomorrow night.

Blitz Dorsey
05-11-2010, 01:40 AM
I know, even though Rijo got into some stuff with the Bowden regime in Washington with shady dealings in the DR, he is still my guy. Lights freakin' out in the '90 Series. And a few years older than what we thought he was at the time I'm sure.

I love the stogie too ... smoke in his face ... just Rijo all the way.

Anyway, back to regularly-scheduled programming...

Sea Ray
05-11-2010, 10:07 AM
I think you're misrepresenting my statements as "clearly linking" the two. I posed the possibility that, in part because of the low numbers on the team level, a case could be made the Reds were having some balls not fall in for hits that will probably do so by season's end. In fact, over 95% of teams the last 20 years have finished with team BABIP between .280-.320 and usually most are within .290-.310. Because on the team level the BABIP usually encompasses all ranges of defensive skillsets of the opposition, the averages come pretty close to the center.

On the individual level, however, I do believe a link is tentative at best without further examination.

If you have read anything about my thoughts on this subject in the past, as shown in this thread (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75819), I most certainly don't see BABIP as a telltale sign of luck. I much prefer xBABIP, which is more encompassing of batted ball types.


I understand where you're coming from but I stand by my comment that the following paragragh is "clearly linking BABIP and luck". Why else would you mention unlucky and BABIP?


As a team, only six other teams in the majors have a worse BABIP than do the Reds. To a small extent, they've still been a bit unlucky.

Unless there's luck involved what's the difference in saying BABIP will come back to the league norm than saying a BA will come back to the league norm over the course of a season?

Brutus
05-11-2010, 12:02 PM
I understand where you're coming from but I stand by my comment that the following paragragh is "clearly linking BABIP and luck". Why else would you mention unlucky and BABIP?



Unless there's luck involved what's the difference in saying BABIP will come back to the league norm than saying a BA will come back to the league norm over the course of a season?

I'm not saying there's no luck involved at all. On the team level, I think if you are out of that range I mentioned, there's likely some element of being lucky or unlucky given the range of skillsets should theoretically average out over the course of a year. But I did also say "small extent." i.e. I'm not saying it's all about luck.

The individual level is much more about the types of balls that are hit. But if the team level is at a low average that would not be expected to stay so low, then by extension, you can draw some conclusions that some of the hitters are also going to go up by the end.

Roy Tucker
05-11-2010, 12:58 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jeff_pearlman/05/11/baseball.marathon/index.html?eref=sircrc

membengal
05-11-2010, 02:16 PM
I don't want to start a new thread for this, and don't know where else to put it, so I will stick it here.

Glancing at the rest of May and into the first two weeks of June, I am flabberstunned to see that the Reds will have finished the first two months of the season having played 12 games against St. Louis already. They've been crazy front-loaded against the division in general, but, yeesh.

PuffyPig
05-11-2010, 02:16 PM
I still don't buy that BAbip is a luck based stat. If it is then guys in the Hall like Tony Gwynn and Ted Williams were incredibly lucky.

I don't think it was a four leaf clover that got Tony Gwynn a .341 BAbip. I think it was due to how solidly he put those balls in play


BABIP can be luck dependant but for batters, unlike pitchers, BABIP will flucuate between hitters.

Every hitter will likley have his BABIP range. As yoy say Gwynn had a .341 BAPIP lifetime.

But, if one year he had a .400 BAPIP he as likely lucky, just like a.280 BABIP for him would be unlucky.

Sea Ray
05-11-2010, 03:31 PM
BABIP can be luck dependant but for batters, unlike pitchers, BABIP will flucuate between hitters.

Every hitter will likley have his BABIP range. As yoy say Gwynn had a .341 BAPIP lifetime.

But, if one year he had a .400 BAPIP he as likely lucky, just like a.280 BABIP for him would be unlucky.

I don't know that I buy that. Let's use a real life example. Pete Rose in 1974 his BA dropped to .284 and his BAbip also dropped to .303.

You're saying that those numbers show he had bad luck? I'm saying no, he just didn't hit as well or maybe the pitching was better or whatever. Luck would be a few down on my list of possibilities.

RedsManRick
05-11-2010, 04:46 PM
I don't know that I buy that. Let's use a real life example. Pete Rose in 1974 his BA dropped to .284 and his BAbip also dropped to .303.

You're saying that those numbers show he had bad luck? I'm saying no, he just didn't hit as well or maybe the pitching was better or whatever. Luck would be a few down on my list of possibilities.

And this is why you need to look at the underlying data. I doubt it's available for Rose circa 1974, but by looking at batted ball type frequency, infield FB rates, contact rates, etc. we can get a decent picture of what happened.

But I think the big point needs to be recognizing that the question should not skill vs. luck, but rather explainable vs. unexplainable. When most people say "luck" they saying that they can't explain the variation. Maybe that's a function of simply not having precise enough batted ball data. Or maybe the guy truly had opposing defenses make a lot of great plays. The point is that we don't know.

When you start seeing BABIPs that are grossly out of line with the batted ball data, it's reasonable to suspect that the variance is due to more than just some player skill we can't yet measure.

westofyou
05-11-2010, 05:11 PM
Concerning Roses 1974, prior to the year the Reds brass had asked Rose to be more patient in the top slot, not only in garnering walks, they wanted him to see more pitches as well. this in turn led to the only season that Rose woudl top 100 BB in a season, of cours ethe following off season they wanted (and did) to cut Pete's salary, because he didn't hit .300

HokieRed
05-11-2010, 06:01 PM
I don't want to start a new thread for this, and don't know where else to put it, so I will stick it here.

Glancing at the rest of May and into the first two weeks of June, I am flabberstunned to see that the Reds will have finished the first two months of the season having played 12 games against St. Louis already. They've been crazy front-loaded against the division in general, but, yeesh.

Interesting point. The scheduling's ridiculous. If we are in it late in the season, there won't be any head to head games to speak of with the Cards.

westofyou
05-11-2010, 06:07 PM
Interesting point. The scheduling's ridiculous. If we are in it late in the season, there won't be any head to head games to speak of with the Cards.

Schedules have been goofy since they went computerized, and off the table of teh couple that used to do them. I noticed the top heavy division stuff earlier this year, but didn't see the goofy 2 trips into Pitt before them coming to Cincinnati

RedsManRick
05-11-2010, 06:11 PM
Schedules have been goofy since they went computerized, and off the table of teh couple that used to do them. I noticed the top heavy division stuff earlier this year, but didn't see the goofy 2 trips into Pitt before them coming to Cincinnati

I wonder what influence interleague has had on this? I can't imagine it made things any simpler...

I'm not too worried about the schedule in terms of order. According to ESPN, the Reds have a slightly below average strength of schedule.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/rpi/_/sort/sos

Chip R
05-11-2010, 06:16 PM
Schedules have been goofy since they went computerized, and off the table of teh couple that used to do them. I noticed the top heavy division stuff earlier this year, but didn't see the goofy 2 trips into Pitt before them coming to Cincinnati

Yeah, Chicago came into Cincinnati twice before the Reds are going there.

_Sir_Charles_
05-11-2010, 06:20 PM
I noticed it last season in regards to Cincy's visits to Houston. 4 game set April 17-20...and then they didn't return ALL season until Sept 25-27. That was beyond bizarre.

If it were up to me, we'd dump this whole inter-league play nonsense and get back to a balanced schedule. And for some reason that I just can't figure out...they WON'T leave it up to me. Odd.

Chip R
05-11-2010, 07:00 PM
If it were up to me, we'd dump this whole inter-league play nonsense and get back to a balanced schedule. And for some reason that I just can't figure out...they WON'T leave it up to me. Odd.


I don't mind the unbalanced schedule. The balanced schedule is a relic of bygone days where each league had 8 teams in it. Every other sport plays an unbalanced schedule. It makes sense to play more games against your division opponents than outside of the division.

However, the way they set things up now is awful. I mean we play SEA, CLE, KC and OAK in interleague play. I know they have to play CLE 6 times but why KC and not TEX or the Angels? And you don't even play everyone in your division the same as everyone else does.

_Sir_Charles_
05-11-2010, 07:06 PM
I don't mind the unbalanced schedule. The balanced schedule is a relic of bygone days where each league had 8 teams in it. Every other sport plays an unbalanced schedule. It makes sense to play more games against your division opponents than outside of the division.

However, the way they set things up now is awful. I mean we play SEA, CLE, KC and OAK in interleague play. I know they have to play CLE 6 times but why KC and not TEX or the Angels? And you don't even play everyone in your division the same as everyone else does.

I should've been more specific. I don't want the "old" balanced schedule. I want it where we play every team in the NL the same number of times and then teams in OUR division an additional go-round or more. It should be weighted towards your own division...but I want everyone to face out of division teams the same number of times as everyone else.

Tom Servo
05-11-2010, 10:04 PM
It's amazing how happy I am when the Reds are a few games over .500

Falls City Beer
05-11-2010, 10:06 PM
It's amazing how happy I am when the Reds are a few games over .500

What's better is that the pythag is trending the right way. REAL TALK

OnBaseMachine
05-11-2010, 10:33 PM
It's amazing how happy I am when the Reds are a few games over .500

Same here. I LOVE winning.

Captain Hook
05-11-2010, 11:43 PM
The Reds are 18-15, in second place 2 games back from the Cards, 3 games ahead of 3rd place Milwaukee and playing great baseball.

Lets all be happy!!!

OnBaseMachine
05-11-2010, 11:50 PM
The Reds have outscored their opponents 30-6 during the current four game winning streak.

Caveat Emperor
05-12-2010, 12:10 AM
Meanwhile, Jay Bruce has quietly stopped being an automatic out against LHP.

reds44
05-12-2010, 12:10 AM
The Reds have outscored their opponents 30-6 during the current four game winning streak.
That'll help out the pythag.

Sea Ray
05-12-2010, 10:48 AM
And this is why you need to look at the underlying data. I doubt it's available for Rose circa 1974, but by looking at batted ball type frequency, infield FB rates, contact rates, etc. we can get a decent picture of what happened.

But I think the big point needs to be recognizing that the question should not skill vs. luck, but rather explainable vs. unexplainable. When most people say "luck" they saying that they can't explain the variation. Maybe that's a function of simply not having precise enough batted ball data. Or maybe the guy truly had opposing defenses make a lot of great plays. The point is that we don't know.

When you start seeing BABIPs that are grossly out of line with the batted ball data, it's reasonable to suspect that the variance is due to more than just some player skill we can't yet measure.


I'm thinking that BAbip should never be mentioned without also mentioning LD% and if that stat is not available (1974) then there's not much to be gleaned from BAbip.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2010, 10:49 AM
That'll help out the pythag.

Still 11 runs on the wrong side of fate.

Sea Ray
05-12-2010, 10:53 AM
Meanwhile, Jay Bruce has quietly stopped being an automatic out against LHP.

What's nice is that we're seeing guys like Cueto, Arroyo, Harang and Bruce coimng around. The truth is this team cannot compete unless most of those guys contribute. We also benefitted from CF production yesterday. We're a very good team when Jay Bruce is going 3 for 4 and Johnny Cueto is blowing the ball past guys. We're not so good when Cueto is throwing 110 pitches in 6 innings and giving up 4 or 5 runs and Jay Bruce is hitting .208. If these guys "figure it out" it'll be a fun summer to watch baseball in Cincinnati. If they don't then we have no chance because a team like ours given their limited resources, can't acquire all the needed pieces. This is what it's all about and not so much Dusty's batting orders

Falls City Beer
05-12-2010, 10:54 AM
Have Owings warmed up before the game today to take over for Bailey--save the Pythag!!!

TRF
05-12-2010, 11:03 AM
I wonder what influence interleague has had on this? I can't imagine it made things any simpler...

I'm not too worried about the schedule in terms of order. According to ESPN, the Reds have a slightly below average strength of schedule.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/rpi/_/sort/sos

I get this kinda, except don't the Reds play almost the exact same schedule as everyone else in the Central? I mean after you remove the interleague games, its the same right? So does the whole NL Central have a below average strength of schedule? Or is it because the Astros and now Cubs suck?

bucksfan2
05-12-2010, 12:04 PM
I get this kinda, except don't the Reds play almost the exact same schedule as everyone else in the Central? I mean after you remove the interleague games, its the same right? So does the whole NL Central have a below average strength of schedule? Or is it because the Astros and now Cubs suck?

It could get even weaker when the Pirates come back down to earth. The Astros and Pirates will battle it out with the Nats for the worst team in the NL. And the Cubs look like they are headed for impending disaster.

klw
05-12-2010, 03:25 PM
19-15 now. I was feeling better until I looked and saw that last year the Reds were 20-14 after 34 games.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2010, 03:28 PM
19-15 now. I was feeling better until I looked and saw that last year the Reds were 20-14 after 34 games.

The pythag still in the red. Despite a great run against a truly putrid team. Miles to go. But it is a start, I hope.

OnBaseMachine
05-12-2010, 03:32 PM
19-15 now. I was feeling better until I looked and saw that last year the Reds were 20-14 after 34 games.

Last year the Reds had Edwin Encarnacion at third base, Willy Taveras in CF, no Mike Leake, a struggling Jay Bruce, and were about to be bombarded with injuries. I think this team has a lot more upside than last year's team. Maybe they won't reach that upside, but the potential is there, IMO.

Strikes Out Looking
05-12-2010, 03:32 PM
Have Owings warmed up before the game today to take over for Bailey--save the Pythag!!!

Did Owings even take the trip to Pittsburgh?

Will M
05-12-2010, 03:45 PM
Last year the Reds had Edwin Encarnacion at third base, Willy Taveras in CF, no Mike Leake, a struggling Jay Bruce, and were about to be bombarded with injuries. I think this team has a lot more upside than last year's team. Maybe they won't reach that upside, but the potential is there, IMO.

overall i agree with you. Leake & Rolen. a better version of Bruce. some additions by subtraction. i think this team is better than the 2009 version.
(hence the optomistic preseason predictions that were common here).

i think the team is still at risk for injuries. all teams are but small markets teams seem to be more at risk. its nice to see some AAA bats waking up. it would also be nice to see Walt be more proactice in improving the team.
we have talked about adding an everyday left fielder.
another simple addition is replacing Cairo with someone who could fill in at 1B/3B occasionally.

nate
05-12-2010, 03:46 PM
Did Owings even take the trip to Pittsburgh?

I heard he was warming up with Cordero in the 9th.

Maybe just staying sharp.

Sea Ray
05-12-2010, 04:52 PM
It really hurt us last year to lose Votto indefinitely. If the same thing happened this year it would have a similar effect. This team doesn't have enough middle of the prder production to be able to weather losing Votto for a significant amount of time. That was huge

RedsManRick
05-12-2010, 05:08 PM
The pythag still in the red. Despite a great run against a truly putrid team. Miles to go. But it is a start, I hope.

Pythag works because it is more closely linked to your player's talent than W-L record itself.

The Reds defense has stunk relative to reasonable expectations, something along the lines of 10-15 runs worse than projected if you go by UZR.

Subtract out those runs and suddenly we're in the black.

Yes, this was a great series against a bad team, but those games count too. Look at who we've played so far:

St. Louis (6)
Los Angeles (3)
Chicago (6)
New York (3)
Florida (4)

Pittsburgh (6)
San Diego (3)
Houston (3)

That's 22 games against teams that were supposed to be .500+ and only 12 against teams that were supposed to be under .500. Hardly an easy schedule.

I don't think it's crazy to think that this team is a legitimate over .500 -- it's definitely good to see us beating up on the teams we're supposed to beat up on.

traderumor
05-12-2010, 07:05 PM
19-15 now. I was feeling better until I looked and saw that last year the Reds were 20-14 after 34 games.I just looked this up because I knew this was ringing eerily similar to last season. Took 2 out of 3 from the Cards at home, then went out to Arizona and caught them in the middle of the AJ Hinch debacle, just dominated the snakes for 3 days. Then...

But as someone has pointed out, hopefully a major event like losing Votto won't hit us this year and we'll see what happens.

As for pythag I've seen mentioned elsewhere, ever since the horrible pitching start, the team has maintained about a +3 between actual vs. pythag, which is probably even less after today.

I just hope they keep up the good streak through the Cards series. Going to Sunday's game for Arroyo vs. Penny.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2010, 07:15 PM
Pythag works because it is more closely linked to your player's talent than W-L record itself.

The Reds defense has stunk relative to reasonable expectations, something along the lines of 10-15 runs worse than projected if you go by UZR.

Subtract out those runs and suddenly we're in the black.

Yes, this was a great series against a bad team, but those games count too. Look at who we've played so far:

St. Louis (6)
Los Angeles (3)
Chicago (6)
New York (3)
Florida (4)

Pittsburgh (6)
San Diego (3)
Houston (3)

That's 22 games against teams that were supposed to be .500+ and only 12 against teams that were supposed to be under .500. Hardly an easy schedule.

I don't think it's crazy to think that this team is a legitimate over .500 -- it's definitely good to see us beating up on the teams we're supposed to beat up on.

As the facts change, so should the conclusions. I think it's probably time to recognize that this might be a pretty solid offensive club.

When it comes to the pitching, let's see where we are after a west coast swing or a trip to Philadelphia, or, heck, after a series against Milwaukee. So far the pitching staff, even after this series, is decidedly mortal, and have a grand-canyon-sized chasm to bridge to reach the likes of the Giants, Cardinals, or the Padres--or other wild card contenders like the Rockies.

Benihana
05-12-2010, 08:31 PM
Me too ;)

klw
05-12-2010, 08:51 PM
Last year the Reds had Edwin Encarnacion at third base, Willy Taveras in CF, no Mike Leake, a struggling Jay Bruce, and were about to be bombarded with injuries. I think this team has a lot more upside than last year's team. Maybe they won't reach that upside, but the potential is there, IMO.

Despite my apparent above pessimism I agree the Reds are in a much better place than they were last year at this time.

TheNext44
05-12-2010, 08:54 PM
As the facts change, so should the conclusions. I think it's probably time to recognize that this might be a pretty solid offensive club.



It looks like everyone is producing about what was expected from them, with the exception of Hanigan and Stubbs, and they kinda cancel each other out, and Rolen probably won't be as production over the whole season due to injuries.

And right now they are averaging 4.78 runs a game or 777 over 162 games. Even if they slow down to 750 runs over 162 games, that is significantly more than I expected from this team.



O Cabrera .670

B Phillips .765

J Votto .977

S Rolen .844

J Bruce .816

D Stubbs .605

J Gomes .714

R Hernandez .769

R Hanigan 1.092

Caveat Emperor
05-12-2010, 10:57 PM
When it comes to the pitching, let's see where we are after a west coast swing or a trip to Philadelphia, or, heck, after a series against Milwaukee. So far the pitching staff, even after this series, is decidedly mortal, and have a grand-canyon-sized chasm to bridge to reach the likes of the Giants, Cardinals, or the Padres--or other wild card contenders like the Rockies.

The Reds were underperforming as a pitching staff to start the year while the Cardinals were overperforming.

Both teams were due for a market correction, which is what we're seeing a bit of now.

Ron Madden
05-13-2010, 03:41 AM
Rooting for a winning team is a very pleasant experience. :)

Blitz Dorsey
07-01-2010, 06:01 PM
Just wanted to be a jerk and bump this thread. Fast-forward a few months and I am REALLY happy with the way the season is going thus far. We had a few tough wins early in the season which really set the tone for this team IMO. They never feel like they are out of it. And if they give up a lead, they always think they can come back and win. I love being in first place this late in a season since 1999!!! (Or is it '95?)

RedsManRick
07-01-2010, 06:17 PM
Just wanted to be a jerk and bump this thread. Fast-forward a few months and I am REALLY happy with the way the season is going thus far. We had a few tough wins early in the season which really set the tone for this team IMO. They never feel like they are out of it. And if they give up a lead, they always think they can come back and win. I love being in first place this late in a season since 1999!!! (Or is it '95?)

We were tied for first on July 1st, 2006 with a record of 44-36. We went 36-46 the rest of the way to finish in 3rd, 3.5 games behind the eventual World Champion Cardinals..

We're a game ahead of that pace. Let's hope we can keep it up! What I enjoy is that only Rolen is really playing far beyond expectations. Even if we're just .500 from here on out, 85 wins could most definitely win this division. If we sustain our currently winning %, we're looking at 91 wins and a very good shot at the WC if not the division.

Blitz Dorsey
07-01-2010, 06:24 PM
OK, I guess I should have said "in sole possession of first place since..."

But I remember the '06 season well. I was in Amsterdam in a "Coffee Shop" on the internet on the 4th of July and was so happy the Reds were tied for first (or tied for the wildcard or whatever). Then that West Coast trip in late August did us in.

mdccclxix
07-01-2010, 07:11 PM
OK, I guess I should have said "in sole possession of first place since..."

But I remember the '06 season well. I was in Amsterdam in a "Coffee Shop" on the internet on the 4th of July and was so happy the Reds were tied for first (or tied for the wildcard or whatever). Then that West Coast trip in late August did us in.

Kudos for remembering so vividly what happened in a coffee shop in Amsterdam. Your avatar wouldn't be from that day as well, would it?

Blitz Dorsey
07-01-2010, 08:30 PM
Kudos for remembering so vividly what happened in a coffee shop in Amsterdam. Your avatar wouldn't be from that day as well, would it?

Ha! Love it. That was just a typical day at the office for the 1990 World Series MVP.

If you are ever in Amsterdam, make sure you check out the best "coffee shop" in town ... Pink Floyd. Home of the "Umma Gumma." Google it if you so desire.

OnBaseMachine
07-02-2010, 08:00 PM
I'll just post this in here. A quote from Koyie Hill:


"They have the look of a team that has a lot of momentum, a lot of energy, a lot of positive energy," Hill said. "You see that when they come on the field, you see that in their style of play. They look like they believe in themselves. Just watching them go about their business and the at-bats they have, if you didn't know their record, you'd think they were a team competing for first place."

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100702&content_id=11836120&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin