PDA

View Full Version : Run Differential



PuffyPig
07-29-2010, 09:28 PM
As of tonight, our run differential is 1 run better than the St. Louis Cards.

This is significant for a number of reasons, including:

(1) It's the first time all season (and likely in many seasons) we have been ahead of them;

(2) On May 4 of this year, they led us in run differential by a whooping 72 runs. Since that time we have slowing but surely gained 73 runs on them; and

(3) It's the Cards and we lead them in the standings and in run differential, meaning it's not luck. Over the last 3 months we have been the better team, and it's by a reasonable margin.

Maybe the race isn't over after all?????

Playadlc
07-29-2010, 09:38 PM
The Cards actually still lead by 1 run (+70 to +69) but your point is taken nonetheless.

PuffyPig
07-29-2010, 09:56 PM
The Cards actually still lead by 1 run (+70 to +69) but your point is taken nonetheless.

You are correct, I guess I naturally assumed the team at the top of the standings were the Cards.

oregonred
07-29-2010, 11:43 PM
Agree, the strong run differential is impressive and bodes well. With so many flukish 1-0 losses, Sunday Sleep Walks and such the Reds could (and should) be about 3-4 games better in the month July alone and that would give them breathing room in the division and the WC. This team is seemingly in every single game until the late innings.

WVRedsFan
07-30-2010, 12:47 AM
It sure is a difference from past seasons. This season has been a joy and I continue to enjoy the Summer of 2010 because the Reds are always the highlight of my summers,

Yes, I have no life.

OnBaseMachine
07-30-2010, 06:14 PM
I'll just post this in here. I was talking with Jason Churchill of ESPN on twitter and he tweeted this:

btw... love the Reds 2011-2013. Bet they make the postseason all three years.

http://twitter.com/ProspectInsider

PuffyPig
07-30-2010, 06:19 PM
btw... love the Reds 2011-2013. Bet they make the postseason all three years.

http://twitter.com/ProspectInsider

It's a good thing to remember before we go "all in" for 2010:

Our best chances of winning is still coming. I have no problem trying hard to win this year, but I sure don't want to sacrifice the future for now.

Falls City Beer
07-30-2010, 06:24 PM
They're not going to sacrifice "the future" (however widely or narrowly you define that) for this season. Though pretending to know how successful a small market team is going to be two or three years into the future is utterly laughable.

The future was paved with gold bricks for teams like Cleveland and Milwaukee a couple of seasons ago--and now?

Mario-Rijo
07-30-2010, 07:21 PM
They're not going to sacrifice "the future" (however widely or narrowly you define that) for this season. Though pretending to know how successful a small market team is going to be two or three years into the future is utterly laughable.

The future was paved with gold bricks for teams like Cleveland and Milwaukee a couple of seasons ago--and now?

Only to the untrained eye, and I'm not necc. calling you out. Only if you bought into that hype as well, especially Milwaukee.

Falls City Beer
07-30-2010, 07:26 PM
Only to the untrained eye, and I'm not necc. calling you out. Only if you bought into that hype as well, especially Milwaukee.

I didn't see Milwaukee as a long term threat either. But the argument went: "Hey these teams have major talent and a smart, numbers-beholden front office; there's nothing in their way."

Well, the Reds don't have a numbers-beholden FO and really don't have much more talent in the pipe than either of the above teams. Whether the Reds compete three years from now depends largely on the moves they make going forward (making the correct contract decisions/trades) than what they have right now.

Brutus
07-30-2010, 07:28 PM
I didn't see Milwaukee as a long term threat either. But the argument went: "Hey these teams have major talent and a smart, numbers-beholden front office; there's nothing in their way."

Well, the Reds don't have a numbers-beholden FO and really don't have much more talent in the pipe than either of the above teams. Whether the Reds compete three years from now depends largely on the moves they make going forward (making the correct contract decisions/trades) than what they have right now.

I think that's revisionist history. Milwaukee had some encouraging young hitters (and offensively they're living up to that billing). However, they never had any good young pitching sans Yovani Gallardo. I don't really remember too many people thinking the Brewers were well on their way.

Falls City Beer
07-30-2010, 07:30 PM
I don't really remember too many people thinking the Brewers were well on their way.

That's just not true. Melvin got a ton of positive press.

TheNext44
07-30-2010, 09:05 PM
They're not going to sacrifice "the future" (however widely or narrowly you define that) for this season. Though pretending to know how successful a small market team is going to be two or three years into the future is utterly laughable.

The future was paved with gold bricks for teams like Cleveland and Milwaukee a couple of seasons ago--and now?

The Brewers went all in, in 2008. They made the playoffs, but are now paying the price. i think they are a perfect example of why it's important to not mortgage the future for one shot at it.

The Rays are a good example of a small market team that has built a team that can compete year after year.

Falls City Beer
07-30-2010, 09:10 PM
The Brewers went all in, in 2008. They made the playoffs, but are now paying the price. i think they are a perfect example of why it's important to not mortgage the future for one shot at it.

The Rays are a good example of a small market team that has built a team that can compete year after year.

The Brewers gave up one real prospect for Sabathia. A prospect that is currently not doing very much.

They didn't go all-in at all.

TheNext44
07-30-2010, 09:18 PM
The Brewers gave up one real prospect for Sabathia. A prospect that is currently not doing very much.

They didn't go all-in at all.

They gave up three of their best prospects who could have been used last year and/or this year in trades to fill their glaring holes. Or they could have used those prospects in 2008 to get a pitcher who would be around this year.

They went all in by using up all their chips to get a guy who they knew would only around for a few months.

I think the fact that they fired a perfectly good manager in the last month of the season, just to motivate the team to win that year, is all the proof one needs to prove that they went all in.

Falls City Beer
07-30-2010, 09:19 PM
They gave up three of their best prospects who could have been used last year and/or this year in trades to fill their glaring holes. Or they could have used those prospects in 2008 to get a pitcher who would be around this year.

They went all in by using up all their chips to get a guy who they knew would only around for a few months.

I think the fact that they fired a perfectly good manager in the last month of the season, just to motivate the team to win that year, is all the proof one needs to prove that they went all in.

If that was all their chips, then they were never going to contend to begin with.

dougdirt
07-30-2010, 09:22 PM
Just checked in on one of the pitchers in the trade, Rob Bryson.... relieving now at 22 in AA. Flat nasty. 63/15 K/BB in 35.1 innings.

RedsManRick
07-30-2010, 09:22 PM
The Brewers went all in, in 2008. They made the playoffs, but are now paying the price. i think they are a perfect example of why it's important to not mortgage the future for one shot at it.

The Rays are a good example of a small market team that has built a team that can compete year after year.

As far as I can tell, the Brewers made no other trades of significance other than the CC deal. They made the playoffs and had a realistic shot at making the World Series.

Are Rob Bryson, Zach Jackson, Matt LaPorta and Michael Brantley the reason they're struggling today?

If you ask me, their problem is that they've failed to develop any pitchers other than Yovanni Gallardo. Instead, they've filled out their pitching staff with retread veterans with little to no upside. Sound familiar?

I appreciate the point. You should be careful in selling off prospects for the sake of a single year's benefit. However, let's also put the blame where it belongs. If the Brewers don't make that trade, they definitely don't make the playoffs in 2008. And I have a hard time believing they'd be much better off today.

The Reds have a bevy of talent in AAA that simply cannot help the major league roster this year or next. It's a simple numbers game. The goal is to maximize performance on the 25 man roster. By successfully developing a number of players, the Reds are in a position where they can easily trade a few prospects to bolster this year's team without comprising next year's squad in the least.

The Brewers organization, top to bottom, was not built to compete year in and year out because of it's lack of pitching. The Reds are well positioned to be competitive in the coming years and would be silly to not strike while the iron is hot if the right opportunity presents itself.

oregonred
07-30-2010, 11:03 PM
Another winnable game in July lost tonight in extras. Either snakebit or they can't yet handle the pressure of the late innings in meaningful games.

+40 differential on the month and only a pedestrian 13-12 record to show for it. Should have been a 16-9 or 17-8 stretch vaulting the boys onto the postseason. Hopefully we won't look back at the end of the year wondering about all those close ones that seemed to float away in July.

TheNext44
07-31-2010, 02:36 AM
As far as I can tell, the Brewers made no other trades of significance other than the CC deal. They made the playoffs and had a realistic shot at making the World Series.

Are Rob Bryson, Zach Jackson, Matt LaPorta and Michael Brantley the reason they're struggling today?

If you ask me, their problem is that they've failed to develop any pitchers other than Yovanni Gallardo. Instead, they've filled out their pitching staff with retread veterans with little to no upside. Sound familiar?

I appreciate the point. You should be careful in selling off prospects for the sake of a single year's benefit. However, let's also put the blame where it belongs. If the Brewers don't make that trade, they definitely don't make the playoffs in 2008. And I have a hard time believing they'd be much better off today.

The Reds have a bevy of talent in AAA that simply cannot help the major league roster this year or next. It's a simple numbers game. The goal is to maximize performance on the 25 man roster. By successfully developing a number of players, the Reds are in a position where they can easily trade a few prospects to bolster this year's team without comprising next year's squad in the least.

The Brewers organization, top to bottom, was not built to compete year in and year out because of it's lack of pitching. The Reds are well positioned to be competitive in the coming years and would be silly to not strike while the iron is hot if the right opportunity presents itself.

That's excellent analysis, but I gave to disagree with a few things.

If the Brewers had Rob Bryson, Zach Jackson, Matt LaPorta and Michael Brantley last season and this, they could have traded them for a few pitchers who would be there for awhile. Or in 2008, they could have traded them for a few pitchers who would be there for awhile, instead of CC.

It's not that they traded them, it who they traded them for. They traded them for a golden ticket, instead of depth. I do think that if instead of CC, the Brewers used those guys to acquire two #3-4 starters that would be there this year, they would be in contention. And remember LaPorta was a top 25 prospect in the majors at the time of the trade. Trading him, was like the Reds trading Votto when he was in AAA.

But you are right that they had other problems and made other mistakes. The Reds do seem to be better positioned to compete over the long haul than they were in 2008.

That's why I don't understand why they need to strike while the iron is hot. If they look ready to compete for the next 3-4 years at least, why feel any sense of urgency in any of those years?