PDA

View Full Version : Streaky offense

nate
07-03-2011, 01:46 PM
Here is a chart of 3 teams along with the MLB average for percentage of games with X runs scored. All of MLB is the blue line. The X-axis is runs and the Y-axis is percentage of games played with that many runs scored. So, for example, the yellow team has scored 4 runs in over 20% of it's games played.

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/9003/runsscoredpercentage.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/37/runsscoredpercentage.png/)

So, which team looks "streakiest?" Which team is least "streaky?"

Hoosier Red
07-03-2011, 03:05 PM
The Red line looks to be the team that has benefitted the most from a few high run explosions, 5% of their games have been 11 runs, 3% have been 13 runs. They've also had 28% of their games with 3 runs or fewer. Compared to 18% for yellow and 24% for Green.

I'm adding up rough guesstimates so forgive me if my numbers are a little off.
The yellow and green lines look to be less streaky, but it appears as though the green team is the "better" offense overall with higher percentages of 5,7,8 and 9 run games while the yellow line has higher percentages of 4 and 6 run games.

SO who's who?

Brutus
07-03-2011, 03:09 PM
The yellow IS more inconsistent. The ideal consistency should follow the bell curve (like the blue). That there isn't a gradual distribution shows it's not terribly consistent.

nate
07-03-2011, 03:22 PM
The Red line looks to be the team that has benefitted the most from a few high run explosions, 5% of their games have been 11 runs, 3% have been 13 runs. They've also had 28% of their games with 3 runs or fewer. Compared to 18% for yellow and 24% for Green.

Good points. Some notes:

Red: in 36% of their games, they've scored 6 or more runs
Yellow: has the highest percentage of games scoring exactly 4 runs
Green: 40% of their scoring is in 5 to 7-run games

I'm adding up rough guesstimates so forgive me if my numbers are a little off.
The yellow and green lines look to be less streaky, but it appears as though the green team is the "better" offense overall with higher percentages of 5,7,8 and 9 run games while the yellow line has higher percentages of 4 and 6 run games.

SO who's who?

I shall reveal, LATER!

RedsManRick
07-03-2011, 03:28 PM
The yellow IS more inconsistent. The ideal consistency should follow the bell curve (like the blue). That there isn't a gradual distribution shows it's not terribly consistent.

I find your definition of "consistent" funny. Consistent, to me, means scoring the same number of runs each time, a small standard deviation - not how closely you mirror a right skewed distribution.

A team that scores it's average amount of runs every game will fair better than one that scores the same average but has some low scoring some high scoring games. So for me, if you're looking at a team that scores 4.5 runs a game, I'd want 81 4-run games and 81 5-run games. Those giant outbursts are usually a waste.

nate
07-04-2011, 10:36 AM
I find your definition of "consistent" funny. Consistent, to me, means scoring the same number of runs each time, a small standard deviation - not how closely you mirror a right skewed distribution.

A team that scores it's average amount of runs every game will fair better than one that scores the same average but has some low scoring some high scoring games. So for me, if you're looking at a team that scores 4.5 runs a game, I'd want 81 4-run games and 81 5-run games. Those giant outbursts are usually a waste.

So, is the chart a good way to look at it?

Quatitos
07-04-2011, 10:47 AM
The yellow IS more inconsistent. The ideal consistency should follow the bell curve (like the blue). That there isn't a gradual distribution shows it's not terribly consistent.

Personally I would think the yellow is the most consistent since it had the lowest percentage of 1-3 run games. So if you are consistantly scoring 4+ runs you have a good chance of winning a lot of games with decent pitching.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

Hoosier Red
07-04-2011, 11:05 AM
So, is the chart a good way to look at it?

I think it is, but let's say you change the chart from each run as a data point to a more general approach. Break it up by 0-3 runs, 4-6 runs, 7-9 runs, and 10+ runs.

I'd be interested in seeing what that looks like.

07-04-2011, 11:06 AM
I find your definition of "consistent" funny. Consistent, to me, means scoring the same number of runs each time, a small standard deviation - not how closely you mirror a right skewed distribution.

A team that scores it's average amount of runs every game will fair better than one that scores the same average but has some low scoring some high scoring games. So for me, if you're looking at a team that scores 4.5 runs a game, I'd want 81 4-run games and 81 5-run games. Those giant outbursts are usually a waste.For example, the Giants offense is consistent. Is that a good thing?

Brutus
07-04-2011, 11:55 AM
I find your definition of "consistent" funny. Consistent, to me, means scoring the same number of runs each time, a small standard deviation - not how closely you mirror a right skewed distribution.

A team that scores it's average amount of runs every game will fair better than one that scores the same average but has some low scoring some high scoring games. So for me, if you're looking at a team that scores 4.5 runs a game, I'd want 81 4-run games and 81 5-run games. Those giant outbursts are usually a waste.

I admit I didn't phrase it properly, but that notwithstanding, I'm surprised you thought that was my ideal of "consistent" since I've been one of the more outspoken persons on this forum this year about consistency and distribution of runs.

Of course scoring 4 & 5 or 5 & 6 runs every game would be ideal. I was more relating it to this chart and comparing the lines to one another than referring to the ideal factory condition a team should have in a scoring model.

In a practical sense, you'd want the distribution to follow more of the bell curve shape of the league average (provided, of course, you can't score 4 & 5 every game of the season).

RedsManRick
07-04-2011, 11:55 AM
For example, the Giants offense is consistent. Is that a good thing?

Exactly. Consistency is far, far, secondary to overall performance. I'll take an inconsistent 4.5 r/g over a consistent 3.5 any day.

RedsManRick
07-04-2011, 12:01 PM
I admit I didn't phrase it properly, but that notwithstanding, I'm surprised you thought that was my ideal of "consistent" since I've been one of the more outspoken persons on this forum this year about consistency and distribution of runs.

Of course scoring 4 & 5 or 5 & 6 runs every game would be ideal. I was more relating it to this chart and comparing the lines to one another than referring to the ideal factory condition a team should have in a scoring model.

In a practical sense, you'd want the distribution to follow more of the bell curve shape of the league average (provided, of course, you can't score 4 & 5 every game of the season).

I guess I still don't agree. The league average curve is just that. Even though you can't score 4 & 5 every single night, I'd still prefer to have a higher concentration around the mean than league average.

Nate, the chart is interesting, but somewhat hard to interpret. I'd be interested to see it as a cumulative percentage -- percent of games in which at least X number of runs were scored. That way, the point to point comparisons would be more intuitive.

I think the easier way to talk about it is using some basic parameters -- mean, mode, standard deviation. But I think the chart I just described would help visualize those things.

BCubb2003
07-04-2011, 12:38 PM
Offensive consistency seems like the opposite of Pythag. We might have have to call it Cylon.

nate
07-04-2011, 05:02 PM
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5674/unledgoq.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/215/unledgoq.png/)

OK, how about this. Same teams, I removed the MLB average. Does any one of these teams stick out as looking inconsistent?

RedsManRick
07-04-2011, 08:26 PM
Given the data in your chart, it would seem Red has the least variation, in a dead heat with yellow. That basically looks like the data from the Reds, Cards, and Brewers respectively -- except you added one run to every game (not sure why). The variation is the same either way. Here's the data with the extra run removed.

Games Runs Runs/G StDev
Red 84 298 4.7 2.94
Yellow 84 395 4.7 2.96
Green 83 357 4.3 3.33

% of Games with at least X runs scored
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Red 4% 11% 29% 40% 54% 61% 71% 82% 89% 92% 96% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Yellow 7% 13% 18% 39% 51% 68% 79% 85% 87% 94% 95% 98% 99% 99% 99% 100%
Green 8% 18% 25% 41% 58% 66% 82% 89% 93% 96% 96% 99% 99% 99% 100% 100%

membengal
07-04-2011, 08:39 PM
More good stuff from the rampaging Reds offense. Tonight's game is all Cueto's fault.

OldXOhio
07-04-2011, 08:51 PM
How much more futility must be endured before the thought turns from "the offense continues to be in a slump" to "this offense is not as good as once thought".

Tony Cloninger
07-04-2011, 08:59 PM
How much more futility must be endured before the thought turns from "the offense continues to be in a slump" to "this offense is not as good as once thought".

But they are due for a big winning streak. They have not had one....so one must be in the Cards.

07-04-2011, 09:14 PM
How much more futility must be endured before the thought turns from "the offense continues to be in a slump" to "this offense is not as good as once thought".These were the two highest scoring offenses in the league. One run and 6 hits apiece, no extra base hits. Do ya think it might have something to do with the pitching.........ever? I'm hating losing the close games, but man, games like this sure do beat 'Roid rage ball.

kaldaniels
07-04-2011, 09:15 PM
4.2 runs per game over the last 10, not great, but not horrible.

Brutus
07-04-2011, 09:45 PM
4.2 runs per game over the last 10, not great, but not horrible.

4.3 over the last 72 :)

Tony Cloninger
07-04-2011, 09:51 PM
4.3 over the last 72 :)

Switch this pitching staff with the 1992 Reds pitching staff ERA and we have something cooking here. Since ERA's and RS avg are down to about 1988-1992 levels.

nate
07-05-2011, 09:29 AM
Given the data in your chart, it would seem Red has the least variation, in a dead heat with yellow. That basically looks like the data from the Reds, Cards, and Brewers respectively -- except you added one run to every game (not sure why). The variation is the same either way. Here's the data with the extra run removed.

Games Runs Runs/G StDev
Red 84 298 4.7 2.94
Yellow 84 395 4.7 2.96
Green 83 357 4.3 3.33

% of Games with at least X runs scored
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Red 4% 11% 29% 40% 54% 61% 71% 82% 89% 92% 96% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Yellow 7% 13% 18% 39% 51% 68% 79% 85% 87% 94% 95% 98% 99% 99% 99% 100%
Green 8% 18% 25% 41% 58% 66% 82% 89% 93% 96% 96% 99% 99% 99% 100% 100%

Yes, you have indeed identified the teams. So is your conclusion that the Red team is most consistent and Green is least consistent?

nate
07-05-2011, 09:36 AM
How much more futility must be endured before the thought turns from "the offense continues to be in a slump" to "this offense is not as good as once thought".

With the break coming up, one could easily compare the two halves...

...in late September.

Anyhow, this thread really isn't about whether the Reds are "good" or not. Rather, it's "Mythbusters: Redszone." The current myth we're testing is, "the Reds have an inconsistent offense" (or appreciably more inconsistent than other teams.)

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-05-2011, 11:50 AM
With the break coming up, one could easily compare the two halves...

...in late September.

Anyhow, this thread really isn't about whether the Reds are "good" or not. Rather, it's "Mythbusters: Redszone." The current myth we're testing is, "the Reds have an inconsistent offense" (or appreciably more inconsistent than other teams.)

If that's a myth, then so is gravity, life in the rain forest and the existence of the sun.

RedsManRick
07-05-2011, 12:19 PM
If that's a myth, then so is gravity, life in the rain forest and the existence of the sun.

The parenthetical in his statement should not have been ignored. I'm sure anybody can come up with a definition of consistency that the Reds fall outside of (not that anybody has actually come forward with a definition...). Nobody is denying that the Reds have experienced and ups and downs over the course of the seasons. But nobody has demonstrated have experienced those ups and downs moreso than other teams, average, what-have-you.

I think we're really testing the hypothesis that people generally have an unrealistic expectation regarding the ability of a major league team to perform consistently...

At minimum, given the data Nate shared, I find it hard to come to the conclusion that the Reds are the least consistent of the three teams.

07-05-2011, 12:36 PM
If that's a myth, then so is gravity, life in the rain forest and the existence of the sun.Nate has at least given some facts to mesh out. What do you have to support your presupposition? I think there are many who would fairly review and evaluate your data that forms the basis for your conclusion.

signalhome
07-05-2011, 12:49 PM
If that's a myth, then so is gravity, life in the rain forest and the existence of the sun.

But Nate clearly pointed out how the Reds weren't inconsistent, or at the least, were no more inconsistent than a couple of the other top offenses in the NL. I'll be the first to admit that I originally thought the Reds were an inconsistent offense, but after I really looked at the numbers a week or so ago, I realized that just wasn't the case.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-05-2011, 12:55 PM
Nate has at least given some facts to mesh out. What do you have to support your presupposition? I think there are many who would fairly review and evaluate your data that forms the basis for your conclusion.

Geez, I'll just go with the scoreboard. It's kind of hard to argue with that.

Seven runs one day, zero runs the next, 1 run the following day, 10 runs the next (in a mind-numbing pattern that has repeated itself more than shampoo bottle instructions for the much of this season, playing a primary role in the current .500 record). Advanced MIT mathematical analyses aside, the end-of-game scores produced by this offense are really the only definition of "inconsistent" that's relevant to our favorite baseball team, no?

Mo Egger had a great post on his blog today regarding the "insanity" of expecting anything more out of this offense than what we've been treated to so far. I'm sure most will pan it, mock it and rip it to shreds, but I think it's spot on:

http://www.espn1530.com/pages/mo.html

07-05-2011, 01:06 PM
Geez, I'll just go with the scoreboard. It's kind of hard to argue with that.

Seven runs one day, zero runs the next, 1 run the following day, 10 runs the next (in a mind-numbing pattern that has repeated itself more than shampoo bottle instructions for the past month). Advanced MIT mathematical analyses aside, the end-of-game scores produced by this offense is really the only definition of "inconsistent" that's relevant to our favorite baseball team, no?Yet when you add up those scoreboards, they show "most average runs in the league." That's a pretty simple stat to arrive at, no advanced calculus needed. Now some folks are digging a little deeper, puzzled by the record, trying to explain away that "its not the offense that has driven the poor results," and they show that the offense is more, or at least as, consistent as the top offenses among their rivals.

I'm gonna take a wild guess--if we checked the other side of the scoreboard, that we have given up too many runs, and that if you look for the culprits, its the starters.

See, no advanced statistical analysis was needed, simple scoreboard stats jive with what some more advanced analysis is showing. It seems that it might just be that your mind's made up, so don't let us confuse the matter with facts.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-05-2011, 01:34 PM
Yet when you add up those scoreboards, they show "most average runs in the league." That's a pretty simple stat to arrive at, no advanced calculus needed. Now some folks are digging a little deeper, puzzled by the record, trying to explain away that "its not the offense that has driven the poor results," and they show that the offense is more, or at least as, consistent as the top offenses among their rivals.

I'm gonna take a wild guess--if we checked the other side of the scoreboard, that we have given up too many runs, and that if you look for the culprits, its the starters.

See, no advanced statistical analysis was needed, simple scoreboard stats jive with what some more advanced analysis is showing. It seems that it might just be that your mind's made up, so don't let us confuse the matter with facts.

Sure, the starters deserve their share of blame. I'll even concede that games like Friday's abysmal offensive showing vs. the Tribe shouldn't be held against the offense since the starter gave up 8 runs early. Granted.

But, really, what is realistically going to change about this rotation? Cueto and Leake are solid and I doubt anyone would suggest a change there. Look at the other three:

- Arroyo's being paid handsomely to start games for the Reds, and with his track record in the second half, he's not going anywhere.

- Bailey has pitched well when healthy this year; he has concentration lapses but, like in his last two games, any offense at all and he probably wins the games.

- And no one would be in front of me in the line to drive Edinson Volquez far, far out of town. Unfortunately, Walt/Dusty want to keep beating that dead horse.

There are no Cliff Lees to be had this year, and I'd venture to guess that replacing one or two of the Arroyo/Bailey/Volquez trio with Willis/Wood would just result in more of the same frustration, especially with regards to Wood.

So what area of this team is it realistic to expect an upgrade, by way of players in AAA or on another team's roster? It's going to have to be the offense, and particularly LF, SS and, in a perfect world, 3B.

We're probably stuck with this starting staff for the rest of 2011 and maybe even 2012, and there's not much available to improve it even if Walt was inclined to do something, which I doubt. But if the offense can be improved enough to turn some of these 1-0 and 3-2 losses into 2-1 and 4-3 wins, it's got to be done. That's where this team can make a move in this hapless division.

bucksfan2
07-05-2011, 01:35 PM
Yet when you add up those scoreboards, they show "most average runs in the league." That's a pretty simple stat to arrive at, no advanced calculus needed. Now some folks are digging a little deeper, puzzled by the record, trying to explain away that "its not the offense that has driven the poor results," and they show that the offense is more, or at least as, consistent as the top offenses among their rivals.

I'm gonna take a wild guess--if we checked the other side of the scoreboard, that we have given up too many runs, and that if you look for the culprits, its the starters.

See, no advanced statistical analysis was needed, simple scoreboard stats jive with what some more advanced analysis is showing. It seems that it might just be that your mind's made up, so don't let us confuse the matter with facts.

Yet when you add up all those scoreboards their record is a whopping 43-43. They have the highest run differential in the Central but are now sitting in 4th place behind the Pirates. No matter how you slice it they aren't getting the job done.

07-05-2011, 01:50 PM
Sure, the starters deserve their share of blame. I'll even concede that games like Friday's abysmal offensive showing vs. the Tribe shouldn't be held against the offense since the starter gave up 8 runs early. Granted.

But, really, what is realistically going to change about this rotation? Cueto and Leake are solid and I doubt anyone would suggest a change there. Look at the other three:

- Arroyo's being paid handsomely to start games for the Reds, and with his track record in the second half, he's not going anywhere.

- Bailey has pitched well when healthy this year; he has concentration lapses but, like in his last two games, any offense at all and he probably wins the games.

- And no one would be in front of me in the line to drive Edinson Volquez far, far out of town. Unfortunately, Walt/Dusty want to keep beating that dead horse.

There are no Cliff Lees to be had this year, and I'd venture to guess that replacing one or two of the Arroyo/Bailey/Volquez trio with Willis/Wood would just result in more of the same frustration, especially with regards to Wood.

So what area of this team is it realistic to expect an upgrade, by way of players in AAA or on another team's roster? It's going to have to be the offense, and particularly LF, SS and, in a perfect world, 3B.

We're probably stuck with this starting staff for the rest of 2011 and maybe even 2012, and there's not much available to improve it even if Walt was inclined to do something, which I doubt. But if the offense can be improved enough to turn some of these 1-0 and 3-2 losses into 2-1 and 4-3 wins, it's got to be done. That's where this team can make a move in this hapless division.I've said before that the only option available might be to try to outscore folks if it comes down to what improvements can be made. However, that is not the case you are making. You continue to beat the drum that the offense, as-is, is not doing its job. As the numbers show, that's not fair considering their standing in the league offensively.

Sure, we can try to get more wins with more offense, but the cost of those wins might be more than any of us realistically want to pay. So we hope that the underperformers start performing according to their norms, or that Volquez provides more starts like his last one and go get more offense.

It might be the only current solution, but it certainly doesn't fix anything. It only masks the problems with the rotation for a short period of time, sort of like pain-killing medication. "Daggone it, we lost 8-7, almost had one," instead of "daggone it, lost another 3-2 ballgame, this offense is inconsistent, we need more offense." I think the former is somehow more tasteful and acceptable to Reds fans.

07-05-2011, 01:53 PM
Yet when you add up all those scoreboards their record is a whopping 43-43. They have the highest run differential in the Central but are now sitting in 4th place behind the Pirates. No matter how you slice it they aren't getting the job done.But that tells us nothing. It comes down to what you can do about it. Or if you need to do anything about it. That's the big question.

OldXOhio
07-05-2011, 02:32 PM
If you could pick any one position player on the Reds current roster that seems to exemplify the team's offense as a whole, who would it be?

A. Joey Votto
B. Drew Stubbs
C. Jay Bruce
D. Brandon Phillips
E. Other

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-05-2011, 02:35 PM
If you could pick any one position player on the Reds current roster that seems to exemplify the team's offense as a whole, who would it be?

A. Joey Votto
B. Drew Stubbs
C. Jay Bruce
D. Brandon Phillips
E. Other

C. Jay Bruce

He's the poster-child for inconsistency. When going good, all-star calibur. When going bad, hard to watch.

nate
07-05-2011, 09:47 PM
If that's a myth, then so is gravity, life in the rain forest and the existence of the sun.

If you've ever watched "Mythbusters," you'll realize that sometimes, the myths are proven "plausible." I'm open to that possibility...but I want a deeper discussion on it than one is likely to find between tales of "Cowboy's" trencherman's efforts or Marty's tomatoes.

Let's have a discussion about whether or not it's actually true. If you're so sure of an outcome, explain yourself. But please don't derail the thread with throwaway commentary whose Cliffs Notes are, in essence, "shut up."

nate
07-05-2011, 10:03 PM
Yet when you add up those scoreboards, they show "most average runs in the league." That's a pretty simple stat to arrive at, no advanced calculus needed. Now some folks are digging a little deeper, puzzled by the record, trying to explain away that "its not the offense that has driven the poor results," and they show that the offense is more, or at least as, consistent as the top offenses among their rivals.

I'm gonna take a wild guess--if we checked the other side of the scoreboard, that we have given up too many runs, and that if you look for the culprits, its the starters.

See, no advanced statistical analysis was needed, simple scoreboard stats jive with what some more advanced analysis is showing. It seems that it might just be that your mind's made up, so don't let us confuse the matter with facts.

Yep. Good explanation. High five!

Some more advanced math is probably required to determine if the Reds offense, and remember, we're talking about one component of winning ballgames: scoring runs, is appreciably more inconsistent than other teams.

If it isn't, then we can't really say the Reds are experiencing something that other teams don't. If that's the case, does the offense really requiring "fixing" or is it some other area?

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-05-2011, 10:40 PM
I've said before that the only option available might be to try to outscore folks if it comes down to what improvements can be made. However, that is not the case you are making. You continue to beat the drum that the offense, as-is, is not doing its job. As the numbers show, that's not fair considering their standing in the league offensively.

Sure, we can try to get more wins with more offense, but the cost of those wins might be more than any of us realistically want to pay. So we hope that the underperformers start performing according to their norms, or that Volquez provides more starts like his last one and go get more offense.

It might be the only current solution, but it certainly doesn't fix anything. It only masks the problems with the rotation for a short period of time, sort of like pain-killing medication. "Daggone it, we lost 8-7, almost had one," instead of "daggone it, lost another 3-2 ballgame, this offense is inconsistent, we need more offense." I think the former is somehow more tasteful and acceptable to Reds fans.

And the drum beat should be getting louder ... almost deafening now. Even Wait Jocketty should be able to hear it. Show whatever numbers you want, the bottom line is this offense is just not getting the job done.

And yes, if they're leading the league in runs scored, then either they're piling on meaningless runs in blowout wins/losses, or the entire NL is bad.

This offense is just not good. The latest example: 1 run in 2 games in STL. I can't, for the life of me, understand why solitary 7-run outbursts like we saw Sunday vs. Cleveland do anything to boost the confidence in this offense. Those games are the outliers, not the game tonight, last night, Saturday afternoon, Friday night, etc. etc. etc.

Quatitos
07-05-2011, 11:03 PM
And the drum beat should be getting louder ... almost deafening now. Even Wait Jocketty should be able to hear it. Show whatever numbers you want, the bottom line is this offense is just not getting the job done.

And yes, if they're leading the league in runs scored, then either they're piling on meaningless runs in blowout wins/losses, or the entire NL is bad.

This offense is just not good. The latest example: 1 run in 2 games in STL. I can't, for the life of me, understand why solitary 7-run outbursts like we saw Sunday vs. Cleveland do anything to boost the confidence in this offense. Those games are the outliers, not the game tonight, last night, Saturday afternoon, Friday night, etc. etc. etc.

You might want to actually look at facts sir.

Run scored distribution not counting tonight's game.

Runs Games Wins Loss W-L%
+----+-----+----+----+-----+
0 4 0 4 .000
1 6 0 6 .000
2 15 3 12 .200
3 10 4 6 .400
4 11 4 7 .364
5 6 4 2 .667
6 9 5 4 .556
7 10 10 0 1.000
8 6 4 2 .667
9 2 2 0 1.000
10 4 4 0 1.000
11 1 1 0 1.000
12 2 2 0 1.000
+----+-----+----+----+-----+

Ghosts of 1990
07-05-2011, 11:03 PM
C. Jay Bruce

He's the poster-child for inconsistency. When going good, all-star calibur. When going bad, hard to watch.

1 for his last 26. I don't even have words.

nate
07-05-2011, 11:18 PM
1 for his last 26. I don't even have words.

This is remotely related in the "streaky" department to which I say:

Rare is the regular player who doesn't go (at least) 1 for 26 (if not worse) at least once, if not several times a season. While one can be disappointed in that performance, virtually all players have random samplings of 26 PA where they garner but a lone hit. It's natural. It's not unusual. It's not cause to ponder playing chicken with one's local light rail or taking a bath with a plugged-in toaster.

Without looking anything up, I would guess a good third of major league starters (guys who qualify for the batting title) are going through a similar stretch. I would further offer that all but perhaps 1% of all major leaguers who qualify for the batting title this season have gone through exactly a stretch or stretches like this, if not worse.

I don't discount your disappointment; I wish he hit his average every game but that's never been done in modern baseball and it's unrealistic to expect any player to do so. It's simply not unusual for players to experience these sorts of ups and downs.

Back to the topic: is the Reds offense appreciably more inconsistent than the majority of the other teams in the league?

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-05-2011, 11:24 PM
You might want to actually look at facts sir.

Run scored distribution not counting tonight's game.

Runs Games Wins Loss W-L%
+----+-----+----+----+-----+
0 4 0 4 .000
1 6 0 6 .000
2 15 3 12 .200
3 10 4 6 .400
4 11 4 7 .364
5 6 4 2 .667
6 9 5 4 .556
7 10 10 0 1.000
8 6 4 2 .667
9 2 2 0 1.000
10 4 4 0 1.000
11 1 1 0 1.000
12 2 2 0 1.000
+----+-----+----+----+-----+

I don't get it. I really don't.

Are you defending this offense? Are you of the opinion that it's not one of the main reasons the Reds are a losing team and behind the Pirates and Nationals in the standings one week into July?

"I don't know what to say ... we say the same thing every night. This lineup has too many outs in it." - Marty Brennaman, July 5, 2011

Quatitos
07-06-2011, 12:27 AM
I don't get it. I really don't.

Are you defending this offense? Are you of the opinion that it's not one of the main reasons the Reds are a losing team and behind the Pirates and Nationals in the standings one week into July?

"I don't know what to say ... we say the same thing every night. This lineup has too many outs in it." - Marty Brennaman, July 5, 2011

I am sorry if I did not explain a table of runs scored by the Reds this season, I thought it was fairly self explanatory. I was trying to say that you were blatantly wrong when you were saying that the 0 and 1 run games were the norm and that 7+ run games were outliers. If you actually look at facts, this can be seen to be false and these 0 and 1 run games are much more of an outlier than blowout games of 7+ runs scored. If you want to ignore the facts go ahead and blame the offense for the Reds losing so much this season.

Kc61
07-06-2011, 12:52 AM
I am sorry if I did not explain a table of runs scored by the Reds this season, I thought it was fairly self explanatory. I was trying to say that you were blatantly wrong when you were saying that the 0 and 1 run games were the norm and that 7+ run games were outliers. If you actually look at facts, this can be seen to be false and these 0 and 1 run games are much more of an outlier than blowout games of 7+ runs scored. If you want to ignore the facts go ahead and blame the offense for the Reds losing so much this season.

Reds have 35 games with 3 runs scored or fewer. Seems like a high number, just intuitively. Reds are 7-28 in those games. 7-29 including tonight.

Overall, an interesting chart. Shows me the hitting and pitching are both to blame for this
mess. Too many low scoring games for the Reds. Too many losses when Reds score 4, 5, or
6 runs. 13-13 when scoring 4-6 runs seems weak.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-06-2011, 01:14 AM
I am sorry if I did not explain a table of runs scored by the Reds this season, I thought it was fairly self explanatory. I was trying to say that you were blatantly wrong when you were saying that the 0 and 1 run games were the norm and that 7+ run games were outliers. If you actually look at facts, this can be seen to be false and these 0 and 1 run games are much more of an outlier than blowout games of 7+ runs scored. If you want to ignore the facts go ahead and blame the offense for the Reds losing so much this season.

I understand the table just fine. What I don't get is the blind support and head-in-the-sand view of an offense that has all the life of a hospice.

What about Marty Brennaman's comments didn't make sense? Is Marty "ignoring facts" too in his criticism of the offense?

How about Hal McCoy? Is he off base also with these suggestions?
http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/entries/2011/07/05/its_time_for_some_broomsweepin.html

How about the Cowboy tonight on the air: "I gotta believe this club needs some help." - Think there's a chance he's talking about the offense?

Seems to me that the overriding consensus regarding this team is it's the offense that's ailing them more than anything else. Not that the starting pitching is stellar, or even good, but it's the offense that is the biggest culprit for this losing season to date. And all the tables in the world don't change the biggest indicator of all of this team's ineptitude - the scoreboard.

signalhome
07-06-2011, 02:12 AM
I understand the table just fine. What I don't get is the blind support and head-in-the-sand view of an offense that has all the life of a hospice.

What about Marty Brennaman's comments didn't make sense? Is Marty "ignoring facts" too in his criticism of the offense?

How about Hal McCoy? Is he off base also with these suggestions?
http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/entries/2011/07/05/its_time_for_some_broomsweepin.html

How about the Cowboy tonight on the air: "I gotta believe this club needs some help." - Think there's a chance he's talking about the offense?

Seems to me that the overriding consensus regarding this team is it's the offense that's ailing them more than anything else. Not that the starting pitching is stellar, or even good, but it's the offense that is the biggest culprit for this losing season to date. And all the tables in the world don't change the biggest indicator of all of this team's ineptitude - the scoreboard.

It shall be a cold day in Hell the day I let those three sway my opinion regarding baseball, especially Marty and Brantley.

Also, I'm not sure how I and others are being blind in our support or how we have our heads in the sand. We are simply going by what the data says. I stand by the numbers because they're blind and unbiased. The Reds are certainly going through a rough patch, but that happens to everyone. If believing in statistics over what I feel makes me a fool, then I'm a very foolish person. It definitely feels like the Reds' offense has under-performed and has been inconsistent. However, no matter how strongly I feel that way, it simply isn't the case when I look at the data, so I must be wrong. That's just how I look at things. You apparently choose to go with what you feel over what the data says. That's fine too; I have plenty of good friends (and a father) that are exactly the same way regarding baseball. Just don't say that I and others are showing blind support and have our heads in the sand when that most certainly is not the case.

signalhome
07-06-2011, 02:35 AM
Reds have 35 games with 3 runs scored or fewer. Seems like a high number, just intuitively. Reds are 7-28 in those games. 7-29 including tonight.

Overall, an interesting chart. Shows me the hitting and pitching are both to blame for this
mess. Too many low scoring games for the Reds. Too many losses when Reds score 4, 5, or
6 runs. 13-13 when scoring 4-6 runs seems weak.

It was mentioned in a thread last night that the Reds are tied for second in the NL in percentage of games scoring at least four runs, coming in at 59% -- the Brewers, I believe, were #1 at 60%.

nate
07-06-2011, 09:57 AM
I don't get it. I really don't.

Are you defending this offense? Are you of the opinion that it's not one of the main reasons the Reds are a losing team and behind the Pirates and Nationals in the standings one week into July?

To explain for the final time, this thread isn't about "the Reds offense is good/bad. It's, "is the Reds offense significantly more or less consistent than other MLB teams?" Yes, we'd all like better results out of the team but please try to channel your ire into conversation.

"I don't know what to say ... we say the same thing every night. This lineup has too many outs in it." - Marty Brennaman, July 5, 2011

Marty is wrong. The Reds have the third highest OBP (or "not making outs percentage") in the NL.

BCubb2003
07-06-2011, 10:20 AM
I'd like to see the high-ranking offensive numbers charted during the course of the season so far. Jay Bruce had the monster May, Rolen's May was decent, and Gomes had a decent April. That's not the offense that shows up these days. All you can expect tonight are Phillips and Votto, and if he's feeling OK, Rolen. If the Reds have actually been scoring four or five runs a game during the last month, that's telling. But the total stats are skewed by May's numbers and don't reflect current performances.

nate
07-06-2011, 10:30 AM
I'd like to see the high-ranking offensive numbers charted during the course of the season so far. Jay Bruce had the monster May, Rolen's May was decent, and Gomes had a decent April. That's not the offense that shows up these days. All you can expect tonight are Phillips and Votto, and if he's feeling OK, Rolen. If the Reds have actually been scoring four or five runs a game during the last month, that's telling. But the total stats are skewed by May's numbers and don't reflect current performances.

The individual player thing would be interesting but I think one would find the same thing for all players. I suppose in that regard, what's better, having all players "in phase" (that is, all "hot" at the same time and, conversely, "all "cold" at the same time) or in "phase cancellation" (different players are hot and cold throughout.)

Although I don't think monthly splits are useful, for argument's sake, here's how the Reds offense has ranked in runs scored by month.

April: 2nd
May: 4rd
June: 6th

That's in all of MLB. It could, indeed, be a downward trend but they're still one of the best offenses in the leagues. When you consider their peers are the Yankees, that's still not so bad.

Quatitos
07-06-2011, 10:51 AM
I'd like to see the high-ranking offensive numbers charted during the course of the season so far. Jay Bruce had the monster May, Rolen's May was decent, and Gomes had a decent April. That's not the offense that shows up these days. All you can expect tonight are Phillips and Votto, and if he's feeling OK, Rolen. If the Reds have actually been scoring four or five runs a game during the last month, that's telling. But the total stats are skewed by May's numbers and don't reflect current performances.

Is this what you want? I added a 10 day moving average line as well to make it slightly easier to read.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-06-2011, 11:01 AM
To explain for the final time, this thread isn't about "the Reds offense is good/bad. It's, "is the Reds offense significantly more or less consistent than other MLB teams?" Yes, we'd all like better results out of the team but please try to channel your ire into conversation.

Marty is wrong. The Reds have the third highest OBP (or "not making outs percentage") in the NL.

I just disagree, that's all. I happen to side with Marty on this one. There are some good offensive players in the Reds' lineup (Phillips, Votto, occasionally Bruce) but there are far too many easy/automatic outs.

I(heart)Freel
07-06-2011, 11:52 AM
Broadcasters (and certainly a number of fans) who watch every pitch tend to be reactionary to the most recent moments, despite cumulative data to the contrary. I'm pretty sure that's just human nature. We're not machines, after all.

Perhaps that side of the argument is reacting to the fact that the Reds were #2 in runs scored for April, May and June in the NL, and now sit second-to-last in July. Sure, it's only five games. But recent memory has a way of clouding things.

Quatitos posted a pretty fantastic chart that should help folks like me who are visual learners. Thanks.

I look at it and see...

the Reds are just as likely to score 0-2 runs in any given game (29%) as they are 6-8 runs (29%), and just the slightest bit more likely to score 3-5 runs (31%). The outliers are 9 games (10%) when they scored 9 or more.

Raisor
07-06-2011, 12:35 PM
I just disagree, that's all. I happen to side with Marty on this one. There are some good offensive players in the Reds' lineup (Phillips, Votto, occasionally Bruce) but there are far too many easy/automatic outs.

as a unit, they're third in the league. Not sure what there is to disagree about.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-06-2011, 12:58 PM
as a unit, they're third in the league. Not sure what there is to disagree about.

Look, I'm not the only one who thinks this offense is dysfunctional. Open the Enquirer, turn on the radio, read the blogs ... it's really not some wild, misguided obsession that I alone have and no one else shares.

The majority of people who follow this team - from casual fans to RZ posters to local and national broadcasters to writers and even at least one MLB scout - have significant issues with this offense, how it's constructed, how it's being used, how players are being developed and how its shortcomings are not currently being addressed or were not addressed by the powers that be over the past 12 months.

I see the stats and couldn't be less impressed. I'm not alone. Stats on paper (or computer screen) don't come close to telling the whole story. Do you like football? Stats showed that the 2010 Cincinnati Bengals had a Top 13 offensive passing game and were better than teams like the Steelers, Ravens and Jets. Anyone really believe that???

signalhome
07-06-2011, 01:01 PM
Look, I'm not the only one who thinks this offense is dysfunctional. Open the Enquirer, turn on the radio, read the blogs ... it's really not some wild, misguided obsession that I alone have and no one else shares.

The majority of people who follow this team - from casual fans to RZ posters to broadcasters to writers and even a few baseball execs - have significant issues with this offense, how it's constructed, how it's being used, how players are being developed and how its shortcomings are not currently being addressed or were not addressed by the powers that be over the past 12 months.

I see the stats and couldn't be less impressed. I'm not alone. Stats on paper (or computer screen) don't come close to telling the whole story. Do you like football? Stats showed that the 2010 Cincinnati Bengals had a Top 13 offensive passing game and were better than teams like the Steelers, Ravens and Jets. Anyone really believe that???

Completely different. You're using counting stats instead of efficiency numbers. In football, teams that fall behind early rack up big passing numbers in an attempt to come back. They'll pile on the yards, but their efficiency will relatively stay the same (a slight uptick in efficiency should be expected due to a more lax defense). Everyone knows that. When you look at passing efficiency, the Bengals were pretty far down the list, as they should have been. Same thing for the Denver Broncos, who were always trailing and always passing.

membengal
07-06-2011, 01:03 PM
I agree that the offense is not optimal and could be and should be addressed. I believe that a rote recitation of their offensive rank doesn't make my first belief invalid.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-06-2011, 01:05 PM
Completely different. You're using counting stats instead of efficiency numbers. In football, teams that fall behind early rack up big passing numbers in an attempt to come back. They'll pile on the yards, but their efficiency will relatively stay the same (a slight uptick in efficiency should be expected due to a more lax defense). Everyone knows that. When you look at passing efficiency, the Bengals were pretty far down the list, as they should have been.

So it's not possible that, hypothetically, a team with a 9-2 lead on the Reds in the late innings could put in a lesser mop-up pitcher who gives up 3 runs but his team still gets the win? So the Reds score a meaningless 3 runs off a meat pitcher who never would have been in there had the game been close (like the lax football defense)?

Or, conversely, the Reds lead 7-1 late and the opposition effectively concedes, putting in their version of Carlos Fisher. Then Jay Bruce hits a 3-run HR to make a 7-1 lead a 10-1 lead.

That's artificially inflating the offensive statistics and is essentially the same situation as the football comparison.

Quatitos
07-06-2011, 01:06 PM
I agree that the offense is not optimal and could be and should be addressed. I believe that a rote recitation of their offensive rank doesn't make my first belief invalid.

I don't think that is the point of this thread. The point is whether the Reds are a streaky team or not.

07-06-2011, 01:08 PM
I don't get it. I really don't.

Are you defending this offense? Are you of the opinion that it's not one of the main reasons the Reds are a losing team and behind the Pirates and Nationals in the standings one week into July?

"I don't know what to say ... we say the same thing every night. This lineup has too many outs in it." - Marty Brennaman, July 5, 2011I learned a long time ago that Marty has a very surface knowledge of the game of baseball, which he passed along to his son. I think he is actually challenging himself lately based on some things I've heard, but Marty as a voice of authority is not going to carry much weight. Hal McCoy is not exactly Mr. Insight, he is a "hot story" reporter.

The Reds are behind the Pirates and Nationals because those two teams' starting rotations have outperformed ours. Does it matter if we only scored one run when we gave up 8? Would scoring 5 or 6 runs matter in 2 of the last five games? The starters continue to hamstring this team. Yesterday was just a bad game on both sides of the field, but the pattern has been clearly demonstrated that the true achilles heel of this squad is the starting rotation.

membengal
07-06-2011, 01:10 PM
I don't think that is the point of this thread. The point is whether the Reds are a streaky team or not.

It has been a subtext of most of nate's posts on the offense, and has been a part of this thread too, unless somehow notions of streakiness are divorced from offensive rank. But I yield to the thread policing and offense-is-fine cabal and will say no more.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-06-2011, 01:12 PM
I learned a long time ago that Marty has a very surface knowledge of the game of baseball, which he passed along to his son. I think he is actually challenging himself lately based on some things I've heard, but Marty as a voice of authority is not going to carry much weight. Hal McCoy is not exactly Mr. Insight, he is a "hot story" reporter.

The Reds are behind the Pirates and Nationals because those two teams' starting rotations have outperformed ours. Does it matter if we only scored one run when we gave up 8? Would scoring 5 or 6 runs matter in 2 of the last five games? The starters continue to hamstring this team. Yesterday was just a bad game on both sides of the field, but the pattern has been clearly demonstrated that the true achilles heel of this squad is the starting rotation.

That's not fair; you're cherry-picking games to make your argument sound better. I can do that too: Does it matter that we scored 0 runs on Monday when the Cardinals scored only 1? Does it matter that we scored 1 run on Saturday when the Indians only scored 3?

I'm not saying that we have the 1995 Braves starting rotation at all; we have a couple of starters who go out and throw first-inning batting practice, effectively ending the game before it starts. But that doesn't mean this offense is the sympathetic figure in all this - heroically doing all it can every night only to be losing games 11-9.

signalhome
07-06-2011, 01:18 PM
So it's not possible that, hypothetically, a team with a 9-2 lead on the Reds in the late innings could put in a lesser mop-up pitcher who gives up 3 runs but his team still gets the win? So the Reds score a meaningless 3 runs off a meat pitcher who never would have been in there had the game been close (like the lax football defense)?

Or, conversely, the Reds lead 7-1 late and the opposition effectively concedes, putting in their version of Carlos Fisher. Then Jay Bruce hits a 3-run HR to make a 7-1 lead a 10-1 lead.

That's artificially inflating the offensive statistics and is essentially the same situation as the football comparison.

Maybe, but that hasn't been the case with the Reds. When you look at the Reds' wOBA by High, Medium, and Low Leverage situations (per Fangraphs), you'll see that there isn't some huge drastic split in the numbers. A situation such as that would be considered a low leverage situation, and if what you were saying is true, we'd expect to see a drastic increase in their numbers in said situations. That isn't the case, as their low-leverage situation wOBA is exactly the same as their average wOBA. They have under-performed in the high leverage situations (to the tune of 0.018 wOBA), but that is likely due to a lack of sufficient sample size, as situational hitting usually is. They have only had 392 high-leverage PAs -- compare that to medium leverage, where they have had 1412 PAs. Last year, this exact same team outplayed their average in high leverage situations (outproducing their average wOBA by 0.012 points). This has to be considered normal variation, unless you believe that the team somehow unlearned how to get hits in high-leverage situations.

Quatitos
07-06-2011, 01:21 PM
It has been a subtext of most of nate's posts on the offense, and has been a part of this thread too, unless somehow notions of streakiness are divorced from offensive rank. But I yield to the thread policing and offense-is-fine cabal and will say no more.

I was referring to the reference of the offense not being optimal, since the argument was about the streakiness of the offense and not so much it being optimal or not. When I think optimal I think of arguments about batting order, playing the percentages of lefty/righty splits, or other things like that. If that is not what you meant by optimal then I appoligize, but it would be nice if you didn't try and play some sort of victim here :-P

signalhome
07-06-2011, 01:21 PM
That's not fair; you're cherry-picking games to make your argument sound better. I can do that too: Does it matter that we scored 0 runs on Monday when the Cardinals scored only 1? Does it matter that we scored 1 run on Saturday when the Indians only scored 3?

I'm not saying that we have the 1995 Braves starting rotation at all; we have a couple of starters who go out and throw first-inning batting practice, effectively ending the game before it starts. But that doesn't mean this offense is the sympathetic figure in all this - heroically doing all it can every night only to be losing games 11-9.

It's not losing games 11-9. The team simply isn't winning enough games 4-3 or 3-2, as the run distribution tables show. That doesn't go on the offense, as they are having high-scoring games at a better frequency than anyone in the NL aside from the Brewers. The difference between fourth-place and third-place is their lack of winning games where they don't score a lot of runs, whether that be due to bad pitching or bad luck.

OldXOhio
07-06-2011, 01:26 PM
Yesterday was just a bad game on both sides of the field, but the pattern has been clearly demonstrated that the true achilles heel of this squad is the starting rotation.

I don't think anyone would argue this point. What some of us have also argued is that the weaknesses in starting pitching are not the only holes on this team. I don't care if it's the primary need or not, a flaw is a flaw is a flaw. Show all the statistics you want comparing this team to others in the league, they don't override the lack of production we've seen out of certain positions. I liken the holes in the batting order to what a short stint by our starters does to the bullpen. Guys like Bruce, Votto and Phillips have to be taxed in trying to carry the load. If you can improve upon the offensive woes in a reasonable fashion, you do so. That's really all that's being said. Arguing its rank on the pecking order really only matters if the Reds have only one bullet to spend. Nowhere have I heard that that's the case.

signalhome
07-06-2011, 01:33 PM
I don't think anyone would argue this point. What some of us have also argued is that the weaknesses in starting pitching are not the only holes on this team. I don't care if it's the primary need or not, a flaw is a flaw is a flaw. Show all the statistics you want comparing this team to others in the league, they don't override the lack of production we've seen out of certain positions. I liken the holes in the batting order to what a short stint by our starters does to the bullpen. Guys like Bruce, Votto and Phillips have to be taxed in trying to carry the load. If you can improve upon the offensive woes in a reasonable fashion, you do so. That's really all that's being said. Arguing its rank on the pecking order really only matters if the Reds have only one bullet to spend. Nowhere have I heard that that's the case.

Right there with you. SP is my primary concern, but I'd be doing everything in my power to fix the black hole at SS.

membengal
07-06-2011, 01:36 PM
I was referring to the reference of the offense not being optimal, since the argument was about the streakiness of the offense and not so much it being optimal or not. When I think optimal I think of arguments about batting order, playing the percentages of lefty/righty splits, or other things like that. If that is not what you meant by optimal then I appoligize, but it would be nice if you didn't try and play some sort of victim here :-P

Not trying to play anything. The offense is clearly great, cannot and should not be improved, and any suggestion of same is clearly lunacy in light of the awesome runs scored average.

Kc61
07-06-2011, 01:39 PM
I guess, having read most of this and thought about it, I'm a believer that ultimately this team has failed because of its pitching. Particularly the starting pitching. Particularly three guys.

The Reds pitching is statistically poor. The team's ERA is 4.10, one of the league's worst. The team's FIP is 4.26, next to worst in the NL. The team's xFIP (controlling for homers allowed) is 3.93, fourth from league worst.

The starting pitchers' ERA is 4.56, third worst in the league. League average is 3.93, a huge difference.

The hitting numbers are slipping, but they are still above league average across the board.

IMO - what we have here is an offense that has collapsed under the weight of poor pitching. All the early inning deficits have caught up to the Reds.

There is not enough offensive talent here to compensate for the pitching disadvantage. (The Brewers are IMO a better offensive team than the Reds - but even they are sliding back due to pitching.)

I firmly believe that a team constantly behind in games due to poor pitching will eventually fold offensively. It is too big a burden to repeatedly come back from early deficits.

Last night is a good example. Reds - again - found themselves behind early. The spark in the Reds' offense was then completely gone. The game was basically over.

I haven't checked the Reds average runs allowed early in games, but it must be a whopping number.

And, to be more granular, the Reds have had six starting pitchers this year covering most of their games. Three of them have astronomical ERAs -- Wood (5.11), Arroyo (5.49), and Volquez (5.93). Those three guys have thrown a total of 281 innings. That's the equivalent of 31 nine-inning games allowing about 5.5 earned runs per game. That is a lot for an offense to overcome.

The offense could be better. The Reds should improve it.

But the key factor IMO is the starting pitching, notably Volquez, Arroyo, and Wood.

BCubb2003
07-06-2011, 02:21 PM
It's the granularity that keeps me from losing all hope. Start with a rotation of Cueto, Leake and Bailey. Not bad. Issues at 4 and 5, but most teams have issues there. LeCure could be an average #4 until the league sees enough of him. Willis would be better than
most teams could do at #5. And that's assuming you simply throw away Areoyo and Volquez. On the offense, start with Phillips and Votto. Can you get more consistency from Bruce and Rolen? The catchers will do what they do. Now get the offense some help.

It doesn't look so bleak that way.

Kc61
07-06-2011, 03:28 PM
It's the granularity that keeps me from losing all hope. Start with a rotation of Cueto, Leake and Bailey. Not bad. Issues at 4 and 5, but most teams have issues there. LeCure could be an average #4 until the league sees enough of him. Willis would be better than
most teams could do at #5. And that's assuming you simply throw away Areoyo and Volquez. On the offense, start with Phillips and Votto. Can you get more consistency from Bruce and Rolen? The catchers will do what they do. Now get the offense some help.

It doesn't look so bleak that way.

It would require some bold steps. Pitching, DL Arroyo and move Volquez to AAA. Replace them with Willis and perhaps Lecure. If Willis and Lecure can put up ERAs of 4.00 - 4.25, in that range, it is a huge upgrade for this team.

On offense, put Stubbs on the bench for awhile and use Heisey in CF for a week or more. Hit Phillips clean up again, move Rolen to sixth, and perhaps Bruce second again, where he thrived.

Bring up Cozart to start at SS. DFA Lewis, Renteria and maybe Gomes. Use their spots for AAA talent, like Sappelt and Alonso.

Before the deadline, trade Razor to SF for the best young pitcher you can get. Include a Reds prospect if necessary to land a good pitching prospect.

And, of course, consider trades at the deadline that might bring the Reds a good veteran outfielder who can be kept for more than one year.

These are the kinds of things they can reasonably do IMO.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-06-2011, 03:48 PM
It would require some bold steps. Pitching, DL Arroyo and move Volquez to AAA. Replace them with Willis and perhaps Lecure. If Willis and Lecure can put up ERAs of 4.00 - 4.25, in that range, it is a huge upgrade for this team.

On offense, put Stubbs on the bench for awhile and use Heisey in CF for a week or more. Hit Phillips clean up again, move Rolen to sixth, and perhaps Bruce second again, where he thrived.

Bring up Cozart to start at SS. DFA Lewis, Renteria and maybe Gomes. Use their spots for AAA talent, like Sappelt and Alonso.

Before the deadline, trade Razor to SF for the best young pitcher you can get. Include a Reds prospect if necessary to land a good pitching prospect.

And, of course, consider trades at the deadline that might bring the Reds a good veteran outfielder who can be kept for more than one year.

These are the kinds of things they can reasonably do IMO.

Wouldn't it be far more beneficial to Stubbs to go down and hit AAA pitching every day for a while? I'm not sure that sitting on the bench is going to help his confidence or his ability to make contact.

07-06-2011, 06:20 PM
That's not fair; you're cherry-picking games to make your argument sound better. I can do that too: Does it matter that we scored 0 runs on Monday when the Cardinals scored only 1? Does it matter that we scored 1 run on Saturday when the Indians only scored 3?

I'm not saying that we have the 1995 Braves starting rotation at all; we have a couple of starters who go out and throw first-inning batting practice, effectively ending the game before it starts. But that doesn't mean this offense is the sympathetic figure in all this - heroically doing all it can every night only to be losing games 11-9.You keep on using the term cherry picking whenever I give you an example of a recent event(s) that demonstrates a season long trend. You are misapplying the concept, twice now with me by my count.

07-06-2011, 06:25 PM
I don't think anyone would argue this point. What some of us have also argued is that the weaknesses in starting pitching are not the only holes on this team. I don't care if it's the primary need or not, a flaw is a flaw is a flaw. Show all the statistics you want comparing this team to others in the league, they don't override the lack of production we've seen out of certain positions. I liken the holes in the batting order to what a short stint by our starters does to the bullpen. Guys like Bruce, Votto and Phillips have to be taxed in trying to carry the load. If you can improve upon the offensive woes in a reasonable fashion, you do so. That's really all that's being said. Arguing its rank on the pecking order really only matters if the Reds have only one bullet to spend. Nowhere have I heard that that's the case.My position has been that improving the starting pitching would likely improve the offensive production. KC61 is on the track, whereby overcoming big deficits can be taxing on the offense, just like a bad offense can wear on a pitching staff over the course of the season. When you get down early, the opposing pitcher can adjust his game plan, be a bit more aggressive, or a bit more fine, just as an example. When that happens frequently, the problem only compounds. I think you have to consider all this interdependently, at the team level.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-06-2011, 06:56 PM
You keep on using the term cherry picking whenever I give you an example of a recent event(s) that demonstrates a season long trend. You are misapplying the concept, twice now with me by my count.

This is going nowhere.

Agree to disagree. Let's see what happens tonight.

edabbs44
07-06-2011, 08:40 PM
This is remotely related in the "streaky" department to which I say:

Rare is the regular player who doesn't go (at least) 1 for 26 (if not worse) at least once, if not several times a season. While one can be disappointed in that performance, virtually all players have random samplings of 26 PA where they garner but a lone hit. It's natural. It's not unusual. It's not cause to ponder playing chicken with one's local light rail or taking a bath with a plugged-in toaster.

Without looking anything up, I would guess a good third of major league starters (guys who qualify for the batting title) are going through a similar stretch. I would further offer that all but perhaps 1% of all major leaguers who qualify for the batting title this season have gone through exactly a stretch or stretches like this, if not worse.

I don't discount your disappointment; I wish he hit his average every game but that's never been done in modern baseball and it's unrealistic to expect any player to do so. It's simply not unusual for players to experience these sorts of ups and downs.

Back to the topic: is the Reds offense appreciably more inconsistent than the majority of the other teams in the league?

How about two stretches of 10-80 and 14-100 by July 6th? I think that's probably somewhat unique, especially for players with his talent.

IslandRed
07-06-2011, 09:28 PM
Wouldn't it be far more beneficial to Stubbs to go down and hit AAA pitching every day for a while? I'm not sure that sitting on the bench is going to help his confidence or his ability to make contact.

I don't know. You could be right. Then again, he spent the first two weeks of last August mostly benched after a couple of lousy months, then he had a good last six weeks of the season. Sometimes it's about getting the head cleared as much as anything else.

nate
07-06-2011, 09:52 PM
Folks can we please discuss whether or not the offense is appreciably more or less consistent than others? It's not about "good" or "bad" as a team can be consistently bad, average or good.

Brutus
07-06-2011, 09:56 PM
Folks can we please discuss whether or not the offense is appreciably more or less consistent than others? It's not about "good" or "bad" as a team can be consistently bad, average or good.

Sounds like you're trying to get everyone to adhere to your view of what constitutes consistent.

Part of the problem with these types of debates is that there is no definitive measure. There are variations with what constitutes consistency.

westofyou
07-06-2011, 09:58 PM
Scored Allowed
10 or more 7 - 0 0 - 7
9 runs 2 - 0 0 - 3
8 runs 4 - 2 0 - 2
7 runs 10 - 0 1 - 5
6 runs 5 - 4 2 - 1
5 runs 4 - 2 5 - 7
4 runs 4 - 7 6 - 7
3 runs 4 - 6 9 - 9
2 runs 3 - 12 12 - 2
1 run 0 - 7 5 - 1
0 runs 0 - 4 3 - 0
Total 43 - 44 43 - 44

nate
07-06-2011, 10:07 PM
Sounds like you're trying to get everyone to adhere to your view of what constitutes consistent.

Sounds like you're projecting. I'm trying to steer the conversation back to topic rather than have it devolve into another discussion of "Reds offense good/bad."

A handful of people, if even that, have offered a their definition. Let's hear more "I think consistency means ______" and less "the Reds offense is good/bad."

Part of the problem with these types of debates is that there is no definitive measure. There are variations with what constitutes consistency.

Hence, this thread. Let's talk more about what consistency means and if the Reds are more or less consistent than other teams.

Brutus
07-06-2011, 10:16 PM
Sounds like you're projecting. I'm trying to steer the conversation back to topic rather than have it devolve into another discussion of "Reds offense good/bad."

A handful of people, if even that, have offered a their definition. Let's hear more "I think consistency means ______" and less "the Reds offense is good/bad."

Hence, this thread. Let's talk more about what consistency means and if the Reds are more or less consistent than other teams.

If the accusation is that I'm projecting my internal belief that people do not need to have the same view of what 'consistency' really is, sure, I suppose I'm guilty. But I don't think you can have a debate about consistency without the simultaneous discussion of whether the offense is good or bad. After all, some people believe that consistency is a fabric woven into the quality of an offense.

So your steering is inadvertently imposing a belief system against the views of some peoples' definition of consistency.

Your first post, which I appreciated by the way, was pretty vague. It insinuated that one of the teams was the Reds, which made it seem like a discussion about Reds' offense good or bad. If you had attempted to make it more an analysis on what constitutes streakiness, I think it would have done less devolving over what you wanted it to be.

All I'm saying is you kind of opened up the can of worms. I myself would have interpreted this thread to be about the Reds, quite honestly.

I(heart)Freel
07-06-2011, 10:20 PM
The last two series are perfect examples backing the claim that the offense is streaky.

2, 1, 7, 0, 1, (8) runs scored (so far).

Avg says the Reds score 3.167 runs a game. But we know they scored 2 or less in 4 of those 6 games. Is it any wonder they lost those 4?

Not saying this can be applied over the whole season. But i am saying that you can see why some might find the offense streaky in this light.

nate
07-06-2011, 10:40 PM
If the accusation is that I'm projecting my internal belief that people do not need to have the same view of what 'consistency' really is, sure, I suppose I'm guilty. But I don't think you can have a debate about consistency without the simultaneous discussion of whether the offense is good or bad. After all, some people believe that consistency is a fabric woven into the quality of an offense.

So your steering is inadvertently imposing a belief system against the views of some peoples' definition of consistency.

Only a handful of people have attempted to define consistency. I don't believe I've made any such attempt.

Your first post, which I appreciated by the way, was pretty vague. It insinuated that one of the teams was the Reds, which made it seem like a discussion about Reds' offense good or bad.

Perhaps you have made an error in reading what I wrote but I have insinuated no such thing with regard to this topic. For years, I've questioned what "streaky" is and this thread is another discussion of JUST THAT.

I'm not interested in another rehashing of "THE REDS ARE GOOD/BAD" in this particular thread.

I can't make it any more clear.

If you had attempted to make it more an analysis on what constitutes streakiness, I think it would have done less devolving over what you wanted it to be.

I can't recount how many times I've said, this thread is about if the Reds offense is significantly more consistent than other teams. It's impossible for me to make it clearer.

All I'm saying is you kind of opened up the can of worms. I myself would have interpreted this thread to be about the Reds, quite honestly.

I guess I'll type it one more time.

Is the Reds offense significantly more or less consistent than other teams? If so, why? What is your measure of consistent?

It's not a measure of good (scores a lot of runs) or bad (doesn't score a lot of runs.) It's a measure of consistent (scores a similar amount of runs) compared to the consistency of other teams.

Please share what you think that is.

Brutus
07-06-2011, 10:45 PM

Only a handful of people have attempted to define consistency. I don't believe I've made any such attempt.

Perhaps you have made an error in reading what I wrote but I have insinuated no such thing with regard to this topic. For years, I've questioned what "streaky" is and this thread is another discussion of JUST THAT.

I'm not interested in another rehashing of "THE REDS ARE GOOD/BAD" in this particular thread.

I can't make it any more clear.

I can't recount how many times I've said, this thread is about if the Reds offense is significantly more consistent than other teams. It's impossible for me to make it clearer.

I guess I'll type it one more time.

Is the Reds offense significantly more or less consistent than other teams? If so, why? What is your measure of consistent?

It's not a measure of good (scores a lot of runs) or bad (doesn't score a lot of runs.) It's a measure of consistent (scores a similar amount of runs) compared to the consistency of other teams.

Please share what you think that is.

I've been pretty outspoken about consistency over the past several weeks, though not much in this thread. I've said in several places I believe consistency is simply the theoretical distribution of a team's runs. If an offense is one that scores 4.5 runs per game, ideally you'd like to see 4-5 runs every game. It's not as attractive as seeing a team go out and scoring 12 runs in a game, but it's more effective over the long haul.

In any event, about 2-3 weeks ago I posted the Reds' standard deviation of run scoring and surmised that it was just slightly below average (though not as much as I had expected). It was, however, worse than the other five teams in the central. That said, after discussing it in a few threads, I basically realized it was a discussion that had mostly reached its course for me.

I apologize if I came across as I was picking at you, but I just thought (as others probably did) this was another thread about the Reds. It definitely may not have been your intention, but the vagueness kind of made it seem that way. And to that effect, I think it probably took the course you noted (another Reds good/bad thread).

nate
07-06-2011, 10:50 PM
I've been pretty outspoken about consistency over the past several weeks, though not much in this thread. I've said in several places I believe consistency is simply the theoretical distribution of a team's runs. If an offense is one that scores 4.5 runs per game, ideally you'd like to see 4-5 runs every game. It's not as attractive as seeing a team go out and scoring 12 runs in a game, but it's more effective over the long haul.

In any event, about 2-3 weeks ago I posted the Reds' standard deviation of run scoring and surmised that it was just slightly below average (though not as much as I had expected). It was, however, worse than the other five teams in the central. That said, after discussing it in a few threads, I basically realized it was a discussion that had mostly reached its course for me.

I apologize if I came across as I was picking at you, but I just thought (as others probably did) this was another thread about the Reds. It definitely may not have been your intention, but the vagueness kind of made it seem that way. And to that effect, I think it probably took the course you noted (another Reds good/bad thread).

Well, it is about the Reds because that's the team we talk about most here. It's just not about good/bad but trying to understand what the hell "streaky" is. Your analysis is perfectly fine and welcome (and you should run it again to see if it's changed) - that's (selfishly, but I think it's interesting) want to hear more of.

High five!

Brutus
07-06-2011, 10:57 PM
Well, it is about the Reds because that's the team we talk about most here. It's just not about good/bad but trying to understand what the hell "streaky" is. Your analysis is perfectly fine and welcome (and you should run it again to see if it's changed) - that's (selfishly, but I think it's interesting) want to hear more of.

High five!

I actually do intend to look at it again in a few days (probably around the all-star break). I had been doing a bigger, longer study that involved several years of data, but haven't finished it due to a number of computer problems and time constraints.

But in my last data set, running a correlation of standard scores (based on standard deviation of run distribution) against the differential between pythagorean win percentage and actual win percentage, I found just over a .4 correlation between the two. Obviously that's significant in that it shows it doesn't just matter how many runs you score but to a lesser degree how often you score them.

I do hope to get more involved in that study later this summer.

kaldaniels
07-06-2011, 10:58 PM
Brutus, do you think the Reds' run distribution is worse than the rest of the teams in the NL Central, or just larger?

Brutus
07-06-2011, 11:00 PM
Brutus, do you think the Reds' run distribution is worse than the rest of the teams in the NL Central, or just larger?

Good question. I should clarify when I say "worse" I mean it was more spread out (i.e. a larger deviation). In this theoretical sense, the smaller the deviation the tighter the distribution, obviously.

But it is also true there are some inherent biases that do impact that kind of measurement, only that higher scoring teams obviously are further away from the basement of "zero" runs scored, thus they do sometimes get hurt worse with the deviation.

I(heart)Freel
07-07-2011, 10:14 AM
Scored Allowed
10 or more 7 - 0 0 - 7
9 runs 2 - 0 0 - 3
8 runs 4 - 2 0 - 2
7 runs 10 - 0 1 - 5
6 runs 5 - 4 2 - 1
5 runs 4 - 2 5 - 7
4 runs 4 - 7 6 - 7
3 runs 4 - 6 9 - 9
2 runs 3 - 12 12 - 2
1 run 0 - 7 5 - 1
0 runs 0 - 4 3 - 0
Total 43 - 44 43 - 44

Great grid, West.

Anyone else cringe at the 9-9 record when the Reds allow 3 runs?

And 6-7 when the Reds allow 4 runs?

For an offense that averages 4.66 runs a game, I would've thought that to be a little better too.

07-07-2011, 12:47 PM
Scored Allowed
10 or more 7 - 0 0 - 7
9 runs 2 - 0 0 - 3
8 runs 4 - 2 0 - 2
7 runs 10 - 0 1 - 5
6 runs 5 - 4 2 - 1
5 runs 4 - 2 5 - 7
4 runs 4 - 7 6 - 7
3 runs 4 - 6 9 - 9
2 runs 3 - 12 12 - 2
1 run 0 - 7 5 - 1
0 runs 0 - 4 3 - 0
Total 43 - 44 43 - 44
See, our problem last night was that 8th run. A double, Scotty, not a home run, daggone it. ;)

RedsManRick
07-07-2011, 02:19 PM
For those claiming the Reds are streaky, can you cite a team that you consider consistent and contrast their perform with the Reds?

I think if you asked fans, you'd have fans from all 30 teams claiming their teams are streaky. I think we have this vision of consistent that simply isn't rooted in a reality of what is truly reasonable.

That is to say, by our intuitive measure of objective streakiness, virtually every team is streaky. Watch any team over a long period of time and you'll experience runs of good and bad performance. So if the question is simply, are they streaky, I'd say "sure they are". But if you asked me if they were streakier than average, that's a different question. We don't' watch other teams, so we don't have a finely calibrated intuitive sense of what the average level of streakiness looks like.

westofyou
07-07-2011, 04:16 PM
W-L R PG Avg OR PG ERA W-L
Homestand, March 31 to April 7 5-1 45 7.5 .329 20 3.3 3.33 5-1
Road Trip, April 8 to 13 3-3 29 4.8 .249 31 5.2 4.86 8-4
Homestand, April 15 to 21 2-5 33 4.7 .245 36 5.1 5.00 10-9
Road Trip, April 22 to 27 3-3 25 4.2 .232 24 4.0 3.81 13-12
Homestand, April 29 to May 5 3-3 32 5.3 .268 35 5.8 5.73 16-15
Road Trip, May 6 to 11 4-2 25 4.2 .256 15 2.5 2.38 20-17
Homestand, May 13 to 19 5-2 39 5.6 .288 34 4.9 3.94 25-19
Road Trip, May 20 to 29 2-8 38 3.8 .240 57 5.7 5.27 27-27
Homestand, May 30 to June 8 5-4 46 5.1 .258 42 4.7 4.12 32-31
Road Trip, June 9 to 15 5-2 33 4.7 .276 17 2.4 2.34 37-33
Homestand, June 17 to 22 2-4 19 3.2 .237 19 3.2 3.00 39-37
Road Trip, June 24 to 29 3-3 31 5.2 .264 24 4.0 4.00 42-40
Homestand, July 1 to 3 1-2 10 3.3 .260 16 5.3 5.00 43-42
Road Trip, July 4 to 6 1-2 10 3.3 .212 17 5.7 4.97 44-44

07-07-2011, 05:02 PM
Here's an interesting tidbit:

There is 1 run, one flimsy run, separating the Reds and Cards, and it is on the pitching side. The offenses have scored the same number of runs, the Reds pitching has held their opponents to 1 less run than the Cards.

You look at the ERAs, its a totally different story, Cards giving up a lot of unearned runs. Some of that is due to our superior D, some of it is due to the Cards scorekeeping. :lol: But that is amazing.

The irony to me is that you get the feel from the regular posters that the Cards are the superior team due to their starting pitching, yet they have given up one more run than our putrid pitching.

And of course they have 3 games on us in the standings, due to our losing 5 more one run game than they have.

Methinks we are in for a pennant race, a race of mediocrity mind you, but a race nonetheless.

klw
07-07-2011, 05:05 PM
I saw in another thread the ops of individual vs rhp and lhp was compared but has anyone looked at RPG vs LH starter and RH starter? Is that part of the streakiness?

klw
07-07-2011, 05:24 PM
http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/split/32/league/nl
Okay here is a imperfect answer to my question above.
The Reds have scored 100 runs in 591 AB vs left handers (1 every 6 AB)
" scored 315 runs in 2474 AB vs right handers (1 run every 8 ab)

I dont know how they allocate the runs if hitter got on but scored after change of pitcher, etc.

Stats are for 88 games and 3065 AB which is an average of 34.83 ab per game.
Against lefties, that would mean the Reds score 5.80 runs per game.
Against righties, that would mean the Reds score 4.35 runs per game.

This is of course with some rounding up and is a somewhat flawed approach but I wonder if the hand of the opposing starting pitcher may be contributing to the streakiness though Hamels certainly owns the Reds.

D-Man
07-08-2011, 12:10 AM
For those claiming the Reds are streaky, can you cite a team that you consider consistent and contrast their perform with the Reds?

I think if you asked fans, you'd have fans from all 30 teams claiming their teams are streaky. I think we have this vision of consistent that simply isn't rooted in a reality of what is truly reasonable.

For what an average team's run distribution looks like, see "The point of small ball is to make your offense more predictable" here:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ten-things-i-didnt-know-last-week11

RMR: I take issue with your earlier point that you would rather have a low standard deviation 3.5 r/g offense than a high SD 4.5 r/g offense. Quite the contrary, as indicated in the chart in the attached article.

Run a simulation with Team A and Team B and see which team wins more frequently:

Team A: alternates between 3 runs and 4 runs scored every other night
Team B: alternates between 0 runs and 9 runs (4.5 average) every other night

As a rule of thumb, teams want to score between 2 and 7 runs each night; the marginal value of runs lower than 2 or more than 7 are of diminishing value. The 2011 Reds offense has scored 2-7 runs in only 69% of its games, so it is has squandered many of its runs in blowout like games. Conversely, in 13% of the games played, the Reds offense has scored 0 or 1 run. A team is not going to win a lot of games with an offense like this unless you have a powerhouse defense and pitching staff (which the Reds don't have at this point).

Using the calculation from the article suggests this Reds team has a so-so offense, with an implied offensive winning percentage of .506. Ho hum.

Here's an older discussion on the topic:

D-Man
07-08-2011, 12:25 AM
Yikes, my math was wrong in the Team A/ Team B example in the previous post, but the point still stands. . .

I would rather have a consistent 4 r/g offense (49% expected winning percentage/game against an average team) than one that alternates between 0-9 r/g offensively (44% expected winning percentage/game against an average team).

RS Win %
0 0%
1 8%
2 24%
3 32%
4 49%
5 61%
6 70%
7 86%
8 85%
9 88%
10 94%

Boss-Hog
07-08-2011, 09:28 AM
RMR: I take issue with your earlier point that you would rather have a low standard deviation 3.5 r/g offense than a high SD 4.5 r/g offense. Quite the contrary, as indicated in the chart in the attached article.

I believe he said the opposite - like you, he'd prefer the latter. :)

RedsManRick
07-08-2011, 01:52 PM
For what an average team's run distribution looks like, see "The point of small ball is to make your offense more predictable" here:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ten-things-i-didnt-know-last-week11

RMR: I take issue with your earlier point that you would rather have a low standard deviation 3.5 r/g offense than a high SD 4.5 r/g offense. Quite the contrary, as indicated in the chart in the attached article.

Ummmm, either I mistyped or you misread. I've been a strong advocate of the higher overall run total from the very beginning. In a perfect world, I'd like to have a low SD too. But the affect of the SD is dwarfed by the basic fact that scoring more runs is better.

And hence, why I dislike small ball. Sure, it gives you greater certainty of scoring 1 run. But it generally leads to scoring fewer. Therefore, it only makes sense when you know with certainty that 1 more run (and only 1 more run) will win you the game at hand.

RedsManRick
07-08-2011, 06:12 PM
Yikes, my math was wrong in the Team A/ Team B example in the previous post, but the point still stands. . .

I would rather have a consistent 4 r/g offense (49% expected winning percentage/game against an average team) than one that alternates between 0-9 r/g offensively (44% expected winning percentage/game against an average team).

RS Win %
0 0%
1 8%
2 24%
3 32%
4 49%
5 61%
6 70%
7 86%
8 85%
9 88%
10 94%

If real life were really the extreme scenarios you presented, sure. But show me a REAL high deviation team and a REAL low deviation team. You fundamentally change the reality of baseball when you create a bi-modal distribution. That's simply not how it works. Offensive production distribution will always be a curve with a single peak. A high deviation curve will be flatter than a low deviation one, but it will not invert. And that is a very important fact. You can see how silly your example is (and how important it is to use real examples) simply by pitting your 4.0 low team vs. your 4.5 high team. Against each other, each team would win 50% of the time. In a world where those distributions happened, the win% curve wouldn't exist.

Let's look at a slightly more realistic crazy extreme example:

Runs Win% Low Deviation High Deviation
0 0% 0 0 0 16 18 20
1 8% 0 0 0 16 18 20
2 24% 0 0 0 16 18 20
3 32% 0 0 81 16 18 21
4 49% 81 162 81 16 18 21
5 61% 81 0 0 16 18 20
6 70% 0 0 0 16 18 20
7 86% 0 0 0 16 18 20
8 85% 0 0 0 16 18 0
9 88% 0 0 0 16 0 0
10 94% 0 0 0 0 0 0
Games 162 162 162 160 162 162
R/G 4.5 4.0 3.5 4.5 4.0 3.5
xWin% .550 .490 .405 .503 .461 .412

Given the same number of runs scored, low deviation is clearly better. But it is still the case that 4.5 high is better than 4.0 low. So even if these extremes were possible, the effect deviation would cap out at less than 1/2 a run per game difference.

But the reason the win% curve is the way it is is because of the way teams score runs, in a slightly right skewed one-peak curve. There's a peak marginal value just below the average runs per game and a long right-hand tail of diminishing returns. So to really model things fairly, you have to show realistic high and low deviation distributions. And when you do that, and then shift a team's average runs per game down, you end up losing a lot of those 5, 6, 7 run games that are VERY valuable and you start picking up more 0, 1, 2 run games that are painful. And the effect of doing that has a much bigger negative effect than does trading the 0 and 8 for two 4s have a positive one.

Here are some more realistic, but still pretty extreme scenarios to consider.

Runs Win% Low High Low High Low High
0 0% 0 8 0 10 0 14
1 8% 0 12 10 14 15 20
2 24% 15 16 15 20 24 22
3 32% 24 20 30 22 42 26
4 49% 42 25 52 30 42 26
5 61% 42 25 30 22 24 22
6 70% 24 20 15 20 15 15
7 86% 15 16 10 12 0 10
8 85% 0 12 0 8 0 5
9 88% 0 8 0 4 0 2
10 94% 0 0 0 0 0 0
Games 162 162 162 162 162 162
R/G 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5
xWin% .538 .517 .475 .467 .408 .410

The first observation is that clearly the differences in runs scored matter much more than between low and high. But furthermore, because of the lower bound of zero and the way the win% distribution is shaped, as you move to a lower R/G figure, the variation gap narrows and eventually disappears.

The crux of my point is this: not a single person in this thread has laid out a description of what a realistic high/low deviation offense looks like. The extreme examples provided are meaningless and misleading. When you actually model out distributions that are more realistic, the story becomes clear. Score more runs and you win more games. Given a level of average run scoring, consistency matters. But if you have to sacrifice total runs to be more consistent, the trade-off most likely isn't worth it.

nate
07-10-2011, 01:10 PM
Nice post, Rick. Very interesting that High 3.5 is slightly better than Low 3.5.

Maybe I overlooked the explanation but how do you arrive at xWin%?

RedsManRick
07-10-2011, 01:33 PM
Nice post, Rick. Very interesting that High 3.5 is slightly better than Low 3.5.

Maybe I overlooked the explanation but how do you arrive at xWin%?

That was all predicated on the win% D-man posted. After that, it's just a sum product.

(# of 0 run games * % chance of winning 0 run games) + (# of 1 run games * % chance fo winning 1 run games).... et.c. Then divided by the total number of games.

nate
07-10-2011, 02:14 PM
That was all predicated on the win% D-man posted. After that, it's just a sum product.

(# of 0 run games * % chance of winning 0 run games) + (# of 1 run games * % chance fo winning 1 run games).... et.c. Then divided by the total number of games.

Got it. So what would be interesting would to take D-man's percentages and apply them to the Reds at the ASB and see what the xWin% would be compared to their actual first half record thus seeing how far they've actually deviated from their expected record.

If you did that for every team, wouldn't you end up with a baseline that you could use for a comparison to see how consistent teams are?

OnBaseMachine
07-10-2011, 02:42 PM
The Reds offense entered today with a .600 OPS with the bases loaded, which is 24th in the majors. NL average is .768...Reds are already 0-for-1 with the bases loaded today.

nate
07-10-2011, 03:20 PM
The Reds offense entered today with a .600 OPS with the bases loaded, which is 24th in the majors. NL average is .768...Reds are already 0-for-1 with the bases loaded today.

The Reds

Split PA BA OBP SLG OPS
RISP 933 .266 .357 .416 .773
--- 2009 .253 .313 .396 .709
Men On 1581 .271 .353 .418 .771
1-- 648 .278 .348 .420 .768
-2- 291 .275 .381 .381 .762
--3 76 .295 .355 .508 .863
12- 278 .255 .331 .435 .766
1-3 102 .333 .380 .512 .892
-23 74 .245 .432 .408 .841
123 112 .202 .286 .315 .600
on 1st lt 2 out 686 .292 .362 .456 .818
on 3rd lt 2 out 195 .340 .383 .596 .979
on 3rd 2 out 169 .197 .325 .268 .593

The NL:

Split PA BA OBP SLG OPS
RISP 14377 .251 .339 .381 .720
--- 30990 .248 .309 .385 .694
Men On 24217 .256 .329 .386 .716
1-- 9840 .263 .315 .394 .709
-2- 4897 .241 .358 .361 .719
--3 1593 .252 .345 .375 .720
12- 3746 .244 .309 .384 .692
1-3 1659 .269 .314 .383 .697
-23 1175 .243 .399 .391 .791
123 1307 .286 .323 .438 .761
on 1st lt 2 out 10055 .274 .320 .412 .732
on 3rd lt 2 out 2887 .310 .352 .465 .817
on 3rd 2 out 2847 .223 .333 .335 .668

OBM, love ya, buddy but if these two splits represented teams and I had to choose one of the teams (and I believed strongly in these situational stats), I'd take the Reds.

Serious question: why does the split you quoted indicate an inconsistent offense?

Brutus
07-10-2011, 03:32 PM
Got it. So what would be interesting would to take D-man's percentages and apply them to the Reds at the ASB and see what the xWin% would be compared to their actual first half record thus seeing how far they've actually deviated from their expected record.

If you did that for every team, wouldn't you end up with a baseline that you could use for a comparison to see how consistent teams are?

I actually did that last week, and their expected winning percentage was (when I did it) like .570 as opposed to actual win% of .506 at the time.

signalhome
07-10-2011, 03:36 PM
I actually did that last week, and their expected winning percentage was (when I did it) like .570 as opposed to actual win% of .506 at the time.

That would put them at the third-best record in the NL, behind Philadelphia and Atlanta -- also the only two teams in the NL with a better run differential. Stuff like this makes me not quite willing to write them off, at least not yet.

RedsManRick
07-10-2011, 03:40 PM
Remeber that the win% D-man posted essentially assume a league average pitching staff. Given that ours is below average, our win% curve based on runs scored is going to be lower.

RedsManRick
07-10-2011, 03:47 PM
Here are the current 3rd-Order win% standings from BaseballProspectus. 3rd-order means it adjusts for both expects runs based on performance and the quality of the opponents.

xWin% xW-L vs Actual
Cin .526 47.9-43.1 -2.9
StL .524 47.7-43.3 +0.3
Mil .515 46.8-44.2 +1.2
Pit .437 38.9-50.1 +7.1
Chi .411 37.4-53.6 -0.4
Hou .391 35.6-55.4 -5.6

Pittsburgh has gotten some very nice timing that isn't likely to continue. But it's basically a dead heat between the top 3 teams.

OnBaseMachine
07-11-2011, 12:40 PM
The Reds

Split PA BA OBP SLG OPS
RISP 933 .266 .357 .416 .773
--- 2009 .253 .313 .396 .709
Men On 1581 .271 .353 .418 .771
1-- 648 .278 .348 .420 .768
-2- 291 .275 .381 .381 .762
--3 76 .295 .355 .508 .863
12- 278 .255 .331 .435 .766
1-3 102 .333 .380 .512 .892
-23 74 .245 .432 .408 .841
123 112 .202 .286 .315 .600
on 1st lt 2 out 686 .292 .362 .456 .818
on 3rd lt 2 out 195 .340 .383 .596 .979
on 3rd 2 out 169 .197 .325 .268 .593

The NL:

Split PA BA OBP SLG OPS
RISP 14377 .251 .339 .381 .720
--- 30990 .248 .309 .385 .694
Men On 24217 .256 .329 .386 .716
1-- 9840 .263 .315 .394 .709
-2- 4897 .241 .358 .361 .719
--3 1593 .252 .345 .375 .720
12- 3746 .244 .309 .384 .692
1-3 1659 .269 .314 .383 .697
-23 1175 .243 .399 .391 .791
123 1307 .286 .323 .438 .761
on 1st lt 2 out 10055 .274 .320 .412 .732
on 3rd lt 2 out 2887 .310 .352 .465 .817
on 3rd 2 out 2847 .223 .333 .335 .668

OBM, love ya, buddy but if these two splits represented teams and I had to choose one of the teams (and I believed strongly in these situational stats), I'd take the Reds.

Serious question: why does the split you quoted indicate an inconsistent offense?

I was just pointing out how awful the Reds have been with the bases loaded this season. I found it odd the Reds rank near the top in runs scored yet are so awful with the bases loaded.

klw
07-14-2011, 01:05 PM
Looking at the split some more vs LHP and RHP.
BABIP v LHP is .343 while it is only .290 against RHP.
http://www.fangraphs.com/teams.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=nl&type=2&season=2011&month=13&season1=2011
http://www.fangraphs.com/teams.aspx?pos=all&lg=nl&stats=bat&type=2&season=2011&month=14&season1=2011

mth123
07-14-2011, 01:10 PM
Looking at the split some more vs LHP and RHP.
BABIP v LHP is .343 while it is only .290 against RHP.
http://www.fangraphs.com/teams.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=nl&type=2&season=2011&month=13&season1=2011
http://www.fangraphs.com/teams.aspx?pos=all&lg=nl&stats=bat&type=2&season=2011&month=14&season1=2011

This is a case where I don't think that is all luck. The team just has lots of lefty killers who struggle against RHP (Gomes and Phillips lead the way in that area).

Homer Bailey
07-15-2011, 11:07 AM
It's time to stop calling #Reds offense inconsistent. They score 6+ more than ANY team. Only Cards & Brewers score 2 or fewer less in NL.

@jluckhaupt

RedsManRick
07-15-2011, 12:56 PM
I was just pointing out how awful the Reds have been with the bases loaded this season. I found it odd the Reds rank near the top in runs scored yet are so awful with the bases loaded.

Like with RBI, it's important (perhaps more so) to pay close attention not just to conversion of given opportunities but the frequency of opportunities.

Per those numbers, the average NL team has had just 82 PA with the bases loaded. The Reds have had 112, 36% more than average. If you multiply our PA * our AVG, that gives you 23 hits with the bases loaded. .286 * 82? 23 hits with the bases loaded. Yes, I know the math isn't quite right because it's PA, not AB -- but the point is the same. When you create more run scoring opportunities, you don't have to convert as well on them to still outscore your opponent.

It's sort of like how every year, some anti-stat person will point out that the Red Sox or Yankees lead MLB in runners left on base, forgetting that it's a counting stat and that they lead not because they aren't clutch, but because they put so many more guys on base than anyone else.

mth123
07-21-2011, 07:56 PM
Bumping this thread to drive home the all or nothingness of this offense. For me it all depends on which hand the opposing pitcher throws with. The Reds absolutely obliterate LHP with Stubbs, Bruce, Gomes, Rolen, Votto, Cairo, Renteria and Hanigan all being very productive versus lefties. This year Phillips has been surprisingly pedestrian against both sides, but for his career he's been a lefty killer himself (.836 vs LHP and .710 vs RHP). As a team the Reds have an .821 OPS against LHP.

Against RHP OTOH, the Reds have a paltry .704 OPS as a team and only Heisey and Hernandez are clearly better against RHP (though Phillips is about the same and Votto and Bruce are still productive). Predictably Paul Janish is horrid against everybody, but he's slighltly less horrid against RHP.

Since RH pitchers are on the mound most of the time, its no wonder that the Reds offense seems so lifeless for so much of the time. Its because it is lifeless for a large majority of the time.

The conventional wisdom is a RH bat to hit between Bruce and Votto would be a great addition, and it would if he could hit RHP at a high level, but IMO its more important to get somebody who can rake against Righties which usually means a lefty hitter. A platoon type who does that might come a lot more cheaply for those of you wanting to preserve the future and platooned with Gomes would give the Reds All Star caliber production from LF and in the middle of the order. Maybe Alonso is the answer. Time to find out IMO. OPS splits below:

Name Vs RHP Vs LHP
Stubbs 0.677 0.911
Gomes 0.663 0.993
BPhil 0.734 0.739
Rolen 0.648 0.769
Hanigan 0.652 0.886
Ramon 0.890 0.764
Votto 0.878 1.033
Bruce 0.827 0.878
Janish 0.557 0.404
Edgar 0.535 0.890
Lewis 0.734 0.000
Cairo 0.688 1.239
Heisey 0.790 0.733
Team 0.704 0.821