PDA

View Full Version : The Math Behind Being 5.5 Out With Four Three Teams in Front of You



Edskin
07-19-2011, 11:30 PM
Being 5.5 out is not a good thing at this point in the season; especially when you are in the worst division in baseball. But it's not insurmountable by any means.

But being 5.5 out and needing to jump THREE teams? That's tough. Just think about it... Let's say the Reds win 8 of 10, and Pitt and STL lose 7 of 10. Well we caught those two teams... But what if MIL is on hot streak? We could win 8 of 10 and still find ourselves 4-5 games out. And those are extreme examples.

Seriously, what are the chances that the Reds SIGNIFICANTLY outplay all three of those teams over the next two months?

We haven't won back to back games IN OVER A MONTH and we are talking about still being "in it?"

Here we are again needing a win to simply break even in a six game stretch where we thought we'd make up some ground--- and even if we win tomorrow the Pirates would still be one game better than us than they were a week ago.

This season and this team are going the wrong direction. Three weeks ago I would have told you I wouldn't be shocked if the Reds rallied and won the division, but now, I'd be stunned.

I don't care if they trade vets or not, but trying to make a deal in desperation of helping us rally at this point would be foolish. If we are going to deal Mes, Wood, Yonder, etc it should be at a time when the team has a real chance to win something. This team has had their chance. I hate to say it, I really do, because I was jazzed for this season just like most of you, but I believe the 2011 Reds are toast.

WVRedsFan
07-19-2011, 11:33 PM
Well said, Edskin, but if you can get a Jiminez or Beltran for the future (and I realize Beltran would be pretty much a rental), why not? At least it would keep fannies in the seats which might be a problem from here on out.

Kc61
07-19-2011, 11:35 PM
Reds should still try and deal.

But no rentals for this season. Only get signed players.

And don't trade Mes.

Edskin
07-19-2011, 11:41 PM
I'm OK if they saw a deal for Jimmenez or someone like that that can help in 2012-13. That's fine. But a guy like Beltran makes zero sense at this point.

And I really don't think it would help with the fanbase either. "Hey, it's July 28th and we are eight games behind the Pirates, but we have Beltran, so let's go!" I don't see it.

Walt rolled the dice a bit that we could put it all together again this year with few changes to the roster while holding all of our young pieces. That gamble is not paying off this year. I think you lick your wounds and live to fight next year rather than desperately trying to make something happen in 2011.

OldXOhio
07-19-2011, 11:45 PM
Walt rolled the dice a bit that we could put it all together again this year with few changes to the roster while holding all of our young pieces. That gamble is not paying off this year. I think you lick your wounds and live to fight next year rather than desperately trying to make something happen in 2011.

Well said.

OldXOhio
07-19-2011, 11:46 PM
Reds should still try and deal.

But no rentals for this season. Only get signed players.

And don't trade Mes.

By dealing, does that include selling off Ramon, Coco and Gomes if someone would take him?

Kc61
07-19-2011, 11:50 PM
By dealing, does that include selling off Ramon, Coco and Gomes if someone would take him?

Sure. Trade off veterans with no future on the ballclub. And trade off prospects except for Mesoraco.

This is all about next year. Stock up with new players who will be signed, healthy, available, and good next year.

Caveat Emperor
07-19-2011, 11:54 PM
History tells you that winning 90+ games is a pretty sure indicator of making the playoffs -- regardless of who or what is in front of you. The issue isn't how many teams are ahead of the Reds, the issue is whether or not this team can achieve a 90 win season.

What PIT, MIL, and STL do is pretty irrelevant (other than the fact that they play the Reds from time to time).

757690
07-19-2011, 11:55 PM
Around this time...

2010 - Giants - 4 games back, 4th place
2009 - Rockies - 9 games back, 3rd place
2008 - Brewers - 6 games back, 3rd place
2007 - Phillies - 6 games back, 3rd place

4 playoff appearances, two World Series appearances, and one World Series championship between those teams. I could make a much longer list if given the time.

WVRedsFan
07-19-2011, 11:55 PM
Walt rolled the dice a bit that we could put it all together again this year with few changes to the roster while holding all of our young pieces. That gamble is not paying off this year. I think you lick your wounds and live to fight next year rather than desperately trying to make something happen in 2011.
That an a flawed belief that Janish could be a MLB shortstop and that Volquez was a No. 1 starter. Both blew up in his face. He also gambled that Gomes would pick up where he left on last year and that Bruce would mature into Ken Griffey Jr. Nope, didn't happen. That is one heck of a lot of gambles and it's really bad luck that none of them worked out, so...

Volquez reverted back to his former days, Janish proved he could not cut it day after day, Gomes did what he always does in his third year...nothing, and Bruce continued his streaky hitting. In the meantime, no moves were made and the Reds find themselves behind the 8-ball.

I'm with you. If we move anyone, let's move spare parts (we can start with Gomes, Lewis, Volquez, Renteria, and maybe lesser prospects. If he can get a half season of Beltran for no money and some minor prospects, fine. if not, pass. I want to keep Alonso because Joey isn't long for Cincinnati. I want to keep Francisco because Scotty Rolen is showing his age. I want to keep Mes because you never have enough good catchers, I want to keep Sappy because I feel he's ready. I'd deal Heisey in a heartbeat, but nothing more. But watching this mess is messing with my brain. Enough gambling, Walt. Do something even if it's a little crazy.

WAIT! No. No. The last time a Reds GM went a little crazy we ended up losing Josh Hamilton, getting Edinson Volquez, Francisco Codero, Dusty Baker and Cory Patterson. Stay conservative, Walt. please...

Edskin
07-20-2011, 12:08 AM
Around this time...

2010 - Giants - 4 games back, 4th place
2009 - Rockies - 9 games back, 3rd place
2008 - Brewers - 6 games back, 3rd place
2007 - Phillies - 6 games back, 3rd place

4 playoff appearances, two World Series appearances, and one World Series championship between those teams. I could make a much longer list if given the time.

Out of curiosity... How many of those teams were under .500 at that time?

oregonred
07-20-2011, 12:43 AM
The 2010 Giants were 51-42 on this date in 2010, 4 games behind the Padres. However, the Giants were a really good team with a +70 run differential. Scratch that example...

oregonred
07-20-2011, 12:48 AM
On July 12, 2008 the Brewers were 51-44 and six games behind the Cubs. However the Brewers were only .5 games out of the WC chase behind the Cardinals.

The wild card is not an option for the NL Central in 2011, the Braves are a virtual lock.

An interesting case, but the Brewers were a winning team and in the WC chase. The 2011 Reds are neither.

westofyou
07-20-2011, 12:51 AM
7-20-2003 Cubs were 4.5 back 49-48 with plus 7 in RS. They won the division

oregonred
07-20-2011, 12:55 AM
On July 19, 2009 the Rockies were 50-42 and 8 games behind the Dodgers. The Rockies had a +51 run differential and were only .5 games out of the Wild Card slot. Similar example to the Brewers. Good team, won the wild card.

So far the Reds case is nowhere close to these three teams.

However the Phillies example is close. They were 47-48 on July 19, 2007 and 6 games behind the Mets and 6.5 out of the wild card. They only had a +4 differential. They won the division at 89-73 (42-25 run). It took a lot of stars to align, but it happened...

oregonred
07-20-2011, 12:59 AM
7-20-2003 Cubs were 4.5 back 49-48 with plus 7 in RS. They won the division

40-26 close to win the division at 88-74. Even though the run differenial was +40 (Houston was +128 and St Louis was +80 and both stayed home).

The legend of Steve Bartman was the end result of this glorious Cubs division comeback.

757690
07-20-2011, 02:22 AM
On July 19, 2009 the Rockies were 50-42 and 8 games behind the Dodgers. The Rockies had a +51 run differential and were only .5 games out of the Wild Card slot. Similar example to the Brewers. Good team, won the wild card.

So far the Reds case is nowhere close to these three teams.

However the Phillies example is close. They were 47-48 on July 19, 2007 and 6 games behind the Mets and 6.5 out of the wild card. They only had a +4 differential. They won the division at 89-73 (42-25 run). It took a lot of stars to align, but it happened...

I'd argue that the Reds this season are very similar to those teams. They were playing below their Pythag, and then caught up to it the second half of the season.

The Reds are currently 26 runs above their Pythag. The most likely result of that is that they go on a big run, just like those other teams did. And if they make a big move, that's even more likely.

Edskin
07-22-2011, 11:21 PM
Nightmare season as a fan. All other things aside, it hasn't been very fun. Not a particularly entertaining team.

This month+ without back to back wins is pretty ridiculous.

Kc61
07-22-2011, 11:46 PM
Nightmare season as a fan. All other things aside, it hasn't been very fun. Not a particularly entertaining team.

This month+ without back to back wins is pretty ridiculous.

To me, the front office's refusal to make changes is the worst part of it. The team makes player moves at a snail's pace. It takes forever for these guys even to call up a guy from Louisville.

Most clubs expected to win probably would have changed managers by now with this performance.

The team isn't exciting this year, but it would be more enjoyable if changes were made that might improve things. This is like constantly banging ones head against the wall. . . .

757690
07-22-2011, 11:51 PM
Nightmare season as a fan. All other things aside, it hasn't been very fun. Not a particularly entertaining team.

This month+ without back to back wins is pretty ridiculous.

I'm having a blast. I love it whenever the Reds are in a pennant race. This season with all its frustration is sooooooo much better than when they're not.

fearofpopvol1
07-23-2011, 12:51 AM
5 games out as of now. That's treading in dangerous territory.

Can the Reds win Sat/Sun? I've said this before, but if they can manage to stay in the race at the end of the month, regardless of deals made or not made, they've got a shot. Their August and September are much easier.

Tom Servo
07-23-2011, 12:59 AM
I'm having a blast. I love it whenever the Reds are in a pennant race. This season with all its frustration is sooooooo much better than when they're not.
This time two years ago we were 5.5 games out of first (a few games under .500). It feels more like I'm watching an extension of that fairly lousy 2009 team instead of the 2010 team that won the division.

Tony Cloninger
07-23-2011, 01:03 AM
I'm having a blast. I love it whenever the Reds are in a pennant race. This season with all its frustration is sooooooo much better than when they're not.

This is a pennant race? More like a slow death march that some of us think is a nice walk in the park. What Tom just said in the post before me sums it up pretty well.

757690
07-23-2011, 01:14 AM
This time two years ago we were 5.5 games out of first (a few games under .500). It feels more like I'm watching an extension of that fairly lousy 2009 team instead of the 2010 team that won the division.

This season feels nothing like 2009, imo. I never felt like the Reds really had a chance at the playoffs, and more importantly, I felt like they were never going to contend.

About a month later in 2009, the Reds were 20 games out. I can't see that happening this year, or any year in the near future. I expected it in 2009.

jojo
07-23-2011, 01:20 AM
The Reds have talent. There is still plenty of time for an incredible narrative to be written about this season. And if it came to fruition, it would be a delicious thing to watch unfold.

757690
07-23-2011, 01:32 AM
The Reds have talent. There is still plenty of time for an incredible narrative to be written about this season. And if it came to fruition, it would be a delicious thing to watch unfold.

:thumbup:

And if not, at least it will be interesting.

CrackerJack
07-23-2011, 01:42 AM
This season feels nothing like 2009, imo. I never felt like the Reds really had a chance at the playoffs, and more importantly, I felt like they were never going to contend.

About a month later in 2009, the Reds were 20 games out. I can't see that happening this year, or any year in the near future. I expected it in 2009.

Hmm, I'm not really happy about finishing in 3rd, 4th or 5th place after winning a division...really, I'm not, and that's where they are headed right now.

Being "better than 2009" is nice and all, but this team isn't suddenly going to turn it around next season without some tough decisions...ones I'm not sure ownership here are willing to make (see 2006 and 2011 Bengals for making lots of $ and fooling fans into thinking that div championship was going to turn into more or even another post season appearance or post season win any time soon).

Bob is enjoying the 3rd best attendance increase in baseball I'm sure.

CrackerJack
07-23-2011, 01:54 AM
The Reds have talent. There is still plenty of time for an incredible narrative to be written about this season. And if it came to fruition, it would be a delicious thing to watch unfold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Nd37AkFsVI

Captain Hook
07-23-2011, 02:10 AM
The Reds have talent. There is still plenty of time for an incredible narrative to be written about this season. And if it came to fruition, it would be a delicious thing to watch unfold.

Yeah the Reds are just playing like crap right now so we'll all be just as amazed this year as we were last year when the they make it to the playoffs.

jojo
07-23-2011, 02:25 AM
Yeah the Reds are just playing like crap right now so we'll all be just as amazed this year as we were last year when the they make it to the playoffs.

The Reds are struggling because they are facing adversity. If there's no adversity/struggle there is no point to sports IMHO.

162-0 would be incredibly boring.

Captain Hook
07-23-2011, 02:38 AM
The Reds are struggling because they are facing adversity. If there's no adversity/struggle there is no point to sports IMHO.

162-0 would be incredibly boring.

Couldn't agree more with you point but 162-0 would in no way boring.

High expectations and falling short can make a fan miserable but exceeding expectations can be pretty sweet.Now that I have officially lowered my expectations the Reds can start playing better.Let the fun begin.Please.

KronoRed
07-23-2011, 02:45 AM
This is a pennant race?

It's really not, it's a playoff spot race.

In a real pennant race (1876 to 1968) we would be 13 games out with 9 teams in front of us..so it's better :D

mth123
07-23-2011, 02:52 AM
The Division is still winnable. The team does have talent. Somebody just needs to step up and start things moving in a positive direction.

IMO that person is Walt Jocketty.

Johnny Footstool
07-23-2011, 10:39 AM
Second-best run differential in the division. And with everyone else struggling, too, things can get interesting very, very quickly.

forfreelin04
07-23-2011, 11:37 AM
Personally, I hope whatever moves are made before July 31st are not to the detriment of 2012. This team as currently constructed ( for whatever reason you want to throw in the proverbial pot) ain't got it. The perfect storm of regression from last year for many of the players obviously came as a surprise to Jocketty. Many here at Redszone predicted this, but I doubt even the most ardent critic of WJ could have seen them going 36 consecutive days without a winning streak.

I won't bore you all with what went wrong. We know who has regressed and we know the few that have progressed. (Cueto being the MVP of the team IMO thus far) However, I think the big fix of this team is quite simple and is something their in a position to do. They need a masher in the middle of the lineup. Their last (last I checked) in cleanup hitting in the NL. I'd throw numerous top tier prospects for Matt Kemp and I wouldn't think twice. He establishes left field, provides the right handed cleanup hitter to hit between Votto and Bruce, and plays better defense than any LF currently in house.

Phillips
Rolen
Votto
Kemp
Bruce
Stubbs
Cozart
Hanigan/Hernadez
P

I'm thinking a deal of Alonzo, Heisey, and Wood/Bailey to get him. Maybe throw in Grandal too instead of Hesiey.

After Kemp, I tell Drew Stubbs to start choking up on the bat or be fined/sent to AAA. I also teach him out to bunt and make him do it no less than 4 times a week (IN GAMES). This is the only way Drew Stubbs goes from strikeout machine to OBP machine. A homerun every once in awhile does not negate getting on base more for the people hitting behind him. Once he learns this; I re-insert him into the leadoff spot.

Lastly, I end the jubilation and anguish that is the Chapman bullpen experience. We get it. He can either blow everyone away or walk them around the bases. He starts starting games until we see what we got.

The Voice of IH
07-23-2011, 11:41 AM
I still think this team will be fine, they have yet to play their best baseball and they have an easier schedule in August

The Voice of IH
07-23-2011, 11:44 AM
And honestly, all this team needs to do is get within two games by mid August and they will be in the race, I think it is very possible they do so.

mth123
07-23-2011, 12:09 PM
Personally, I hope whatever moves are made before July 31st are not to the detriment of 2012.

I hear this alot. IMO if necessary they could keep 2 of Stubbs, Heisey and Sappelt and deal the other. Keep one of Wood or Leake and deal the other. They could deal Alonso, Francisco, Frazier, Grandal and some lesser guys with litlle impact. Keepers are Votto, Bruce, Mesoraco, Cozart and Phillips IMO along with Cueto, Masset and Chapman. I don't see anybody else who would be such a loss that it would impact the future. I'd rather keep Bailey, but if I got a really good offer that would help beyond 2011, I'd let somebody else worry about his shoulder.

This team has plenty to deal without hurting the future much or even upsetting the next wave down in Dayton. I don't get the resistance to deal prospects who probably can't displace the guys already on the big league club or a rung above them on the prospect ladder.

hebroncougar
07-23-2011, 04:02 PM
Just an FYI, but Jeremy Hermeida is out hitting Dave Sappelt at the moment. Take a deep breath and let that sink in.

fearofpopvol1
07-24-2011, 05:52 AM
Today was a great day for the Reds. They gained a full game and are now 4 back. If they can take the Sunday game, they should be right in the thick of things. Here's hoping the Pirates and the Giants win!

RedLegSuperStar
07-24-2011, 07:25 AM
This team needs not to focus on consecutive wins but just winning the series as they did last year. This team always seems to play good baseball down the stretch run and hoping this season is no different.

This teams win/loss record in one run games:

April (8) 2W - 6L
May (12) 5W - 7L
June (9) 5W - 4L
July* (7) 2W - 5L

Overall record in one run games:

14-22 .389

Of those 22 losses.. say we win a forth of those (5 games / 19-17). That puts them on top of the division.

They have to go out there and take every oppurtunity. Take yeserdays blow out of 11-2. In the 6th inning when they scored 3 runs they should of scored more. They had runners on 2nd and 3rd (I want to say Votto on 3rd and Phillips on 2nd) with no outs and didn't score. Missed oppurtunities like this later in the season are crucial to winning teams or teams in the playoff picture. Drew Stubbs has got to learn to make contact and this organization has to enforce that or send him to Louisville to work on it. Joey Votto needs to be rested more then he has (played in 99 of 100 games). Jay Bruce needs to have a below average month instead of one good month and 3 horrible months. Bronson Arroyo when having 2 strikes on a batter should not be serving up homerun balls. Edison Volquez should of been removed from the rotation after his third game of blowing up in the 1st inning. Jonny Gomes and the SS posistion should of been addressed a month prior to when it did. Their is so much that could of or should of been done.. but thats behind them and this team needs to start to turn it around if they want to taste the postseason again. Just saying..

BCubb2003
07-24-2011, 04:31 PM
This may be contrary, but I think I'd rather be closer to the top with more teams between than farther from the top with fewer teams between.

The Voice of IH
07-24-2011, 11:06 PM
You see guys. The reds (and its fans) don't need to worry about the standings but worry about playing (willing them to play) good baseball and win games.

If you take a good look since the All Star Break, and the Redlegs have played really well and been in every game.

fearofpopvol1
07-25-2011, 12:12 AM
Best day possible for the Reds today. 3 teams tied at 1st and the Reds now back 3. If they can finish this next week strongly and maybe make an impacting move, they will be right in the thick of things until the end.

REDREAD
07-25-2011, 12:41 AM
Best day possible for the Reds today. 3 teams tied at 1st and the Reds now back 3. If they can finish this next week strongly and maybe make an impacting move, they will be right in the thick of things until the end.

I was just about to say the same thing. We are only 3 games back now.
Still three teams in front of us, but we're closing in. We have a relatively weak Mets team coming in.. Plenty of time to chip away.

Even though this season has been disappointing, I'm still enjoying it.
Moments like, Stubbs HR today to win the game have made the season worth watching. It was exciting to see Chapman have a dominating outing, and Willis pitched well.

PuffyPig
07-25-2011, 01:15 AM
I hear this alot. IMO if necessary they could keep 2 of Stubbs, Heisey and Sappelt and deal the other. Keep one of Wood or Leake and deal the other.

The difference between Stubbs and the other two is immense.

The difference between Leake and Wood is immense.

Neither Leake nor Stubbs will be dealt.

reds44
07-25-2011, 01:24 AM
The difference between Stubbs and the other two is immense.

The difference between Leake and Wood is immense.

Neither Leake nor Stubbs will be dealt.
The value difference between Stubbs and the other two is immense, but I don't think Leake and Wood's value is all that different.

Agreed neither of them will be dealt though.

Patrick Bateman
07-25-2011, 11:35 AM
The value difference between Stubbs and the other two is immense, but I don't think Leake and Wood's value is all that different.

Agreed neither of them will be dealt though.

Leake has vastly outperformed Wood this season.
Additionally, Wood's stuff IMO, looks pretty blande, and lacks projectability.

kaldaniels
07-25-2011, 11:53 AM
With respect to the thread title, all you gotta do is predict the number of wins it will take to win the division, then figure how many wins the Reds need to get there.

Edskin
07-25-2011, 12:21 PM
With respect to the thread title, all you gotta do is predict the number of wins it will take to win the division, then figure how many wins the Reds need to get there.

I understand. And if it was just one team, I'd say as few as 83-84 wins could do it. But because there are three, I think the odds are that one of them plays at least fairly well the final two months.

Gun to my head, I'd say the Central champ will need at least 87 wins. In order to get there, the Reds would need to finish the year 37-24.

Through 101 games were a game under .500 and have never once really been "hot" this year other than the first few games of the season. To suddenly play 13 games over .500 over the last 61 seems unlikely to me. Having said that, 37-24 isn't an impossible dream considering the schedule is so soft in August. One reall good two week stretch could get us close to that pace.

What the Reds really need right now is a legitimate hot streak. 9 of 10 or something like that. 5 of 9 since the break is ok, but that pace will not get the job done.

Caveat Emperor
07-25-2011, 12:48 PM
With respect to the thread title, all you gotta do is predict the number of wins it will take to win the division, then figure how many wins the Reds need to get there.

Yup. Win 90+ and everything usually takes care of itself, no matter where you are in the standings in July.

Edskin
07-26-2011, 12:34 AM
It "feels" like we are playing better, but we are 5-5 since the break; going nowhere fast.

fearofpopvol1
07-26-2011, 12:52 AM
Back to back seems to be the best this team can do this season. It wouldn't be a problem if there were more lose 1 win 2 streaks, but there haven't been. The offense has to come up bigger than they did. Leake pitched brilliantly and even though Ondrusek stunk, he gets a pass for having been brilliant this season as well.

Edskin
07-26-2011, 10:15 AM
Back to back seems to be the best this team can do this season. It wouldn't be a problem if there were more lose 1 win 2 streaks, but there haven't been. The offense has to come up bigger than they did. Leake pitched brilliantly and even though Ondrusek stunk, he gets a pass for having been brilliant this season as well.

Story of the season.... Terrible chemistry. One area of the team is unable to pick up another area and vice versa.

RedsManRick
07-26-2011, 11:33 AM
There's an article on BP this morning about the NL Central teams' schedules against each other. The Reds have, by far, the easiest NL Central schedule remaining. So I'm thinking this is awesome, right? But what does it really mean? It's a bit messy, but here's my logic:

- Given the Reds pythag of .529 (our best estimate of their actual talent) and their combined opponent winning percentage of .439, we would expect them to win .590 against that group. (win% - win% +.500 is a decent estimate of head to head)
- That translates to going 18-13
- Combine that with our current position of 4 back and it leaves us with a 68-65 record. Nice.

However, do the same for the other teams -- what happens? We fall a game further back and the Cards pull ahead. The short version of the explanation is that while we have the easiest row to hoe, we also have the shortest one, the fewest games. So what advantage we have on the percentage side, we lose in volume. Combine that with the flip side of the coin where we're playing more games out of the division and the basic conclusion is this: the schedule won't save us. It's interesting to look at, but the Reds are going to have to play much better ball moving forward, especially against the teams above them, if they want to have a shot.



Games Left
PIT STL MIL CIN CHI HOU G
PIT x 10 9 6 7 7 39
STL 10 x 12 3 9 7 41
MIL 9 12 x 3 9 9 42
CIN 6 3 3 x 10 9 31
CHI 7 9 9 10 x 6 41
HOU 7 7 9 9 6 x 38

Excepted Performance vs NL Central
actW actL actGB Pyt% oWin% xW% xW xL
PIT 53 47 - .510 .475 .535 21 18
STL 54 48 - .539 .461 .578 24 17
MIL 54 49 0.5 .495 .469 .526 22 20
CIN 50 52 4.0 .529 .439 .590 18 13
CHI 42 60 12.0 .402 .499 .403 17 24
HOU 33 69 21.0 .382 .499 .383 15 23

New Standings
newW newL newGB
STL 78 65 -
PIT 74 65 2.0
MIL 76 69 3.5
CIN 68 65 5.0
CHI 59 84 19.0
HOU 48 92 28.5

jojo
07-26-2011, 12:44 PM
Story of the season.... Terrible chemistry. One area of the team is unable to pick up another area and vice versa.

If chemistry is the issue , how would you fix it?

RedsManRick
07-26-2011, 12:57 PM
Story of the season.... Terrible chemistry. One area of the team is unable to pick up another area and vice versa.

Do you have any indication of resentments on the team? I don't get that sense at all. It's not like there are fights in the dugout. Seems to me that they're collectively frustrated.

Sure, they haven't performed up to par and that takes the shape of not picking each other up. But unless losing inherently means bad chemistry, I don't see it. Actually, I see the opposite. The guys seem to like each other and pull for each other -- they just aren't getting it done on the field.

Edskin
07-26-2011, 01:07 PM
Chemistry has ZERO to do with what goes on in the clubhouse, IMO. Nothing to do with how much they like each other, etc

Chemistry to me is all about timing and a teams' parts meshing properly.

Edskin
07-26-2011, 01:10 PM
If chemistry is the issue , how would you fix it?

Can't really. All you can do is build talent and the more talent you build the less reliant you become on chemistry and timing. But in a market like Cincy we are probably always going to need a certain amount of things to go our way.

Walt can't "fix" this issue, at least not at the deadline. His job is to decide what chances we truly have to compete this year and then identify if it is worth the price. I'd say no.... The season can't be saved an Walt should not trade any promising parts for any sort of rentals

757690
07-26-2011, 01:20 PM
Barry Larkin had a great comment about chemistry. He said Jonny Gomes had great chemistry when he was hitting last year. His chemistry isn't as strong this year when he's not.

VR
07-26-2011, 01:54 PM
Chemistry has ZERO to do with what goes on in the clubhouse, IMO. Nothing to do with how much they like each other, etc

Chemistry to me is all about timing and a teams' parts meshing properly.

Club makeup might be the term I would use. Can't sustain any rallys with the type of hitters they have. Votto, Cairo, Hernandez are the guys you want up when the game is on the line. That says it all.

Johnny Footstool
07-26-2011, 02:04 PM
Story of the season.... Terrible chemistry. One area of the team is unable to pick up another area and vice versa.

The story of the season is the Reds' poor record in 1-run games. That's usually attributed to bad luck.

BCubb2003
07-26-2011, 02:08 PM
It's been an odd season. The Reds had starting pitching woes for much of the season, which wore out the bullpen and caused the offense to press. Now the starting pitching is very good, better than it looks because it's interspersed with Arroyo and a couple of shaky starts by Leake and Bailey before they dialed in. But Cueto, Leake, Bailey and Willis are giving us everything we could want. But the bullpen is wasting these quality starts.

I notice that the other teams' announcers always talk about how good the Reds bullpen has been, right before a scene like Bray and Ondrusek yesterday. Ondrusek has great numbers, but he's given up more inherited runs this year in fewer games than last year. My trust is fragile.

Edskin
07-26-2011, 02:30 PM
If chemistry is the issue , how would you fix it?

Can't really. All you can do is build talent and the more talent you build the less reliant you become on chemistry and timing. But in a market like Cincy we are probably always going to need a certain amount of things to go our way.

Walt can't "fix" this issue, at least not at the deadline. His job is to decide what chances we truly have to compete this year and then identify if it is worth the price. I'd say no.... The season can't be saved an Walt should not trade any promising parts for any sort of rentals

Edskin
07-26-2011, 10:43 PM
If tonight doesn't prove the chemisty theory I dont know what will. Our starter pitches well, our offense scores six runs, but our stellar defense goes south and the bullpen crumbles.

Stick a fork in this season....

RedsManRick
07-26-2011, 10:48 PM
If tonight doesn't prove the chemisty theory I dont know what will. Our starter pitches well, our offense scores six runs, but our stellar defense goes south and the bullpen crumbles.

Stick a fork in this season....

Outside of simply defining chemistry as whether or not everybody plays well at the same time, I see nothing in tonight's performance that has anything to do with chemistry... good or bad.

Edskin
07-26-2011, 10:58 PM
Rick... That IS how I define chemistry. Nothing has clicked in conjunction all year.

Griffey012
07-27-2011, 07:23 AM
Rick... That IS how I define chemistry. Nothing has clicked in conjunction all year.

Team chemistry is all about how well the players mesh together while working toward the same team goal. Plenty of good teams have bad chemistry, plenty of bad teams have good chemistry. When you see guys smiling, hi-fiving, picking each other up, doing their little handshakes, and getting everyone involved, that is usually a sign of good chemistry.

The current clubs chemistry is good, but I don't feel it is as strong as last year's.


I think what you are more so referring to is the teams intangibles.

bucksfan2
07-27-2011, 08:18 AM
Team chemistry is all about how well the players mesh together while working toward the same team goal. Plenty of good teams have bad chemistry, plenty of bad teams have good chemistry. When you see guys smiling, hi-fiving, picking each other up, doing their little handshakes, and getting everyone involved, that is usually a sign of good chemistry.

The current clubs chemistry is good, but I don't feel it is as strong as last year's.


I think what you are more so referring to is the teams intangibles.

I am beginning to put more stock in Ed's chemistry belief. I wouldn't exactly define it as the usual chemistry, but there is something that is off with this team. Last night to me was a microcosm of the entire season. It it isn't the pitching its the defense, if its not the defense its the offense, its always something. Its always something that prevents this team from going on a run. Ever since they went on a tough 10 game road trip this team has never been the same.

Whether you call it intangibles, meshing, chemistry, the little things, etc. There is a reason this team is losing and when you look at their overall numbers they don't look bad.

Johnny Footstool
07-27-2011, 09:41 AM
Rick... That IS how I define chemistry. Nothing has clicked in conjunction all year.

I don't know anyone else who defines chemistry like that.

membengal
07-27-2011, 09:42 AM
I don't know about chemistry, but the season started "off" in the spring and the team never really overcame it. Arroyo mono. Volquez visa. Bailey and cueto arms. They limped into the season and it is only in the last three weeks the staff finally seemed to gel. Too many problems from the jump and whatever "fire" was needed to help overcome that wasn't there.

BCubb2003
07-27-2011, 10:00 AM
I don't know about chemistry, but the season started "off" in the spring and the team never really overcame it. Arroyo mono. Volquez visa. Bailey and cueto arms. They limped into the season and it is only in the last three weeks the staff finally seemed to gel. Too many problems from the jump and whatever "fire" was needed to help overcome that wasn't there.

I agree. The starting pitching is solid now, good enough to win the division. The hitting seems to be coming around now, with a few more productive games recently, but they need to come more often. I'm mostly worried about the bullpen. Despite the good numbers everyone points to, someone has a bad game every night. And it's a different someone every time. At least Chapman is back. I also worry about Votto's defense, which has become shaky, and what if Bruce is the next Austin Kearns?

I think Cozart gave the team a spark, though, and it's a shame he went down.

Edskin
07-27-2011, 10:53 AM
I don't know anyone else who defines chemistry like that.

I don't like defining chemistry as how much the players like each other or how nice they are or how much fun they are having for several reasons:

1. We have no idea. I do not know what happens in the clubhouse. The Royals may be having the most fun pre and postgame in MLB but I'm not sure it translates much on the field.

2. The A's of the early 70's were a mess in the clubhouse; literally fighting with each other. But on the field, they were great. The 1986 Mets are another example of a semi-dysfunctional team (half of them high on Coke) having major on field success.

Chemistry to me is all about meshing on the field and having the right mix of personalities. Those personalities don't necessarily need to like each other or play cards together on the plane--- it just needs to be the right fit. Defining that "fit" is beyond tough of course.

In football, let's say a team has a great offense and a bad defense. One game the offense gets shut down... But the defense steps up and holds the other team to 13 points and you win the game 16-13. That is chemistry to me. You can call it timing, meshing, whatever, but to me, that's chemistry....

Mixing various elements together for positive results that may exceed the sum of the ingredients.

RedsManRick
07-27-2011, 11:52 AM
I don't like defining chemistry as how much the players like each other or how nice they are or how much fun they are having for several reasons:

1. We have no idea. I do not know what happens in the clubhouse. The Royals may be having the most fun pre and postgame in MLB but I'm not sure it translates much on the field.

2. The A's of the early 70's were a mess in the clubhouse; literally fighting with each other. But on the field, they were great. The 1986 Mets are another example of a semi-dysfunctional team (half of them high on Coke) having major on field success.

Chemistry to me is all about meshing on the field and having the right mix of personalities. Those personalities don't necessarily need to like each other or play cards together on the plane--- it just needs to be the right fit. Defining that "fit" is beyond tough of course.

In football, let's say a team has a great offense and a bad defense. One game the offense gets shut down... But the defense steps up and holds the other team to 13 points and you win the game 16-13. That is chemistry to me. You can call it timing, meshing, whatever, but to me, that's chemistry....

Mixing various elements together for positive results that may exceed the sum of the ingredients.

You seem to be suggesting that having the right mix of personalities is why some teams seem to synchronize their performances better than others. You're certainly entitled to that definition, but I personally think that's sort of silly. Players are pretty much always trying their best to succeed. If they had some ability to elevate their level play on command, they'd always do it.

I can buy in to the definition if we treat it like clutch, as a way to describe events that happened. But outside of that...

Edskin
07-27-2011, 12:04 PM
Rick, I believe having the right mix of personalities can absolutely affect group performance whether it be baseball or an office setting. I don't think that if you have very bad baseball players that you can make them winners by mixing personalities. That would be silly. I don't think it's something overly tangible or easily manipulated. An luck plays a major factor in chemistry as well.

And of course, I think the on-field "timing" is most important. For example, we know that a guy like Janish only has so man hits in him. If he manages to get those at te right times, that could contribute to overall team chemistry.... Guys getting the job do at the optimal time. Maybe that's luck an randomness and nave it's timing... I include it under the chemistry umbrella.

757690
07-27-2011, 12:13 PM
Players are pretty much always trying their best to succeed. If they had some ability to elevate their level play on command, they'd always do it.


Players and teams elevate their level of play all the time, and usually have no idea how they did it. That's why we label it with such a vague term as "chemistry." If we understood it, or could control it, we wouldn't call it "chemistry."

RedsManRick
07-27-2011, 12:28 PM
Players and teams elevate their level of play all the time, and usually have no idea how they did it. That's why we label it with such a vague term as "chemistry." If we understood it, or could control it, we wouldn't call it "chemistry."

If labeling the unknown reason why something happened chemistry makes people feel better, then fine. But from my perspective, it just gives us the illusion that we have a greater sense of what's going than we actually do -- for example, suggesting that it's because of personalities meshing. That can lead people to make decisions where they eschew known benefits for imagined ones.

BCubb2003
07-27-2011, 01:08 PM
The Cardinals probably have the worst chemistry in the race. The Brewers seem to get along, but they're a fundamentally unsound team. The Pirates just can't believe it's happening.

Edskin
07-27-2011, 02:02 PM
The Pirates just can't believe it's happening.

Apparently, neither can Jerry Meals

Griffey012
07-27-2011, 05:47 PM
I don't like defining chemistry as how much the players like each other or how nice they are or how much fun they are having for several reasons:

1. We have no idea. I do not know what happens in the clubhouse. The Royals may be having the most fun pre and postgame in MLB but I'm not sure it translates much on the field.

2. The A's of the early 70's were a mess in the clubhouse; literally fighting with each other. But on the field, they were great. The 1986 Mets are another example of a semi-dysfunctional team (half of them high on Coke) having major on field success.

Chemistry to me is all about meshing on the field and having the right mix of personalities. Those personalities don't necessarily need to like each other or play cards together on the plane--- it just needs to be the right fit. Defining that "fit" is beyond tough of course.

In football, let's say a team has a great offense and a bad defense. One game the offense gets shut down... But the defense steps up and holds the other team to 13 points and you win the game 16-13. That is chemistry to me. You can call it timing, meshing, whatever, but to me, that's chemistry....

Mixing various elements together for positive results that may exceed the sum of the ingredients.

You paragraph on chemistry pretty much perfectly explains it. However the following paragraph explains something totally different. Chemistry is just one element that can lead to the result of the defense stepping up, but chemistry is not what is actually unfolding. See the wikipedia entry on intangibles:

"The term intangibles is most commonly used to describe things that are recognized but not easily quantified; a common example are economic intangibles which describes something not easily quantified within a given theory of economics"

"In sports, intangibles typically refer to non-physical abilities of a player or team such as leadership, maturity, team chemistry, and so on."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intangibles

fearofpopvol1
07-28-2011, 05:02 AM
Put it this way...if the Reds won the next 4 games in a row (something they haven't done all year), that would only put them at .500.

This team is in BIG trouble.

LawFive
07-28-2011, 07:37 AM
58 games to go. The Reds must win 6 more out of those 58 than do three other teams.

Time to sell for next year.

Big Klu
07-28-2011, 09:57 AM
Put it this way...if the Reds won the next 4 games in a row (something they haven't done all year), that would only put them at .500.

This team is in BIG trouble.

Didn't the Reds open the season with a five-game winning streak?

Reds Freak
07-28-2011, 11:10 AM
Didn't the Reds open the season with a five-game winning streak?

That's correct. They also had another five-game winning streak in mid-May with a sweep of the Cards and the Cubs.