PDA

View Full Version : Reds in 1st place



Hollcat
05-24-2012, 11:48 PM
Cardinals lose 10-9. Reds in front of Central by .5 :beerme:

Johnny Footstool
05-25-2012, 12:18 AM
The pitching staff (especially Latos and Bailey) should get most of the credit for the May surge.

mth123
05-25-2012, 03:43 AM
Pitching, Defense and Solo Homers.

During the 6 game winning streak, the Reds have hit 13 HR with 10 being Solo HR.

Topcat
05-25-2012, 04:23 AM
2 freakin reasonable hitters and this team can win it all aka reasonable hitters like Youklis and coco crisp like and return trade wise Stubbs and minor prospects and maybe Leake with some form of prospects coming back but hey I am drinking and just speculating.:lol:

NJReds
05-25-2012, 08:45 AM
The pitching staff (especially Latos and Bailey) should get most of the credit for the May surge.

Don't forget Arroyo. He's been pretty solid this year.

Dan
05-25-2012, 08:47 AM
Nice to see the Reds get back to 1st. They've been pitching outstanding and hitting for power (though not much obp). The important thing is to keep it up and keep getting better. And really, there's only one day where it matters who is in first place, so let's root for them to get there then.

PuffyPig
05-25-2012, 08:55 AM
2 freakin reasonable hitters and this team can win it all aka reasonable hitters like Youklis and coco crisp like and return trade wise Stubbs and minor prospects and maybe Leake with some form of prospects coming back but hey I am drinking and just speculating.:lol:

Trading Leake and Stubbs (plus prospects) for the likes of Crisp and Youklis would be horrible trades.

Crisp has a .420 OPS. And don't look know, Stubbs up to .693. And Frazier is at .887.

OesterPoster
05-25-2012, 08:57 AM
Trading Leake and Stubbs (plus prospects) for the likes of Crisp and Youklis would be horrible trades.

He did say he was drinking, so I'll cut him some slack. :D

Johnny Footstool
05-25-2012, 09:22 AM
Don't forget Arroyo. He's been pretty solid this year.

Yes, he's been a constant. But the team W-L record really started tipping the right way when Latos realized it was May and Bailey just started pitching better.

WildcatFan
05-25-2012, 09:48 AM
2 freakin reasonable hitters and this team can win it all aka reasonable hitters like Youklis and coco crisp like and return trade wise Stubbs and minor prospects and maybe Leake with some form of prospects coming back but hey I am drinking and just speculating.:lol:

Favorite post of the year.

NJReds
05-25-2012, 10:17 AM
Yes, he's been a constant. But the team W-L record really started tipping the right way when Latos realized it was May and Bailey just started pitching better.

True. I just thought Arroyo's performance against the Yankees last Friday -- even in a loss -- was big because it saved the bullpen, which played a huge role in wins on Saturday and Sunday.

Part of the reason the bullpen was overused was Latos' inability to hold a 4-0 lead and go more than 6 v. the Mets last Thursday. But he bounced back nicely v. the Braves.

Bailey has looked solid lately ... really good performances.

Blitz Dorsey
05-25-2012, 10:30 AM
It's just amazing that we're on a 6-game winning streak ... and those wins have come against the Yankees and Braves.

A 6-game winning streak would feel great anytime against anyone. However, it is sweeter considering the fact that the Reds are beating good teams. (Well, one can debate how "good" the Yanks are this year, but it's by no means easy to win a series at Yankee Stadium.) Just gives me even more confidence that this team has what it takes to win the division and perhaps more. Does this team have flaws? Absolutely. But so does every team in baseball. If Walt can just make 1-2 really solid minor moves, it will be enough to push this team over the top IMO. And that's what's great about it. It's not like we need to trade for an ace pitcher to be competitive. To quote Monty Python and the Holy Grail ... "We've already got one." The Reds just need to make a couple of minor moves to improve the team (a legit left-handed bat off the bench, for instance) and we're going to be watching postseason baseball in Cincinnati.

redsmetz
05-25-2012, 10:48 AM
Sitting in the airport in Dayton & I'm seeing tons of Reds gear today.

paulrichjr
05-25-2012, 04:40 PM
It's just amazing that we're on a 6-game winning streak ... and those wins have come against the Yankees and Braves.

A 6-game winning streak would feel great anytime against anyone. However, it is sweeter considering the fact that the Reds are beating good teams.

That is the difference between this team and 2010. It seemed in 2010 the Reds could never get anything going against good teams. If the team was pitiching their number 1 then they were beat. If the team had a record much over .500 they were beat. This team is reminding me more of the 1999 team which seemed to win every series. I like being in first in May, but my sorry "Cardinals fan" wife keeps telling everyone, who says something to me about the Reds being good this year, "Wait until July...the Reds always look decent in May." I think she is wrong this year....man I hope she is.:)

PuffyPig
05-25-2012, 04:57 PM
That is the difference between this team and 2010. It seemed in 2010 the Reds could never get anything going against good teams. If the team was pitiching their number 1 then they were beat. If the team had a record much over .500 they were beat. This team is reminding me more of the 1999 team which seemed to win every series. I like being in first in May, but my sorry "Cardinals fan" wife keeps telling everyone, who says something to me about the Reds being good this year, "Wait until July...the Reds always look decent in May." I think she is wrong this year....man I hope she is.:)


And just like 1999, the Reds started very slow and caught fire in May.

mth123
05-25-2012, 05:16 PM
I'm loving the hot streak, but some perspective would say that most of the line-up still doesn't hit much against RHP outside of an occassional HR on a mistake. Low OBPs lead to most of the HR's being solo shots and while the pitching has been great, the Wins against the Yanks were with Teixeira and Gardner out and the Braves were missing Chipper and McCann. Wins against top teams are nice, but these teams, especially the Braves were without many of their teeth.

I predicted 92 wins before the season and still think that could happen, but this team still needs a tweak or two to be up with the big boys IMO.

DGullett35
05-25-2012, 09:24 PM
I would rather lurk behind St. Louis till much later and overtake them at the end. I like the flying under the radar type team. Still tho its pretty nice to have first place beside your name in the paper.

RBA
05-26-2012, 12:15 AM
I would rather lurk behind St. Louis till much later and overtake them at the end. I like the flying under the radar type team. Still tho its pretty nice to have first place beside your name in the paper.

The 1990 Reds flew underneath the radar and they were in first for the whole season. :p

FlightRick
05-26-2012, 12:58 AM
I'm fine with a little bit of under-the-radar-osity... but you also gotta make hay while the sun shines.

If half of the Hated Cardinals' roster is on the DL now, then NOW is when you get out in front and create some separation. We can't count on them being all old and fragile in August, so take advantage of them being so in June. Gimme the 6 game lead at the All-Star Break over the 1.5 games back any day of the week....


Rick

Johnny Footstool
05-26-2012, 02:16 AM
I'm fine with a little bit of under-the-radar-osity... but you also gotta make hay while the sun shines.

If half of the Hated Cardinals' roster is on the DL now, then NOW is when you get out in front and create some separation. We can't count on them being all old and fragile in August, so take advantage of them being so in June. Gimme the 6 game lead at the All-Star Break over the 1.5 games back any day of the week....


Rick

Exactly. Wins in May and June count the same as wins in August and September.

PuffyPig
05-27-2012, 05:27 PM
FWIW, the NL average team entering today had 192 runs in 47 games.

After today, Cincy had 191 runs in 47 games.

The offense is slowing rounding into shape, and the pitching continues to sparkle.

Kc61
05-27-2012, 06:04 PM
I'm loving the hot streak, but some perspective would say that most of the line-up still doesn't hit much against RHP outside of an occassional HR on a mistake. Low OBPs lead to most of the HR's being solo shots and while the pitching has been great, the Wins against the Yanks were with Teixeira and Gardner out and the Braves were missing Chipper and McCann. Wins against top teams are nice, but these teams, especially the Braves were without many of their teeth.

I predicted 92 wins before the season and still think that could happen, but this team still needs a tweak or two to be up with the big boys IMO.

Agree. Reds will be playing in bigger ballparks and against AL teams soon. Would like a couple more higher OBP types to round out the offense, particularly against RHP.

Bullpen has been just outstanding so far. If you get 3-4 good starts each time thru the rotation, with good pen, you should be a winning team. Reds are getting that.

Chapman has been the team MVP in my view. Has been untouchable, truly a remarkable April and May for him.

PuffyPig
05-27-2012, 07:16 PM
I predicted 92 wins before the season and still think that could happen, but this team still needs a tweak or two to be up with the big boys IMO.

We are on pace for 93 wins right now, and only 5 teams in the majors have a better record.

mth123
05-27-2012, 07:20 PM
We are on pace for 93 wins right now, and only 5 teams in the majors have a better record.

Fine. I want 95+ and favored status heading into the play-offs. Making the play-offs is great, but let somebody else be the underdog who is expected to go 3 and out.

It won't really take major changes to get there IMO.

Brutus
05-27-2012, 07:48 PM
Fine. I want 95+ and favored status heading into the play-offs. Making the play-offs is great, but let somebody else be the underdog who is expected to go 3 and out.

It won't really take major changes to get there IMO.

How many wins is favored status worth in the playoffs?

RedlegJake
05-27-2012, 07:50 PM
How many wins is favored status worth in the playoffs?

LOL, most years it doesn't do the Yanks much good.

mth123
05-27-2012, 08:42 PM
How many wins is favored status worth in the playoffs?

None, but the Reds went in 2010 and it was like they weren't even there. It was pretty clear they were outclassed before the series even started. No drama. No threat, No nothing. It was like the Reds were the Washington Generals to Philly's Harlem Globetrotters. There are teams like that in the play-offs every year. This year, I want somebody else to be that team.

cincrazy
05-27-2012, 09:06 PM
None, but the Reds went in 2010 and it was like they weren't even there. It was pretty clear they were outclassed before the series even started. No drama. No threat, No nothing. It was like the Reds were the Washington Generals to Philly's Harlem Globetrotters. There are teams like that in the play-offs every year. This year, I want somebody else to be that team.

I agree with you. And I think this year, somebody else will be that team. This team is all in, as evidenced by the extensions. Walt knows we're close, and will do SOMETHING at the deadline. I firmly believe that. It won't be easy to make a deal, but I think he does.

The main difference between this year's team and the team in 2010... the bullpen. The bullpen wasn't bad in 2010, but this year it's flat dominant. Cueto is better now than he was then. Latos is much better than Volquez. Homer seems to have matured and is ready for a really good year. I think it's a different team. And with some tweaks, this could be a special year.

edabbs44
05-27-2012, 09:12 PM
I agree with you. And I think this year, somebody else will be that team. This team is all in, as evidenced by the extensions. Walt knows we're close, and will do SOMETHING at the deadline. I firmly believe that. It won't be easy to make a deal, but I think he does.

The main difference between this year's team and the team in 2010... the bullpen. The bullpen wasn't bad in 2010, but this year it's flat dominant. Cueto is better now than he was then. Latos is much better than Volquez. Homer seems to have matured and is ready for a really good year. I think it's a different team. And with some tweaks, this could be a special year.

How do long term extensions lead you to believe that the team is all in?

mth123
05-27-2012, 09:14 PM
I agree with you. And I think this year, somebody else will be that team. This team is all in, as evidenced by the extensions. Walt knows we're close, and will do SOMETHING at the deadline. I firmly believe that. It won't be easy to make a deal, but I think he does.

The main difference between this year's team and the team in 2010... the bullpen. The bullpen wasn't bad in 2010, but this year it's flat dominant. Cueto is better now than he was then. Latos is much better than Volquez. Homer seems to have matured and is ready for a really good year. I think it's a different team. And with some tweaks, this could be a special year.

Agreed. The sooner the better. It's Memorial Day. Let the tweaking begin.

PuffyPig
05-27-2012, 11:25 PM
None, but the Reds went in 2010 and it was like they weren't even there. It was pretty clear they were outclassed before the series even started. No drama. No threat, No nothing. It was like the Reds were the Washington Generals to Philly's Harlem Globetrotters. There are teams like that in the play-offs every year. This year, I want somebody else to be that team.

There are teams like that every year because of randomness.

You just don't know which teams it will be.

Last year it looked like the Phillies would dominate, yet they lost in the first round.

Look at the past, the teams with the best records seldolm dominate.

It's baseball, no one has a right to dominate. Or the ability.

Especially in today's parity.

mth123
05-28-2012, 12:21 AM
There are teams like that every year because of randomness.

You just don't know which teams it will be.

Last year it looked like the Phillies would dominate, yet they lost in the first round.

Look at the past, the teams with the best records seldolm dominate.

It's baseball, no one has a right to dominate. Or the ability.

Especially in today's parity.

Don't care. A low 90s win team is nothing special. A high 90s win team is legit.

The Operator
05-28-2012, 01:04 AM
Don't care. A low 90s win team is nothing special. A high 90s win team is legit.The 91-win Reds destroyed the 99-win Oakland A's in the 1990 World Series.

Kc61
05-28-2012, 03:11 AM
The issue to me isn't how many games they win in the regular season, if the Reds should win the division. Not worried about number of wins.

The issue to me is having the best possible team with the fewest possible weaknesses. It may or may not be reflected in won-loss record for the regular season.

Right now, I like the rotation, I love the bullpen, I like the defense except for third base (and I can live with third base defensively if necessary).

I still think the offense depends too much on low OBP, swing and miss, right handed hitters and would like to see the "tweak" on offense some people have mentioned.

Overall, it was a great homestand for the Reds, with the team using GABP to its advantage.

PuffyPig
05-28-2012, 06:43 AM
Don't care. A low 90s win team is nothing special. A high 90s win team is legit.

We are on pace for 93 wins, and if we had won one more game would be on pace for 97. The difference between a "high 90s win" team and a low one can be one game in 47, which is meaningless in a short series.

Plus we are trending upwards at this stage, having just completed our upswing against some very good teams.

mth123
05-28-2012, 09:44 AM
The 91-win Reds destroyed the 99-win Oakland A's in the 1990 World Series.

Yep. Still don't care. Make improvements and try to be the best. Don't be satisfied with good enough to squeak in.

mth123
05-28-2012, 09:46 AM
The issue to me isn't how many games they win in the regular season, if the Reds should win the division. Not worried about number of wins.

The issue to me is having the best possible team with the fewest possible weaknesses. It may or may not be reflected in won-loss record for the regular season.

Right now, I like the rotation, I love the bullpen, I like the defense except for third base (and I can live with third base defensively if necessary).

I still think the offense depends too much on low OBP, swing and miss, right handed hitters and would like to see the "tweak" on offense some people have mentioned.

Overall, it was a great homestand for the Reds, with the team using GABP to its advantage.

Exactly. Sure up the soft spots.

Brutus
05-28-2012, 10:21 AM
Yep. Still don't care. Make improvements and try to be the best. Don't be satisfied with good enough to squeak in.

The difference between 91 wins and 99 wins is only one win for every 20 games. That's really kind of splitting hairs.

mth123
05-28-2012, 10:59 AM
The difference between 91 wins and 99 wins is only one win for every 20 games. That's really kind of splitting hairs.

Yet we go nuts trying to improve a position from a 1 WAR weakness to a 4 WAR better than average player. Lets just downgrade Votto to Adam Lind. That's only a 6.5 game drop. That's 1.5 Wins less than splitting hairs. Not sure why they commited all that cash to split hairs.

8 games improvement means reducing the number of weaknesses that an opponent can exploit in a short series. 8 Wins is enough to convert 2 or 3 weaknesses into average or better.

Brutus
05-28-2012, 11:52 AM
Yet we go nuts trying to improve a position from a 1 WAR weakness to a 4 WAR better than average player. Lets just downgrade Votto to Adam Lind. That's only a 6.5 game drop. That's 1.5 Wins less than splitting hairs. Not sure why they commited all that cash to split hairs.

8 games improvement means reducing the number of weaknesses that an opponent can exploit in a short series. 8 Wins is enough to convert 2 or 3 weaknesses into average or better.

Six or eight games can certainly mean making the playoffs and not making the playoffs. But eight games is pretty silly to care about once you're in the playoffs. Those eight games are out the window when the playoffs start. All teams have a 0-0 record once the playoffs begin and in a short series, the differences between the clubs are often negligible.

jojo
05-28-2012, 11:56 AM
The 91-win Reds destroyed the 99-win Oakland A's in the 1990 World Series.

An 83 win Cards team won the world series in 2006.

mth123
05-28-2012, 12:14 PM
Six or eight games can certainly mean making the playoffs and not making the playoffs. But eight games is pretty silly to care about once you're in the playoffs. Those eight games are out the window when the playoffs start. All teams have a 0-0 record once the playoffs begin and in a short series, the differences between the clubs are often negligible.

Sure, but the talent level required to be a 99 win team is greater than the talent level to be a 91 win team. More talent means better chance to advance. Its that simple really.

Big Klu
05-28-2012, 12:53 PM
Sure, but the talent level required to be a 99 win team is greater than the talent level to be a 91 win team. More talent means better chance to advance. Its that simple really.

Or it means that you're playing inferior competition.

Brutus
05-28-2012, 12:57 PM
Sure, but the talent level required to be a 99 win team is greater than the talent level to be a 91 win team. More talent means better chance to advance. Its that simple really.

Since when does talent level automatically guarantee a better record? Heck, there are numerous examples of a team winning more games with a vastly worse run differential.

In 2009, for instance, the Yankees won eight more games than the Dodgers yet the Dodgers had a better run differential.

In 2008, the Cubs were expected to win 98 games; the Angels 88 games (using their Pythagorean expectation). Except that's not how it turned out. The Angels won 100, the Cubs 97.

In 2007, the Diamondbacks and Rockies had identical records, yet the Rockies had 12 more wins than the Diamondbacks by way of their Pythagorean differential.

In 2004, the Yankees were expected to win 89 games based on their differential but won 101 games. Were they really that much better than the Angels who won 92 games with a better differential than the Yankees?

I could show examples all day. The bottom line is that a record is a product of not just talent, but also scheduling, luck and sometimes timing.

Winning eight more games doesn't even mean you're a more talented team.

The Operator
05-28-2012, 01:19 PM
Yep. Still don't care. Make improvements and try to be the best. Don't be satisfied with good enough to squeak in.Oh you're preaching to the choir my friend, I absolutely think The Reds need another bat in the middle of the order.

I just don't agree that there's "nothing special' about a 90-94 win team. Even in today's diluted playoff scenario, making the playoffs (ie one of the eight, I'm not counting the new wildcard yet) puts you in the 73rd percentile in MLB, which is not too shabby.

To be more of a sure thing, yes The Reds absolutely need another bat and perhaps another tweak or two. But, as long as they get there at all, anything can happen. And this year's team is built to be successful in the playoffs should they make it - good rotation and a lockdown bullpen. History is littered with teams who squeaked in and then rode a good pitching staff the whole way.

mth123
05-28-2012, 01:36 PM
Since when does talent level automatically guarantee a better record? Heck, there are numerous examples of a team winning more games with a vastly worse run differential.

In 2009, for instance, the Yankees won eight more games than the Dodgers yet the Dodgers had a better run differential.

In 2008, the Cubs were expected to win 98 games; the Angels 88 games (using their Pythagorean expectation). Except that's not how it turned out. The Angels won 100, the Cubs 97.

In 2007, the Diamondbacks and Rockies had identical records, yet the Rockies had 12 more wins than the Diamondbacks by way of their Pythagorean differential.

In 2004, the Yankees were expected to win 89 games based on their differential but won 101 games. Were they really that much better than the Angels who won 92 games with a better differential than the Yankees?

I could show examples all day. The bottom line is that a record is a product of not just talent, but also scheduling, luck and sometimes timing.

Winning eight more games doesn't even mean you're a more talented team.

Of course there is randomness in the win totals, so its possible that an inferior team can win more games, but if randomness is removed, the better team wins. I'd rather have a team that Randomness would have to go against in order for them to lose and a team where randomness would have to favor in order to win.

But none of this is close to my original point. I think this is a 92 win team right now. I'm not satidfied with that. I want to add talent so that its that 99 win team you're talking about. If that doesn't seem like a team with a better chance, then you need to re-think. Current Team with added Talent > Current Team without added talent. How is that even a question?

mth123
05-28-2012, 01:42 PM
Oh you're preaching to the choir my friend, I absolutely think The Reds need another bat in the middle of the order.

I just don't agree that there's "nothing special' about a 90-94 win team. Even in today's diluted playoff scenario, making the playoffs (ie one of the eight, I'm not counting the new wildcard yet) puts you in the 73rd percentile in MLB, which is not too shabby.

To be more of a sure thing, yes The Reds absolutely need another bat and perhaps another tweak or two. But, as long as they get there at all, anything can happen. And this year's team is built to be successful in the playoffs should they make it - good rotation and a lockdown bullpen. History is littered with teams who squeaked in and then rode a good pitching staff the whole way.

Sure good team. Anything can happen. Good team does not equal best team. I want then to be the best team. Other teams will have good pitching staffs and bullpens as well.

The 2010 Reds were in the play-offs but they weren't anywhere near the same caliber as some other teams in the 2010 post season.

Brutus
05-28-2012, 01:51 PM
Of course there is randomness in the win totals, so its possible that an inferior team can win more games, but if randomness is removed, the better team wins. I'd rather have a team that Randomness would have to go against in order for them to lose and a team where randomness would have to favor in order to win.

But none of this is close to my original point. I think this is a 92 win team right now. I'm not satidfied with that. I want to add talent so that its that 99 win team you're talking about. If that doesn't seem like a team with a better chance, then you need to re-think. Current Team with added Talent > Current Team without added talent. How is that even a question?

It's not a question. Everyone agrees with that point. But you're taking the simple statement "Current Team with added Talent > Current Team without added talent," which everyone agrees with, and adding extra layers that are not substantiated

It doesn't matter how many wins you had in the regular season once you get to the playoffs and while more talent most definitely helps, wins aren't always indicative of talent when we're talking a difference in 5-10 wins over the course of 162 games. Being the favorite and having the most wins in the regular season doesn't guarantee a single win in the postseason.

In most cases, if you're good enough to get to the playoffs, you're good enough to go 11-8, which is all that is necessary to win a title.

The Operator
05-28-2012, 02:22 PM
Sure good team. Anything can happen. Good team does not equal best team. I want then to be the best team. Other teams will have good pitching staffs and bullpens as well.

The 2010 Reds were in the play-offs but they weren't anywhere near the same caliber as some other teams in the 2010 post season.Being the best team in baseball guarantees you nothing in the postseason. Ask the 2004 Cardinals.

mth123
05-28-2012, 02:28 PM
It's not a question. Everyone agrees with that point. But you're taking the simple statement "Current Team with added Talent > Current Team without added talent," which everyone agrees with, and adding extra layers that are not substantiated

It doesn't matter how many wins you had in the regular season once you get to the playoffs and while more talent most definitely helps, wins aren't always indicative of talent when we're talking a difference in 5-10 wins over the course of 162 games. Being the favorite and having the most wins in the regular season doesn't guarantee a single win in the postseason.

In most cases, if you're good enough to get to the playoffs, you're good enough to go 11-8, which is all that is necessary to win a title.

I'm not adding any layers. All you guys talking about completely irrelevent teams that went on to win with ho hum win totals are adding the layers.

I said that I think that this team is still the same 92 win team that I predicted in the gonelong thread. I also said its not good enough for me. I want them to add talent so they'll be an upper 90s win team. How is that different than Current Team with added talent > current team w/o added talent and how is that adding extra layers?

mth123
05-28-2012, 02:35 PM
Being the best team in baseball guarantees you nothing in the postseason. Ask the 2004 Cardinals.

Nothing guarantees anything and no one said it did.

May as well smoke. Its doesn't guarantee you'll get cancer or heart disease. May as well cross the street without looking. It doesn't guarantee you'll become roadkill. May as well not improve the team. Improving doesn't guarantee you'll win.

Heck, lets DFA Votto and save some bucks when he gets claimed. He's only worth about 7 wins and that's just splitting hairs.

I can't believe that I need to convince people that improving the team from its current hypothetical win level to an increased hypothetical level is a good thing.

Brutus
05-28-2012, 02:42 PM
I'm not adding any layers. All you guys talking about comoletely irrelevent teams tha went on to win with ho hum win totals are adding the layers.

I said that I think that this team is still the same 92 win team that I predicted in the gonelong thread. I also said its not good enough for me. I want them to add talent so they'll be an upper 90s win team. How is that different than Current Team with added talent > current team w/o added talent and how is that adding extra layers?

It might be a 92-win team. It might be a 100-win team. It's hard to really know for sure. The 96-win team of 1999 was 25-22 at this point in the season. Meanwhile, the 1990 team won a World Series and was 33-13 at this juncture. However, they also only finished with 91 wins and, as mentioned, beat a 99-win team in four games.

The point is, for me, that you're using these win benchmarks too strictly. They're too arbitrary and random to be conclusive of anything. If you simply want to say that you want more talent added, I am wholeheartedly on board with that. But if they finish with 92 wins instead of 96 wins or 98 wins, that doesn't tell us they're any less capable of winning a World Series.

mth123
05-28-2012, 02:59 PM
It might be a 92-win team. It might be a 100-win team. It's hard to really know for sure. The 96-win team of 1999 was 25-22 at this point in the season. Meanwhile, the 1990 team won a World Series and was 33-13 at this juncture. However, they also only finished with 91 wins and, as mentioned, beat a 99-win team in four games.

The point is, for me, that you're using these win benchmarks too strictly. They're too arbitrary and random to be conclusive of anything. If you simply want to say that you want more talent added, I am wholeheartedly on board with that. But if they finish with 92 wins instead of 96 wins or 98 wins, that doesn't tell us they're any less capable of winning a World Series.

OK. For everyone who can't seem to carry on a conversation without some clarifying disclaimer on every point, I'll restate.

I, MTH123, judge that the professional baseball team known as the 2012 Cincinnati Reds of the National League (later described as "this team"), assuming that the way the ball bounces evens out over the season, currently has a talent level that would equate to roughly 92 wins. I fully acknowledge that there is some level of standard deviation in that number so it may be 100 or it may be 85, no one really knows.

Based on the above judgement, with its acknowledged uncertainties, I think that this team should attempt to add talent so that when the above judgement is revised, again assuming that the way the ball bounces evens out over a season, a win total in the upper 90's would result. Again, there could be a standard deviation in that total and an actual upper 90 win total may not result and anything from 162 wins to 0 wins is possible.



This post only available while supplies last. Void where prohibited.

Scrap Irony
05-28-2012, 04:20 PM
I don't believe your post because you didn't have the express written permission of major league baseball.

_Sir_Charles_
05-28-2012, 04:24 PM
I don't believe your post because you didn't have the express written permission of major league baseball.

You don't know that, mth very well could have the written permission right there next to his keyboard. Ye of little faith. :p

membengal
05-29-2012, 09:07 AM
that's awesome, mth

keep fighting the good fight - you are one of the last bastions, along with KC61, Scrap, and a few others, of decent discourse on this board

oneupper
05-29-2012, 09:27 AM
Pythag says 25-23. Slightly above .500 team.
Bullpen outperforming very much. 92 wins looks optimistic, rather than a projection or a baseline.
I'm not convinced about this team at all.

Vottomatic
05-29-2012, 09:47 AM
I'm not convinced either.

The starting pitching and bullpen are improved.

The hitting is basically a home run festival or bust. Frustrating.

Kc61
05-29-2012, 09:59 AM
that's awesome, mth

keep fighting the good fight - you are one of the last bastions, along with KC61, Scrap, and a few others, of decent discourse on this board

Thanks for the compliment. Much appreciated.

I picked 86 wins in the pre-season poll and I'm sticking to it because I don't like the offense, and haven't since the second half of last year.

BUT -- we have to remember this is a long season. I feel strongly that the front office will make moves as the season progresses. This is particularly so because the division is very winnable.

So while we can dispute how far the Reds can go as presently built, we always have to keep in mind that the situation is fluid. The team, like all contending teams, is still a work in progress.

Great thing about the Reds is that IMO their needs are fairly easily filled. They already have super stars, Votto, Chapman, and other stars, Cueto, Phillips, arguably Bruce, potentially Latos, over time Marshall.

These top of the line players are the hardest to obtain. The Reds' need is more in the "regular" player category, some higher OBP platoon bats perhaps.

So things are looking up, not so much because of the team as is, but becaue it shouldn't be too hard to improve the team into a higher level contender.

oregonred
05-29-2012, 12:42 PM
Thanks for the compliment. Much appreciated.

I picked 86 wins in the pre-season poll and I'm sticking to it because I don't like the offense, and haven't since the second half of last year.

BUT -- we have to remember this is a long season. I feel strongly that the front office will make moves as the season progresses. This is particularly so because the division is very winnable.

So while we can dispute how far the Reds can go as presently built, we always have to keep in mind that the situation is fluid. The team, like all contending teams, is still a work in progress.

Great thing about the Reds is that IMO their needs are fairly easily filled. They already have super stars, Votto, Chapman, and other stars, Cueto, Phillips, arguably Bruce, potentially Latos, over time Marshall.

These top of the line players are the hardest to obtain. The Reds' need is more in the "regular" player category, some higher OBP platoon bats perhaps.

So things are looking up, not so much because of the team as is, but becaue it shouldn't be too hard to improve the team into a higher level contender.

This sums up my view exactly. 1-2 better (heck even average league performance) OBP guys at the top of the lineup and adjusting the well documented RHP issue this flawed offense faces is frustrating but a much better problem to fix given the elite talent on the top of the roster and the number of young guys under control through 2016-2017. I still think the Reds peak is 2013-2016, but the division is so winnable this year it would be a shame to blow the opportunity put in front of the franchise this summer.

Reds/Flyers Fan
05-29-2012, 01:08 PM
Thanks for the compliment. Much appreciated.

I picked 86 wins in the pre-season poll and I'm sticking to it because I don't like the offense, and haven't since the second half of last year.

BUT -- we have to remember this is a long season. I feel strongly that the front office will make moves as the season progresses. This is particularly so because the division is very winnable.

So while we can dispute how far the Reds can go as presently built, we always have to keep in mind that the situation is fluid. The team, like all contending teams, is still a work in progress.

Great thing about the Reds is that IMO their needs are fairly easily filled. They already have super stars, Votto, Chapman, and other stars, Cueto, Phillips, arguably Bruce, potentially Latos, over time Marshall.

These top of the line players are the hardest to obtain. The Reds' need is more in the "regular" player category, some higher OBP platoon bats perhaps.

So things are looking up, not so much because of the team as is, but becaue it shouldn't be too hard to improve the team into a higher level contender.

This is the biggest thing, in my opinion. The Reds don't have to be players in the Cliff Lee-type sweepstakes this year as their rotation appears solid enough. Another starting hammer wouldn't hurt, but it also won't make or break this team. Walt can and should focus all his energy on two areas of need: LF and the bench. And those holes are (hopefully, wishfully) easier to fill than the holes of some other contenders.

MikeThierry
05-29-2012, 01:25 PM
This sums up my view exactly. 1-2 better (heck even average league performance) OBP guys at the top of the lineup and adjusting the well documented RHP issue this flawed offense faces is frustrating but a much better problem to fix given the elite talent on the top of the roster and the number of young guys under control through 2016-2017. I still think the Reds peak is 2013-2016, but the division is so winnable this year it would be a shame to blow the opportunity put in front of the franchise this summer.

I was reading an article about on base percentage and leadoff hitters recently. It was striking how much the OBP has decline the past decade or so for lead off hitters. In the 90's, the leadoff hitters in baseball averaged about a .347 OBP and decreased to a .341 OBP in the 2000's. However, the last two years, OBP for leadoff hitters has dramatically declined to the point where the average is about .329 (or around there). I haven't checked what the average leadoff hitter's OBP this year though but it wouldn't shock me if it was around the same .330 clip as it has been the past couple of years. I think more now than ever, it's harder to find a good leadoff hitter to set the table for the big guys in the middle of the lineup and it's certainly easier to say team A should get a high OBP guy at the top of the lineup rather than it is to actually trading for one.

CySeymour
05-29-2012, 01:32 PM
I was reading an article about on base percentage and leadoff hitters recently. It was striking how much the OBP has decline the past decade or so for lead off hitters. In the 90's, the leadoff hitters in baseball averaged about a .347 OBP and decreased to a .341 OBP in the 2000's. However, the last two years, OBP for leadoff hitters has dramatically declined to the point where the average is about .329 (or around there). I haven't checked what the average leadoff hitter's OBP this year though but it wouldn't shock me if it was around the same .330 clip as it has been the past couple of years. I think more now than ever, it's harder to find a good leadoff hitter to set the table for the big guys in the middle of the lineup and it's certainly easier to say team A should get a high OBP guy at the top of the lineup rather than it is to actually trading for one.

I was thinking about this the other day, but didn't go out and find the stats to back it up.

MikeThierry
05-29-2012, 01:34 PM
I was thinking about this the other day, but didn't go out and find the stats to back it up.

It's actually striking how low it has been the past couple of years. Why do you all think this is?

CySeymour
05-29-2012, 01:38 PM
It's actually striking how low it has been the past couple of years. Why do you all think this is?

Well, the obvious answer to me is that organizations have stopped developing high obp types to hit at the top of the order. It could also be with the "end of the steroid era," that teams are stressing lower k rates, hence non power-hitters aren't be encouraged to work deeper into the count

westofyou
05-29-2012, 01:43 PM
Also down big from ten years ago is EBHs

Why??

One reason is the game is a fluid thing that shifts with each innovation, and reacts to them as well

Defense is up from 10 years ago too, more highly valued it can be partly responsible for introducing skilled fielders who give the game other things beside ob%

In short less Jeremy Giambi's

Add in testing for greenies and you see more fatigue and essentially with that comes a drifting away from proper form and that often produces more outs than bases

In short, the game changes all the time

RedlegJake
05-29-2012, 01:44 PM
Slugging is king. The place for the guy who slaps hits, gets on base and measures his value in singles, walks and the occasional double is gone. Look around - where are the Manny Mota, Matty Alou, Manny Sanguillen, Zoilo Versailles, Maury Wills, Dick Groat type of players? They are swinging from the knob trying to hit homers instead of choking up, swinging matchstick bats. The game has emphasized the power game to the point it's squeezed out the on base guy who has little power. To me, the game seems to say OBP is great IF you can add some BOP to it but if you can't we don't care if you get on at a .380 clip we don't want you. The influence is so strong that guys who could obviously improve their game like Stubbs refuse to think about cutting down their swing or changing their approach, convinced if they sacrifice some power they'll devalue their game. I think it's about to swing back but the steroid era lingers.

MikeThierry
05-29-2012, 02:09 PM
You all make excellent points. It's just odd how guys like Ichiro can be celebrated league wide yet the same type of leadoff hitter is frowned on. Kind of an odd dynamic.

Kc61
05-29-2012, 02:14 PM
Just to follow up on the OBP discussion.

In 2010, NL OBP averaged .324. Reds were .338
In 2011, NL OBP averaged .319. Reds were .326.
In 2012, NL OBP average is .317. Reds are .306. Through May 28, obviously.

The league's OBP has dropped in the last three years, but the Reds' has dropped more steeply. Of course, we are only in late May so the Reds' OBP could pick up.

Who are the key hitters holding down the OBP? This year, it would seem to be Stubbs and Cozart. Both are sub-.300 OBP and both have a lot of at bats, over 180. Ludwick has a .298 OBP with 101 at bats.

For those who don't like Dusty's batting orders, this information supports your distaste. Cozart and Stubbs bat lead off and second most games, supposedly are the table setters, the top of the order guys, yet both have sub .300 OBPs in 2012.

Stubbs' OBP in 2012 so far, .293. Stubbs had a .321 OBP in 2011, with 604 official at bats. It was .329 in 2010 in 514 official at bats.

Other interesting OBP notes. In 2010, Reds had a number of guys at or over .350 OBP. Votto, Hanigan, Hernandez, Rolen, Cairo, Bruce, Nix. (Janish ws .338 in 200 at bats.)

In 2011, Votto, Alonso (88 at bats), Hanigan, Phillips over .350 (with Hernandez and Bruce over .340).

In 2012 so far, it's Votto and Hanigan over .350. (Leake too.) That's it. Next highest is .326 for Phillips.

OBP seems to be a deteriorating skill on the Reds as time passes, but of course could rebound as this year continues. Many of the higher OBP guys of 2010 are no longer factors for the Reds and may not have been adequately replaced.

westofyou
05-29-2012, 02:20 PM
You all make excellent points. It's just odd how guys like Ichiro can be celebrated league wide yet the same type of leadoff hitter is frowned on. Kind of an odd dynamic.

He's an outlier, plays ball like its 1915

Kind of hard to replicate outliers

MikeThierry
05-29-2012, 02:38 PM
He's an outlier, plays ball like its 1915

Kind of hard to replicate outliers

Mariano Rivera cough cough :) :beerme:

membengal
05-29-2012, 02:49 PM
"Where have you gone, Brett Butler, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you..."

cumberlandreds
05-29-2012, 02:52 PM
"Where have you gone, Brett Butler, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you..."

He doesn't give a damn anymore......... Oops! Wrong Butler. :)

oregonred
05-29-2012, 03:29 PM
I haven't checked what the average leadoff hitter's OBP this year though but it wouldn't shock me if it was around the same .330 clip as it has been the past couple of years.

I had this on a thread the other day... How shockingly bad the Reds leadoff hitting has been so far in 2012. I wonder if this would be a record setting level of futility over the course of a season (almost mathematically impossible to maintain such ineptitude). And somehow the Reds have managed to lower this from a high flying .479 OPS going into last weekend... The Reds #9 slot now has a higher OPS than leadoff.

2012 NL Average leadoff production .317/.371/.688
2012 Reds leadoff "lack-of-production" (211 ABs) .200/.270/.470 (52K/9BB :laugh:)
2012 Reds #9 slot (156 ABs) .206/.269/.475

No one else is even close to as bad, except the Dodgers at .528 OPS. And both teams are in first place.

The revolving door in the #2 spot has worked well to partially balance offset the leadoff woes (the Votto factor)

2012 NL Average #2 production .336/.393/.729
2012 Reds #2 production (194 AB's) .341/.464/.805

MikeThierry
05-29-2012, 04:22 PM
I had this on a thread the other day... How shockingly bad the Reds leadoff hitting has been so far in 2012. I wonder if this would be a record setting level of futility over the course of a season (almost mathematically impossible to maintain such ineptitude). And somehow the Reds have managed to lower this from a high flying .479 OPS going into last weekend... The Reds #9 slot now has a higher OPS than leadoff.

2012 NL Average leadoff production .317/.371/.688
2012 Reds leadoff "lack-of-production" (211 ABs) .200/.270/.470 (52K/9BB :laugh:)
2012 Reds #9 slot (156 ABs) .206/.269/.475

No one else is even close to as bad, except the Dodgers at .528 OPS. And both teams are in first place.

The revolving door in the #2 spot has worked well to partially balance offset the leadoff woes (the Votto factor)

2012 NL Average #2 production .336/.393/.729
2012 Reds #2 production (194 AB's) .341/.464/.805

Wow that is horrible. It makes me appreciate what Furcal has done, more and more.