PDA

View Full Version : Offseason Priorities



Pages : [1] 2

Caveat Emperor
10-11-2012, 09:34 AM
1. A high-OBP bat for the top of the lineup. I like Cozart, but he's a #7 type hitter that's miscast at the top of the batting order. Ideally, I'd also like this bat to be a high-BA bat. I know BA is an overrated statistic, but the Reds need more people who put the ball in play.

2. Depth for the starting rotation. This year was a fluke when it comes to health -- you can't count on your starting 5 to make every start for a season. If something had happened this year, the Reds had nobody waiting that was even below average.

Ideally, you'd want to acquire a quality arm and push Mike Leake to the minors or out the door.

3. Replacement CF. Could also go along with item #1. I think the team needs to move on from Drew Stubbs.

4. Solution in LF. I highly doubt Ryan Ludwick passes the opportunity to test the market for a multi-year deal, so I think it's a safe bet he'll decline his option. I'm not opposed to bringing him back if the dollars make sense, but if not Ludwick, the Reds need someone in LF who can provide some pop.

Benihana
10-11-2012, 05:02 PM
1. Justin Upton
2. Jacoby Ellsbury

That's it. Cingrani and/or Corcino can provide SP depth next year. The Reds need more offense, especially near the top of the order. I'd take Ludwick back on the option but wouldn't pay much more.

Patrick Bateman
10-11-2012, 05:06 PM
Get a life guys.

Can you really not wait the half an hour before the season is officially over.

It must be in vogue to correctly predict the demise of our team before the fact.

Enjoy the loss!

Benihana
10-11-2012, 06:07 PM
Get a life guys.

Can you really not wait the half an hour before the season is officially over.

It must be in vogue to correctly predict the demise of our team before the fact.

Enjoy the loss!

Really?

Vottomatic
10-11-2012, 06:08 PM
Well, you'll hear from the guys who say the Reds don't have any more money to make improvements.

I disagree. It can be done.

Walt got creative and acquired Latos (under control for awhile). Maybe he can do some magic again.

FlightRick
10-11-2012, 06:13 PM
I say 1 and 3 go together. A winning line-up can afford to have Stubbs or Cozart in it, especially if the defense is there. Having both of them in it makes things considerably harder. Whichever one you choose to replace (I'd vote for Stubbs, since some other team might be tricked into thinking he has residual trade value), you move heaven and earth to make him an OBP/top of the order bat.

Filling the hole in LF could also be spun as filling a hole at 3B, with Frazier moving to left. Just depending on what's available.

Meaningful discussion with both Latos and Bailey would be on my to-do list, too.


Rick

fearofpopvol1
10-11-2012, 06:18 PM
Get a life guys.

Can you really not wait the half an hour before the season is officially over.

It must be in vogue to correctly predict the demise of our team before the fact.

Enjoy the loss!

No need for this really.

And the original post, in fairness, was made this morning. Well before the game had started.

medford
10-11-2012, 06:20 PM
I think 1 & 3 go hand in hand, they need an upgrade offensively in CF, which ideally is going to be a leadoff type guy.

I think Cingrani, Sulbaran, Corcino & (the other AA pitcher who's name escapes me put has recieved praise) offers the Reds the AAA depth they'll likely need next season, that they didn't have this season (good thing they didn't need it)

4) I think Ludwick comes back in some form or fashion, likely on a 2 year extension w/ a 3rd year option. I think he likes it here, he grew up a fan, he has a relationship w/ Walt, I think they'll work it out knowing the FA market isn't going to offer anything more significan than what the Reds will offer. People are not going to go out and get crazy w/ a 35 year old outfielder w/ a spotty track record.

I'll add 1 more priority:

They need a better bench. Cairo offered up little other than versatility and some form of veteran leadership. Valdez's role should be filled either by a guy w/ similar defense but better offensive skills or similar offensive skills but better defensively. It wouldn't bother me much if Valdez returns in the same role, but a small upgrade should be examined for the spot. I'm assuming that Rolen is going to retire, Frasier is going to take over at 3b, they'll need a decent bench bat to fill that spot next year, and ideally they need a left handed bat for the bench, if not 2.

Patrick Bateman
10-11-2012, 06:21 PM
No need for this really.

And the original post, in fairness, was made this morning. Well before the game had started.

Go ahead guys and get started on tearing down the team.

Maybe tommorow we can get started on the 2014 once we declare that Walt has sat on his hands by not improving the team immediately after the loss!

lollipopcurve
10-11-2012, 06:22 PM
Legit bat behind Votto. Ludwick is solid, but he doesn't force pitchers to pitch to Votto, and he's getting on in years.

Sea Ray
10-11-2012, 06:22 PM
2. Depth for the starting rotation. This year was a fluke when it comes to health -- you can't count on your starting 5 to make every start for a season. If something had happened this year, the Reds had nobody waiting that was even below average.

Ideally, you'd want to acquire a quality arm and push Mike Leake to the minors or out the door.




Well, I guess this depends on Chapman. If he's your starter then your rotation is set

fearofpopvol1
10-11-2012, 06:23 PM
Go ahead guys and get started on tearing down the team.

Maybe tommorow we can get started on the 2014 once we declare that Walt has sat on his hands by not improving the team immediately after the loss!

Now you've put yourself on the level that you were accusing others of being on. It's really unnecessary.

cinreds21
10-11-2012, 06:26 PM
I don't understand why people want a long-term center fielder when Billy will be ready by September at the latest.

Patrick Bateman
10-11-2012, 06:26 PM
Now you've put yourself on the level that you were accusing others of being on. It's really unnecessary.

OMG it's always drama. Relax, we don't need another "get out the ruler" debates.

The Reds season just ended, I honestly care more about that then getting into whether I am perceived as having acted appropriately in this thread.

HokieRed
10-11-2012, 07:17 PM
Legit bat behind Votto. Ludwick is solid, but he doesn't force pitchers to pitch to Votto, and he's getting on in years.

Agree. As much as I like Ludwick, I'd be very wary of an extension beyond one year and he's really not ideal for the 4 slot even at his best.

corkedbat
10-11-2012, 07:18 PM
Back or Contending for a spot:

Joey Votto
Brandon Phillips
Zach Cozart
Todd Frazier
Jay Bruce
Ryan Hanigan
Xavier Paul
Jonny Cueto
Mat Latos (Contract Extension)
Bronson Arroyo
Homer Bailey (Contract Extension)
Sean Marshall
Aroldis Chapman
Devin Mesaraco
Wilson Valdez

Re-sign (if the price is right):

Ryan Ludwick
Jonathan Broxton (or) Ryan Madson
Dioner Navarro

Back or Contending (if not dealt):

Tony Cingrani
Didi Gregorious
Hector Rodriguez
Chris Heisey
Sam Lecure
Jose Arredondo
JJ Hoover
Alfredo Simon

Longshots who could make it with a strong ST:

Billy Hamilton
Daniel Corcino
Ryan Lemarre
Denis Phipps
Pedro Villareal
Kyle Lotzkar (not likely)
Donald Lutz (not likely)

To Be Dealt:

Mike Leake
Drew Stubbs
Bill Bray
Logan Ondrusek
Nick Massett
Neftali Soto

Part Ways:

Scott Rolen
Miguel Cairo

Drop from 40-man:

Todd Redman
Kris Negron

Offseason Targets:

* Manager (Maybe)
* High OBP CFer who can leadoff
* Quality Core of the Order Bat (LF or 3B) if Luddy isn't retained
* LH bench bat with power - preferrably someone who can play 3B and LF (if Luddy is back)
* A top-three starter who is good enough to relegate Homer and Bronson to the the 4th & 5th spots in the rotation (not being negative toward Homer either).
* Reserve Catcher (if Navarro isn't retained)

thatcoolguy_22
10-11-2012, 07:29 PM
My offseason priorities are to study/make my next stripe, kiss a few pretty girls, avg 15 miles ran a week, pay off my jeep, and get a better grasp on speaking korean.


For the Reds?
1) OBP CF
2) SP depth
3) Make a decision early on what the plan is with Chapman and act accordingly.
4) Reach an agreement with Ludwick. He had a death grip on the leadership role this year
5) Find a utility guy that is an upgrade to Valdez/Cairo
6) Begin working on parameters for Homer's LTC
7) Upgrade the manager



That's just my short list.

Rojo
10-11-2012, 07:35 PM
Ideally, I'd also like this bat to be a high-BA bat. I know BA is an overrated statistic, but the Reds need more people who put the ball in play.

A 200-hit guy would be nice. I'm with FlightRick on this maybe being a thirdbaseman, with Frazier being your garden-variety power LF.

The bench has been an achilles heal. Rolen is not a good bench guy. Time for him and Cairo to hang 'em up. I don't really have a big problem with Valdez. An upgrade would be nice, but a shortstop that can hit -- even a little -- usually starts games.

This will sound funny but I'm going to invoke Rojo's Maxim: bullpens need to be re-made every year.

Stubbs, gone, natch.

Benihana
10-11-2012, 07:51 PM
Justin Upton in the 2 hole. Frazier batting cleanup. Once Hamilton is ready for CF, move Phillips to 6th.

corkedbat
10-11-2012, 08:55 PM
I don't understand why people want a long-term center fielder when Billy will be ready by September at the latest.

Not sure Billy will be ready next season. I just want a CFer who can defend and get on base. Even when Hamilton were ready, having someone like Fowler or Spann on the roster is not a problem at all, You can always slide Billy back to SS or if you want him in CF (and Cozart Didi @ SS), Folwer or Spann will still have solid trade value. I just want someone who can get n base at a .340+ clip that they can pair with DatDude at the top of the order infront of a fully healthy Votto.

IMO, acquiring a talented player (as long as they're OK in the clubhouse) in the offseason never causes a problem. At worst, they create another trade opportunity.

corkedbat
10-11-2012, 08:57 PM
Anyone interested in the "other Upton" (not Kate) in CF?

Wonderful Monds
10-11-2012, 09:17 PM
Anyone interested in the "other Upton" (not Kate) in CF?

Nope. He's a rich man's Drew Stubbs. No thanks.

Joseph
10-11-2012, 09:17 PM
I'd like to see the hockey lockout settled.

Wonderful Monds
10-11-2012, 09:21 PM
This won't be a popular opinion, but we definitely need a 3B. IMO Todd Frazier is not a starting player.

cincrazy
10-11-2012, 09:35 PM
Denard. Span. Please. When Hamilton comes up, we've got the top two lineup spots covered in front of Votto and the rest. Span solves the CF problem until Hamilton is ready, and can cover left when Hamilton takes over every day in center (which I don't expect to be next year).

PuffyPig
10-11-2012, 09:47 PM
Back or Contending for a spot:


Xavier Paul
Wilson Valdez



And these are on your "must have" list why?

corkedbat
10-11-2012, 10:07 PM
And these are on your "must have" list why?

That is not a must have list and doesn't say it is. I expect both to be back in spring training contending for spots. I see them as reasonable depth options for the Reds come spring, but don't see either holding any trade value (even as pot sweeteners).


The guys on this list:

Back or Contending (if not dealt):

Tony Cingrani
Didi Gregorious
Hector Rodriguez
Chris Heisey
Sam Lecure
Jose Arredondo
JJ Hoover
Alfredo Simon

...are guys would definitely want back, but are also guys that might be included in deals. I don't expect Paul or Valdez to hold much trade value - even as a throw-in. I certainly wouldn't hold either back if another club wanted them badly enough, but I would be quite surprised.

alloverjr
10-11-2012, 10:07 PM
Now you've put yourself on the level that you were accusing others of being on. It's really unnecessary.

You forgot grade school girl-ish.

Wonderful Monds
10-11-2012, 10:10 PM
And these are on your "must have" list why?

What's wrong with Xavier Paul? Guy looks like a valuable pinch hitter.

reds44
10-11-2012, 10:13 PM
Get a life guys.

Can you really not wait the half an hour before the season is officially over.

It must be in vogue to correctly predict the demise of our team before the fact.

Enjoy the loss!

http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/1923851/81416686.jpg

dman
10-11-2012, 10:31 PM
A new hitting coach. Brook Jacoby has got to go. We need somebody who can help Jay Bruce be less streaky, and if we keep Stubbs on board, somebody that can help him transform into the hitter we've seen glimpses of.

*BaseClogger*
10-12-2012, 12:15 AM
This won't be a popular opinion, but we definitely need a 3B. IMO Todd Frazier is not a starting player.

I think a platoon of Jack Hannahan and Todd Frazier, with Frazier getting some playing time at other positions too, could be effective...

Wonderful Monds
10-12-2012, 12:17 AM
I think a platoon of Jack Hannahan and Todd Frazier, with Frazier getting some playing time at other positions too, could be effective...

I'm guessing Headley is off the table now. Though the Pads don't need him seeing as they won't be any good during the time he's still around.

corkedbat
10-12-2012, 12:34 AM
I want a CFer who can lead off and get on base at a solid rate. Top candidates: Dennard Span, Dexter Fowler and Jacoby Ellsbury. I might consider Shane Victorino, but it would have to be a very friendly FA deal.

When it comes to 3B & LF its a little more "fluent". I'm OK with Frazier at one of those spots. If Ludwick agrees to his side of the options or comes back for $5-8M, that's great. Frazier at 3B and Ludwick in LF, but even then, I'd like for them to add a LH bat with power, An OFer would be great, but one that could play some 3B would be even better.

If Luddy hits the open market and the bidding gets close to the 8-figure mark, I'd look elsewhere at 3B or LF. Ryan had a great season, but I don't think it beyond the realm of possibility he regresses. IMO, Walt needs to find a way to insert one more impact bat into the lineup - either by trade or Free Agency. Nick Swisher would be a dream, but I'm not sure the Reds can afford him if the Yanks decide they want him back.

This year's salary (the final of a sixth year deal) was $10.5M. I might be willing to go $3yrs/$39M (a graduated scale with some deferred dollars). If he (likely) is too pricey, my other targets would be Justin Upton, Chase Headley, Shin-Soo Choo, Logan Morrison or Josh Willingham. I still think Josh would be a perfect fit in this offense and 2 more years @ $7M per is probably just as reasonable as what Ludwick gets.

Wonderful Monds
10-12-2012, 12:37 AM
Chase Headley via trade and Ryan Ludwick resigned is probably the best case scenario offensively. I don't see the point in getting a long term CF. Billy Hamilton is a year away at most.

Wonderful Monds
10-12-2012, 12:51 AM
Also don't be surprised if the Reds pick up Chris Young and cash from the DBacks to play CF next year. They're looking to dump him and I just get the feeling he's a Jocketty player. "Adequate" hitter, good in CF.

Something under the radar I'd want to happen but won't is to pay a good bit of money to get Toronto miracle worker Dwayne Murphy to be our hitting coach. Won't happen and I don't even know if it'd be possible. But the guy seems like the Dave Duncan of hitting coaches.

If Dusty doesn't return or takes another role besides manager, I'd probably make Bryan Price manager if he wants it to make absolutely certain he sticks around here.

Kc61
10-12-2012, 01:30 AM
The Reds lineup must have a third left handed hitter, or switch hitter, at least on a platoon basis. Right handed pitchers have too much of an advantage with only two LHH.

The Reds starting lineup must have one more high OBP guy. If it's the same guy as the new LHH, that's fine.

The Reds bench is only five men deep and it cannot have two of those spots consumed by non-hitters like Cairo and Valdez. The bench has to hit more.

The Reds have to deal with CF. They can't keep going with Stubbs' failure to make contact. IMO, Heisey is not the answer, he is overly aggressive which inflates his Ks and reduces his BBs.

Leake is very questionable in the rotation. A ground ball pitcher cannot give up so many homers. If the Reds can get a closer, they should move Chapman to the rotation and use Leake in a trade or in middle relief.

If Rolen retires and/or Ludwick doesn't sign, the Reds have to figure out third base and left field. Presumably Frazier will start in one position or the other.

CF, adding left handed hitting, adding OBP, improving the bench, getting a closer, making Chapman a starter, firming up LF/3B, these are the key off-season priorities for the team IMO.

corkedbat
10-12-2012, 01:53 AM
Also don't be surprised if the Reds pick up Chris Young and cash from the DBacks to play CF next year. They're looking to dump him and I just get the feeling he's a Jocketty player. "Adequate" hitter, good in CF.

Something under the radar I'd want to happen but won't is to pay a good bit of money to get Toronto miracle worker Dwayne Murphy to be our hitting coach. Won't happen and I don't even know if it'd be possible. But the guy seems like the Dave Duncan of hitting coaches.

If Dusty doesn't return or takes another role besides manager, I'd probably make Bryan Price manager if he wants it to make absolutely certain he sticks around here.

Why the heck would we want Chris Young when he's basically the same player as Stubbs and we would have to give up players to get him? Not to mention he's due $20M (Drew made $587K this season) over the next two years. While the Diamondbacks may want to deal him, they want something solid back for him.

I can't understand why anyone would say we don't need a CFer with OB skills just because Billy Hamilton might be ready in a year or two when he is just now playing his first CF game or two in the AFL and hasn't even had a AAA AB yet. You get a CFer who can get on base and then if Billy lives up to his potential and is ready to push for the job, you have a high OBP veteran CFer to trade. Oh wow, that would be terrible. Why would we ever want that?

Wonderful Monds
10-12-2012, 02:28 AM
Why the heck would we want Chris Young when he's basically the same player as Stubbs and we would have to give up players to get him? Not to mention he's due $20M (Drew made $587K this season) over the next two years. While the Diamondbacks may want to deal him, they want something solid back for him.

I can't understand why anyone would say we don't need a CFer with OB skills just because Billy Hamilton might be ready in a year or two when he is just now playing his first CF game or two in the AFL and hasn't even had a AAA AB yet. You get a CFer who can get on base and then if Billy lives up to his potential and is ready to push for the job, you have a high OBP veteran CFer to trade. Oh wow, that would be terrible. Why would we ever want that?

I didn't say I wanted young. I said I have a feeling the Reds want young.

As for CF, Billy Hamilton is obviously going to get a shot in CF. So why waste resources on getting a long term CF when the team is clearly going to put Billy there by 2014, at the absolute latest? Trading valuable resources that could be used elsewhere for a position we already have a player for? Why would we ever want that?

fearofpopvol1
10-12-2012, 02:41 AM
A 200-hit guy would be nice. I'm with FlightRick on this maybe being a thirdbaseman, with Frazier being your garden-variety power LF.

I agree this would be ideal, but who? I don't think the Reds have the cash for this. Frazier isn't perfect at 3B, but he's at least a pretty decent option to plugin there. A LFer could come from a variety of places/options. Here's one I'd even consider, based on ST next year: Xavier Paul. Maybe you even platoon him with Heisey out there.

I would not get rid of Stubbs for a bag of balls, but would have no problem trading him if he can garner something of value. He can always be a defensive substitution and a pinch runner.

Also don't have a problem with Valdez. He's a whipping boy around here, but it's not his fault. He should have never started as many games as he did this year, but the entire IF was out for periods of time. He should be used for occasional spot starts and/or possibly for defensive substitutions if someone were to go down.

mth123
10-12-2012, 03:29 AM
I think a platoon of Jack Hannahan and Todd Frazier, with Frazier getting some playing time at other positions too, could be effective...

:thumbup:

Wonderful Monds
10-12-2012, 03:31 AM
I agree this would be ideal, but who? I don't think the Reds have the cash for this. Frazier isn't perfect at 3B, but he's at least a pretty decent option to plugin there. A LFer could come from a variety of places/options. Here's one I'd even consider, based on ST next year: Xavier Paul. Maybe you even platoon him with Heisey out there.

I would not get rid of Stubbs for a bag of balls, but would have no problem trading him if he can garner something of value. He can always be a defensive substitution and a pinch runner.

Also don't have a problem with Valdez. He's a whipping boy around here, but it's not his fault. He should have never started as many games as he did this year, but the entire IF was out for periods of time. He should be used for occasional spot starts and/or possibly for defensive substitutions if someone were to go down.

I think a bench with Frazier and Paul as its first 2 options is a strength. But counting on Xavier Pauls to be significant contributors is a mistake too many 00's Reds teams made.

KronoRed
10-12-2012, 03:54 AM
I didn't say I wanted young. I said I have a feeling the Reds want young.

As for CF, Billy Hamilton is obviously going to get a shot in CF. So why waste resources on getting a long term CF when the team is clearly going to put Billy there by 2014, at the absolute latest? Trading valuable resources that could be used elsewhere for a position we already have a player for? Why would we ever want that?

The Reds don't know if they have a player for that spot, there is always a chance that Hamilton will fall flat on his face in AAA, anyway the Reds need a guy for 2013 and it certainly is not Stubbs.

They should kick the tires on Fowler, he doesn't have a long term deal.

Wonderful Monds
10-12-2012, 03:58 AM
The Reds don't know if they have a player for that spot, there is always a chance that Hamilton will fall flat on his face in AAA, anyway the Reds need a guy for 2013 and it certainly is not Stubbs.

They should kick the tires on Fowler, he doesn't have a long term deal.

Ellsbury is my guy if they want an impact CF without the commitment.


I really want Headley for 3B because he seems like a perfect fit for the Reds, and I don't think they would get both. But I'd love either. Fowler too though, though his away splits kind of scare me.

HokieRed
10-12-2012, 09:37 AM
Priority number one, IMO, should be something I don't think Walt will able able to accomplish: extending Bailey. Not to say there aren't many other things to be done. There are, but this stands out as number 1 for the strength of the team over the next several years. Priority number two is getting Chapman into the rotation. Bailey, Chapman, Cueto, and Latos as a group can keep this club at or close to the top irrespective of a lot of the other personnel.

corkedbat
10-12-2012, 11:46 AM
Priority number one, IMO, should be something I don't think Walt will able able to accomplish: extending Bailey. Not to say there aren't many other things to be done. There are, but this stands out as number 1 for the strength of the team over the next several years. Priority number two is getting Chapman into the rotation. Bailey, Chapman, Cueto, and Latos as a group can keep this club at or close to the top irrespective of a lot of the other personnel.

I think they will keep Chapman as the closer. Too dominant there and too many uncertanties if you try to make him a starter. I believe Walt adds a top 3 starter over the offseason. I believe there's a good chance it's Garza if he's healthy.

medford
10-12-2012, 12:24 PM
OMG it's always drama. Relax, we don't need another "get out the ruler" debates.

The Reds season just ended, I honestly care more about that then getting into whether I am perceived as having acted appropriately in this thread.

If you don't care, then why entere a thread entitled "offseason priorities". It should have been obvious what it was about, if its not your cup of tee, finding or starting another thread to spread your thoughts would have been more productive than tearing down people who are looking forward.

Reds/Flyers Fan
10-12-2012, 12:41 PM
The Reds don't know if they have a player for that spot, there is always a chance that Hamilton will fall flat on his face in AAA, anyway the Reds need a guy for 2013 and it certainly is not Stubbs.

They should kick the tires on Fowler, he doesn't have a long term deal.

Rockies are beyond desperate for starting pitching. Maybe a deal that includes Mike Leake wouldn't get hung up on immediately.

And I have a feeling the lines of communication for the Reds and Rays are open. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a deal is made that we'll hear was first discussed last offseason or during July.

Patrick Bateman
10-12-2012, 01:07 PM
If you don't care, then why entere a thread entitled "offseason priorities". It should have been obvious what it was about, if its not your cup of tee, finding or starting another thread to spread your thoughts would have been more productive than tearing down people who are looking forward.

Because I was pissed off during the late innings of the Reds game while this thread had started to become active.

I stopped shortly thereafter, but thanks for dredging this up after it was already a sunk issue.

I am sorry to have failed you!

Red Rover
10-12-2012, 05:39 PM
Teach Mike Leake to play CF & Teach Drew Stubbs to throw a changeup. :laugh:

Nathan
10-12-2012, 08:34 PM
Rockies are beyond desperate for starting pitching. Maybe a deal that includes Mike Leake wouldn't get hung up on immediately.

And I have a feeling the lines of communication for the Reds and Rays are open. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a deal is made that we'll hear was first discussed last offseason or during July.

And Mike Leake would solve the Rockies acute pitching problems? HAHA! Leake in Coors would be a very, very, very bad problem.

AtomicDumpling
10-12-2012, 08:41 PM
And Mike Leake would solve the Rockies acute pitching problems? HAHA! Leake in Coors would be a very, very, very bad problem.

The Rockies pitching staff is likely going to be a very, very, very bad problem in Coors Field forever no matter who they have taking the bump.

AmarilloRed
10-12-2012, 11:04 PM
I didn't say I wanted young. I said I have a feeling the Reds want young.

As for CF, Billy Hamilton is obviously going to get a shot in CF. So why waste resources on getting a long term CF when the team is clearly going to put Billy there by 2014, at the absolute latest? Trading valuable resources that could be used elsewhere for a position we already have a player for? Why would we ever want that?

Get a shot is not the same as mark that position filled. We don't know a middle infielder like Billy can play CF; we're hoping he can.

Reds/Flyers Fan
10-13-2012, 10:59 AM
And Mike Leake would solve the Rockies acute pitching problems? HAHA! Leake in Coors would be a very, very, very bad problem.

Look at their hapless rotation. Mike Leake wouldn't be a No. 5 there. Also, there's precedent for Reds starter castoffs to go to the NL West and pitch better.

Plus, he might hit about .330 in Coors with six or seven bombs.

gilpdawg
10-13-2012, 02:20 PM
I think a bench with Frazier and Paul as its first 2 options is a strength. But counting on Xavier Pauls to be significant contributors is a mistake too many 00's Reds teams made.

You mean Jon Nunnelly wasn't the answer?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

gilpdawg
10-13-2012, 02:25 PM
Also don't be surprised if the Reds pick up Chris Young and cash from the DBacks to play CF next year. They're looking to dump him and I just get the feeling he's a Jocketty player. "Adequate" hitter, good in CF.

Something under the radar I'd want to happen but won't is to pay a good bit of money to get Toronto miracle worker Dwayne Murphy to be our hitting coach. Won't happen and I don't even know if it'd be possible. But the guy seems like the Dave Duncan of hitting coaches.

If Dusty doesn't return or takes another role besides manager, I'd probably make Bryan Price manager if he wants it to make absolutely certain he sticks around here.

If we get Murphy can we get the "white shirt guy" too?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

corkedbat
10-13-2012, 02:49 PM
If we get Murphy can we get the "white shirt guy" too?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

For those that want to settle for a stopgap type in CF, what about making an offer to Nate McClouth?

Griffey012
10-13-2012, 03:48 PM
Denard. Span. Please. When Hamilton comes up, we've got the top two lineup spots covered in front of Votto and the rest. Span solves the CF problem until Hamilton is ready, and can cover left when Hamilton takes over every day in center (which I don't expect to be next year).

Completely agree with this and I expect it too happen. I believe we were close on a deal at the deadline and it just didn't happen.

CySeymour
10-13-2012, 03:50 PM
For those that want to settle for a stopgap type in CF, what about making an offer to Nate McClouth?

No, no, for the love of baseball no!

Reds/Flyers Fan
10-13-2012, 06:38 PM
What about revisiting Shin Soo Choo?

What would the Tribe want?

dsmith421
10-13-2012, 09:00 PM
Choo would be unbelievable, but I'd take DeJesus without thinking twice.

757690
10-13-2012, 10:18 PM
For those that want to settle for a stopgap type in CF, what about making an offer to Nate McClouth?

He could be a cheap platoon option for Stubbs. I think combined they could make a league average CF for next season.

Brutus
10-14-2012, 12:18 AM
I think this merits posting again as there seems to be a lot of irrational thought RE: Mike Leake. So here goes:


This hating on Leake has gotten almost absurd. Think about this in context of his being a fifth starter. He has a career 4 FIP, essentially. This year his ERA+ was 93.

Now here is the worst starter's ERA+ for each of the other 15 NL teams:

ARI: 92
ATL: 92
CHI: 62
COL: 76
HOU: 76
LAD: 76
MIA: 88
MIL: 72
NYM: 79
PHI: 87
PIT: 74
SDP: 77
SFG: 67
STL: 97
WSH: 98

So there are literally 10-13 other teams in the National League that would love nothing more than to have Mike Leake on their team as he would improve all but two rotations in the league.

If Mike Leake is the guy that people are complaining about, Reds fans have gotten spoiled and too quickly forgotten who the Reds' 'ace' was during the previous 10 years. Leake would have been the Reds' best pitcher in some of those years, or very close to it. He's essentially a league average pitcher pitching as the fifth starter and that's not good enough? Yikes.

And for good measure, I expanded that stat to the AL where we find:

68, 77, 68, 61, 92, 71, 73, 55, 80, 103, 84, 95, 89, 74

So Leake was better than 25 of the other 29 fifth starters in the league this year, and some by a great deal. And the thing is, his peripherals were better than his actual ERA, which this is based on, so one should expect at least marginal improvement next season (his HR/FB rate will almost assuredly improve).

But a guy who is league average at the fifth spot, who can also field his position, hit and run the bases isn't good enough? I really can't fathom what it is exactly people expect.

If the Reds want to move Chapman to the rotation and trade Bailey or Leake, I'm OK with that. In fact, that's been my preference. But I don't *want* to trade either guy. If either is traded, I actually want to trade Bailey because I think he has a higher trade value at the moment and I don't think he's that much better than Leake (unless he replicates the last few games going forward, but I am skeptical of that).

Either way, if Mike Leake is the worst thing people have to worry about in the rotation, then I surmise it's not prudent to want to make changes to the rotation unless it's because Chapman is getting moved there.

Tom Servo
10-14-2012, 12:22 AM
If Walt was able to flip Leake in a deal for a legitimate OF upgrade he would be my hero.

Caveat Emperor
10-14-2012, 02:01 AM
But a guy who is league average at the fifth spot, who can also field his position, hit and run the bases isn't good enough? I really can't fathom what it is exactly people expect.

A better pitcher.

He's one arm injury away from being the #4 starter, where I'm sure his numbers compare less favorably.

You can never have too much starting pitching. Never settle for mediocrity anywhere in the rotation when you can have better.

Brutus
10-14-2012, 02:13 AM
A better pitcher.

He's one arm injury away from being the #4 starter, where I'm sure his numbers compare less favorably.

You can never have too much starting pitching. Never settle for mediocrity anywhere in the rotation when you can have better.

His park-adjusted ERA is just a hair under league average, which includes all starters. So being a 4th starter is still pretty suitable to his talents.

The Reds don't need another starting pitcher. They had the best ERA in baseball this year. You're trying to insinuate there's a problem where none exists. That's not "settling" but rather recognition of a club strength. Naturally any team that has to use its 5th starter in the playoffs might have a drop-off. But clubs shouldn't invest extra resources into a 5th starter they don't have on that premise alone.

In this case, it just so happens the Reds do have a natural upgrade (Chapman) if they elect to pursue it. And I hope they do because Chapman could be a game-changer. That said, if they elect to keep Chapman in the pen, there's no reason to invest resources through trade or free agency to a position where there are no actual weaknesses. And no, I do not consider a league-average pitcher as a 5th starter to be a weakness.

Superdude
10-14-2012, 03:24 AM
A better pitcher.

He's one arm injury away from being the #4 starter, where I'm sure his numbers compare less favorably.

You can never have too much starting pitching. Never settle for mediocrity anywhere in the rotation when you can have better.

I don't think we have the luxury as a mid market team to sign another pitcher and stash away Mike Leake as insurance. We have one of the best staffs in baseball. Just be glad Luke Hudson isn't being rushed out there every five days.

Vottomatic
10-14-2012, 10:03 AM
More thoughts, and some the same:

This all assumes Dusty is back as manager.

1. Do they replace the hitting coach?

2. Do they sell high on some guys who had good seasons, such as Bailey? Chapman? 2 guys who often have arm fatigue but survived this season intact.

3. How long will it take Hamilton to get to the major leagues or will he? Will he succeed or flop at the major league level?

4. Short term fix or long term fix in CF? And how do you acquire someone? What are the options?

5. Are you okay with Frazier at 3B? Or do you want an upgrade?

6. Are you okay with Ludwick in LF? Or do you want an upgrade?

7. Chapman, rotation or Closer? Cingrani......is he a starter option or bullpen option?

Lots of questions. I hope they don't stand pat this offseason. Already have a postseason team. Let's improve it to make it a leading contender.

My answers:
1. Yes. Replace Jacoby. It certainly can't hurt after watching this team struggle in the postseason.
2. I could see Walt trying to upgrade the starting rotation, even with how good it was. I was really impressed with Bailey the last month or so. And he stayed healthy all season, but will he in the future? He has been fragile in the past. Sell high on him now? He's up for a contract soon. Can they afford him? I'm 50/50 on trading him. They could consider Chapman for the rotation. And Hoover spent more than 50% of his time in the Braves minors as a starter, while never having an e.r.a. over 3.50. And Cingrani and Corcino are on the cusp. And Chapman has the often arm fatigue thingie. Trade him before he become damaged goods? Hmmmm.

3. I'm really excited about Billy Hamilton, but I'm afraid I'm expecting too much of him as a major leaguer.

4. I guess they have to do a short term fix in CF/leadoff if they believe Hamilton is going to deliver in the future. Cheap trade for Dejesus might work. Or a trade for Soo if you think Bruce can handle CF, which most people don't.

5. Frazier's late season slump concerns me. Has the scouting report finally caught up to him or just late season fatigue/slump? I might consider upgrading 3B if the right offer came along. With the usual injuries during the season, it's not like Frazier wouldn't still get to play alot at some position if he remained a utility/backup type player.

6. I'd like them to pursue a better option than Ludwick for awhile and if it doesn't happen, try and re-sign him. I'm concerned about getting Votto more pitches to hit and he needs someone better than Ludwick hitting behind him.

7. I see alot of options and directions they could go with the starting rotation. But only to improve it. Bailey coming due for a big contract. Latos due down the road. Can they afford all these guys? Sell high on Bailey? Sell high on Chapman? Hoover, Cingrani, Corcino in the wings? My answer. I'd be patient and stand pat unless a true upgrade fell into their laps via trade offer. Another season should only see improvement from Bailey, Chapman, etc. And if someone in the rotation goes down for awhile next season, you get to audition potential replacements then. And Cingrani and Corcino will certainly be in triple A next year showing you what they got. Alot of answers should start to come forth in 2013. Hopefully guys continue to stay healthy.

PuffyPig
10-14-2012, 10:08 AM
A better pitcher.

He's one arm injury away from being the #4 starter, where I'm sure his numbers compare less favorably.



Presumably you could say the same thing about every team.

The fact of the matter is, he's quite a bit better than most teams #5 starter, and likely has much higher updide than the majority of them too..

Vottomatic
10-14-2012, 10:21 AM
By batting average, best CFers in mlb in 2012:

1. McCutchen - Pitt - .327 - 31 HR's, 96 rbi, 20 SB's, .400 OBP
2. Trout - LAA - .326 - 30 HR's, 83 rbi, 49 SB's, .399 OBP
3. Hunter - LAA - .313 - 16 HR, 92 rbi, 9 SB's, .365 OBP
4. Jay - STL - .305 - 4 HR, 40 rbi, 19 SB, .373 OBP
5. Rios - CWS - .304 - 25 HR, 91 rbi, 23 SB, .334 OBP
6. Jackson - DET - .300 - 16 HR, 66 rbi, 12 SB, .377 OBP
7. Fowler - COL - .300 - 13 HR, 53 rbi, 12 SB, .389 OBP
8. Cespedes - OAK - .292 - 23 HR, 82 rbi, 16 SB, .356 OBP
9. Brantley - CLE - .288 - 6 HR, 60 rbi, 12 SB, .348 OBP
10. Pagan - SFG - .288 - 8 HR, 56 rbi, 29 SB, .338
12. Span - MIN - .283 - 4 HR, 41 rbi, 17 SB, .342
14. Bourn - ATL - .274 - 9 HR, 57 rbi, 42 SB, .348
20. Stubbs - CIN - .277 OBP

I'd rather have Fowler than Span.

http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable.jsp?c_id=mlb&tcid=mm_mlb_stats#statType=hitting&elem=%5Bobject+Object%5D&tab_level=child&click_text=Sortable+Player+hitting&sectionType=sp&page=1&ts=1350220225867&game_type='R'&timeframe=&position='8'

Marc D
10-14-2012, 12:37 PM
I have no idea of how he plays CF but what are people's thoughts on trading for Parra from Arizona? He's young, supposedly available, plays a great LF and has the top of the order OBP chops we need.

Any merit to the idea?

mth123
10-14-2012, 01:06 PM
I have no idea of how he plays CF but what are people's thoughts on trading for Parra from Arizona? He's young, supposedly available, plays a great LF and has the top of the order OBP chops we need.

Any merit to the idea?

He's one of my top targets. The D-Backs are supposedly interested in Gregorious as a SS of the future candidate. Maybe something like Did and Arredondo for Parra could work. Arredodno would give them an arm for the middle of the pen and would balance the money a bit. I'd prefer not to deal Didi, but I think he's the team's top trade possibility. Parra would add a lefty bat who can contribute against RHP and could platoon with Stubbs or Heisey with the other dealt away.

kbrake
10-14-2012, 01:15 PM
I have not read this entire thread so I apologize if this has already been discussed but how soon could Billy Hamilton be prepared to take over as the full time CF? Could he be the guy by the All Star break? I think the easiest way and probably quickest way to help this offense is find guys capable of getting on base in front of Votto. And if Hamilton can be that guy sooner rather than later we can use resources like Gregorious to help fill other areas of weakness.

Vottomatic
10-14-2012, 01:25 PM
I think we need to upgrade ahead of Votto and right behind him. Not sure the latter is possible though financially.

That's why I'd throw the farm at Miami for Stanton. Cheap and scary enough to warrant giving Votto pitches to hit.

mth123
10-14-2012, 01:25 PM
I have not read this entire thread so I apologize if this has already been discussed but how soon could Billy Hamilton be prepared to take over as the full time CF? Could he be the guy by the All Star break? I think the easiest way and probably quickest way to help this offense is find guys capable of getting on base in front of Votto. And if Hamilton can be that guy sooner rather than later we can use resources like Gregorious to help fill other areas of weakness.

I think that is one of the key questions of the off-season and performance in the AFL may dictate which way the Reds go. I'd love to see Hamilton on opening day with one of Heisey or Stubbs as a fall back and the other shipped off for something else. If that was possible, I'd keep Didi. After CF, SS and 3B look like the 2 biggest questions to me. A Lefty hitting IF who can handle SS and provide an alternative to Frazier and especially Cozart would be very valuable. IMO, SS would be more productive on offense and defense with a tandem of Didi and Cozart than it would with either player by himself. It would also be an option (not a great one) if Frazier's late season troubles carry over into 2013.

If Hamilton looks like he's farther away than June, I think the team needs to make a move of some type. The Stubbs/Heisey combo needs to be upgraded. IMO, that involves a LH bat who can play CF added to the mix with one of those players moved out to make room

corkedbat
10-14-2012, 01:26 PM
1. Do they replace the hitting coach?

I would.

2. Do they sell high on some guys who had good seasons, such as Bailey? Chapman? 2 guys who often have arm fatigue but survived this season intact.

The old adage that everybody has their price holds true. Thing is though, if I were AD, the other team wouldn't meet my price on certain guys. I'd ship Joey Votto to the Dodgers in a heartbeat if they'd snd Clayton Kershaw, Matt Kemp, either Scott Van SLyke or Josh Fields and cash in return. Wouldn't be holding my breath for a "Yes." I think Homer just got the ol' "dead arm" that is a natural result of pitching more innings in the past. It hit Cueto also. Homer certainly bounced back in fine fashion. I'd try to sign him to a fair extension this offseason. If you're gonna try to upgrade on Mike Leake and you're gonna trade Homer, then you're gonna have to come up with two quality starter. I believe Aroldis also suffered a little dead arm from an increased workload - (getting used to the number of appearances as much as the increased innings, IMO). Again, I would consider a deal for Aroldis, but an all-star caliber 3B, LF or TOR Starter would be heading back my way in the deal if I did.

3. How long will it take Hamilton to get to the major leagues or will he? Will he succeed or flop at the major league level?

Between the tradedeadline 2013 and the tradedeadline 2014. I don't think he'll flop. I think there is a good chance he becomes a very special player and the best true leadoff hitter the Reds have had in a very long time, but it's certinaly not a leadpipe cinch.

4. Short term fix or long term fix in CF? And how do you acquire someone? What are the options?

BPA with the best OBP (plus solid D). This club needs a CF who can get on base and play adequate D. I love Billy's potential, but he shouldn't factor into the equation for CF in 2013 in the least. Go get a CF like Fowler or Span and imporve the club now. It keeps you from having to rush Billy also. Then, if Billy forces his way out of L'Ville then you can trade Fowler or Span easily or maybe if you get one of them, you revisit the move of Billy off SS and deal Cozart and/or Didi. No such thing as having too much solid talent. I would try to deal for Span or Fowler or possibly sign Bourn (not a favorite). I wouldn't look for a short-term answer if a better option is available, but if they go short-term, Shane Victorino or Nate McClouth might be possible. If they want to go with someone who is not necessarily a natural CF (of if you want tomove Bruce to CF) Juston Upton, David DeJesus or Shin-Soo-Choo might be targets.

5. Are you okay with Frazier at 3B? Or do you want an upgrade?

I'm very OK with Frazier at third base or LF (if you acquire a solid 3B). You need to address one of the two spots anyway. I wouldn't mind a bit if they could find someone as an insurance policy for Todd that can switch-hit or hits lefty.

6. Are you okay with Ludwick in LF? Or do you want an upgrade?

I'd be fine with him back at the right price. If he doesn't return, I think Walt needs to expend every effot to land a top bat at either LF or 3B. If Ryan does return, then I would still like to have a LH bat with power who can play 3B and LF (if possible) to mix with he and Frazier.

7. Chapman, rotation or Closer? Cingrani......is he a starter option or bullpen option?

Chapman? Closer - too many variables. Stretching him out. How does starting affect his velocity? Effectiveness? Control? We already address that he had a fatigue issue in relief this year. At what point would he need to be Strassburg'd? I think you weaken two spots by trying to start him now (at least in the short-term). Cingrani? I'm fine either way. Wouldn't mind him starting in L'Ville at all, but I was also impressed with his work from the Reds pen late in the year. Having he, Marshall and Chapman in the pen from the left side would be sick. Come spring training 2014 though, he's a starter and vying for the spot vacated by Arroyo with Corcino.

I'll even add a number 8.

8. Does Walt try to upgrade the rotation this offseason?

Yes. I believe he had every intention of aqcuiring a solid starter at the deadline this year and that that intention will carry over to the offseason. I look for him to make a run at someone like Garza, Shields, Masterson, etc. over the offseason and I don't even discount a surprise stab at a free agent (not that I think it will be successful). I also believe Leake will be dealt.

mth123
10-14-2012, 02:02 PM
A specific off-season plan might look like this.

1. Scott Rolen back on a deal as a bench player.
2. Ryan Madsen's option declined. I'd consider him only on a minor league deal with a $1 Million guarantee and incentives for days on the Major league roster and appearances. He could probably do better.
3 Todd Redmond, Miguel Cairo, Wilson Valdez and Kris Negron DFA'd.
4. Jonathon Broxton and Ryan Ludwick re-signed.
5. Drew Stubbs and Logan Ondrusek to the Nationals for John Lannan.
6. Mike Leake and Bill Bray to the Twins for Glen Perkins.
7. Kyle Lotzkar and Jose Arredondo to the Cubs for David Dejesus.
8. Aroldis Chapman to the rotation with a short leash.

Vs RHP/Vs LHP
David Dejesus/Chris Heisey CF
Brandon Phillips 2B
Joey Votto 1B
Ryan Ludwick LF
Jay Bruce RF
Todd Frazier 3B
Zach Cozart SS
Ryan Hanigan/Devin Mesoraco C (Not a straight platoon).

Xavier Paul OF/LHPH
Didi Gregorious MI/LHPH
Scott Rolen CI/RHPH

Mat Latos
Johnny Cueto
Bronson Arroyo
Homer Bailey
Aroldis Chapman

John Lannan 6th Starter
Nick Masset/Alfredo Simon Mop-up reliever
Sam Lecure RHMR
Glen Perkins LHMR
JJ Hoover RHSU
Sean Marshall LHSU
Jonathon Broxton Closer

Pedro Villareal, Tony Cingrani, Dan Corcino and a couple of minor league free agents as pitching depth.

I'm a skeptic with Chapman, but if the Reds can secure the pen with Broxton and a good LH acqusition like Perkins (or somebody else) and keep a sixth starter on hand that would be an OK number 5 (like Leake or as in this example, Lannan) a move to the rotation would be a good experiment since they could switch things around with Chapman to the pen and all the roles still adequately filled. I wouldn't make the move unless the Reds had a decent starter in reserve and could acquire another late inning caliber lefty for the pen.

corkedbat
10-14-2012, 02:16 PM
At catcher, I would bring back Navarro or sign someone similar as a backup to Hanigan. Unless there is an injury to Hanny or the backup, Davin Mesaraco would spend the first two months (at the very least) at L'Ville to get his hitting legs under him. No way do I bring him back up to watch from the bench as Hanny catches four or five games a week. Not saying (by any means) that I think Mes should be starting over Hanigan. Just saying I don't want to see Mes gathering dust behind him if he can be getting regular AB's in Louisville.

Kc61
10-14-2012, 05:25 PM
A couple of additional thoughts on off-season priorities.

1. A veteran starter. Reds have a very young starting staff. If you look at the Reds' post season pitching performances, almost all were terrific. Arredondo, not. But mostly, it was 24 year old Mike Leake and 24 year old Mat Latos who struggled in key starts.

One way potentially to help the post-season is to add a starting pitcher with experience to replace, say Leake, who could be moved.

2. Contact. As I said in an earlier post, Tom Verducci wrote a good piece in SI saying that teams with contact hitters do better in the playoffs these days. He points to a severe trend toward bat missing and strikeouts in the major leagues. Hitting for contact is not a particular Reds' strength.

Another way potentially to help the Reds go deeper in the playoffs is to add a few guys who make contact. Guys like Stubbs and Heisey could be replaced by high contact hitters. Cairo and Valdez would also be obvious candidates to be replaced by high contact bench players.

Tadasimha
10-14-2012, 06:10 PM
A couple of additional thoughts on off-season priorities.

1. A veteran starter. Reds have a very young starting staff. If you look at the Reds' post season pitching performances, almost all were terrific. Arredondo, not. But mostly, it was 24 year old Mike Leake and 24 year old Mat Latos who struggled in key starts.

One way potentially to help the post-season is to add a starting pitcher with experience to replace, say Leake, who could be moved.



They have a veteran starter in Arroyo for at least one more season - after that, all four of the young starters will have had several seasons as starters (and more post-season experience as well): this staff will have evolved into a veteran staff. Arroyo probably being gone after 2013 means I think you see Mike Leake still on the team as he becomes the "change of pace" guy in between the hard throwers. This presumes he gets back to being the double digit winner he was in 2011.

Of course they could still make a move for another starter but I really think the GM is going to be looking to improve the offense before the rotation.

Chapman should stay as the closer - he's dominant out of the pen and it would be a wasted season for him to stretch out as a starter, plus we've already seen what happens when the velocity goes down, which was after stopper innings and pitch numbers. Imagine what happens two-thirds of the way through the season when he's over 100 innings - wouldn't be pretty.

Marc D
10-14-2012, 06:35 PM
A couple of additional thoughts on off-season priorities.

1. A veteran starter. Reds have a very young starting staff. If you look at the Reds' post season pitching performances, almost all were terrific. Arredondo, not. But mostly, it was 24 year old Mike Leake and 24 year old Mat Latos who struggled in key starts.

One way potentially to help the post-season is to add a starting pitcher with experience to replace, say Leake, who could be moved.

2. Contact. As I said in an earlier post, Tom Verducci wrote a good piece in SI saying that teams with contact hitters do better in the playoffs these days. He points to a severe trend toward bat missing and strikeouts in the major leagues. Hitting for contact is not a particular Reds' strength.

Another way potentially to help the Reds go deeper in the playoffs is to add a few guys who make contact. Guys like Stubbs and Heisey could be replaced by high contact hitters. Cairo and Valdez would also be obvious candidates to be replaced by high contact bench players.

Our old friend Jeff Keppinger as a FA replacement for Cairo would bolster the bench and give you a high contact guy. Not sure what he would command money wise or if he's actually a multiple position guy anymore.

Kc61
10-14-2012, 06:48 PM
They have a veteran starter in Arroyo for at least one more season - after that, all four of the young starters will have had several seasons as starters (and more post-season experience as well): this staff will have evolved into a veteran staff. Arroyo probably being gone after 2013 means I think you see Mike Leake still on the team as he becomes the "change of pace" guy in between the hard throwers. This presumes he gets back to being the double digit winner he was in 2011.

Of course they could still make a move for another starter but I really think the GM is going to be looking to improve the offense before the rotation.

Chapman should stay as the closer - he's dominant out of the pen and it would be a wasted season for him to stretch out as a starter, plus we've already seen what happens when the velocity goes down, which was after stopper innings and pitch numbers. Imagine what happens two-thirds of the way through the season when he's over 100 innings - wouldn't be pretty.

Guys only "evolve" into a veteran staff one year at a time. By my count, the 24 year old starters on the Reds will still only be 25 next year.

Down the stretch and in the playoffs, it's good to have some experience on the roster. Good players who have been there before sometimes have an advantage.

The Cardinals win a lot in the post-season. They tend to have veteran starting pitchers, mostly. I think it helps them. I don't see a lot of 24 year old starters in the playoffs for some of the other top teams.

I am aware that Arroyo is a veteran. A good mixture on a starting staff would include another solid veteran starter. A veteran starter might have been a good alternative for Game four of the NLDS.

And, yes, I think it's quite apparent that offense will be a priority this off-season. But that doesn't preclude one change in the rotation.

The Keppinger suggestion by Marc D is a good one although he is another righty hitter who feasts on lefties. The bench is another place for some veterans, although they have to hit more than Valdez and Cairo did this year.

alloverjr
10-14-2012, 06:59 PM
Interesting thoughts and agree with many. However, no way do I entrust the 9th inning in 2013 to Broxton. Very good pick up this year by Walt and assuming no health issues would like to have him back for the 7th or 8th innings. If Chapman's not the closer I think that creates a significant void. But I like Chapman in the rotation though.

mth123
10-14-2012, 07:14 PM
Our old friend Jeff Keppinger as a FA replacement for Cairo would bolster the bench and give you a high contact guy. Not sure what he would command money wise or if he's actually a multiple position guy anymore.

I might consider him if Rolen retires. With his ability to play 2B and 3B and Frazier's ability to play all 4 corner spots, he could get a lot of action backing up Phillips and Frazer and also Votto, Ludwick and Bruce with Frazier moving around. As long as he's not in the mix at SS and isn't penciled in as an every day player, he's a decent bench guy, but if Rolen comes back, he doesn't fit IMO.

Caveat Emperor
10-14-2012, 08:28 PM
Contact. As I said in an earlier post, Tom Verducci wrote a good piece in SI saying that teams with contact hitters do better in the playoffs these days. He points to a severe trend toward bat missing and strikeouts in the major leagues. Hitting for contact is not a particular Reds' strength.


I agree with this. The Reds were seemingly incapable of getting a base hit when they needed one in the post-season during their swoon.

High-OB skills are incredibly important, but the Reds definitely need a few BA-driven OB guys in the lineup.

Wonderful Monds
10-14-2012, 09:53 PM
I agree with this. The Reds were seemingly incapable of getting a base hit when they needed one in the post-season during their swoon.

High-OB skills are incredibly important, but the Reds definitely need a few BA-driven OB guys in the lineup.

Yep. The reported demise of the batting average may have been premature.

HokieRed
10-14-2012, 10:30 PM
I like the idea of another veteran starter. My biggest complaint about the way Dusty set up the pitching staff for the series is that Arroyo was not on the mound for game 5, short rest or no. Nevertheless for next year's playoff I'd hope to go Bailey, Chapman, Cueto, and Latos (the order I see them being next year)--so I don't really know where we'd use that more experienced starter. Mike Leake's a competent number 5, but I wouldn't let that fact get in the way of the Chapman to starter experiment for a moment. If Chapman can start, then the org's judgment about Leake is going to turn on whether he's sufficiently better than what can be picked up in the market or what we've got in the pipeline to keep around. Personally I think he will either be traded or likely start opening day for Louisville next year. I don't see him cracking a rotation of Bailey, Chapman, Cueto, Latos, Arroyo, and it might make best sense to keep Redmond or turn to Villareal as your back up guy if Leake can bring something of value in trade.

VR
10-15-2012, 01:01 AM
Replacing the chaff that was Cairo and Valdez is an immediate upgrade that will solidify the regular season run for a playoff spot....but a huge bat or huge arm is needed to get the team over the top in a short series.

AtomicDumpling
10-15-2012, 04:28 AM
I agree with this. The Reds were seemingly incapable of getting a base hit when they needed one in the post-season during their swoon.

High-OB skills are incredibly important, but the Reds definitely need a few BA-driven OB guys in the lineup.


Yep. The reported demise of the batting average may have been premature.

Interestingly, the Reds had the highest batting average of any team during the playoffs this year. They scored more runs than any other team in the first round.

The Reds got 15 more hits than the Giants did, and even outhit the Giants in the infamous Game 5.

During the regular season the Reds had a league average batting average (.251) and a better than average slugging percentage (.411). Their OBP (.315) was too low, and only 4 NL teams were worse. The Reds finished 9th in the NL in runs scored.

Batting average does not correlate very well with scoring, certainly nowhere near as well as OBP and SLG do.

The Reds' problem offensively this year was OBP. It didn't help that the lowest OBP hitters spent most of their time at the top of the lineup. If they had batted lower in the lineup it would have led to a better team OBP and more runs scored over the course of the season. If not for Joey Votto the Reds' OBP would have been atrocious, maybe even the worst in the league. Votto's .474 OBP this year was the best in the majors since Barry Bonds' string of steroid-fueled seasons.

Kc61
10-15-2012, 09:38 AM
Interestingly, the Reds had the highest batting average of any team during the playoffs this year. They scored more runs than any other team in the first round.

The Reds got 15 more hits than the Giants did, and even outhit the Giants in the infamous Game 5.

During the regular season the Reds had a league average batting average (.251) and a better than average slugging percentage (.411). Their OBP (.315) was too low, and only 4 NL teams were worse. The Reds finished 9th in the NL in runs scored.

Batting average does not correlate very well with scoring, certainly nowhere near as well as OBP and SLG do.

The Reds' problem offensively this year was OBP. It didn't help that the lowest OBP hitters spent most of their time at the top of the lineup. If they had batted lower in the lineup it would have led to a better team OBP and more runs scored over the course of the season. If not for Joey Votto the Reds' OBP would have been atrocious, maybe even the worst in the league. Votto's .474 OBP this year was the best in the majors since Barry Bonds' string of steroid-fueled seasons.

According to ESPN, the Reds were below average in BOTH BA and OBP. BA was .251 and league average was .254. There is no reason to distinguish so heavily between the two. The Reds are deficient in both categories.

And while Votto's OBP dramatically improved the team's OBP, his BA did the same. He hit .337. The only other regular above .280 was Phillips, at .281.

The Reds are a team that hits for power but not for average, not for OBP. And I agree with you that in MANY areas, Votto's outstanding numbers improve the team's overall average. Just as Chapman's numbers dramatically improved the bullpen stats. So we have to look deeper sometimes than just overall team average.

As for the playoffs, the Reds did score a lot of runs in the first two games, but only got 8 in the last three, and of course gave up a bunch in games four and five. The failures in those last three games include hitting, pitching, and defense.

For the Reds offense to be top notch they need more lefty/righty balance, more contact, more OBP. They can live with slightly less power to make the trade off. I've felt this way all year.

LegallyMinded
10-15-2012, 10:44 AM
4. Short term fix or long term fix in CF? And how do you acquire someone? What are the options?

BPA with the best OBP (plus solid D). This club needs a CF who can get on base and play adequate D. I love Billy's potential, but he shouldn't factor into the equation for CF in 2013 in the least. Go get a CF like Fowler or Span and imporve the club now. It keeps you from having to rush Billy also. Then, if Billy forces his way out of L'Ville then you can trade Fowler or Span easily or maybe if you get one of them, you revisit the move of Billy off SS and deal Cozart and/or Didi. No such thing as having too much solid talent. I would try to deal for Span or Fowler or possibly sign Bourn (not a favorite). I wouldn't look for a short-term answer if a better option is available, but if they go short-term, Shane Victorino or Nate McClouth might be possible. If they want to go with someone who is not necessarily a natural CF (of if you want tomove Bruce to CF) Juston Upton, David DeJesus or Shin-Soo-Choo might be targets.




Chris Young might also be an option. He had a disappointing 2012, largely due to injuries, but his 2010 and 2011 were pretty solid: a .335ish OBP with good defense and decent power. He would certainly be an upgrade over Stubbs, at any rate, considering in 2012 alone, he produced more than twice as many WAR in about 2/3 of the at bats.

Also, Arizona is willing to pay a chunk of his salary to facilitate a trade, and he has a team option for 2014, so if Hamilton looks ready for CF at that point, the Reds can buy out Young and easily make the transition to Hamilton.

mdccclxix
10-15-2012, 12:20 PM
I'm hoping Billy Hamilton can make a push for CF out of spring training. I know people will tell me he's not ready, but he hasn't proven that he's not ready yet. Keep Heisey to platoon with Billy.

Stubbs, Leake, Mesoraco and Ondrusek form the core of players available to bring back a very valuable player.

With the new TV money on the horizon, I think the FA market could heat up. It will be interesting to see if teams start to undervalue/overlook cost controlled players again, which would hurt the Reds chances of getting good value on the above players.

jhu1321
10-15-2012, 01:21 PM
Fill that gaping whole we've had in CF for 5+ years with Span, find an impact bench player, hope Ludwick agrees with the mutual option, extend Bailey, re-sign Broxton, keep Chapman as the closer and roll into spring locked and loaded.

Span
DatDude
Votto
Bruce (if Dusty isn't back cause another manager would't split those lefties)
Ludwick
Frazier
Cozart
Hanny / Mezo

Cueto
Arroyo
Latos
Bailey
Leake

Bench options: XP, Heisey, Hrod, the new bench guy...

Bullpen: Masset?, Arrendoodoo, Chapman, Marshall, Lecure, Ondrusek, Simon

mdccclxix
10-15-2012, 01:41 PM
If Ludwick doesn't come back, expect Phillips back to cleanup and Cozart leading off (unless they find a new CF). Some undesirable outcomes at hand...

Arb eligible players like Valdez, Bailey, Leake, Heisey, Stubbs and Ondrusek could be on the block in order to keep Ludwick (or acquire a similar player), that valuable starting LF this team needs.

At the same time, a CF with Hamilton would potentially pay dividends in several directions and needs to be a big consideration. Why spend on Span with Billy almost ready, for example.

I remember when Votto was 22-23 years old, many felt he was ready at the plate, including himself, but the defense was the hold up. I say, don't let that keep Hamilton down too long either. If he's not with the club in April, then at least by early June. Please.

In the meantime commit to Heisey and trade Stubbs.

Hamilton
Cozart
Votto
Phillips
Bruce
Frazier
LF/3b acquired
C

That's just one scenario, but I feel like it's the most they can do with the outlook of Ludwick's likely pay raise and our limited knowledge of who they might trade/acquire.

Scrap Irony
10-15-2012, 01:49 PM
1. Leake, Arredondo, Ondrusek, and Bray for Dexter Fowler. Add prospects not named Stephenson, Corcino, Cingrani, or Hamilton as needed. (2012 draftees cannot be dealt.)

2. Cairo and Rolen retire.

3. Sign Nick Swisher to play LF.

4. Chapman to starting rotation, Cingrani to pen, Corcino to AAA as starting depth.

5. Re-sign at least one of Broxton or Madson.

Phillips 2B
Fowler CF
Votto 1B
Swisher LF
Bruce RF
Frazier 3B
Hanigan C
Cozart SS

Rotation
Cueto
Latos
Bailey
Chapman
Arroyo

Bullpen
Madson/ Broxton
Hoover
Marshall
LeCure
Cingrani
Simon

Bench
H. Rodriguez 2B/3B
Gregorius SS/ 2B
Heisey CF/ COF
Mesoraco C
Paul OF

Billy Hamilton isn't going to be ready this season unless something amazing happens. He may not even be ready next season.

AtomicDumpling
10-15-2012, 01:51 PM
According to ESPN, the Reds were below average in BOTH BA and OBP. BA was .251 and league average was .254. There is no reason to distinguish so heavily between the two. The Reds are deficient in both categories.

And while Votto's OBP dramatically improved the team's OBP, his BA did the same. He hit .337. The only other regular above .280 was Phillips, at .281.

The Reds are a team that hits for power but not for average, not for OBP. And I agree with you that in MANY areas, Votto's outstanding numbers improve the team's overall average. Just as Chapman's numbers dramatically improved the bullpen stats. So we have to look deeper sometimes than just overall team average.

As for the playoffs, the Reds did score a lot of runs in the first two games, but only got 8 in the last three, and of course gave up a bunch in games four and five. The failures in those last three games include hitting, pitching, and defense.

For the Reds offense to be top notch they need more lefty/righty balance, more contact, more OBP. They can live with slightly less power to make the trade off. I've felt this way all year.

The Reds were very slightly below league average in BA (9th in the 16-team NL), but well below average in OBP (12th in the NL). Votto had a historically high OBP -- a truly remarkable OBP way, way better than anybody else in the league. His batting average was good too, but not to the extent that his OBP was.

Batting average has been proven to be not much of a factor in run scoring. Talking and worrying about batting average is a waste of time. The Reds need to improve their OBP and their SLG if they want to score more runs. Chasing batting average is just as likely to lead you astray as help you. Batting average has two huge flaws (counts all hits the same, ignores BBs and HBPs) that make it pretty much a worthless statistic, especially when you consider there are vastly superior statistics readily available (wOBA being the best and OPS second best).

The Reds can't afford to trade any of their power to improve contact. That would be a losing proposition. The Reds have a little better than average power (SLG 6th in NL), but their power is not good enough to be a top offense. The Reds need a huge boost in OBP and a big boost in SLG if they want to come close to leading the league in runs scored.

The only reason I even mentioned batting average in the earlier post was because people were saying the playoffs exposed an alleged Reds' batting average problem -- even though the Reds had the highest batting average in the playoffs.

mdccclxix
10-15-2012, 01:52 PM
It's pretty clear the Reds are at the mercy of Ludwick. Payroll will burgeon to 80+ with or without him, it's just a matter of how many deferrals, etc the team has up it's sleeve.

mdccclxix
10-15-2012, 02:02 PM
The Reds were very slightly below league average in BA (9th in the 16-team NL), but well below average in OBP (12th in the NL). Votto had a historically high OBP -- a truly remarkable OBP way, way better than anybody else in the league. His batting average was good too, but not to the extent that his OBP was.

Batting average has been proven to be not much of a factor in run scoring. Talking and worrying about batting average is a waste of time. The Reds need to improve their OBP and their SLG if they want to score more runs. Chasing batting average is just as likely to lead you astray as help you. Batting average has two huge flaws (counts all hits the same, ignores BBs and HBPs) that make it pretty much a worthless statistic, especially when you consider there are vastly superior statistics readily available (wOBA being the best and OPS second best).

The Reds can't afford to trade any of their power to improve contact. That would be a losing proposition. The Reds have a little better than average power (SLG 6th in NL), but their power is not good enough to be a top offense. The Reds need a huge boost in OBP and a big boost in SLG if they want to come close to leading the league in runs scored.

The only reason I even mentioned batting average in the earlier post was because people were saying the playoffs exposed an alleged Reds' batting average problem -- even though the Reds had the highest batting average in the playoffs.

I won't go along with AVG being worthless, but do agree there are some fundamental problems with trading slugging for average, a la Henry R. for Ludwick. That won't help much of anything.

That said, Frazier for Rolen is a good start to improving the offense.

Hamilton for Stubbs could improve a lot if Billy can OBP .340. Stubbs' slugging % is what I feel the Reds have always been chasing after. This would have to be a wash at best if these two were swapped. Heisey, as always could provide insurance. If Ludwick goes, I think they hesitate to trade Stubbs.

REDREAD
10-15-2012, 02:03 PM
Fill that gaping whole we've had in CF for 5+ years with Span,

I think everyone would welcome Span, but the Twins are supposedly asking a king's ransom for him, due to his "friendly contract".. Again, not saying it's a bad idea to get Span (I would like it), but Span is not a guy that I mortgage my future for.. especially with Billy on the horizon.. For example, I would not give up 3 top prospects for Span.. and I think that's what the asking price was at the deadline.

mdccclxix
10-15-2012, 02:05 PM
1. Leake, Arredondo, Ondrusek, and Bray for Dexter Fowler. Add prospects not named Stephenson, Corcino, Cingrani, or Hamilton as needed. (2012 draftees cannot be dealt.)

2. Cairo and Rolen retire.

3. Sign Nick Swisher to play LF.

4. Chapman to starting rotation, Cingrani to pen, Corcino to AAA as starting depth.

5. Re-sign at least one of Broxton or Madson.

Phillips 2B
Fowler CF
Votto 1B
Swisher LF
Bruce RF
Frazier 3B
Hanigan C
Cozart SS

Rotation
Cueto
Latos
Bailey
Chapman
Arroyo

Bullpen
Madson/ Broxton
Hoover
Marshall
LeCure
Cingrani
Simon

Bench
H. Rodriguez 2B/3B
Gregorius SS/ 2B
Heisey CF/ COF
Mesoraco C
Paul OF

Billy Hamilton isn't going to be ready this season unless something amazing happens. He may not even be ready next season.

I'd think Fowler would command more than Leake and 3 relievers, but who knows. I also don't know if they have enough money for a FA slugger. That said, I don't know, which means maybe they come up with some cash to push payroll into the 90-95 range.

PuffyPig
10-15-2012, 02:39 PM
Span
DatDude
Votto
Bruce (if Dusty isn't back cause another manager would't split those lefties)
Ludwick
Frazier
Cozart
Hanny / Mezo



Batting Ludwick bewtwen Votto and Bruce mad alot of sense this year for a number of years.

Firstly, Ludwick was more productive.

Secondly, if the opponents brought in a LOOGY to fave Votto and Bruce, it ensured Ludwick would get to hit vs. a lefty whom he was very good against.

Rojo
10-15-2012, 02:43 PM
Chasing batting average is just as likely to lead you astray as help you.

Agreed, sort of. We shouldn't be looking to necessarily lift team BA. But we should look at adding at least one BA-driven high-OB bat.

There's some alchemy with adding in a Pete Rose (for example) to a lineup of sluggers, walkers and runners. At the end of the season, it might barely push the dial in total Runs Scored but it helps with the close ones.

AtomicDumpling
10-15-2012, 04:05 PM
The Reds were very slightly below league average in BA (9th in the 16-team NL), but well below average in OBP (12th in the NL). Votto had a historically high OBP -- a truly remarkable OBP way, way better than anybody else in the league. His batting average was good too, but not to the extent that his OBP was.

Batting average has been proven to be not much of a factor in run scoring. Talking and worrying about batting average is a waste of time. The Reds need to improve their OBP and their SLG if they want to score more runs. Chasing batting average is just as likely to lead you astray as help you. Batting average has two huge flaws (counts all hits the same, ignores BBs and HBPs) that make it pretty much a worthless statistic, especially when you consider there are vastly superior statistics readily available (wOBA being the best and OPS second best).

The Reds can't afford to trade any of their power to improve contact. That would be a losing proposition. The Reds have a little better than average power (SLG 6th in NL), but their power is not good enough to be a top offense. The Reds need a huge boost in OBP and a big boost in SLG if they want to come close to leading the league in runs scored.

The only reason I even mentioned batting average in the earlier post was because people were saying the playoffs exposed an alleged Reds' batting average problem -- even though the Reds had the highest batting average in the playoffs.

I apologize for quoting my own post but I wanted to add an interesting sidebar to the topic.

Joey Votto's .474 OBP this year was the highest in Cincinnati Reds history! He broke Joe Morgan's record of .466 set in 1975.



Rank Player On-Base% Year
1. Joey Votto .474 2012
2. Joe Morgan .466 1975
3. Bernie Carbo .454 1970
4. Augie Galan .449 1947
5. Joe Morgan .444 1976
6. Rube Bressler .433 1926
7. Kal Daniels .429 1987
7. Kevin Mitchell .429 1994
7. Cy Seymour .429 1905
10. Pete Rose .428 1969


Votto's OBP could have been almost 50 points lower and would still have been in the top 10.

Here are the Reds' career leaders in OBP:

Rank Player On-Base% PA
1. Joe Morgan .415 4973
Joey Votto .415 3064
3. Johnny Bates .401 1628
4. Dummy Hoy .392 2582
5. Frank Robinson .389 6408
6. Mike Smith .382 1568
7. Adam Dunn .380 4562
8. Rube Bressler .379 2543
Pete Rose .379 12344
10. Heinie Groh .378 5162
Cy Seymour .378 2420
Curt Walker .378 3945


Votto's .4155 OBP ranks him 24th in major league history. The only active player with a better OBP than Votto is Todd Helton with his .4189 mark. The all-time leader is Ted Williams at .4817 OBP.

While Votto is tied with Joe Morgan atop the Reds' career OBP ranks at .415, Morgan's total career OBP is only .3921 tied for 95th all-time.

jhu1321
10-15-2012, 04:09 PM
Batting Ludwick bewtwen Votto and Bruce mad alot of sense this year for a number of years.

Firstly, Ludwick was more productive.

Secondly, if the opponents brought in a LOOGY to fave Votto and Bruce, it ensured Ludwick would get to hit vs. a lefty whom he was very good against.

Good points but I think we would probably see a regression in his power numbers next year given his age and the fact that he's hit that many homeruns one other time in his career. Bruce appears to be turning into a more "prototypical" cleanup hitter. Non-the-less the LOOGY argument is compelling. :beerme:

Vottomatic
10-15-2012, 04:34 PM
1. Leake, Ondrusek, Chad "Sharky" Rogers for Dexter Fowler. Rockies need pitching badly. Gives them a young starter and a decent minor league pitcher.

2. Cairo and Rolen retire.

3. Trade Chapman/Corcino to Miami for Giancarlo Stanton. (yes, it can be done.....it's the friggin' Marlins organization. They like Cubans for their fanbase. :D)

4. Re-sign BOTH Broxton AND Madson.

5. Trade Mez and Cingrani to the Rays for Big Game James Shields.

6. Sign Jeff Keppinger as utilityman 2B/3B/1B

Phillips 2B (RH)
Fowler CF (SH)
Votto 1B (LH)
Stanton LF (RH)
Bruce RF (LH)
Frazier 3B (RH)
Hanigan C (RH)
Cozart SS (RH)

Rotation
Cueto
Latos
Shields
Bailey
Arroyo

Bullpen
Madson
Broxton
Marshall
Hoover
LeCure
Simon
Arredondo

Bench
Gregorius SS/ 2B
Keppinger 2B/3B/1B
Heisey OF
Paul OF
Navarro C



Billy Hamilton isn't going to be ready this season unless something amazing happens. He may not even be ready next season. Agreed.

My proposal weakens the overall depth in the organization but strengthens the major league team, especially offense, big time.

Wonderful Monds
10-15-2012, 04:58 PM
Chris Young might also be an option. He had a disappointing 2012, largely due to injuries, but his 2010 and 2011 were pretty solid: a .335ish OBP with good defense and decent power. He would certainly be an upgrade over Stubbs, at any rate, considering in 2012 alone, he produced more than twice as many WAR in about 2/3 of the at bats.

Also, Arizona is willing to pay a chunk of his salary to facilitate a trade, and he has a team option for 2014, so if Hamilton looks ready for CF at that point, the Reds can buy out Young and easily make the transition to Hamilton.

I already have said lots of times here I think Chris Young might happen. I'm not personally advocating it, but it's a very Jocketty move.

Wonderful Monds
10-15-2012, 05:25 PM
Has anyone considered Melky Cabrera an option? He does carry the scarlet "S", but if he can come cheap on a short contract to prove himself and the team scouts don't think his production will drop off after stopping PED use, he could be an answer.

Rojo
10-15-2012, 05:30 PM
The Giants are pretty down on Panda. I have a feeling they'll move him and sign Scutaro. He seems like a guy who could use a little Dusty-love.

Reds/Flyers Fan
10-15-2012, 07:03 PM
1. Leake, Ondrusek, Chad "Sharky" Rogers for Dexter Fowler. Rockies need pitching badly. Gives them a young starter and a decent minor league pitcher.

2. Cairo and Rolen retire.

3. Trade Chapman/Corcino to Miami for Giancarlo Stanton. (yes, it can be done.....it's the friggin' Marlins organization. They like Cubans for their fanbase. :D)

4. Re-sign BOTH Broxton AND Madson.

5. Trade Mez and Cingrani to the Rays for Big Game James Shields.

6. Sign Jeff Keppinger as utilityman 2B/3B/1B

Phillips 2B (RH)
Fowler CF (SH)
Votto 1B (LH)
Stanton LF (RH)
Bruce RF (LH)
Frazier 3B (RH)
Hanigan C (RH)
Cozart SS (RH)

Rotation
Cueto
Latos
Shields
Bailey
Arroyo

Bullpen
Madson
Broxton
Marshall
Hoover
LeCure
Simon
Arredondo

Bench
Gregorius SS/ 2B
Keppinger 2B/3B/1B
Heisey OF
Paul OF
Navarro C

Agreed.

My proposal weakens the overall depth in the organization but strengthens the major league team, especially offense, big time.

While I like - love - the idea of acquiring Fowler, Stanton and Shields, there's no way the Reds have the money for that.

And unfortunately, one of the impacts of not making the NLCS will probably be a few fewer season tickets sold for next year. That'll probably keep the payroll in check.

Vottomatic
10-15-2012, 07:30 PM
The Giants are pretty down on Panda. I have a feeling they'll move him and sign Scutaro. He seems like a guy who could use a little Dusty-love.

Panda would fit right in with "Dusty's guys". He swings at the first pitch everytime, no matter what. :laugh:

Kc61
10-15-2012, 07:37 PM
The Reds were very slightly below league average in BA (9th in the 16-team NL), but well below average in OBP (12th in the NL). Votto had a historically high OBP -- a truly remarkable OBP way, way better than anybody else in the league. His batting average was good too, but not to the extent that his OBP was.

Batting average has been proven to be not much of a factor in run scoring. Talking and worrying about batting average is a waste of time. The Reds need to improve their OBP and their SLG if they want to score more runs. Chasing batting average is just as likely to lead you astray as help you. Batting average has two huge flaws (counts all hits the same, ignores BBs and HBPs) that make it pretty much a worthless statistic, especially when you consider there are vastly superior statistics readily available (wOBA being the best and OPS second best).

The Reds can't afford to trade any of their power to improve contact. That would be a losing proposition. The Reds have a little better than average power (SLG 6th in NL), but their power is not good enough to be a top offense. The Reds need a huge boost in OBP and a big boost in SLG if they want to come close to leading the league in runs scored.

The only reason I even mentioned batting average in the earlier post was because people were saying the playoffs exposed an alleged Reds' batting average problem -- even though the Reds had the highest batting average in the playoffs.


Please explain how OBP can be important and BA unimportant. It's illogical.

BA reflects hits per official at bats. Hit percentage is a big part of OBP, it directly feeds into OBP. Anyone who disregards BA, but says OBP is very important, IMO is, well, incorrect.

The Reds have a relatively low BA team. They also have a relatively low OBP team. The two are strongly related.

The Reds need to emphasize OBP and BA more, and can afford a modest reduction in power. This doesn't require trashing the whole lineup, but it does mean adding one significant starting player who gets on base and hits well, even if not for power. Or two.

And, IMO, it means a different mix on the bench.

In the regular season, the Reds BA was .251, league average was .254, Reds OBP was .315, league average was .318. Reds hit total was 1377, league average was 1393. Reds had 879 singles, league average was 927. Reds walked 481 times. League average was 488.

IMO these stats need to improve, particularly when you consider Votto's singular role and how poor these numbers are for the rest of the ballclub.

DGullett35
10-15-2012, 08:23 PM
My 4 offseason priorities in no particular order:
1. Resign Luddy
2. Hire a different hitting coach(Im not saying I hate Jacoby but these guys need a different voice)
3. Find a CF that can bat leadoff for a year or 2
4. Sign a utility IF like Keppinger as some have already mentioned. Personally Id like Eric Chavez. Hime and Frazier can split starts at 3rd and Frazier can be our super utility guy. Im just not sold on him playing everyday at 3rd.

Id love to sign either Madson back or Broxton but I dont see it happening. Chappy will stay in the pen and Walt will hope Masset comes back strong and JJ Hoover gets a little bit better in 2013. Just my thoughts

Rojo
10-15-2012, 08:55 PM
Maicer Izturus is a FA. He's not a world beater, but can hit .270, swipe a few bags and, importantly, is a true backup infielder who can play 2nd, 3rd and short. That frees up a spot for a bat.

LegallyMinded
10-15-2012, 09:07 PM
The Red Sox are desperate for pitching and are rumored to be looking at a Derek Holland for Jacoby Ellsbury trade. I think the Reds might be able to match that offer with one of Bailey or Leake, although Leake might be a stretch. (Here's (http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2012&month=0&season1=2010&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=10130,4141,8362) a comparison of the three starters).

Would it be worth dealing Bailey or Leake, given that 1) Ellsbury is only under team control for one more year and 2) Ellsbury has a considerable injury history? Seems like a high-risk, high-reward move.

kaldaniels
10-15-2012, 09:11 PM
The Red Sox are desperate for pitching and are rumored to be looking at a Derek Holland for Jacoby Ellsbury trade. I think the Reds might be able to match that offer with one of Bailey or Leake, although Leake might be a stretch. (Here's (http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2012&month=0&season1=2010&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=10130,4141,8362) a comparison of the three starters).

Would it be worth dealing Bailey or Leake, given that 1) Ellsbury is only under team control for one more year and 2) Ellsbury has a considerable injury history? Seems like a high-risk, high-reward move.

Bailey no. Leake is a non-starter in that conversation.

That said, I'd love to hear what Bailey wants for an extension. Same with Latos. Just to know where things stand.

Scrap Irony
10-15-2012, 09:31 PM
If the Sox are willing to bite on a Leake (and Stubbs?) for Ellsbury deal, I'd do it in a minute.

He'd be a great stop-gap to Hamilon and a more than solid leadoff or number two hitter behind/ ahead of Phillips. If he gets hurt, Heisey could play C adequately enough in his stead. Good defensive player as well.

Sure, it's a gamble, but, hey, it's a gamble worth taking.

Kc61
10-15-2012, 09:35 PM
If the Sox are willing to bite on a Leake (and Stubbs?) for Ellsbury deal, I'd do it in a minute.

He'd be a great stop-gap to Hamilon and a more than solid leadoff or number two hitter behind/ ahead of Phillips. If he gets hurt, Heisey could play C adequately enough in his stead. Good defensive player as well.

Sure, it's a gamble, but, hey, it's a gamble worth taking.

Heisey with the .315 OBP, 81 Ks and 18 BBs? Maybe Ellsbury and somebody else.

Wonderful Monds
10-15-2012, 09:43 PM
I would probably go Leake & Cingrani for Ellsbury if I had to and it would probably be worth it.

Vottomatic
10-15-2012, 09:47 PM
The Red Sox are desperate for pitching and are rumored to be looking at a Derek Holland for Jacoby Ellsbury trade. I think the Reds might be able to match that offer with one of Bailey or Leake, although Leake might be a stretch. (Here's (http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2012&month=0&season1=2010&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=10130,4141,8362) a comparison of the three starters).

Would it be worth dealing Bailey or Leake, given that 1) Ellsbury is only under team control for one more year and 2) Ellsbury has a considerable injury history? Seems like a high-risk, high-reward move.

Ellsbury is a temptation. But his injury history scares the crud out of me. And for 1 year?

Just say no.

Superdude
10-15-2012, 11:40 PM
Please explain how OBP can be important and BA unimportant. It's illogical.

BA reflects hits per official at bats. Hit percentage is a big part of OBP, it directly feeds into OBP. Anyone who disregards BA, but says OBP is very important, IMO is, well, incorrect.

The Reds have a relatively low BA team. They also have a relatively low OBP team. The two are strongly related.

Batting average is the foundation of more important stats. It's extremely important, but doesn't mean all that much by itself.

_Sir_Charles_
10-16-2012, 01:58 PM
Why is everyone so quick to dismiss Mike Leake? I don't get it. Yeah, he didn't have a great year...but has everyone forgotten his age and experience? Yeah, he tossed some stinkers this year...what do you expect from a young pitcher? People seem to forget that he also threw some real gems too. This is a middle of the rotation-to-back of the rotation pitcher. They aren't all going to be aces. He's a great change of pace to the rest of the staff (especially after Bronson leaves). And he's got loads of room for improvement. Add in his athleticism and his bat and I hang onto the kid. Without a doubt.

We have no real clue what Cingrani, Corcino or even Chapman will do in the rotation. I don't see a better option than Leake right now IMO, and I think he'll only get better with more experience.

Rojo
10-16-2012, 02:36 PM
Why is everyone so quick to dismiss Mike Leake? I don't get it.

Don't know. He's one of the best 5 pitchers in the league which is worth more to you than it is to others.

DGullett35
10-16-2012, 03:40 PM
Why is everyone so quick to dismiss Mike Leake? I don't get it. Yeah, he didn't have a great year...but has everyone forgotten his age and experience? Yeah, he tossed some stinkers this year...what do you expect from a young pitcher? People seem to forget that he also threw some real gems too. This is a middle of the rotation-to-back of the rotation pitcher. They aren't all going to be aces. He's a great change of pace to the rest of the staff (especially after Bronson leaves). And he's got loads of room for improvement. Add in his athleticism and his bat and I hang onto the kid. Without a doubt.

We have no real clue what Cingrani, Corcino or even Chapman will do in the rotation. I don't see a better option than Leake right now IMO, and I think he'll only get better with more experience.

I agree with you. Leake reminds me of Arroyo coming off of a crappy 2011. I think Leake will be better next year but what we can expect from him is 10-12 wins and a mid 4 or high 3 ERA and I think that is solid for a #5 starter plus he swings the bat better than any pitcher in the league. I do think we need some depth though. Not everyone will stay healthy like this year. That just doesnt happen every year. If Chappy moves to the rotation which I think he wont as long as Dusty is skipper Leake could and I say could be the odd man out being our 6th starter maybe starting the season in AAA. But like I said it will be a miracle for everyone to stay healthy again for a full year so the chips will fall into place IMO. Leake will be a heck of alot better next year.

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 03:46 PM
Please explain how OBP can be important and BA unimportant. It's illogical.

BA reflects hits per official at bats. Hit percentage is a big part of OBP, it directly feeds into OBP. Anyone who disregards BA, but says OBP is very important, IMO is, well, incorrect.

The Reds have a relatively low BA team. They also have a relatively low OBP team. The two are strongly related.

The Reds need to emphasize OBP and BA more, and can afford a modest reduction in power. This doesn't require trashing the whole lineup, but it does mean adding one significant starting player who gets on base and hits well, even if not for power. Or two.

And, IMO, it means a different mix on the bench.

In the regular season, the Reds BA was .251, league average was .254, Reds OBP was .315, league average was .318. Reds hit total was 1377, league average was 1393. Reds had 879 singles, league average was 927. Reds walked 481 times. League average was 488.

IMO these stats need to improve, particularly when you consider Votto's singular role and how poor these numbers are for the rest of the ballclub.

To answer your question: Batting Average does not correlate well with run scoring in real MLB games, OBP does. That is why OBP is important and BA is not important. It is logical.

Batting Average is an antique fossil of a statistic. Famous articles and entire books have been written about why Batting Average is a very poor way to evaluate baseball players.

The easiest way to understand why batting average is so bad is because it does not correlate very strongly with run scoring. OBP and SLG correlate MUCH better with run scoring. OPS and wOBA are even better.

There are two HUGE holes in Batting Average. First, it counts all hits the same. That is like a cashier thinking all coins have the same value. Obviously, home runs have much more value than singles just like dimes are more valuable than nickels. So why use a stat that ridiculously counts all hits the same? Secondly, Batting Average completely ignores Walks and HBPs even though they have 85% as much value as singles. Batting average totally ignores about 15% of plate appearances. Why? If a fan is still using Batting Average as a component in their player evaluation then most serious students of the game will not respect their opinion at all. Such people are clearly behind the times and still using disproven statistics that were debunked many years ago. A baseball statistician who uses Batting Average is like an Amish computer engineer or a Creationist Bioengineer. Batting Average is an anachronism.

For example, many casual fans believe that Ichiro Suzuki is a great hitter. He has a career .322 Batting Average, which is the 3rd best among all active players.

Batting Average active leaders


1. Albert Pujols .3246
2. Joe Mauer .3229
3. Ichiro Suzuki .3223
4. Todd Helton .3199
5. Miguel Cabrera .3182
6. Vlad Guerrero .3176
7. Joey Votto .3163
8. Ryan Braun .3132
9. Derek Jeter .3131
10. Matt Holliday .3126

38. Prince Fielder .2868
61. Jason Giambi .2803
78. Jim Thome .2764
133. Adam Dunn .2404



That list makes Ichiro and Jeter look pretty darn good. They look like uber-elite players that are creating tons of runs for their teams. But wait...

OPS active leaders


1. Albert Pujols 1.0220
2. Manny Ramirez .9960
3. Joey Votto .9680
4. Todd Helton .9640
5. Jim Thome .9560
6. Miguel Cabrera .9557
7. Lance Berkman .9528
8. Alex Rodriguez .9447
9. Ryan Braun .9426
10. Vlad Guerrero .9312
11. Prince Fielder .9309

14. Jason Giambi .9258
25. Adam Dunn .8696

49. Derek Jeter .8293
83. Ichiro Suzuki .7839


Now Ichiro and Jeter don't look so hot do they? Out of 135 active players with enough ABs to qualify, Ichiro Suzuki is #83 -- deep in the bottom half of the list. Still think he is an elite hitter? No way. Jeter is barely in the top 50. The fact is that both of them are slap hitting singles hitters who don't walk much. Therefore they are not nearly as good as batting average aficianados think they are. Batting Average fools most people into thinking that Ichiro and Jeter are great hitters when they are not.

Similarly but in reverse, Batting Average would indicate hitters like Fielder, Giambi and Thome are not special and would indicate that Adam Dunn downright sucks. Yet all of those guys rank highly in OPS -- much higher than Jeter and Ichiro. Those sluggers don't hit for average, but they walk a lot and hit for power. They create a lot more runs for their teams than the batting average guys do. They are much better hitters than perennial .300+ hitters like Ichiro and Jeter.

Between Ichiro Suzuki (career .322 BA) and Adam Dunn (career .240 BA), which player is more likely to make an out when he comes to the plate? Answer: Ichiro Suzuki (career .365 OBP) is more likely to make an out than Adam Dunn (career .370 OBP) each time he comes to the plate. Not only does Dunn make fewer outs he is also much more likely to get an extra base hit and hence much more likely to create a run for his team (by scoring or driving in runs).

Batting Average leads people astray. Not only is Batting Average not a good statistic, it is a misleading statistic. It makes people look foolish by arguing for the wrong players.

If you have OBP and SLG you have no need for BA. Batting Average adds nothing to the mix. BA is a stripped down, misleading statistic that adds no value to player evaluation.

wOBA is the best offensive metric because it properly weights all the various hit types (including BBs and HBPs) for how they contribute to run scoring (based on the results of thousands of real MLB games) and it even factors in base stealing. OPS correlates to real run scoring just as well as wOBA. OPS is not a mathematically pure measurement for various reasons -- but it works great. If you have these superior metrics there is no good reason to put any faith in Batting Average whatsoever.

Strikes Out Looking
10-16-2012, 03:57 PM
My biggest offseason priority is get a CF who can find first base.

Red Rover
10-16-2012, 04:13 PM
The Reds need protection for Votto (another RBI machine).

When Stubbs gets on base he scores 50% of the time.
When Votto gets on base he scores 20% of the time.

Get someone on this team to knock Votto in please.

Rojo
10-16-2012, 04:21 PM
Wow Dumpling, you're really on to something. Does Bill James know about this?


If a fan is still using Batting Average as a component in their player evaluation then most serious students of the game will not respect their opinion at all.

Is there a stat that measures condescension?

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 04:27 PM
Wow Dumpling, you're really on to something. Does Bill James know about this?



Is there a stat that measures condescension?

The guy asked me to show him how BA and OBP were not the same. I did.

Sometimes you have to state things extra clearly and maybe a bit harshly when people don't understand it the first 10 times you explain it to them.

Your condescension remark is on the money unfortunately. People that are clued in to sabermetrics do in fact look down upon those that continue to use debunked stats. For better or worse that is just the way it is. It works the other way too. People that like the old-school stats often insult the saber geeks. Just look at kc61's post where he insulted me for saying BA was not as good as OBP. It works both ways.

Kc61
10-16-2012, 04:32 PM
If you have OBP and SLG you have no need for BA. Batting Average adds nothing to the mix. BA is a stripped down, misleading statistic that adds no value to player evaluation.

wOBA is the best offensive metric because it properly weights all the various hit types (including BBs and HBPs) for how they contribute to run scoring (based on the results of thousands of real MLB games) and it even factors in base stealing. OPS correlates to real run scoring just as well as wOBA. OPS is not a mathematically pure measurement for various reasons -- but it works great. If you have these superior metrics there is no good reason to put any faith in Batting Average whatsoever.

I disagree. In fact, the anti-BA argument is founded on a mistaken premise IMO.

The faulty assumption is that for a stat to be useful, it has to provide a complete view of offensive performance. This is wrong IMO. Sometimes, looking at a specific aspect of offensive performance is more useful.

wOBA and OPS are composite stats. They try (reasonably effectively) to combine aspects of offensive performance, weight them, and come up with a number reflecting total offensive (or in the OPS case total hitting) performance.

These stats may be imperfect, but very useful. But sometimes it is equally useful to look at the component parts.

BA tells you a batter's ability to get base hits, of any description, per official at bats. Some hitters have that knack. It becomes important, for example, on a team that may otherwise lack that skill. I think the Reds would be aided by a few high BA hitters, for example.

All of these statistics, if understood and taken in context, are helpful and important. I know it's very trendy to trash traditional statistics like BA and RBIs, but in their place they are quite useful.

The fact that Joey Votto hit .337 BA this year is useful and helpful information. It's certainly not the only statistic worth reading, but most of us have the capacity to look at more than one thing.

Wonderful Monds
10-16-2012, 04:34 PM
People that are clued in to sabermetrics do in fact look down upon those that continue to use debunked stats.

ugh.

Kc61
10-16-2012, 04:36 PM
Just look at kc61's post where he insulted me for saying BA was not as good as OBP. It works both ways.

Never intended to insult you or anyone on the site, no matter how strident their posts may be.

And I don't disagree that OBP is more useful. I do disagree that BA is some kind of garbage stat that warrants an adverse reaction when used.

All these stats have uses, if taken in the proper context and understood correctly.

PuffyPig
10-16-2012, 04:36 PM
Leake gives great value as a 5th starter.

He's cheap, not terrible and has pretty good upside.

There are many 5th starter types who are relatively expansive, not particularly good and offer little upside.

Unless someone bowls me over on a deal, Leake stays on the team gladly.

The last thing the Reds need is to trade or sign a 5th starter type like Westbook who generally require 2-3 years and $8M+ per season.

Patrick Bateman
10-16-2012, 04:38 PM
The guy asked me to show him how BA and OBP were not the same. I did.

Sometimes you have to state things extra clearly and maybe a bit harshly when people don't understand it the first 10 times you explain it to them.

Your condescension remark is on the money unfortunately. People that are clued in to sabermetrics do in fact look down upon those that continue to use debunked stats. For better or worse that is just the way it is. It works the other way too. People that like the old-school stats often insult the saber geeks. Just look at kc61's post where he insulted me for saying BA was not as good as OBP. It works both ways.

I think it would be fair to say that Kc61 understands the flaws of BA and OBP. The guy has been on here for years and has quality stuff. he doesn't need a third grade lesson on this. Nor do I feel he was being condescending to you, he simply pointed out that BA can't be 100% useless and OBP a great metric as they are linked quite a bit. Yes BA has it's flaws, but it's not reasonable to completely throw out the door if we are going to be using OBP so much. I think most would agree that they have a preference for a .320/.350 hitter vs. a .260/.350 hitter.

His point was that the Reds are weak in both OBP and BA, and that in a perfect world the Reds should be trying to improve OBP through BA (ie. get hitters that walk at fair rates, but also have strong contact abilities, which is a skill the bulk of the team doesn't have).

Kc61
10-16-2012, 04:41 PM
Leake gives great value as a 5th starter.

He's cheap, not terrible and has pretty good upside.

There are many 5th starter types who are relatively expansive, not particularly good and offer little upside.

Unless someone bowls me over on a deal, Leake stays on the team gladly.

The last thing the Reds need is to trade or sign a 5th starter type like Westbook who generally require 2-3 years and $8M+ per season.

Leake would be fine if he could avoid all the line drives and home runs. If he were simply a ground ball pitcher who occasionally got hit hard, I could live with him, but his line drive rate and homer rate this year were disturbing.

If the Reds could get a solid veteran instead, I think it would help them in the stretch and post-season. But I wouldn't overpay as in the example you use.

Best case, I'd like to see Leake succeed, but I really do think (despite some good numbers on Fangraphs) that his 2012 performance raises concerns.

REDREAD
10-16-2012, 04:42 PM
Why is everyone so quick to dismiss Mike Leake? I don't get it. Yeah, he didn't have a great year...but has everyone forgotten his age and experience?


He's this year's whipping boy.. much like Arroyo was last year.
I agree with you.. he's young, had almost no minor league experience and still learning.. Great BOR guy with upside at a low salary... Seems to be able to stay healthy and pitches QS at a reasonable rate.
Sure, I'd trade him for a decent return, but it's not like he's garbage dragging the team down..

Kc61
10-16-2012, 04:44 PM
He's this year's whipping boy.. much like Arroyo was last year.
I agree with you.. he's young, had almost no minor league experience and still learning.. Great BOR guy with upside at a low salary... Seems to be able to stay healthy and pitches QS at a reasonable rate.
Sure, I'd trade him for a decent return, but it's not like he's garbage dragging the team down..

I'm for considering a change in Leake's spot because the Reds are real contenders and may not want to wait for Mike to "arrive."

But I fully agree that he is a talented pitcher who could someday be very good. Very competitive. Just lacks top bat missing ability.

Rojo
10-16-2012, 04:44 PM
If the Reds could get a solid veteran instead, I think it would help them in the stretch and post-season. But I wouldn't overpay as in the example you use.

But for back spasms, Leake wouldn't have crossed the chalk in the post-season.

Superdude
10-16-2012, 04:45 PM
I disagree. In fact, the BA hater's club is founded on a mistaken premise, as is this argument.

The faulty assumption is that for a stat to be useful, it has to provide a complete view of offensive performance. This is wrong. Sometimes, looking at a specific aspect of offensive performance is more useful.

This is very true. I like comprehensive stats as much as the next guy, but they tell me nothing about a player's skill set or how they created their value. Even if BA means nothing to production, which is debatable IMO, it's still an important component of a player's offensive makeup that needs to be taken into account. Lumping it in with RBIs and wins as cast onto the scrap heap by SABR people is just a total misinterpretation.

Kc61
10-16-2012, 04:47 PM
But for back spasms, Leake wouldn't have crossed the chalk in the post-season.

You are correct, but it's not unusual to lose a starter during the year. The fifth starter sometimes has to become the fourth starter. The Cards have Lance Lynn and Joe Kelly and they seem to be pitching a lot.

Looking for a more perfect rotation, I think one alternative is Cueto, Latos, Bailey, Arroyo, and another solid veteran.

Another alternative is Chapman.

I think the Reds should consider both alternatives. I don't dislike Leake but I think another veteran may have value.

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 04:48 PM
I think it would be fair to say that Kc61 understands the flaws of BA and OBP. The guy has been on here for years and has quality stuff. he doesn't need a third grade lesson on this. Nor do I feel he was being condescending to you, he simply pointed out that BA can't be 100% useless and OBP a great metric as they are linked quite a bit. Yes BA has it's flaws, but it's not reasonable to completely throw out the door if we are going to be using OBP so much. I think most would agree that they have a preference for a .320/.350 hitter vs. a .260/.350 hitter.

His point was that the Reds are weak in both OBP and BA, and that in a perfect world the Reds should be trying to improve OBP through BA (ie. get hitters that walk at fair rates, but also have strong contact abilities, which is a skill the bulk of the team doesn't have).

I disagree. The Batting Average thing has been trumpeted around here too much lately, not just in this thread either. Batting Average is simply a misleading and irrelevant statistic. Putting any faith in BA whatsoever is going to do you more harm than good. If you are worried in the slightest about batting average you are going down the wrong track.

The Reds need to improve their wOBA. To do that they need to make fewer outs and get more high-weight hits (extra-base hits). High contact leads to fewer walks and fewer extra-base hits and more double plays and more fielder's choices (lead runner gets thrown out). Improving contact is a poor strategy by itself.

Looking at the .260/.350 splits is another bad way of looking at hitting stats. You should be looking at it like this: .xxx/.350/.450 -- the batting average doesn't add any value.

I don't expect the negative attitude toward batting average to be popular amongst people who value batting average. I am not the one who created the condescension toward old-school stats like batting average. I am just the one who explained it in this thread. I am not a pure saber geek and I personally don't hate batting average lovers. I am just telling you how the saber geeks think about batting average lovers. I am just calling a spade a spade. That is the way it is in the world today. Don't kill the messenger.

REDREAD
10-16-2012, 04:48 PM
I'm for considering a change in Leake's spot because the Reds are real contenders and may not want to wait for Mike to "arrive."

But I fully agree that he is a talented pitcher who could someday be very good. Very competitive. Just lacks top bat missing ability.

I kind of want the Reds to keep Leake around as backup for the Chapman starting experiment (if they intend to do that next year).. It would suck for Mike to start in AAA.. but if they kept his innings low there, he might have to finish off the year in Chapman's rotation spot.

I'm concerned if Chapman could make it through an entire season next year starting.. or if he would have to be Strassburged before the playoffs start.

Kc61
10-16-2012, 04:53 PM
I disagree. The Batting Average thing has been trumpeted around here too much lately, not just in this thread either. Batting Average is simply a misleading and irrelevant statistic. Putting any faith in BA whatsoever is going to do you more harm than good. If you are worried in the slightest about batting average you are going down the wrong track.

The Reds need to improve their wOBA. To do that they need to make fewer outs and get more high-weight hits (extra-base hits). High contact leads to fewer walks and fewer extra-base hits and more double plays and more fielder's choices (lead runner gets thrown out). Improving contact is a poor strategy by itself.

Looking at the .260/.350 splits is another bad way of looking at hitting stats. You should be looking at it like this: .xxx/.350/.450 -- the batting average doesn't add any value.

Here's where I disagree. Let's take OPS for simplicity.

The Reds have a number of fair to high OPS players with low OBPs and high SLGs. Chris Heisey is an example. .400 SLG (approx) and .315 OBP.

Frankly, I don't care what the composite shows for Chris. I'm not that interested in his wOBA and his OPS. Because the Reds as a team need more OBP and more BA. Not so much more SLG, particularly from the right side. The stats tell us this. I personally don't think Chris fills the need.

The Reds need tablesetters. So this off-season, if I'm Walt, I'm looking for the OBP and BA part of the equation. That's where my team is deficient.

I believe in offensive balance. Sometimes that requires more power. Sometimes, more BA or OBP. Sometimes more lefty hitting. Sometimes more righty.

I'm unwilling to simply say, decent OPS, I'll take him. To me, the need is to be more granular and look at more specific stats sometimes, particularly when fillng specific needs on a good ballclub.

Superdude
10-16-2012, 04:56 PM
Looking at the .260/.350 splits is another bad way of looking at hitting stats. You should be looking at it like this: .xxx/.350/.450 -- the batting average doesn't add any value.

I have a hard time with this concept. I get that OBP/SLG is more important, but if given the choice between .200/.330/.450 and .300/.330/.450, it makes no difference? BA may not correlate perfectly with runs scored, but to say it means nothing just sounds like oversimplification to me.

westofyou
10-16-2012, 04:57 PM
This is very true. I like comprehensive stats as much as the next guy, but they tell me nothing about a player's skill set or how they created their value. Even if BA means nothing to production, which is debatable IMO, it's still an important component of a player's offensive makeup that needs to be taken into account. Lumping it in with RBIs and wins as cast onto the scrap heap by SABR people is just a total misinterpretation.

Yep, it's called baseball and not hitball, but some aspect of batting average has to be surfaced since it's the measurement of the times a player put wood on the ball and it fell into fair territory.

Sure it doesn't tell you how hard it was, how many bases it compiled, it tells you that a player used a piece of the equipment called a "bat" to hit a ball and ended up on base.

And as a member of SABR I can assure you that there are tons of SABR members who use it and cite it, and in fact SABR and sabermetrics have absolutely no connection at all expect when someone cites the evils of the SABR crowd.

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 05:02 PM
This is very true. I like comprehensive stats as much as the next guy, but they tell me nothing about a player's skill set or how they created their value. Even if BA means nothing to production, which is debatable IMO, it's still an important component of a player's offensive makeup that needs to be taken into account. Lumping it in with RBIs and wins as cast onto the scrap heap by SABR people is just a total misinterpretation.

OK that is fine. If you just want to know how a guy creates his production you can look at his batting average to help you determine if he is a slap-hitter or a power hitter if you like, although there are better ways to do it. However, that is not what has been going on in this thread. People in this discussion have been advocating using batting average as an important tool in measuring the production of players and are arguing that the Reds need to bring in high batting average hitters to improve the offense. Only after that strategy was debunked did they try to salvage batting average as merely a "learn more about a player" stat.

Kc61
10-16-2012, 05:17 PM
People in this discussion have been advocating using batting average as an important tool in measuring the production of players and are arguing that the Reds need to bring in high batting average hitters to improve the offense. Only after that strategy was debunked did they try to salvage batting average as merely a "learn more about a player" stat.

If that's your perception, so be it. I don't agree that anything has been "debunked."

I, for one, would like some higher BA hitters on the team. I think the inability to get hits consistently hurts the Reds.

Best case, these guys would walk as well and have .350 plus OBPs. But I don't just want a selective walker. I want a guy who regularly gets base hits, if one or two could be acquired.

Superdude
10-16-2012, 05:18 PM
However, that is not what has been going on in this thread. People in this discussion have been advocating using batting average as an important tool in measuring the production of players and are arguing that the Reds need to bring in high batting average hitters to improve the offense. Only after that strategy was debunked did they try to salvage batting average as merely a "learn more about a player" stat.

Debunked is a strong word. I still believe that just because OPS correlates more strongly with runs scored doesn't mean we can ignore batting average. Hits are more valuable than walks and putting the ball in play is more valuable than a strikeout. All else being equal, a .220 hitter is not the same as a .320 hitter.

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 05:20 PM
Here's where I disagree. Let's take OPS for simplicity.

The Reds have a number of fair to high OPS players with low OBPs and high SLGs. Chris Heisey is an example. .400 SLG (approx) and .315 OBP.

Frankly, I don't care what the composite shows for Chris. I'm not that interested in his wOBA and his OPS. Because the Reds as a team need more OBP and more BA. Not so much more SLG, particularly from the right side. The stats tell us this. I personally don't think Chris fills the need.

The Reds need tablesetters. So this off-season, if I'm Walt, I'm looking for the OBP and BA part of the equation. That's where my team is deficient.

I believe in offensive balance. Sometimes that requires more power. Sometimes, more BA or OBP. Sometimes more lefty hitting. Sometimes more righty.

I'm unwilling to simply say, decent OPS, I'll take him. To me, the need is to be more granular and look at more specific stats sometimes, particularly when fillng specific needs on a good ballclub.

If you are looking for a table-setter, why does it matter if his OBP is BA-driven or BB-driven? If the bases are empty (a table-setting situation) then a walk or a HBP is exactly the same as a single. In a table-setting situation batting average is even less important than OBP.

We agree that the Reds need to drastically improve their OBP. So we are working together on that one.

One thing that people who like contact hitters might not realize is that those hitters are more likely to hit into double plays (a terrible outcome) and they are more likely to cause a lead runner to be retired (another terrible outcome). These outcomes are not fully reflected on the hitter's rate stats (BA/OBP/SLG) because they are simply recorded as an out. Hitting into a double play affects your rate stats exactly the same as a strikeout, yet the double play is much more harmful to your team's run expectancy for the inning. Hitting a comebacker to the pitcher with a man on 3rd base that causes that lead runner to be retired is much more harmful than hitting an infield fly rule popup, yet both are recorded on your slash stats the same way. Getting a base hit to left field with a runner on 2nd base that causes the runner to get thrown out at home plate is much more harmful to a team's run expectancy than making a routine out would have been -- the player got a hit and created a bad outcome. These are all ways where a game is affected by hitting the ball that are not accurately reflected by the hitter's batting average. However these effects are built into the correlations with run scoring for the individual rate stats. This effect skews the value even more strongly in favor of OBP over Batting Average.

Neither old-school nor new-school stats are singing Chris Heisey's praises.

I agree that you need to consider lefty-righty splits when using statistics.

Patrick Bateman
10-16-2012, 05:22 PM
I have a hard time with this concept. I get that OBP/SLG is more important, but if given the choice between .200/.330/.450 and .300/.330/.450, it makes no difference? BA may not correlate perfectly with runs scored, but to say it means nothing just sounds like oversimplification to me.

Exactly, and I think that's all Kc was alluding to.

At this point, everyone here knows the inadequacies of using BA as a more than complimentary tool.

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 05:24 PM
Debunked is a strong word. I still believe that just because OPS correlates more strongly with runs scored doesn't mean we can ignore batting average. Hits are more valuable than walks and putting the ball in play is more valuable than a strikeout. All else being equal, a .220 hitter is not the same as a .320 hitter.

I respect your opinion. I just disagree. Hits are more valuable than walks in some instances, and that difference is built into wOBA and OPS. Walks do have tons of value though, and batting average totally ignores that value. That is one of the major reasons why batting average is so misleading -- it leaves out critical information.

Regarding the putting the ball in play vs strikeouts issue, I disagree on that one too unfortunately. Strikeouts have been mathematically proven to be only infinitesimally more harmful than contact outs. Yes, you can advance a baserunner with a contact out but you can also hit into double plays (not only groundball DPs, but also line-outs where a runner gets doubled-off and outfield fly balls where a runner tries to tag up and gets thrown out) and fielder's choices that cause an advance runner to be retired. These extremely harmful plays cancel out the benefits gained from advancing the runner with a contact out. These facts can be seen by becoming familiar with the weighted outcomes tables like the one here: http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902event.html and a different and in some cases better one here: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/run_values_of_events/

You can see in the table that the average linear weight of a strikeout is only .01 runs worse than a contact out, which is an extremely insignificant difference. A regular out is worth -0.30 runs while a strikeout is worth -0.31 runs. For comparison's sake a single is worth +0.47 runs and a home run is worth +1.40 runs and a double play is worth -1.06 runs (3.5x worse than a strikeout). All of those outcomes are worth 5--150x more than the difference between a strikeout and a contact out. You can see in the second chart that there are lots of ways to make an out that are MUCH more harmful than striking out. Strikeouts are just another out. They are no more harmful than another out. What matters is how many outs you make, not how you make them.

Wonderful Monds
10-16-2012, 05:27 PM
If we had a 300 hitting second slot hitter who could OBP 350 plus, that would be undeniably better than player hitting 250/350. If we have a lead off hitter on first, having someone who can pick up hits more consistently helps move that runner along better than a walk. If you have runners on the corners instead of first and second in front of the heart of the order, there are so many more ways you can score.

Kc61
10-16-2012, 05:34 PM
I respect your opinion. I just disagree.

Regarding the putting the ball in play vs strikeouts issue, I disagree on that one too unfortunately. Strikeouts have been mathematically proven to be only infinitesimally more harmful than contact outs. Yes, you can advance a baserunner with a contact out but you can also hit into double plays (not only groundball DPs, but also line-outs where a runner gets doubled-off and outfield fly balls where a runner tries to tag up and gets thrown out) and fielder's choices that cause an advance runner to be retired. These plays cancel each other out in the end.

Yes, correct, the EFFECT of the strikeout is no big deal. It's like any other out. It is even better than a DP. Correct. Agree.

The problem with the strikeout is the failure to make contact itself. When a batter fails to make contact, he severely limits his opportunity for a productive at bat.

The problem is not the strikeout itself, it's role in the game is like any other out.

The problem is the failure to make contact. Most good things for hitters come with contact. Fewer good things can happen when a batter fails to make contact.

The problem with Drew Stubbs is not merely that his strikeouts cause outs. The bigger problem is that by failing to make contact he eliminates the CHANCE of a productive at bat.

Strikeouts may not be that important, but contact is.

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 05:44 PM
If we had a 300 hitting second slot hitter who could OBP 350 plus, that would be undeniably better than player hitting 250/350. If we have a lead off hitter on first, having someone who can pick up hits more consistently helps move that runner along better than a walk. If you have runners on the corners instead of first and second in front of the heart of the order, there are so many more ways you can score.

You have to figure in how many times that extra contact erases both the runner on base and the hitter (double plays). It cancels out the benefit of the batting average improvement.

Rojo
10-16-2012, 05:44 PM
I am just telling you how the saber geeks think about batting average lovers.

You're shadow-boxing. A goodly portion of the people on this board aren't meatheads who've never moved beyond BA. They're saber-savy fans who are re-considering it.

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 05:45 PM
You're shadow-boxing. A goodly portion of the people on this board aren't meatheads who've never moved beyond BA. They're saber-savy fans who are re-considering it.

I don't think they would do that if they were truly saber-savvy.

Wonderful Monds
10-16-2012, 05:46 PM
You have to figure in how many times that extra contact erases both the runner on base and the hitter (double plays). It cancels out the benefit of the batting average improvement.

I guess if you assume said player would lead the league in double plays, which is a pretty huge assumption to make.

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 05:47 PM
Yes, correct, the EFFECT of the strikeout is no big deal. It's like any other out. It is even better than a DP. Correct. Agree.

The problem with the strikeout is the failure to make contact itself. When a batter fails to make contact, he severely limits his opportunity for a productive at bat.

The problem is not the strikeout itself, it's role in the game is like any other out.

The problem is the failure to make contact. Most good things for hitters come with contact. Fewer good things can happen when a batter fails to make contact.

The problem with Drew Stubbs is not merely that his strikeouts cause outs. The bigger problem is that by failing to make contact he eliminates the CHANCE of a productive at bat.

Strikeouts may not be that important, but contact is.


Looks like I was adding on to my earlier post while you wrote this one. My edit addresses the contact issue you raised here. The benefits of extra contact are erased by the extra double plays and fielder's choices they create.

Superdude
10-16-2012, 05:47 PM
You're shadow-boxing. A goodly portion of the people on this board aren't meatheads who've never moved beyond BA. They're saber-savy fans who are re-considering it.

Exactly. We can all discuss it, but the "pulling us out of the dark ages" tone is unnecessary considering we've obviously all heard the BA argument ten thousand times by now.

Rojo
10-16-2012, 05:47 PM
I don't think they would do that if they were truly saber-savvy.

Why? Because they should receive some wisdom then go no further?

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 05:48 PM
I guess if you assume said player would lead the league in double plays, which is a pretty huge assumption to make.

Nope, the run value tables I posted earlier explain this issue. Double plays are extremely harmful to a team's run expectancy. One double play can cancel out several runner advancements, and there are many ways to hit into a double play.

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 05:49 PM
Why? Because they should receive some wisdom then go no further?

Because being saber-savvy makes it very clear very quickly that batting average is a worthless stat. Not only because it leaves out so much critical information but also because it will mislead you so often.

Wonderful Monds
10-16-2012, 05:50 PM
Becuase being saber-savvy makes it very clear very quickly that batting average is a worthless stat.

*your opinion

Kc61
10-16-2012, 05:58 PM
Looks like I was adding on to my earlier post while you wrote this one. My edit addresses the contact issue you raised here. The benefits of extra contact are erased by the extra double plays and fielder's choices they create.

Drew Stubbs fanned 166 times this year in 544 PAs. His K rate was 30.5%.

In my opinion, if he could have cut that number in half, made contact in another 83 at bats, he would have been a better hitter.

I guess you disagree, to each his own, but that's my view.

In some relatively few instances no-contact is better than contact.

Usually, contact is better.

Kc61
10-16-2012, 06:01 PM
Because being saber-savvy makes it very clear very quickly that batting average is a worthless stat.

The best argument against BA is that base hits are influenced strongly by luck and other factors beyond the batter's control.

A base hit (notably singles and doubles) could easily be an out if the ball were hit slightly differently, or the fielder was positioned slightly differently, or the fielder was better, etc. This is a good argument.

The argument fails IMO when a hitter consistently gets lots of base hits per times at bat over a number of years. Some hitters have the ability to get hits for a variety of reasons.

On the other hand, when a batter has a high BA once or twice in a long career, then the stat may not mean as much.

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 06:08 PM
Here is an interesting scenario:

Imagine that baseball had not been invented until the year 2000, well into the information age of computers. Now that there is so much data available about every game and so much processing power at our fingertips, do you think that Batting Average would ever have been invented as a statistic?

Batting average is basically a relic from the 1800's that became popular before records were kept on things like walks, errors and HBPs, and before extra base hits became common.

The flaws in battting average are so readily apparent by today's standards that I don't think batting average would ever have become popular if baseball had been invented in the modern world.

westofyou
10-16-2012, 06:13 PM
Batting average exists because the main rule of the game was for the pitcher to pitch to the bat. And the hitter got to declare where he wanted it thrown

There was no HBP, no walks, no sacs.

Just Hits, errors and hands outs (Outs recorded)

Superdude
10-16-2012, 06:16 PM
Here is an interesting scenario:

Imagine that baseball had not been invented until the year 2000, well into the information age of computers. Now that there is so much data available about every game and so much processing power at our fingertips, do you think that Batting Average would ever have been invented as a statistic?

Batting average is basically a relic from the 1800's that became popular before records were kept on things like walks, errors and HBPs, and before extra base hits became common.

The flaws in battting average are so readily apparent by today's standards that I don't think batting average would ever have become popular if baseball had been invented in the modern world.

Of course it would. Regardless of who's right about it's value to run production, it's a fundamental part of hitting. Not every stat has to aim for total value to be a useful evaluating tool.

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 06:22 PM
Drew Stubbs fanned 166 times this year in 544 PAs. His K rate was 30.5%.

In my opinion, if he could have cut that number in half, made contact in another 83 at bats, he would have been a better hitter.

I guess you disagree, to each his own, but that's my view.

In some relatively few instances no-contact is better than contact.

Usually, contact is better.

I think everyone can agree that Drew Stubbs is a poor hitter. You can say it is because he strikes out too much. I can say it is because he makes too many outs and doesn't get enough extra-base hits. I think changing his swing to make more contact would improve his batting average, keep his OBP the same and make his SLG worse.

You might ask "if he makes more contact and improves his batting average why wouldn't that raise his OBP?" I would answer, because that approach would cause him to walk less and make weaker contact (weak contact means fewer base hits per hit ball than hard contact does). Changing his approach affects all his at-bats, not just the ones where he would have struck out using his old approach. You can't just isolate out the strikeouts and change your approach on those ABs. A change in approach affects every plate appearance. Maximizing contact results in weaker contact, so while he might snag a base hit where he may have struck out in the past, he might also make weak contact on a pitch he would have crushed in the past. Weak contact is less likely to get through the infield or become a base hit. So Stubbs would see some balls that would have been hits in the past that are now fielded for an out. Now consider also that making contact more frequently means you are less likely to walk (you can't walk if you hit the ball). More frequent but weaker contact can result in the same OBP as less frequent but harder contact. Weaker contact will definitely result in a much lower SLG than hard contact.

*BaseClogger*
10-16-2012, 06:33 PM
Did this thread come out of the archives from 2003?

westofyou
10-16-2012, 06:35 PM
Did this thread come out of the archives from 2003?

I found it among my Linear Weights notes and my Craig Wright scrapbook

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 06:40 PM
The best argument against BA is that base hits are influenced strongly by luck and other factors beyond the batter's control.

A base hit (notably singles and doubles) could easily be an out if the ball were hit slightly differently, or the fielder was positioned slightly differently, or the fielder was better, etc. This is a good argument.

The argument fails IMO when a hitter consistently gets lots of base hits per times at bat over a number of years. Some hitters have the ability to get hits for a variety of reasons.

On the other hand, when a batter has a high BA once or twice in a long career, then the stat may not mean as much.

Those are all valid points for certain.

I would add that the biggest argument against batting average is this: Simply getting a base hit is not the goal of a batter.

The goal of a batter is to put runs on the scoreboard for his team.

Base hits are not a good indicator of who the best run producers are. Going to the plate with the goal of getting a base hit is not a good approach. The batter needs to go to the plate with the goal of reaching base safely without making an out anywhere on the field (ie. don't cause a runner to be retired either) and once you reach base try to reach as far around the bases as you can.

Batting average does a very poor job of measuring a hitter's rate of success of achieving his goal -- OBP is much more accurate because it includes Walks and HBPs.

Batting average also does a poor job of measuring the hitter's degree of success at achieving his goal -- SLG is much more accurate because it factors how far the hitter got beyond first base on his hit.

OBP and SLG (and especially OPS and wOBA) much more accurately measure how effective a hitter was at achieving his goal: putting runs on the scoreboard for his team.

Superdude
10-16-2012, 06:43 PM
I think everyone can agree that Drew Stubbs is a poor hitter. You can say it is because he strikes out too much. I can say it is because he makes too many outs and doesn't get enough extra-base hits.

He makes too many outs BECAUSE he strikes out 34% of his at bats.

Kc61
10-16-2012, 06:44 PM
IWeak contact is less likely to get through the infield or become a base hit. So Stubbs would see some balls that would have been hits in the past that are now fielded for an out. Now consider also that making contact more frequently means you are less likely to walk (you can't walk if you hit the ball). More frequent but weaker contact can result in the same OBP as less frequent but harder contact. Weaker contact will definitely result in a much lower SLG than hard contact.

Good answer. Let's take a different hypothetical.

Take Drew Stubbs with his 166 Ks. Compare him to a different hitter, Batter X.

Batter X is identical to Stubbs in every way, same approach, same results, except he makes more contact. He strikes out only 83 times and makes contact and hits a fair ball an additional 83 times.

IMO, Batter X will have better overall numbers than Drew. IMO, an identical hitter making more contact will do better.

I'd prefer Batter X as a hitter to Drew Stubbs. It's kind of obvious but feel free to disagree. I'm moving on to other things.

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 06:57 PM
Good answer. Let's take a different hypothetical.

Take Drew Stubbs with his 166 Ks. Compare him to a different hitter, Batter X.

Batter X is identical to Stubbs in every way, same approach, same results, but he makes more contact. He strikes out only 83 times and makes contact and hits a fair ball an additional 83 times.

IMO, Batter X will have better overall numbers than Drew. IMO, an identical hitter making more contact will do better.

That's my point. More contact is generally better, all other things being equal.

Those two bolded items don't compute. If the results are the same he will have the same overall numbers.

If the batter you propose existed he would have better OBP and SLG than Drew Stubbs if some of those 83 extra contacts were not outs, that would be a better hitter than Drew Stubbs. The batting average doesn't change anything.

You are making the circular assertion that if Drew Stubbs were a better hitter he would be a better hitter. Obviously, if he hit the ball better then he would have better BA/OBP/SLG stats.

I often hear the notion that if he would strike out less he would be a better hitter. OK fine. How is he going to strike out less? How will that affect the rest of his at-bats? If it really were that simple why hasn't he done it already? People have been saying that about hitters for decades but it simply doesn't work that way.

You can't isolate out the strikeouts from the total package. That is like saying "if Drew Stubbs didn't hit as many routine bouncers to the shortstop he would have a better batting average." How is that different than saying "If Drew Stubbs didn't strike out as much he would have a better batting average"?

_Sir_Charles_
10-16-2012, 07:21 PM
I have a hard time with this concept. I get that OBP/SLG is more important, but if given the choice between .200/.330/.450 and .300/.330/.450, it makes no difference? BA may not correlate perfectly with runs scored, but to say it means nothing just sounds like oversimplification to me.

The problem I have with this is that it's looking at ONE PLAYER instead of the group of a TEAM. The .200/.330/.450 guy may not be producing more or less than the .300/.330/.450 guy on his own, but the additional hits are increasing the odds for those following players on the team to contribute. Moving defenders, creating holes, etc. Sometimes the sabermetric guys make it seem like a walk and a single are basically the same thing..."he's avoiding an out"...but for me there's a VAST difference in the two. A hitter who has good contact skills does more than just have a higher BA. He fouls off more pitches and works the pitchers pitch count higher, he's less likely to strike out, he's more likely to advance runners with sacs, hit & runs, etc. It's not just ONE guy and his ONE stat line. It's the interaction between all the pieces of the puzzle that sabermetrics seems to overlook quite a bit. I think KC is spot on here. Overall, the team has pretty good slugging, but VERY poor contact skills. Filling those missing skills in the team overall is only going to help.

_Sir_Charles_
10-16-2012, 07:37 PM
I would add that the biggest argument against batting average is this: Simply getting a base hit is not the goal of a batter.

The goal of a batter is to put runs on the scoreboard for his team.

Could not disagree more.

The goal of the TEAM is to score runs. The goal of the individual is to do his part to make that possible. The goal of the individual is to get on base with a hit, walk...whatever...or do what he can to make it easier for another teammate to score a run...advance a runner with an out, work the count and force a pitching change, etc.

Looking at a single player overlooks the fact that this is a TEAM game. They're all interconnected.

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 07:38 PM
The problem I have with this is that it's looking at ONE PLAYER instead of the group of a TEAM. The .200/.330/.450 guy may not be producing more or less than the .300/.330/.450 guy on his own, but the additional hits are increasing the odds for those following players on the team to contribute. Moving defenders, creating holes, etc. Sometimes the sabermetric guys make it seem like a walk and a single are basically the same thing..."he's avoiding an out"...but for me there's a VAST difference in the two. A hitter who has good contact skills does more than just have a higher BA. He fouls off more pitches and works the pitchers pitch count higher, he's less likely to strike out, he's more likely to advance runners with sacs, hit & runs, etc. It's not just ONE guy and his ONE stat line. It's the interaction between all the pieces of the puzzle that sabermetrics seems to overlook quite a bit. I think KC is spot on here. Overall, the team has pretty good slugging, but VERY poor contact skills. Filling those missing skills in the team overall is only going to help.

On the contrary, the saber guys are the ones that ARE factoring in BA as a part of the whole team's offensive contributions. That is exactly what the whole idea of correlating each stat with real-world run scoring does. These correlations are done on team stats, not individual stats. Team Batting Average simply does not correlate well with run scoring in real MLB games. OBP and SLG correlate much better with run scoring on a team basis than BA does. wOBA and OPS are even better.

You are absolutely correct that you have to evaluate the big picture, where a player's contributions at the plate echo far beyond his own individual at-bats. I just think the saber approach does a far better job of that than batting average does.

Saber guys don't consider a walk and a single as basically the same thing. The run value of a single is .47 runs for his team. The run value of a walk is .33 runs for his team. So you can see that sabermetrically, a single is quite a bit more valuable than a walk. The run value of a home run is 1.41 runs, so a home run is a lot more valuable than either a single or a walk. Sabermetrics captures all this at exactly the ratios they exhibit themselves in real MLB games. Batting average would have counted those singles and home runs exactly the same as each other and would have totally ignored the walks.

Players who hit the ball into play see on average fewer pitches than hitters who strike out or walk. You can hit the first pitch, but you can't strike out or walk on the first pitch. It takes a lot of pitches to strike out or walk.

Strikeouts are no more harmful than other outs on average. It is statistically proven, as I showed earlier in this thread.

The benefit gained by advancing runners with sacs and hit-and-runs etc is cancelled out by the double-plays and fielder's choices over the course of a season.

Superdude
10-16-2012, 07:58 PM
On the contrary, the saber guys are the ones that ARE factoring in BA as a part of the whole team's offensive contributions. That is exactly what the whole idea of correlating each stat with real-world run scoring does. These correlations are done on team stats, not individual stats. Team Batting Average simply does not correlate well with run scoring in real MLB games. OBP and SLG correlate much better with run scoring on a team basis than BA does. wOBA and OPS are even better.

My argument is that trying to correlate batting average to runs scored is a faulty method in the first place. It's obviously not going to correlate much because it's only one piece of a much bigger puzzle. It's correlation to runs scored has very little to do with it's utility IMO.


Batting average would have counted those singles and home runs exactly the same as each other and would have totally ignored the walks.

What's the buzzword around here, straw man? No is arguing this point, and once again, I think you're making the false assumption that because batting average doesn't tell everything, it has no value at all.

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 08:07 PM
The problem I have with this is that it's looking at ONE PLAYER instead of the group of a TEAM. The .200/.330/.450 guy may not be producing more or less than the .300/.330/.450 guy on his own, but the additional hits are increasing the odds for those following players on the team to contribute. Moving defenders, creating holes, etc. Sometimes the sabermetric guys make it seem like a walk and a single are basically the same thing..."he's avoiding an out"...but for me there's a VAST difference in the two. A hitter who has good contact skills does more than just have a higher BA. He fouls off more pitches and works the pitchers pitch count higher, he's less likely to strike out, he's more likely to advance runners with sacs, hit & runs, etc. It's not just ONE guy and his ONE stat line. It's the interaction between all the pieces of the puzzle that sabermetrics seems to overlook quite a bit. I think KC is spot on here. Overall, the team has pretty good slugging, but VERY poor contact skills. Filling those missing skills in the team overall is only going to help.



Saber guys don't consider a walk and a single as basically the same thing. The run value of a single is .47 runs for his team. The run value of a walk is .33 runs for his team. So you can see that sabermetrically, a single is quite a bit more valuable than a walk. The run value of a home run is 1.41 runs, so a home run is a lot more valuable than either a single or a walk. Sabermetrics captures all this at exactly the ratios they exhibit themselves in real MLB games. Batting average would have counted those singles and home runs exactly the same as each other and would have totally ignored the walks.




What's the buzzword around here, straw man? No is arguing this point, and once again, I think you're making the false assumption that because batting average doesn't tell everything, it has no value at all.

There is an example of someone arguing precisely that point just a couple posts ago and that is the post I was replying to at the time.

VR
10-16-2012, 08:21 PM
The problem is, over the course of a season, all the sabr stats even out. (I love sabr)

In a one game, or three game series, they mean very very little.

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 10:19 PM
I have a hard time with this concept. I get that OBP/SLG is more important, but if given the choice between .200/.330/.450 and .300/.330/.450, it makes no difference? BA may not correlate perfectly with runs scored, but to say it means nothing just sounds like oversimplification to me.

Here is another way to look at your question:

Jack Slugger's stats: .200/.330/.450

Mickey Slapper's stats: .300/.330/.450

In your opinion Mickey Slapper is the better player. In my opinion they are equal.

Since they both have the same OBP and Mickey Slapper has a better Batting Average we can determine that Mickey Slapper gets more hits but Jack Slugger gets more walks or HBPs. Hits are better than walks. So right now it looks like Mickey Slapper is the better hitter. This is the case you are making, which is correct but incomplete.

The aspect you are not considering is this: Since you are giving more hits to Mickey Slapper you are also giving him more Total Bases (singles grant 1 TB while walks do not count as Total Bases). Since you are giving him more Total Bases his SLG should go up above the .450 mark we have quoted but it doesn't (SLG=TBs/ABs). Since we know his SLG remained at .450 despite the extra Total Bases from base hits we can conclude that Mickey Slapper must be losing Total Bases somewhere else (we know he has the same Total Bases as Jack Slugger or else they would have different SLG rates). The answer is that Mickey Slapper is getting fewer Total Bases per hit -- he is hitting singles instead of the more valuable doubles and home runs. Every time you give him a single instead of a walk you have to turn one of his doubles into a single (roughly speaking, because you are also giving him an extra AB because walks don't count as ABs). Or for every three hits instead of walks you have to turn one of his home runs into a single. Essentially, to turn a walk into a single you have to also turn an extra-base hit into a single. Otherwise the SLG will change. That is the tradeoff -- if you want your OBP to be driven by hits instead of walks you have to sacrifice your doubles and home runs.

This also means that even though Jack Slugger had fewer hits he still had the same number of Total Bases -- which means that Jack Slugger got a lot more extra base hits than Mickey Slapper did.

While a .300/.330/.450 line looks better on paper than a .200/.330/.450 line it is merely a mirage. Both lines show players who are equally productive in different ways. It is just another way to show that batting average is a stat that makes no useful or practical difference on the field.

In the end they are both contributing to the same degree to their teams' scoring chances. Mickey Slapper contributes with singles and doubles, while Jack Slugger contributes with walks, doubles and home runs. Both make outs at the same rate. Both contribute the same Total Bases. Their overall contribution is exactly the same in the end.

KittyDuran
10-16-2012, 10:42 PM
Guys... can we get back to the topic? Please?

757690
10-16-2012, 10:43 PM
Here is another way to look at your question:

Jack Slugger's stats: .200/.330/.450

Mickey Slapper's stats: .300/.330/.450

In your opinion Mickey Slapper is the better player. In my opinion they are equal.

Since they both have the same OBP and Mickey Slapper has a better Batting Average we can determine that Mickey Slapper gets more hits but Jack Slugger gets more walks or HBPs. Hits are better than walks. So right now it looks like Mickey Slapper is the better hitter. This is the case you are making, which is correct but incomplete.

The aspect you are not considering is this: Since you are giving more hits to Mickey Slapper you are also giving him more Total Bases (singles grant 1 TB while walks do not count as Total Bases). Since you are giving him more Total Bases his SLG should go up above the .450 mark we have quoted but it doesn't (SLG=TBs/ABs). Since we know his SLG remained at .450 despite the extra Total Bases from base hits we can conclude that Mickey Slapper must be losing Total Bases somewhere else (we know he has the same Total Bases as Jack Slugger or else they would have different SLG rates). The answer is that Mickey Slapper is getting fewer Total Bases per hit -- he is hitting singles instead of the more valuable doubles and home runs. Every time you give him a single instead of a walk you have to turn one of his doubles into a single (roughly speaking, because you are also giving him an extra AB because walks don't count as ABs). Or for every three hits instead of walks you have to turn one of his home runs into a single. Essentially, to turn a walk into a single you have to also turn an extra-base hit into a single. Otherwise the SLG will change. That is the tradeoff -- if you want your OBP to be driven by hits instead of walks you have to sacrifice your doubles and home runs.

This also means that even though Jack Slugger had fewer hits he still had the same number of Total Bases -- which means that Jack Slugger got a lot more extra base hits than Mickey Slapper did.

While a .300/.330/.450 line looks better on paper than a .200/.330/.450 line it is merely a mirage. Both lines show players who are equally productive in different ways. It is just another way to show that batting average is a stat that makes no useful or practical difference on the field.

In the end they are both contributing to the same degree to their teams scoring chances. Mickey Slapper contributes with singles and doubles, while Jack Slugger contributes with walks, doubles and home runs. Both make outs at the same rate. Both contribute the same Total Bases. Their overall contribution is exactly the same in the end.

Singles on average result in .47 runs, while doubles result in .78, triples result in 1.09, HR's 1.40. BB's result in .38 runs

So 100 singles results in 47 runs, 50 doubles in 39 runs, 25 HR's 35 runs, and 100 BB's result in 38 runs.

A player who depends on BB's and extra base hits is actually less productive than one who depends on singles, if their OPS is the same.

Superdude
10-16-2012, 10:46 PM
Here is another way to look at your question:

Jack Slugger's stats: .200/.330/.450

Mickey Slapper's stats: .300/.330/.450

In your opinion Mickey Slapper is the better player. In my opinion they are equal.

Since they both have the same OBP and Mickey Slapper has a better Batting Average we can determine that Mickey Slapper gets more hits but Jack Slugger gets more walks or HBPs. Hits are better than walks. So right now it looks like Mickey Slapper is the better hitter. This is the case you are making, which is correct but incomplete.

The aspect you are not considering is this: Since you are giving more hits to Mickey Slapper you are also giving him more Total Bases (singles grant 1 TB while walks do not count as Total Bases). Since you are giving him more Total Bases his SLG should go up above the .450 mark we have quoted but it doesn't (SLG=TBs/ABs). Since we know his SLG remained at .450 despite the extra Total Bases from base hits we can conclude that Mickey Slapper must be losing Total Bases somewhere else (we know he has the same Total Bases as Jack Slugger or else they would have different SLG rates). The answer is that Mickey Slapper is getting fewer Total Bases per hit -- he is hitting singles instead of the more valuable doubles and home runs. Every time you give him a single instead of a walk you have to turn one of his doubles into a single (roughly speaking, because you are also giving him an extra AB because walks don't count as ABs). Or for every three hits instead of walks you have to turn one of his home runs into a single. Essentially, to turn a walk into a single you have to also turn an extra-base hit into a single. Otherwise the SLG will change. That is the tradeoff -- if you want your OBP to be driven by hits instead of walks you have to sacrifice your doubles and home runs.

This also means that even though Jack Slugger had fewer hits he still had the same number of Total Bases -- which means that Jack Slugger got a lot more extra base hits than Mickey Slapper did.

While a .300/.330/.450 line looks better on paper than a .200/.330/.450 line it is merely a mirage. Both lines show players who are equally productive in different ways. It is just another way to show that batting average is a stat that makes no useful or practical difference on the field.

In the end they are both contributing to the same degree to their teams' scoring chances. Mickey Slapper contributes with singles and doubles, while Jack Slugger contributes with walks, doubles and home runs. Both make outs at the same rate. Both contribute the same Total Bases. Their overall contribution is exactly the same in the end.

That was a bad example on my part. Jack Slugger has to rack up some serious IsoP just to keep up. My main point outside of fictional characters and theoretical slash lines is that you can't conclude these players are identical production wise just because OPS correlates better to runs scored than batting average. I'd venture to say it's not that simple.

I might get around to this later, but it'd be interesting to plug Jack and Mickey's stats into a better run expectancy formula just to see what it spits out.

westofyou
10-16-2012, 10:51 PM
Guys... can we get back to the topic? Please?

http://www.aztlan.net/bandido.jpg

Topic...Topic... we don't need no stinking topic

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 10:51 PM
Singles on average result in .47 runs, while doubles result in .78, triples result in 1.09, HR's 1.40. BB's result in .38 runs

So 100 singles results in 47 runs, 50 doubles in 39 runs, 25 HR's 35 runs, and 100 BB's result in 38 runs.

A player who depends on BB's and extra base hits is actually less productive than one who depends on singles, if their OPS is the same.

Maybe I am not getting your point. The players in those examples would have wildly differing OPS scores wouldn't they? Seems to be apples and oranges.

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 10:55 PM
That was a bad example on my part. Jack Slugger has to rack up some serious IsoP just to keep up. My main point outside of fictional characters and theoretical slash lines is that you can't conclude these players are identical production wise just because OPS correlates better to runs scored than batting average. I'd venture to say it's not that simple.

I might get around to this later, but it'd be interesting to plug Jack and Mickey's stats into a better run expectancy formula just to see what it spits out.

It was an interesting example! I enjoyed thinking about it.

I agree it is not really that simple. It just doesn't seem that batting average enlightens the conversation, which was really the point I was making.

Run expectancy formulas are awesome and that would be the best approach, I agree. We would need more than just the slash lines to do this right.

AtomicDumpling
10-16-2012, 11:00 PM
Guys... can we get back to the topic? Please?

Isn't the topic offseason priorities? Some folks think it is a priority to improve the Reds' team batting average and that is what we are currently discussing. Feel free to chime in with any other priorities you would like to see.

Superdude
10-16-2012, 11:02 PM
It was an interesting example! I enjoyed thinking about it.

I agree it is not really that simple. It just doesn't seem that batting average enlightens the conversation, which was really the point I was making.

Run expectancy formulas are awesome and that would be the best approach, I agree. We would need more than just the slash lines to do this right.

Now we're talkin. I was gonna say we should make a new thread for this, but my offseason priority is statistical enlightenment. That kinda fits

AtomicDumpling
10-17-2012, 12:03 AM
Here is another way to look at your question:

Jack Slugger's stats: .200/.330/.450

Mickey Slapper's stats: .300/.330/.450

In your opinion Mickey Slapper is the better player. In my opinion they are equal.

Since they both have the same OBP and Mickey Slapper has a better Batting Average we can determine that Mickey Slapper gets more hits but Jack Slugger gets more walks or HBPs. Hits are better than walks. So right now it looks like Mickey Slapper is the better hitter. This is the case you are making, which is correct but incomplete.

The aspect you are not considering is this: Since you are giving more hits to Mickey Slapper you are also giving him more Total Bases (singles grant 1 TB while walks do not count as Total Bases). Since you are giving him more Total Bases his SLG should go up above the .450 mark we have quoted but it doesn't (SLG=TBs/ABs). Since we know his SLG remained at .450 despite the extra Total Bases from base hits we can conclude that Mickey Slapper must be losing Total Bases somewhere else (we know he has the same Total Bases as Jack Slugger or else they would have different SLG rates). The answer is that Mickey Slapper is getting fewer Total Bases per hit -- he is hitting singles instead of the more valuable doubles and home runs. Every time you give him a single instead of a walk you have to turn one of his doubles into a single (roughly speaking, because you are also giving him an extra AB because walks don't count as ABs). Or for every three hits instead of walks you have to turn one of his home runs into a single. Essentially, to turn a walk into a single you have to also turn an extra-base hit into a single. Otherwise the SLG will change. That is the tradeoff -- if you want your OBP to be driven by hits instead of walks you have to sacrifice your doubles and home runs.

This also means that even though Jack Slugger had fewer hits he still had the same number of Total Bases -- which means that Jack Slugger got a lot more extra base hits than Mickey Slapper did.

While a .300/.330/.450 line looks better on paper than a .200/.330/.450 line it is merely a mirage. Both lines show players who are equally productive in different ways. It is just another way to show that batting average is a stat that makes no useful or practical difference on the field.

In the end they are both contributing to the same degree to their teams' scoring chances. Mickey Slapper contributes with singles and doubles, while Jack Slugger contributes with walks, doubles and home runs. Both make outs at the same rate. Both contribute the same Total Bases. Their overall contribution is exactly the same in the end.


Edit: OK now I went back and created one possible complete set of stats for our two players:


Player PA AB Singles Doubles Triples Homers Hits Walks HBP TB TB+* AVG OBP SLG OPS wOBA
Jack Slugger 600 503 42 25 2 32 101 95 2 226 323 0.201 0.330 0.449 0.779 0.343
Mickey Slapper 600 574 112 44 6 10 172 24 2 258 284 0.300 0.330 0.449 0.779 0.339

I was able to get very close to the slash lines proposed by SuperDude. There might be other possible stat combinations that match the proposed slash lines.

* TB+ = Total Bases plus Walks and HBP
I did this to get an idea of how many bases each hitter touched during the season as a result of their plate appearances. The Total Bases formula does not include BBs and HBPs.

Both of these players would be solid, above-average hitters in the major leagues, but they would not be anywhere near star caliber.

The OPS and wOBA scores for the two players are almost identical even though the slash lines appeared at first glance to make Mickey Slapper look like a superior hitter than Jack Slugger. Even a huge 100 point increase in Mickey Slapper's Batting Average did not improve his offensive production at all. Their overall production is the same even though they are completely different types of hitter. Jack Slugger has a slight advantage over Mickey Slapper in this analysis. I feel this helps verify my original assertion that as long as the OBP and SLG portions of a player's slash line are equal it doesn't make any difference what his Batting Average is. You don't get any extra production by raising the batting average. The OBP and SLG are what matters. As SuperDude mentioned, knowing a player's Batting Average can help you learn what style of hitter he is, but it doesn't help you identify which players are better.

A player's OBP and SLG are critical to evaluating his performance. His AVG is nothing more than trivia.

PuffyPig
10-17-2012, 12:35 AM
Singles on average result in .47 runs, while doubles result in .78, triples result in 1.09, HR's 1.40. BB's result in .38 runs

So 100 singles results in 47 runs, 50 doubles in 39 runs, 25 HR's 35 runs, and 100 BB's result in 38 runs.

A player who depends on BB's and extra base hits is actually less productive than one who depends on singles, if their OPS is the same.

Not so quick, I'm afraid.

I did a sample player A and Player B.

Player A has a slash line of .300/.330/.450, and in 500 PA, ends up with 21 W, 479 AB's, 97 1B, 32 2B, 5 3B and 10 HR.

Based on your results above, it adds up to 97.98 runs.

Player B has a slash line of .200/.330/.450, and in 500 PA, ends up with 81 W, 419 AB, 40 1B, 11 2B, 5 3B and 28 HR.

It adds up to 102.81 runs.

FWIW

Superdude
10-17-2012, 01:04 AM
Edit: OK now I went back and created one possible complete set of stats for our two players:


Player PA AB Singles Doubles Triples Homers Hits Walks HBP TB TB+* AVG OBP SLG OPS wOBA
Jack Slugger 600 503 42 25 2 32 101 95 2 226 323 0.201 0.330 0.449 0.779 0.343
Mickey Slapper 600 574 112 44 6 10 172 24 2 258 284 0.300 0.330 0.449 0.779 0.339

I was able to get very close to the slash lines proposed by SuperDude. There might be other possible stat combinations that match the proposed slash lines.

* TB+ = Total Bases plus Walks and HBP
I did this to get an idea of how many bases each hitter touched during the season as a result of their plate appearances. The Total Bases formula does not include BBs and HBPs.

Both of these players would be solid, above-average hitters in the major leagues, but they would not be anywhere near star caliber.

The OPS and wOBA scores for the two players are almost identical even though the slash lines appeared at first glance to make Mickey Slapper look like a superior hitter than Jack Slugger. Even a huge 100 point increase in Mickey Slapper's Batting Average did not improve his offensive production at all. Their overall production is the same even though they are completely different types of hitter. Jack Slugger has a slight advantage over Mickey Slapper in this analysis. I feel this helps verify my original assertion that as long as the OBP and SLG portions of a player's slash line are equal it doesn't make any difference what his Batting Average is. You don't get any extra production by raising the batting average. The OBP and SLG are what matters. As SuperDude mentioned, knowing a player's Batting Average can help you learn what style of hitter he is, but it doesn't help you identify which players are better.

A player's OBP and SLG are critical to evaluating his performance. His AVG is trivia.

Interesting...the only issue, like you said earlier, is the fact that the difference in hits has to be counterbalanced by a massive increase in power for Mr. Slugger just to make the SLG and OPS match up. Have to wonder how that factors in. I can't think of any way to truly isolate batting average as a variable though.

Another thing (which is probably a much smaller factor in reality considering the difference in player's offensive makeup is rarely this radical), but how would this play out on a game by game basis? Seems like with Mickey Slapper racking up eleven or twelve hits on a nightly basis, that team's gonna be tough to shut down. Jack on the other hand has just as many men on base, but only has six or seven hits to cash in on. Is there a chance the aggregate data is glossing over the fact that Jack's run distribution throughout the season may be a little more volatile than Mickey? Especially in a short series like that tragedy with San Francisco, I know I'd rather have team that could scratch out around 4 runs a night than a team that can blow up or get shutout based on how the wind's blowing.

AtomicDumpling
10-17-2012, 01:18 AM
Interesting...the only issue, like you said earlier, is the fact that the difference in hits has to be counterbalanced by a massive increase in power for Mr. Slugger just to make the SLG and OPS match up. Have to wonder how that factors in. I can't think of any way to truly isolate batting average as a variable though.

Another thing (which is probably a much smaller factor in reality considering the difference in player's offensive makeup is rarely this radical), but how would this play out on a game by game basis? Seems like with Mickey Slapper racking up eleven or twelve hits on a nightly basis, that team's gonna be tough to shut down. Jack on the other hand has just as many men on base, but only has six or seven hits to cash in on. Is there a chance the aggregate data is glossing over the fact that Jack's run distribution throughout the season may be a little more volatile than Mickey? Especially in a short series like that tragedy with San Francisco, I know I'd rather have team that could scratch out around 4 runs a night than a team that can blow up or get shutout based on how the wind's blowing.

I would imagine there is something to the volatility issue. Another factor in the opposite direction is that Jack doesn't rely as much as Mickey does on having men on base in order to drive in a run. Secondly, they are both equally likely to get on base and be driven in by the hitters behind them, but again Jack is not as reliant on his teammates because he can drive himself in with a home run. Possibly Mickey would be better than Jack on a team that had several other high-OBP hitters ahead of him in the lineup, whereas Jack would fare better than Mickey on a team with fewer good hitters in the lineup. They are both good but not great players.

VR
10-17-2012, 01:30 AM
Why is the assumption the hitter would replace walks with hits? Isn't the idea to replace strikeouts with balls in play, leading to more hits in place of some of the strikeouts?

AtomicDumpling
10-17-2012, 01:33 AM
Why is the assumption the hitter would replace walks with hits? Isn't the idea to replace strikeouts with balls in play, leading to more hits in place of some of the strikeouts?

We are discussing this question:

If given the choice between .200/.330/.450 and .300/.330/.450 which player would you choose?

AtomicDumpling
10-17-2012, 01:54 AM
The closest players I can find to Jack Slugger's and Mickey Slapper's statistical profiles might be interesting:



Player PA AB Singles Doubles Triples Homers Hits Walks HBP TB TB+* BA OBP SLG OPS wOBA
Jack Slugger 600 503 42 25 2 32 101 95 2 226 323 0.201 0.330 0.449 0.779 0.343
Gorman Thomas 619 528 64 24 1 30 119 79 2 235 316 0.225 0.323 0.445 0.768 0.335
Rob Deer 633 544 65 21 2 32 120 81 4 241 326 0.221 0.324 0.443 0.767 0.336

Mickey Slapper 600 574 112 44 6 10 172 24 2 258 284 0.300 0.330 0.449 0.779 0.339
Nick Markakis 703 626 124 41 2 18 185 67 4 284 355 0.296 0.364 0.454 0.818 0.358


Gorman Thomas and Rob Deer are pretty darn good comps for Jack Slugger, although Slugger is better than both of them. They both played in an era when offense was down and fewer runs were scored.

Nick Markakis is quite a bit better than Mickey Slapper (his OBP is 34 points higher) so he is not really a good comp, but I can't find anyone that closely fits Slapper's odd slash line. It seemed like most of the closest matches were from the 1930's and earlier.

I used the comps' 162 game career averages.

757690
10-17-2012, 02:07 AM
Not so quick, I'm afraid.

I did a sample player A and Player B.

Player A has a slash line of .300/.330/.450, and in 500 PA, ends up with 21 W, 479 AB's, 97 1B, 32 2B, 5 3B and 10 HR.

Based on your results above, it adds up to 97.98 runs.

Player B has a slash line of .200/.330/.450, and in 500 PA, ends up with 81 W, 419 AB, 40 1B, 11 2B, 5 3B and 28 HR.

It adds up to 102.81 runs.

FWIW

Thanks. Nice work. You are much smarter than I.

However, if I were as smart as you, I could come up with a slash line that would make the slap hitter more effective. My main point is that if guy gets only singles and is able to get the same slash line as a guy with lots of walks and HR's, the singles hitter would be more productive. However, the slash lines wouldn't look like the ones used in this example.

VR
10-17-2012, 02:10 AM
We are discussing this question:

If given the choice between .200/.330/.450 and .300/.330/.450 which player would you choose?

I thought it was about Drew Stubbs?

Superdude
10-17-2012, 02:15 AM
My main point is that if guy gets only singles and is able to get the same slash line as a guy with lots of walks and HR's, the singles hitter would be more productive. However, the slash lines wouldn't look like the ones used in this example.

Got a better idea? This was just based off the crazy example I used earlier.

757690
10-17-2012, 02:18 AM
Got a better idea? This was just based off the crazy example I used earlier.

Nope. Like I said, not smart enough. But it's fun reading this thread :)

AtomicDumpling
10-17-2012, 02:43 AM
Thanks. Nice work. You are much smarter than I.

However, if I were as smart as you, I could come up with a slash line that would make the slap hitter more effective. My main point is that if guy gets only singles and is able to get the same slash line as a guy with lots of walks and HR's, the singles hitter would be more productive. However, the slash lines wouldn't look like the ones used in this example.

If you want to suggest a slash line to test I can plug it into my new spreadsheet to make the calculations.

The one that we tested above was a pretty extreme comparison. It compared a strong power hitter vs a strong singles/double hitter and found that they were both equally productive. I think as long as the OBP and SLG portions of the slash line are the same then we will find equal production no matter what the AVGs are. It shouldn't matter what combination of singles, walks and home runs the hitter has either. If the slash line is the same the total production will be the same. I would be happy to test any scenarios you have in mind that might give us a different result.

The lesson we are learning as it pertains to the Reds is this: the Reds need to improve their OBP and SLG without worrying about the AVG. Or in other words, don't sacrifice any of the team's OBP or SLG to improve the AVG.

AtomicDumpling
10-17-2012, 03:01 AM
Player PA AB Singles Doubles Triples Homers Hits Walks HBP TB TB+ BA OBP SLG OPS wOBA RunValue
Jack Slugger 600 503 42 25 2 32 101 95 2 226 323 0.201 0.330 0.449 0.779 0.343 122.32
Mickey Slapper 600 574 112 44 6 10 172 24 2 258 284 0.300 0.330 0.449 0.779 0.339 116.62

I added in a column to calculate the Run Value like 757690 and PuffyPig are doing with their calculations.

Ideally we would calculate the Run Values of all 600 of their plate appearances rather than only the hits and walks like we are doing here. The end result would be a much smaller number once all the outs were factored in.

gilpdawg
10-17-2012, 03:57 AM
*your opinion

I hate when people say that. Of course it's his opinion. Whose else's opinion is he supposed to post?

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk HD

mth123
10-17-2012, 04:44 AM
I think what is being ignored here is KC's original premise that this team needs some diversification of its skillset. Its not necessarily that Mickey Slaphitter is better than Jack Slugger. The problem is that the Reds have a team filled with Jack Sluggers and there isn't a Mickey Slaphitter to be found. I know this, I just watched the Reds leave a small army on base in Games 3, 4 and 5 of the series they lost to the Giants. Two outs and a runner on second, I'd much rather have Mickey Slaphitter up there to get the run home than I would Jack Slugger. Increased ability to get a hit would seem to mean increased ability to get the hit. A walk doesn't do much good in the situation I just sighted. Its simply adds another runner to be left on base. Getting a hit on the other hand....

PuffyPig
10-17-2012, 09:09 AM
Thanks. Nice work. You are much smarter than I.

However, if I were as smart as you, I could come up with a slash line that would make the slap hitter more effective.

I don't think you could.

Because in this example where a guy is hitting .200 vs. .300, there really isn't that many different slash lines. And none are going to have that much of a varying result in runs created.

You can vary the number of doubles, HR's etc. a bit, but you really are limited because of the parameters of BA/OBA/OPS being the same.

PuffyPig
10-17-2012, 09:15 AM
I think what is being ignored here is KC's original premise that this team needs some diversification of its skillset. Its not necessarily that Mickey Slaphitter is better than Jack Slugger. The problem is that the Reds have a team filled with Jack Sluggers and there isn't a Mickey Slaphitter to be found. I know this, I just watched the Reds leave a small army on base in Games 3, 4 and 5 of the series they lost to the Giants. Two outs and a runner on second, I'd much rather have Mickey Slaphitter up there to get the run home than I would Jack Slugger. Increased ability to get a hit would seem to mean increased ability to get the hit. A walk doesn't do much good in the situation I just sighted. Its simply adds another runner to be left on base. Getting a hit on the other hand....

Small sample size. I won't base anything on 3 games. And why ignore the first two games where we scored runs?

The Reds were 12 in OBA this season, and 8th in runs scored.

That tells me that were better at getting our base runners to home than average. Becausee our % on runners scoring was better than our percentage of getting runners on base.

Caveat Emperor
10-17-2012, 09:26 AM
Small sample size. I won't base anything on 3 games. And why ignore the first two games where we scored runs?

It's not really a so much a "small sample size" as it is a microcosm for the Reds in 2012.

They need to get better at getting on base. No one is disputing that bringing in higher OBP guys will lead to better run production. The issue of disconnect is that somehow just mentioning BA (in the context of wanting to get more BA-driven OBP guys) taints the discussion -- which I think is insane.

mdccclxix
10-17-2012, 10:10 AM
The good news is, if you're looking to any old stat, offensively, to improve over Stubbs, you'll likely hit the mark. He was the worst offensive CF vs RHP in MLB. The Worst. Heisey wasn't much better. On the other hand, Stubbs was above average vs LHP.

_Sir_Charles_
10-17-2012, 10:22 AM
I think what is being ignored here is KC's original premise that this team needs some diversification of its skillset. Its not necessarily that Mickey Slaphitter is better than Jack Slugger. The problem is that the Reds have a team filled with Jack Sluggers and there isn't a Mickey Slaphitter to be found. I know this, I just watched the Reds leave a small army on base in Games 3, 4 and 5 of the series they lost to the Giants. Two outs and a runner on second, I'd much rather have Mickey Slaphitter up there to get the run home than I would Jack Slugger. Increased ability to get a hit would seem to mean increased ability to get the hit. A walk doesn't do much good in the situation I just sighted. Its simply adds another runner to be left on base. Getting a hit on the other hand....

:clap: :clap: :clap:

PuffyPig
10-17-2012, 11:56 AM
It's not really a so much a "small sample size" as it is a microcosm for the Reds in 2012.

They need to get better at getting on base. No one is disputing that bringing in higher OBP guys will lead to better run production. The issue of disconnect is that somehow just mentioning BA (in the context of wanting to get more BA-driven OBP guys) taints the discussion -- which I think is insane.

I believe the issue was that the Reds needed more "BA driven guys" as this would lead to more run scoring. That between two players with equal OBA and SL%, the player with the higher BA would lead to more runs.

The last 3 games was not a microcosm of the Reds season. We were getting the baserunners, we just didn't score enough of them. The Reds season was, in fact, the opposite. We didn't get enough baserunners. Of those that did reach base, we were able to score them at a better clip during the season.

Vottomatic
10-17-2012, 12:22 PM
Here is an interesting scenario:

Imagine that baseball had not been invented until the year 2000, well into the information age of computers. Now that there is so much data available about every game and so much processing power at our fingertips, do you think that Batting Average would ever have been invented as a statistic?

Batting average is basically a relic from the 1800's that became popular before records were kept on things like walks, errors and HBPs, and before extra base hits became common.

The flaws in battting average are so readily apparent by today's standards that I don't think batting average would ever have become popular if baseball had been invented in the modern world.

I disagree.

The eyetest of who are the best hitters always matches up to their batting averages for me.

Same with pitchers. I never needed all the Saber stuff to know that Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax were great pitchers. Without even looking at their e.r.a.'s, you knew it. But their e.r.a.'s always backed it up too.

PuffyPig
10-17-2012, 02:08 PM
I disagree.

The eyetest of who are the best hitters always matches up to their batting averages for me.

Same with pitchers. I never needed all the Saber stuff to know that Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax were great pitchers. Without even looking at their e.r.a.'s, you knew it. But their e.r.a.'s always backed it up too.

So, the BA of Adam Dunn matches up to his offensive abilty?

And their have been lots of pitchers who have been lights out for a year and them settled back into their normal level. Steve Stone comes to mind.

Kc61
10-17-2012, 02:13 PM
I think what is being ignored here is KC's original premise that this team needs some diversification of its skillset. Its not necessarily that Mickey Slaphitter is better than Jack Slugger. The problem is that the Reds have a team filled with Jack Sluggers and there isn't a Mickey Slaphitter to be found. I know this, I just watched the Reds leave a small army on base in Games 3, 4 and 5 of the series they lost to the Giants. Two outs and a runner on second, I'd much rather have Mickey Slaphitter up there to get the run home than I would Jack Slugger. Increased ability to get a hit would seem to mean increased ability to get the hit. A walk doesn't do much good in the situation I just sighted. Its simply adds another runner to be left on base. Getting a hit on the other hand....

I agree with this.

The Reds simply are good at SLG and not good at OBP/BA. They need more OBP/BA. It will provide better balance to the offense. Best case scenario, they add the OBP/BA without reducing SLG, or reducing it very slightly.

As for the difference between OBP and BA, it becomes less meaningful when you consider that most high BA hitters have good OBPs. Of the top qualified 50 BA hitters in baseball this year, only two had OBPs below .330.

IMO, the Reds offense has too many right handed hitters who hit for fair to good power but are low OBP/BA guys. It's not a well diversified offense.

Also, I commend to all of you recent writings by Tom Verducci of SI. He views this as an age of strikeouts where teams that put the ball in play succeed in key games. I find his writing on this subject persuasive. He even quotes Joey Votto's comments for support.

Brutus
10-17-2012, 02:56 PM
Does anyone have scouting reports on Mickey Slapper and Jack Slugger? I'm not familiar with them.

Rojo
10-17-2012, 03:04 PM
The issue of disconnect is that somehow just mentioning BA (in the context of wanting to get more BA-driven OBP guys) taints the discussion -- which I think is insane.

Someone got a little too "four legs good, two legs bad" about the whole thing.

REDREAD
10-17-2012, 03:40 PM
. The benefits of extra contact are erased by the extra double plays and fielder's choices they create.

Disagree. Can you support this statement?
Especially on a guy like Stubbs.. He's very difficult to double up.
There are cases where an out can advance a runner. Larkin was the master of hitting the ball to RF to advance the runner. That's a productive at bat, even if it sometimes caused an out.

Again, I'm not saying there's a case where an out is better than a BB or hit.. Just saying that some outs advance the runner, induce errors, sac flies, etc. I guess I see no downside to extra contact, as you imply.

Raisor
10-17-2012, 03:55 PM
Dear lord, a batting average discussion I overlooked.

Feels like 2004.

Raisor
10-17-2012, 03:57 PM
Dear lord, a batting average discussion I overlooked.

Feels like 2004.

REDREAD
10-17-2012, 04:12 PM
Here is another way to look at your question:

Jack Slugger's stats: .200/.330/.450

Mickey Slapper's stats: .300/.330/.450

[snip..]

The aspect you are not considering is this: Since you are giving more hits to Mickey Slapper you are also giving him more Total Bases (singles grant 1 TB while walks do not count as Total Bases). Since you are giving him more Total Bases his SLG should go up above the .450 mark we have quoted but it doesn't (SLG=TBs/ABs). Since we know his SLG remained at .450 despite the extra Total Bases from base hits we can conclude that Mickey Slapper must be losing Total Bases somewhere else (we know he has the same Total Bases as Jack Slugger or else they would have different SLG rates). .


Real world example.. 100 plate appearances (so BBs count.)

Jack Slugger would walk 13 times, bringing his "at bats" down to 87.
He's have 17 hits.
He'd have 39 total bases to maintain that slugging of .450
So he'd have 2.29 bases per hit
Factor in the walks.. he averages .56 bases every time he comes to the plate.


Mickey Slapper
3 walks..
97 at bats left.
29 hits
..to slug 450 he'd need 43.6 total bases
So he gets roughly 1.5 bases per hit
Factor in the walks.. he averages .466 bases every time he comes to the plate.

IMO, they are kind of close, since hits are more valuable than walks.. Maybe someone else can determine the exact math..

Slapper is the type of person I would like the Reds to add, due to their current "all or nothing" offense.

Not sure this is a realistic example either, because I'm guessing not many hitters average 2.29 bases per hit..(Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe this is common?)
Obviously if Jack Slugger could raise his batting average a bit, you'd expect his slugging to increase as well.

Vottomatic
10-17-2012, 06:53 PM
Dear lord, a batting average discussion I overlooked.

Feels like 2004.

.......and the discussion is like half of this thread.

I came here to read stuff about possible personnel changes.

PuffyPig
10-17-2012, 07:29 PM
Real world example.. 100 plate appearances (so BBs count.)

Jack Slugger would walk 13 times, bringing his "at bats" down to 87.
He's have 17 hits.
He'd have 39 total bases to maintain that slugging of .450
So he'd have 2.29 bases per hit
Factor in the walks.. he averages .56 bases every time he comes to the plate.


Mickey Slapper
3 walks..
97 at bats left.
29 hits
..to slug 450 he'd need 43.6 total bases
So he gets roughly 1.5 bases per hit
Factor in the walks.. he averages .466 bases every time he comes to the plate.

IMO, they are kind of close, since hits are more valuable than walks.. Maybe someone else can determine the exact math..


If you go back and read the last 3-4 pages the exact match has been done.

AtomicDumpling
10-17-2012, 09:35 PM
I think what is being ignored here is KC's original premise that this team needs some diversification of its skillset. Its not necessarily that Mickey Slaphitter is better than Jack Slugger. The problem is that the Reds have a team filled with Jack Sluggers and there isn't a Mickey Slaphitter to be found. I know this, I just watched the Reds leave a small army on base in Games 3, 4 and 5 of the series they lost to the Giants. Two outs and a runner on second, I'd much rather have Mickey Slaphitter up there to get the run home than I would Jack Slugger. Increased ability to get a hit would seem to mean increased ability to get the hit. A walk doesn't do much good in the situation I just sighted. Its simply adds another runner to be left on base. Getting a hit on the other hand....

The study has shown that both hitters are equally adept at producing runs. Mickey Slapper is more reliant on his teammates to get on base and into scoring position for him, whereas Jack Slugger can create runs by himself. In the end they both create the same number of runs.

In your example of Games 3, 4 and 5 of the playoffs it seems to me that the Reds were playing more like Mickey Slapper than Jack Slugger. They were getting plenty of singles (12 hits in game 5 but only 4 runs). The problem with a singles hitter like Mickey Slapper is that you have to get at least 2 and likely 3 singles in the same inning just to score one run. With extra-base hits you can score much more quickly and are much more likely to score multiple runs. The reason the Reds left so many runners on base in those games was because they were only hitting singles. You need to mix in some extra base hits if you want to score enough runs to win.

gilpdawg
10-17-2012, 09:36 PM
I disagree.

The eyetest of who are the best hitters always matches up to their batting averages for me.

Same with pitchers. I never needed all the Saber stuff to know that Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax were great pitchers. Without even looking at their e.r.a.'s, you knew it. But their e.r.a.'s always backed it up too.

So Freddy Sanchez was the best hitter in the National League in 2006?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Kc61
10-17-2012, 09:44 PM
In your example of Games 3, 4 and 5 of the playoffs it seems to me that the Reds were playing more like Mickey Slapper than Jack Slugger. They were getting plenty of singles (12 hits in game 5 but only 4 runs). The problem with a singles hitter like Mickey Slapper is that you have to get at least 2 and likely 3 singles in the same inning just to score one run. With extra-base hits you can score much more quickly and are much more likely to score multiple runs. The reason the Reds left so many runners on base in those games was because they were only hitting singles. You need to mix in some extra base hits if you want to score enough runs to win.

I haven't read the whole thread, but is anybody saying that a ballclub should have ALL singles hitters or ALMOST all singles hitters? I doubt it. I'm not.

You need a mixture. The Reds mix is poor IMO. They need more OBP and BA guys. To go ALONG with the power they already have.

It's a matter of balance.

AtomicDumpling
10-17-2012, 09:58 PM
I haven't read the whole thread, but is anybody saying that a ballclub should have ALL singles hitters or ALMOST all singles hitters? I doubt it. I'm not.

You need a mixture. The Reds mix is poor IMO. They need more OBP and BA guys. To go ALONG with the power they already have.

It's a matter of balance.

My post was in regard to someone saying the Reds needed a more singles-oriented approach in those games. I was merely showing that the Reds had plenty of singles and not enough extra-base hits.

I am with you on the OBP. They need more power too. I don't think the AVG matters. Maximize the OBP and the SLG. The AVG adds nothing to the mix. We have already seen that as long as the OBP and SLG stay the same the batting average makes no difference. There is no increase in production between .200/.330/.450 and .300/.330/.450. Even a 100 point increase in batting average failed to improve his production and may even have hurt it a bit.

You should read the whole thread, lots of interesting stuff in this one.

mth123
10-17-2012, 10:40 PM
Back to reality. We're talking about replacing Stubbs. If we have to trade his 14 HR power to get some one who gets on base, has better contact and hits for a better average, I think its the right trade to make. I don't care if he only hits 2 or 3 HR. No one is suggesting replacing Bruce or Votto with a slaphitter. We'll still have Phillips, Frazier and Cozart to provide middling power from the right side. Hopefully Ludwick is back and Mesoraco emerges a bit. Throw in Heisey and the team has plenty of guys with 15 to 25 HR power from the rigt side who all are likely to have a mediocre at best OBP with BA's in the .270 or less range.

I'm generally more of a power fan than a a fan of judy hitters, its just this team needs some diviersity. I hope the guy also hits lefty and is stronger vs. RHP than he is LHP.

westofyou
10-17-2012, 11:13 PM
Does anyone have scouting reports on Mickey Slapper and Jack Slugger? I'm not familiar with them.



Jack Slugger's stats: .200/.330/.450

SEASON
AVERAGE BETWEEN .200 AND .225
OBA BETWEEN .330 AND .340
SLG BETWEEN .440 AND .460
RUNS CREATED/GAME vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
PLATE APPEARANCES displayed only--not a sorting criteria

AT BATS YEAR AB AVG OBA SLG RC/G PA
1 Gorman Thomas 1985 484 .215 .330 .450 0.40 574




Mickey Slapper's stats: .300/.330/.450


SEASON
AVERAGE BETWEEN .290 AND .310
OBA BETWEEN .330 AND .340
SLG BETWEEN .440 AND .460
RUNS CREATED/GAME vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
PLATE APPEARANCES displayed only--not a sorting criteria

AT BATS YEAR AB AVG OBA SLG RC/G PA
1 Michael Young 2003 666 .306 .339 .446 0.52 713
2 Carlos Beltran 1999 663 .293 .337 .454 -.04 723
3 Jack Wilson 2004 652 .308 .335 .459 0.12 693
4 Jeff Francoeur 2007 642 .293 .338 .444 -.04 696
5 Gene Moore 1936 637 .290 .335 .449 0.58 691
6 Carl Crawford 2004 626 .296 .331 .450 0.61 672
7 Pinky Whitney 1932 624 .298 .335 .449 0.20 678
8 Aaron Hill 2007 608 .291 .333 .459 -.03 657
9 Matt Kemp 2008 606 .290 .340 .459 0.46 657
10 Gee Walker 1939 598 .291 .330 .443 -.64 645
11 Charlie Hanford 1914 597 .291 .332 .447 1.02 645
12 Tony Perez 1978 544 .290 .336 .449 0.94 590
13 Vic Power 1956 530 .309 .340 .447 0.69 559
14 Candy LaChance 1897 520 .308 .333 .446 -.04 548
15 Tom Long 1915 507 .294 .339 .446 1.40 556
16 Kenji Johjima 2006 506 .291 .332 .451 -.08 542
17 Harry Davis 1901 496 .306 .340 .452 1.10 525
18 Jay Payton 2000 488 .291 .331 .447 -.68 529
19 George Burns 1919 470 .296 .339 .447 0.94 507
20 Carl Reynolds 1931 462 .290 .333 .442 -.04 495
21 Glenn Wright 1926 458 .308 .335 .459 0.45 493
22 Jeff Conine 1999 444 .291 .335 .453 -.29 485
23 George Wood 1883 441 .302 .339 .444 2.23 466
24 Hardy Richardson 1884 439 .301 .334 .444 2.48 461
T25 Bengie Molina 2005 410 .295 .336 .446 -.02 449
T25 John Grim 1894 410 .298 .339 .449 -1.56 444
27 Ed Goodson 1973 384 .302 .331 .453 0.70 403
28 Vladimir Guerrero 2009 383 .295 .334 .460 -.10 407
29 Sammy West 1928 378 .302 .338 .442 0.04 405
30 Howie Kendrick 2009 374 .291 .334 .444 0.16 400
31 Moose Solters 1934 365 .299 .333 .447 -.19 384
32 Jim Poole 1926 361 .294 .339 .452 0.20 394
33 Mark Salas 1985 360 .300 .332 .458 0.88 382
34 Cesar Cedeno 1970 355 .310 .340 .451 0.57 377
35 Carlos Paula 1955 351 .299 .332 .447 0.19 374
36 Charlie Bennett 1882 342 .301 .340 .450 2.95 362
37 Neifi Perez 1997 313 .291 .333 .444 0.12 344
38 Bob Seeds 1938 296 .291 .338 .443 0.51 320
39 Mike Greenwell 1996 295 .295 .336 .441 -.56 318
40 Ethan Allen 1930 284 .292 .332 .447 -1.21 311

Brutus
10-17-2012, 11:22 PM
Mickey Slapper's stats: .300/.330/.450


SEASON
AVERAGE BETWEEN .290 AND .310
OBA BETWEEN .330 AND .340
SLG BETWEEN .440 AND .460
RUNS CREATED/GAME vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
PLATE APPEARANCES displayed only--not a sorting criteria

AT BATS YEAR AB AVG OBA SLG RC/G PA
4 Jeff Francoeur 2007 642 .293 .338 .444 -.04 696



So as it relates to the Reds' LF situation, Mickey Slapper is Jeff Francouer. That would go over really well on Redszone.

nemesis
10-18-2012, 12:15 AM
Heard an interesting tidbit.

The Reds will NOT trade Stubbs until a replacement is found. Once they aquire a player then they will look to move him for a "decent" Minor Leaguer or a LH utility player or bullpen arm.

Reds are deeply interested in Eric Young Jr. They tried to make a last minute deadline deal after Span fell apart. Just not enough time to agree on parts. It would probably cost them a bullpen arm and a starting pitching prospect.

Thoughts?

Brutus
10-18-2012, 12:27 AM
Heard an interesting tidbit.

The Reds will NOT trade Stubbs until a replacement is found. Once they aquire a player then they will look to move him for a "decent" Minor Leaguer or a LH utility player or bullpen arm.

Reds are deeply interested in Eric Young Jr. They tried to make a last minute deadline deal after Span fell apart. Just not enough time to agree on parts. It would probably cost them a bullpen arm and a starting pitching prospect.

Thoughts?

If the Reds are planning to move Chapman into the rotation, which I hope is the case, then I think it would make absolute sense to trade Leake or Bailey for Young.

Leake, being a sinkerball pitcher, is someone I could see the Rockies liking a lot. They love guys with groundball tendencies, naturally. He had nearly a 2:1 ratio last year of grounders to flyballs.

Needless to say, Young is the kind of player the Reds need.

Kc61
10-18-2012, 12:43 AM
If the Reds are planning to move Chapman into the rotation, which I hope is the case, then I think it would make absolute sense to trade Leake or Bailey for Young.

Leake, being a sinkerball pitcher, is someone I could see the Rockies liking a lot. They love guys with groundball tendencies, naturally. He had nearly a 2:1 ratio last year of grounders to flyballs.

Needless to say, Young is the kind of player the Reds need.

Young has been a bench player on the Rockies. He had a great year in 2012 in limited PAs. He hasn't been a starter and his defense has generally received low grades. Doesn't throw that well.

On the other hand, his UZR rating for 2012 was good, and I read one report saying his defense improved dramatically.

Fast, can steal bases, switch hitter. Good OBP. Good plate discipline. Very little power. Works hard and hustles.

Very intriguing idea for the Reds. With Fowler in Colorado, Young should be obtainable and hopefully would get on base frequently as a leadoff hitter. Doubt he will be Stubbs' equal in CF defensively.

Superdude
10-18-2012, 01:56 AM
If the Reds are planning to move Chapman into the rotation, which I hope is the case, then I think it would make absolute sense to trade Leake or Bailey for Young.

Leake, being a sinkerball pitcher, is someone I could see the Rockies liking a lot. They love guys with groundball tendencies, naturally. He had nearly a 2:1 ratio last year of grounders to flyballs.

Needless to say, Young is the kind of player the Reds need.

You'd trade Homer for him? Young might be a decent target, but it's a little concerning that his first good season has a .360+ BABIP attached to it. Especially considering that the dimensions of Coors lends itself to a few extra hits dropping in.

Brutus
10-18-2012, 02:07 AM
You'd trade Homer for him? Young might be a decent target, but it's a little concerning that his first good season has a .360+ BABIP attached to it. Especially considering that the dimensions of Coors lends itself to a few extra hits dropping in.

With his speed and a decent line drive rate, he would likely sustain a pretty high BABIP. Maybe not .360, but not terribly far off. I don't know that I'd trade Bailey solely on what Young did this season in a smaller sample, but I think I'd be willing to pull the trigger based on the belief that Young is capable of keeping that production up going forward.

Brutus
10-18-2012, 02:14 AM
Young has been a bench player on the Rockies. He had a great year in 2012 in limited PAs. He hasn't been a starter and his defense has generally received low grades. Doesn't throw that well.

On the other hand, his UZR rating for 2012 was good, and I read one report saying his defense improved dramatically.

Fast, can steal bases, switch hitter. Good OBP. Good plate discipline. Very little power. Works hard and hustles.

Very intriguing idea for the Reds. With Fowler in Colorado, Young should be obtainable and hopefully would get on base frequently as a leadoff hitter. Doubt he will be Stubbs' equal in CF defensively.

Scouts like his defense, generally. He doesn't have a strong arm but he's got good range and decent instincts.

He was a bench player for the first half of the year but while part of that was because he was coming off a bad year, the other part is the Rockies didn't need him. Where would he play? They had Scutaro at second and Gonzalez-Fowler and Cuddyer in the outfield. So Young's being a bench player this year wasn't necessarily an indictment on his abilities.

I think Young is a potentially great tablesetter this season for the Reds. If he's able to pick up where he left off with the bat, then perhaps he'd justify being moved to left field when Hamilton is ready.

AtomicDumpling
10-18-2012, 03:44 AM
You'd trade Homer for him? Young might be a decent target, but it's a little concerning that his first good season has a .360+ BABIP attached to it. Especially considering that the dimensions of Coors lends itself to a few extra hits dropping in.

I agree. Homer Bailey has a lot more trade value than what it would take to obtain Eric Young Jr. The Reds could probably get Dexter Fowler for Homer Bailey.

Young has a career slash line of .266/.339/.339 for an OPS of .679 playing half his games in Coors Field. He will be 28 next season and only has 601 career ABs total in four years. His career OPS away from Coors Field is .569, which is worse than Wilson Valdez's .594 career OPS. Young is a slap hitter who benefits immensely from the immense dimensions of Coors Field so we could expect a severe dropoff from his already meager production if he were to come to Cincinnati.

I think Eric Young is a less desirable option than Drew Stubbs, and I am not a believer in Drew Stubbs. Eric Young might be an option as a 5th outfielder but I certainly wouldn't give up Homer Bailey for him. I would offer the Rockies Wilson Valdez straight up for Eric Young, take it or leave it. They wouldn't take it of course, but I wouldn't offer them anything better.

He was an interesting option to consider, but I would be very disappointed if the Reds can't find a better option than Eric Young.

Superdude
10-18-2012, 06:39 AM
I think Eric Young is a less desirable option than Drew Stubbs, and I am not a believer in Drew Stubbs. Eric Young might be an option as a 5th outfielder but I certainly wouldn't give up Homer Bailey for him. I would offer the Rockies Wilson Valdez straight up for Eric Young, take it or leave it. They wouldn't take it of course, but I wouldn't offer them anything better.

The wildcard though is that Young is sort of an unknown commodity. He may be just as hapless as Stubbs, but give him some playing time and maybe he gives us a decent OBP at the top of the order and cracks ten or so homers. If Jocketty wants to turn the page on Stubbs without blocking Hamilton long term, I could see targeting Young with an offer somewhere between Bailey and Valdez.

mth123
10-18-2012, 07:46 AM
The wildcard though is that Young is sort of an unknown commodity. He may be just as hapless as Stubbs, but give him some playing time and maybe he gives us a decent OBP at the top of the order and cracks ten or so homers. If Jocketty wants to turn the page on Stubbs without blocking Hamilton long term, I could see targeting Young with an offer somewhere between Bailey and Valdez.

Young would be a decent 25th man candidate who could earn his way to a bigger role, but I'd hope the Reds would get somebody with more of a track record. As far as how to acquire him, I certainly hope they don't pay as though he's already earned it. I'd offer Ondrusek or maybe Bray for him at most. Some one who is arb eligible and probably not worth it. Otherwise, I'd probably only go a lottery ticket minor leaguer (say Andrew Brackman as an example).

As for Bailey and Leake, I think the Reds need to keep them both even if they plan to move Chapman into the rotation. Leake goes to long relief and provides depth. I think Chapman in the rotation is far from a sure thing and even if it works out, its not likely that the Reds are going to make it through another year with all the starters making all their starts. The Nats kept John Lannan around as insurance all season and I'd argue that he's a more accomplished pitcher than Leake is. In fact, if the Reds do decide to move one of their starters to make room for Chapman, I'd hope they could get a guy like Lannan to be the 6th guy.

gilpdawg
10-18-2012, 09:25 AM
Young isn't really much of an upgrade of Stubbs. But Stubbs absolutely isn't the answer. He actually provided slightly more or equal value with 196 plate appearances in 2009 with the late season call up (granted it was against expanded rosters) then he did in a full season this year. I know someone is going to pop in here and say "but he was worth 4 WAR 2 years ago" but let's be real....that's so far in the rear view mirror he doesn't even seem like the same guy. As a Dave Roberts PR/reserve OF type he'd be fine, but dude just isn't a starting player. He just isn't. As far as I'm concerned CF needs to be Walt's top priority.

mdccclxix
10-18-2012, 10:09 AM
I would think Young for Heisey would be a nice swap of 4th OF types. They each have their own upside to attain. If the Reds had to, I wouldn't miss Arredondo or Ondrusek as well, especially if we got some minor league fodder as well. I like Young, though, intriguing guy to add to the mix. I worry he'd get Taveras'd a little. In the end, I'd love to find a defensive CF that hits RHP with some adroitness. We could keep Stubbs to platoon and come off the bench for a variety of situations. Maybe Bonifacio in MIA would be available for a guy like Heisey. You could drop Valdez with Bonifacio on the team.

lidspinner
10-18-2012, 10:48 AM
If Chapman does move to the rotation do we really want him sitting out the playoffs ala Strasburgh this year? no way does Chap pitch all year, his innings will be limited at some point in the season so why not try and keep Leake for the Lannan roles as mentioned above by mth123.....if Chapman is starting for this team then I also want him available come playoff time.....so if that means he misses a start each month then I am fine with that....but no way in hades do I go into the post season with him not on the roster just because we are trying to save his arm....save his arm throughout the season and limit his innings by giving a 6th starter some spot starts in his place.....

we are in our window of World Series seasons, we dont want to throw one of those seasons of Chapmans contract away....Leake is a must have for this team IMO if Chapman is in the rotation.....If Chapman stays where he is then I think you can afford to trade Leake or Homer if your going to get a stud lead off hitter who plays CF.

mdccclxix
10-18-2012, 12:48 PM
If the Reds can pull their OPS in CF up from .621 to about .735 I think they can let Ludwick walk and accept .775ish out of LF instead of .825. Frazier should upgrade 3b from .721 to .780 or so. (going off memory here) Of course, signing Ludwick and improving CF gives the Reds a chance to be their best. Another thing is the bench really drained the overall production from areas like C, 2b and SS. Could really use a much, much better bench. Platooning Stubbs and getting rid of Valdez would be a good start.

mdccclxix
10-18-2012, 12:51 PM
I really like my Bonifacio idea. That guy can play every position but 1st and C, and leadoff vs RHP. Solves the bench in a hurry.

Reds/Flyers Fan
10-18-2012, 01:40 PM
I really hope they don't mess around with Chapman. Leave him where he is now. As it stands, if the Reds have the lead after 6 or 7 innings the game is essentially over. Don't mess with that.

Chapman is the Reds' Mariano Rivera.

mdccclxix
10-18-2012, 01:52 PM
I really hope they don't mess around with Chapman. Leave him where he is now. As it stands, if the Reds have the lead after 6 or 7 innings the game is essentially over. Don't mess with that.

Chapman is the Reds' Mariano Rivera.

Look at the Feliz situation in Texas too. It's quite scary to imagine losing Chapman altogether, if not in 2013, then even perhaps 2014 after a long season does what it did to that Mariners kid who went to NYY, can't think...

Dan
10-18-2012, 02:22 PM
Chapman's shoulder was fatigued this year after 67 or so innings. I know starting is different, but can the Reds risk having Chapman's shoulder fatigue 1/3 of the way through the season?

AtomicDumpling
10-18-2012, 02:22 PM
I really hope they don't mess around with Chapman. Leave him where he is now. As it stands, if the Reds have the lead after 6 or 7 innings the game is essentially over. Don't mess with that.

Chapman is the Reds' Mariano Rivera.

I can see that point of view. I can also see how the Reds would be much more likely to have that lead after 6 or 7 innings if Chapman started the game instead of Mike Leake.

It comes down to deciding between getting 60* innings or 175-200+ innings out of Aroldis Chapman each year. I am sure the hitters on opposing teams would prefer that Chapman only pitch 60 innings.

It is easier and cheaper to obtain another late-inning reliever than to obtain an ace-level starting pitcher.

A major factor in the decision will be what the Reds feel is the best way to keep Chapman healthy. A pitcher can get injured just as easily as a reliever than as a starter. Some pitchers have funky deliveries that would make them more likely to get injured as a starter where they would be throwing more pitches. I don't think Aroldis Chapman fits into that category. He has a smooth clean delivery. Personally I think Chapman is less likely to get injured as a starter than as a reliever. He seems to struggle with repeated usage, so I think having at least five days (six with a team off day) between efforts would be great for him.

The Reds' plans for Tony Cingrani are going to factor strongly into their plans for Aroldis Chapman. There is a lot of discussion about whether Cingrani is destined to be a starting pitcher or a stud reliever in the major leagues. Like Aroldis, Cingrani is a left-handed pitcher but is not merely a LOOGY. If the Reds feel that Cingrani is ready to take a role as a late-inning reliever for the Reds in 2013 then he could alleviate the loss of Chapman in the bullpen and make it easier for the team to put the Missile in the rotation. If the Reds feel Cingrani should remain a starting pitcher then they will have to find another alternative to replace Chapman in the bullpen, possibly Madson or another free agent reliever. Maybe they have JJ Hoover pegged in that role.

Chris Sale of the White Sox is an example of a young relief pitcher who was transitioned to the starting rotation with great success in 2012. Like Chapman, he had been a starting pitcher his whole life until being used in the bullpen upon breaking into the major leagues. I think he is a better comparison than Stephen Strasburg, who was coming off Tommy John surgery.





* Chapman has averaged 60 innings per season so far. 50 in 2011 and 71 in 2012.

REDREAD
10-18-2012, 02:32 PM
If the Reds are planning to move Chapman into the rotation, which I hope is the case, then I think it would make absolute sense to trade Leake or Bailey for Young.

Leake, being a sinkerball pitcher, is someone I could see the Rockies liking a lot. They love guys with groundball tendencies, naturally. He had nearly a 2:1 ratio last year of grounders to flyballs.

Needless to say, Young is the kind of player the Reds need.

I wouldn't mind getting Young, but trading Leake or Bailey for him is an overpay, IMO. I guess I don't feel confident that Young can consistently reproduce that 377 OBP that he had last year in limited playing time.
If we could get Young for an extra bullpen arm or lower prospects, then yes, sign me up.

Kc61
10-18-2012, 02:48 PM
Don't be surprised if the Reds "back in" on the Chapman decision for next season. Like this year.

What I mean is, they may decide it based on team need, not based on Chapman's capabilities.

Right now, other than Chapman, the pen is Marshall, Lecure, and Hoover IMO. Broxton isn't signed. Arredondo had a bad second half. Masset is a big question mark. Ondrusek was ineffective. Simon is not a late inning guy.

Will the Reds acquire a new closer, or decide to sign Broxton to close, and live without Aroldis in the pen?

On the starting side, will the Reds feel comfortable with Leake? Will they decide it is imperative to upgrade that slot? If they are uncomfortable, will they find another starter allowing them to keep Aroldis in the pen?

In other words, I think the Reds will look at their starting and relieving options, inside and outside of the organization, and see where Aroldis is needed most. Team need will decide the issue IMO.

Superdude
10-18-2012, 07:47 PM
Don't be surprised if the Reds "back in" on the Chapman decision for next season. Like this year.

What I mean is, they may decide it based on team need, not based on Chapman's capabilities.

"Backing In" on the decision means waiting for the first petty reason to justify using Chapman in the pen again. We've seen that dance before. Ship's sailed IMO.

DGullett35
10-18-2012, 10:29 PM
Look at the Feliz situation in Texas too. It's quite scary to imagine losing Chapman altogether, if not in 2013, then even perhaps 2014 after a long season does what it did to that Mariners kid who went to NYY, can't think...

Pineda?