Why are the Reds only a .500 team?
 

I like to look at comparisons with the rest of the NL. I think they show that the Reds are a better than average offensive team and a worse than average pitching team (for the NL). The offense is pretty good, but not good enough to compensate for the pitching.

These are overall stats, and don't consider improvement/diminishment as the team has changed throughout the year.

Offensively, the team is a high home run and walk team but deficient in getting base hits. Run production lags behind OPS/OBP. As of today, in the NL, they are:

First in Walks

First in Home Runs

Second in OPS (.791)

Tied for second in OBP (.342)

Fifth in runs

Eighth in hits

Tied for 10th-12th in Batting Average (.263)

Pitching wise, the team is improved over 2005. I don't have the 2005 numbers handy, but the team ERA (last two years) was over 5. Now the numbers are a bit better:

11th in team ERA (4.67)

11th in runs allowed

15th (of 16) in OPS against (.804)

First in homers allowed

Third in fewest walks allowed

Ninth in most strikeouts

7th in saves (tied)

I guess my conclusion is that the Reds have steadily had a good offense the last three years and still do. The offense would be even better with a few higher BA hitters. (Griffey and Dunn hitting around .250 with lots of at bats obviously pulls down the BA for the team.)

But overall pitching is still the culprit. The Reds are competing this year because the pitching is finally in a "normal" range (as opposed to the horrendous numbers in 2004 and 05). But the pitching numbers at this point are still unsatisfactory. (Note that the OPS against is .804, worse than the offensive OPS of .791)

To go a bit further, the following starting ERAs are -- in my view -- the single biggest problem. Mays (27 IP) - 7.33; Claussen (77 IP) - 6.19; Michalak (21 IP) - 5.56; Ramirez (104 IP) - 5.37; Milton (141 IP) - 5.16.

So, with all the frustration over the offense and bullpen, it looks to me that getting two good new starting pitchers next year would dramatically upgrade this team.

Re: Why are the Reds only a .500 team?
 

I must say if I was reading this thread this year, I would not have guessed it to be August 30th. Never in my right mind did I expect this club to be chasing playoffs.

Way to go.

Re: Why are the Reds only a .500 team?
 

The question that may be more appropriate is "How are they still a .500 team?"

Maybe the proverbial iceberg in the water (pythag record) has made it's first contact with the USS Narron.

Re: Why are the Reds only a .500 team?
 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Who fills the Decaprio and Winslett rolls in your scenario??

Re: Why are the Reds only a .500 team?
 

I think are large negative run differential is pretty telling. We don't score enough for our pitching. Seems to me it's all about clutch hitting. Yes, we can hit HRs, but can we hit them when it counts. Well, I say not often enough. 2-12 last night is a perfect example. 1 run in a basis loaded no out situation. The only reason we are still in it is that the parity in the NL. I love it, but most years we'd be 10-15 game out with this record. That being said we still have a shot at the playoffs and in a short series anything is possible. Go Reds

Re: Why are the Reds only a .500 team?
 

Because the picthing isn't very good, the defense is poor, the offense is inconsistent and the manager is enamored with double switch-itis.

Re: Why are the Reds only a .500 team?
 

These two:
http://static.flickr.com/76/191862862_9385c7fbd2.jpg

Re: Why are the Reds only a .500 team?
 

What's Bronson's Mom got to do with this?

:dunno:

Re: Why are the Reds only a .500 team?
 

http://static.flickr.com/58/175997054_aadb6acaa5_o.jpg

This is the group that they were partying with before they left for America. I hope the Screen Actors Guild has the name "Farney" available.

Re: Why are the Reds only a .500 team?
 

I don't understand this either. With good team speed we should score more than our OPS projects, not less.

Some possible culprits:

Batting order -- The importance of batting order is usually overrated but it does have some effect. Jr.'s an out machine in the three hole, Dunn's walks are wasted batting fifth. You want Hatteburg's OB skills are great at number 2 but he's awfully slow.

Playin' Baseball -- You want to be careful about overusing every trick in your bag (see, Boone, Bob) but sometimes you just need to thump some life into your team. Last night's game screamed for some micromanaging. Start a runner, double steal, drag bunt, something to jump start the offense when the big hits aren't coming.

Strikeouts -- At the risk of getting a stern BP-style smackdown, it wouldn't hurt to make the other side's defense work a little more. And while I'm at it...

Batting Average -- The Angels won with it. A high-BA line-drive, all-fields hitter could probably get this team over the Runs Scored hump. A guy like Sean Casey (gulp).

Then again, maybe our being 5th is a statistical anomoly. In other words, bad luck.

Re: Why are the Reds only a .500 team?
 

Lots of offensive hot streaks, and lots of offensive cold streaks. This team is not consistent offensively and it seems like the cold streaks run rampant like a virus through the majority of the lineup. As good as the offense can be at times, I still think the overall makeup lacks something. With the pitching staff, and the real lack of a "shutdown" type arm, the slumps are magnified. Will be interesting to see what Wayne does in the off-season.

Re: Why are the Reds only a .500 team?
 

This is a very inconsistent offense. Being a HR team it is prone to slumps. Even last year when everyone clamoured that we scored more runs than any other, it was inconsistent. IMO the offense is a little above average but that's it. In April it was superb. We need a Sept like we had in April.

Re: Why are the Reds only a .500 team?
 

It's a simple answer.

Inconsistent offense paired with 2 (even this might be generous) legit starters and a patchwork quilt bullpen that while is better than at the beginning of the year still finds ways to lose games....

In the "What do the Reds need to address in the offseason" thread, I think I wanna change my answer to : get another solid starter and sort out this bullpen mess, along with getting rid of Jason LaRue.

That would be my list in the offseason:

1. Get rid of Jason LaRue
2. Use the money saved by getting rid of Country Boy Can't Survive (in Cincinnati) to go out and buy some FA SP
3. Connect the dots of this bullpen and get it sorted out, via player movement or address coaching needs.

Re: Why are the Reds only a .500 team?
 

Great ideas - except that the Country Boy Can Survive - well his paycheck anyway, since it will take the Reds to pick up his salary to trade him.

Payroll's going up next year, you can bet on it.

Re: Why are the Reds only a .500 team?
 

We can only hope.

Unfortunately, it seems a commitment to winning also means a commitment to spending. We'll see if the new ownership has the fortitude to stay the course.