Originally Posted by Kc61
No, different personnel would add to the runs scored.
Reds are a collection of righty hitters with power and fair to poor OBP skills.
Rolen, Frazier, Phillips, Ludwick, Cozart, Heisey, Stubbs, Mesoraco. It's a one dimensional offense. All similar type hitters in general terms.
The counterbalance is basically two guys, Votto (injured) and Bruce an inconsistent low BA hitter with excellent lefty power.
The team is among the lowest in baseball in hitting singles.
The team had a .710 OPS against righty pitching.
There are no real tablesetters. There is absolutely no lefty hitting tablesetter. The bench provided very little offense, it only improved slightly when Paul and Navarro were acquired.
Look at the balance on the Cards. The Cards have more switch hitters on the DL than the Reds have had on the team in years. Lefties, righties, singles hitters, long ball hitters. A far more balanced offense.
You think the problem is the batting order Dusty uses?
Replace Stubbs, Heisey, Cairo and Valdez with steady, good OBP men, some from the left side or switch hitters, and you'll see a very different offense. One starter and three bench players.
Replace Ludwick or Frazier with a high caliber switch hitter, like Beltran or Sandoval, and you'll see even more improvement.
Not a well balanced offense, regardless of batting order. A personnel matter.
The Reds don't have a great offense, nobody is arguing that they do. Improving the personnel would be great if possible. But even with the same personnel there are some easy ways to tweak the lineup and situational tactics to eke out some extra runs.
What has been proven beyond all doubt mathematically is that the Reds would have a higher team OPS and hence would score more runs if the best hitters got the most plate appearances and the worst hitters got the fewest plate appearances. Unfortunately Dusty does not comprehend such a basic concept and insists on putting the worst hitters at the top of the lineup. How can a manager in the 21st century, the information age, not be aware of one of the most basic concepts in baseball? It is a telling insight into Dusty's limited skillset.
Dusty's love of bunting in situations in which even a successfully executed bunt play actually reduces
the Reds run expectancy is another instance that exposes Dusty's complete lack of understanding of the modern game of baseball. Things such as these make it very clear to students of the game that Dusty Baker does not know what he is doing. He is harming the team by making tactical mistakes that even a rudimentary comprehension of sabermetrics would avoid.
Dusty spends hours compiling hitter vs pitcher charts, despite extensive evidence that hitter vs pitcher histories are statistically meaningless and have no predictive value.
Dusty is riding the coattails of a great pitching staff led by the best pitching coach in baseball today. The talent level of the team is good enough to override the tactical mistakes made by the manager. Dusty does some things well as a leader of men, which is great. But giving Dusty Baker a large piece of the credit for a 97 win season just doesn't have much merit. After all he is the same guy that led them to a 79 win season just a year ago. The large infusion of fresh talent (Latos, Ludwick, Frazier, Cozart, Marshall) this year is the reason the Reds had a better year. It doesn't matter if Dusty stays or goes, this team is going to be good for a few more years at least. It makes sense to acquire a manager that can tactically lead the team to its best possible record without squandering any of it's potential with poor decision-making.