The Reds are third in the NL in runs scored, but some would point to the fact that the Cards have scored almost 60 more runs, that the Reds are a high OBP team this year and perhaps should score more, that the Reds leave a lot of runners on, and that perhaps the Reds runs reflect some huge games but not consistency.
Without trashing the Reds offense, not my intention, I simply point out that the Reds only have one position player with a .280 or above BA and that's Votto. And have only two position players hitting over .270, add Bruce.
There's been a tendency to elevate OBP and SLG, but perhaps to downplay BA in this era. My premise is that these three stats are important and that it would be good for the Reds to have a higher BA group.
OBP includes walks, so a hitter like Choo brings much more value than his BA would indicate, true. HRs are important, so a power man like Bruce adds more as well.
But one way to score, not an unimportant way, is to string together hits. Hits are reflected by BA. And while I recognize that base hits are influenced by luck, nevertheless the Reds often seem to have low BA clubs which impairs their offense.
This is an unusual year because the Reds are third in the league in OBP (thank you Choo) and eighth in SLG (at league average). This is the opposite of some previous years when power was their thing. And with Ludwick the SLG would probably be better.
But the team's BA of .248 is below league average. Which is not to say it's impossible to win with a low BA, it's been done as a poster recently pointed out.
I don't see the problem as a lack of clutch hitting or hitting with RISP, as some do, I see the problem as having many hitters who just don't get that many hits.
Comments are welcome.