36 times

[RedEye]

That the Reds still have decent positioning in the runs scored column is impressive, given these circumstances I'd deem as "major issues":

* Leadoff man is .176 vs LHP (Overall, extremely pleased with Choo in comparison to Stubbs and the cast of clowns we used to run up there in this position, but it has to be considered a concern if you get in a one-game scenario and the other team has a really good LHP.)

* 2 Hole is .234 AVG (13th NL), .622 OPS (13th NL and 26th MLB) ahead of the most talented hitter on the team. Could not find the exact numbers, but it *feels* like Joey Votto has led off an inordinate amount of times this season.

* LF OPS .709 (13th NL); SS OPS .620 (11th NL); 3B OPS .701 (10th in NL); C OPS .628 (14th NL). This essentially gives you a 4-man lineup. You're getting next to nothing from half of your 8-man everyday positions.

* .200 AVG, .302 SLG, .577 OPS in losses. Not sure if this means a whole lot. Every team is certainly weaker in their losses, but THIS much?

* Home OPS .741, Road .707. Pretty substantial difference.

* Team AVG RISP .251 (7th NL); with 2 outs .199 (14th NL)

* Ks 848 (5th most in NL)

* Baserunning gaffes. Hard to document all of them with stats, but we've seen them in bunches lately. They only have 33 SB. Not much running going on in MLB these days, but still among the worst in either league. And they've been nabbed almost as much (26) as they've stolen.

Sooooooo...

A couple of those, you could probably shrug off. But the whole list? I don't see how anyone can still watch this team play and not be concerned with all the red flags. These numbers don't paint the picture of a legit contender.

I don't necessarily care about any of this stuff as long as runs are being scored at a decent rate. Any MLB team is going to have strengths and weaknesses, peaks and valleys. What you've just done is list off a bunch of the (supposed) negatives without mentioning the positives. Actually, come to think of it, there's no context for the stats you've posted either -- they're just numbers. How do I know whether a "difference" in OPS is a net negative or positive without knowing what the comparisons are to other teams?

[BluegrassRedleg]

There's no reason RISP would carry over since it has not even been proven to carry over from season to season. It is not proven to be a statistically significant stat relative to regular performance by batters.

Do you consider it more of a flukish thing?

I don't think there's any coincidence why the Cards' number is higher (despite their recent struggles). They put the bat on the ball a lot more consistently than almost anyone in the league, and especially more than the Reds.

[RedEye]

I called it before the end of April and it's been going on ever since. Just as I called the "no leadership" situation months ago that so many others have since started seeing. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Called what before the end of April?

What "no leadership" problem?

[BluegrassRedleg]

I don't necessarily care about any of this stuff as long as runs are being scored at a decent rate. Any MLB team is going to have strengths and weaknesses, peaks and valleys. What you've just done is list off a bunch of the (supposed) negatives without mentioning the positives. Actually, come to think of it, there's no context for the stats you've posted either -- they're just numbers. How do I know whether a "difference" in OPS is a net negative or positive without knowing what the comparisons are to other teams?

Given those stipulations, it's impossible to argue it, either way.

I respect your efforts here and appreciate the legitimate debate. I'm just going with those numbers and what my eyes tell me.

[RedEye]

Do you consider it more of a flukish thing?

I don't think there's any coincidence why the Cards' number is higher (despite their recent struggles). They put the bat on the ball a lot more consistently than almost anyone in the league, and especially more than the Reds.

Hitting with RISP is basically no different than hitting itself. There will be variations between the two numbers from year to year, but those are most likely due to random variation. No reason the playoffs would be any different, since they are an even smaller sample.

The Cards have a better group of hitters overall, so they are better hitters w/ RISP. It's basically that simple.

[RedEye]

I'm just going with those numbers and what my eyes tell me.

Fair enough. I would just warn you that you are using the numbers here to fit a narrative, and not the other way around. You've decided that the Reds have "major issues" and plied the number to fit that story when they say nothing of the sort necessarily.

Believe me, if the numbers said the Reds were a team with "major issues" I'd be the first one to agree with you. But that's just not what they say.

[New York Red]

Called what before the end of April?

What "no leadership" problem?

Not interested in one of your multi-page peeing contests, bud. HAGD

[BluegrassRedleg]

Hitting with RISP is basically no different than hitting itself. There will be variations between the two numbers from year to year, but those are most likely due to random variation. No reason the playoffs would be any different, since they are an even smaller sample.

The Cards have a better group of hitters overall, so they are better hitters w/ RISP. It's basically that simple.

I think I follow you.

Let's say both teams have a .333 hitter. Reds guy gets his 1-for-3 knock with nobody in scoring position. Cards guy gets his with a man on third. Am I reading this right? RISP more about random circumstance?

[RedEye]

Not interested in one of your multi-page peeing contests, bud. HAGD

I ask you some honest questions, request that you back up your (highly dubious) claims, and you respond to me with a disrespectful laughing emoticon? Charming.

[BluegrassRedleg]

Fair enough. I would just warn you that you are using the numbers here to fit a narrative, and not the other way around. You've decided that the Reds have "major issues" and plied the number to fit that story when they say nothing of the sort necessarily.

Believe me, if the numbers said the Reds were a team with "major issues" I'd be the first one to agree with you. But that's just not what they say.

I believe they do, indeed, say that against the kind of competition they'll be facing for playoff spots or in the postseason should they make it.

[RedEye]

I think I follow you.

Let's say both teams have a .333 hitter. Reds guy gets his 1-for-3 knock with nobody in scoring position. Cards guy gets his with a man on third. Am I reading this right? RISP more about random circumstance?

As I understand it, yes.

It's not to say that some hitters aren't better than others. They absolutely are. It's just that they are better hitters, period, whether or not runners are on base.

When you look at seasonal samples, sometimes the stats seem to say a player has had amazing success with RISP, but usually when you look at larger samples, over seasons, that change turns out to be too minute to indicate a real situational change in skill.

I believe there's a lot of discussion of this issue on the Erardi thread recently, if you are interested (or didn't happen to see it).

[RedEye]

I believe they do, indeed, say that against the kind of competition they'll be facing for playoff spots or in the postseason should they make it.

Not sure I follow this. What are you saying again?

[kaldaniels]

I keep hearing the title of the thread in Jeffery Jones voice.

/and I am aware of his extracurricular activities...just too lazy to write something halfway clever

[Kc61]

I see the whole discussion as a straw man. The question of being above league average has an obvious answer. Of course the Reds are. They are clearly in the top four or five teams in the league right now. No reasonable issue on that.

Whatever offensive problems they have had do not change this. The stats I do every ten games show the Reds to be about fourth on average in most major statistical offensive categories. That doesn't change the overall view of a top five NL team.

But it's not the issue I see. The issue is the expectation that the Reds would be, clearcut, one of the top one or two teams in the league this year. The Reds have not met that test by any measure.

Now -- some say it's irrelevant, make the playoffs, and it doesn't matter. Fair point. Some, like me, want a great team that will be a favorite going into the playoffs. Also a fair goal.

Saying that the Reds are above the average in a league with the Cubs, Brewers, Padres, Mets, Marlins, etc., tells me nothing new. Whether a team with the Reds makeup is likely to win in the post-season, particularly with this wild card system, is the more genuine debate.

[RedsManRick]

You might want to look at the teams who have been winning the world series.

Are you telling me that they are the most elite teams each year?

Otherwise, why play the playoffs, wouldn't the best team always win?

I think my sarcasm may have been a bit too subtle.