The Reds' offense is better this year

[M2]

The next run the 2013 Reds score will equal their 2012 total. The team is scoring 4.37 rpg this season, up from 4.13 last season. That's actually a healthy jump because league scoring is down year-to-year from 4.22 to 4.03 (and, yes, I think you can put a lot of that on the disappearance of the Houston Astros). In rankings terms the Reds are up from 9th to 2nd in the NL for rpg.

Some other numbers:

2013 Reds

.250/.328/.394, 96 OPS+
(non-pitchers) .256/.337/.407, 102 OPS+

2012 Reds

.251/.315/.411, 92 OPS+
(non-pitchers) .257/.324/.423 97 OPS+

The league slash line is down a bit across the board.

Main thing is the Reds are up while the league is down. So, much as we might bemoan the offense, it has improved overall at a time when most others have gotten worse.

And it clearly has been the boost in OB that's done the trick. Adding Choo and a full season of Votto are the drivers here. The 2012 Reds had more power and if the team had been able to add its current OB with 2012's SLG it would be a fairly formidable unit. Yet there's no disputing the offense is better even if it's well short of perfect.

[RollyInRaleigh]

That's interesting, M2. Thanks for posting that. My perception with the Reds offense this year is that it seems like it is all or nothing a lot of times.

[mikemo14]

Statistically the offense may be better this year than last this year, but the inconsistency is still somewhat disappointing. This year the Reds have scored two runs or less in 49 of their 153 games.(32%). That seems like too many "off" games for a top notch offense. They are 9-40 in those games. Would be interesting to know how many of those games would turn to wins if they scored three instead of two. Even if it were only three it would make quite a difference in the standings.

[dsmith421]

Statistically the offense may be better this year than last this year, but the inconsistency is still somewhat disappointing. This year the Reds have scored two runs or less in 49 of their 153 games.(32%). That seems like too many "off" games for a top notch offense. They are 9-40 in those games. Would be interesting to know how many of those games would turn to wins if they scored three instead of two. Even if it were only three it would make quite a difference in the standings.

This is one of those things that is worthless without context. How many times did the Reds score 2 or less in 2012? How many times did other NL contenders score 2 or less this season?

[M2]

That's interesting, M2. Thanks for posting that. My perception with the Reds offense this year is that it seems like it is all or nothing a lot of times.

I suspect that's the case with most teams. With the Reds, if Choo, Votto and Bruce all have quiet games, then it's probably going to be a low scoring affair.

Yet three quality bats, two middling guys (Phillips, Frazier) and a cast of extra makes for an above average offense these days.

[mth123]

Adding Choo is a big improvement. Removing Stubbs helps a lot too. Some individuals like Frazier and Ludwick are down, but Choo vs. Stubbs is a massive upgrade. Full season of Votto helps too even if it's at a lesser overall OPS. It subs for PT given to guys like Rolen in 2012.

[RollyInRaleigh]

This is one of those things that is worthless without context. How many times did the Reds score 2 or less in 2012? How many times did other NL contenders score 2 or less this season?

Not surprisingly, there are a lot of things like that.

[M2]

Last year the Reds had 45 games with 2 or fewer runs. Given the general drop in offense league wide (again, the Astros disappearance is a major factor here), I don't think the 4 extra low scoring games indicate a more mercurial offense.

[bob jones]

I think the road bullpen performance is the problem

[dsmith421]

Baseball-Reference comes through again.

Reds 2012: shut out 4 times, 1 run 23 times (1-22), 2 runs 18 times (7-11) (45)
Reds 2013: shut out 10 times, 1 run 19 times (3-16), 2 runs 20 times (7-13) (49)

So yes, the 2013 Reds do get shut down more often (although they also shut the other team down more often, too, see 17 SHOs this year against 10 last year).

The 2013 Cardinals have 46 games with 2 runs or less, the Pirates 54 (!), the Braves 49, and the Dodgers 49. Just for reference, the Astros have scored 2 runs or less on 58 occasions this year.

[M2]

The Reds also have scored 4+ runs 88 times this year (57.5% of the time) compared to 91 times last year (56.2% of the time).

[Rojo]

My only concern with the offense is the "spread" -- four positions (LF, 3rd, SS and Catcher) plus the bench have been mediocre. The other pitcher can sleep-walk through a couple of innings.

[RedEye]

Statistically the offense may be better this year than last this year, but the inconsistency is still somewhat disappointing.

The complaint about "consistency" is a very common one, I think, across MLB message boards. I'm not sure it just comes down to citing how many times they scored a certain numbers of runs or less. There has to be a baseline to compare the Reds to -- since consistency is modeled against your peer teams and against your own performance year-to-year.

Wanted to point out this terrific post on FanGraphs that I keep coming back to. Thing is, consistency is a very difficult thing to define in a sport where offensive failure (at least by individual batters) is the most common outcome. It is also difficult to compare teams to other teams, and to measure over time just what it means to be "more consistent" or "less consistent." Here's a nice quote from the post to give you a sense of where it is coming from:

What to make of all this? I think it leads to some interesting questions, most of which deal with roster construction. Given that larger impact on wins, should an above average team focus on building a generally consistent offense (particularly at the top and heart of the line-up)? Should a below average team look to bring in players–particularly pitchers–that are highly volatile in the run prevention game? What about the rotation? Should you build through consistent 1-3 starters and high volatile 4-5 starters?

As I found in earlier research, volatility is generally not a characteristic that is stable year to year, so building on it is difficult. However, over time players do seem to display a “skill” for consistency. In this way, volatility is like Clutch–highly variable year to year, but identifiable after a large number of observations.

[Kc61]

My stats threads, including the recent 150 game stats thread, discusses this extensively.

The Reds in previous years destroyed lefties and were weaker against righties. This year more balance and good home/road offensive balance. The team OBP is up. But SLG is down a bit.

Choo over Stubbs huge upgrade. Most of the other players are down from last year in OPS, some substantially. Of course, the comparison is a bit unfair because LF OPS is way down due to Ludwick injury.

My overall view is that the offense this year had potential to be tremendous with Choo. It fell short of this. Some of the guys fell off, and Ludwick was hurt. But it's still a pretty good offense.

Right now with Hamilton on the team, it improves one big weakness, team speed, obviously.

[REDREAD]

My only concern with the offense is the "spread" -- four positions (LF, 3rd, SS and Catcher) plus the bench have been mediocre. The other pitcher can sleep-walk through a couple of innings.

Yep, when Mez, Cozart, Frazier or the LF is hot, the offense sure seems a lot better. When all 4 of those positions are cold, it's not much fun watching the Reds offense.

It's great to see some life in Cozart's bat recently. The other guys have had some hot spells, hopefully we get one of them to go all "Billy Hatcher" in the playoffs and help carry the load.