Turn Off Ads?
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: How the West was(n't) won

  1. #1
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,510

    How the West was(n't) won

    Interesting numbers. Kind of makes me feel like the Reds really aren't far off competing for the division next season when you look at it this way:

    NL Central Records vs. East & Central Division

    St. Louis (62-47)
    Chicago (62-49)
    Cincinnati (60-51)
    Milwaukee (58-52)
    Houston (46-61)
    Pittsburgh (41-66)

    What's more, is versus the Central only...

    Chicago (47-32)
    St. Louis (45-31)
    Cincinnati (44-32)
    Milwaukee (39-37)
    Houston (31-47)
    Pittsburgh (23-50)

    So against each other, Cincinnati competed with the division rather well this year. It's very possible they could wind up with the best record in divisional play. In fact, if they win out, they will in fact do just that.

    So where the Reds did not get it done this year:

    vs. NL West

    Houston (21-15)
    St. Louis (19-15)
    Chicago (14-18)
    Milwaukee (14-19)
    Pittsburgh (12-24)
    Cincinnati (10-22)

    Basically it was that and a 3-game advantage for the Cardinals over most of the Central in Interleague play and you have their division championship.

    They all count. But when you look at that division record in isolation, it sure does tell me the Reds can't be far off.

    I can't reiterate how much I hope they find a shortstop. I truly believe that's the last missing piece from fielding a very competitive club next year (at least on paper).
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,653

    Re: How the West was(n't) won

    23-8 against the Astros and Pirates.

    21-24 against the Cardinals, Cubs, and Brewers.

    The Reds seem to fit in 4th place. They played the guys above pretty tough and smoked the guys below.
    "This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  4. #3
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,606

    Re: How the West was(n't) won

    Quote Originally Posted by jojo View Post
    23-8 against the Astros and Pirates.

    21-24 against the Cardinals, Cubs, and Brewers.

    The Reds seem to fit in 4th place. They played the guys above pretty tough and smoked the guys below.
    They may fit 4th, but they're closing in on 3rd

  5. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    13,290

    Re: How the West was(n't) won

    Reds got killed by the Rockies, Dodgers, and Padres this year.

    I haven't analyzed the numbers, but I have always believed that the Reds lose in the west because the ballparks are bigger and the teams tend to have good pitching. You need high OBP and high BA hitters to win in those stadiums and against those pitchers.

    In past years the Reds' long ball offense didn't work in these stadiums. This year, the Reds non-offense didn't work.

    It would be interesting to see a statistical analysis of this. And, of course, the Reds lost to these teams at GABP too. And did well against the Giants and DBacks.

    But if the Reds played .500 ball against the NL West teams, the season would have been much different.
    Last edited by Kc61; 10-01-2009 at 11:16 AM.

  6. #5
    Member klw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    6,115

    Re: How the West was(n't) won

    IIRC, in 99 the Reds had teh best record in the NL against NL teams and didn't make the palyoffs due to their interleague record.

  7. #6
    Member OnBaseMachine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    34,844

    Re: How the West was(n't) won

    The Reds went 0-3 against the Royals, 3-4 against the Nationals, 1-5 against the Dodgers, 1-6 against the Padres, and 0-7 against the Rockies. If they had played better against teams like the Royals/Nats/Padres then they would probably be looking at an 82-83 win team, though that still wouldn't be enough to get in the playoffs.

  8. #7
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,728

    Re: How the West was(n't) won

    Quote Originally Posted by OnBaseMachine View Post
    The Reds went 0-3 against the Royals, 3-4 against the Nationals, 1-5 against the Dodgers, 1-6 against the Padres, and 0-7 against the Rockies. If they had played better against teams like the Royals/Nats/Padres then they would probably be looking at an 82-83 win team, though that still wouldn't be enough to get in the playoffs.
    A lot of this may be timing. Votto was out when a lot of the interleague stuff was going on IIRC (and Willy was healthy when they played those teams).
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

    Having better players makes "the right time" or "the big hit" happen a lot more often. PLUS PLUS

  9. #8
    For a Level Playing Field RedFanAlways1966's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Oakwood, OH
    Posts
    11,687

    Re: How the West was(n't) won

    Quote Originally Posted by jojo View Post
    21-24 against the Cardinals, Cubs, and Brewers.

    The Reds seem to fit in 4th place.
    Hard to argue, but to take it further and paint a clearer picture...
    * against St.L = 8-8
    * against Mil = 8-7
    * against Chi = 5-10

    They played .500 ball against two of them (incl. division champ) and got hurt by the dreaded Cubbies. All the losses, but one (5R), against the Cubs were by 3 runs or less. Always close, but no cigar 66.7% of the time against those darn Cubs.
    Small market fan... always hoping, but never expecting.

  10. #9
    Smells Like Teen Spirit jmcclain19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    6,490

    Re: How the West was(n't) won

    That idea is also prefaced on the idea that the Cardinals, Cubs & Brewers will remain stagnant and not improve next year.

    An idea I'm not exactly buying.

    A 10 game swing still puts this team 5 back of the wild card this year.

    And look at the teams in the 85 win range. Atlanta, Florida, San Francisco.

    Anyone care to argue that the Reds will be in better standing in 2010 than those three clubs?

    The Reds are a middling, middle of the pack team, and barring a huge overhaul, or a complete meltdown by half the NL next season, they'll remain the same - a 75 win team that might stretch to win 85. And still not come close to sniffing the playoffs.

  11. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    13,290

    Re: How the West was(n't) won

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcclain19 View Post

    The Reds are a middling, middle of the pack team, and barring a huge overhaul, or a complete meltdown by half the NL next season, they'll remain the same - a 75 win team that might stretch to win 85. And still not come close to sniffing the playoffs.
    True. But still the team was 10-22 against the West. They always get destroyed by the NL West. The Royals series was ridiculous, but they don't usually play the Royals. They play the NL West every year.

    Somebody in this organization should be analyzing the numbers and determining how to build the Reds to play acceptably against the West. It's such an obvious part of the team's demise every year.

    I have my theories, but it shouldn't take some people on the internet to figure this out. The Reds should be all over this.

  12. #11
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,510

    Re: How the West was(n't) won

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcclain19 View Post
    That idea is also prefaced on the idea that the Cardinals, Cubs & Brewers will remain stagnant and not improve next year.

    An idea I'm not exactly buying.

    A 10 game swing still puts this team 5 back of the wild card this year.

    And look at the teams in the 85 win range. Atlanta, Florida, San Francisco.

    Anyone care to argue that the Reds will be in better standing in 2010 than those three clubs?

    The Reds are a middling, middle of the pack team, and barring a huge overhaul, or a complete meltdown by half the NL next season, they'll remain the same - a 75 win team that might stretch to win 85. And still not come close to sniffing the playoffs.
    They're sniffing 80 wins right now despite playing half a season with Willy Taveras (over half, actually); a couple of months of having Darnell McDonald around; a whole season of having no offensive contribution from shortstop; half a season having horrid contribution from third base; suffering injuries to Cueto, Harang and Volquez and having Justin Lehr and Kip Wells pitch a significant amount of time.

    Next season, almost all of those issues are in line to be rectified except getting Volquez back (until possibly late in the year) and shortstop.

    Considering how much better this roster is now than it was earlier in the year, and it's only going to get better when Harang returns, I would say the Reds are very much a winning ballclub heading into 2010. The key is whether that means 82-86 wins or whether they make one or two more additions, stay healthy, get some young players to continue producing and maybe get to the 90-win mark and make the playoffs.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  13. #12
    Socratic Gadfly TheNext44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,228

    Re: How the West was(n't) won

    If healthy for the whole year, the Reds would have ended up at around 86 wins. Assuming that no one is healthy the whole season, I think it's fair to say that the Reds would be at least a .500 team with 82 wins, if they experienced a normal or even just slightly higher than normal injury rate this season.

    I think that if you go back and look at the losing series, they were when the Reds were hurt the most. That probably had more to do with it than the opponent.
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein

  14. #13
    Member top6's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    cincinnati
    Posts
    1,653

    Re: How the West was(n't) won

    They're sniffing 80 wins right now despite playing half a season with Willy Taveras (over half, actually); a couple of months of having Darnell McDonald around;
    But this is the inevitable consequence of having this front office and having Dusty Baker as our manager.

    In a way, every Dusty team has a Willy Taveras to face. For some Dusty teams, Corey Patterson might be their Willy Taveras. For others, letting young star pitchers throw 150 pitches a night might be their Willy Taveras. For us, and this Reds team, Will Taveras was a speedy center fielder with no ability to get on base who Dusty always had to bat lead off. So you can't just say next year we won't have Willy Taveras, just because this year the Reds were unable to conquer their own personal Willy Taveras (who also happened to be the actual Willy Taveras).

    The point is next year - if Dusty is here - there will certainly be a Willy Taveras (and it might just happen to be the actual Willy Taveras again).


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25