It's the Hitting

[mace]

In all the arguments over whether it's pitching or hitting that the Reds most need, a lot of people point to the simple fact that the club continues to lead the NL in runs scored, while ranking in the bottom third in runs given up. There's no disputing that. And yet, something about it just doesn't ring quite true; or telling. Not if you watch the games. I know that, especially lately, I've certainly been frustrated more often by the offense than the defense. In spite of the total runs scored, something about the offense just smacks of inefficiency.

To me, there's a fundamental indicator of a team's effectiveness in either department. I know that this is a gross oversimplification, but the fact is that NL teams this year average 4.1 runs per game. So if your offense scores 5 a game or more, you should win most of the time with average pitching. If your defense holds the opposition to 4 runs or fewer, same thing. So I checked the Reds' scores to see how the hitting and pitching fare in that regard. (Admittedly, this is skewed a bit toward the pitching, because 4 runs is closer to the norm of 4.1 than is 5. On the other hand, I haven't taken into consideration extra innings, and that would skew, though less, toward the hitting.)

In their 96 games so far, Reds pitchers have held the opponent to 4 runs or fewer on 59 occasions. In that crude context, the pitchers are 59-37.

The offense, meanwhile, has scored 5 or more in 44 of those games. By the same measure, then, the hitters are 44-52.

I suspect that a similar analysis of other teams would also tilt the result toward the pitchers, to some extent. I acknowledge, accordingly, that the stark difference here is probably overstated. Nevertheless, I think it's an indication that, as a contributor to winning, the Reds' hitting leaves as much to be desired as the pitching, if not more.

[Reds1]

Not so much is hitting, but getting key hits. We miss countless opportunities game after game. It just amazes me. Bases loaded and 0 or 1 out and they can't get a run in, but those same guys that don't hit in the key situation get on base the next AB. That's baseball, but it's been a rough patch. Our line up all the way up and down is not bad.

I personally think Gomes and Lewis are not consistant enough and bat too high in the batting order, but I"m not the manager, but this team other then Votto are very inconsistent in key situations. Maybe we need to do more sqeezes in those situation. - JK. I don't have the answers, but the make up of this team I just believe they are going to take off and make a little run. Right now they can't seem to win 2 games in a row, but they also don't lose 2 games in a row - we'll see.

[Kc61]

The pitching is the main culprit.

But the Reds hitting is way overrated.

The Reds good hitting stats are largely attributable to their great success this year against LHP. Team has a .822 OPS against lefties, that is by far the highest in the league.

But most of the time you face right handed pitching. Reds not so good there. The team OPS is .708 against RHP. Ninth in the league.

The Reds IMO have a good offense, but not a well balanced one. There's a shortage of LH bats on the team. There's a shortage of higher average hitters on the team.

I'm also of the view that the Reds' offense would be quite middling except that Joey Votto is a great hitter. If you eliminate Votto, the offense is really nothing special.

So I don't agree "it's the hitting." But the offense surely can improve.

[mace]

To give a fairer picture, the instances of the pitchers giving up exactly 4 runs number 16. If you hold the pitchers to the tougher standard of 3 runs, their record, then, is 43-53. Of course, that skews toward the hitters, while almost exactly matching the won-loss performance.

[westofyou]

In all the arguments over whether it's pitching or hitting that the Reds most need, a lot of people point to the simple fact that the club continues to lead the NL in runs scored, while ranking in the bottom third in runs given up. There's no disputing that. And yet, something about it just doesn't ring quite true; or telling. Not if you watch the games. I know that, especially lately, I've certainly been frustrated more often by the offense than the defense. In spite of the total runs scored, something about the offense just smacks of inefficiency.

To me, there's a fundamental indicator of a team's effectiveness in either department. I know that this is a gross oversimplification, but the fact is that NL teams this year average 4.1 runs per game. So if your offense scores 5 a game or more, you should win most of the time with average pitching. If your defense holds the opposition to 4 runs or fewer, same thing. So I checked the Reds' scores to see how the hitting and pitching fare in that regard. (Admittedly, this is skewed a bit toward the pitching, because 4 runs is closer to the norm of 4.1 than is 5. On the other hand, I haven't taken into consideration extra innings, and that would skew, though less, toward the hitting.)

In their 96 games so far, Reds pitchers have held the opponent to 4 runs or fewer on 59 occasions. In that crude context, the pitchers are 59-37.

The offense, meanwhile, has scored 5 or more in 44 of those games. By the same measure, then, the hitters are 44-52.

I suspect that a similar analysis of other teams would also tilt the result toward the pitchers, to some extent. I acknowledge, accordingly, that the stark difference here is probably overstated. Nevertheless, I think it's an indication that, as a contributor to winning, the Reds' hitting leaves as much to be desired as the pitching, if not more.

2011		Wins	Losses
Games		47	49
RS		305	142
RA		142	278
BA		0.290	0.226
OB %		0.360	0.296
Slg  %		0.469	0.337
HR 		66	38
HR vs		32	74
ERA		2.72	5.51

2011		Scored			Allowed	
10 runs +	7	0		0	7
9 runs		3	0		0	3
8 runs		5	2		1	3
7 runs		10	1		1	5
6 runs		6	4		2	1
5 runs		4	2		6	8
4 runs		4	8		7	9
3 runs		5	7		9	9
2 runs		3	12		12	3
1 run		0	8		6	1
0 runs		0	5		3	0
Total		47	49		47	49

Inning	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Extra	Final
Ahead	16	26	32	39	38	38	42	41	41	6	47
Behind	30	34	39	42	44	42	40	42	45	4	49
Tied	50	36	25	15	14	16	14	13	10	18	--

[reds44]

It's both. The pitching could use an upgrade and the Reds could use another bat.

[WrongVerb]

2011 Wins Losses
Games 47 49
RS 305 142

To me this is the biggest issue. The games the reds win, they're blowing the other team out. The games they're losing they're getting shut out or only scoring a few runs. The lineup needs stability and consistency and it isn't getting it from the current players. A solid middle-of-the-order hitter (Beltran) would give them that.

[The Voice of IH]

It is clear that they have the offense, just not the timely hitting. They just need to click and everything will be fine.

[Homer Bailey]

I wish some of you would watch a team on a consistent basis that was actually, truly a below average offense, or even an average offense. Then maybe people would appreciate the Reds offense for what it is, instead of finding new ways on a daily basis of tearing it down. The Giants have scored less runs than the Astros this year, yet it's "covered up" by the solid pitching they have. The Reds have very poor pitching, which leads to more blame on the offense. If the Reds had given up around the league average runs against, no one would say a word about the offense.

The offense is good. Very good. Can it be better? Sure. Every offense can be better.

The pitching is bad. 2nd highest FIP, 3rd highest xFIP, 4th highest ERA. It's really not that complicated.

[Homer Bailey]

It is clear that they have the offense, just not the timely hitting. They just need to click and everything will be fine.

Reds still have the 4th highest OPS and wOBA with RISP.

[mdccclxix]

I wish some of you would watch a team on a consistent basis that was actually, truly a below average offense, or even an average offense. Then maybe people would appreciate the Reds offense for what it is, instead of finding new ways on a daily basis of tearing it down. The Giants have scored less runs than the Astros this year, yet it's "covered up" by the solid pitching they have. The Reds have very poor pitching, which leads to more blame on the offense. If the Reds had given up around the league average runs against, no one would say a word about the offense.

The offense is good. Very good. Can it be better? Sure. Every offense can be better.

The pitching is bad. 2nd highest FIP, 3rd highest xFIP, 4th highest ERA. It's really not that complicated.

It's a funny thing in Cincinnati...while the rest of the league has regressed offensively, the Reds have stayed about where they've always been and in doing so have drifted to the top of the pack. The result is a lack of perspective by us Reds fans on how good the pitching has become around the league. The Reds have a "great" offense now, even though it's hard to consider.

[reds44]

It's a funny thing in Cincinnati...while the rest of the league has regressed offensively, the Reds have stayed about where they've always been and in doing so have drifted to the top of the pack. The result is a lack of perspective by us Reds fans on how good the pitching has become around the league. The Reds have a "great" offense now, even though it's hard to consider.

The Reds led the NL in runs scored last year, IIRC.

[mdccclxix]

The Reds led the NL in runs scored last year, IIRC.

They did, and it was the first time the NL leader in runs was under 800 runs since before 2001 (espn.com only goes that far). The Year of the Pitcher was deemed last year, but it's really just continued on, perhaps more so, this year.

[traderumor]

I am starting to entertain thoughts that this is essentially the same style of offense that we've had throughout the 21st Century, which seems to struggle against some of the most unlikely candidates, esp. any guy with a trick, like Morton two seaming and sinking everything, like a soft tossing lefty or a junkballing righty. These guys are not performing well overall, but look like world beaters against the Reds.

The numbers are what they are, but watching performances like last night raise anyone's ire, and I've been standing behind the evidence of production for this offense over the last two seasons.

I had to laugh last night when they went on and on about a different Charlie Morton, but his numbers aren't really that different, just has 23 innings of 1 run ball against one team skewing his numbers. He was awful last year and a little below average in 2009, which is what he is overall this year. He's still sporting a 1.47 WHIP. While he may be improved, he's still, at best, average....unless he's tossing against the Reds that is.

[Kc61]

It's a funny thing in Cincinnati...while the rest of the league has regressed offensively, the Reds have stayed about where they've always been and in doing so have drifted to the top of the pack. The result is a lack of perspective by us Reds fans on how good the pitching has become around the league. The Reds have a "great" offense now, even though it's hard to consider.

I don't agree that the Reds have a "great" offense by any measure, but I do agree that many offenses in the NL are below par. Pitching is dominant right now, and NL offenses have suffered generally.

But we're talking about being a pennant winner. The Reds don't have the lights out pitching -- never had, probably never will -- to rely solely on pitching and defense. And GABP makes it hard for the team to build solely around pitching, since home runs are so easily allowed there.

The hitting is good but has clear deficiencies. Three lefty bats on the whole team (among position players)? That, in my view, is a joke. In a righty pitching dominant league, you need better righty/lefty balance.

IMO the Reds starting lineup needs two things (now that Janish is replaced by Cozart).

One, it needs a solid hitting right handed left fielder who can hit both kinds of pitching, lefty and righty. A switch hitter like Beltran would certainly do.

Two, it needs a lefty hitting third baseman to platoon with Rolen. Let Scott play less often. Introduce another lefty bat in the infield. I had hoped Francisco would play that role, if not him then somebody else.

Reds could also use one or more additional lefty hitter or switch hitter on the bench to allow flexibility. Currently, their pinch hitters are overly righty.

Reds also need more OBP/contact type hitters. That's why I find Alonso so intriguing, he's slow, but he makes contact and takes walks. Good things tend to happen in clutch situations with hitters who make contact and take walks. (Every guy doesn't have to fit this mold; but some do.)

So, yes, the league's pitching is tougher. The Reds need better pitching. But the offense can use some work too.