Disturbing trend

[BluegrassRedleg]

Not too long ago, it was suggested here that the Reds had one of the "easiest" schedules after the All-Star break. I commented that I don't put much credence in strength of schedule in baseball. After all, even the best teams usually lose one out of every three.

Prior to recent series against the Dodgers and D-backs, in particular, the Reds Live pregame show stressed how the Reds were catching these teams "at the right time." We see how that's gone.

My question here is do the Reds have focus issues or are the series listed below "just baseball?" It certainly appears that better the opponent, the better the Reds play. (See series against NYY, ATL, SF, STL.)


D-Backs: Losers of 9 of their last 12, have won 2 out of 3 vs. Reds

Indians: Losers of 7 out of 11, sweep Reds

Tigers: Losers of 7 of 10, took 2 of 3 from Reds

Twins: Losers of 11 out of 17, took 2 out of 3 from Reds

Dodgers: Losers of 12 out of 15, took 2 out of 3 from Reds

[Ironman92]

When the Reds play well they win....and vice versa

[R_Webb18]

most of those teams have talent to win besides twins

cleveland should not of swept us but they did. but so did we few days before

we just blew few games. like against the tigers.

[webbbj]

i probably wouldn't put too much into it. We have taken care of our fair share of soft opponents aswell.

[BungleBengals]

The problem with the Reds and even the Bengals is that they play to the level of their opponents and not play their own game. It's frustrating to see the Bengals beat the Ravens or Steelers and then come home to lose to the Browns. Same thing with the Reds, we see them sweep the Cardinals and so far lose 2 of 3 to the Diamondbacks. I know Joey is out, but when he was here we had a stint where we swept the Indians and Mets only to go on and get swept by the Indians and lose 2 of 3 to the Twins.

[Who Dey Time]

IMO, there is not much to be concerned about. If you look at today's standings, the Reds have played seven teams that currently have a losing record (Cubs, Brewers, Astros, Marlins, DBacks, Padres, Twins). They are 18-12 against these teams.

Also, IMO, one of the signs of a team that can contend is to avoid prolonged losing streaks. In 2012, the Reds longest losing streak is 4 games and that has only happened once while their longest winning streak has been 6 games which has occured on three separate occasions.

This is professional sports, even the bottom feeders are going to win at some point. Except, of course, the '08 Lions.

[MrRedLegger]

Besides the Twins those teams all have good rosters. I think the "playing teams at the right time" is the fallacy. When the Reds lost those games, they weren't losing to bad teams -- they were playing good teams that were at the end of a slump.

[texasdave]

Bill James, in one of his Baseball Abstracts, introduced a formula to determine how often a team of a certain winning percentage should beat a team of another winning percentage.

Here is a brief link with that formula: http://207.56.97.150/articles/playoff2002.htm

This formula was used to see how the Reds stacked up against both teams with winning and losing records.

The first chart shows the teams with losing records and how the Reds have done against them.

ARI	1	2	44	47
CHC	3	2	37	53
COL 	2	1	35	56
HOU	4	2	34	58
MIA	2	1	44	47
MIL	4	2	44	47
MIN	1	2	38	53
SDP	3	1	38	55
TAL	20	13

Things were weighted according to how many games the Reds have played against them. The end result is a winning percentage of .428. The Reds are 51-40 for a winning percentage of .560. Using James' formula the Reds should have expected to win 21 games.

The second chart shows the teams with winning records and how the Reds have done against them.

ATL	5	1	49	41
CLE	3	3	47	44
DET	1	2	48	44
LAD	1	2	49	44
NYM	4	1	46	45
NYY	2	1	57	34
PIT 	4	5	51	40
SFG	4	3	51	40
STL	5	4	47	45
WSN 	2	5	53	36
TAL 	31	27

Repeating the above process results in a .545 winning percentage. The Reds should have been expected to win 30 games.

So, utilizing this formula, the Reds are a game down against losing teams and a game up against winning teams. That puts them right where James' formula would expect them to be at 51-40.

That Bill James was a pretty smart guy.

[Kingspoint]

Originally Posted by texasdave

That Bill James was a pretty smart guy.

Yes, he was, but he's gotten senile in his old age... http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sport...ong-penn-state

[George Foster]

I have always believed it is better to go into a series against a team on a winning streak because they are "due" to lose. I don't want to go into a series, especially on the road against a team on a losing streak for the same reason.

There is a lot of luck into winning. Catching a team when we are hitting good, catching a team when we don't face their ace during a series, catching a team with some injuries to some key players, ETC.

St. Louis had no business winning the Wild Card last year. The Braves had the thing wrapped up in a bow and blew it. The Braves had a 8 1/2 game lead in the Wild Card on September 4th.....God how does that happen? St. Louis was only 8 games over .500 on September 4th. St. Louis got hot and the rest is history.

[EMAW]

5 of 7 since break, .714 baseball is not bad