Stubbs vs. Votto

[RED VAN HOT]

If anything, Stubbs defense should improve further as he becomes more familiar with the parks in the league.

I think his offense is anybody's guess. My hunch is that he will hit in the .260's with 12-18 HRs. His primary job though, is to get on base and put pressure on the opposition's defense....the job that Taveras failed to achieve last year. If he succeeds, and I suspect that he will, and plays gold glove defense, he will be an above average CF'er.

This thread gives the impression that the Reds offense is in intensive care. I disagree. I think the only real need offensively is a good #2 hitter. That spot was abysmal last year. Having a solid hitter in that spot will improve Stubbs's offense and set up a decent string of power in the middle of the order.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Absolutely, and that will show up in your differential. Getting 20 runs better at prevention at the cost of 20 runs of offense accomplishes nothing. But even if your offense sucks, you benefit more from improving your defense by an additional 20 runs than by improving your offense by 10. It's the change in the differential that matters, not which side you're affecting.

The point is that you can never just focus on or the other. For position players, they always both count.

I see what you are saying but I guess my feeling is there is some point at which you must sacrifice one for the other and that works both ways depending on the type of team you have. Although perhaps a slight offensive lean moreso than a defensive one.

For example if we kept improving our defense at a rate of 2:1 until we had the best glovemen in baseball, balls can still and will hit the ground, balls will still leave the yard etc. At what point must you find that balance?

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

I see what you are saying but I guess my feeling is there is some point at which you must sacrifice one for the other and that works both ways depending on the type of team you have. Although perhaps a slight offensive lean moreso than a defensive one.

For example if we kept improving our defense at a rate of 2:1 until we had the best glovemen in baseball, balls can still and will hit the ground, balls will still leave the yard etc. At what point must you find that balance?

At some point, you may be fielding the best fielders in baseball, but because those guys can't hit, you'll still have a poor differential. So at the point, you're going to need to give up some run prevention to get more run scoring. But the bottom line issue which still remains is the need to improve your differential.

The particulars of the strategy you need to employ to do that vary based on your circumstances. Where you can you improve your differential the most while spending the least? That's what drives your decision. And if you're already putting 8 gold glovers out there, you're going to need to up the scoring to improve the differential.

But until you get that to that extreme point where there is literally no way to improve your scoring or prevention, focusing on some magical balance on run scoring and prevent instead of simply the difference between them misses the big picture.

Obviously, a team's specific strategy will include both it's payroll, how the market values specific skills (since it tends to incorrectly values specific skill sets and instead of simple run production/prevention), the organization's developmental and scouting strengths, etc.

[TheNext44]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

I see what you are saying but I guess my feeling is there is some point at which you must sacrifice one for the other and that works both ways depending on the type of team you have. Although perhaps a slight offensive lean moreso than a defensive one.

For example if we kept improving our defense at a rate of 2:1 until we had the best glovemen in baseball, balls can still and will hit the ground, balls will still leave the yard etc. At what point must you find that balance?

You are correct. The law of diminishing returns works here. A team can only lower their runs prevented to so low a number. This year the lowest was 611 in the NL, which was the lowest in many years. In the 80's and the 60's teams had as low as 550.

The Reds allowed 673 runs, which was their lowest in years. So lets assume the new lowest level is 600 for this current situation the league is in. That means the Reds could go 73 runs lower, which is quite a lot. I don't think that if they got a gold glover at all starting 8 positions, they would gain more than 73 runs, especially since the are getting solid defense at nearly every position already.

To me that means that they shouldn't worry about where the difference comes from, they aren't going to run out of defensive value to gain for a while.

[RED VAN HOT]

Originally Posted by TheNext44

You are correct. The law of diminishing returns works here. A team can only lower their runs prevented to so low a number. This year the lowest was 611 in the NL, which was the lowest in many years. In the 80's and the 60's teams had as low as 550.

The Reds allowed 673 runs, which was their lowest in years. So lets assume the new lowest level is 600 for this current situation the league is in. That means the Reds could go 73 runs lower, which is quite a lot. I don't think that if they got a gold glover at all starting 8 positions, they would gain more than 73 runs, especially since the are getting solid defense at nearly every position already.

To me that means that they shouldn't worry about where the difference comes from, they aren't going to run out of defensive value to gain for a while.

To me, there seems to be a cyclical nature to favoring offense or defense. It starts with a team having spectacular success by building a certain type of team. Others begin to copy the approach. At some point the strategy becomes so pervasive that it is open to a counter strategy. Baseball went through an era of offense when steroids were prevalent. I think we are in the middle innings of a swing back to emphasizing defense.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by RED VAN HOT

If anything, Stubbs defense should improve further as he becomes more familiar with the parks in the league.

I think his offense is anybody's guess. My hunch is that he will hit in the .260's with 12-18 HRs. His primary job though, is to get on base and put pressure on the opposition's defense....the job that Taveras failed to achieve last year. If he succeeds, and I suspect that he will, and plays gold glove defense, he will be an above average CF'er.

This thread gives the impression that the Reds offense is in intensive care. I disagree. I think the only real need offensively is a good #2 hitter. That spot was abysmal last year. Having a solid hitter in that spot will improve Stubbs's offense and set up a decent string of power in the middle of the order.

What this team really needs is a true star. Or two. Every player who is discussed has some sort of tradeoff. We talk about how "not awful" someone is, how this person will be league average, how this guy will nake up for deficiency A with strength B.

I wish we had a couple of guys who would allow for us to not have to worry about the shortcomings of a guy like Stubbs. Put Holliday in LF and a plus offensive guy at SS and Stubbs is just fine in CF next year. But adding him to the other questions in the lineup and the offense becomes more questionable. For next year.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by RED VAN HOT

To me, there seems to be a cyclical nature to favoring offense or defense. It starts with a team having spectacular success by building a certain type of team. Others begin to copy the approach. At some point the strategy becomes so pervasive that it is open to a counter strategy. Baseball went through an era of offense when steroids were prevalent. I think we are in the middle innings of a swing back to emphasizing defense.

I posted this about two months ago or so, but defense has already been rather important toward postseason success. In the last 10 years, of the 20 teams that made the World Series, 18 of them had a defense that ranked in the top 10 in baseball that year in Defense Efficiency Ratio (simply a percentage of batted balls in play that are converted to outs). On the other hand, only 9 teams had an above average OPS that year.

The correlation to win percentage in that same about of time slightly favored OPS to FIP or DER, though Run Scoring / Run Prevention was a 40/60 split.

[LoganBuck]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

What this team really needs is a true star. Or two. Every player who is discussed has some sort of tradeoff. We talk about how "not awful" someone is, how this person will be league average, how this guy will nake up for deficiency A with strength B.

I wish we had a couple of guys who would allow for us to not have to worry about the shortcomings of a guy like Stubbs. Put Holliday in LF and a plus offensive guy at SS and Stubbs is just fine in CF next year. But adding him to the other questions in the lineup and the offense becomes more questionable. For next year.

Agree with this, but would ask, aren't the other questions, in the lineup the answer to the question?

SS, LF, and C are far bigger worries than what is going on in center. I feel like I wrote something like that last offseason and the answer we were presented was Jerry Hairston Jr, Wily Taveras, and Ramon Hernandez. Fail, Fail, Fail.

The Reds spend more time promoting Redsfest than working on improving their own team. Being a Reds fan is like watching late night tv and seeing an advertisement for the Ab Belt 5000, wouldn't it be fantastic to lose all the weight sitting on your butt, letting it electronically stimulate your fat away? You end up with burns on your love handles, and everyone you know is laughing at you for doing something, that you know doesn't work.

Next up Natural Lineup Enhancement.

[11larkin11]

Originally Posted by RED VAN HOT

If anything, Stubbs defense should improve further as he becomes more familiar with the parks in the league.

I think his offense is anybody's guess. My hunch is that he will hit in the .260's with 12-18 HRs. His primary job though, is to get on base and put pressure on the opposition's defense....the job that Taveras failed to achieve last year. If he succeeds, and I suspect that he will, and plays gold glove defense, he will be an above average CF'er.

This thread gives the impression that the Reds offense is in intensive care. I disagree. I think the only real need offensively is a good #2 hitter. That spot was abysmal last year. Having a solid hitter in that spot will improve Stubbs's offense and set up a decent string of power in the middle of the order.

I agree, and I think that guy should be Brandon Phillips. I know he takes a lot of heat for his lack of taking walks, but he won't be getting many pitches outside the zone if he's ahead of Votto. Stubbs-Phillips-Votto-Rolen-Bruce is a good 1-5. I could live with Gomes/Francisco's offense at 6 and even maybe Janish's defense at 8, if it can't be upgraded w/ money.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by LoganBuck

Agree with this, but would ask, aren't the other questions, in the lineup the answer to the question?

SS, LF, and C are far bigger worries than what is going on in center. I feel like I wrote something like that last offseason and the answer we were presented was Jerry Hairston Jr, Wily Taveras, and Ramon Hernandez. Fail, Fail, Fail.

The thing with those names is that the team wasn't set back because of those acquisitons. Sure they cost a few mil but they weren't given 5 year deals or paid some ridiculous number.

Here's what I am hoping is happening:

1) Jocketty comes aboard and knows that the roster is in disarray
2) He wants to wind some of these contracts down and will do so either via attrition or through trade (if it makes sense)
3) He wants to build through youth and doesn't want to kill the future with long term dumb contracts, so he will hold off on spending unless it makes sense
4) He will have the flexibility in the future to add to the core as they get closer to primetime

That's the cliff's notes. Now I know that some might scoff about point #3 and present the Rolen trade as exhibit A, but that wasn't a material amount of money spent when you work it out. Also the Taveras contract, but again that wasn't a ton of money or a ton of years. Sure it was a bad contract, but if they keep spending through the draft and Latin America, then Walt is allowed to blow a couple of mil every opnce in a while if he wants.

I am hoping that this is the case. If not, then I don't know what he is doing.

That is, unless, they are ready to pour some cash into the team. But that's not likely.

[RED VAN HOT]

Originally Posted by 11larkin11

I agree, and I think that guy should be Brandon Phillips. I know he takes a lot of heat for his lack of taking walks, but he won't be getting many pitches outside the zone if he's ahead of Votto. Stubbs-Phillips-Votto-Rolen-Bruce is a good 1-5. I could live with Gomes/Francisco's offense at 6 and even maybe Janish's defense at 8, if it can't be upgraded w/ money.

I also see Phillips as a #2 hitter. My question is whether Phillips sees it that way as well.

[mth123]

I think Rolen is the guy to bat second. He really doesn't have the pop anymore to hit in the middle of the order, but he can handle the bat, get on base and still pose a threat up there. So the top three should be CF (Stubbs/Dickerson), Rolen, Votto. The Next three depend on who is pitching. Against a RHP, Bruce hits 4th, the LH Hitting LF (Francisco or Dorn or maybe Nix) hits 5th and Phillips hits 6th. Against a lefty I'd hit Phillips 4th and Gomes 5th with Bruce 6th. The catcher and SS would hit 7th and 8th depending on who is brought in to man those spots.