As much as Billy Hamilton except he has tore up minor league pitching where BH hasnt;Originally Posted by Johnny Fan
As much as Billy Hamilton except he has tore up minor league pitching where BH hasnt;
I don't see BH as a plus for the Reds in the upcoming season and wouldn't of the kid in St. Louis. Now they might become a plus but at this point in the year there isn't really any way to know what a minor league talent may or may not bring to the team. The Cards have basically added one major chip and that is the guy at SS, who has a lot of HUGE questions surrounding his abilities and future.
You know what PEDs were used and when correct?
Oh for real.
Here was the original thing I quoted.
"Originally Posted by bullseye View Post
The Reds put up a ton of numbers against bad pitching. Take a look at our numbers against opponents top 3 pitchers and you will be amazed at how bad we were."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotly View Post
i noticed this also. The Reds seemed to have the ability to score 10 runs, then barely score a run a game for the next week."
Scot writes, the Reds seem to have the ability to score 10 runs then barely score a run a game for the next week.
I noticed this as well, so I wanted to know how often the Reds got shutout this past season and how it compared to similar hitting teams.
In addition, I wanted to know if the Reds were shut down more often than other similar teams, and by this I went with scoring 3 runs or less is being shutdown. I wanted to know if BULLSEYE was right and we were getting shut down quite frequently vs teams compared to other similar teams.
So I had to compare the Reds to other NL teams to be consistent as AL teams had a DH, and the best measure of how good an offense is, is to look @ the # of runs scored.
Based on that, I chose Atlanta, who were similar to the Reds in runs scored and the Cards who were the best team in the NL in terms of runs scored. Seems logical so far doesn't it?
I looked @ the # of times each of the teams were shutout. It's black and white, no grey. You either got shutout, or you didn't.
Then of course I looked @ the times they scored 3 runs or less-- it's black or white-- you either score 0,1,2 or 3 runs, or you don't.
Comparing a black/white variable among similar teams is not cherry picking the results. It's black and white. The Reds were no worse than similar or better teams in terms of getting shutout last year. I don't have time to do all the NL teams to compare. But hey, maybe later I'll go ahead and look @ the #'s for all the NL teams last year.
But for giggles, I just checked looked @ the Cubs data. They were shutout 16 times, and scored 3 runs or less 82 times. That's a bad offense.
Cherry picking would be me looking @ just the home totals for runs scored and ignoring road totals. Or just looking @ weekend games, or games vs teams .500 or lower. But I'm not, I'm looking @ runs scored, by game, for the entire season.
If you aren't happy with the results, so be it. But by no means am I cherry picking the results. I'm comparing apples to apples. Times shutout, and times scoring 3 runs or less by a team for the entire season. It's straightforward. Geesh.
No, there isn't anything out there like Batting Average with runners in scoring position in a tie/1 run down game after the 7th. Or however you want to define the criteria for what a must need hit is. Whether it's in the 9th only, or when the games tied or what.
Someone who is good with Microsoft Access could build a nice database by loading all individual game logs and then create queries and search that way.
It would be interesting to see the #'s. Just looking @ things like .avg with 2 outs or .avg with RSIP really doesn't tell you what you wanted.
Actually, Baseball Reference has a stat called clutch. I'll look into that for you. The Reds were -3.2, the Cards were +4.1. So if it feels like the Reds aren't clutch-- they probably weren't last year.
thatsthepoint
"When I began playing the game, baseball was about as gentlemanly as a kick in the crotch." - Ty Cobb
Access? just go to fangraphs
"When I began playing the game, baseball was about as gentlemanly as a kick in the crotch." - Ty Cobb
We can't really say that Beltran is a huge loss for them until we see what Beltran is doing in 2014. For example, if Beltran has a drop-off and Craig/Adams just repeat last year's numbers, then they've gained. We can assume Beltran will repeat close to his numbers last year, but until he does, the loss hasn't really hurt them. I think the Cards have a safer bet of more production with Craig/Adams than they do with Beltran.
Even if Peralta doesn't add much to them, we are still behind a little and we haven't added anything (and might actually lose Choo) to get back on track.
I was speaking with respect to Beltrans 2013 performance. Of course given Beltrans age, it's likely his numbers will decrease in 2014. If Craig has a repeat or a season close to his 2013 in 2014 and Adams can't match what Beltran gave in 2013, then there is a negative trade off in terms of offense change amongst the players mentioned from 2013 to 2014. I totally understand your point but my frame of reference was a drop of from 2013 to 2014, not a comparison of Adams to Beltran in 2014.
Player A. .284 .335 .503 .839
Player B. .296 .339 .491 .830
Playoffs are where big boys play. And how doesn't the best team win? Pits beat the pants off us when they needed to. We all know Cards can do it when ever they feel like it also.
Interesting...Maybe that is my problem. I want a World Series while most just want to win during the season.
Old school 1983 (12-19-2013)
I'm sure that's a Beltran Adams comparison. Adams got favorable matchups all year whereas Beltran was a full time player. I'm sure the Cards could create a situation where Adams is platooned to miss lefties, but if you're expecting him to be an everyday player, those numbers will dip as he has to face more lefties.
Yes the playoffs are where the big boys play and they "earn" that right to play there based off of a 162 game season. Who wins in the playoffs isn't however always the best team. IF you just went with the system of old of the best NL team in each division and same in AL how many former winners of the WS wouldn't even be in the WS? Better yet, lets remove divisions and just have the best team in the NL after 162 games play the best team in the AL for the title. MLB and other sports have watered down the playoffs.
Posting Permissions
|
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. |
