Freak Show Reds (By two of our own)

[Boss-Hog]

The negative over the top response was/is waaay rude. Almost unbelievable -2 of our own hit the big time and they get this type of grief. Not cool -nor gracious.

I was thinking the same thing. Thanks for an interesting read, WoY and M2.

[REDREAD]

Congratulations WestofYou and M2.. pretty cool article.

Really, I don't see it as being negative at all.. Look at it this way, this team's chemistry/character/luck/whatever has allowed it to overachieve in the win column.

I think this will be a very streaky team all through the year, due to unreliable pitching and a streaky HR-based offense..

We're going to have some amazing comebacks, and unfortunately we are going to have more blowouts like tonight..
That's what the stats can show you, that our pitching is pretty weak.. and now, with Austin shown the door, it looks like we have a huge blackhole in the #5 slot right now.

That's what really did us in in 2001.. Rieth, Reyes, and Bell went something like 1-16 in the fifth starter slot.. We are in danger of a simliar catastrophe at the bottom of the rotation this year (#4 and #5 slots)..

[oregonred]

Great stuff M2 and WOY. I just read the article after I posted the run differential stat in one of the other threads.

This helps answer some questions I was wondering.

[creek14]

Originally posted by REDREAD
Really, I don't see it as being negative at all.. Look at it this way, this team's chemistry/character/luck/whatever has allowed it to overachieve in the win column.

That's the way I took it too.

[guernsey]

Beats the heck out of my "Ask Hal" questions!

[RFS62]

Boy, I didn't take it as negative at all. In fact, it's pretty much a tribute to the character of the team that they have won as many close games as they have.

I can see BCubbs point of view too. It looks to me like there are two definite periods of time to study in the season so far. Pre and Post Puerto Rico.

And what an excellent job of writing and research by two highly esteemed Zoners!!!!

[15fan]

Ok...who's going to take it upon themselves to fill out these forms ?

Bang up work, fellas.

(And I'm glad you ran the numbers prior to last night's drubbing...)

[halcyon]

Im a bit late to the thread because I'd already read the piece on the BP site. I enjoyed the article and thought it was quality work and well written, without realizing who'd wrote it. Nice work, gentlemen.

[MattyHo4Life]

I agree is a well written and researched article. I don't know how I passed over this huge thread, but I saw the article posted on the Cardinal forum (St. Louis Sports Forum) first.

[M2]

Originally posted by MattyMo4Life
I agree is a well written and researched article. I don't know how I passed over this huge thread, but I saw the article posted on the Cardinal forum (St. Louis Sports Forum) first.

Just curious, what kind of response did it get there?

[MattyHo4Life]

Originally posted by M2
Just curious, what kind of response did it get there?

M2,

The article was posted over there until this morning so there aren't many responses yet.

Here's a link to the post.

[BCubb2003]

Well, Wednesday night's game should be a lesson in how this freakish stat can happen. After two epic one-run games, going the distance with the team with the best record in baseball, we get a 15-3 blowout. That's enough to skew the stats for at least 6 one-run games. And the loss, as awful as it was, counts the same in the loss column as the 10-inning one-run loss the day before. I'm beginning to think it's the drop-off in pitching that's the major factor. This run differential is really the difference between Gabe White's amazing showdown with Javy Lopez vs. Chris Reitsma's ineffectiveness, or quality starts by Graves and Riedling vs. nightmares by Jeff Austin and Joey Hamilton.

[Falls City Beer]

"This run differential is really the difference between Gabe White's amazing showdown with Javy Lopez vs. Chris Reitsma's ineffectiveness, or quality starts by Graves and Riedling vs. nightmares by Jeff Austin and Joey Hamilton."

No question.

But ask yourself: how many quality starts are we going to get from Graves and Reidling the rest of the season? Then ask yourself: how many quality starts are we going to get from Wilson, Haynes, Reitsma, Anderson, Austin, or whatever detritus or flavor of the week? I suspect the answer to the first question is approximately a league average number of quality starts, maybe below average.
And I suspect the answer to the next question is well, well below league average. The problem is that the pitchers in the second question outnumber the pitchers in first question 3 to 2. So 60% of rotation will give us far fewer quality starts than quality starts and the remaining 40% will give us approximately a league average number at best.

I guess my point is that what you saw last night is more likely to happen going forward than what you saw in the first two games of the series, provided the rotation doesn't change its constituents very soon.

[Raisor]

Originally posted by BCubb2003
I'm beginning to think it's the drop-off in pitching that's the major factor. .

I'd like to nominate this sentance for the "Understatement of the Year" award.



Anyway, I wanted to look at some numbers a little closer. If you eliminate all the games where the Reds were either defeated by five runs or more, or won by five runs or more, the team has a -2 Run Differential (over a 162 game season, that translates to -8), which is about two games under .500

[westofyou]

How many blowouts have we lost in since the big shakeup?

1, and that was the Dempster game in Milwaukee.

What's a definition of a "Blow out"?

In the 34 games since the Reds left PR they are 19-15,(-21 in the runs differential)

17 of those games have resulted in the Reds giving up 6 runs or more.

When the total ERA of all of Baseball is 4.65 giving up almost a run and 1/2 above (or beyond) that in 17 of your past 34 games is what I'd call "A red flag"

Weren't they horribly outscored last year at this time as well, despite a above 500

record?

It's called lack of pitching.

Last year at the 40 game mark (note the Cards record and run differential) and the

way it looked after 53 games, 64, 77, 128 (last time the Reds were .500), 162

Team Name                        G    W    L   PCT    GB    RS   RA
Cincinnati Reds                 40   25   15  .625     -   182  153
St. Louis Cardinals             40   20   20  .500   5.0   180  185


NL Central
Team Name                        G    W    L   PCT    GB    RS   RA
Cincinnati Reds                 53   32   21  .603     -   241  217
St. Louis Cardinals             53   30   23  .566   2.0   242  229


NL Central
Team Name                        G    W    L   PCT    GB    RS   RA
Cincinnati Reds                 64   36   28  .562     -   280  279
St. Louis Cardinals             64   35   29  .546   1.0   296  280


NL Central
Team Name                        G    W    L   PCT    GB    RS   RA
St. Louis Cardinals             75   41   34  .546     -   335  312
Cincinnati Reds                 77   41   36  .532   1.0   321  341


NL Central
Team Name                        G    W    L   PCT    GB    RS   RA
St. Louis Cardinals             98   55   43  .561     -   459  413
Cincinnati Reds                101   53   48  .524   3.5   450  451

NL Central
Team Name                        G    W    L   PCT    GB    RS   RA
St. Louis Cardinals            127   71   56  .559     -   590  539
Houston Astros                 129   68   61  .527   4.0   616  570
Cincinnati Reds                128   64   64  .500   7.5   584  607

NL Central
Team Name                        G    W    L   PCT    GB    RS   RA
St. Louis Cardinals            162   97   65  .598     -   787  648
Houston Astros                 162   84   78  .518  13.0   749  695
Cincinnati Reds                162   78   84  .481  19.0   709  774