The Reds are the most patient team at the plate in the NL!

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by AvesIce51

I don't know their VORP's right now, but losing Kearns and Lopez, it should have been expect to lose a lot of offense. Take their EqR and it should be obvious that being replaced by Royce Clayton and Ryan Freel would lower the teams runs....

But, I am kind of surprised by the drop of .7 runs. Moving Lopez allowed EdE to come in and play everyday again, and he has been very good this season and post all-star break. It also allowed Rich Aurilia to bat every day and he has been great since the AS break. Freel has been OK at the plate and gets on base (although not as effective as Kearns at the plate).

I would like to see Dunn's, Griffey's, Phillips, and Hatte's EqR after the break. I guess they probably got affected by the Trade too, or just came back to Earth.

But I don't think it was just the trade that killed our run production.

Dunn Pre-ASB RC/27: 7.29
Dunn Post-ASB RC/27: 5.74
Dunn Career RC/27: 6.88

Griffey Pre-ASB RC/27: 5.52
Griffey Post-ASB RC/27: 4.27
Griffey Career RC/27: 7.81

Phillips Pre-ASB RC/27: 5.95
Phillips Post-ASB RC/27: 3.96
Phillips Career RC/27: 3.91

Hatteberg Pre-ASB RC/27: 7.76
Hatteberg Post-ASB RC/27: 4.96
Hatteberg Career RC/27: 5.34

So we have two players (Phillips and Hatteberg) returning to their career norms, one player (Dunn) who just slumped, and then one player (Griffey) whose decline should be well-known and well-prepared for considering that he's nearly 37-years-old. If your offense is dependent on Ken Griffey, Jr. being a younger version of Ken Griffey, Jr., then prepare for disappointment. David Ross also fits the Phillips/Hatteberg grouping in that he returned to career norms after the All-Star Break, but you didn't mention him so I'll leave him out.

The problem for Wayne Krivsky is three out of those four post-ASB scenarios (Phillips, Hatteberg and Griffey) should not only have been well-known, but expected and accounted for as the Reds headed into the second half of the season. Of those four, only Dunn's slump can be excluded from what Krivsky should have known was very possible to happen and Krivsky gets a pass on Dunn.

What that all means is if Krivsky was correctly calculating likely scenarios, he'd have known there was a great chance to see a drop in offense due simply to certain players regressing to their career norms.

On the other side of the coin, if Krivsky was counting on career years to continue for Phillips/Hatteberg or Griffey returning to his old self, then he grossly miscalculated. This means any decision to trade away other offensive weapons outside those players who were expected to regress becomes another miscalculation for him when predicting run scoring for the final three months.

If Wayne Krivsky is attempting to reach the playoffs and making transactions in an attempt to reach the playoffs, then he needs to know how many runs his active roster should score/allow over the final three months with reasonable statistical expectations and projections. Relying on players such as Hatteberg and Phillips to continue to over-perform their projections to save offensive production is not a reasonable projection. Those types of projections are what leads to bad decisions in player transactions.

As we know, offensive weapons were dealt away, players who remained in the lineup did regress to their career norms, players who were known to be bad (Royce Clayton) were given playing time, and the combined result is a net loss of 0.70 runs per game. As I stated earlier, really only Dunn's slump is a free pass for Krivsky, and it can be argued that Aurilia's unexpected hot surge offsets Dunn's slump.

Don't get me wrong, I do not at all believe offensive run production of 5+ runs per game would have continued had we not traded away Kearns/Lopez, however, I do believe that we'd have had better offensive production than merely 4.30 runs per game. Also, with or without this trade, I do not believe this team makes the playoffs, either.

I've long said that I had no qualms at all to trading away Kearns and/or Lopez so long as we received a return that gave us positive gains in our run differential. Ultimately, the final miscalculation Krivsky made, and the overall worst calculation, was the return since it was nowhere near projected to give us positive gains in our run differential, and not surprisingly it hasn't given us positive gains in our run differential. That's not just a problem this season, but going forward into 2007 and beyond.

[TOBTTReds]

Cyclone, great post. Not sure if you were disagreeing, agreeing, or just running with what I said. Nonetheless, we are on the same page here and everything you said is right on. Not trying to hijack here please....

but this begs the question, do we trade Phillips, Hatte, or Ross knowing that these guys were probably way above their heads for a long time, and there are GM's out there who, let's face it, don't look into trends too much and might give us way more than deserved?

If DanO were a general manager somewhere, I would show him a feast of opportunity with these guys. Overall numbers can look great sometimes, but can it be duplicated???

Thanks for the research Cyclone.

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by AvesIce51

Cyclone, great post. Not sure if you were disagreeing, agreeing, or just running with what I said. Nonetheless, we are on the same page here and everything you said is right on. Not trying to hijack here please....

but this begs the question, do we trade Phillips, Hatte, or Ross knowing that these guys were probably way above their heads for a long time, and there are GM's out there who, let's face it, don't look into trends too much and might give us way more than deserved?

If DanO were a general manager somewhere, I would show him a feast of opportunity with these guys. Overall numbers can look great sometimes, but can it be duplicated???

Thanks for the research Cyclone.

Well I was just mostly running with what you said. The offense tanked for a variety of reasons, most of which could have been predicted a few months ago, and I'm now a bit worried about the offense going forward to 2007.

David Ross is a guy I'd look to move ASAP. LaRue was above average offensively as a catcher in 2004 and 2005, and I'm not seeing much other than horrific luck for his bad play in 2006. If he maintains his ball in play rates and walk rate, I believe there's a good chance for him to come back in 2007.

If Brandon Phillips can net a nice return, I move him, but that stipulation is true of most any player. At minimum, I'd really like to see him playing shortstop next season; he came up through the minors as a shortstop, he has the athleticism to play it, and I believe he could provide us with a decent chunk of value with his glove there. Even a normal Brandon Phillips has enough doubles/home run power to outslug most other shortstops, though I'm very disappointed in his walk rate since it makes him prone to slumps that turn him into an out machine.

Of course, we don't have many other options for shortstop either. Royce Clayton and Juan Castro need to disappear from the roster, Olmedo's never hit anywhere, and while Aurilia's bat is nice, the Reds are better served to utilize him at a position other than shortstop (and third base, for that matter) while also finding platoon advantages for him.

Hatteberg likely doesn't have any trade value at all, even after his career year this season. Old age tends to limit trade value, and he has too much history prior to this year for Krivsky to pull a fast one on another GM. His best trade value may have been letting him walk and trying to get free agent compensation, but nevertheless he's still cheap in terms of salary. I'm tolerant of using him as a bridge to Joey Votto if he's used intelligently, which once again means platoon advantages, and it also means getting him out of the two-hole. I'd really prefer to see Hatteberg utilized primarily as a pinch hitter with only about 200+ plate appearances next season, but I know it won't happen.

Additionally, when it's Joey Votto's time, it better be Joey Votto's time, but unfortunately I envision a possible scenario where Joey Votto in 2007-08 is simply another Edwin Encarnacion situation in which we'll see Votto stuck on the bench in far too many games over the next two seasons for less favorable "veteran" options.

Depending on who Krivsky keeps/acquires, one key importance is he needs to have reasonable expectations for his offensive performers. He counted on guys such as Phillips, Hatteberg and Ross continuing to perform in a similar manner to their first half, and that became the bulk of Krivsky's undoing with the offense as it allowed him to make a key bad decision back in July.

BTW, a note on Griffey ... if we can get him out of center field, into 130 games next season and an .850 OPS out of him, I'd be absolutely thrilled. He'll be 37-years-old next season, and his legs are pretty much shot. The Reds absolutely cannot rely on another .900+ OPS season out of Griffey offensively anymore. If we get it, that's outstanding, but it shouldn't be expected out of him anymore. It's not Griffey's fault; it's just the human body doing what the human body does when it ages.

Looking ahead, it may be hard to fathom since we've been used to top offensive production throughout 2005 and the first half of 2006, but now our future offense could be at a point where we're much more dependent than we previously thought on Joey Votto and Jay Bruce becoming the offensive players we hope they do eventually become.

[buckeyenut]

Originally Posted by AvesIce51

Cyclone, great post. Not sure if you were disagreeing, agreeing, or just running with what I said. Nonetheless, we are on the same page here and everything you said is right on. Not trying to hijack here please....

but this begs the question, do we trade Phillips, Hatte, or Ross knowing that these guys were probably way above their heads for a long time, and there are GM's out there who, let's face it, don't look into trends too much and might give us way more than deserved?

If DanO were a general manager somewhere, I would show him a feast of opportunity with these guys. Overall numbers can look great sometimes, but can it be duplicated???

Thanks for the research Cyclone.

If you can find a decent return for Hatte or Ross because of that kind of assessment, yes you take it. Phillips is young and has value as a SS so I would hold off on moving him unless you were overwhelmed by an offer.

[M2]

My working philosophy is you probably shouldn't deal away a player you'd immediately need to turn around and replace with another just like him.

Obviously that doesn't apply to fungible commodities like catcher du jour, anonymous middle reliever or dirt cheap innings eater starter. Yet if the Reds dealt away Brandon Phillips wouldn't they just immediately need to find another young middle IF with a good glove, a decent stick and some speed?

The same question applies to Bronson Arroyo and Aaron Harang. If the team deals away one of those two it will be backsliding until it finds a pitcher at least that good as a replacement.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by M2

My working philosophy is you probably shouldn't deal away a player you'd immediately need to turn around and replace with another just like him.

Obviously that doesn't apply to fungible commodities like catcher du jour, anonymous middle reliever or dirt cheap innings eater starter. Yet if the Reds dealt away Brandon Phillips wouldn't they just immediately need to find another young middle IF with a good glove, a decent stick and some speed?

The same question applies to Bronson Arroyo and Aaron Harang. If the team deals away one of those two it will be backsliding until it finds a pitcher at least that good as a replacement.

You're right unless the Reds can swap either Arroyo or Harang for a return like Oakland received for Mulder (or better). And that's a desperately-needed return.

Right now the Reds are in a bad place because if the team is kept as-is, they'll most likely backslide anyway next season. Based on their post-ASB performance, they'd project 694 RS and 773 RA over a 162-game season for a pythag of 72-90.

[M2]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

You're right unless the Reds can swap either Arroyo or Harang for a return like Oakland received for Mulder (or better). And that's a desperately-needed return.

Right now the Reds are in a bad place because if the team is kept as-is, they'll most likely backslide anyway next season. Based on their post-ASB performance, they'd project 694 RS and 773 RA over a 162-game season for a pythag of 72-90.

I agree with you about standing pat. It'll be death if the Reds do it, but I think adding starting pitching and up-the-middle talent (rather than subtracting it) needs to be the focus. If the team loses ground in those specific areas then it's in danger of seeing that W-L projection taking a dive.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

You're right unless the Reds can swap either Arroyo or Harang for a return like Oakland received for Mulder (or better). And that's a desperately-needed return.

Maybe its just the shell-shock talking, but I'm sticking to the bird-in-the-hand rule for starting pitching.

[TOBTTReds]

Originally Posted by Rojo

Maybe its just the shell-shock talking, but I'm sticking to the bird-in-the-hand rule for starting pitching.

I agree. I keep those two for sure. I would keep Phillips as well (at SS). The other "over-their-headers" can be traded for a good return.

[WMR]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

Knowing you're going to lose a little bit of offense and then going out and losing .70 runs per game are two totally different things. The former is making a small sacrifice in an attempt to make run differential gains via better pitching/defense while the latter is decimating an offense altogether.

Over about 60 games, we've replaced ~25 walks with maybe four hits and 21 outs. That's just the value in lost walks, nothing more, and doesn't include other lost value in the frequency of hitting counts (Kearns was third on the team, 20 percent better than league average).

Ouch.

BTW, if you want to see a true value example of what we lost in terms of plate discipline, working the count, etc., go back and examine the 2004 ALCS, Games 1-7. Split the series into two groups, one for Games 1-3, and the other for Games 4-7. In each group, analyze which team, Boston or New York, controlled the strike zone offensively and defensively as a collective unit.

The answer should be very telling.

It's so funny how people keep trying to convince themselves that Kearns was/is garbage.

HE WAS TOP 30 IN THE ML'S IN OPS.

[M2]

Originally Posted by WilyMoROCKS

It's so funny how people keep trying to convince themselves that Kearns was/is garbage.

HE WAS TOP 30 IN THE ML'S IN OPS.

True enough. I had my issues with Kearns, but he has his uses. The Reds had an offense built around multiple tough outs. Punt away two of those tough outs and you can see the trouble you invite.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by M2

True enough. I had my issues with Kearns, but he has his uses. The Reds had an offense built around multiple tough outs. Punt away two of those tough outs and you can see the trouble you invite.

More important, punt a trading chip and you have fewer trading chips.

Kearns's value to this franchise was far greater in trade than in his performance. But as the Tootsie Roll commercial says: the world may never know.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

More important, punt a trading chip and you have fewer trading chips.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of either player, but our Lee May/Joe Morgan moment may have passed.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Rojo

Yeah, I'm not a fan of either player, but our Lee May/Joe Morgan moment may have passed.

Now that's what I call putting it into context.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by M2

I agree with you about standing pat. It'll be death if the Reds do it, but I think adding starting pitching and up-the-middle talent (rather than subtracting it) needs to be the focus.

I don't necessarily disagree but, without dealing away Harang, Arroyo, or Dunn, the question becomes "How?"

Either the team trades one of those guys and hits huge on the return or the Reds spend cash on productive Free Agents (the kind that cost draft picks). The latter wouldn't necessarily be the worst of all options if the Reds continue to slide because it looks like their first rounder could be protected but it's not an option to which I'm looking forward. The other alternative is swapping some high-level blue chip prospects for a guy (or two) in the final year of a big money deal. But then, those resources don't really exist for the Reds- at least not in the kind of number needed to pull off multiple swaps without dangling Bailey/Bruce/Votto.

That's a tightrope walk in the offseason for sure.