Joe Sheehan: Would the Reds be in it if Dunn showed up in the 2nd half?

[jmcclain19]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=5566

The Reds, however, are done. Two-and-a-half games out of first with five games to play, they sent Chris Michalak to the mound against a team that is loaded from the right side. I suppose if they’re not going to take their situation seriously, there’s no reason for us to do so.
Michalak lasted just three innings, but the real problem was the offense. The Reds got the leadoff batter on in six of the first eight innings, but went 2-for-18 with runners in scoring position and left 15 men on in a 7-2 loss.

I’m on board with the idea that the Reds are out of the race in no small part because of the Wayne Krivsky notion that he needed middle relievers more than he needed 25% of his starting lineup. The Felipe Lopez/Austin Kearns trade damaged the Reds’ offense and didn’t come close to addressing their pitching issues. There’s no way to evaluate their season without placing that deal front and center.

However…

Do you think things might have been different if Adam Dunn shown up for the second half? With another 0-fer last night, Dunn dropped to .153/.344/.264 in September, .230/.367/.426 since the All-Star break. He has killed the Reds for two months, batting .170 in the middle of the lineup with just 13 extra-base hits. That’s not a slump; that’s a disaster, and it’s gone unnoticed in part because guys like me are so used to defending Dunn that we didn’t look at him when doing the Reds’ autopsy. Unlike in past seasons, when Dunn was criticized for his approach while still being productive, this time the big guy is a big reason why the Reds have failed. Stathead favorite or no, Dunn deserves a load of criticism for his part in this season.

[Roy Tucker]

Gasoline? Check.

Match? Check.

Ignition.

[dougdirt]

No need for gasoline or a match. He speaks the truth. You can try to defend Dunn all you want. .230/.367/.426 is not good, any way you look at it. Adam Dunn hasnt even OPS'd at a level that is good for a middle infielder since the ASB.

[registerthis]

I think, when assessing blame for the failures of this team, it's ludicrous to point to only one or two individuals and make them the sacrificial lambs. This was a flawed team at the beginning of the season, and it is a flawed team now.

Guys like Milton, Griffey, Wilson and LaRue ate up large chunks of this team's payroll while offering very little in return, so certainly some blame goes their way.

The bullpen imploded halfway through the season, and was only serviceable the rest of the way, so some additional blame goes there.

The Reds had only two dependable starters all season (which is more than they've had in seasons past, but certainly not enough to carry a team with a mockery of a bullpen), and the inability to find anyone who could consistently pitch well behind Harang and Arroyo harmed this team.

The O'Brien era carries an amount of blame because of the lack of any goodly number of prospects within the Reds system, and the general incompetency shown in running the franchise which haunts them to this day.

But, what I see Sheehan pointing out is that you also can't overlook the contributions (or lack thereof) of Dunn that aided the Reds tailspin during the final couple months of the season. When your most important offensive player goes into hiding for the final two months, it can't be ignored. But Dunn was simply one cog in a wheel that was missing too many nuts and bolts to realistically compete this season. He's not absolved from blame, but he shouldn't disproportionately shoulder it either.

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

No need for gasoline or a match. He speaks the truth. You can try to defend Dunn all you want. .230/.367/.426 is not good, any way you look at it. Adam Dunn hasnt even OPS'd at a level that is good for a middle infielder since the ASB.

And this is where hyperbole starts creeping in ...

2005 2B: .274/.334/.413
2005 SS: .270/.325/.394

That's a .747 OPS for second basemen and a .719 OPS for shortstops. There's no denying that Dunn's .793 OPS is a massive slump for him, but let's not get out of hand and claim that a .793 OPS - one that is on-base heavy at that - isn't good for a middle infielder.

[lollipopcurve]

There’s no way to evaluate their season without placing that deal front and center.

Let's see, a season in which expectations were significantly exceeded should be evaluated primarily by looking at a deal deemed a colossal failure. Yeah, that's objective.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

Let's see, a season in which expectations were significantly exceeded should be evaluated primarily by looking at a deal deemed a colossal failure. Yeah, that's objective.

I'm not sure expectations were "significantly exceeded" this year--rather, it was a case of our competition playing down to our level. There's a decent chance this team will finish in 3rd place with a below-.500 record. That doesn't significantly exceed anything I had hoped for out of the team this year.

[guttle11]

I think this disproves any notion that Adam Dunn isn't greatly valuable to this team.

As he goes, the Reds go.

[jmcclain19]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

Let's see, a season in which expectations were significantly exceeded should be evaluated primarily by looking at a deal deemed a colossal failure. Yeah, that's objective.

I'm not picking on you lollipopcurve, but I've seen this everywhere and I just don't see it.

The Reds won 73 games a year ago. And had 76 wins in 2004. Right now they have 79 wins, are hoping for a .500 record during a season when at one point they were 12 games over .500. Is that really a significant improvement?

The only thing that has changed, is the teams around them are terrible, as opposed to dominating. Which changes everyone's perspective.

[Aronchis]

Originally Posted by jmcclain19

I'm not picking on you lollipopcurve, but I've seen this everywhere and I just don't see it.

The Reds won 73 games a year ago. And had 76 wins in 2004. Right now they have 79 wins, are hoping for a .500 record during a season when at one point they were 12 games over .500. Is that really a significant improvement?

The only thing that has changed, is the teams around them are terrible, as opposed to dominating. Which changes everyone's perspective.

Or are they just more evenly leveled out? Don't short yourself, the Reds overachieved this year, but only in a modest way. Next year we could end up with around the same record but come to that record in a very different way.

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

Let's see, a season in which expectations were significantly exceeded should be evaluated primarily by looking at a deal deemed a colossal failure. Yeah, that's objective.

If you want objective ...

• Dunn's post-ASB slump has cost this team ~2 wins.
• The Kearns/Lopez trade has cost this team ~2 to 3 wins.
• Phillips/Hatteberg/Ross returning to career norms has cost this team ~3 to 4 wins.

If one of the above doesn't happen, this team is likely going into the final day of the season battling for a playoff spot. If two of the above doesn't happen, this team most likely wins the Central division. If all three of the above do not happen, this team easily wins the Central division.

Those are the objective facts, but people will still blame whoever they don't like from the above. Plus, as others have said, the only reason this team is still currently alive for the playoffs is because the National League has been nothing short of awful this season.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by registerthis

I think, when assessing blame for the failures of this team, it's ludicrous to point to only one or two individuals and make them the sacrificial lambs.

Does this include GM's?

Originally Posted by jmcclain19

I'm not picking on you lollipopcurve, but I've seen this everywhere and I just don't see it.

The Reds won 73 games a year ago. And had 76 wins in 2004. Right now they have 79 wins, are hoping for a .500 record during a season when at one point they were 12 games over .500. Is that really a significant improvement?

The only thing that has changed, is the teams around them are terrible, as opposed to dominating. Which changes everyone's perspective.

The Reds were picked to be dead last and be a laughing stock. They will end the season being neither and that is improvement. Should they get swept by Pittsburg they will still have 6 more wins than last year. That is improvement (especially considering how things looked durring various slumps, slides and horrible periods this year).

Absoultley, having the Cards fold has helped us. But to say that we are the same old horrible team and that the ONLY difference was the gift of a medicore division just isn't accurate IMO.

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

If you want objective ...

• Dunn's post-ASB slump has cost this team ~2 wins.
• The Kearns/Lopez trade has cost this team ~2 to 3 wins.
• Phillips/Hatteberg/Ross returning to career norms has cost this team ~3 to 4 wins.

If one of the above doesn't happen, this team is likely going into the final day of the season battling for a playoff spot. If two of the above doesn't happen, this team most likely wins the Central division. If all three of the above do not happen, this team easily wins the Central division.

Those are the objective facts, but people will still blame whoever they don't like from the above. Plus, as others have said, the only reason this team is still currently alive for the playoffs is because the National League has been nothing short of awful this season.

Oh, one more addition, and how could I forget this ...

If Jerry Narron doesn't commit any number of screwups (abusing Arroyo/Harang, failing to play his best players where they should be played, and failure to manage the bullpen more effectively), this team wins some ungodly number of additional games.

The point still stands that people will blame whoever they don't like, but there is plenty of blame to go around altogether, and it just doesn't rest on the shoulders of one person.

[lollipopcurve]

The Reds won 73 games a year ago. And had 76 wins in 2004. Right now they have 79 wins, are hoping for a .500 record during a season when at one point they were 12 games over .500. Is that really a significant improvement?

The only thing that has changed, is the teams around them are terrible, as opposed to dominating. Which changes everyone's perspective.

When I say they have significantly exceeded expectations, I mean that they are in the top tier of their division in a year where the general media consensus was that they'd be last in the division.

Sheehan's evaluation irks me, like a lot of stuff he writes. I just find it intellectually dishonest. He sarcastically skewers the Nats trade, and claims it is the transaction most representative of the season the Reds have had. Yet, the Reds have had a .500 season, and I'm pretty sure that's better than what Sheehan would have forecasted.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

If Jerry Narron doesn't commit any number of screwups (abusing Arroyo/Harang, failing to play his best players where they should be played, and failure to manage the bullpen more effectively), this team wins some ungodly number of additional games.

Certainly in all of your research you have happened upon that which was done on the manager's effect on the W/L record.