Is pitching the problem?

[George Foster]

Today was either the 41 or 43 game of the year we scored less than 3 runs in a game. We are 2 games over .500 when scoring over 3 runs in a game. We are currently 16 under .500

With these stats in consideration, is pitching the real problem or our lack of scoring? To ask our pitching staff to have a combined ERA of under 3 is just a little to much to ask. Now think again about the Dunn trade.

Is he worth 13 million next year? I don't know, but who is going to replace his numbers? We have a major offensive problem now with him on the team, how is it going to be next year without him?

[Muggerd]

Today was either the 41 or 43 game of the year we scored less than 3 runs in a game. We are 2 games over .500 when scoring over 3 runs in a game. We are currently 16 under .500

With these stats in consideration, is pitching the real problem or our lack of scoring? To ask our pitching staff to have a combined ERA of under 3 is just a little to much to ask. Now think again about the Dunn trade.

Is he worth 13 million next year? I don't know, but who is going to replace his numbers? We have a major offensive problem now with him on the team, how is it going to be next year without him?

The problem with Dunn is when he goes into the tank and slumps his offensive problems totally drag the rest of the teams production down. He is just as much of a problem for this team as he is just a big of a part of its success. His inconsistencies spread through the line up because he just doesnt slump for a few days its whole weeks to months at times. When he isn't hitting hes worse than Freel. When he is hitting hes one of the best. Again its another main problem I have with Dunn. He can not shorten his slumps. I blame mostly because of his swing being so looping and long he doesn't have the ability to shorten it up and drive a ball he normally swings and misses. He doesn't have the coordination to become a more professional hitter.

[jmac]

Today was either the 41 or 43 game of the year we scored less than 3 runs in a game. We are 2 games over .500 when scoring over 3 runs in a game. We are currently 16 under .500

With these stats in consideration, is pitching the real problem or our lack of scoring? To ask our pitching staff to have a combined ERA of under 3 is just a little to much to ask. Now think again about the Dunn trade.

Is he worth 13 million next year? I don't know, but who is going to replace his numbers? We have a major offensive problem now with him on the team, how is it going to be next year without him?
IMO this team needs a good leadoff hitter just as much as they do pitching.
Ryan Freel and Josh Hamilton are not the guys for that spot.

[Muggerd]

IMO this team needs a good leadoff hitter just as much as they do pitching.
Ryan Freel and Josh Hamilton are not the guys for that spot.

Chone Figgins and Irvin Santana for Adam Dunn :o

[durl]

We know the Reds score enough runs to be competing for the division. Still, it's true that the Reds can get their runs in bunches. I ran some numbers about a month or so ago that showed that although the Reds have quite a few games where they score 3 runs or less quite often, competitive teams like the Dodgers, Braves, and Indians have MORE sub-3 run games than the Reds. I need to revisit those numbers at some point to see if that still holds true.

The Reds allow more runs than any other team in the NL and our bullpen ranked near the bottom, last time I checked. Part of the numbers I ran prior showed that the Reds have lost a LARGE number of games when they score 5 or more runs. This team needs pitching help badly.

[Muggerd]

We know the Reds score enough runs to be competing for the division. Still, it's true that the Reds can get their runs in bunches. I ran some numbers about a month or so ago that showed that although the Reds have quite a few games where they score 3 runs or less quite often, competitive teams like the Dodgers, Braves, and Indians have MORE sub-3 run games than the Reds. I need to revisit those numbers at some point to see if that still holds true.

The Reds allow more runs than any other team in the NL and our bullpen ranked near the bottom, last time I checked. Part of the numbers I ran prior showed that the Reds have lost a LARGE number of games when they score 5 or more runs. This team needs pitching help badly.

The whole problem with the reds is inconsistency in the starting pitching, bullpen and hitting. This team can be the best team in the majors 1 night and the next be completely awful. If we are going to lose at least we could be nice and lose consistently :(

We average something like 4.46 runs per game or so but it seems like they either score 9 runs or 1. Now how you want to go about fixing that is a whole other argument.

[JLB5]

We know the Reds score enough runs to be competing for the division. Still, it's true that the Reds can get their runs in bunches. I ran some numbers about a month or so ago that showed that although the Reds have quite a few games where they score 3 runs or less quite often, competitive teams like the Dodgers, Braves, and Indians have MORE sub-3 run games than the Reds. I need to revisit those numbers at some point to see if that still holds true.

The Reds allow more runs than any other team in the NL and our bullpen ranked near the bottom, last time I checked. Part of the numbers I ran prior showed that the Reds have lost a LARGE number of games when they score 5 or more runs. This team needs pitching help badly.


Right, the difference between the Reds and those winning teams are that those teams win their share of the games they score 3 or less, whereas the Reds have won only 4 all year. So, yes, improving the pitching would help, as well as having a more consistent offense.

[SMcGavin]

Yes, pitching is the problem. Every team has an "inconsistent" offense, you aren't going to score exactly 4 runs every game. Study after study has shown that the total runs scored and runs allowed is what is relevant to the win/loss record. The offense is NOT the problem. Being 15th in the NL in runs allowed is.

[Fil3232]

Yes, pitching is the problem. Every team has an "inconsistent" offense, you aren't going to score exactly 4 runs every game. Study after study has shown that the total runs scored and runs allowed is what is relevant to the win/loss record. The offense is NOT the problem. Being 15th in the NL in runs allowed is.

Amen. Pitching has been the problem, is the problem, and will be the problem for the foreseeable future.

[Homer Bailey]

Amen. Pitching has been the problem, is the problem, and will be the problem for the foreseeable future.

Clearly pitching is the problem, but the offense is not perfect. Many people think that we ONLY need to improve our pitching, but the offense certainly has its flaws too. I don't like the percentage of runs we get with Home Runs, and the bottom of the lineup has just been atrocious this year.

Shouldn't you be working big ticket?

[SMcGavin]

Clearly pitching is the problem, but the offense is not perfect. Many people think that we ONLY need to improve our pitching, but the offense certainly has its flaws too. I don't like the percentage of runs we get with Home Runs, and the bottom of the lineup has just been atrocious this year.

I agree in a sense, it doesn't really matter whether its the pitching or hitting that gets better. Either raising runs scored or lowering runs allowed will have the same effect. The thing is that we have an average to above average offense, so it's gonna be fairly difficult to improve on that. Our pitching on the other hand is atrocious, so bringing in some guys who are merely league average pitchers will have a big effect on our runs allowed.

Furthermore I think we have an offensive nucleus in place that will allow our runs scored to stay pretty constant (at the worst) for the near future. Hatteberg is aging but will be replaced by Votto, just like Bruce will replace Griffey. Then you have EE, BP, Dunn and Hamilton who shouldn't have a dropoff in production. So the offense will be at least average even if you don't address our weaknesses at SS and C. I'd try to keep that group together and use my spare parts (Hatteberg, Conine, Lohse, maybe Griffey) and my free agent dollars to make a dent in our runs allowed total.

[Muggerd]

The key to a solid offense is finding the right balance between scoring runs and keeping consistency. It does you no good to score 9 every night for a week if it means you score 2 for the next week. They key is consistency. Either you need a consistently good pitching staff that you know what you are goin to get every night or almost every night or you need to know what you are going to get out of your offense. Key situation is that we have both but we cant have both a awful pitching staff that could be great one night just like you cant have a great line up that can be awful on any given night.

[durl]

Well, I ran a few quick numbers to see how the Reds scoring compares with a few other teams. I ran the Indians (2nd place, 60-45), Braves (3rd place, 55-51), and Cubs (2nd place, 55-48) against the Reds (5th place, 45-61).

(My numbers for the Cubs and Indians might be slightly off by a couple because SportsDirect W/L for those teams doesn't add up for some reason.)

Anyway...here's the deal:

Games with 3 runs or less:
Reds: 42
Indians: 36
Braves: 42
Cubs: 39

Games with 3+ runs:
Reds: 75
Indians: 82
Braves: 78
Cubs: 81

Games with 5+ runs:
Reds: 51
Indians: 62
Braves: 51
Cubs: 51

Losing when scoring 5+ runs:
Reds: 18 (29% of losses)
Indians: 14 (31% of losses)
Braves: 8 (16% of losses)
Cubs: 11 (22% of losses)

Games with 1 run or less:
Reds: 16
Indians: 12
Braves: 17
Cubs: 15

When it comes to scoring at least 3 runs a game, the Reds are in the neighborhood with teams that have records above .500.

They're right with the Braves and Cubs when it comes to scoring at least 5 runs per game and the Reds are very similar in the number of games in which they score 1 run or less.

It seems to me that on a game-to-game analysis, the Reds' offensive output is not much different that of the Braves and Cubs...2 teams above .500 and competing for their divisions.

Pitching really seems to be the big weakness here. I can't discount the fact that the Reds have a horrendous BA w/RISP and that they leave WAY too many men on base. That's another story. Still, it seems as though we our offense is productive enough on a game-by-game basis. Our pitching just seems to keep us from winning these games.

[Muggerd]

Yea no doubt our pitching has to improve for us to win no one is saying it doesnt but we need to find a more consistent way of scoring runs while also improving the pen and starting pitching.

[redrum]

Well, I ran a few quick numbers to see how the Reds scoring compares with a few other teams. I ran the Indians (2nd place, 60-45), Braves (3rd place, 55-51), and Cubs (2nd place, 55-48) against the Reds (5th place, 45-61).

(My numbers for the Cubs and Indians might be slightly off by a couple because SportsDirect W/L for those teams doesn't add up for some reason.)

Anyway...here's the deal:

Games with 3 runs or less:
Reds: 42
Indians: 36
Braves: 42
Cubs: 39

Games with 3+ runs:
Reds: 75
Indians: 82
Braves: 78
Cubs: 81

Games with 5+ runs:
Reds: 51
Indians: 62
Braves: 51
Cubs: 51

Losing when scoring 5+ runs:
Reds: 18 (29% of losses)
Indians: 14 (31% of losses)
Braves: 8 (16% of losses)
Cubs: 11 (22% of losses)

Games with 1 run or less:
Reds: 16
Indians: 12
Braves: 17
Cubs: 15

When it comes to scoring at least 3 runs a game, the Reds are in the neighborhood with teams that have records above .500.

They're right with the Braves and Cubs when it comes to scoring at least 5 runs per game and the Reds are very similar in the number of games in which they score 1 run or less.

It seems to me that on a game-to-game analysis, the Reds' offensive output is not much different that of the Braves and Cubs...2 teams above .500 and competing for their divisions.

Pitching really seems to be the big weakness here. I can't discount the fact that the Reds have a horrendous BA w/RISP and that they leave WAY too many men on base. That's another story. Still, it seems as though we our offense is productive enough on a game-by-game basis. Our pitching just seems to keep us from winning these games.

Good post durl.

Funny how sometimes people perceive problems that just don't exist. Good pitching almost always beats good hitting.

[SMcGavin]

Well, I ran a few quick numbers to see how the Reds scoring compares with a few other teams. I ran the Indians (2nd place, 60-45), Braves (3rd place, 55-51), and Cubs (2nd place, 55-48) against the Reds (5th place, 45-61).

(My numbers for the Cubs and Indians might be slightly off by a couple because SportsDirect W/L for those teams doesn't add up for some reason.)

Anyway...here's the deal:

Games with 3 runs or less:
Reds: 42
Indians: 36
Braves: 42
Cubs: 39

Games with 3+ runs:
Reds: 75
Indians: 82
Braves: 78
Cubs: 81

Games with 5+ runs:
Reds: 51
Indians: 62
Braves: 51
Cubs: 51

Losing when scoring 5+ runs:
Reds: 18 (29% of losses)
Indians: 14 (31% of losses)
Braves: 8 (16% of losses)
Cubs: 11 (22% of losses)

Games with 1 run or less:
Reds: 16
Indians: 12
Braves: 17
Cubs: 15

When it comes to scoring at least 3 runs a game, the Reds are in the neighborhood with teams that have records above .500.

They're right with the Braves and Cubs when it comes to scoring at least 5 runs per game and the Reds are very similar in the number of games in which they score 1 run or less.

It seems to me that on a game-to-game analysis, the Reds' offensive output is not much different that of the Braves and Cubs...2 teams above .500 and competing for their divisions.

Pitching really seems to be the big weakness here. I can't discount the fact that the Reds have a horrendous BA w/RISP and that they leave WAY too many men on base. That's another story. Still, it seems as though we our offense is productive enough on a game-by-game basis. Our pitching just seems to keep us from winning these games.

Thank you. The Reds offense is not any more "inconsistent" than anyone else's. It's the pitching!

[boognish]

Pitching really seems to be the big weakness here. I can't discount the fact that the Reds have a horrendous BA w/RISP and that they leave WAY too many men on base. That's another story. Still, it seems as though we our offense is productive enough on a game-by-game basis. Our pitching just seems to keep us from winning these games.

Excellent post, first of all, durl(though I only quoted the latter part :D), but I would also like to point out the offense is seventh in the league in runs scored, in spite of enjoying a huge home run advantage due to their home park (only Philadelphia has seen more HR). Eleventh out of 16 teams in OBP shows a definite need for improvement, even though the aggregate runs scored number is on par with Chicago and Atlanta.

The Reds OPS almost 90 points higher at home than away, and their road OBP of .314 is simply unacceptable. The main component of the OPS spike is due to the 27 more HR hit at home, with the PA home/road being similar (2063 home, 2059 away).

The pitching is the PRIMARY problem, as an average O can win, but the numbers show that average offense may be illusory here. Strangely, the pitching is almost neutral home versus away (4.85 vs. 4.66 ERA, respectively).

[Muggerd]

Excellent post, first of all, durl(though I only quoted the latter part :D), but I would also like to point out the offense is seventh in the league in runs scored, in spite of enjoying a huge home run advantage due to their home park (only Philadelphia has seen more HR). Eleventh out of 16 teams in OBP shows a definite need for improvement, even though the aggregate runs scored number is on par with Chicago and Atlanta.

The Reds OPS almost 90 points higher at home than away, and their road OBP of .314 is simply unacceptable. The main component of the OPS spike is due to the 27 more HR hit at home, with the PA home/road being similar (2063 home, 2059 away).

The pitching is the PRIMARY problem, as an average O can win, but the numbers show that average offense may be illusory here. Strangely, the pitching is almost neutral home versus away (4.85 vs. 4.66 ERA, respectively).

Its mainly because we lack contact players dont dont rely on home run balls. At home us leading the league in homers is a fine way to get by with winning game but once we get to a pitchers park our pop flies that reach the stands in GABP find gloves.

[boognish]

Its mainly because we lack contact players dont dont rely on home run balls. At home us leading the league in homers is a fine way to get by with winning game but once we get to a pitchers park our pop flies that reach the stands in GABP find gloves.

No. Really it all becomes about avoiding outs, not a nebulous concept of "contact hitters." When the Reds led the NL in runs in 2005, they were second in OBP at .339. They were also first in SLG (.446), first in HR (222), first in doubles (335), and second in walks (611). The Reds were also middle of the pack in batting average at .261 (7th in NL), and hit a slightly worse .256 with RISP.

There was a wildly successful offense here 2 seasons ago, "built around the 3-run homer." The reality is, the slugging, doubles, and walks have all gone south on the Reds away from home this season, where they are now fifth, fifteenth, and sixth in the league in total respectively. Some people have forgotten what made that offense great; it was avoiding outs, stinging balls into the gaps, and hitting the home run.

Back to the idea posited in the original post, the pitching and D was awful in 2005, and we know what happened.

[Muggerd]

No. Really it all becomes about avoiding outs, not a nebulous concept of "contact hitters." When the Reds led the NL in runs in 2005, they were second in OBP at .339. They were also first in SLG (.446), first in HR (222), first in doubles (335), and second in walks (611). The Reds were also middle of the pack in batting average at .261 (7th in NL), and hit a slightly worse .256 with RISP.

There was a wildly successful offense here 2 seasons ago, "built around the 3-run homer." The reality is, the slugging, doubles, and walks have all gone south on the Reds away from home this season, where they are now fifth, fifteenth, and sixth in the league in total respectively. Some people have forgotten what made that offense great; it was avoiding outs, stinging balls into the gaps, and hitting the home run.

Back to the idea posited in the original post, the pitching and D was awful in 2005, and we know what happened.


I dont know about you but i think most guys that hit for average have good OBP, they dont have the highest slugging but they normally have solid OBP and are a lot less prone to long term slumps. We need guys that we can count on to not slump just like we need guys we can count on to crush the ball every now and again.

[Screwball]

We need guys that we can count on to not slump just like we need guys we can count on to crush the ball every now and again.

Every baseball player that's ever played the game has gone through a slump (more than once!) in his career. There is no player out there to acquire who we "can count on to not slump."

[Muggerd]

Every baseball player that's ever played the game has gone through a slump (more than once!) in his career. There is no player out there to acquire who we "can count on to not slump."

God some times i think you guys are mental. Every player slumps yes where did i say they didnt? Dear lord you guys have got to be kidding. Most players that hit for average dont have slumps that last for weeks at a time, they have a few games where they might stink it up but hardly ever go on 0-20 streaks and such. Its a simple thing to understand but you guys have trouble understanding things some times.

[boognish]

I dont know about you but i think most guys that hit for average have good OBP, they dont have the highest slugging but they normally have solid OBP and are a lot less prone to long term slumps. We need guys that we can count on to not slump just like we need guys we can count on to crush the ball every now and again.

All right, I'll bite...

Who would you go after, and who would you let go? The simple premise is that the pitching needs to be fixed, but the .314 road OBP must improve.

[boognish]

God some times i think you guys are mental. Every player slumps yes where did i say they didnt? Dear lord you guys have got to be kidding. Most players that hit for average dont have slumps that last for weeks at a time, they have a few games where they might stink it up but hardly ever go on 0-20 streaks and such. Its a simple thing to understand but you guys have trouble understanding things some times.

I challenge you to find a statistical record to back that up, and, more importantly, to find a player the Reds can insert into the lineup who will live up to your expectation.

[Screwball]

God some times i think you guys are mental. Every player slumps yes where did i say they didnt?

Your exact quote was "we need guys who we can count on to not slump." You then follow it up by agreeing that every player slumps. Yet I'm the one who's mental.

[Muggerd]

All right, I'll bite...

Who would you go after, and who would you let go? The simple premise is that the pitching needs to be fixed, but the .314 road OBP must improve.

The reason the OBP on the road stinks is because we have a lot of guys swinging hard and hitting pop ups that are caught in between the stands and the lines pretty much.

let go and go get on what the pitching staff or the line up?

[Muggerd]

Your exact quote was "we need guys who we can count on to not slump." You then follow it up by agreeing that every player slumps. Yet I'm the one who's mental.
Count on not to slump is exactly what i meant. There is a huge different between a long slump and a short slump. Power hitters normally are prone to long slumps. Those can completely devastate your team if you have a lot of streaky players. While players that are better contact guys tend to slump but are much more consistent where you don't notice them and wait for them to break out of their slumps.

[Blue]

The reason the OBP on the road stinks is because we have a lot of guys swinging hard

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We need 8 fast guys who can hit the ball softly. Play base-to-base to the tune of 400 runs a season. The fans would finally be happy.

[Screwball]

Count on not to slump is exactly what i meant. There is a huge different between a long slump and a short slump. Power hitters normally are prone to long slumps. Those can completely devastate your team if you have a lot of streaky players. While players that are better contact guys tend to slump but are much more consistent where you don't notice them and wait for them to break out of their slumps.

So basically you want a team full of Norris Hoppers.

[Muggerd]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We need 8 fast guys who can hit the ball softly. Play base-to-base to the tune of 400 runs a season. The fans would finally be happy.
You guys are absolutely pathetic. You take so much stuff out of context and post the most ridiculous things ever. No where did i say that we need a bunch of singles and no power. :rolleyes:.

[Muggerd]

So basically you want a team full of Norris Hoppers.

You have got to be kidding me... You really have got to be kidding me. How on earth from my post did you get me saying we need a line up of norris hoppers? Are you being serious? This has got to be a joke.

[Blue]

You can't change the fact that you said this:

"The reason the OBP on the road stinks is because we have a lot of guys swinging hard"

[Screwball]

You have got to be kidding me... You really have got to be kidding me. How on earth from my post did you get me saying we need a line up of norris hoppers?

:bang:

Oh I don't know, maybe the part where you said we need to be acquring contact hitters as opposed to the power hitters who swing too hard.

[Muggerd]

You can't change the fact that you said this:

"The reason the OBP on the road stinks is because we have a lot of guys swinging hard"

It is the reason. How would you explain it? For some reason the palyers just stink on the road for unexplainable reasons? You dont think that maybe because we have guys that take really hard swings and hitting balls that normally would leave GABP are caught for outs and batters that swing hard and barely miss hitting a ball solid might have something to do with lowering the OBP?

[Muggerd]

:bang:

Oh I don't know, maybe the part where you said we need to be acquring contact hitters as opposed to the power hitters who swing too hard.
You are a complete and utter fool. I said having guys that are consistent and when do slump, slump for short periods of time are important just like having power guys that can pound the ball around the field. We have too many guys swinging for the fence when they are on the road because they think they can pop one out at will like a GABP. A more balanced line up with good power hitters and high obp guys with a little more ability to have a consistent average is key to having a much better team when away from GABP. The key is not rely on your runs to come from the power guys at all times. High OBP is key but so is having solid guys that can take the pressure off the power guys when they are in a funk.

[boognish]

It is the reason. How would you explain it? For some reason the palyers just stink on the road for unexplainable reasons? You dont think that maybe because we have guys that take really hard swings and hitting balls that normally would leave GABP are caught for outs and batters that swing hard and barely miss hitting a ball solid might have something to do with lowering the OBP?

As to my challenge to you, I did it myself with the nifty search feature on baseball-reference.com:

The consummate contact hitter, Derek Jeter: longest 0-for streak: 28 AB, 3 BB, 8 K

The Three True Outcomes All-Star, Adam Dunn: longest 0-for streak: 21 AB, 3 BB, 12 K

Both streaks occurred in 2004.

Instead of throwing around assertions and seeing what sticks, try proving what your eyes see with facts from the statistical record. It will only enhance your enjoyment of the game and these boards. A good place to start with your above assumption: look at PBP data to find out whether there is fluctuation in FB%, LD%, and GB% at home versus on the road. Be willing to be proven wrong.

Now, back to our thread about pitching...

[Muggerd]

As to my challenge to you, I did it myself with the nifty search feature on baseball-reference.com:

The consummate contact hitter, Derek Jeter: longest 0-for streak: 28 AB, 3 BB, 8 K

The Three True Outcomes All-Star, Adam Dunn: longest 0-for streak: 21 AB, 3 BB, 12 K

Both streaks occurred in 2004.

Instead of throwing around assertions and seeing what sticks, try proving what your eyes see with facts from the statistical record. It will only enhance your enjoyment of the game and these boards. A good place to start with your above assumption: look at PBP data to find out whether there is fluctuation in FB%, LD%, and GB% at home versus on the road. Be willing to be proven wrong.

Now, back to our thread about pitching...

I didnt say only 0 for streaks. But once again leave it to you guys to take the meaning of a post and totally get it wrong once again.

[Screwball]

You are a complete and utter fool.

:laugh: This coming from the guy who said Adam Dunn has no plate discipline. I've never had to put someone on ignore before, but your ridiculous posts and childish name-calling are leaving me with little option.

[boognish]

I didnt say only 0 for streaks. But once again leave it to you guys to take the meaning of a post and totally get it wrong once again.

You specifically said 0-for-20 streaks. Go back and read the thread, because I assure you, I am not wrong (post 22).

[Muggerd]

:laugh: This coming from the guy who said Adam Dunn has no plate discipline. I've never had to put someone on ignore before, but your ridiculous posts and childish name-calling are leaving me with little option.

You put me on IL because you have no ability to understand simple things? Great because im finding it a hard to deal with a guy that misses words in my post and turns stuff around to what ever he feels like crying about, and btw Adam Dunn doesnt have plate discipline. No player with 200 strike outs and a .250 average will ever get that notion from me. Sorry it just wont happen.

[Muggerd]

You specifically said 0-for-20 streaks. Go back and read the thread, because I assure you, I am not wrong (post 22).

i said "0 for 20 streaks and such" That was implying long streaks of little or no hits. sorry if you misunderstood my post :dunno:

[Blue]

That makes since. Dunn does "such" so much more than guys who hit for average. The implication was plainly obvious. How could anyone miss it?

[durl]

The Reds' poor OBP and low RISP numbers show that there are some hitting deficiencies. I don't think anyone can deny that. And the Reds rely WAY too much on the long ball. It's great to have that power but power alone isn't enough to make you a playoff caliber team. Improvements in making contact and moving runners over would make this team much better.

But (you probably knew THAT was coming), in the majors the Reds' pitching ranks 3rd in most runs allowed and 2nd in hits allowed. The bullpen has blown 18 save opportunities. The better teams in baseball have bullpens that have blown around 10. Of the teams ranked in the lower 3rd in Wins, half have blown more than 15 saves.

The hitting needs to improve, definitely. But the offense, with all it's problems, still scores enough to be competitive with other teams in terms of runs scored. Still, it would take a lot more offense to make up for all the runs given up by the pitching staff.

[eastkyred]

Well, I ran a few quick numbers to see how the Reds scoring compares with a few other teams. I ran the Indians (2nd place, 60-45), Braves (3rd place, 55-51), and Cubs (2nd place, 55-48) against the Reds (5th place, 45-61).

(My numbers for the Cubs and Indians might be slightly off by a couple because SportsDirect W/L for those teams doesn't add up for some reason.)

Anyway...here's the deal:

Games with 3 runs or less:
Reds: 42
Indians: 36
Braves: 42
Cubs: 39

Games with 3+ runs:
Reds: 75
Indians: 82
Braves: 78
Cubs: 81

Games with 5+ runs:
Reds: 51
Indians: 62
Braves: 51
Cubs: 51

Losing when scoring 5+ runs:
Reds: 18 (29% of losses)
Indians: 14 (31% of losses)
Braves: 8 (16% of losses)
Cubs: 11 (22% of losses)

Games with 1 run or less:
Reds: 16
Indians: 12
Braves: 17
Cubs: 15

When it comes to scoring at least 3 runs a game, the Reds are in the neighborhood with teams that have records above .500.

They're right with the Braves and Cubs when it comes to scoring at least 5 runs per game and the Reds are very similar in the number of games in which they score 1 run or less.

It seems to me that on a game-to-game analysis, the Reds' offensive output is not much different that of the Braves and Cubs...2 teams above .500 and competing for their divisions.

Pitching really seems to be the big weakness here. I can't discount the fact that the Reds have a horrendous BA w/RISP and that they leave WAY too many men on base. That's another story. Still, it seems as though we our offense is productive enough on a game-by-game basis. Our pitching just seems to keep us from winning these games.

Am i missing something here? You put 5 categories up comparing us to 3 different teams and the Reds are either worst or next to worst in all 5. How does this prove that the offense is on par with these other teams? Did you expect the reds to have twice as many games with less than 3 runs? Or half as many with more than 5? That's not realistic. These numbers just show that our offense is worse than the Indians, Braves, and Cubs.

By the way, playing in GAB our numbers would have to be better than other teams to have an equal offense. The runs per game is going to be higher for both teams at GAB. Conversely, our pitching numbers shouldn't have to equal another team for us to have an equal pitching staff.

Anyway, pitching staff needs to be improved. Offense needs to be improved.

[SMcGavin]

Am i missing something here? You put 5 categories up comparing us to 3 different teams and the Reds are either worst or next to worst in all 5. How does this prove that the offense is on par with these other teams? Did you expect the reds to have twice as many games with less than 3 runs? Or half as many with more than 5? That's not realistic. These numbers just show that our offense is worse than the Indians, Braves, and Cubs.

By the way, playing in GAB our numbers would have to be better than other teams to have an equal offense. The runs per game is going to be higher for both teams at GAB. Conversely, our pitching numbers shouldn't have to equal another team for us to have an equal pitching staff.

Anyway, pitching staff needs to be improved. Offense needs to be improved.


The point of that post wasn't to say our offense is better than those teams. It was a response to the people who say the the problem with the Reds' offense is inconsistency. The data in that post shows that the Reds offense is no more inconsistent than any other team. Obviously Cleveland has a better offense than the Reds, the Braves probably do too. It's pretty even between us and the Cubs. But you could just go look at Runs Scored to figure all that out, the motive behind that post was to bust the myth of the Reds' wildly inconsistent offense.

At least that's how I interepreted it - but it wasn't my post so take it for what it's worth.

[durl]

At least that's how I interepreted it - but it wasn't my post so take it for what it's worth.

You're right. I looked at each game to determine if there was truth to the theory that the high-scoring Reds gain the bulk of their runs in a single game then go on huge droughts over several days, resulting in their low Wins total despite their large Runs Scored numbers.

Eastkyred:
I grabbed the Indians because they're a top-notch team well above .500. I grabbed the Cubs and Braves because they're both slightly above .500 and challenging for their division leads. Given more time I could pull numbers from other teams.

(One of the telling figures to me is that when they score 5 or more runs, the Reds have lost 18 of those games, yet the Braves have only lost 8. The Reds have lost 6 games in which they scored 7 or more runs while the Cubs and Braves have lost 3 by the same standard. That would lead to the "It's the pitching" thread...)

Again, this isn't an exhaustive study. The Reds are indeed at or near the bottom in the categories given. Still, they do compare rather closely to the Braves and Cubs when it comes to the consistency of the offense from game to game. There simply is no evidence that shows that the Reds have long scoring droughts. When looking at the stats given, the Reds numbers are slightly lower in comparison, yet the Braves and Cubs manage 10 more wins with very similar numbers.

[eastkyred]

You're right. I looked at each game to determine if there was truth to the theory that the high-scoring Reds gain the bulk of their runs in a single game then go on huge droughts over several days, resulting in their low Wins total despite their large Runs Scored numbers.

Eastkyred:
I grabbed the Indians because they're a top-notch team well above .500. I grabbed the Cubs and Braves because they're both slightly above .500 and challenging for their division leads. Given more time I could pull numbers from other teams.

(One of the telling figures to me is that when they score 5 or more runs, the Reds have lost 18 of those games, yet the Braves have only lost 8. The Reds have lost 6 games in which they scored 7 or more runs while the Cubs and Braves have lost 3 by the same standard. That would lead to the "It's the pitching" thread...)

Again, this isn't an exhaustive study. The Reds are indeed at or near the bottom in the categories given. Still, they do compare rather closely to the Braves and Cubs when it comes to the consistency of the offense from game to game. There simply is no evidence that shows that the Reds have long scoring droughts. When looking at the stats given, the Reds numbers are slightly lower in comparison, yet the Braves and Cubs manage 10 more wins with very similar numbers.

That makes some sense. But, you still have to consider the GAB factor. As I said before, in order for the reds offense to be equal to another team, they should be a little better in these categories. I understand your point about consistency, and these numbers seem to support the fact that the offense isn't anymore inconsistant than these other teams. At the same time, given the GAB factor, these numbers support the fact that our offense is not very good, compared to some contending teams(which is what we hope to be.)