Dick Williams speaks

[TexasRedsFan]

Williams has to accept at least some of the blame. Trying to force a low minors SS to be an everyday contributor when he clearly isn't ready in a short season where each game has greater weight isn't what winning organizations do.

[757690]

The Reds have a -24 run differential. Does raising their BABIP to league average make up 24 runs? Honest question, I have no idea how to figure it out.

And that would get the Reds to .500, which isn’t much to get excited about.

[Patrick Bateman]

He basically said that everyone watching is dumb and the front office knows everything. What a joke. All of the information they have is obviously garbage.

That is some of the worst reading comprehension I have ever witnessed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TexasRedsFan]

It was the son of an owner reading too many books about sabrmetrics and thinking to himself “I can do this!”

This made me laugh because it really is how it's seemed at times.

[malcontent]

He basically said that everyone watching is dumb and the front office knows everything. What a joke. All of the information they have is obviously garbage.

He also blamed "bad luck". Is he actually watching the team play? Luck has nothing to do with this level of apathy.

And the Prasco quote, (you don't know) "what we think and why we think it" is high-handed and tone-deaf.

[KronoRed]

Wow, lots of words to basically say "trust the process"

[Kc61]

I watch most of the games, focus on the stats, and don’t agree that Reds are hitting .210 mostly due to bad luck. The hitting approach suppresses BABIP. But also, consider the roster.

Davidson, Van Meter, Colon, Garcia, Barnhart, Aquino, Shogo (earlier), Galvis, Farmer, Ervin, Jankowski, Payton.

Reds have a few good main hitters but the depth wasn’t there as injuries occurred. Right now the lineup is about five or six hitters deep. When that happens, pressure on a few guys usually leads to a bad result.

[westofyou]

Small sample alert

Currently these three guys are hitting like other human beings from my past. I expected a regression for Votto, his OPS+ is 100. But these three I expected more.


Suerez - .204/.313/.504 - OPS+ 109
Dave Kingman 1973 - .203/.300/.479 - OPS+ 110

Shogo - .299/.255/.554 - OPS+ 54
Paul Householder 1982 - .265/.326/.592 - OPS+ 64

Moustakas - .333/.378/.711- OPS+ 87
Jeff Treadway 1987 - .315/.362/.677 - OPS+ 91

[BCubb2003]

It takes the front office (in some cases the manager) being asked several times a week before they move on something that’s obvious to others. They have to go through the Five Stages: denial, anger, bargaining...

[Ron Madden]

He basically said that everyone watching is dumb and the front office knows everything. What a joke. All of the information they have is obviously garbage.

He didn't say anything like that.

[RedsManRick]

The Reds have a -24 run differential. Does raising their BABIP to league average make up 24 runs? Honest question, I have no idea how to figure it out.

And that would get the Reds to .500, which isn’t much to get excited about.

Some back of the envelope math. Here's where that BABIP comes from:

• 1,446 PA, 1,254 AB
• 265 H (147 1B, 52 2B, 2 3B, 64 HR), 345 SO
• AB-SO-HR = 845 Balls in play.
• 201 non-HR hits. 201/845 = .237 BABIP.

OK. So how many more hits do we get if we had a BABIP of:

• .257 (29th best team). .257*845 = 217. 16 more hits.
• .272 (28th best team). .272*845 = 230. 29 more hits.
• .292 (league average). .292*845 = 247. 46 more hits.

So... how much is a hit worth? Let's assume all the extra hits are singles. (By definition, they weren't homers, but some fo them would probably be doubles. That's OK, let's go conservative) Let's also ignore, for now, the value of the PA created for another batter by not making an out instead of making one.

We'll use the 2015 linear weights values available in this article from Fangraphs. The average single is worth ~0.70 runs more than an out. (An average single is worth 0.44 runs more than the average PA outcome. The average out is worth -0.26 runs less than average). Let's translate:

• .257 BABIP: +16 hits * 0.7 runs = +11 runs (~1 win)
• .272 BABIP: +29 hits * 0.7 runs = +20 runs (~2 wins)
• .292 BABIP: +46 hits * 0.7 runs = +32 runs (~3 wins)

Of course, that's assuming all singles. What if there are some doubles in there too? A double is worth a full 1 run more than an out. If we threw in some doubles instead of singles, maybe we bump that 0.7 to 0.75. It adds a run or two to each -- not a big difference.

But what about those extra plate appearances gained for other batters by converting what were outs into hits? Well, about 2/3 of 'em will be outs. But about 1/3 will be something productive, from walks to homers, often with men on base (since they are following a non-HR hit, by definition). And those 1/3 will produce another set of extra PA where something positive happens (1/3 of the 1/3). And those 1/3.... you get the idea. Ultimately, it ends up turning the initial 1/3 into a total of 1/2. That is, for every out you avoid, the team gains an additional ~1.5 PA which turns into ~0.5 extra productive outcomes.

So let's go back and add a 1.5 multiplier into those hit totals. And let's up the runs per hit to 0.75 while we're at it.

• .257 BABIP: 16 hits * 1.5 * 0.75 = +18 runs (~2 wins)
• .272 BABIP: 29 hits * 1.5 * 0.75 = +33 runs (~3 wins)
• .292 BABIP: 46 hits * 1.5 * 0.75 = +52 runs (~5 wins)

So... does raising their BABIP to league average make up 24 runs? That and some. All you really need to do is to raise it from the historically outlier low .237 to the 2nd-to-worst-in-MLB and still historically low .264 and you're back to a .500 run differential, a 21-21 record, and an excellent shot at the playoffs.

This team should be better than .500 based on its talent, no doubt. But unless you have a VERY convincing story that the Reds deserve to have LITERALLY the lowest BABIP of all time despite being middle of the pack in 2020 in terms of quality of contact, you have to concede that they've been massively unlucky.

Again, I know if feels cheap to blame bad luck. Especially when you have this team's recent history. And I'm 100% leaving the door open for an explanation based on contact profile/quality, shifting, etc., etc. that says the insanely low BABIP is entirely/mostly/somewhat earned. But sometimes bad luck is just bad luck. And it's hard to sit here and watch people casually dismiss this issue as mere excuse-making while calling for heads to roll as if Dick Williams or David Bell were somehow causing this because of (insert hobby horse here).

But, no. We sit here watching games and we know better. We're angry and the answer is obvious. These guys are clueless and should all be fired. Let's get our pitch forks, march down to GABP and riot!

[adkindo]

Reds have a few good main hitters but the depth wasn’t there as injuries occurred. Right now the lineup is about five or six hitters deep. When that happens, pressure on a few guys usually leads to a bad result.

Respectfully, I do not agree. Most lineups are 5-6 "hitters" deep. I think pointing the finger at the 6-9 hitters is the wrong perception....the primary issue with the Reds offense is they are getting next to nothing from the top of the lineup. If you are hitting in the 1-5 spot in the lineup, you are likely getting paid to produce at the plate on a fairly consistent basis, and that has not happened for the Reds this year. We got about a week out of Castellanos and a couple weeks out of Winker playing like MVP's, but everything else has been below average. I said earlier tonight, since i was a child i recall being excited when going to commercial and the top of the lineup was due up....but it means little to nothing this year.

[Ron Gant]

Some back of the envelope math. Here's where that BABIP comes from:

• 1,446 PA, 1,254 AB
• 265 H (147 1B, 52 2B, 2 3B, 64 HR), 345 SO
• AB-SO-HR = 845 Balls in play.
• 201 non-HR hits. 201/845 = .237 BABIP.

OK. So how many more hits do we get if we had a BABIP of:

• .257 (29th best team). .257*845 = 217. 16 more hits.
• .272 (28th best team). .272*845 = 230. 29 more hits.
• .292 (league average). .292*845 = 247. 46 more hits.

So... how much is a hit worth? Let's assume all the extra hits are singles. (By definition, they weren't homers, but some fo them would probably be doubles. That's OK, let's go conservative) Let's also ignore, for now, the value of the PA created for another batter by not making an out instead of making one.

We'll use the 2015 linear weights values available in this article from Fangraphs. The average single is worth ~0.70 runs more than an out. (An average single is worth 0.44 runs more than the average PA outcome. The average out is worth -0.26 runs less than average). Let's translate:

• .257 BABIP: +16 hits * 0.7 runs = +11 runs (~1 win)
• .272 BABIP: +29 hits * 0.7 runs = +20 runs (~2 wins)
• .292 BABIP: +46 hits * 0.7 runs = +32 runs (~3 wins)

Of course, that's assuming all singles. What if there are some doubles in there too? A double is worth a full 1 run more than an out. If we threw in some doubles instead of singles, maybe we bump that 0.7 to 0.75. It adds a run or two to each -- not a big difference.

But what about those extra plate appearances gained for other batters by converting what were outs into hits? Well, about 2/3 of 'em will be outs. But about 1/3 will be something productive, from walks to homers, often with men on base (since they are following a non-HR hit, by definition). And those 1/3 will produce another set of extra PA where something positive happens (1/3 of the 1/3). And those 1/3.... you get the idea. Ultimately, it ends up turning the initial 1/3 into a total of 1/2. That is, for every out you avoid, the team gains an additional ~1.5 PA which turns into ~0.5 extra productive outcomes.

So let's go back and add a 1.5 multiplier into those hit totals. And let's up the runs per hit to 0.75 while we're at it.

• .257 BABIP: 16 hits * 1.5 * 0.75 = +18 runs (~2 wins)
• .272 BABIP: 29 hits * 1.5 * 0.75 = +33 runs (~3 wins)
• .292 BABIP: 46 hits * 1.5 * 0.75 = +52 runs (~5 wins)

So... does raising their BABIP to league average make up 24 runs? That and some. All you really need to do is to raise it from the historically outlier low .237 to the 2nd-to-worst-in-MLB and still historically low .264 and you're back to a .500 run differential, a 21-21 record, and an excellent shot at the playoffs.

This team should be better than .500 based on its talent, no doubt. But unless you have a VERY convincing story that the Reds deserve to have LITERALLY the lowest BABIP of all time despite being middle of the pack in 2020 in terms of quality of contact, you have to concede that they've been massively unlucky.

Again, I know if feels cheap to blame bad luck. Especially when you have this team's recent history. And I'm 100% leaving the door open for an explanation based on contact profile/quality, shifting, etc., etc. that says the insanely low BABIP is entirely/mostly/somewhat earned. But sometimes bad luck is just bad luck. And it's hard to sit here and watch people casually dismiss this issue as mere excuse-making while calling for heads to roll as if Dick Williams or David Bell were somehow causing this because of (insert hobby horse here).

But, no. We sit here watching games and we know better. We're angry and the answer is obvious. These guys are clueless and should all be fired. Let's get our pitch forks, march down to GABP and riot!

TL;DR.

Pro Tip: Don't use so many paragraphs.

[757690]

Some back of the envelope math. Here's where that BABIP comes from:

• 1,446 PA, 1,254 AB
• 265 H (147 1B, 52 2B, 2 3B, 64 HR), 345 SO
• AB-SO-HR = 845 Balls in play.
• 201 non-HR hits. 201/845 = .237 BABIP.

OK. So how many more hits do we get if we had a BABIP of:

• .257 (29th best team). .257*845 = 217. 16 more hits.
• .272 (28th best team). .272*845 = 230. 29 more hits.
• .292 (league average). .292*845 = 247. 46 more hits.

So... how much is a hit worth? Let's assume all the extra hits are singles. (By definition, they weren't homers, but some fo them would probably be doubles. That's OK, let's go conservative) Let's also ignore, for now, the value of the PA created for another batter by not making an out instead of making one.

We'll use the 2015 linear weights values available in this article from Fangraphs. The average single is worth ~0.70 runs more than an out. (An average single is worth 0.44 runs more than the average PA outcome. The average out is worth -0.26 runs less than average). Let's translate:

• .257 BABIP: +16 hits * 0.7 runs = +11 runs (~1 win)
• .272 BABIP: +29 hits * 0.7 runs = +20 runs (~2 wins)
• .292 BABIP: +46 hits * 0.7 runs = +32 runs (~3 wins)

Of course, that's assuming all singles. What if there are some doubles in there too? A double is worth a full 1 run more than an out. If we threw in some doubles instead of singles, maybe we bump that 0.7 to 0.75. It adds a run or two to each -- not a big difference.

But what about those extra plate appearances gained for other batters by converting what were outs into hits? Well, about 2/3 of 'em will be outs. But about 1/3 will be something productive, from walks to homers, often with men on base (since they are following a non-HR hit, by definition). And those 1/3 will produce another set of extra PA where something positive happens (1/3 of the 1/3). And those 1/3.... you get the idea. Ultimately, it ends up turning the initial 1/3 into a total of 1/2. That is, for every out you avoid, the team gains an additional ~1.5 PA which turns into ~0.5 extra productive outcomes.

So let's go back and add a 1.5 multiplier into those hit totals. And let's up the runs per hit to 0.75 while we're at it.

• .257 BABIP: 16 hits * 1.5 * 0.75 = +18 runs (~2 wins)
• .272 BABIP: 29 hits * 1.5 * 0.75 = +33 runs (~3 wins)
• .292 BABIP: 46 hits * 1.5 * 0.75 = +52 runs (~5 wins)

So... does raising their BABIP to league average make up 24 runs? That and some. All you really need to do is to raise it from the historically outlier low .237 to the 2nd-to-worst-in-MLB and still historically low .264 and you're back to a .500 run differential, a 21-21 record, and an excellent shot at the playoffs.

This team should be better than .500 based on its talent, no doubt. But unless you have a VERY convincing story that the Reds deserve to have LITERALLY the lowest BABIP of all time despite being middle of the pack in 2020 in terms of quality of contact, you have to concede that they've been massively unlucky.

Again, I know if feels cheap to blame bad luck. Especially when you have this team's recent history. And I'm 100% leaving the door open for an explanation based on contact profile/quality, shifting, etc., etc. that says the insanely low BABIP is entirely/mostly/somewhat earned. But sometimes bad luck is just bad luck. And it's hard to sit here and watch people casually dismiss this issue as mere excuse-making while calling for heads to roll as if Dick Williams or David Bell were somehow causing this because of (insert hobby horse here).

But, no. We sit here watching games and we know better. We're angry and the answer is obvious. These guys are clueless and should all be fired. Let's get our pitch forks, march down to GABP and riot!

Thanks for the work. You never disappoint.

One slight, but meaningful correction.

The Reds are 6 games under .500. Adding 2 wins still puts them under .500 at 20-22. Adding 3 wins puts them at .500 at 21-21. Adding 5 wins puts them at 23-19. For a team that was supposed to surprise this year, those numbers are disappointing. And that's if the Reds play up to their Pythag, which is far from certain.

But let's look deeper and see if it really is just "luck."

The big victim here is Suarez with a .188 BABIP. If you look at his batted ball numbers, it's not just luck. He has a 17% line drive rate, down from his 22% career rate. Now, it's hard to blame Williams for not predicting Suarez would slump so badly to start the season. But look at a group of players that were clearly part of the Williams' plan.

Freddy Galvis, Josh VanMeter, Phil Ervin, and Christopher Colon. They combined for 213 PA, which is about the equivalent of two starting players. They all have BABIP below .200. Their line drive rates are all 11%, except for Colon's which is 5%.

So 15% of the Reds PA's this year have come from 4 players who have a line drive rate of 11% or worse. Of course that doesn't fully explain the crazy low team BABIP, but it does reveal it's not just luck.

That doesn't seem like luck to me. That seems like a front office that put it's faith in players who aren't that good.

[Larry Schuler]

It feels like Williams is successful at his job, which is overseeing the baseball operations of a profitable, below average franchise.

He's like the president of a modest mattress company in Ohio and we're invested customers who think the only metric for success is de-throning Sit 'N' Sleep as the #1 chain in America. If they turn a profit and customers keep coming in, the president has done his job in the eyes of the owner of Red's Relax & Nap.