Reds Preview (by a Pirates fan)

by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 11, 2007 2:15 PM EST

Flame away. Y'all won't like the conclusion I reached.

Please let me know if I made any mistakes. I kept up with transactions the whole offseason and did a bunch of Reds research before writing this, but I'm stlil a fan of another team and don't follow the Reds as closely as you do.

Anyway, I thought you might appreciate an outsider's take on what's going on with the Reds.

Tweet Comment 36 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

it's kind of funny

that the same things were said about the Reds last year. Hmm, funny how reality turns out quite differently sometimes.

We'll see.

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 11, 2007 2:24 PM EST reply actions

gotta love the comment

They weren't nearly as good as their record. Sorry goober, you are exactly as good, or as bad, as your record is. Interesting preview but I think he is a little off. Since he leans heavy toward what did you do in the off season I bet he goes Cubs, Brewers, Cards, Pirates, Astros, Reds in his predictions.

"Your shower shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes." - Crash Davis

by Caleb on Feb 11, 2007 3:00 PM EST reply actions

About Pythagorean records

One of the interesting observations that Bill James (and others--I think he actually cited someone in an old abstract) made about Pythagorean records is that teams that outperform their record one year tend to be improved the subsequent year. The reason isn't entirely straightforward, and of course it's not a perfect predictor, but it's a trend over history.

I think Pythagorean records are interesting simply because they do tend to be good predictors of actual record. But one always has to remember that total runs scored and allowed aren't the be-all, end-all, because those runs happen in the context of games. If you give up a ton of runs in a game (and the Reds sometimes do that), it might make your Pythagorean record drop by a few games...but your actual record will only drop by a single game. -j

On Baseball and the Reds

by JinAZ on Feb 11, 2007 4:24 PM EST up reply actions

ahh...

the "lucky" or "should have" stats. i find these humorous.

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 11, 2007 6:42 PM EST up reply actions

Why do I...

have the sneaking suspicion that this topic has been the subject of numerous debates here?

by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 11, 2007 6:53 PM EST up reply actions

hee hee

He who laughs last obviously didn't get the joke.

by Daedalus on Feb 11, 2007 8:14 PM EST up reply actions

to:BucsDugout

I think you did a fantastic job summing up the team, especially for an "outsider." I don't know nearly that much about the Pirates.

I don't disagree with much of what you said, either. I think you hit all our strong points (Dunn and Encarnacion, Arroyo and Harang) and picked up on our weaknesses (Wayne's penchant for picking up piecemeal replacement players.)

I think you might have downplayed Chris Denorfia's significance. He was stellar in AAA last season and actually played a sizable amount after the Trade. I think he's likely to get more starts than Freel this season, depending on Narron's "gut."

Also, considering how much Ross cooled off at the end of last season, stabilizing his numbers (he was OPSing something like 1.100 early on) I'm not sure he is certain to take a "huge step backward."

And I might be mistaken, but in my mind Brandon Phillips' success last season rescues him from "failed prospect" status. He was certainly a bust in Cleveland, but not here.

And in the end, I definitely don't think all that put together means last place for the Reds. I think we're still much closer to a complete team than a couple others in the central, and with a little luck we could dance around .500 again. That being said, I think we might be at least two seasons away from seriously contending, especially after the setback of the Trade.

And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make.

by boobs on Feb 11, 2007 3:50 PM EST reply actions

Thanks

Re: Denorfia/Freel - I wondered about that and specifically checked up on it. All the news pieces I read suggested that Freel was the starter, so that's what I went with. I did wonder about whether to take news stories stating that Freel would start at face value, though, since Freel seems to be the sort of player journalists would tend to like - a veteran, scrappy. Anyway, I updated the post somewhat to make clear that Denorfia will get some playing time.

Regarding Denorfia's numbers at Class AAA last year, I'd be more impressed if he were younger than 25/26 at the time. He's probably pretty close to his peak now, so to me there doesn't look like a ton of upside there. Based on his minor league numbers, his major league numbers last year don't surprise me - he's decent because he'll put up a pretty good BA and OBP, but he doesn't have much power at all.

Re: Ross, I know he tailed off in September, but he still had a .932 OPS for the year. I think it's pretty safe to guess that he'll be considerably worse than that next year.

Re: Phillips, all I meant was that he flopped with the Indians. I do think he's a nice player to have going forward.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 11, 2007 4:31 PM EST up reply actions

What did you think...

...of the Cincinnati Enquirer's projected 25-man roster?

They don't see Denorfia making the roster. Or Hopper or Crosby either. They think the reserve outfielders will be Conine and Hamilton.

"A man once told me to walk with the Lord. I'd rather walk with the bases loaded." - Ken Singleton

by BubbaFan on Feb 11, 2007 8:37 PM EST up reply actions

i think

hamilton making the roster is a long-shot. if he has an outstanding spring training, then i think they're pulling for him. But a guy that only cost $25,000 should be easy to ship back if he doesn't work out.

And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make.

by boobs on Feb 11, 2007 8:47 PM EST up reply actions

sorry

$50,000

And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make.

by boobs on Feb 11, 2007 8:48 PM EST up reply actions

It'll be $25,000...

...if we return him to sender. They'll have to pay that if they want him back.

Last summer, Hamilton was playing for the local minor league team here (the Hudson Valley Renegades). He really struck me as not ready for prime time. It's not too late for him to make a splash one day, but IMO, he needs to be playing every day. Probably in A-ball.

But I gather he's got a personal connection with Narron, so maybe that will get him a slot.

"A man once told me to walk with the Lord. I'd rather walk with the bases loaded." - Ken Singleton

by BubbaFan on Feb 11, 2007 9:41 PM EST up reply actions

He has...

The French Maid pictures.

He doesn't have Little Bo Peep, because that was DanO.

Don't mind me...just thinking positive and pitching to contact, that's all...

by Paul Householder on Feb 13, 2007 4:06 PM EST up reply actions

LOL!

He just might. He has apparently been around the block a few times:

Hamilton Looks to Resurrect a Once-Promising Career Derailed by Drugs

Nice profile of Hamilton by WaPo. Including a photo gallery with pictures of him, as well as his lovely wife and adorable kids.

"A man once told me to walk with the Lord. I'd rather walk with the bases loaded." - Ken Singleton

by BubbaFan on Feb 13, 2007 5:59 PM EST up reply actions

BucsDugout

I do like the fact that you're previewing and posting on the other teams sites. I'm curious to see the reaction you get from around the division.

"Your shower shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes." - Crash Davis

by Caleb on Feb 11, 2007 4:06 PM EST reply actions

Bucs:

Nicely done. I don't necesarily agree that the Pirates finish ahead of the Reds... (If we go by pitching, the Pirates rotation isn't that strong either...) but still... it'll be fun to see. Again, well done.

In accordance to the prophecy

by crolfer on Feb 11, 2007 7:11 PM EST reply actions

Thanks

Thanks for reading it.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 11, 2007 7:51 PM EST up reply actions

BucsDugout--

That was a good preview from someone who doesn't regularly follow the team. I object to the idea that the starting rotation is a big problem. Two legitimately strong starters, two warm bodies and a question mark (that could become Bailey) isn't bad. I'm not fanboyishly high on the team, but starting pitching should be one of the strengths.

by Red Menace on Feb 11, 2007 9:06 PM EST reply actions

I forgot to mention

I wanted to point out Jeff Sackmann's recent Hardball Times articles here, here and here which informed my thinking on the matter. Basically pitchers are worse overall than we typically think when we talk about players with 4.50 ERA as "fourth starters."

by Red Menace on Feb 11, 2007 10:49 PM EST up reply actions

Okay

I hadn't seen the articles. They're interesting. Thanks. But what will actually happen with the Reds is and what we get when we look at their top five starters' ERAs are pretty likely to be two different things. If Harang and Arroyo keep it up, if Lohse can put up a 4.50 ERA and if Bailey can emerge and be a solid contributor, then perhaps the Reds' rotation can be a strength, even though Milton's probably not going to be very good. But that seems like a best-case scenario. More likely: Arroyo takes a small step backward, either Arroyo or Harang is lost for some part of the year with some sort of injury, Lohse is terrible, Bailey doesn't come up until July and struggles a bit when he does, and Saarloos/Ramirez/Belisle have to make 50 starts between them.

When I look at other teams in the division, like the Brewers or even Pirates, the Reds' rotation doesn't look like a plus to me. The Brewers' is far more solid all around, the Cubs' has a bunch more depth, the Pirates' lacks the Reds' 1-2 starters (I really wish we hadn't given Arroyo away for nothing) but has a far better back end, and even the Cardinals' arguably has more upside (I can at least see scenarios in which the Cards have five solid starters in 2007, although I concede that's not too likely). Like the Reds, the Astros have two good starters at the front and a mess after that.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 12, 2007 1:46 AM EST up reply actions

remember the park factor

The Reds offense is bad. Their defense has some positives and some glaring negatives. The bullpen is a question mark that I don't feel very good about. If the starting rotation isn't a plus, what is? Well, you have them penciled in for last place, so there you go.

I think a lot of your negativity might be carryover from the historically bad pitching that characterized the Reds until very recently.

Also I wonder how much you're considering park factors. ESPN has GABP as the number one park for run scoring. The Reds pitching numbers look a lot better in that light (and the late season offensive swoon looks even worse).

Eric Milton had a 93 ERA+ last year. True story. Now he's pitching for a contract. Arroyo had a 146 ERA+. He could regress by quite a bit and still be a great starter. Lohse was at 105 with the Reds. He was horrible with the Twins, although he was dealing with a lot of issues so who knows? But if he can put up a 90 ERA+ as a fourth starter that's gold. Belisle had a 134 ERA+ mostly relieving.

Like Sackmann noted, only three teams in baseball had a fifth starter "slot" put up an ERA under 5 (and some of those were in pitcher's parks) so it's no worry if the Reds back end menagerie can't do it.

I too like the Brewers' rotation, and if Sheets can stay healthy (a big if) then watch out. I'm surprised you like the Cards so much. Do Pittsburgh fans have positive feelings toward Kip Wells based on '02 and '03? Did the last three years not sour that? To fill out their last two rotation spots the Cards are trying a mass conversion of relievers-to-starters: Wainwright, Brad Thompson, Braden Looper and Ryan Franklin. This until Mark Mulder rides to the rescue (scary thought, that). I'll take Lohse, Ramirez, Saarloos, Belisle and Bailey over that.

Looking around the NL there aren't many rotations, top to bottom, that I'd take over the Reds. The Dodgers are stocked and the Padres are very good (although Petco makes them look a lot better than they really are). But I can safely say the Mets, Nationals, Giants and yeah, Pirates will be worse. The Marlins could easily have trouble if their youngsters don't stay healthy (and some are already experiencing trouble). I'm not very sold on Houston since they're losing Pettitte and most likely Clemens. Philly is deep but mediocre.

When the Reds pitchers are considered in their run scoring environment they look a lot better.

by Red Menace on Feb 12, 2007 2:48 AM EST up reply actions

absolutely

I think the Reds have a very underrated pitching staff. As you said, there numbers are high mainly because of the park the pitch in. They'll hold there own in the 1 and 2 spots, and 3, 4 and 5 will be better than average, except probably Milton. When it's all said and done this year, I think the Reds will have one of the better rotations in all of baseball.

by KAredsfan on Feb 12, 2007 4:43 PM EST up reply actions

The thing is

those ESPN park factors are just for one year. As recently as 2004, ESPN's park factor said the GAB played as one of the top three pitching parks in all of baseball.

My basic impression of the GAB - and this is confirmed by all the three-year park factors I've seen - is that it's a neutral park or a very mild hitters' park that causes more homers but reduces triples and singles. Maybe there was some wacky weather in Cincinnati last year that was causing the park to play differently. Y'all would know that better than I would. But if not, I wouldn't dismiss the previous three years of evidence that suggests that the GAB is basically a neutral park. A lot of people think it's this crazy hitters' park, but I think that's mostly because lots of homers are hit there.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 12, 2007 4:56 PM EST up reply actions

But that doesn't matter!

First, park affects do vary year to year, more than people realize.

GABP played like the biggest hitter's park in the majors last year. One has to realize that this greatly influenced the Reds' pitchers ERAs. If it plays more neutral next year, we can expect their ERAs to drop.

The point is to look at neutralized stats, like ERA+, when evaluating pitchers' abilities.

by Red Menace on Feb 12, 2007 6:03 PM EST up reply actions

Park effects

Yeah, they do vary a lot from year to year, but it's not just because things have caused the park to play differently. It's sometimes because really weird things happen in a one-year sample, not because the park in question actually became substantially harder or easier to pitch in.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 12, 2007 6:21 PM EST up reply actions

Don't you see my issue with our exchange?

(crazy paraphrasing to my advantage)

You: The Reds starters aren't good. Look at their ERAs.

Me: Those ERAs were put up in a very high run scoring environment. When you look at neutralized stats, those pitchers look good.

You: But that run scoring environment probably won't be as high next year.

Me: Then the ERAs will be prettier! (bangs head against wall)

by Red Menace on Feb 12, 2007 6:25 PM EST up reply actions

He probably does

but he isn't used to people commenting on his posts.

"Pitchers did me a favor when they knocked me down. It made me more determined." -Frank Robinson

by Caleb on Feb 12, 2007 6:30 PM EST up reply actions

Explain it in chart form.

by Brendanukkah on Feb 12, 2007 8:51 PM EST up reply actions

I understand just fine.

You don't seem to see MY issue with this exchange, which is this: the "very high run scoring environment" you see could be (and is in fact likely to be) due to sample size issues, in which case it isn't a "very high run scoring environment" at all. It just looks like one because you're only using park factors from one year.

To put it another way: you could make a park factor from one game if you wanted to. If the Reds and their opponents scored twenty runs in that game, the park factor would be really high. But it wouldn't actually mean that the Reds' ballpark would actually have been a difficult place to pitch, just that lots of runs happened to be scored that day.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 13, 2007 11:57 AM EST up reply actions

Not quite

You need at least one home and one away game to determine a park factor. But then making a ridiculously small sample size doesn't prove anything about the point that Menace is trying to make. Games at GABP had 110 more runs than Reds games in other parks in 2006. Yes, some of that can be fluky, but that's over a run a game for the entire season. And that's Menace's point.

As for Park Factors, Baseball Reference list the Reds 2006 PF as 108/107. It's the highest in the NL and he uses up to six years to calculate it, which would include the entire history of GABP (back to 2003).

Can I get a hooha?

by Slyde on Feb 13, 2007 12:14 PM EST up reply actions