Thursday, May 27, 2004
Reviewing the Reds
Note: This article is currently running on Baseball Interactive. Thanks to John Strubel for letting me contribute to the site. It's the first article I've had on there since last August, when I did a piece on Albert Pujols. Hopefully, I'll be sending more articles over for review as the season goes along...
Has there been a more surprising, eye-opening sweep in baseball this year than the shellacking the Reds laid on the Astros this past weekend?
Three weeks ago I would’ve laughed you out of the room if you were to suggest that the Cincinnati Reds would be pulling a sweep, a four-game sweep no less, vs. Houston. Yet that’s what transpired from Friday to Monday, and is what has set a division on its collective ear.
NL Central Standings as of May 27
Cincinnati 27-19 .587 -
Houston 26-20 .565 1.0
Chicago 25-20 .556 1.5
Milwaukee 23-21 .523 3.0
St. Louis 23-22 .511 3.5
Pittsburgh 20-21 .488 4.5
The Reds are vying with the Tigers, Rangers and Padres (and possibly the Mets) for the title of “Biggest Surprise of the Year,” and at various points of this 2004 season any of these four or five teams have been able to stake a claim to that title. But after that sweep and a spot in first place, the Reds have taken a giant leap forward in legitimatizing their claim.
This recent streak (10-2 in their last 12), and the sweep of the Astros in particular, begs two questions: “Is this going to last?” and “Are the Reds legitimate contenders in the NL Central?”
Let’s take a look.
When Pythagoras works his mathematical wizardry, and projects the records for every team in baseball, (complete Pythagorean Standings can be found on the bottom of this page, updated daily) he sees every team falling in the range of -3 to +2, except for two teams. They are:
Minnesota (+5)
Expected W-L: 21-24
Actual W-L: 26-19
Cincinnati (+4)
Expected W-L: 23-23
Actual W-L: 27-19
While Bill James’ Pythagorean theorem of baseball is by no means fool proof, it gives some barometer to judge teams based on their runs scored vs. runs allowed. I like to think it separates the teams who are consistently good, and the ones who are doing it with smoke and mirrors. The numbers, as much as we want to trust them, suggest the Reds are doing it with the latter. As Rob Neyer wrote in his column on Monday, and has written many times before, "And while run differentials don't always tell the whole story, they usually tell most of it."
The Reds’ runs margin (216 RS/216 RA, dead even), as noted above, is more indicative of a team that is playing around .500 than one that is enjoying time in first place. A look at how the Reds’ margin compares to the other three main contenders in the division (Sorry, Milwaukians and Pittsburghians, but the Brewers and Buckos are out of this analysis for now) is even more revealing:
Chicago: 213 RS/175 RA
Houston: 250/189
St. Louis: 222/208
The Runs Scored portion of the formula isn’t where the problem lies. The Reds rank 6th in the league in RS. In fact they’re doing a few things well offensively. They're 5th in the league in OBP (.341) and lead the NL in walks with 201. The last few days haven't helped their SLG at all; their now 12th in the league at .401.
They're also not faring well at all in batting average (.245, ahead of only Montreal's .228 team average), which is at least a little surprising to me for the simple reason that Sean Casey’s name has been on top of that column in my daily newspaper of late, and still is today with a .376 BA.
They also strike out a lot, their 370 whiffs lead the leauge, and they don't hit a ton of home runs. That surprises me slightly, considering the great hitter’s park that The Great American Ballpark is purported to be.
I went back to check the Park Indices from last year in the James Handbook, and the G.A.B. actually played as a slight pitcher’s park overall in its first year of existence. But true to its reputation, it was a good park for home runs, ranking as the 6th easiest to hit one out in the NL.
It’s just that the Reds aren’t hitting them out at the same clip they did last year. They're averaging about one per game, compared to 1.12/G in '03. Their 182 dingers last year ranked 6th in the NL.
And then there’s the pitching.
Last year the Colorado Rockies ranked last in the National League in ERA (5.20). No surprise there. The next worst team in that category was the Cincinnati Reds at 5.09. The Reds fared poorly amongst their NL peers in other measuring sticks as well. They struck out the fewest number of batters, gave up 200+ home runs and gave up the third most free passes in the league as well. From the perspective of the pitching mound, they were simply a bad thing waiting to happen.
Although there’s been marked improvement this year, they’re not going to make anyone forget the 1970 Baltimore Orioles.
Their ERA of 4.43 is more than half-a-run better than last year, but still only good enough for 13th in the league right now. They’ve made marginal improvements in batting average against (.278 vs .276 this year); opponents’ OBP (.349 vs .331); and opponents’ SLG (.470 vs. .434).
The one area where they’ve made marked improvement is walks allowed. Last year they issued walks at a 3.6/G clip. This year, their being much stingier: 2.7/G. In fact, their 123 BB is the fewest allowed in the NL.
While the offense is improved, it’s by no means running roughshod over NL pitching. And while the pitching is not atrocious as it was last year, there’s nothing the statistics show that would lead you to believe that a team that played .426 baseball last year should be 27-19 and in first place going into the final days of May.
We’re left, my friends, with smoke and mirrors. And a good reason to give Dave Miley a good deal of credit. (Hey, the lion’s share of the credit has to go somewhere. Worked for Tony Pena last year, didn’t it?)
I know about Sean Casey and Ken Griffey, Jr. (can’t underestimate the impact of his return to health, I presume) and Barry Larkin and Adam Dunn. But I still don’t know too much about this pitching staff, a pitching staff that is probably going to determine how long Cincinnati enjoys this surprising ride.
The story of the Reds this year is Paul Wilson. You can talk about Casey and Griffey and Larkin’s resurgence, but Wilson is the story. 7-0 in 10 starts, and a 3.34 ERA.
Paul Wilson, a name (along with Jason Isringhausen and Bill Pulsipher) to forever make Mets fans cringe. An original member of “Generation K,” a media-driven hype machine, that supposedly was going to lead the Mets into the “new century," Wilson is probably a long shot just to be in the major leagues at this point, considering the twists and turns his career has taken.
After making his debut with the Mets in 1996 and appearing in 26 games, his career became a story of unfulfilled promise and a footnote to a lost chapter in the history of that particular franchise. From Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Lineups:
He resurfaced with the Tampa Bay Devil Rays in 2000, appeared in 11 games (7 starts) and proved he could get at least get major league hitters out (3.35 ERA in 51 IP). After two more mediocre seasons with Tampa, he started 28 games for the Reds last year, and continued his to-date underwhelming career. He went 8-10 with a 4.64 ERA.
So here’s a pitcher who comes into this season with a 28-47 career record and a 4.81 ERA, and how he's throwing in 2004:
7-0, 3.34 ERA.
Looks good, right?
On the surface, yes. In other ways, not really. Wilson’s K/9, an unspectacular 4.87 is actually slightly down from last season (5.02). And his H:IP ratio is basically the same as 2003.
Paul Wilson, to me, is a microcosm of the Reds as a whole. A good thing that’s not going to last.
I’m not trying to pour cold water on what the Reds are doing; I’m really not. In fact, the more I’m looking at these numbers the more I’m probably taking the fun out of what they’re doing. And now that I’ve invested the time to research them a bit, and know a bit more about them, I’m likely to be pulling for them more than I would’ve normally. But I was looking for answers to a couple of questions: How long is this going to last? Are the Reds contenders in their division?
My answers: “Not as long as Reds fans would like.” “No.”
There are teams that can enjoy extended success with poor run margins because of quirky things like records in one-run games, production with RISP and Lady Luck (Last year’s Kansas City team is a classic example. The Royals actually had a negative run differential, 836 RS/867 RA, yet finished four games over .500 and stayed in their division’s race deep into the season.), however when you’re talking about garnering a playoff spot and enjoying post-season success, that’s a different beast entirely.
Note: This article is currently running on Baseball Interactive. Thanks to John Strubel for letting me contribute to the site. It's the first article I've had on there since last August, when I did a piece on Albert Pujols. Hopefully, I'll be sending more articles over for review as the season goes along...
Has there been a more surprising, eye-opening sweep in baseball this year than the shellacking the Reds laid on the Astros this past weekend?
Three weeks ago I would’ve laughed you out of the room if you were to suggest that the Cincinnati Reds would be pulling a sweep, a four-game sweep no less, vs. Houston. Yet that’s what transpired from Friday to Monday, and is what has set a division on its collective ear.
NL Central Standings as of May 27
Cincinnati 27-19 .587 -
Houston 26-20 .565 1.0
Chicago 25-20 .556 1.5
Milwaukee 23-21 .523 3.0
St. Louis 23-22 .511 3.5
Pittsburgh 20-21 .488 4.5
The Reds are vying with the Tigers, Rangers and Padres (and possibly the Mets) for the title of “Biggest Surprise of the Year,” and at various points of this 2004 season any of these four or five teams have been able to stake a claim to that title. But after that sweep and a spot in first place, the Reds have taken a giant leap forward in legitimatizing their claim.
This recent streak (10-2 in their last 12), and the sweep of the Astros in particular, begs two questions: “Is this going to last?” and “Are the Reds legitimate contenders in the NL Central?”
Let’s take a look.
When Pythagoras works his mathematical wizardry, and projects the records for every team in baseball, (complete Pythagorean Standings can be found on the bottom of this page, updated daily) he sees every team falling in the range of -3 to +2, except for two teams. They are:
Minnesota (+5)
Expected W-L: 21-24
Actual W-L: 26-19
Cincinnati (+4)
Expected W-L: 23-23
Actual W-L: 27-19
While Bill James’ Pythagorean theorem of baseball is by no means fool proof, it gives some barometer to judge teams based on their runs scored vs. runs allowed. I like to think it separates the teams who are consistently good, and the ones who are doing it with smoke and mirrors. The numbers, as much as we want to trust them, suggest the Reds are doing it with the latter. As Rob Neyer wrote in his column on Monday, and has written many times before, "And while run differentials don't always tell the whole story, they usually tell most of it."
The Reds’ runs margin (216 RS/216 RA, dead even), as noted above, is more indicative of a team that is playing around .500 than one that is enjoying time in first place. A look at how the Reds’ margin compares to the other three main contenders in the division (Sorry, Milwaukians and Pittsburghians, but the Brewers and Buckos are out of this analysis for now) is even more revealing:
Chicago: 213 RS/175 RA
Houston: 250/189
St. Louis: 222/208
The Runs Scored portion of the formula isn’t where the problem lies. The Reds rank 6th in the league in RS. In fact they’re doing a few things well offensively. They're 5th in the league in OBP (.341) and lead the NL in walks with 201. The last few days haven't helped their SLG at all; their now 12th in the league at .401.
They're also not faring well at all in batting average (.245, ahead of only Montreal's .228 team average), which is at least a little surprising to me for the simple reason that Sean Casey’s name has been on top of that column in my daily newspaper of late, and still is today with a .376 BA.
They also strike out a lot, their 370 whiffs lead the leauge, and they don't hit a ton of home runs. That surprises me slightly, considering the great hitter’s park that The Great American Ballpark is purported to be.
I went back to check the Park Indices from last year in the James Handbook, and the G.A.B. actually played as a slight pitcher’s park overall in its first year of existence. But true to its reputation, it was a good park for home runs, ranking as the 6th easiest to hit one out in the NL.
It’s just that the Reds aren’t hitting them out at the same clip they did last year. They're averaging about one per game, compared to 1.12/G in '03. Their 182 dingers last year ranked 6th in the NL.
And then there’s the pitching.
Last year the Colorado Rockies ranked last in the National League in ERA (5.20). No surprise there. The next worst team in that category was the Cincinnati Reds at 5.09. The Reds fared poorly amongst their NL peers in other measuring sticks as well. They struck out the fewest number of batters, gave up 200+ home runs and gave up the third most free passes in the league as well. From the perspective of the pitching mound, they were simply a bad thing waiting to happen.
Although there’s been marked improvement this year, they’re not going to make anyone forget the 1970 Baltimore Orioles.
Their ERA of 4.43 is more than half-a-run better than last year, but still only good enough for 13th in the league right now. They’ve made marginal improvements in batting average against (.278 vs .276 this year); opponents’ OBP (.349 vs .331); and opponents’ SLG (.470 vs. .434).
The one area where they’ve made marked improvement is walks allowed. Last year they issued walks at a 3.6/G clip. This year, their being much stingier: 2.7/G. In fact, their 123 BB is the fewest allowed in the NL.
While the offense is improved, it’s by no means running roughshod over NL pitching. And while the pitching is not atrocious as it was last year, there’s nothing the statistics show that would lead you to believe that a team that played .426 baseball last year should be 27-19 and in first place going into the final days of May.
We’re left, my friends, with smoke and mirrors. And a good reason to give Dave Miley a good deal of credit. (Hey, the lion’s share of the credit has to go somewhere. Worked for Tony Pena last year, didn’t it?)
I know about Sean Casey and Ken Griffey, Jr. (can’t underestimate the impact of his return to health, I presume) and Barry Larkin and Adam Dunn. But I still don’t know too much about this pitching staff, a pitching staff that is probably going to determine how long Cincinnati enjoys this surprising ride.
The story of the Reds this year is Paul Wilson. You can talk about Casey and Griffey and Larkin’s resurgence, but Wilson is the story. 7-0 in 10 starts, and a 3.34 ERA.
Paul Wilson, a name (along with Jason Isringhausen and Bill Pulsipher) to forever make Mets fans cringe. An original member of “Generation K,” a media-driven hype machine, that supposedly was going to lead the Mets into the “new century," Wilson is probably a long shot just to be in the major leagues at this point, considering the twists and turns his career has taken.
After making his debut with the Mets in 1996 and appearing in 26 games, his career became a story of unfulfilled promise and a footnote to a lost chapter in the history of that particular franchise. From Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Lineups:
Wilson, the crown jewel, had pitched 187 minor-leauge innings in 1995. Then, according to plan, he joined the big club's rotation at the beginning of the 1996 season. Wilson struggled, went on the DL with shoulder tendinitis in June, and came back with a 2-7 record the second half of the season ... after which he was diagnosed with a torn labrum that of course required surgery. In 1997, Wilson pitched 26 innings, all in the minors. In 1998, Wilson pitched 57 innings, all in the minors. In 1999, Wilson pitched precisely zero innings anywhere.
He resurfaced with the Tampa Bay Devil Rays in 2000, appeared in 11 games (7 starts) and proved he could get at least get major league hitters out (3.35 ERA in 51 IP). After two more mediocre seasons with Tampa, he started 28 games for the Reds last year, and continued his to-date underwhelming career. He went 8-10 with a 4.64 ERA.
So here’s a pitcher who comes into this season with a 28-47 career record and a 4.81 ERA, and how he's throwing in 2004:
7-0, 3.34 ERA.
Looks good, right?
On the surface, yes. In other ways, not really. Wilson’s K/9, an unspectacular 4.87 is actually slightly down from last season (5.02). And his H:IP ratio is basically the same as 2003.
Paul Wilson, to me, is a microcosm of the Reds as a whole. A good thing that’s not going to last.
I’m not trying to pour cold water on what the Reds are doing; I’m really not. In fact, the more I’m looking at these numbers the more I’m probably taking the fun out of what they’re doing. And now that I’ve invested the time to research them a bit, and know a bit more about them, I’m likely to be pulling for them more than I would’ve normally. But I was looking for answers to a couple of questions: How long is this going to last? Are the Reds contenders in their division?
My answers: “Not as long as Reds fans would like.” “No.”
There are teams that can enjoy extended success with poor run margins because of quirky things like records in one-run games, production with RISP and Lady Luck (Last year’s Kansas City team is a classic example. The Royals actually had a negative run differential, 836 RS/867 RA, yet finished four games over .500 and stayed in their division’s race deep into the season.), however when you’re talking about garnering a playoff spot and enjoying post-season success, that’s a different beast entirely.
