The end of the Bruce / Phillips / Votto era

I'm 32 years old.  I started watching baseball in 1990, precisely when the Reds last won it all.  I heard about the Big Red Machine from my dad, and have since studied and watched them extensively.

The last 26 years have been frustrating.  But even when the team isn't making the playoffs, it's natural for a die-hard fan to get attached to individual Reds.  With rumors swirling about a trade of Jay Bruce, let's take a step back to appreciate the stability, productivity and longevity of this recent core group of players.  

Bruce, Phillips and Votto have been the primary starters at their respective positions for 8 consecutive seasons (2009-2016).  Only Machine-era combinations of 3+ players met or exceeded that.

Bench / Perez / Rose - 9 seasons (1968-1976)

Bench / Concepcion / Rose - 9 seasons (1970-1978)
Bruce / Phillips / Votto - 8 seasons (2009-2016)

Bench / Concepcion / Morgan - 8 seasons (1972-1979)

Bench / Concepcion / Perez / Rose - 7 seasons (1970-1976)
Helms / May / Perez / Rose - 6 seasons (1966-1971)
Cardenas / Pinson / Rose - 6 seasons (1963-1968)
Bell / McMillan / Temple - 6 seasons (1953-1958)
Groh / Roush / Wingo - 6 seasons (1916-1921)

All three have been extremely productive during their time as well.  There is no doubt that they will all end up in the Reds Hall of Fame.

Here are their rankings in some key stats...

Games played:
1) Rose - 2722
7) Phillips - 1566
20) Bruce - 1220
22) Votto - 1209

Hits:
1) Rose - 3358
9) Phillips - 1711
15) Votto - 1321
27) Bruce - 1116

HR:
1) Bench - 389
7) Bruce - 233
8) Votto - 210
12) Phillips - 186

RBI: 
1) Bench - 1376
10) Phillips - 824
15) Bruce - 718
17) Votto - 685

WAR (position players)
1) Rose - 77.7
8) Votto - 45.2
18) Phillips - 29.3
30) Bruce - 16.5


A number of things worked against this group.  While they had a solid pitching staff from 2010 through 2012, there were always weak links in the lineup, or mishaps along the way.  Most Reds fans believe we could've taken a championship in 2012, if not for Cueto's injury in Game 1 of the NLDS.  It certainly would have been interesting.  

While the postseason results have been disappointing, we've still had the opportunity to watch one of the most productive cores of position players in Reds history.  Let's appreciate that.

Reds could win a 5th straight series this weekend, which is rarer than you think

And no, I'm not trying to be snarky about the Reds' lack of quality since 2013.  Rarely do you see long streaks of series victories or losses, for any MLB team.

There are exceptions, of course.  The 2001 Seattle Mariners won:
- 9 straight series to open the season with a record of 22-6
- 7 straight from May to June, including a 14-game winning streak
- an insane 14 series in a row from July to September, improving their record from 74-29 to 106-41

The craziest thing about that last streak?  It only improved their winning percentage from .718 to .723!  Unreal.

But getting back to the Reds...

If the Reds manage 1 win on Saturday or Sunday in San Diego, they'll reach 5 straight series victories.  That would tie the following streaks in recent history:

April 2006 - won 5 in a row
September 2008 - won 5 in a row
May 2010 - won 5 in a row
June/July 2010 - won 5 in a row
July/August 2010 - won 5 in a row
May 2011 - won 5 in a row
July 2012 - won 5 in a row
June 2014 - won 5 in a row

To find a streak of series wins LONGER than 5, you have to go back to 1999.  Those exciting (even if ill-fated) Reds won 9 series in a row in July and August.

What about losses?  During that same time period, here are the Reds' series LOSS streaks of 5 or more:

May 2001 - lost 5 in a row
July 2001 - lost 6 in a row
April/May 2005 - lost 6 in a row
May 2007 - lost 8 in a row
June 2007 - lost 6 in a row
July/August 2008 - lost 5 in a row
July/August 2009 - lost 5 in a row
August 2015 - lost 7 in a row

Not any more common than the series winning streaks, but some of them lasted a bit longer.

So, to summarize, the Reds could actually have their longest series winning streak in 17 years if they just win ONE more this weekend (should happen), and somehow take 2 of 3 against St. Louis at GABP (the much more difficult part of this equation).  As unfortunate - if unsurprising - as this season's results have been, they could still accomplish something impressive.

What to do with Barry Bonds and his numbers...

Most baseball fans are aware of ESPN's recent communal effort to rank the top 100 players in MLB history.  Many of you thought #MLBRANK, poorly-conceived hashtag and all, were...well, rank.  Some of the picks were, to be certain.  I had strong disagreements with many of the personalized lists - the only possible exception being Jayson Stark's.  He seems to always make an effort to be level in his judgements.  But I'll delve into that topic in some upcoming posts.  Here, I want to focus on Bonds.  

If you look at the top 10 in all-time Wins Above Replacement on baseball-reference.com, only two come with baggage:

1) BABE RUTH - 183.7

2) CY YOUNG - 170.3

3) BARRY BONDS - 162.4

4) WILLIE MAYS - 156.2

5) WALTER JOHNSON - 152.3

6) TY COBB - 151.0

7) HANK AARON - 142.6

8) ROGER CLEMENS - 139.4

9) TRIS SPEAKER - 133.7

10) HONUS WAGNER - 131.0

Yep, the 'roiders.  Here we go again.

Many fans seem to take one of these two extreme and opposite stances on Bonds' statistics:

1) "I'm tired of thinking about steroids.  He accomplished all of these amazing things, and he was on a pretty awesome trajectory before steroids anyway, so let's just count all of it and say he was in the top 3 all-time."

2) "DAMN ANY PED-USING DEVIL TO HELL!  NO HALL OF FAME AND NO TOP TEN OR TOP ONE HUNDRED OR TOP ONE BILLION FOR THIS AMORAL FOOL!"

Why can't there be a middle ground?  Probably because it's so difficult to find.  I'll try my best to present a reasonable alternative.

I'll keep this simple.  Bonds diverged from "reality" around age 36 and onward.  Elite power hitters don't put up their BIGGEST numbers at that age without the cream and the clear.  

I have a couple bar graphs to show you.  Don't be scared.  

Let's look at all (actually, most) of the hitters in MLB history who hit 400+ homers and accumulated 100+ WAR.  There have been exactly 13 such players.  

I excluded only 3.  Which 3, and why?

1) A-Rod - two reasons.  He is also a known PED user, and therefore not a good reference point.  Also, he is an active player so he isn't done accumulating stats.

2) Pujols.  I'll leave the PED speculation alone.  This is just because he's an active player.

3) Gehrig.  A legend who was derailed by ALS, and walked off the field at age 36.  It would be depressing to include his zeroes in these graphs.

OK, ready?

Bonds is the clear outlier here.  268 HR and 51.5 WAR...AFTER age 35?  Yeah, right.

Williams only shows such high percentages because he lost three of his peak years to World War II, lending added weight to the tail end of his career.  Aaron and Musial had pretty awesome HR production in their later years, but nothing to compare with Bonds.

My suggestion is as follows:

Apply the MEDIAN percentages from the other hitters in these graphs to Bonds.  See what we get.  That means Bonds only gets to add totals worth 15.5% for WAR (like Musial) and 19.1% for HR (like Mays) to what he had entering the year 2001.

What's the result?

Bonds would have a total of 131.4 WAR (adding 20.4 instead of 51.4) and 611 HR (adding 117 instead of 268).

This would place him 9th in WAR (assuming no further adjustments to the list) and 8th in HR (with A-Rod still third).

It's a real shame that he had such hubris and went for the records, when he could've been respected forever as a legitimate top 10 player.  Instead he'll be debated and, in many circles, disdained forever.