The Reds successfully finished off a sweep of the Indians with a 12-5 afternoon victory at GABP, and are now back to their season-high mark of 8 games over .500.
- This was only the second time they've swept Cleveland in an interleague series. The first was in May of 2008. Cleveland has swept Cincinnati 3 times, in 1999, 2004 and 2011.
- The Reds' all-time record against Cleveland is now 39-38 in interleague play.
- This was the second-highest single-game run total for the Reds against Cleveland. They won 14-5 on July 8th, 2000 at Cinergy Field.
- This was the highest single-game run total for the Reds in any interleague game since June 22nd, 2007 when they won 16-1 at Seattle.
- This is only the 6th time in 229 interleague games that the Reds have scored 12 or more.
- The Reds scored a total of 24 runs in the three-game series. They've never done that against Cleveland.
- The last time the Reds scored 24 or more in ANY three-game series was August, 2010 at Arizona (26 runs in a sweep).
- The last time the Reds scored 24 or more in a home three-game series was May, 2010 against Houston (27 runs in spite of being on the losing end of a shutout in the finale).
- The last time the Reds scored 24 or more in an interleague three-game series was June, 2005 against Tampa Bay (34 runs in a sweep). They only accomplished it one additional time - 1999 at Kansas City (30 runs in a sweep).
- The Reds' interleague record now stands at 103-126, for a winning percentage of .450 which is still the fourth-worst in MLB. Only the Orioles, Padres and Pirates have been worse.
Mr. Redlegs is watching you. Always.
Showing posts with label arizona diamondbacks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label arizona diamondbacks. Show all posts
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Reds' 2011 offensive drop-off
An assertion commonly made about the failures of the 2011 Reds is that the lack of quality pitching was the primary reason. I wouldn't dispute any of the following:
- pitching was, and remains, a problem for making it to the postseason
- if the Reds were to make it back to the playoffs, they'd have even more problems because Cueto is the only guy who even comes close to measuring up with the top 3 of other staffs
- obtaining a #1 or #2 starter HAS to be an offseason priority
In spite of all this, I would make the argument that offense was a bigger determinant of the drop-off from 2010 to 2011. The simple counter-argument is "hey, they were second in the NL in runs per game, while the pitching staff was 12th in the league in ERA." I am more than aware of those numbers, but one thing I've harped on all season has been the variation from game to game. Overall the Reds have indeed scored a lot of runs, but they've also come up empty a lot.
Let's compare the Reds' hitting and pitching performances with 2010, and then with this year's NL playoff teams.
2011 Reds
games where they scored above league average runs (4.13) - 41% (67 of 162 games)
games where they allowed lower than league average runs - 62% (100 of 162 games)
2010 Reds
games where they scored above league average runs (4.33) - 49% (80 of 162 games)
games where they allowed lower than league average runs - 65% (106 of 162 games)
One important note is that virtually any team will have a higher "success rate" for pitching than hitting simply by nature of this mathematical approach. You can't read much into the comparison of hitting vs. pitching for one given team, but comparing across teams does give you a good idea of where they stand. The numbers above clearly show that hitting took a bigger dive than pitching.
More evidence:
- Pitching WAR actually went up from 2010 to 2011, from 7.5 to 10.2
- Offensive WAR went down dramatically, from 28.5 to 21.6
- Almost all positions saw a drop in OPS: C, 1B, 3B, SS, LF and CF. Only 2B and RF went up.
We all know the reasons why...injuries (Rolen and Cozart), backsliding performance (Janish and Stubbs), and easily foreseeable failure (Renteria and Gomes).
How the Reds rank this season compared to the playoff teams...
Successful hitting games:
St. Louis 75
Milwaukee 72
Cincinnati 67
Philadelphia 65
Arizona 65
Successful pitching/defense games:
Philadelphia 121
Milwaukee 104
Cincinnati 100
St. Louis 98
Arizona 97
Certainly, Cincinnati's numbers were buoyed a bit by the fact they allowed half the unearned runs (42) that St. Louis did (84) with its shoddy defense. Still, they don't appear to be dramatically behind in either category.
Some timeliness would certainly help - the Reds were by far the worst of these five teams in one-run games, and also failed to capitalize on good pitching performances when they got them, as seen here:
Winning percentage in games when allowing 3 or fewer runs:
Arizona .872 (68-10)
St. Louis .851 (63-11)
Milwaukee .828 (72-15)
Philadelphia .802 (81-20)
Cincinnati .701 (54-23)
Not that this prediction is particularly risky, but I'm highly confident that neither Arizona nor Milwaukee will come within 5 of this season's win totals in 2012. Arizona not only bested its Pythagorean expectation (88) by 6, but the numbers mentioned earlier for games with good pitching and hitting would suggest (by correlation) that they'd win far fewer. Milwaukee should still be good, but are more realistically an 88-90 win club with their current roster than a 96-win team. They might repeat, but it won't be as easy as this year.
I'll end this discussion with a comparison of WAR totals:
Philadelphia - 22.2 for hitting/defense, 30 for pitching = 52.2
Milwaukee - 24.3 for hitting/defense, 17.8 for pitching = 42.1
St. Louis - 30.0 for hitting/defense, 11.0 for pitching = 41
Arizona - 22.2 for hitting/defense, 13.7 for pitching = 35.8
Cincinnati - 24.8 for hitting/defense, 10.2 for pitching = 35
If you add these numbers to a "replacement level" squad that would win 30% (48.6) of its games, you would get the following expectations:
Philadelphia - 101 (actually won 102)
Milwaukee - 91 (actually won 96)
St. Louis - 90 (actually won 90)
Arizona - 84 (actually won 94, Pythag expectation was 88)
Cincinnati - 84 (actually won 79, Pythag expectation was 83)
One last prediction: If Cincinnati remains essentially the same squad next season, they should win 84-85 games but that won't be enough to compete for the playoffs. If they solve at least two of the three main problem positions (SS/3B/LF) they will compete for the division title but won't be able to win a playoff round. If they solve a couple of those positions AND add a high-caliber starting pitcher or two, they stand an excellent chance of making their first NLCS appearance since 1995.
- pitching was, and remains, a problem for making it to the postseason
- if the Reds were to make it back to the playoffs, they'd have even more problems because Cueto is the only guy who even comes close to measuring up with the top 3 of other staffs
- obtaining a #1 or #2 starter HAS to be an offseason priority
In spite of all this, I would make the argument that offense was a bigger determinant of the drop-off from 2010 to 2011. The simple counter-argument is "hey, they were second in the NL in runs per game, while the pitching staff was 12th in the league in ERA." I am more than aware of those numbers, but one thing I've harped on all season has been the variation from game to game. Overall the Reds have indeed scored a lot of runs, but they've also come up empty a lot.
Let's compare the Reds' hitting and pitching performances with 2010, and then with this year's NL playoff teams.
2011 Reds
games where they scored above league average runs (4.13) - 41% (67 of 162 games)
games where they allowed lower than league average runs - 62% (100 of 162 games)
2010 Reds
games where they scored above league average runs (4.33) - 49% (80 of 162 games)
games where they allowed lower than league average runs - 65% (106 of 162 games)
One important note is that virtually any team will have a higher "success rate" for pitching than hitting simply by nature of this mathematical approach. You can't read much into the comparison of hitting vs. pitching for one given team, but comparing across teams does give you a good idea of where they stand. The numbers above clearly show that hitting took a bigger dive than pitching.
More evidence:
- Pitching WAR actually went up from 2010 to 2011, from 7.5 to 10.2
- Offensive WAR went down dramatically, from 28.5 to 21.6
- Almost all positions saw a drop in OPS: C, 1B, 3B, SS, LF and CF. Only 2B and RF went up.
We all know the reasons why...injuries (Rolen and Cozart), backsliding performance (Janish and Stubbs), and easily foreseeable failure (Renteria and Gomes).
How the Reds rank this season compared to the playoff teams...
Successful hitting games:
St. Louis 75
Milwaukee 72
Cincinnati 67
Philadelphia 65
Arizona 65
Successful pitching/defense games:
Philadelphia 121
Milwaukee 104
Cincinnati 100
St. Louis 98
Arizona 97
Certainly, Cincinnati's numbers were buoyed a bit by the fact they allowed half the unearned runs (42) that St. Louis did (84) with its shoddy defense. Still, they don't appear to be dramatically behind in either category.
Some timeliness would certainly help - the Reds were by far the worst of these five teams in one-run games, and also failed to capitalize on good pitching performances when they got them, as seen here:
Winning percentage in games when allowing 3 or fewer runs:
Arizona .872 (68-10)
St. Louis .851 (63-11)
Milwaukee .828 (72-15)
Philadelphia .802 (81-20)
Cincinnati .701 (54-23)
Not that this prediction is particularly risky, but I'm highly confident that neither Arizona nor Milwaukee will come within 5 of this season's win totals in 2012. Arizona not only bested its Pythagorean expectation (88) by 6, but the numbers mentioned earlier for games with good pitching and hitting would suggest (by correlation) that they'd win far fewer. Milwaukee should still be good, but are more realistically an 88-90 win club with their current roster than a 96-win team. They might repeat, but it won't be as easy as this year.
I'll end this discussion with a comparison of WAR totals:
Philadelphia - 22.2 for hitting/defense, 30 for pitching = 52.2
Milwaukee - 24.3 for hitting/defense, 17.8 for pitching = 42.1
St. Louis - 30.0 for hitting/defense, 11.0 for pitching = 41
Arizona - 22.2 for hitting/defense, 13.7 for pitching = 35.8
Cincinnati - 24.8 for hitting/defense, 10.2 for pitching = 35
If you add these numbers to a "replacement level" squad that would win 30% (48.6) of its games, you would get the following expectations:
Philadelphia - 101 (actually won 102)
Milwaukee - 91 (actually won 96)
St. Louis - 90 (actually won 90)
Arizona - 84 (actually won 94, Pythag expectation was 88)
Cincinnati - 84 (actually won 79, Pythag expectation was 83)
One last prediction: If Cincinnati remains essentially the same squad next season, they should win 84-85 games but that won't be enough to compete for the playoffs. If they solve at least two of the three main problem positions (SS/3B/LF) they will compete for the division title but won't be able to win a playoff round. If they solve a couple of those positions AND add a high-caliber starting pitcher or two, they stand an excellent chance of making their first NLCS appearance since 1995.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)