Series finale problems not (completely) bullpen's fault

For the Cincinnati Reds, recent series finales have not been an enjoyable experience.  

For the season, the Reds are 11-11 in the final game of a series (even though their record in those series as a whole is 13-9).  However, they have now lost 5 straight finales, and 7 of the last 9.

Of those 7 losses, 6 were in brutal fashion - they blew a lead of at least 2 runs in each, and lost in the final at-bat in 5 of those 6 (including 4 extra-inning defeats).

It's easy to blame the bullpen, because their recent ineptitude has certainly been a large part of the problem.  With a June ERA of 6.69, they are more than partially responsible for the Reds' 0-4 record in series-finishing games this month.

The narrative in the six crushing finale defeats, all involving significant blown leads and occurring since mid-May, has been as follows:

5/19 at Philadelphia (lost 3-2): Chapman blew it in the 9th, giving up back-to-back homers.

5/26 vs. Chicago (lost 5-4 in 10 innings): Ondrusek melted down to blow the lead, and Hoover lost it in extras.

6/1 at Pittsburgh (lost 5-4 in 11 innings): Broxton had another Pittsburgh disaster to blow the lead, and then Simon couldn't hold on in extras.

6/5 vs. Colorado (lost 12-4): After Villarreal's poor start, the Reds still had a chance - that is, until Simon and Parra yielded 3 runs apiece to put it out of reach.

6/9 vs. St. Louis (lost 11-4 in 10 innings): LeCure blew the lead in the 7th, and Hoover imploded in the 10th.

6/13 at Chicago (lost 6-5 in 14 innings): LeCure blew the lead in the 8th, and Broxton lost it in the 14th.

If the narratives above are in line with your thinking, you would have some strong statistical backing.  After all, the bullpen ERA in the six games listed above was a hideous 8.68 (27 total earned runs in 28 innings pitched).

However, I would submit that the offense deserves equal blame.  To support my case, let me point out the fact that the Reds went scoreless from the time of their biggest lead until the end of the game in all six of the games in question.  

Specifically, here is what the offense managed in each case after racing out to a lead:

5/19 at Philadelphia - 3 straight scoreless innings after leading 2-0
5/26 vs. Chicago - 6 straight scoreless innings after leading 4-0
6/1 at Pittsburgh - 10 straight scoreless innings after leading 4-0
6/5 vs. Colorado - 8 straight scoreless innings after leading 4-1
6/9 vs. St. Louis - 5 straight scoreless innings after leading 4-2
6/13 at Chicago - 8 straight scoreless innings after leading 5-3

If the offense goes into such a prolonged slumber (as if to say, "we've done our job, game over") it puts immense pressure on the pitching staff.  40 straight combined scoreless innings, in my opinion, are of equal consequence relative to the bullpen's failures. 

You might notice that I'm leaving criticism of managerial decisions out of this equation.  That is a deliberate decision on my part because it is impossible to know what would have happened in an alternative universe.  I am of the opinion that Dusty deserves some blame for the way a few games have gone this season, but because there is no way to statistically judge his influence, I choose to keep this discussion simpler: is the hitting or the pitching to blame?

To summarize, I would assign blame as follows:

5/19 at Philadelphia - Chapman (just had a poor game, which is bound to happen now and then)

5/26 vs. Chicago - The offense.  All they had to do was score 1 additional run against the Cubs pen to avoid extras.

6/1 at Pittsburgh - The offense.  10 straight scoreless innings.

6/5 vs. Colorado - The starting pitching.  Forced into action because of Cueto's second injury of the year, Pedro Villarreal never stood much of a chance against the Rockies' powerful lineup.

6/9 vs. St. Louis - The offense and the bullpen are equally to blame for this one.  I'll break my own rule and mention Dusty here too, because excessive (and poorly-executed) bunting played a big role in the Reds not securing this victory.

6/13 at Chicago - The offense.  8 straight scoreless innings.  Even 1 run through those first 7 would've been enough to win it.

At the moment, this is a somewhat alarming trend.  And if the Reds had gone 3-3 in these games - you're bound to lose a few painful ones during a 162-game season, but not THIS many - they would be only a half game behind St. Louis instead of 3.5.  

Three of the losses (at Philadelphia, vs. Colorado, vs. St. Louis) were in deciding games and the other three prevented the Reds from completing a sweep. 

Here's hoping the Reds can turn around their finale fortunes, starting this Sunday at GABP against Milwaukee.

Reds' NL Central standing at the All-Star Break

In the 18 previous years of the NL Central's existence, the Reds have been in 1st at the break 3 times (1994, 1995, 2010) and went on to win the division in each of those years - their only three titles.


The Reds were in 2nd place at the ASB four times (1999, 2000, 2002, 2006) and finished 2nd or 3rd each of those years.

They've only improved their divisional standing (games back or games ahead) after the break four out of eighteen times - 1995 (+4), 2006 (+0.5), 2007 (+0.5) and 2010 (+4). 


In other words, let's hope that over the remaining 9 games of the first half, they can hang on to this lead.

More random notes:

Only 7 of 18 times, the Reds were .500 or above at the break.
Only 6 of 18 times, the Reds finished the season .500 or above.

The 1996 team improved from 39-43 to finish .500.
The 2002 and 2006 teams fell off their winning paces to finish below .500.


In the 14 previous years of the current 6-team configuration, the Reds have finished in the top three only 6 times.  Thankfully they've never finished dead last, a spot normally reserved for the Pirates.

History of the NL Central at the All-Star Break

The Reds currently sit alone in 4th place in the division, 3 games back of the co-leaders Milwaukee and St. Louis, and 2 back of surprising Pittsburgh. While no team in NL Central history has come back from 4th place to win, there is definitely precedent for making up this number of games.

The key years to consider are 1996, 1997, 2003, 2006 and 2007 - the years in which a team won the division with fewer than 90 victories. It certainly looks like that's where we're headed again.

In three of those five years, the champion came from behind at the All-Star Break:
1997 Astros (2 under .500, 2nd place, 1 behind)
2003 Cubs (even .500, 3rd place, 3 behind)
2007 Cubs (1 over .500, 2nd place, 4.5 behind)

One other year, the eventual champion was tied at the break:
1996 Cardinals (5 over)

And only one was already ahead comfortably at that point - St. Louis in 2006, and even they struggled down the stretch in a close race.

There was even a 93 game winner (2001 Astros) that had to come from 3 back of the Cubs at the ASB. And that year's St. Louis team was 8 back at the break and still finished with 93 wins as well.

Logic should tell you already that all four of the current contenders have a legitimate chance regardless of how they've played up to this point, and history only serves to back that up.

More NL Central comparisons

As we have basically reached the halfway point, here are more stats to consider. Keep in mind that the Brewers and Cardinals are tied for 1st, and the Reds are tied with the Pirates for 3rd.

ERA ranks by month

March/April - 1 = STL, 2 = MIL, 3 = PIT, 4 = CIN
May - 1 = PIT, 2 = MIL, 3 = STL, 4 = CIN
June - 1 = CIN, 2 = PIT, 3 = MIL, 4 = STL

So Cincinnati is on the upward trend in pitching, thanks mostly to getting healthy.

OBP by month

March/April - 1 = STL, 2 = MIL, 3 = CIN, 4 = PIT
May - 1 = STL, 2 = CIN, 3 = PIT, 4 = MIL
June - 1 = CIN, 2 = PIT, 3 = PIT, 4 = STL

While the offense has been very inconsistent, overall it did better than these other contenders in June.

Winning percentage

March/April - 1 = STL, 2 = CIN, 3 = MIL, 4 = PIT
May - 1 = tie (MIL and STL), 3 = PIT, 4 = CIN
June - 1 = PIT, 2 = CIN, 3 = MIL, 4 = STL

Positional OBP among Central contenders

Ranking production (in terms of OBP) by position, among the four NL Central contenders

P: 1 = MIL, 2 = CIN
C: 1 = CIN, 2 = STL
1B: 1 = CIN, 2 = MIL
2B: 1 = MIL, 2 = CIN
3B: 1 = STL, 2 = CIN
SS: 1 = STL, 2 = PIT
LF: 1 = STL, 2 = MIL
CF: 1 = PIT, 2 = STL
RF: 1 = STL, 2 = CIN

St. Louis and Cincinnati both rank in the top 2 at 6 positions.

Milwaukee at 4 positions.

Pittsburgh at 2 positions.