There has been a lot of discussion of Cozart potentially being traded. While I would disagree with the move, it's a good time to look at where he stands among Reds shortstops in terms of all-time productivity.
Let's compare a few statistics...
Baseball-reference Wins Above Replacement
1) Barry Larkin, in a landslide. 70.2 WAR in a career spanning 1986 to 2004.
2) Dave Concepcion. 39.8 WAR from 1970 to 1988.
3) Roy McMillan. Earned 18.3 WAR from 1951 to 1960.
4) Leo Cardenas. 14.8 WAR from 1960 to 1968.
5) Billy Myers. 13.6 WAR from 1935 to 1940.
6) Zack Cozart. 12.3 WAR from 2011 to 2016.
7) Buck Herzog. 12.0 WAR in only 3 seasons, 1914 to 1916.
8) Eddie Miller. 10.6 WAR, mostly earned during his second stint in Cincinnati from 1943 through 1946.
Offensive WAR only
1) Larkin - 67.5
2) Concepcion - 32.3
3) Cardenas - 13.8
4) McMillan - 12.4
5) Myers - 10.7
6) Buck Herzog - 9.1
7) Felipe Lopez - 6.4
8) Zack Cozart - 6.1
Defensive WAR only
1) Concepcion - 20.9
2) McMillan - 14.4
3) Larkin - 13.8
4) Miller - 10.5
5) Cozart - 9.1
6) Cardenas - 8.5
7) Hod Ford - 7.6
8) Myers - 7.3
NOTE: oWAR and dWAR do not sum to WAR, for a couple different reasons not worth going into in this post.
So it's clear that Larkin and Concepcion were in a class by themselves, as far as all-time Reds shortstops. Cozart falls into the next tier with guys like McMillan, Cardenas, and Myers. But with his consistently solid defensive game, and dramatic improvements on offense, I have little doubt that Cozart would (have) move(d) into the top tier within the next couple seasons, and be a sure-fire Reds Hall of Famer.
Mr. Redlegs is watching you. Always.
Showing posts with label defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defense. Show all posts
Monday, August 1, 2016
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)