August 3, 200719 yr Author Okay, the nuts and bolts of the issue. For people that are either in the "Dunn is un-neccessary" camp or "the offense is as big a problem as the pitching" camp, read closely. Runs Scored (and their spot in their division): Philly 592 (2nd) Atlanta 541 (3rd) Florida 527 (4th) Milwaukee 524 (T1st) Colorado 522 (4th) New York 503 (1st) Chicago 501 (T1st) Los Angeles 499 (2nd) Cincinnati 497 (6th) [9th in the league, but 6 and 4 rund behind 1st place teams) Runs Allowed (spot in their division): San Diego 409 (3rd) Chicago 442 (T1st) New York 457 (1st) San Francisco 465 (5th) Los Angeles 468 (2nd) Arizona 489 (1st) Atlanta 497 (3rd) Milwaukee 497 (T1st) Colorado 510 (4th) Washington 514 (5th) Pittsburgh 525 (5th) Philadelphia 547 (2nd) St. Louis 553 (3rd) Florida 561 (4th) Houston 563 (4th) Cincinnati 567 (6th) Last in the NL in Runs Allowed Variance (great predictor of final standings): Chicago +59 (T1st) San Diego +51 (3rd) New York +46 (1st) Philly +45 (2nd) Atlanta +44 (3rd) Los Angeles +31 (2nd) Milwaukee +27 (T1st) Colorado +12 (4th) San Francisco -8 (5th) Arizona -34 (1st) **Why they absolutely won't win the West! Florida -34 (4th) Cincinnati -70 (6th) Houston -78 (4th) Pittsburgh -85 (5th) St. Louis -90 (3rd) Washington -96 (5th) So if you move Dunn (for example) and his 150 runs a year created (R + RBI - HR) and replace him with, say, Freel / Hopper / Votto and they create 100 runs (while playing LF), than you are now -120 to runs allowed. Therefore, for "pitching and defense" with Dunn's money to vault them into a Contender, they have to give up at least 120 fewer runs than they have to date this year (which means get into the Top 3 in the NL in Runs Allowed). You really think that is realistic? The answer isn't to move Dunn, the answer is to tweak the offense but maintain the run creation / production and give up about 80 - 100 fewer runs (better pitching is the key, both starting and bully) and then you are right in the mix. Good work. I'm not sold though. Consistency is a big part of a winning clubs makeup. The Reds do not have that. I do agree the pitching needs a ton of help. Right in the mix is light years away and Dunn is not a part of that.
August 3, 200719 yr Nah, I love watching speed on the basepaths. Doubt if Hattey scores many times from 1st on a double. You have to be on base to score on a double...
August 3, 200719 yr Author You have to be on base to score on a double... Right and the Reds don't have that guy.
August 3, 200719 yr Okay, the nuts and bolts of the issue. For people that are either in the "Dunn is un-neccessary" camp or "the offense is as big a problem as the pitching" camp, read closely. Runs Scored (and their spot in their division): Philly 592 (2nd) Atlanta 541 (3rd) Florida 527 (4th) Milwaukee 524 (T1st) Colorado 522 (4th) New York 503 (1st) Chicago 501 (T1st) Los Angeles 499 (2nd) Cincinnati 497 (6th) [9th in the league, but 6 and 4 rund behind 1st place teams) Runs Allowed (spot in their division): San Diego 409 (3rd) Chicago 442 (T1st) New York 457 (1st) San Francisco 465 (5th) Los Angeles 468 (2nd) Arizona 489 (1st) Atlanta 497 (3rd) Milwaukee 497 (T1st) Colorado 510 (4th) Washington 514 (5th) Pittsburgh 525 (5th) Philadelphia 547 (2nd) St. Louis 553 (3rd) Florida 561 (4th) Houston 563 (4th) Cincinnati 567 (6th) Last in the NL in Runs Allowed Variance (great predictor of final standings): Chicago +59 (T1st) San Diego +51 (3rd) New York +46 (1st) Philly +45 (2nd) Atlanta +44 (3rd) Los Angeles +31 (2nd) Milwaukee +27 (T1st) Colorado +12 (4th) San Francisco -8 (5th) Arizona -34 (1st) **Why they absolutely won't win the West! Florida -34 (4th) Cincinnati -70 (6th) Houston -78 (4th) Pittsburgh -85 (5th) St. Louis -90 (3rd) Washington -96 (5th) So if you move Dunn (for example) and his 150 runs a year created (R + RBI - HR) and replace him with, say, Freel / Hopper / Votto and they create 100 runs (while playing LF), than you are now -120 to runs allowed. Therefore, for "pitching and defense" with Dunn's money to vault them into a Contender, they have to give up at least 120 fewer runs than they have to date this year (which means get into the Top 3 in the NL in Runs Allowed). You really think that is realistic? The answer isn't to move Dunn, the answer is to tweak the offense but maintain the run creation / production and give up about 80 - 100 fewer runs (better pitching is the key, both starting and bully) and then you are right in the mix. To piggyback on this post and to pull some info out of the article that was mentioned before. The article pointed out that if you added Santana from the Twins and his stats from LAST YEAR when he was the best pitcher in the majors, he would have less effect on the Reds numbers than losing Dunn. Meaning losing Dunn and his numbers would be a bigger detriment to the Reds than if we added Santana.
August 3, 200719 yr Right and the Reds don't have that guy. Right, so you go with the guy that gets on base more...
August 3, 200719 yr I think the leadoff position is overrated and has been since pitchers developed the slidestep to eliminate high stolen base totals. Hatteberg leads the Reds on OBP. That's a lead-off man's job. Get on base for the people behind him. He's hitting .350 in the lead-off spot. How many Reds' regulars have more walks than K's? Griffey (one more) and Hatteberg (14 more). Keppinger has five walks and two K's in his short stint up. He makes contact when he gets up. If the 7-8 hitters get on and somehow get moved over by a Reds pitcher, Hatteberg is coming up with a chance to drive him in. Would you rather have Freel batting with a runner at second and two outs? Hatteberg is batting .324 with runners in scoring position and two outs. Hatteberg is the best option in the lead-off spot for this team.
August 3, 200719 yr Author Right, so you go with the guy that gets on base more... How about you try to get guys that are better. No effort has been made to improve the worst team in the NL. I just don't know how you defend that.
August 3, 200719 yr How about you try to get guys that are better. No effort has been made to improve the worst team in the NL. I just don't know how you defend that. Well that's different than just disputing Hatteberg and Hopper at the lead off position...
August 3, 200719 yr How about you try to get guys that are better. No effort has been made to improve the worst team in the NL. I just don't know how you defend that. There aren't many teams out there with good lead off hitters.
August 3, 200719 yr Author Well that's different than just disputing Hatteberg and Hopper at the lead off position... I wasn't the one questioning the lineup.
August 3, 200719 yr To piggyback on this post and to pull some info out of the article that was mentioned before. The article pointed out that if you added Santana from the Twins and his stats from LAST YEAR when he was the best pitcher in the majors, he would have less effect on the Reds numbers than losing Dunn. Meaning losing Dunn and his numbers would be a bigger detriment to the Reds than if we added Santana. It's simple really, if you keep Dunn your pitching needs to go from being the worst to middle of the pack and you are contenders. If you lose Dunn, your pitching has to go from being the worst to being Top 3 in one season. If you feel that is likely than, as they say, you're on your own.
August 3, 200719 yr I wasn't the one questioning the lineup. Than I'm confused... Hopper is better than nothing which is what the Reds have in the leadoff spot.
August 3, 200719 yr Author It's simple really, if you keep Dunn your pitching needs to go from being the worst to middle of the pack and you are contenders. If you lose Dunn, your pitching has to go from being the worst to being Top 3 in one season. If you feel that is likely than, as they say, you're on your own. No way. The Reds are so far from being contenders I can't believe its being discussed. Unfortunately the GM feels the same way, and because of that I will be telling you told you sop next year and the year after and etc.
August 3, 200719 yr Author Than I'm confused... Hopper does have some speed, but is too inconsistent. Hattey is 26 points higher but looks to be carrying a refridgerator when on the basepaths. Point is neither is great in that spot.
August 3, 200719 yr No way. The Reds are so far from being contenders I can't believe its being discussed. Unfortunately the GM feels the same way, and because of that I will be telling you told you sop next year and the year after and etc. If the Reds pitching staff was middle of the league in runs allowed they'd be contending; frankly, that is pretty easy to see. If their staff isn't at least middle of the league next year than they can have the '27 Yankees offense and it won't matter.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.