Reds renew all coaches except...........
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Prev: Pitching Coach
Next: ASBCR 2009 questions
From: tom dunne on 12 Oct 2009 12:05 On Oct 12, 11:11 am, Zuke <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, tom dunne wrote: > >On 10:02 pm, "David Short" > > <David.No.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote: > >> "tom dunne" <dunn...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >>> Speaking of catchers, I think the most effective 1-2 for this team > >>> would have been Chris Dickerson leading off and Hannigan/Hernandez > >>> batting second. > > >> It's not clear to me what Ryan Hannigan's offensive production really will > >> be. Hitters in the 8 slot in the NL tend to see a real blip in OBP simply > >> because there's no reason to give them anything to hit with the pitcher up > >> behind them. It seems to me that Hannigan got this kind of boost this year. > > > Right, but consider the competition. The 2009 Reds dedicated the > > majority of the second slot ABs to a combination of Hairston, Janish, > > Gonzalez and McDonald. All Hannigan has to do is get on base more > > often than that group and he's an upgrade. Lop 50 points off his OBP > > and he still outperforms the hitters that Dusty put out there. > > No offense to Hannigan but if you are at all serious about winning > you do not have him batting second. Even if it works out to the maximum > he can give you, you have a slow guy on the base paths. If they > can't find a better option in the number two hole they may as well > close up shop. I don't think Hannigan is ideal, either. Nothing worse than clogged bases. But if your options are Hannigan or Alex Gonzalez, for example, you will score more runs with Hannigan batting second. > As far as another post with Stubbs not being out there because of > low on-base percentage, I say when he does get on he's a real threat. > I don't know what Dickerson's stolen base record is but I don't see > him as anywhere near the threat that Stubbs is. In addition, if > you put Stubbs in there and he performs (something he hasn't disproven > with his late season play) you have filled a major position on the > team for the next 5 seasons. In addition, you can play Dickerson in > left field rather than Nix. This is the kind of thinking that got Willy Taveras a two-year contract. He was the 2008 stolen base champ, the very definition of a threat on the bases. But as they say, you can't steal first base. Stubbs will get on base more often than Taveras, but probably not enough for my liking. This year's MLB stolen base efforts for Stubbs/Dickerson: -Stubbs had 10 steals, 4 caught stealing in 196 plate appearances -Dickerson had 11 steals, 3 caught stealing in 299 plate appearances In their minor league careers, Stubbs tried to steal more often than Dickerson, and was successful at almost exactly the same rate as Dickerson. That's pretty much what happened with them in the majors this year as well. Stubbs did steal a ton of bases at Louisville this year, for what it's worth.
From: tom dunne on 12 Oct 2009 12:17 On Oct 11, 12:03 pm, "David Short" <David.No.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote: > "Bob Braun" <oxin...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:hasuel$f62$1(a)news.eternal- > > > If the catcher can hit, they can use Janish at ss. Don't ask me who that > > is. Not a lot of Joe Mauer types floating around out there. > > Assuming the following are set > Joey Votto > Brandon Phillips > Scott Rolen > Jay Bruce > Drew Stubbs/Chris Dickerson > > that leaves left field, catcher and shortstop. At least one of those > positions has to have an offensive upgrade over what it provided last year > (and Bruce needs to take a step forward and one of Stubbs/Dickerson has to > not be a train wreck) and they can compete. > > I don't have a problem with Hannigan in a part time role. I have a problem > with penciling him in as a full time starter when he has trouble staying > healthy. I think they need at least another 80 game catcher on the roster.. They definitely could use more help at catcher, Hannigan's not a 130+ game option. > It's easy to add together Gomes and Nix power numbers and say "left field > wasn't a problem" but the weirdest split of the season has to go to Gomes > who hit like a tiger when he played anywhere else and then hit like a lamb > when he was in left field. The numbers guy in me wants to say its a sample > thing and let it go, but I'm not sure. Reds left fielders put up a 720 ops > which is pretty terrible considering the home park. Gomes split his playing > time 50/50 in left and right. As a rightfielder he put up a 301/365/619 > which is just pretty dang darned good, but as a left fielder he went > 231/289/462 which is pretty dang darned awful. I don't understand - are you saying that playing left field is the reason for the poorer offensive numbers? I can't see any reason why that would be so. On the hole, Reds leftfielders combined to be league average for the season. Not good, but not the offensive black holes that they've got in centerfield and shortstop. > If the reds can put up a 301/365/619 in left (and bruce takes a step forward > and one of Dickerson/Stubbs doesn't crash and burn and Rolen doesn't get > hurt and Votto doesn't go Psycho) the reds can afford to play Janish and > Hannigan plus an empty bat partner. Of course a good organization would > upgrade as many bases as possible. That stat line over a full season would be better than any player for the Reds has had since Larkin's 1996 campaign. I'd take it :)
From: David Short on 12 Oct 2009 14:36 tom dunne wrote: > On Oct 11, 12:03 pm, "David Short" >> It's easy to add together Gomes and Nix power numbers and say "left field >> wasn't a problem" but the weirdest split of the season has to go to Gomes >> who hit like a tiger when he played anywhere else and then hit like a lamb >> when he was in left field. The numbers guy in me wants to say its a sample >> thing and let it go, but I'm not sure. Reds left fielders put up a 720 ops >> which is pretty terrible considering the home park. Gomes split his playing >> time 50/50 in left and right. As a rightfielder he put up a 301/365/619 >> which is just pretty dang darned good, but as a left fielder he went >> 231/289/462 which is pretty dang darned awful. > > I don't understand - are you saying that playing left field is the > reason for the poorer offensive numbers? I can't see any reason why > that would be so. I agree. It's stupid. I can't figure out a reason for it. But everybody who played in left field hit better when they where playing someplace else on the field. With Gomes the split is extreme. He hit great when he was in right field. He hit...well, he hit like Laynce Nix when he played in left. >On the hole, Reds leftfielders combined to be > league average for the season. Not good, but not the offensive black > holes that they've got in centerfield and shortstop. Look at the split for left field. Heck, I put it in my post. Reds left fielders had a 720 Ops which given the park they hit in is a disaster. It's not the problem that they had in center or at short or at third...but it's a problem. Particularly if they are going to carry problems elsewhere they need real production out of left. >> If the reds can put up a 301/365/619 in left (and bruce takes a step forward >> and one of Dickerson/Stubbs doesn't crash and burn and Rolen doesn't get >> hurt and Votto doesn't go Psycho) the reds can afford to play Janish and >> Hannigan plus an empty bat partner. Of course a good organization would >> upgrade as many bases as possible. > > That stat line over a full season would be better than any player for > the Reds has had since Larkin's 1996 campaign. I'd take it :) I agree. dfs
From: tom dunne on 12 Oct 2009 15:38 On Oct 12, 2:36 pm, David Short <David.no.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote: > tom dunne wrote: > >On thew hole, Reds leftfielders combined to be > > league average for the season. Not good, but not the offensive black > > holes that they've got in centerfield and shortstop. > > Look at the split for left field. Heck, I put it in my post. Reds left > fielders had a 720 Ops which given the park they hit in is a disaster. > It's not the problem that they had in center or at short or at > third...but it's a problem. Particularly if they are going to carry > problems elsewhere they need real production out of left. I checked BR again and realized I misread the LF's tOPS+ (against the team) rather than the sOPS+ (against the rest of the major league.) You're right, those LF numbers suck. I can't imagine it's anything but freak coincidence, considering that Gomes hit fine elsewhere and the previous occupant in left field was a fantastic offensive player. Giving 60 games to Laynce Nix is a big part of the problem, one I hope won't be repeated next year.
From: David Short on 13 Oct 2009 09:30
tom dunne wrote: > Giving 60 games to Laynce Nix is a big part of the problem, one I hope > won't be repeated next year. Nix was as good a gamble as Gomes was. AT one time Nix was a highly thought of prospect who got hurt instead of having a career. They were just throwing talent against the wall to see what stuck. dfs |