It was nice, AC ... while it lasted

[JohnU]

Oddly we all thought the Yanks would get Chapman in the first place and were surprised when the Reds got him.

All I guess the Yanks had to do was wait a few years and the prediction came true.

 

[Redsfan1507]

Not a single top 100 prospect in return. Reds got hosed again.

 

[JohnU]

Renda is clearly AAA filler. The pitchers ... hard to say, but we can always use some more mediocre relievers.

 

[Redsfan1507]

I hope the Yankees put him in the rotation (they need to ) and he wins 30 and strikes out 400. Expose the Reds ignorance.

 

[JohnU]

Yanks are gambling that AC is suspended for more than 46 days. If so, they keep him another year. They already have a closer in Miller and their other hotshot has 140 K in 34 innings or some such weird stat. Either way, if AC is suspended, they can hang onto those 2 guys till he's off suspension and trade Miller to somebody who needs a closer. All the Yanks gave up was some minor league stiffs.

 

[JohnU]

So I am still asking, why did the Reds settle for so little in this trade? The Yanks didn't need A.C. and the Reds didn't exactly have to trade him. Plus, were there not better offers from other teams, the "domestic abuse issue" notwithstanding? Smells a bit like carp to me.

 

[Redsfan1507]

I'm pretty frustrated by it all.

Honestly, the Reds have been getting suckered in deals, or suckering themselves, forever.

There was no value in trading Sean Casey, in the pre-Bob days. Anyone remember who they got for Paul O'Neil ? Yep...Roberto Kelly. Woody Fryman and Milt Pappas aren't fond returns for Perez and Robinson. Hell, we gave away Trevor Hoffman and Paul Konerko as minor leaguers.

More recently, when you have a rotation containing Jason Marquis and 4 rookies, it's a BIG clue you may want to trade Chapman while he has full value, or make him a starter and pay to keep him...Ray Charles has better vision than the Reds, and he's blind AND dead.

How does the Boxberger, Grandal and Alonzo for Latos look now ?..even if Desclafani develops downstream into the next Mike Leake, it wasn't a special deal. Wood and 2 other players that played more MLB games than Marshall since they traded for him, wasn't much better.



Way back in the early Dusty days, they traded the reigning NL All Star SS, and an everyday OF for a middle aged utility infielder they released before the season, an injured middle reliever, and Bill Bray. They signed another (Steady Eddie) injured reliever the same month. They signed an injured free agent in Madson, who never pitched an inning, and signed Broxton to close, without ever switching Chapman into a rotation that at the time, included NO LHSP, but did contain a soon to be parted Arroyo, and a converted reliever in Simon, the now injured LTC Bailey and departed Cueto and Latos. They also paid for a one year rental of Choo, half a good season of Ludwick, and one good season of Rolen, although he supposedly was needed to "lead" a "leaderless" team with a manager among the winningest (and losingest) in MLB history.


Did or does anyone believe that Cueto wouldn't have signed Bailey's deal at the time Bailey signed ? I mean, if you can only have one, did the 2 no-no's make up for the massive stat (or injury history) differences in he and Cueto ?

The Cueto deal might have gotten 3 pitchers the Reds can use, but none of them are likely to make an A-S team, much less win 15-20 games a season with an ERA under 3.00 in a single fucking MLB season. Just saying- the only value there, is in filling a roster, cheaper- No return on investment there, folks, it's a switch you would fire your mutual fund manager for making. It's like selling your $200,000 home with $100,00 equity and buying 3 houses for $20,000 each, and putting the $40,000 in your pocket. You can't put it back in those shacks and make them worth any more, so a few meals,miscellaneous bills and a couple roof leaks later, you have nothing and can't identify what happened to the money. THE thing is, they got DECENT VALUE if you consider he was a lame duck rental when they traded him. Who's fault is that ? The Reds signed the contract and knew the fucking expiration date...and should have know the roster wasn't going to win anything 6 months before he was auctioned for highest low bidder.



Trades are impossible, normally to truly weigh until a few years down the road, so some people- obviously including those with the Reds, tend to just base them on immediate returns. An optimist would say it brought 3 "post season appearences" for a team that hadn't had one in a long time. A pessimist would say they overpaid and underperformed by not winning a single home post season game, or making it out of the 1st game twice.

Bad luck, AND bad timing ? Questionable. It appears the front of the Reds jackass didn't communicate with the back end of the jackass, so the poor beast was reduced to staggering around in circles, making a lot of noise, dumping most of it's cargo, before shitting, and sitting down in it, instead of pulling the load to paydirt.

They could signed a Cueto and rented a (name any outfielder) for what the Reds wasted on pinch hitters, utility players, reclamation projects and middle relievers they signed by the dozen , many for 2 year deals.

I think Bob Castellini is a nice guy that really wants the best for the Reds. I also think he knows what happens to CEO's that have to turn a profit for stakeholders, and don't. What I'm afraid he still has to learn is that fans are stakeholders too, and they want their dividend in performance on the field. He can't serve both next year, or for an undetermined span thereafter, largely because of the failure of his employees to run his business in a manner that considered longevity, even though they didn't perform immediately either. The fans aren't getting a performance dividend, and they may refuse to allow the true investment stakeholders to as well, by just not buying.

You'll see me at some point, out in the Sun/Moon deck, wearing a mask or grocery bag on my head until they make me remove it or leave. I may refuse. I might just get 150 of my neighbors to do same though. That's more fun (and probably more effective) that just disappearing, or bitching all the time here.

 

[JohnU]

Bitching is great therapy for baseball fans, maybe more than any other hobby with the exception of politics.
At least in baseball, half the people win.
I'm hard-pressed to know what the franchise can do, other than maintain the image that Cincy as a city and region, is still a winner financially. It's a nice destination and the ballpark is a great venue. There's enough fun to be had by all and I have seen a few females there who weren't exactly grazing ... more like ... well, nice.
But let's look at what the team has -- 6 identifiable regulars coming back. Presumably all will play predictably.
The holes were there a year ago, still are ... though 3B creates its own soap opera.
I guess the problem is, what's the backup plan if anybody gets hurt? Half these pitchers have never thrown 200 innings and the odds of an elbow injury are pretty good for a couple of them, just as one of them comes off the shelf.
I'd like to think the Chapman/Frazier trades signaled an aggressive approach to a rebuild but it's not there ... not really ... there's no buzz with any of these guys.

 

[chico ruiz]

you guys know i've pounded the keyboard about jocketty, for 3 years, until i have 10 bloody, bony, and stumpy digits. i'm going to try and avoid repeating my past posts on the gm subject. but, keep this in mind: dayton moore, neil huntington, and walt jocketty were all hired by their current teams at roughly the same time. all different circumstances. however, if we / i frame it in competitive sustainability, with particular focus on the farm systems & player development, there are very clear differences in process. hopefully i'll circle back to this later.

but, and most importantly, here's what i appreciate about the 3 stalwart posters on this board. hit-n-run's transaction knowledge and birdseye view of everything gabp. john's willingness to put the "past in the 'past,' " and move forward with the most relevant -as of today- knowns. 1507's hands-on experience and knowledge of the 'game.' however, what i appreciate the most is the loyalty you have all shown the reds organization, in the face of what could easily be a 100 loss 2016 season. maybe we're all scots-irish.

as 2015 comes to a close, there is one burning question i have. isn't it way overdue that a cincinnati sports journalist do a honest and thorough feature on the job walt jocketty has done, as reds gm, since 2008? i read a piece by daugherty on cinci.com entitled 'some are done being red's fans.' the article, or piece of languid journalism, goes on to blame, in essence, the financial state of major league baseball for the reds downfall. it's time to tell the truth, stop giving jocketty free passes, and hold him responsible for what he has done. he's not the teflon gm. although those sunglasses he wears reminds of gotti sometimes.

did jocketty ever spend any extended time in cincinnati before he was hired as gm? not that it should be a prerequisite, but does he know -i mean, truly know- that fans like us exist? does he know how we love our team's history? do you think wally could tell us why the '56' reds were so beloved by cincinnati reds fans? does he think of the reds as a disposable organization? and the most poignant question; what the hell have he and castellini been thinking (since 2008) while the evidence of a changing mlb landscape was right in front of their faces? in particular, how could they let the farm system fall into such disrepair or, more accurately, ruin? this part is irresponsible, and unforgivable, of walt. i don't think there is any reds fan who would disagree with that particular criticism.

"the successful teams, whether they're big market, small market, large payroll, small payroll, you've got to develop your own players," general manager x said during the postseason. "that's the currency with which we deal."


i remember a SI article on huntington's hiring by the bucs in 2008. a metrics weirdo who would make the pirates even worse was the gist of the article. new wavy nonsense, yes sir. a lot of baseball insiders short changed him. he was never solely about metrics. he saw developing trends on the field and financially. if you have the time or inclination, take a close look at what huntington has done, in the same time period as jocketty, with less money and resources, beginning in 2008. huntington has done a pretty good job (actually, a very good job) in the payroll and prospect collection / development categories. mccutchen isn't a FA until 2019 and will make 13 mil. next year, 14 mil. in 2017, and 14.5 mil. in 2018. marte isn't a FA until 2020 or 21. they've got liriano for 13 mil per until 2018. josh harrison isn't a FA until 2020. kang becomes arbitration eligible in 2019. cervelli is arbitration eligible for the 3rd time this year. same with melancon. watson is arb-2 this year. hughes is arby for the first time this year. same with mercer and locke. cole is a FA in 2020. polanco isn't a FA until 2021. same with caminero. tyler glasnow, josh bell, jameson taillon, alen hanson, austin meadows, harold ramirez. and elias diaz. prospects are just that, but i keep wondering what baseball rabbit rene gayo will pull out of his hat next. it looks pretty good for pittsburgh. there's not much roster shuffling necessary for the bucs. the flexibility this gives pittsburgh is unquantifiable, if huntington is smart. there is no reason to believe he isn't. they're balanced in every facet of the organization with hidden trade value throughout their entire system. he built it that way for consistency and sustainability.

the linked article below tells everything you need to know about dayton moore. of course, it's easier to praise when you've won a championship, but there is a deeper rooted approach and philosophy at work here that red's fans ignore at their collective eternal losing season peril.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14451932/dayton-moore-was-consideration-our-person-year-2015

on the other hand, jocketty has become a cautionary tale for every mid-market club. to me he hasn't seemed fully engaged in the business of baseball for a few years now. also, to all you 2008 kiss-ass inside baseball writers; do you have any more sophisticatedly 'game' literate critiques or commentary to add?

walt jocketty has always tooted his own horn about what a good administrator he is. bullshit. at best, he has shown himself to be inept. his contract should not have been renewed the last time it came up. he should have been shit-canned with baker. in fact, i always found it ironic they hired price, because wally's and dusty's philosophies were a lot more in-line than his and price's. i feel a malaise washing over me when i think about the reds of the near future. i'm afraid i will not want to watch them. but, of course, i will. i'm a reds fan. always have been, always will be. i do get the feeling they're going to run more. that part makes me feel a little better. price is going to get the player types he has always said he wanted, to play the game he always wanted to play. maybe price is better suited as the gm. a lot of his comments in the last 5 years reflected a coach / manager who understood trends around all of mlb.


but, why the gap or disconnect between him and jocketty? why has jocketty been so slow in these moves? what are the real philosophical differences between dayton moore, neil huntington, and walt jocketty? they were all hired at roughly the same time (2007-2008) by their current teams. this is a fair comparison to make when you consider where the reds, royals, and pirates were at in the 2000's. up until the recent moves, the reds had no top prospect position players. maybe winker, but walt said he isn't ready for mlb. that the reds had to trade for prospects out of desperation should be unacceptable to every reds fan. that walt did this all within a 4 month timeframe speaks volumes. and if i have to read one more time the 'we were all in' to win for 2-3 years nonsense i think i'll puke on my keyboard. this is what happens when you wait to make moves you should have made piecemeal for the last 8 years. the lazy writers call this a 'total rebuild.' particularly reds beat writers, who nibble at the edges but never really take a whole bite at a authentic critique of the reds front office (which is what really needs rebooted or rebuilt). regardless, it's all fraudulent spin. wally fucked up many times over. again, i've written about these failings in great detail on this board many times. the result is, and has been, an executive not making timed moves to sustain competitiveness. during the so-called 'all-in' period he did nothing to bolster the farm system. nothing. so, i ask again, as does 1507, what goes on between billings and louisville? blaming baseball is a cheap way out. it's how you work within the economic parameters of baseball that sets you apart.

 

[chico ruiz]

here's an excerpt i read recently from a red leg nation blog (or, call it what you want to). it's thoughtfully organized and is careful not to call jocketty out directly. i don't think the author wants to burn any bridges. nevertheless, it's a slightly highbrow piece that explains part of what is wrong with the reds front office. he tends to overstate the cardinals 'decision,' as he calls it, 'to become a data-driven franchise.' mlb teams don't simply become a data-driven franchise. we know which clubs have assimilated and integrated more data usage to go along with the still very human endeavor of the 'game,' with the greatest success. still, this young cornell grad student makes some very good points. he won't put it in cyber print, so i will. it's primarily jocketty he's writing about.

While the Reds need numbers crunchers, they also need to build upward and incorporate new ideas into their decision-making process. The Reds need people who can find new and creative patterns in the data. They need people who know the cutting-edge of data analysis and can design programs to take advantage of the knowledge it produces. The front office must view new ideas – not just data incorporation – as the lifeblood of the organization. Instead, the Reds chose to build downward and not upset the existing relationship between departments inside the club.

Hiring downward is evidence of an organizational ceiling. The Reds are unwilling to hire above the credentials of their existing employees, people who hold only bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and limited to no experience working with other organizations. This reflects a misdiagnosis of the problem. The Reds appear to believe they just need to become better at what they are currently doing and not seeking out new ways tt use data.
The dodgers recently advertised for a person in their analytics department. The basic requirements included, among other things, a Ph.D. in Computer Science (Machine Learning), Statistics, Operations Research, or related field from a top-tier university and a minimum of five years work experience in mathematical, statistical and predictive modeling.

This position will allow the Dodgers to build proprietary software incorporating self-updating algorithms for any number of purposes, such as: helping to identify when individual pitchers start to fatigue and lose control, what are your best batter-pitcher match-ups, or how many days rest should a player receive? The Dodgers decided that they didn’t just need to build upwards, but they needed to identify the best talent, both on the field and on the keyboard.

Moving Forward

When it comes to baseball experience, Dick Williams is a Reds lifer. So essentially is Sam Grossman, the director of the club’s analytics department. The problem with people who have only worked for one organization is they tend to have a restricted view of their industry. How much “newness” is it reasonable to expect from people who have never been a part of doing it any other way?

Contrast this with the Milwaukee Brewers. The Brewers just hired a 30-year-old general manager who has worked or Pittsburgh, the Mets, Cleveland and Houston. He also had time in the Commissioner’s office. That’s a wide variety of experiences and practices from which to draw. The Cardinals also assembled people from a wide variety of backgrounds when they decided to become a data-driven franchise.

These two new positions suggest the Reds are satisfied with the scope of their current department and want it to do more of what it already does. Bringing on a couple low-level numbers crunchers, after all, is how Walt Jocketty would have expanded the Reds analytics department. Since Williams’ only experience in a major league baseball front office has been with the Reds, he might believe the same thing. Just like every major league organization, the Reds need a revolution in data management, not an evolution. On Friday, the Reds implied a strategy of gradual evolution.

Bottom Line

Even if Dick Williams has a genuine desire to incorporate analytics into the Reds decision-making, and there’s no reason to doubt that, plenty of organizational headwinds stand in the way. The Reds front office could become yet another in the long list of organizations that say it wants fundamental change but has a hard time delivering.
Williams’ old boss will be around mentoring and consulting for the next few years. Will the new guy feel comfortable overturning past practices? It’s even harder to bring substantial change when your dad and uncle have had a part in hiring the people who would be challenged by new ways of doing things. Last Friday’s job notices are more of an endorsement of the status quo than the leading edge of a new way forward.
In recent interviews, Dick Williams has said he would “put the Reds analytics department up against anybody.” Maybe that’s pure public relations and he knows better. It’s the other possibility that should concern Reds fans: that he actually believes it.

 

[JohnU]

I think the standard logic in any sports environment is that there isn't fundamental difference in talent, only in execution. In a phrase, you can win if you simply play better. I tend to agree with that on a rudimentary level, maybe not so much when it comes to the reality in some sports that "you can't coach speed or height."

The trick to making a 103-mph fastball effective is to teach a guy to throw one at 88 mph that looks like it's 103. Ah, we all know this stuff. Playing above the rim in basketball is a phrase that relates to knowing how to get position under the backboard in case you want to get the ball.

In baseball, you can't steal first base but if you get there, who cares how?

I do believe that there are few secrets in baseball analytics now ... that pretty much everyone knows what it takes to win, how to build a ballclub to fit a ballpark, and that about shifts and no-doubles defenses and what to do when you are a runner and the pitch is in the dirt.

The trick is execution. If you go after a kid who meets all the criteria, you first run into his ... ta-da, AGENT.

Now, we don't know truly how agents work inside the walnut-paneled offices where the leather chairs are all pulled up to the big desk and we start talking about cold turkey and hot pussy.

Where I am headed here is into that foggy area that says we can read about scribes' opinions on this and we can observe what other teams do, discounting the fact that luck often applies. Aroldis Chapman signed with the Reds because he came from a culture that admired the franchise dating back to 1959.

The secret is to throw a lot of ingredients into the water and come up with soup. What matters is knowing what it needs to be really GOOD soup. Maybe a pinch of oregano because you reached for the garlic and got the wrong jar. Presto, a new taste sensation strictly by accident!

Luck (or lack thereof) kept the Reds out of the 2012 W.S. after Cueto pulled a lat muscle in the first inning. Worse luck was not being able to adapt on short notice. History is full of such moments in the World Series and in regular games, such as 1975 when Pete Rose was put on 3rd base because Foster needed to be in the lineup. Had Rose been lefthanded, no such deal could have been struck.

I don't intend to establish a premise here, other than ... I observe what has happened to the Reds, wonder how the problem could have been avoided, and having very little insight other than what I know. If Dick Williams is or is not going to rescue the franchise, I have to first determine if the damned thing is broken.

Of all the ways winning teams are built, most appear to be done generally the same way ... at least according to people who bash GMs who allegedly ignore the 'new math' on scouting and contract development. Winning is still the product of playing better. That's up to the athletes to some end, particularly those who have big-league (Bruce) contracts.

The rest of it does indeed start at Bumphuque High School or Boolah Boolah Community College. Layering all that across the board, the Reds do not stack up against their divisional rivals ... which is a complete mystery to me. I honestly don't care if Freddie Flipinstick is hitting .339 at Pensacola. What I want to know is, why does it appear, on PAPER that the Pirates are not better than Cincy ... and proved to not be head-to-head ... and why at the end, the Reds looked like the St. Louis Browns.

That may reside in the front office and it might reside in the clubhouse.

In short, all the front office shenanigans relate to hiring scouts, recruiters, coaches and managers who want the organization to carry on as it has, hoping that all they need to do is play better. The only difference between me and Joey Votto is that one of us is a Canadian, right?

 

[chico ruiz]

i hear you john. in a lot of ways, i wish baseball was still like that. but, that would require reinstating the reserve clause. i also wish that what i was cyber spewing here was just a crackpot fan's theory. however, and kind of sadly (for the reds anyway), i think the proof is in the pudding. some gm's saw it coming, and some did not. most of it, when you distill it, is incredibly simple. i think that is what some front offices, and a lot of fans, in mlb have missed in terms of metrics application.

you can actually call it whatever you want to. the nfl has it down to a very fine science. they call it the combines. they squeeze it down to a smaller block of time, but it's the same thing applied to their particular brand of (blood)sport. basically, they have, with precise mathematical application, figured out who can most efficiently kill a man with a single blow the quickest. anybody who has been anywhere near a nfl game sideline knows exactly what i'm saying. i can't believe these guys get off the ground as often as they do. most of them are severely damaged for life. it is a sick and twisted amusement to be sure. a friend of mine is a retired nfl offensive lineman. played 8 years. he was showing me his retirement / pension / health plan. right there in black & white it showed the statistic for his life expectancy. 55 was the max-out year. there's an interesting piece of metrics for you. you think the nfl, and its franchises, have figured the money part out? different game, but a lot of the same concepts. it's american professional sport. you make it happen with what you have or you can whine about the general conditions and circumstances of it. the successful ones make it happen.

no doubt the rays would acknowledge the fact they have dealt with not having enough offense to go with their pitching. however, the key to their formula has always been run differential. in other words, no matter what it takes, whether it's allowing fewer runs or scoring more, they want a significant difference between the number of runs they score and the number of runs they allow. if that sounds simple, it's because it is. how you get there is probably where the complexity comes in.

they shift the numbers to fit the situations. again, i'm no math wiz, but i truly believe there has been a undue about of 'exquisite intricacy' and mystery attached to this part of baseball that shouldn't be there, because the endgame is the same. that is; score more runs than the other team. isn't that what you wrote john? i may be paraphrasing, but i think we're on the same page.

i'll give you an example. i've seen team x send down a guy hitting .400 in 20 games to call up a left-handed pitcher with a 4.00 era from double a. they did it because their next 15 games were against teams featuring more hitters like jay bruce. not exclusively, but you get the idea. they were going to see more of them. that's rolling the dice, but it's also trusting your system. your entire system. emphasis on contact, defense, speed, and pitching. they look at match ups for a particular upcoming stretch of games and juggle the 25 man accordingly. watch the transaction wire next season for the various clubs. it's mind bogglingly simple. they do it all season long. but, you know what it's success hinges on? a good farm system. and that is not a new development in the history of mlb. and it seems to me -just seems to me- that a franchise established in 1869 should be well aware of this. the economics of baseball doesn't account for what happened to the reds farm system in jocketty's tenure.

other teams are having more players with the ability to play different positions (competently) to give managers flexibility to do what i described above. in this roster case, you don't have to go to the farm system (assuming you have a viable farm system) if they're already on your 25. hurdle and maddon will do it more and more moving forward. match-ups, match-ups, match-ups, it's all about match ups during the ebb and flow of 162 games. why don't the reds have this ability? price has said he wants that flexibility. why have the reds (jocketty) been so slow to transition? did you ever wonder why a joe maddon team has 5 players that can play 3 or 4 differrent positions? forget the talent aspect of it. the reds can't compete with the on and off field organizational structure. the pirates have 3 outfielders who can play lett, right, and center more than competently. they have 3 infielders who can play 2nd, short, or third. this gives them flexibility and match ups for any given series. these teams know it's exactly these little, or maybe not so little, differences that increase their odds of winning a 3-game series or losing it.

i read these words of wisdom from a baseball operations exec the other day.
when we put the 40-man roster together, we're trying to weigh wanting to keep players we've developed against the need to maintain flexibility - not just now, but in the future.

developed, flexibility, and future are the words that pop out at me. each word gets a n/a next to it if walt jocketty's tenure with the reds is the subject.

 

[JohnU]

I was perpetually frustrated in recent years to see the Reds get the first two guys on base in the first inning and not score a run. That happened way too often. In simple terms, you give your starting pitcher a couple of runs and see how many more games you win. If you look at what St.Louis did over the last few years was -- they scored 3 or 4 runs in the first 3 innings.

The question of how to improve on that number is pretty simple. I am at a loss to explain it beyond that.

 

[Redsfan1507]

You can't solve the Reds problems simply with a software developer and a stack of data taken from the playing fields as un-equal as high school and lower minor leaguer resumes are discovered. There aren't even any constants in the equasion of how AA-AAA stats, Cuban or Japanese or Korean pro leagues convert to MLB stats. Hell, switching leagues for established MLB players often suprizes people. They are ALL semi-educated guesses- still variables in a very sketchy "formula", including health-mental, emotional and physical, and changes in vision and muscle mass as they age. I don't think the Reds can't find talent because they don't have a stack of spreadsheets and graphs, in other words.

I'm all for analysis that positions defenses or finds the occasional diamond in the rough in the rule 5 list, but a fucking blind illiterate manager should be able to recognize the need for a platoon if a lefty hitter hits .208 against lefty pitching, or a hitter makes outs 85% of the time when he hits the ball in the air, for instance. A spreadsheet isn't going to improve his vision, or teach the given hitter a better technique. Run differential is a product of execution on the field, "playing better"....so, if you can find better players, or make better players, or God forbid, DO BOTH, that is how you do it. THEN data analysis will tell you they outscored their opponents... OR... be stumped at those teams that don't have impressive run differentials, but still win 90 games, OR...the teams that win 10-3 twice a week, but lose 2-1, 5 times a week... I think the Reds have been the there before.

Metrics can sometimes predict results, but they can't make results. Players have to do that.

So, I think you need both geeks and jocks, and a translator and teacher or twelve, and a guy that directs putting it all in order. You need a business savvy end and a baseball savvy end, that have to be coordinated to produce, and continue to produce, to have a successful team on the field AND on the balance sheet.

The Reds haven't done that great at many of those things. Sure, there are lots of roadblocks- the current economy of small market teams limits not only finances to play MLB long term contracts, but scouts, coaches, instructors, trainers, equipment, and organizational, medical and clerical staff. Blah, blah, blah...

You can scoff about Billy Beane losing his ass every few years, but he's done more with less than most. He IS unique though- he's a jock turned tech savvy geek and businessman on a budget, unafraid to tread untested waters. He's cognizant of both Bill James and Charlie Lau. He fires managers, coaches and players. that aren't on the game plan.

I don't think Walt Jocketty, John Allen, Wayne Krivsky, etc. fit that description.

Here's a metric for you- Reds haven't "produced" a single full time OF that hit a measly .260 in back to back MLB seasons in about 30 years. There are a minimum of 30 OF in every franchise each year- that's about 900 total, including minor leaguers each year. So, the Reds have had 900 OF chances of their own in 30 years, and MLB has signed about 25,000 of them total. That's an awful lot of chances for the Reds to be hitting .000 in finding or developing a single fucking OF that can hit the MLB average two paltry years in a row, don't you think ?

That isn't a fluke, it's the process.

THAT is the true root cause for why the Reds can't platoon Jay Bruce, or cut Billy Hamilton, or get to the World Series more than a couple times a century. It's also the reason they aren't likely to "develop" them into better hitters in their 2nd or 10th MLB season. Some got away in time to recover- Paul O'Niell is an example...It's not because the Reds young players are without talent, IMO, it's because they can't usually improve on what they brought with them as draftees. Do they truly draft that bad ? I don't think so. I think it's the failed (or lack of) instruction and coaching at lower levels, and the inability to block underperformers by better hitters at the levels above them, all the way to Drew Stubbs and Billy Hamilton getting top billing on the Reds Opening Day Program.

I want a GM that recognizes THAT... AND can do something to improve it...AND an ownership group that at least understands the difference in THAT, and what the Reds have had.

 

[chico ruiz]

i agree with you 1507. it's all the above. i don't know why it is, when you mention metrics, fans think it's an all or nothing proposition. it's never the one answer to success or failure. i've never suggested that.

but, it's stuff like this that, as a baseball fan, i find endlessly fascinating:
kc took the importance of the OBP stat and flushed it. they took metrics and it's prevailing theories and worked them sideways and backwards. they preferred to actually hit the ball. neat trick. hit the ball. action on the field. defensive mistakes being forced. back to baseball the way it was designed to be played. look at their team stats for 2015. with the exception of miami, they were last in base on balls. if you had told bill james 5 years ago that a team with that statistic would win the world series, he would have said it was an impossibility. you want to see a real eye popper? look at how many times the royals struck out. 973 k's as a team. the cubs almost doubled up on that team stat. their closest competitor (atlanta) k'd almost 200 more times. baseball - hit the ball + run + run more + sacrifice + hit the ball = score. the running shouldn't end from home to first, if that's what you want to call what most mlb players do. should it?

there's not one size fits all way to apply analytics. there are many applications and potential applications. as mlb's winter hiring carousel has shown, more teams are gravitating to young, ivy league-educated executives who understand the metrics and the importance of exploiting market inefficiencies. did you see who the browns hired yesterday? that's what the cornell grad student was referencing in my above post. it's not the answer, but it helps steer efficiency, competitiveness, and consistency. teams are embracing quantitative analysis, which covers much more than high school stats, and defensive shifts. but, i agree with you and john. beyond the personnel moves a gm has to set a tone for the organization, and drive the agenda in an inclusive way - delegate authority, emphasize scouting, and player development at the ground floor. hell, it should be ground zero actually. it has to be for small market teams. and this is where the rubber has met the road for the cincinnati reds.

 

[JohnU]

Let's look at the 3 teams we most endeavor to evaluate -- Pittsburgh, Tampa and Kansas City. All of them spent a very long period of time sucking so badly that they had no choice but to acquire and train good talent through the draft.

The trick was, over the 10, 20 or 30 years ... was to eventually get it right. It took the Royals 3 decades to get it right before they hired Ned Yost. The Parrots went 20 years with a loser before they hired Clint Hurdle. The Devil Rays dropped the Devil and hired Joe Maddon.

Trends there?

The Reds have Bryan Price, who took a contending team and shoved it head-first into the Ohio River.

So I will buy into a lot of things about drafting well, signing well, getting a good front office where all the coffee mugs have a big red "C" on them ... and they all get together at lunch and talk about the "three computers that walk into this bar ...."

So maybe Yost loses 98 managing the Reds, maybe Price wins 94 managing the Pirates. Maybe the Cubs go from 99 losses to the playoffs in one year with Maddon and maybe Don Zimmer could have done the same thing.

I will wait to see what Dusteroo does in D.C.

But it's time for Delino DeShields to manage the Reds.

 

[chico ruiz]

i hear you john. but, i'm digging a little deeper with my posts and examining from 2005 forward. you make very legitimate points, and we will see how long those organizations stay competitive. the rays almost don't count. what they've pulled off down there, with 8 years of competitiveness, is a minor miracle. the pirates? depending on how you look at it, they've been consistent for 3 or 4 years running. i see no reason that won't continue for at least a couple more years, maybe more. same with kansas city. they're too deep organizationally, and they didn't abandon their farm systems and development while they got good at the mlb level. the rays obviously think of it as a all-inclusive organizational entity moving forward. one piece moving effects all the others from low-a to the big club.

beyond my criticisms of jocketty, which have been overly critical at times, i find irony in the analytics / saber - metric findings and direction of said. it seems to me that it's taking baseball right back to john mcgraw's turn of the last century ny giants, or the 1940's cardinals, if you prefer, or not. it's a beautiful thing to watch. the very thing that some insiders thought would ruin baseball -a decade or more ago- is taking it right back to the elysian fields.

 

[JohnU]

The fact that those 3 franchises rose to relevance almost overnight mirrors nicely with what Baker did in 2010 with the Reds. To some end, my point is ... I guess, to simplify ... why do teams have managers? I look at the ones who came out of nowhere to suddenly succeed ... and Houston and the Cubs are the latest examples

I will wait to see on the Astros, who still aren't buying into the big FA market.

And I look at the franchises that fell into the sewer ... the most glaring is the chicken and beer regime of Valentine in Boston ... and maybe Miami, which is being run by the 3 Blind Mice.

But the Reds didn't go into 2015 with as many problems as we were sold, though the 2014 season was an outlier. Price did have the rug pulled out when Bailey got hurt, but he was the one who had Marquis in the rotation and that clusterfuck bullpen. Pitching is supposed to be his forte. I dismiss the trades of Cueto and Leake as being unfortunate for Price, meaning it made a bad situation look even worse. THAT couldn't be avoided.

The bullpen hasn't been fixed and Bailey is still on the sidelines.

I guess I'm looking at this from the traditional point of view, which is to attach some importance to the dugout staff. Lately, we've blamed everyone but the manager.

This is not an endorsement of Baker. His strategy was stale, and needed to be upgraded. We just got a bad version of the upgrade. And I don't have to defend my point of view, because it's all observation.

 

[Redsfan1507]

IMO, Organizations make teams what they are predominantly. A good manager might only win a dozen or fewer games over a mediocre one, in a year. IMO, the biggest harm a mediocre or bad manager does, isn't even losing those few more games a year- it's in the effect he has on his players- allowing them to lapse into or worsen already bad fundamentals, work ethics, or other unmotivated conditions. He retards the success of the future. I think good managers make most bad things better, and bad ones don't.

Otherwise, it's on the ownership to finance, and the GM to hire and fire, and manage the Organization for both current and future success. This is the systemic failure with our Reds. Any player or managerial mistakes are usually just results of that, IMO.

 

[Redsfan1507]

Great managers can't make bad teams into good teams. Bad managers do seem to "lead" teams expected to be good, to underperform, pretty frequently, IMO.

Dusty has previously taken jobs with teams that aren't used to or expected to win in the near term. Those teams (Giants, Cubs, Reds) did improve, but fell short of heightened expectations after that improvement. His situation is similar in DC, because that franchise is among biggest losers (going back a century), but the Nats recent performance and payroll are different, because they are currently viewed as a favorite in their division, that underperformed last year. This will be the most urgent pressure to win he's had in the first year of contract in any of his managerial jobs. Urgency, isn't something I find in Dusty's previous history. His detractors, me included, have said the "winning" Giants, Cubs and Reds teams succeeded largely without or in spite of Dusty's failings. Its a commonly tired mud slinging tactic, the value of which is ...Insignificant.

I just don't like his managerial style, for the roster's he's had. Most his criticism revolves around misuse of young starting pitchers, much unfortunate and unfair, IMO. Offensively, I think he's a veteran, PED enhanced HR dependent manager. He hunches more than strategizes, and doesn't apply accepted fundamentals too much in his game management. A lot of guys like that...good teams don't need much from a manager except the lineup card, and bad teams can't be helped much, so the teams in the middle (normally the ones Dusty's managed) are most impacted by Managers, IMO. He's a little above .500 for his career, so that makes him a little above average, right ?

He has a very good pitching staff. The Nats D isn't special, and they downright struggle to score sometimes. That sounds like some if his old teams, doesn't it ? I expect similar results.