The Opportunity in Front of the Reds
Last year’s Reds won 67 games. They won just four more games than the Marlins, and they won just five more games than the White Sox. They won 29 fewer games than the division-rival Brewers, and they won 28 fewer games than the division-rival Cubs. The previous year, the Reds had won 68 games. The year before that, they’d won 68. The year before that, they’d won 64. There’s been a running joke that the Effectively Wild podcast never talks about the Reds. That’s not actually true, but they’ve rarely been brought up on purpose.
And now, as you know, the Reds are making noise. They’re not signing Bryce Harper, and they’re not signing Manny Machado, but they did acquire Yasiel Puig, and they did acquire Alex Wood. They traded for Tanner Roark, and, on Monday, they traded for Sonny Gray. Gray is the one player under contract beyond just 2019. The Reds haven’t given the farm away or anything like that, but they have depleted their own longer-term resources. Clearly, the Reds have grown tired of being forgettable.
And that might well be the biggest behavioral driver. As an organization, they might’ve simply decided they wanted to be more competitive. It’s what so many people have wanted to see from more teams. As a fan, you want to go into a year with higher expectations. But there could also be a particular opportunity here. It’s worth examining the context in which the Reds are going to play.
In writing about the Gray trade on Monday, I observed that the Reds might still be the fourth- or fifth-best team in their own division. On its own, that makes them atypical buyers. Based on Steamer projections and our internal depth charts, we currently project the Reds to finish 80-82, with a winning percentage of .493. That puts them right there with, say, the Diamondbacks. The Diamondbacks aren’t out there trying to buy. In fact, they traded away the best player they’d ever developed. The Mariners are another team that’s also sold, having gone into the offseason with a roughly average team projection. Average generally isn’t good enough. This is supposedly an era of haves and have-nots.
But now let’s widen the view. Let me say this first — I know the team projections aren’t perfect. I know they don’t yet fold in the ZiPS numbers. I know the offseason isn’t complete. I know you’ll collectively have your disagreements. But at the moment, we project the Reds at 80-82. Here is the entire projected NL Central:
- Cubs, 87-75
- Cardinals, 86-76
- Pirates, 80-82
- Reds, 80-82
- Brewers, 79-83
Your eyes might be drawn to the Brewers first, given how they’ve performed the past two years. Yes, I also think they’re being underrated here. I don’t think they’re being given enough credit for their defense, and I don’t think they’re being given enough credit for their bullpen. Given the option, I’d elect to move the Brewers up. Yet I wouldn’t move them up by *that* much. I don’t see the Brewers as a super-team. I don’t see any of these clubs as a super-team. This is just a tight-looking five-team division.
How tight, relatively speaking? Baseball has existed in a six-division format since 1994, so I examined the past 25 years, and also included the 2019 team projections. I understand that projections tend to be more conservative, and reality tends to be more extreme. It’s not entirely fair to blend projections and historical observations. But that all being said, here’s a table of the ten tightest divisions since 1994, in terms of winning percentage standard deviation:
| Division | Year | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|
| AL West | 1994 | 0.021 |
| NL Central | 2019 | 0.023 |
| NL East | 2005 | 0.024 |
| NL West | 2005 | 0.035 |
| NL Central | 1996 | 0.036 |
| AL West | 1995 | 0.036 |
| NL West | 1995 | 0.037 |
| NL Central | 1997 | 0.037 |
| AL East | 2015 | 0.038 |
| NL West | 1997 | 0.039 |
If the NL Central actually played out this way, it would be the second-tightest division in recent history. And not only was the 1994 AL West a four-team division — it was a four-team division in a shortened season. The average of all the divisional standard deviations has been 0.071. This year’s NL Central looks uncommonly bunched. For another view, here are the smallest differences between first-place and last-place winning percentages:
| Division | Year | Spread |
|---|---|---|
| AL West | 1994 | 0.047 |
| NL Central | 2019 | 0.049 |
| NL East | 2005 | 0.056 |
| NL West | 2006 | 0.074 |
| NL West | 1995 | 0.076 |
| AL West | 1995 | 0.080 |
| AL West | 1998 | 0.086 |
| NL West | 1997 | 0.086 |
| AL Central | 2008 | 0.089 |
| NL Central | 1996 | 0.093 |
Again, we’re just looking up at the 1994 AL West. The Rangers led the way with a hilarious winning percentage of .456, while the Angels brought up the rear at .409. Then we have this year’s projected NL Central. The average of all the gaps has been 0.172. Rarely has there been a smaller perceived difference between the best team and the worst.
Granted, one thing that means is that the Reds could somewhat easily sink back to last. An opportunity for them is an opportunity for all five of the division rivals. We could talk about the opportunity in front of the Pirates if we wanted to. But the Pirates aren’t making win-now moves. Maybe they already got those out of the way in acquiring Chris Archer and Keone Kela. The Reds have been trying to improve, making trades and engaging with higher-profile free agents. And it turns out the Reds are in a position where success might be more achievable than one would’ve assumed.
In order to accept the premise, you have to expect the Brewers to regress. You have to expect the Cubs to regress, as well. I understand and acknowledge that our projections could stand to be stronger. But if we just take Steamer at its word for now — the Reds aren’t great, but they are in a position where every additional win is especially valuable. They’re looking to inch forward within a tightly-grouped cluster, and first place might not be *so* out of reach. Perhaps the big wild card will be Nick Senzel, and whether he can become this year’s Juan Soto or Ronald Acuna. There are other high-upside young players — looking at you, Luis Castillo — and the Reds might still take another step by finding a true center fielder. I don’t buy that the Reds are close to, say, the Dodgers, and I don’t think they’re close to the Yankees, yet those teams aren’t the competition. If they become the competition, something will have gone very well.
This offseason, the Reds decided to try for a push. Based on how last year played out, it would come off as ill-advised and impatient. Even now, the odds remain against them, but at least there’s some support for their decision. The NL Central is likely to look different from how it did. The NL Central is more likely to leave the door open.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
To get historical perspective, you kind of need to see the closest divisions in terms of preseason projections, not actual results. Naturally, things tend to look closer before the season starts than the actual results, because certain teams will get lucky, and others will become unlucky, and buy and sell, thus widening the gap.
Correct
It had been a while since I looked at it so I forgot about my spreadsheet of team projections going back to 2005. The current spread between first-place and last-place winning percentage in the NL Central would be tied for the second-smallest, out of the 90 projected divisions. I’m relieved to know the theory still holds up!
Cool!
Thanks for checking!
Very glad this was discussed. Projections by their very nature smooth out extremes in a way that reality does not, so while I appreciated the spirit of this post the analysis was always going to favor a projected division standing as less spread out than a real-world one.
You should really get that up on the site somehow or another.
Yes. The pirates, reds and brewers all could be sellers at the deadline if the start goes wrong. I think especially the reds priced that in their calculations, there is a good chance wood and puig are gone at the deadline.
I think this is more like a “feeler” for the reds, they try to see where there are at and if it doesn’t work they can sell the short term pieces again.
This is the exact thinking I’ve been rolling with during this offseason as a Reds fan
If Cincinnati finish above Milwaukee this year, I’ll get a tattoo of Jeff’s face.
Fangraphs had the brewers at 70 wins in 2017 (finished with 86) then 80 wins in 2018 (96), now down to 79. If the trend holds, they’ll finish 2019 16 games above projection again and take the division from the Cubs by 8 games.
The “our team beats the projection systems consistently” confidence is lost very quickly – as an O’s fan, I know this very well…
Cincinnatian here. I think one underreported aspect to the Reds offseason that might be a big motivator for them is FC Cincinnati joining MLS this year. FCC routinely outdrew the Reds when they were both at home on the same day last year. Empirically, people here are sick of the Reds and Bengals losing, and FCC represents something new and hopeful. They ran away with their league in the regular season and their narrative was nothing but positive momentum all year, which was a sharp contrast to the Reds. And a lot of younger folks around here seem to care a lot more about FCC.
In addition, the Reds have a new manager, a new coaching staff, and although Dick Williams has been around for a few years at this point, it seems as though the Williams/Krall faction of the front office now has a lot more freedom and power than they have had, and they’re finally starting to implement their plan. Total regime and philosophy change.
People look at the NL Central and wonder why the Reds are making these moves, but they’re not looking at what’s been going on within the Reds and in Cincinnati.
Excellent insight. Makes loads of sense, thanks for sharing.
I’m pulling for them. Not sure why they’re being so scrutinized for trying to improve. Collectively we bitch about the division of haves and have-nots, but then our worlds explode and we find something new to complain about when a team actually breaks the very mold we’ve been previously complaining about.
Earthlings!
This division is going to be bonkers.
There is something that I think Jeff left out that is relevant. There are two ways you can figure out if a performance is “fluky”; one is if players outperform their projection, while the other is whether a team outperforms its BaseRuns/Pythagorean. Jeff tackles the first one, asking whether other teams are likely to regress based on the projections here. But while Brewers overachieved last year based on the latter, but their run differential was still roughly 220 runs better than the Reds. It’s even worse if you look at the Cubs, and only slightly better if you look at the Cardinals. The Brewers look more or less like the same team, maybe a little better if you like their starting pitchers better than Steamer; the Cubs are more or less the same team; and the Cardinals are likely better. As Jeff notes, Steamer is pretty down on the Brewers considering last year’s performance, but it’s also similarly optimistic about the Reds; it’s just that the problems in 2017 were pretty deep and not some sort of fluke.
My other thought is this: While I don’t think the Reds are a contender of any sort–not for the division, at least, and probably not even a wild-card–I also think that if I had to pick a team to dramatically underachieve their projection in 2019, the Pirates (and not the Reds) look like that team, and it might get worse if they deal Cervelli. The entire infield is composed of likely below-average regulars, and this is with projecting that they will all improve. Steamer still thinks Chris Archer is coming back, the back half of the rotation in April will likely include Nick Kingham (they obviously hope Mitch Keller eventually takes that slot), and the depth in both the rotation and at most positions is pretty much shot. It is not a team built to withstand adversity.
(Okay, I’d also pick the Blue Jays based on what we see today, but I suspect once ZiPs gets folded in it’s going to lose a lot of wins off there)
i agree that it seems too high on Archer by about 1 WAR. but I think i could also argue that they seem 3 WAR light on Taillon, Musgrove, and Williams.
and also, the projections are already factoring in the below average infielders! like… them being bad is already part of the 80 win projection! they arent gonna double ding them for having a bad infield. But i guess i do hear your point about how they do have Bell Moran and Newman improving.
and yeah, Cervelli+Diaz is definitely better than Diaz+Stallings, so of course their projection would go down if they deal Cervelli! we agree there.
The moves the Reds are making (Puig, and a handful of #3 starters, which if you follow the Reds are basically aces) leads me to believe they think they can compete now. But most people don’t look at this roster and think “playoff team.”
When people asked “WHY?!” In regards to the Puig-Kemp-Wood deal (as in, why try to go from irrelevant to barely relevant) it didn’t take a genius to predict that they weren’t finished. I think that’s still the case here after Gray.
I think there’s still one big move left for the Reds, if not two: Kluber or Keuchel, or who knows, maybe even AJ Pollock in CF and that lineup becomes one to watch. Kluber would be costly (at least Senzel or Trammell, plus another high end prospect, plus some MLB talent like Gennett and/or Barnhart) but quickly push them into contender talk. Keuchel adds depth, but he’s another #3 at this point and for the price (they were projected similar contracts iirc) I’d almost rather add Pollock and take my chances on Mahle/Romano offering similar production.
I already think the lineup will be one to watch, and I don’t think they even need Pollock to get there.
Votto, Gennett, Suarez, Puig and Peraza are all above average-to-great offensive regulars at their positions. I’d also like to believe that Winker will get a chance to play every day, in which case, he’s probably in that conversation also. Throw in a Schebler / Kemp platoon, and an okay option at Catcher in Barnhart, and this looks like a really competitive offensive team.
I’m not a fan of Keuchel, but they could really use his stability and innings. Add him and an upgrade in the bullpen, and they might really have something here.
As a reds fan, I’d prefer that they don’t sign Keuchel. The Reds still have a lot of young arms to sort through. I would do that and then if they’re in the hunt in the summer, make a move for a true front line starter.
Agree 100%. And you didn’t even mention Senzel.
I think Winker would be the outfielder that gets platooned, not Schebler, based on their splits. Schebler is surprisingly passable while Winker is atrocious.
I do agree that the Reds lineup is a lot more formidable with Winker at the top (.400 OBP upside with a little power) along with Puig, Votto, Suarez, Gennett…and that doesn’t even include Senzel, who may end up being the best non-Votto hitter of the group in a year or two.
Where will Nick Senzel even play? Is HE the “true CF” you mention, by chance? I saw that floating around once – any weight to it?
It’s definitely on the table, but doesn’t make sense imo. The Reds have Puig and Schebler, who are certainly not top defenders out there, but would probably be more passable. Senzel in a corner with a true outfielder in center would make more sense.
On that note, Senzel is a natural infielder, why not use him at 3B/SS (wherever Suarez isn’t) and make Peraza the CF (he has plenty of experience there).
Long term, Senzel is the 2B imo. Scooter won’t be around much longer and as a BABIP & HR/FB reliant offensive player, even just a little regression would quickly make him below average.
For 2019, he could end up in an everyday “utility” role playing largely 2B against lefties, then SS or 3B when they need a day off, and likewise at 1B in the OF. Kind of how the Reds initially used Frazier.
So glad you covered this; been weighing on my baseball deprived mind. Check that lineup: Scooter, Votto and Votto jr, Puig, Senzel, decent Schleber and Peraza, and the most underrated Suarez. Pinch hitter/reliever Lorenzon!
Solid rotation of potential 4WAR Castillo w/2-3WAR Wood Roark Gray potential.
Few upper level prospects with skills.
A lot of “potentials” there but it’s baseball
going along with the “we could just as well talk about the Pirates”, and borrowing an idea from Eno…
If the Pirates werent the Pirates, they’d be the absolute most logical landing spot for Manny Machado.
They, by my count, are the only team that is all of the following…
1) decent
2) in need of a shortstop, Manny’s preferred position
3) currently having a significantly lower payroll than what they usually spend
Manny probably adds something like 4 wins to their current projection, and i’m sure they could get a #5 SP to fall on their lap for cheap to increase their projection an additional win.
That’s an 85 win projection just by getting payroll to where it’s been in the past. gahh theyre frustrating.
At least fans won’t have to watch Homer Bailey get shelled every fifth day!
If the Pirates somehow decided to be a real baseball team for once and sign Machado and Keuchel they’d seriously compete for the division and still have a $120M payroll or 3rd or 4th largest payroll in the NLC. They could sign just sign Machado and still have the damned lowest payroll and hope for a +4 fWAR swing! They could sign both Machado and Keuchel, trade Marte and Cervelli to the Dodgers, get Verdugo, Ruiz and Pederson and be in about the same spot. Huntington and Nutting are aiming at the $/win trophy and—as a fan—are the shittiest game in town.
Alternate title: Squandered Opportunity in Front of the Pirates
Oops meant just Verdugo and Ruiz for Marte and Cervelli there.
“They could sign both Machado and Keuchel, trade Marte and Cervelli to the Dodgers, get Verdugo, Ruiz.”
No they couldn’t. Dodgers’ brass is a hell of a lot smarter than that. For Verdugo and Ruiz they could get Realmuto.
If they _could_ do that I’m not sure why they haven’t, honestly.
I think the projection on the reds is a few games lite, but they are a 50/50 team if they do not fix Cf. the outfield defense is awful. I see some of Vottos power returning. Suarez still has upside. Winkler has power upside and has to defend better. Puig is out of LA and that might inspire him. Ill take the over on Gennett as he has had two seasons with wRC+over 120 and now they project 96… naa I’ll take that over easy. Less confidently the over on the Peraza projection as well. The pitching is very improved. They need Castillo to pitch like he did as a rookie, but if finds that part of himself the rest is good enough to that they could finish with a league average or so ERA.
I was surprised to read on ESPN that the Reds over/under opened at 77 and is currently at 74. That is a lot of early money pushing that number lower. If they can get some help from the SP additions, an improved Castillo and a healthy Tony D, it would seem that .500 would be very attainable.
If they look to be 500 they will probably sell at the deadline though
Good point. They also have a couple of scheduling quirks that may play a factor:
I believe only 23 of their last 55 games (August 1st..on..)are vs division foes, which seems low with the unbalanced schedule and emphasis towards late division matchups.
They also have a brutal road trip in mid-September:
@SEA, @ARZ, @CHC 3 games each with no off days in between.
I think the cubs showing vulnerability might be driving the other central teams investing. Until last year (and really last year too) the cubs looked like a surefire 95+ win team.
Now they got beaten by the brewers but I don’t think this is the driving factor, most modern GMs know the brewers got “lucky” (as in beating Pythagorean record, not saying they don’t deserve it) but the cubs rotation is aging badly, the farm has been thinned out and the young core starts to cost money.
The cubs are still favorites to win the division and their hitters actually should be a bit better than last year but they are not this invincible machine with a cheap core, a loaded farm and room to spend like they used to be 15-18 anymore.
Yeah, if Darvish and Quintana don’t rebound enough, and Lester continues to decline, the Cubs’ rotation could be in serious trouble.
Keep in mind that the Cubs, even with injuries and severe underperformance by Darvish, Bryant, Chatwood, and Morrow won exactly 95 games last year with the run differential and Pythag record to match.
Laying aside the accuracy of the projections, it’s apparent that if they are to compete seriously for a top spot, they will still have to improve. My question is: you have to give something to get something, and what can they still give? I don’t know this minor-league system well, but nothing I have heard about it suggests that it’s just brimming with appetizing trade bait, particularly with #7 (system) prospect Long moved for Gray. Meanwhile, they’re up against one team above them with a gynormous bankroll in Chicago, and another with ridiculous depth in appetizing-if-not-super prospects in St. Louis. Both of those teams look to improve themselves relatively painlessly. Can the Reds? If not, I don’t see them with much chance of contending.
Baseball America just released their updated Top 100 prospect list this morning and the Reds fared better than the Cardinals:
Reds in the top 100:
Nick Senzel – # 10
Taylor Trammel – # 33
Jonathan India – # 51
Hunter Greene – # 57
Tony Santillan – # 69
Cardinals in the top 100:
Alex Reyes – # 19
Tyler O’Neill – # 36 (Pretty much the only group who still lists him as a “prospect”.
Dakota Hudson – # 74
Nolan Gorman – # 75
Elehuris Montero – # 81
So, the Reds and Cardinals both have 5 in the top 100. However, all 5 Reds prospects rank higher than all but 2 of the Cardinals’ five and one of the Cardinals ranked higher is considered by most rankings to be “graduated” and no longer a “prospect”.
Then there’s the Baseball Prospectus Top 101 that was also released today:
Reds:
Nick Senzel – # 9
Taylor Trammel – # 11
Jonathan India – # 35
Hunter Greene – # 76
Cardinals:
Alex Reyes – # 21
Nolan Gorman – # 34
Also, every single minor league system ranking I can find dating back to last spring has the Reds system ranked much higher than the Cardinals.
Basically, I’m just not sure how you’re coming to these conclusions:
Reds – “but nothing I have heard about it suggests that it’s just brimming with appetizing trade bait”
Cardinals – “ridiculous depth in appetizing-if-not-super prospects in St. Louis.”
Good!
Baseball teams are entertainment entities and shouldn’t just be profit maximizers.
“Baseball teams are entertainment entities and shouldn’t just be profit maximizers.”
Baseball is a sports entertainment business, but it still a business. Teams have investors, partners, and stockholders (I am such a stockholder). The officers of the team have a fiduciary duty to the investors, partners, and stockholders, and can be punished for non-performance. The takeaway from this is that teams will try to ensure that they make both a short term and a long term profit. As to profit *maximization*, it’s something that essentially every efficient for-profit non-baseball business does, because otherwise a more efficient business will move in and displace you from your market. But baseball has no such worries and has historically tended not to try to maximize profits, with exceptions like Loria’s (and now Jeter’s) Marlins…and we all know how much hatred and resentment they have generated for trying to do so.
TL;DR: Baseball teams need to be making both a short and a long-term profit, but profit maximizing is frowned upon.
Go Reds! When the numbers were low I took the overs on both the Reds and the Braves.
They have a good collection of guys that can hit 20-30 home runs. If the pitchers can keep the ball in the park, I see no reason they could not be dangerous with Votto finally getting better hitters around him. If they fail, they have some good chips at the deadline to re-load.
I admit that the Reds have done a great job improving their team, and they’d be legitimate contenders in at least 3 other divisions (NL West, AL Central, and AL West), but because they play in what is now arguably the toughest division in MLB, I don’t think they’re going to finish any higher than 4th place ahead of just the Pirates. The other 3 teams are still quite a bit better, in my opinion.
However, unlike the D-Backs and Mariners, at least they’re really trying to compete while they have a pretty good core to build around, which will give them a non-negligible chance, and a chance is all they need to possibly be a surprise team and actually snag a 2019 playoff spot.