keyboard_arrow_uptop

Even after losing their last two games to the Florida Marlins, the Cincinnati
Reds still have the best record in the National League, now tied with those
same Marlins. They hold a half-game lead over the Astros in an NL Central that
is separated by just 4.5 games from top to bottom.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve been here before. The six teams in
the Central have been playing this game almost since realignment. For example,
a year ago today, the top four teams were just 3.5 games apart, with the whole
division showing just a nine-game spread. It took until the second week of
June, when the Reds and Brewers started collapsing, for the division to
separate. On May 27, 2001, the top four teams in the division were within four
games of each other.

The NL Central just hasn’t had exceptional teams, so the early part of the
season has often been spent beating up each other, and getting beat up by
whichever of the East or West is up in a particular year.

The Reds are, for the moment, the primary beneficiary of the parity. They make
for a nice story, but they’ve been outscored by their opponents so far, which
is just the first indication that a fall is on the way. Put blithely, if you
want to know how a team has done, look at their record. But if you want to know
how they’re going to do, check their run differential.


     By Record                     By Run Differential
Reds           27-20    --           Astros      +61
Astros         26-20    .5           Cubs        +38
Cubs           25-20   1.0           Cardinals   +17
Brewers        24-21   2.0           Brewers      -1
Cardinals      24-22   2.5           Reds         -3
Pirates        20-22   4.5           Pirates      -3

Which of those looks more like the National League Central to you? I’ll wager
Will Carroll’s hair-care budget that the division standings look a lot more
like column B come football season.

I don’t mean to be so dismissive. After all, I thought the Reds had the talent
to win
the division a year ago
, and this is basically the same roster that was
supposed to play last year. Injuries decimated the 2003 version, while the
2004 team has been better just by managing to avoid placing an entire starting
lineup on the DL. All things considered, though, it’s a .500 roster, with good
offensive core and a rotation of six-inning guys who will keep you in four
games out of five.

The Reds’ run differential reflects that. In fact, when you look at their
performance record beyond the standings, you see that this has been a .500
team.

For example, the Reds have scored 218 runs, good for sixth in the National
League. As a team, though, they’re hitting an unimpressive .244/.339/.399,
totalling a 738 OPS that’s 11th in the NL. Their team EqA of .255 is 13th in
the league. According to Clay Davenport’s projections, the Reds have scored
10 more runs than you would predict from their offensive events; only the
Padres, at +12, have done better in the senior circuit. The Reds have been a
better with runners on base than with the bases empty, but that difference is
almost entirely due to their performance with a runner on first base only. In
other words, the overperformance doesn’t appear to be due to something
sustainable. (I even looked for Productive Outs, but was unable to find them
at ESPN.com. Strange.)

The Reds have basically relied on three guys all year, as only Sean
Casey
, Adam Dunn and Ken Griffey
Jr.
have been above average with the stick. Austin
Kearns
hasn’t been able to get on track following last summer’s
shoulder surgery, while D’Angelo Jimenez has been a big
disappointment atop the lineup. When Casey stops hitting in the high .300s,
the Reds are going to have real problems sustaining an offense.

The pitching staff has provided the same caliber of performance, with a
different shape. While the Reds’ offense is two guys having big years, a
couple of other contributors, and a Caltrans crew, the pitching staff has
nearly no one who’s been worth more than a win. Paul Wilson
has been their best hurler, but his 7-0 record has more to do with his run
support-6.12 R/G, 13th in the NL-than his run prevention. Their rotation has
been slightly below average in the aggregate, which is misleading; with
Jimmy Haynes‘ contract no longer going to the mound every
fifth day, the Reds now sport an above-average rotation, and that might get
better still with the addition of Matt Belisle and
Brandon Claussen by midsummer. It’s not a sexy staff, as only
Jose Acevedo has impressive peripherals or a real chance to
be more than an innings guy. It is enough to keep a team in a race provided a
good offense and a deep bullpen.

Unfortunately, the Reds’ pen is a lot like their lineup. John
Riedling
has been lights-out all season, and everyone else-even
global saves leader Danny Graves–has been cashing their
checks. Ryan Wagner, who I thought was going to be a great
story this year, has been the second-worst reliever in the game. Collectively,
this bullpen ranks 29th in MLB, saved from the cellar only by the Cleveland
Indians’ pursuit of history (-50.9 runs, per Michael Wolverton. In less than
two months? What the heck is that?). I can see a path to
improvement–Mike Matthews gets a bigger role as spot lefty,
Wagner starts missing bats, someone like Jung Bong comes up
and bridges the gap from the rotation to Riedling–but right now, the Reds’ pen
isn’t an asset.

You have to understand: I want to believe that the Reds can keep this up. They
were my uncle’s favorite team, for one, and while the city’s blind spot for
Pete Rose is a mark against it, it is a great baseball town, one that will
fill the park if given any reason to do so.

I just can’t see it happening. Their record doesn’t reflect their talent or
their work in scoring and preventing runs, and there’s nothing hidden in the
data that indicates that however they’re doing it is sustainable. They have a
bizarre split by differential–7-7 in one-run games, 10-1 in two-run games,
7-3 in three-run games, that both explains how they got to 27-20 and provides
no information on how they can keep it up.

Like the 2003 Royals, the Reds can probably hang around the fringe of a race
thanks to their early-season over-performance. However, they’re not contenders
in any real sense of the term.