PDA

View Full Version : 2006 Predictions



reds44
10-01-2006, 04:43 PM
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44503

We didn't quite reach my expectations of 96 wins.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Many people predicted 80-82, including OBM.

vaticanplum
10-01-2006, 04:49 PM
:laugh:


If the Reds can hit 83 or 84 I think they will place third in the division. Seriously. That is how weak I think the NL Central will be this year.

I was kind of right. Except that 83 wins WON THE DIVISION.

Looking at the predictions in the 60s range makes me feel a little better.

OnBaseMachine
10-01-2006, 05:20 PM
Go me!

I wish I would have been wrong and the Reds won about five more games.

RedsBaron
10-01-2006, 09:12 PM
I was surprised to see I predicted an 82-80 record. That's probably the closest I've ever come to being right.;)

FlyingPig
10-01-2006, 10:12 PM
A LOT of people predicted a LOT of less wins than they actually achieved..

So many experts on here.. :rolleyes:

Can we be a little more POSITIVE next year, ya'll?

cincinnati chili
10-02-2006, 12:19 AM
A LOT of people predicted a LOT of less wins than they actually achieved..

So many experts on here.. :rolleyes:

Can we be a little more POSITIVE next year, ya'll?

I strive for reality in my predictions, not optimism.

M2
10-02-2006, 02:26 AM
I strive for reality in my predictions, not optimism.

Bingo. The team pythag worked out to 75-87 (or 76-86 dependent on how you slice it). Since many of us use the run differential as a guidepost in making these predictions, that's the number we'll be looking at in assessing the quality of the team.

SteelSD
10-02-2006, 02:41 AM
Bingo. The team pythag worked out to 75-87 (or 76-86 dependent on how you slice it). Since many of us use the run differential as a guidepost in making these predictions, that's the number we'll be looking at in assessing the quality of the team.

Yep. Coming into the season, the Reds projected a 78-84 Pythag record. They finished at 80-82.

If the Reds perform in 2007 as they have during the second half of 2006, they project a 72-90 record.

The team actually took a step backwards in 2006. Oh joy.

M2
10-02-2006, 02:51 AM
The team actually took a step backwards in 2006. Oh joy.

I'd argue it took three big non-linear steps forward though. Adding Arroyo to Harang changed the starting pitching equation. After years of finishing at or near the bottom of MLB in IP from starters, the Reds finished 3rd overall in 2006 (and it was Arroyo and Harang pulling that wagon).

And Brandon Phillips and Edwin Encarnacion showed themselves to be the kind of young IFs around whom you can build something.

The gap the team has to overcome may look a bit wider, but the crossing shouldn't be as onerous thanks to the arrival of those three guys. IMO, they've got easier problems to solve than they did a year ago.

oregonred
10-02-2006, 02:53 AM
I haven't looked recently, but weren't the 2006 Reds an amazing anamoly at NOT creating the runs they should have based on key offensive measures. They only got worse as the season went along. At one point in mid-Sept, i thought they were better then the Cards in 3rd order pythag?

By that measure aren't the Reds better than the 75-87 or 76-86. Weren't the 2006 RISP and RISP w/2 out metrics were so off the charts laughable that in no way could we expect 2007 to be anywhere as bad?? It was such an outlier that it seems outside any reasonable normal bell curve -- and 2005 was actually pretty good on those same measures.

Also factor in horrendous defense that allowed the Reds to yield a BAA 10 pts or so above league average (insert your own KGJ/Dunn/SS liability references here).

The 4.51 ERA with horrendous team defense, higher BAA and awful 1H bullpen give reason for hope. (and Bailey on the horizon)

oregonred
10-02-2006, 02:56 AM
I'd argue it took three big non-linear steps forward though. Adding Arroyo to Harang changed the starting pitching equation. After years of finishing at or near the bottom of MLB in IP from starters, the Reds finished 3rd overall in 2006 (and it was Arroyo and Harang pulling that wagon).

And Brandon Phillips and Edwin Encarnacion showed themselves to be the kind of young IFs around whom you can build something.

The gap the team has to overcome may look a bit wider, but the crossing shouldn't be as onerous thanks to the arrival of those three guys. IMO, they've got easier problems to solve than they did a year.

Amazingly M2, we are on the same wavelength. I love the pitching turnaround and having 2/5ths of an above average rotation in place (with #3 on the near horizon). Our recent posts almost crossed paths in timestamp :laugh:

oregonred
10-02-2006, 03:08 AM
Looks like based on 2nd order pyhtag the 2006 Reds created 41 fewer runs then expected (749 vs expected 790). Cards created 11 more than expected (778 vs. 767 expected)

The Reds led the NL in underachievement (Pads were 2nd at 29 under). Blue Jays take the MLB prize at 45 under (802 vs. 847 expected)

Check out how out of whack underachieving the Tribe was across the board and the A's overachieving by the same amount on 2nd and 3rd order. Run to Vegas if they post 78 for the over/under for Cleveland next year. Whoa!

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php

M2
10-02-2006, 11:14 AM
I haven't looked recently, but weren't the 2006 Reds an amazing anamoly at NOT creating the runs they should have based on key offensive measures. They only got worse as the season went along. At one point in mid-Sept, i thought they were better then the Cards in 3rd order pythag?

By that measure aren't the Reds better than the 75-87 or 76-86. Weren't the 2006 RISP and RISP w/2 out metrics were so off the charts laughable that in no way could we expect 2007 to be anywhere as bad?? It was such an outlier that it seems outside any reasonable normal bell curve -- and 2005 was actually pretty good on those same measures.

Also factor in horrendous defense that allowed the Reds to yield a BAA 10 pts or so above league average (insert your own KGJ/Dunn/SS liability references here).

The 4.51 ERA with horrendous team defense, higher BAA and awful 1H bullpen give reason for hope. (and Bailey on the horizon)

Good points, though it does beg the question of whether Jerry Narron can work with what's been given to him. I'll channel princeton here, I want the manager who can get his team to overperform, not the one who has it underperform.

westofyou
10-02-2006, 11:46 AM
A LOT of people predicted a LOT of less wins than they actually achieved..

So many experts on here.. :rolleyes:

Can we be a little more POSITIVE next year, ya'll?

Positivity is a state of mind created by comfort, requests for positivity based on anything else is a tool of those who don't care to ponder what can go wrong.

:rolleyes: back at cha

guttle11
10-02-2006, 12:06 PM
I predicted 81 wins.

I'm clearly the world's greatest prognosticator.

Johnny Footstool
10-02-2006, 12:12 PM
I'd argue it took three big non-linear steps forward though. Adding Arroyo to Harang changed the starting pitching equation. After years of finishing at or near the bottom of MLB in IP from starters, the Reds finished 3rd overall in 2006 (and it was Arroyo and Harang pulling that wagon).

And Brandon Phillips and Edwin Encarnacion showed themselves to be the kind of young IFs around whom you can build something.

The gap the team has to overcome may look a bit wider, but the crossing shouldn't be as onerous thanks to the arrival of those three guys. IMO, they've got easier problems to solve than they did a year ago.

The problems may be easier to solve, but the tools with which to solve them are very limited. The Reds have very little tradeable talent left. There are solutions available on the free agent market if Mr. Castellini opens the purse, but I don't know if he can offer enough cash and "winability" to make the Reds sexy enough to interest a real difference-maker like Barry Zito.

SteelSD
10-02-2006, 12:19 PM
Looks like based on 2nd order pyhtag the 2006 Reds created 41 fewer runs then expected (749 vs expected 790). Cards created 11 more than expected (778 vs. 767 expected)

The Reds led the NL in underachievement (Pads were 2nd at 29 under). Blue Jays take the MLB prize at 45 under (802 vs. 847 expected)

Check out how out of whack underachieving the Tribe was across the board and the A's overachieving by the same amount on 2nd and 3rd order. Run to Vegas if they post 78 for the over/under for Cleveland next year. Whoa!

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php

The 2nd order pythag (based on EQR) also shows that the Reds allowed 21 fewer Runs than Expected. The third order pythag (equalizing based on strength of schedule) indicates that the Reds scored 31 fewer Runs than expected but allowed 40 fewer Runs than expected.

Any way you slice it, that projects to between 76 and 78 pythag wins for 2006 and the overachievement by the pitching staff virtually washes any underachievement by the offense. Problem is, IIRC, the 2nd and 3rd-order offensive gap was almost entirely generated by the 2006 first half (I remember D-Man posting something about that). But the Reds aren't the same offensive unit so unless they find some boost for next season, it's not looking good- particularly if the pitching snaps back from 2006 overachievement.

guttle11
10-02-2006, 12:20 PM
Yep. Coming into the season, the Reds projected a 78-84 Pythag record. They finished at 80-82.

If the Reds perform in 2007 as they have during the second half of 2006, they project a 72-90 record.

The team actually took a step backwards in 2006. Oh joy.

If the Reds had just gone 8-8 in the 16 games they went 4-12 in, (West Coast trip and the 6 home games after) they win the Central. What would you be saying then?

Facts are facts, they increased their win total by 7 over last year. If that's not a step forward as an organization, I don't know what is.

M2
10-02-2006, 12:36 PM
Um what? Look up from that piece of paper once in a while.

If the Reds had just gone 8-8 in the 16 games they went 4-12 in, (West Coast trip and the 6 home games after) they win the Central. What would you be saying then?

Facts are facts, they increased their win total by 7 over last year. If that's not a step forward as an organization, I don't know what is.

Facts are facts, you don't really seem to know what the facts are though.

flyer85
10-02-2006, 01:39 PM
Reds motto for 2007

"Where going to bank on good fortune and more career seasons".

BRM
10-02-2006, 01:43 PM
Reds motto for 2007

"Where goint to bank on good fortune and more career seasons".

You mean Hat's career year isn't a new level of performance that can be counted on in the future? I was hoping he would go all Barry Bonds for the Reds.

Johnny Footstool
10-02-2006, 03:15 PM
Um what? Look up from that piece of paper once in a while.

If the Reds had just gone 8-8 in the 16 games they went 4-12 in, (West Coast trip and the 6 home games after) they win the Central. What would you be saying then?

Facts are facts, they increased their win total by 7 over last year. If that's not a step forward as an organization, I don't know what is.

Reminds me of that commercial with monkeys in business suits dancing in the board room because sales are up. Some poor schmo walks in and points out that the sales chart is facing the wrong way and sales are actually way, way down, but the monkeys shake their heads and keep dancing.

SteelSD
10-02-2006, 06:38 PM
Um what? Look up from that piece of paper once in a while.

If the Reds had just gone 8-8 in the 16 games they went 4-12 in, (West Coast trip and the 6 home games after) they win the Central. What would you be saying then?

Facts are facts, they increased their win total by 7 over last year. If that's not a step forward as an organization, I don't know what is.

Sigh.

The Cincinnati Reds projected 78 Wins entering the season. The Run Diff at the ASB still had them projecting 78 Wins. A tale of two halves:

2006 pre-ASB: -15 Run Differential
2006 post-ASB: -37 Run Differential

Make no mistake- after the ASB, the Reds were outscored per game at a level three times that of their pre-ASB performance. Barring dramatic positive Run Diff change in the offseason, that -37 Run Diff projects out at -83 Runs over a full season. To put that in context for you, the 2005 squad finished with a -69 Run Differential and projected 75 Wins (versus a 73 actual).

A minus-83 Run Diff projects a 72-90 record over a full season. Team begins a season projecting 78 Wins, maintains that projection through the All Star break, and ends the season with a team that projects 72 Wins based on their current composition. And that's a step forward exactly how?

Answer: It's not. You've misinterpreted Pythag luck as being something real. The team now has to find at least 60 Runs to get back to how it projected at the beginning of 2006 or it projects a worse record than it did coming into 2005 for gosh sakes. That's a huge step in the wrong direction.

flyer85
10-02-2006, 10:22 PM
The team now has to find at least 60 Runs to get back to how it projected at the beginning of 2006 or it projects a worse record than it did coming into 2005 for gosh sakes. That's a huge step in the wrong direction.and all that while getting a multitude of career seasons. The Reds had better pray that it was a lot of new levels of performance.

guttle11
10-02-2006, 11:05 PM
Facts are facts, you don't really seem to know what the facts are though.


What?

All I posted were facts. All you guys have posted were projections and claimed "luck" when they bettered them. Even the glorius Pythag isn't an exact science.

There's no luck involved. They played better this year than last. They won more games. Saying the NL was down this year is a valid arguement, but not "luck."

So yes, facts are facts, and projections are not facts.

Pot.Kettle.Something.

Kc61
10-03-2006, 12:12 AM
What?

All I posted were facts. All you guys have posted were projections and claimed "luck" when they bettered them. Even the glorius Pythag isn't an exact science.

There's no luck involved. They played better this year than last. They won more games. Saying the NL was down this year is a valid arguement, but not "luck."

So yes, facts are facts, and projections are not facts.

Pot.Kettle.Something.

I think the Reds have a lot of work to do in the off-season. To me, this team's reasonably good performance this year was very heavily the result of Arroyo and Harang pitching 475 innings at a combined 3.50 ERA. The offense was down overall. The rest of the pitchers were probably not much better than the poor 2005 (haven't done the math). The defense was perhaps slightly better than the poor 2005.

Like everyone else, I was delighted that the team did so well. But there's no way they can go into next season without additional bats and continuing to improve the pitching. I think some shopping is in order.

guttle11
10-03-2006, 12:57 AM
I think the Reds have a lot of work to do in the off-season. To me, this team's reasonably good performance this year was very heavily the result of Arroyo and Harang pitching 475 innings at a combined 3.50 ERA. The offense was down overall. The rest of the pitchers were probably not much better than the poor 2005 (haven't done the math). The defense was perhaps slightly better than the poor 2005.

Like everyone else, I was delighted that the team did so well. But there's no way they can go into next season without additional bats and continuing to improve the pitching. I think some shopping is in order.

THe funny this is, I agree with everything you said. They do need work to reach the next level. Job #1 is a new manager.

But anyone who says this team didn't improve this year is wrong.People can say they need to add this or that, and they may be right. Keyword: May. That's debateable.

What's not debatable is the increase in wins. "Lucky" or not.

919191
10-03-2006, 01:44 AM
Looks like Redsfan30, OBM, NCReds,Sabo4life, and BuckeyeRedleg all calledit right. FCB, EddRoush, amd Membengal were close at 81-81.

I thought the Reds would go about 83-79, but finish fourth.

oregonred
10-03-2006, 02:15 AM
Sigh.

The Cincinnati Reds projected 78 Wins entering the season. The Run Diff at the ASB still had them projecting 78 Wins. A tale of two halves:

2006 pre-ASB: -15 Run Differential
2006 post-ASB: -37 Run Differential

Make no mistake- after the ASB, the Reds were outscored per game at a level three times that of their pre-ASB performance. Barring dramatic positive Run Diff change in the offseason, that -37 Run Diff projects out at -83 Runs over a full season. To put that in context for you, the 2005 squad finished with a -69 Run Differential and projected 75 Wins (versus a 73 actual).

A minus-83 Run Diff projects a 72-90 record over a full season. Team begins a season projecting 78 Wins, maintains that projection through the All Star break, and ends the season with a team that projects 72 Wins based on their current composition. And that's a step forward exactly how?

Answer: It's not. You've misinterpreted Pythag luck as being something real. The team now has to find at least 60 Runs to get back to how it projected at the beginning of 2006 or it projects a worse record than it did coming into 2005 for gosh sakes. That's a huge step in the wrong direction.

All good points. The Reds were outscored by 43 runs over the last 34 games of the season. September was so off the charts bad for the entire team outside 1-2 players that I'm not sure what to take away.

At the AS Break the Reds run differential was -15

39 games later on August 24th the Reds Run Differential had narrowed to -9

Over the final 34 games later they ended with an awful -52 differential. The reds averaged 3.1 runs per game (while allowing a respectable 4.4 per game)

September, while a major cause for concern of the offense, was basically a worst case nightmare scenario based on the organizational assets on hand. That helps put the -83 Run diff projection into some more hopeful context.

I'd rather be working from a 4.51 team ERA and two solid rotation anchors. This despite a defense with serious construction flaws allowing opponents BAA to be 10 pts higher than league average. The bullpen will almost certainly be better next season.

pedro
10-03-2006, 02:38 AM
THe funny this is, I agree with everything you said. They do need work to reach the next level. Job #1 is a new manager.

But anyone who says this team didn't improve this year is wrong.People can say they need to add this or that, and they may be right. Keyword: May. That's debateable.

What's not debatable is the increase in wins. "Lucky" or not.

I'm no fan of Narron but "job #1" for this team IMO is getting two new major league quality starting pitchers.

SteelSD
10-03-2006, 11:58 AM
But anyone who says this team didn't improve this year is wrong.

Type it as much as you like, but that doesn't make it any more true- particularly sans evidence.

Teams are driven by their Run Differentials. Always have been. Always will be. Is there a +/- factor associated with Pythag projections? Sure. Always has been. Always will be. Randomness does play a factor. Always has. Always will.

Did the team win more games in 2006. Yep. Absolutely. Does the team project to win as many or more games in 2007 as currently composed? Nope.

The current version of the team, if unchanged, simply does not project as well in 2007 as the version of the team the Reds took north from Spring Training in 2006. That happens when you manage to lose Run value over the course of a season. And they did lose Runs- to the point at which they'll have to claw back just to reach where they are.

That's why projections are so important. It allows us to understand what a team really needs. You're talking about a "next" level of performance when the Reds don't even project their current level of performance unless dramatic changes are made. They took one step forward and two steps back in 2006 from a Run Differential perspective. No doubt about it- that's a Bad Thing.

M2
10-03-2006, 12:15 PM
All I posted were facts. All you guys have posted were projections and claimed "luck" when they bettered them. Even the glorius Pythag isn't an exact science.

You're really fuzzy on what constitutes a fact.

The Reds finished 80-82. Fact.

The Reds were outscored 801-749. Fact.

The Reds were out-OPSed .794-.768. Fact.

The Reds run differential went south in the latter half of the year after the big trade with the Nats. Fact.

The Reds offense scored fewer runs than it theoretically should have. Fact.

The Reds pitching allowed fewer runs than it theoretically should have. Fact.

What you're doing is pretending only one of the above facts exists. What others have been doing is looking at all the facts (or at least the ones that have been presented so far) in an effort to determine whether the 80-82 is reflective of the teams actual quality. Judging by the available facts, it isn't and the fact of the matter is the Reds had better take that information seriously or the team is risking a tumble in 2007.

flyer85
10-03-2006, 12:30 PM
You also have to assess how you got where you are.

Who underperformed? Who overperformed? What level of performance should be expected in 2007 from each individual?

This team has serious issues to address even though they went 80-82. I remember a few years back when a not good Royal team under Pena managed a plus .500 record and everyone bought in the notion that substantial progress was made when it turned out to be nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Hopefully the front office will look a realistic look at where this team is and what it needs to do to move forward. I honestly have very little confidence that this will be done correctly because of the type of players(Cormier, Valentin, Castro, Hatteberg) the GM has chosen to lock up for next season as the the year wound down.

Puffy
10-03-2006, 12:33 PM
I honestly have very little confidence that this will be done correctly because of the type of players(Cormier, Valentin, Castro, Hatteberg) the GM has chosen to lock up for next season as the the year wound down.

word.

guttle11
10-03-2006, 12:46 PM
Type it as much as you like, but that doesn't make it any more true- particularly sans evidence.

Teams are driven by their Run Differentials. Always have been. Always will be. Is there a +/- factor associated with Pythag projections? Sure. Always has been. Always will be. Randomness does play a factor. Always has. Always will.

Did the team win more games in 2006. Yep. Absolutely. Does the team project to win as many or more games in 2007 as currently composed? Nope.

The current version of the team, if unchanged, simply does not project as well in 2007 as the version of the team the Reds took north from Spring Training in 2006. That happens when you manage to lose Run value over the course of a season. And they did lose Runs- to the point at which they'll have to claw back just to reach where they are.

That's why projections are so important. It allows us to understand what a team really needs. You're talking about a "next" level of performance when the Reds don't even project their current level of performance unless dramatic changes are made. They took one step forward and two steps back in 2006 from a Run Differential perspective. No doubt about it- that's a Bad Thing.

I absolutely understand every word that you've posted, and I agree that pieces to need to be added.

They acquired Bronson Arroyo who, given the dropoff from AL/NL, pitched about how he should have pitched. Aaron Harang has progressed into his potential. They got Phillips, perhaps the long term answer at short. Edwin has progressed pretty much according to plan, and they got an OB machine in Hatteberg.

From 2005 to 2006, the Reds got better. Saying they still need more is a given, that's not a point I'm arguing.

Projections, even those based off of facts, are just that, projections. They are not concrete.

flyer85
10-03-2006, 12:51 PM
Projections, even those based off of facts, are just that, projections. They are not concrete.and those 2006 Reds just to get to 80 wins got a much higher level of performance than expected from numerous players.

Is that likely to continue? We don't know but I would think that in moving forward you would want to err on the conservative side in determining what are realistic expectations for those players who overperformed expectations in 2006.

lollipopcurve
10-03-2006, 12:51 PM
How about budget projections?

Take the April 2006 Reds vs the September 2006 Reds. Which has better budget flexibility, and is the difference significant?

flyer85
10-03-2006, 12:54 PM
How about budget projections?

Take the April 2006 Reds vs the September 2006 Reds. Which has better budget flexibility, and is the difference significant?Hard to say until you see what the market is actually like. Nobody expected the post 2004 starting pitching market to explode like it did allowing a batch of marginal to bad pitchers to get paid a lot of money. My expectation is that the Reds will be bottom feeding once again.

M2
10-03-2006, 01:35 PM
How about budget projections?

Take the April 2006 Reds vs the September 2006 Reds. Which has better budget flexibility, and is the difference significant?

I'd say there's some phantom flexibility in there. For instance, while the team may not be spending money on Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez, it still needs a productive middle infielder and an outfielder with a decent toolbox to go with a solid stick. Deno might be able to pick up most of the OF slack, but the there isn't anyone in the pipeline to fill the IF role. Perhaps Krivsky can come up with another Brandon Phillips, but more likely he's going to have to spend some money to fill that SS/2B role.

It's a classic PayFlex scam. Maybe the Reds have a little money to spend (though not a lot, particularly if they pick up Kyle Lohse's option). What they don't have is a lot of talent. They'd pretty much need to spend the money they saved in order to get back to where they were in terms of position player stength.

Dropping Paul Wilson's contract and what they were still paying to Sean Casey will help a bit, but a lot of that will go into Aaron Harang's pocket.

If the club really wants to free up money to play in the free agent and trade markets, then I suggest it look to move Ken Griffey Jr. or Eric Milton. Along with Jason LaRue, those are the two guys most underperforming their contracts at the moment. The difference between them and LaRue is you can buy some prime talent for what Jr. and Milton make. I tend to think there's something to keeping a guy in a contract year, which creates an argument for possibly keeping Milton and LaRue around (plus I think you have to look at 2006 as a fairly large anomaly for LaRue). IMO, that makes Jr. the prime target to move if the team is looking to free up some dollars (though I've been saying THAT since the end of the 2002 season).

oneupper
10-03-2006, 06:29 PM
This is a very entertaining thread. I agree with a lot of what M2, Steel and Guttie stated.

There is obviously a problem of causality which seems to be the main "cause" of debate.

And the question is:

The offensive dropoff after the ASB was due to:
a) "The Trade"
b) Reversion to mean by key 1st half performers
c) Lack of performance for key offensive players.
d) All of the above

I'll take the diplomatic answer d)

a) Kearns and Lopez's ABs were taken by players with lesser offensive talents (Clayton, Freel, Castro)..but also a bit by Aurilia. I'm sure someone will quantify this better than I can, but I'm also certain that this fact alone cannot account for the massive fall in team OPS (.793 to .737).
b) Phillips, Hatteberg, Ross and Freel were almost all-stars in the first half. They second half proved they simply aren't that good.
c) Dunn and Griffey were huge letdowns in the second half and for the year as a whole. Griffey is getting on in years, but this wasn't expected (or projected) of Dunn.

Quick conclusion: the REDS offensively were probably not as good as their record showed in the first half nor as bad as it was in the second.
So, IMO it wouldn't be fair to project the team for 2007 based on either of those periods alone.

Since Run Differentials are mentioned and I believe Steel when he says they are very important, I looked them up since the team moved to GABP

2003: 694 RS 886 RA Diff: -192
2004: 750 RS 907 RA Diff: -157
2005: 820 RS 889 RA Diff: -69
2006: 749 RS 801 RA Diff: -52

Those are facts. There is improvement every year, even though the balance still isn't good enough to even think about winning anything.
Giving up 88 fewer runs in 2006 should be seen as an achievement and frankly with the makeup of the offense (Casey and WMP gone and Dunn, Griffey and Lopez regressing), scoring as many as in 2005 was probably never in the cards without numerous career years (which didn't materialize).

Second half freefall notwithstanding, 2006 was about as good as we could have hoped for.

Is the team better set for 2007? I don't know, probably not and would probably be a mistake for Krivsky to try and make moves looking to win next year. Hopefully that's why is he bringing back veterans to fill in gaps until we have nice core in place.

2008 or 2009 I'm hopeful.

SteelSD
10-03-2006, 07:34 PM
I absolutely understand every word that you've posted, and I agree that pieces to need to be added.

They acquired Bronson Arroyo who, given the dropoff from AL/NL, pitched about how he should have pitched. Aaron Harang has progressed into his potential. They got Phillips, perhaps the long term answer at short. Edwin has progressed pretty much according to plan, and they got an OB machine in Hatteberg.

From 2005 to 2006, the Reds got better. Saying they still need more is a given, that's not a point I'm arguing.

Projections, even those based off of facts, are just that, projections. They are not concrete.

From 2005 to the beginning of 2006 the team projected to get better. Three games better in my estimation versus their 2005 Pythag (75-87). It's why I projected their record at 78-84 coming into the season.

Fast forward to October 1st, 2006. The team roster at that point in time wasn't the same any more. Teams don't just change in the offseason. They change during the season as well and the final versions often don't project into the next year as they performed over the whole of a given season.

From 2005 to 2006, the Reds did indeed get better. However, from 2005 through the end of 2006, the team did not because the Run Differential, while improved over the offseason, was damaged during the season. The end result is a current version of a team that doesn't project as well as it did heading into the season.

And I don't particularly care that projections aren't "concrete". It doesn't at all matter because what we should be interested in is what's most likely to happen. The error in your position is, in my estimation, that you see 80 Wins as a "jumping off" point to get to some "next level". Problem is that the 2006 Win total only indicates advancement if the team projects to reach or exceed that win total next year based on how the team is currently composed. Instead, the team actually projects to take a major step backwards unless some dramatic unlikely and/or unexpected events occur in 2007.

We can only cite progress to the point at which continual advancement ceases. The Reds advanced between 2005 and 2006 but at some point during 2006, that advancement turned into regression to get the Reds to where they are right now. Unfortunately, the regression pushed the Reds back beyond the point at which they began the 2006 season. The team the Reds have now is simply not indicative of continual advancement. Not anymore. Not for some time. And it's because the product was actually damaged during the 2006 season.

Falls City Beer
10-03-2006, 07:38 PM
The team the Reds have now is simply not indicative of continual advancement. Not anymore. Not for some time. And it's because the product was actually damaged during the 2006 season.

This point can't be overemphasized.

paintmered
10-03-2006, 09:40 PM
If the front office reads one thread this offseason, it needs to be this one. Great analysis, folks.

Caveat Emperor
10-03-2006, 10:07 PM
The team the Reds have now is simply not indicative of continual advancement.

They went from having 1 real pitcher and 4 guys that make me vomit in 2005 to having 2 pitchers and only 3 guys that make me vomit in 2006. A good free agent signing or two in the offseason, and suddenly I might only find myself running to the trash can once or twice per week.

Call me a glass-is-half-full guy, but I see marginal amounts of progress on that front, at least.

The key, as I see it, is what kind of self-assessment this team does in the offseason. Castellini and/or Krivsky needs to have a come-to-jesus meeting with everyone in the front office where they see what went right in 06, what went wrong, and what the likelihood of everything happening again in 07 is. Looking objectively, they have to notice some major potholes in the road ahead and the fact that they led a charmed life, as a team, in 2006. So far, I don't like what I'm seeing but the dollars they've thrown out to guys like Hatteberg who aren't likely to replicate their production do not add up to anything significant.

I think we'll have a better sense of the direction of the club in the weeks leading up to the winter meetings. Then we'll see if the team is content to play Pythag Poker and go all-in on a bad hand or try to improve their position and get players that put them in a better position to compete leigtimately next year.