PDA

View Full Version : Can the Reds improve next year without improving?



harangatang
10-14-2006, 01:56 AM
As the Reds look to next year coming off a season record of 80-82, there's a slight problem. The Reds scored 749 runs while allowing 801 runs which comes to a pythagorean record of 76-86. With all the hub bub of Castellini having his first offseason it may not result in great results. With the offense clearly being deflated after the Kearns/Lopez trade and the evident lack of pitching, next year could be a let down for many fans. Even if the Reds get a decent starting pitcher and a closer it may not put us much above .500, if at all. The unrealistic record this year has brought hope because the Reds clearly got lucky, not to mention playing in an incredibly weak NL. So as everyone debates who the Reds should trade for or sign this year, my question is, will whoever we end up with make that much of a difference? Can this player or players make a difference so the final run differential improves the Reds to put them at .500? It's realistic to think thatthe Reds could even improve without impriving, die to the runs allowed vs. runs scored. I think of course it would improve the Reds but I don't think it'll be as much as most fans expect.

Falls City Beer
10-14-2006, 01:58 AM
You're right. I think the Reds are in for a Brewers 2006 kind of "letdown." I think they'll be worse than this year record-wise.

Topcat
10-14-2006, 03:13 AM
What about Key Injuries to players on other teams ? What about winds blowing out or in on given Days? What about the light going on in a certain players head ala David Ross in this previous year. I love the what ifs about baseball, to quote Joaquin Andujuar ("ja neva know"

mth123
10-14-2006, 08:52 AM
Best hope for improvement is Bailey providing good starts down the stretch and Votto providing a productive bat at 1st. If those two holes aren't filled from within, and limited talent and cash resources need to be allocated to them, they can't acquire enough to fill the other needs.

BCubb2003
10-14-2006, 11:56 AM
It's early yet.

Falls City Beer
10-14-2006, 02:09 PM
It's early yet.

Not really. We at least know that the team--as is-- is awful. Moving up from "awful" is incredibly difficult, particularly in one offseason.

OnBaseMachine
10-14-2006, 02:13 PM
Not really. We at least know that the team--as is-- is awful. Moving up from "awful" is incredibly difficult, particularly in one offseason.

Interesting.

You say the Reds are an awful team, however, the Cardinals, who finished only 3.5 games ahead of the Reds, are a great team according to you. Very, very interesting.

Falls City Beer
10-14-2006, 02:14 PM
Interesting.

You say the Reds are an awful team, however, the Cardinals, who finished only 3.5 games ahead of the Reds, are a great team according to you. Very, very interesting.

Pythagorean.

And as you know, the team only got worse in July.

While the Cards have steadily improved since removing their broken part, Izzy, and gettin their players healthy.

OnBaseMachine
10-14-2006, 02:20 PM
Pythagorean

The Reds went 9-6 against the Cardinals in 2006.

The Cardinals Pythagorean was nothing special. +19 in the horrible NL Central is nothing to brag about.

Falls City Beer
10-14-2006, 02:25 PM
The Reds went 9-6 against the Cardinals in 2006.

The Cardinals Pythagorean was nothing special. +19 in the horrible NL Central is nothing to brag about.

But the Cards were hit by serious injuries to important parts of their club: Pujols, Edmonds, Izzy.

The Reds played full-bore healthy and over their heads.

Play this season with both teams perfectly healthy and the records would likely be:

Reds 75 wins

Cards 89 wins.

And I think you know "record against" doesn't mean all that much, as the weaker Brewers have routinely handed the Reds their asses in years past.

OnBaseMachine
10-14-2006, 02:27 PM
Pythagorean.

And as you know, the team only got worse in July.


Who, the Reds or Cardinals?

The Cardinals had a losing record in the second half.

OnBaseMachine
10-14-2006, 02:30 PM
But the Cards were hit by serious injuries to important parts of their club: Pujols, Edmonds, Izzy.

The Reds played full-bore healthy and over their heads.

Play this season with both teams perfectly healthy and the records would likely be:

Reds 75 wins

Cards 89 wins.

And I think you know "record against" doesn't mean all that much, as the weaker Brewers have routinely handed the Reds their asses in years past.

The Reds were fully healthy? Don't make up things to make your Cardinals look better.

Griffey was on the DL twice, Encarnacion missed a month, Ross was on the DL for a while. Guardado, who really improved the bullpen, missed the final month or so. Please, the Cardinals are an awful team. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Wait. Didn't you make a comment last night that losing Izzy basically helped the Cards? Now you are saying his injury was an important blow to the Cards?

OnBaseMachine
10-14-2006, 02:33 PM
Which hat do you prefer FCB?

http://www.starstruck.com/Images/gallery/Product/SSProductImgs/P0000212.jpghttp://www.buildabear.com/ProductImages/BABW_US/Medium/5478M.jpghttp://www.fanzz.com/ProductImages/37186.jpg

Falls City Beer
10-14-2006, 02:42 PM
They're not the best incarnation of the Cards, but their timing just happens to be right. What's the big deal in pointing it out? Would you rather underestimate them for next year and just assume they're an 83 win team all over again in 2007? Or would you rather look at them objectively and see how much improved their bullpen is and how well they play when their players are healthy?

Sure the Cards need help in their rotation, but every team in the National League does, the Reds being one of the direst situations--I'm not sure there's a team in the major leagues who sees a dropoff as bad as the Reds' after the #2 spot in the rotation; it's like an express elevator to hell after Harang.

The Cards have Carpenter, Reyes, who should be average at least, and Suppan, who is average. But you can live with that when you have a bullpen as strong as the Cards'.

Falls City Beer
10-14-2006, 02:43 PM
The Reds were fully healthy? Don't make up things to make your Cardinals look better.

Griffey was on the DL twice, Encarnacion missed a month, Ross was on the DL for a while. Guardado, who really improved the bullpen, missed the final month or so. Please, the Cardinals are an awful team. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Wait. Didn't you make a comment last night that losing Izzy basically helped the Cards? Now you are saying his injury was an important blow to the Cards?

The only sure-handed producer the Reds genuinely "missed" in terms of offensive and defensive production was Encarnacion, I'll give you that.

Whatever offense we lost from Griff being on the DL, we made it right back by playing Freel and Denorfia in center.

OnBaseMachine
10-14-2006, 02:48 PM
The only sure-handed producer the Reds genuinely "missed" in terms of offensive and defensive production was Encarnacion, I'll give you that.

Whatever offense we lost from Griff being on the DL, we made it right back by playing Freel and Denorfia in center.

Losing a catcher with a .932 OPS didn't hurt? Ok. The Cards losing Edmonds and Rolen didn't hurt either then.

Falls City Beer
10-14-2006, 02:50 PM
Losing a catcher with a .932 OPS didn't hurt? Ok. The Cards losing Edmonds and Rolen didn't hurt either then.

The Reds lost him for 15 days, and he's not even an everyday player.

Did the Cards lose Mulder? Imagine for one second if the Reds had lost Harang for the season.

guttle11
10-14-2006, 02:52 PM
The Reds were decent this year in every sense of the word. They can imporve with the roster staying exactly the same. A couple of defensive tweaks, Edwin playing all year, Claussen and/or Lizard staying healthy, and better use of the lineup/bullpen and they should win at least 5 more games than this year.

OnBaseMachine
10-14-2006, 02:52 PM
They're not the best incarnation of the Cards, but their timing just happens to be right. What's the big deal in pointing it out? Would you rather underestimate them for next year and just assume they're an 83 win team all over again in 2007? Or would you rather look at them objectively and see how much improved their bullpen is and how well they play when their players are healthy?

Sure the Cards need help in their rotation, but every team in the National League does, the Reds being one of the direst situations--I'm not sure there's a team in the major leagues who sees a dropoff as bad as the Reds' after the #2 spot in the rotation; it's like an express elevator to hell after Harang.

The Cards have Carpenter, Reyes, who should be average at least, and Suppan, who is average. But you can live with that when you have a bullpen as strong as the Cards'.

1) The Cardinals had a losing record in the second half, and went just 3-7 in their final 10 games. They hardly improved as you said.

2.) The Reds rotation is better than the Cardinals. The Cards had Carpneter and that's about it. The Reds had Arroyo and Harang.

3.) Anthony Reyes is overrated. The guy had a 5.06 ERA, 1.38 WHIP, and allowed 17 homeruns in 85 innings...that's Milton territory.

OnBaseMachine
10-14-2006, 02:54 PM
The Reds lost him for 15 days, and he's not even an everyday player.

Did the Cards lose Mulder? Imagine for one second if the Reds had lost Harang for the season.

WOW! Are you comparing Mark Mulder to Aaron Harang?!? Losing Mulder actually helped the Cardinals. Mulder has been awful since the second half of 2004. You lost some credibility with that one.

Falls City Beer
10-14-2006, 02:56 PM
WOW! Are you comparing Mark Mulder to Aaron Harang?!? Losing Mulder actually helped the Cardinals. Mulder has been awful since the second half of 2004. You lost some credibility with that one.

Mulder and Harang had nearly identical OPSA in 2005.

OnBaseMachine
10-14-2006, 02:58 PM
Mulder and Harang had nearly identical OPSA in 2005.

Harang had a 1.27 WHIP compared to Mulder's 1.38. Plus, when you factor in that Mulder had a great defense behind him and Harang didn't, well, it makes Harang look that much better.

Falls City Beer
10-14-2006, 03:00 PM
Harang had a 1.27 WHIP compared to Mulder's 1.38. Plus, when you factor in that Mulder had a great defense behind him and Harang didn't, well, it makes Harang look that much better.

I'm not saying that Harang at this stage of each pitcher's career isn't the better pitcher, but to proclaim that Harang is somehow tons better in terms of production/innings than Mulder in 2005 is just plain wrong. Finding a lefty to throw 200+ innings of 3.64 ball is very, very difficult.

OnBaseMachine
10-14-2006, 03:05 PM
I'm not saying that Harang at this stage of each pitcher's career isn't the better pitcher, but to proclaim that Harang is somehow tons better in terms of production/innings than Mulder in 2005 is just plain wrong. Finding a lefty to throw 200+ innings of 3.64 ball is very, very difficult.

There was some luck involved with Mulder's 3.64 ERA last year. The guy no longer has good stuff. Mulder looked like Dave Williams out there this year.

guttle11
10-14-2006, 03:06 PM
You guys are just trying to one-up each other now. Kinda lame.

Falls City Beer
10-14-2006, 03:07 PM
There was some luck involved with Mulder's 3.64 ERA last year. The guy no longer has good stuff. Mulder looked like Dave Williams out there this year.

Mulder likely is done. I'm not arguing that. My only point was to say that losing Mulder's production hurt the Cards this year.

Falls City Beer
10-14-2006, 03:08 PM
You guys are just trying to one-up each other now. Kinda lame.

You're right. I'd much rather this be a thread about "hustle" or "Dunn" or some other tired crap.

guttle11
10-14-2006, 03:10 PM
You're right. I'd much rather this be a thread about "hustle" or "Dunn" or some other tired crap.

Or maybe it could be about, you know, the original topic. Now it's just you and OBM trying to prove who knows more, and a debate about who's better, Cards or Reds.

OnBaseMachine
10-14-2006, 03:11 PM
You guys are just trying to one-up each other now. Kinda lame.

No, we're having a civil discussion here. No name-calling or personal attacks or anything that resembles it. If you have nothing to add then stay out of it.

Falls City Beer
10-14-2006, 03:14 PM
Or maybe it could be about, you know, the original topic. Now it's just you and OBM trying to prove who knows more, and a debate about who's better, Cards or Reds.

It is absolutely about the original topic--my point in even posting in this thread was demonstrate that the Reds had a ton of work to do catch the Cards in the Central going forward, perhaps more work than we care to realize, if we look at it objectively.

I swear, you guys are like my wife sometimes when I have to show her our economic realities, what we have to spend and what we don't. Just face the truth. It's the only way to improve.

kbrake
10-14-2006, 03:15 PM
I think most Reds fans will be in for a letdown next season if not ready. All year I thought of this team as kind of the 2005 Indians. Were in contention all the way up to the final week and fans will be thinking that looks good for next year. I just hope people realize that the NL was terrible this year and I dont see anyway that it is that bad again next season. I think next season will be a very long season for us.

guttle11
10-14-2006, 03:17 PM
No, we're having a cival discussion here. No name-calling or personall attacks. If you have nothing to add then stay out of it.

No personal attakcs at all.

Perhaps you could start a "Reds vs Cardinals" thread, because you two have derailed two or three threads with your weekend long discussion. It's irrelevant in a thread asking about how, if at all, the Reds could improve with the "status quo".

But you have more rep points than me, so I just just shut up and stop interrupting the adults. Sorry.

guttle11
10-14-2006, 03:18 PM
It is absolutely about the original topic--my point in even posting in this thread was demonstrate that the Reds had a ton of work to do catch the Cards in the Central going forward, perhaps more work than we care to realize, if we look at it objectively.

I swear, you guys are like my wife sometimes when I have to show her our economic realities, what we have to spend and what we don't. Just face the truth. It's the only way to improve.

Sorry daddy.

I'm not a child. You can talk to me like an adult.

I think I'm done with the elitist attitudes here at Redszone. They are far, far worse than any "Dunn is teh SuXX!!!!1" post.

OnBaseMachine
10-14-2006, 03:19 PM
No personal attakcs at all.

Perhaps you could start a "Reds vs Cardinals" thread, because you two have derailed two or three threads with your weekend long discussion. It's irrelevant in a thread asking about how, if at all, the Reds could improve with the "status quo".

But you have more rep points than me, so I just just shut up and stop interrupting the adults. Sorry.

You know the drill - no one is making you read our discussion. Just simply click the X on the top of the page if you don't want to read it.

And I have no idea where the rep points comment came from. Sounds like whining to me.:confused:

Ltlabner
10-14-2006, 03:35 PM
Not really. We at least know that the team--as is-- is awful. Moving up from "awful" is incredibly difficult, particularly in one offseason.

It's difficult to improve in one offseason, yet you wanted Krisky drawn and quartered before his first year (sans off season) was over because the orginizational rot that has festered since the 1980's wasn't magically wiped clean?

Interesting.

redsrule2500
10-14-2006, 04:36 PM
This glass looks half empty...

Ltlabner
10-14-2006, 04:47 PM
If we stand pat as is, and the rest of the division improves then yes, 2007 will be a looooong year. I don't believe they can keep the existing team and magically improve by opening day 2007 just by being 6 months older.

But many of the players brought to town this year were plug ins to fill short term holes. Players like Kim, Franklin, Clayton, Hollandsworth etc will not be on the team next year (and if they are, then I will join the ranks questioning Krivsky). Those players will be replaced over the offseason when more trades exist, more time exists and a chance to step back and look at the team without the pressure of being in the season exists.

As much as the makeup of team at the end of 2006 is different than the team at the begining of the offseason, I belive the team that takes the field at the begining of 2007 will be vastly different that what we have now.

Because of that, it's hard to say where things will end up.

PuffyPig
10-17-2006, 03:00 PM
The Cards have Carpenter, Reyes, who should be average at least, and Suppan, who is average. But you can live with that when you have a bullpen as strong as the Cards'.

Suppan is a FA after this year.

Reds1
10-17-2006, 06:52 PM
If there were no changes to this team I think they still would improve a bit as I don't think anyone knew their roll in the pen. I hope they make some moves. A good closer puts our pen in pretty good shape. If no closer then it's more of the same. I also believe we need a solid hitter/defense/speedy CF and move Griffey to right. Another starter and it looks like a nice rotation. So if we stay the same we could be a little better if we don't get hit by injuries, but to win or have a chance to do anything in the playoffs we need at least a starter, closer, and star OF or at least a decent guy. The Kearns/Lopez trade killed our bench, especially after injuries, but can be fixed. I think it will.

Scrap Irony
10-18-2006, 02:32 PM
The 2007 pen should be better, if only because everyone will eventually know their role, Majewski can't possibly be as bad as he pitched this year, and Bray will be a year more experienced.

The defense will be improved somewhat. With Phillips moving to SS, he helps shore up one sore spot, as does the continuing improvement of Encarnaction at the hot corner. If the team stays as is, the Freel/ Denorfia duet is extremely solid defensively in the outfield, while both Junior and Dunn are horrid.

The starting pitching should also improve. Claussen's 06 needs to be forgotten. Focus on his 05 numbers and pray you get that guy as your number three. The addition of Lohse brings depth, as does Johnson (an undervalued addition, IMO, as a fifth starter). Bailey will eventually come up and be better than most. That alone should make the staff more effective.

The offense will take yet another step back, assuming no moves are made to address it. You could argue that four Reds had years they are unlikely to repeat-- Aurillia, Ross, Phillips, and Hatteberg. With only Junior and Dunn likely to improve from last year's slumps, the O looks anemic. At best.

But that's before the off-season. And anything can happen in the offseason.

WVRedsFan
10-19-2006, 01:34 AM
It's more than obvious that we are not going to stand pat. In fact, i expect masive changes. Dunn and/or Griffey will be moved if possible. Another outfielder will be brought in. A couple of infielders will be obtained, good or bad, and pitching. Pitching will be sought and obtained.

All predictions of course, but I doubt you'll recognize the Reds next year and it won't be because of the spiffy new uniforms. Good or bad, it's the only way for this team to improve. I just hope and pray on my knees that Krivsky doesn't make it worse. We've seen that. And I hope he doesn't put his outfield eggs in the basket known as Ryan Freel and Chris Denorfia. If he does, we are doomed.

RANDY IN INDY
10-19-2006, 08:38 AM
And I hope he doesn't put his outfield eggs in the basket known as Ryan Freel and Chris Denorfia. If he does, we are doomed.

Agree. That is a scary thought.

Crosley68
10-19-2006, 09:09 AM
I didnt see the end of the season slide so much as a slump but as a return to norms. Arroyo, Phillips and Ross made this team an improvement over the 2005 team, but another step or two is needed to make 2007 better than this year. If this team stands pat, I see a slightly less than .500 team again for next year, and I can only assume that will not be nearly enough to compete like it was this year.

Eric_Davis
10-23-2006, 07:00 PM
Who started this thread?

Yogi Berra?

Cedric
10-23-2006, 08:22 PM
And I hope he doesn't put his outfield eggs in the basket known as Ryan Freel and Chris Denorfia. If he does, we are doomed.

Unlike when we were doomed with Griffey, Kearns, and Dunn in the past?

I don't see why people are so afraid of change. At this point I'm open to a different style than what we've seen around here lately. I want to watch a team field the ball and has some hard throwers. I'm willing to struggle for a few years offensively to get there.