PDA

View Full Version : Over or under 85 wins?



jbran1114
01-13-2007, 02:29 AM
A friend stated that the team the Reds would field on this date would win 85 games. I said I'd be willing to bet the under on that considering no significant acquisitions before the Regular Season. Whatcha think?

mth123
01-13-2007, 05:54 AM
A friend stated that the team the Reds would field on this date would win 85 games. I said I'd be willing to bet the under on that considering no significant acquisitions before the Regular Season. Whatcha think?

I'm hoping they can at least win 75, but I think 65 to 70 would be more likely.

Degenerate39
01-13-2007, 06:08 AM
I voted over but I know it'll be under. I'm trying to stay optimistic though.

Topcat
01-13-2007, 06:21 AM
Its going to be under unless the gods make Ross a 35 hr guy gonzo a 25 hr guy and Deno bats .320, Lohse wins 17 and our Bully compines for 45 saves and 17 wins .

RedsBaron
01-13-2007, 08:00 AM
Under. Way under.

MrCinatit
01-13-2007, 08:02 AM
It is under. The only thing saving them from oblideration is the crapfest known as the NL Central.
Maybe Ozzie Guillen was right.

Will M
01-13-2007, 08:47 AM
Over.

There are a lot of variables. I expect between 75 & 92 wins.
What?! How could the Reds win 92 games you ask -

Lohse kicks butt. He has the talent and wants to cash in with him being a free agent after 2007.

Bailey & Votto arrive and are the real deal.

The catching duo hits 25+ homers. 2B and SS also contribute more offense than they are given credit for.

The geriatric trio in the pen gives us 180 innings with a sub 4.5 ERA.
Bray or Coffey embraces the closer role.

redsmetz
01-13-2007, 09:04 AM
I think they'll be near last year's total (hopefully over .500), but I think 85 would be fairly ambitious.

Redhook
01-13-2007, 09:12 AM
Over.

There are a lot of variables. I expect between 75 & 92 wins.
What?! How could the Reds win 92 games you ask -

Lohse kicks butt. He has the talent and wants to cash in with him being a free agent after 2007.

Bailey & Votto arrive and are the real deal.

The catching duo hits 25+ homers. 2B and SS also contribute more offense than they are given credit for.

The geriatric trio in the pen gives us 180 innings with a sub 4.5 ERA.
Bray or Coffey embraces the closer role.

And....

EE continues to improve offensively and defensively.

Junior plays atleast 120 games (in RF or 1st ;) ) and hits better than he did last year.

Dunn returns with a monster season.

Arroyo and Harang pitch similar to how they did this year.

Denorfia develops into a solid major leaguer.


If all of those things happen, both yours and mine, then it could happen. But if one or more do not then I don't see it happening. I love your optimism, wish I had half of it. I am optimistic, but a strong side of me is realistic as well.

jmac
01-13-2007, 10:09 AM
I am saying under but more along the lines of 80-83.
With Harang and BA, we have 2 starters we can count on (hopefully).
JR,EE, and Dunn make up a decent possibly exceptional heart of the order.freel/deno patrolling CF , phillips,gonzo improves us defensively.
there are other variables:
1: another starter ??bailey??
2: games JR plays in?
3: can guys like magic, bray, coffey come thru.....
4: Dunn- will he put up the "usual" numbers 40/100 or can he have a "huge" season ?

While alot of people are writing the reds off....this same topic last year produced things such as 90-100 losses etc.
The reds with help from a weak division over-achieved and the division is about the same if not worse this year (if clemens doesnt return) so who is to say reds cant do it again?
Not that they will but they "can" so at least the possibility is there !

Jpup
01-13-2007, 10:17 AM
74.

Handofdeath
01-13-2007, 10:58 AM
Under but not by much. I would think a repeat of this season was possible. 80-85 wins.

RedsManRick
01-13-2007, 11:08 AM
If the Poll was 85 wins or 75 wins, I'd choose 75.

Matt700wlw
01-13-2007, 11:09 AM
I picked under....

82-84 would still be a winning season.... :D

We can hope.

ThatPitchIsDunn
01-13-2007, 11:19 AM
As much as I love these guys, I think 75 is a more reasonable number.

We were lucky to get the 80 we had last year....

Reds Nd2
01-13-2007, 11:20 AM
What?! How could the Reds win 92 games you ask -
The Reds would have to improve their run differential by about 100 runs from last season to win 92 games. I don't really see that happening.

....this same topic last year produced things such as 90-100 losses etc.
And those predictions for 90 losses weren't all that far off.

Actual Record ~ 80-82
Pythagenport Record ~ 76-86
2nd Order Wins ~ 78-84
3rd Order wins ~ 75-87

KoryMac5
01-13-2007, 11:54 AM
I picked under, too many stars and planets have to be perfectly aligned in order for us to be over the 85 win mark.

KronoRed
01-13-2007, 12:01 PM
Under, this is basically the same team as last year.

geniusMoment
01-13-2007, 12:05 PM
Under, and way under. This team is below average in every aspect of the game. I'm thinking we could have ourselves a 100 loss team.

Matt700wlw
01-13-2007, 12:09 PM
Maybe if they play the game the right way, get back to fundamentals, and know how to win..........they will.


Then again....

Jr's Boy
01-13-2007, 12:13 PM
If they can cut down the K's maybe then can eek out another 80 wins or more.I believe we have shored the infield defense pretty much.Just can't give up alot of runs on stupid error's.

deltachi8
01-13-2007, 12:27 PM
Pitching, not nearly enough pitching....and they may have a hole two many offensively now....70-75 wins.

Sean_CaseyRules
01-13-2007, 12:52 PM
I went with over, call me over optimistic, but I think that we can see a post-season game in Cincy again!

reds44
01-13-2007, 01:04 PM
Right around 85, but I went with over.

dsmith421
01-13-2007, 01:10 PM
there's absolutely no way they sniff 85 wins as constituted.

i bet the vegas over/under would be approximately 76 at this stage.

redsfanmia
01-13-2007, 01:12 PM
65 to 70 would have to be considered a success at this point, I honestly think this team could lose 100.

Matt700wlw
01-13-2007, 01:26 PM
65 to 70 would have to be considered a success at this point, I honestly think this team could lose 100.

That would be a painful summer...:help:

reds44
01-13-2007, 01:34 PM
65 to 70 would have to be considered a success at this point, I honestly think this team could lose 100.
And I still haev no idea why considering we have a team that went 80-82 last year and didn't lost anybody of significance except for RA.

kbrake
01-13-2007, 01:43 PM
I think 70 wins is realistic. I'm not a negative person and I usually try to stay postive with my post on Redszone but this team has some glaring holes. If getting 85 wins is relying on the arms of Loshe and Milton then we are in some serious trouble.

mth123
01-13-2007, 02:56 PM
And I still haev no idea why considering we have a team that went 80-82 last year and didn't lost anybody of significance except for RA.


1) Because a whole bunch of guys played over their heads like Hatte, Ross, Lohse, Weathers and sadly even Arroyo and Phillips although they'll still be assets.

2.) Because they have lost some other guys of significance besides RA from when they were winning pretty well. Kearns and Lopez to name two. They haven't really lost much besides Rich from the team that tanked down the stretch. I'll give you that. The decent team you are remembering from last May and June is down 3 major offensive contributors.

3.) Because Ramirez and Milton, shakey as they are, put up a number of quality starts that kept the team in the game and gave them a chance to win and both are coming off surgery with no viable back-up plan if they come up lame.

4.) Because they won a number of games that they shouldn't have in an unlikely manner with walk-off HRs or big comebacks. Probably won't repeat that.

Improvement from EE, Dunn and maybe Majik and Bray won't offset all of that.

M2
01-13-2007, 03:28 PM
1) Because a whole bunch of guys played over their heads like Hatte, Ross, Lohse, Weathers and sadly even Arroyo and Phillips although they'll still be assets.

2.) Because they have lost some other guys of significance besides RA from when they were winning pretty well. Kearns and Lopez to name two. They haven't really lost much besides Rich from the team that tanked down the stretch. I'll give you that. The decent team you are remembering from last May and June is down 3 major offensive contributors.

3.) Because Ramirez and Milton, shakey as they are, put up a number of quality starts that kept the team in the game and gave them a chance to win and both are coming off surgery with no viable back-up plan if they come up lame.

4.) Because they won a number of games that they shouldn't have in an unlikely manner with walk-off HRs or big comebacks. Probably won't repeat that.

Improvement from EE, Dunn and maybe Majik and Bray won't offset all of that.

Excellent post. It should be added that the Reds played like a 76-86 on their pythag, which red flags them as an excellent candidate to backslide beyond all of that.

Falls City Beer
01-13-2007, 03:31 PM
75 wins tops. I'll stick with it. This team is now officially Pirates-esque: weak in all areas, when once they could at least claim offensive prowess.

vaticanplum
01-13-2007, 03:36 PM
Under. The cloudy variables to me are not starting pitching, bullpen, offense, or defense. They're the Cardinals, Cubs, Astros, and Brewers.

WMR
01-13-2007, 05:36 PM
How many wins does Jerry Narron need to keep his job?

terminator
01-13-2007, 05:47 PM
There's no way they win 85 games without a lot of luck. They haven't improved this offseason (they may have gotten worse since Aurilia left) and while some players could have career years . . . a lot of players had career years LAST year (Ross, Phillips, Arroyo).

Spring~Fields
01-13-2007, 07:43 PM
2001 66-96 .407 5th
2002 78-84 .481 3rd
2003 69-93 .426 5th
2004 76-86 .469 4th
2005 73-89 .451 5th
2006 80-82 .494 3rd

Using their last six seasons without any significant impact upgrades they should fall within the above

I get - 73-89 .451 approximately

Homer Bailey
01-13-2007, 08:15 PM
Last two months/this offseason have me very discouraged.

jbran1114
01-13-2007, 08:21 PM
65 to 70 would have to be considered a success at this point, I honestly think this team could lose 100.

WOW. That has to be the most negative thing I've read since I joined this site. Sadly, I don't believe you are too far off. I'm going with upper 70's.

Sean_CaseyRules
01-13-2007, 09:02 PM
I honestly believe in this years club, I don't know why, but I have a feeling in my gut that this year is going to be making a lot of people eat crow. And I know you guys won't be upset if you do.

BenHayes
01-13-2007, 09:13 PM
To me if the REDS can play .500 ball given the lack of clutch hitting and late inning closing, it would a major victory.Again we will have to watch other teams improve while CINCY hesitates to act.

geniusMoment
01-13-2007, 10:30 PM
Everyone who is saying the Reds could win over 85 hopefully realize that if the Reds lose Arroyo or Harang, even for 30 days or so, due to a simple arm strain that they would without question be one of the worst teams in baseball during that stretch. The Reds have beyond a lack of depth. If Harang or Arroyo get hurt at all, even a minor thing, you might as well implode the park and send Kriv. and Bob back to the fruit plant.

Falls City Beer
01-13-2007, 10:38 PM
Everyone who is saying the Reds could win over 85 hopefully realize that if the Reds lose Arroyo or Harang, even for 30 days or so, due to a simple arm strain that they would without question be one of the worst teams in baseball during that stretch. The Reds have beyond a lack of depth. If Harang or Arroyo get hurt at all, even a minor thing, you might as well implode the park and send Kriv. and Bob back to the fruit plant.

I know it's unpopular to talk about injuries, but you're exactly right; this team is one Tommy John surgery away from 100 losses.

George Anderson
01-13-2007, 11:44 PM
I know it's unpopular to talk about injuries, but you're exactly right; this team is one Tommy John surgery away from 100 losses.

Yea but on the optimistic side we are one Homer Bailey away from 90 + wins. Take the Over!!!

Sean_CaseyRules
01-14-2007, 12:13 AM
Yea but on the optimistic side we are one Homer Bailey away from 90 + wins. Take the Over!!!


Love the way you think man!!!! :beerme: :beerme: :beerme: