PDA

View Full Version : Reds Youth: Refreshing comments



Team Clark
03-09-2007, 09:37 AM
From Joey Votto:

"I'm not going to say where I should be, that's embarrassing and out of respect for my teammates, that's not how you go about your business," Votto said. "I'm going to enjoy it while I'm here and play hard. I'm swinging well, working hard, sticking around the cages."

From Brandon Phillips:

"I'm happy where I am, I've got a job, that's all I've got to say," said Phillips, who was acquired in a trade with the Indians early last season. "I want to be here long-term and stay here for the rest of my career. I love (manager) Jerry (Narron), I love (general manager) Wayne (Krivsky). I love the Reds. I'm not mad at nobody, I have no reason to be."

A funny from Paul Wilson:

"I'm sure there are other ways to figure that out other than getting my (rear) kicked, but, you know, I told the guy earlier I'd normally come in and be destroying this clubhouse. But I'm figuring it out."

"I love (baseball) too much (to quit). I love it," Wilson said. "It's the only thing I know how to do well. It shouldn't define who we are as people, but it does. It shouldn't make me a winner or loser because I play baseball. I do play baseball, but deep down it does."

Matt Belisle on Paul Wilson:

"Nobody works harder and he's as competitive as anybody. Those are two qualities you have to have," said Reds right-hander Matt Belisle, one of the other pitchers vying for the fifth spot in the rotation with Wilson. "He does it with class; it's a good thing to see. If you have trouble keeping yourself in check, you just look at him and see how you should be getting after it. It's great to be around the guy."


And the best exchange of the Spring yet:


Hamilton starts out with a clout
By C. Trent Rosecrans
Post staff reporter

Zoom AL BEHRMAN/Associated Press
The Reds' Josh Hamilton gets a base hit in the sixth inning Thursday afternoon.

BRADENTON, Fla. - With the wind blowing out of the Pirates' spring training home of McKechnie Field, Pittsburgh's Luis Matos hit two home runs and Andrew McCuthen hit another in the first four innings of the Reds' 9-7 victory on Thursday.

In the dugout, Reds catcher David Ross observed to outfielder Josh Hamilton that two of the Reds' home runs - by Adam Dunn and Mark Bellhorn - traveled farther than the three hit by the Pirates.

"You missed one," said Hamilton, a Rule 5 pick from the Tampa Bay Devil Rays and former first-overall pick in the draft.

"What are you talking about?" Ross asked.

"Mine," said Hamilton, who hadn't hit a home run in any kind of game since 2002. "I just haven't hit it yet."

And, then - "Next AB, boy," Hamilton recalled later. "Bam!"

Actually, add a couple of exclamation points onto the 'bam' and maybe capitalize all the letters - "BAM!!!!!!"

With right-hander Allan Simpson pitching to Hamilton in the seventh, Hamilton hit a home run that cleared the 30-foot high batter's eye in center field, 400 feet away.

"I saw where he pitched to (Dewayne) Wise," Hamilton said. "It was away, away, away. Then he put the first two away to me and I knew he had to come in. It was a slider and he kind of floated it in there."

And then, well, you know, BAM!!!!!!

"That was awesome," Ross said. "That was at least 500 feet. That's a bomb."


This is why I love Spring Training. I am seriously encouraged by the Reds youth. No whining about playing time. To date I have yet to hear "the front office is disrespecting me I'm just here to get my money" BS. Just play Basbeall and go about your business. :thumbup: There are a lot of people here on Redszone that think character and chemistry play no part in sports. Nothing could be further from the truth. Character and Chemistry alone will not win you a championship but it does play a part in the game.

hebroncougar
03-09-2007, 10:01 AM
I, like many, am pulling for Hamilton big time. Moreso for the person, than for the Reds team. I coached HS ball for several years, and he would be a great example to young people on how to NOT act after being a bonus baby, but also how you can bounce back after facing huge adversity. I hope we see a huge youth movement by the Reds over the next couple of years as Krivsky takes pages out of his Minnesota roots. I've been a bit perplexed at times for some of the signings, but hopefully they are stopgaps along the road to success.

bucksfan2
03-09-2007, 10:33 AM
I, like many, am pulling for Hamilton big time. Moreso for the person, than for the Reds team. I coached HS ball for several years, and he would be a great example to young people on how to NOT act after being a bonus baby, but also how you can bounce back after facing huge adversity. I hope we see a huge youth movement by the Reds over the next couple of years as Krivsky takes pages out of his Minnesota roots. I've been a bit perplexed at times for some of the signings, but hopefully they are stopgaps along the road to success.

I am perplexed as well by some of the signings. But what I do see with this team is depth, and younger depth. They finally have young players who are ready to step in with Baily and Votto. They are developing a deeper farm system. They also have a lot of competition for the pitching rotation. In the past few years a guy like Ramirez would have been given a spot in the rotation but now he may end up at Louisville with the ability to come up and help if someone gets injured. They also look like they have younger relievers who are ready to push out some senior citizens in the bullpen. Overall it looks like the reds are building a deeper organization.

Triples
03-09-2007, 10:34 AM
There are a lot of people here on Redszone that think character and chemistry play no part in sports. Nothing could be further from the truth. Character and Chemistry alone will not win you a championship but it does play a part in the game. [/B][/QUOTE]


Well said TC. But I would take it a step further, you also can't win a championship without character and chemistry no matter how much talent you have. If I was a bettin man; and the final game of the world series was down to a team loaded with talent and little chemistry/character vs less talented team loaded with character/chemistry, my money would be on the later every time.

gonelong
03-09-2007, 12:09 PM
There are a lot of people here on Redszone that think character and chemistry play no part in sports. Nothing could be further from the truth. Character and Chemistry alone will not win you a championship but it does play a part in the game. [/b]

I don't think you'll find near as many people as you expect that think character and chemistry play no part in sports. I'd be stunned if you could find more than a handful at best. What is generally in question is HOW MUCH of a part they play.

I think what you'll find is that there are a number of people here on Redszone that think talent trump character and chemistry. Which I'll readily agree with when your team is generally floundering along at a .500 clip or less.

If the Reds can amass enough talent to approach a .550 winning percentage once in awhile, then I'll be a bit more about the chemistry and character of the team.

GL

Team Clark
03-09-2007, 12:45 PM
I don't think you'll find near as many people as you expect that think character and chemistry play no part in sports. I'd be stunned if you could find more than a handful at best. What is generally in question is HOW MUCH of a part they play.

I think what you'll find is that there are a number of people here on Redszone that think talent trump character and chemistry. Which I'll readily agree with when your team is generally floundering along at a .500 clip or less.

If the Reds can amass enough talent to approach a .550 winning percentage once in awhile, then I'll be a bit more about the chemistry and character of the team.

GL

If I had the time it takes to look it up I could find you the number of people that came out against character/chemistry. I was stunned. IIRC, it was not 6 or 7 people either. Their prime example was the 70's A's. Ok?? As a board the discussion was brought up during the WS. It's really a matter of opinion but my opinion is that it does play a part. Triples put into better words what I was trying to express. The X factor in chemistry is winning. Look at the '93 Phillies. If that team were to lose 100 games I would have HATED to be in that clubhouse. You might have been stabbed. :laugh:

gonelong
03-09-2007, 01:53 PM
If I had the time it takes to look it up I could find you the number of people that came out against character/chemistry. I was stunned. IIRC, it was not 6 or 7 people either. Their prime example was the 70's A's. Ok??

I'd have to see it myself and weigh it in the context of the discussion. Like "clutch" and "knows how to play the game the right way" the term "chemistry" means something different to everyone. I doubt your idea of chemistry matches mine and I doubt mine matches the next guys.

There have been teams without oodles of "chemistry" to win world championships ,so at the very minimum, "chemistry" is in no way a must have ingredient to winning.


As a board the discussion was brought up during the WS. It's really a matter of opinion but my opinion is that it does play a part. Triples put into better words what I was trying to express. The X factor in chemistry is winning. Look at the '93 Phillies. If that team were to lose 100 games I would have HATED to be in that clubhouse. You might have been stabbed. :laugh:

I do believe that friendly rivalries within the clubhouse, taking the time to mentor younger players on and off the field, being up-front and honest with players and their roles, sweating and bleedng for the guy next to you, etc. is beneficial to the team. Is that "chemistry"? I dunno - I have never seen a definition of it that everyone will agree to. The part of "chemistry" I'll believe in is buried in these types of activities.

I think chemistry is amazingly overplayed by the media and many of the fans. I generally don't believe much in that version of chemistry. The teams that seem to have it are the teams that win the championship and it seems to be "discovered" mostly after they have won it. I definately don't believe in the version of chemistry that would have me believe that aging player X with a fading skill set is going to provide chemistry to a team that'll struggle to play .500 ball.

GL

Redsland
03-09-2007, 02:14 PM
My opinion is that chemistry is that thing you have when you win a lot.

It is not, conversely, something that, when you have enough of it, you win more.

Just my humble opinion.

M2
03-09-2007, 02:22 PM
There are a lot of people here on Redszone that think character and chemistry play no part in sports.

Baloney. I'd hazard a guess that a total of zero posters on this board hold that opinion.

That character and chemistry are often misapplied, well, I'd guess that pretty much everyone agress with that one. When and where it's misapplied is where folks start to disagree.

FWIW, I'm encouraged by some of the young players in camp too (Janish for instance strikes me as a guy who might be in for a Denorfiaesque flourish). Yet there are 29 other teams that have "good chemstry" at the moment and lots of happy campers on the roster. Plus, young players almost always bring enthusiasm and energy to the mix. It's a big part of why so many around (in fact I'm guessing that includes many you've put into the pile of not caring about character or chemistry) have been pleading for a youth movement with the Reds, to flush out some of the rot that has settled during the six-year slide.

Yet what's really encouraging about some of the young players in camp right now is they seem to making consistent progress. They've made leaps to where you can look at them and realistically think they could help a major league franchise at some point in the immediate or relatively near (by the end of 2008) future. After years of watching guys take a step forward and then leap back, this certainly is a refreshing change.

Team Clark
03-09-2007, 02:57 PM
I'd have to see it myself and weigh it in the context of the discussion. Like "clutch" and "knows how to play the game the right way" the term "chemistry" means something different to everyone. I doubt your idea of chemistry matches mine and I doubt mine matches the next guys.

There have been teams without oodles of "chemistry" to win world championships ,so at the very minimum, "chemistry" is in no way a must have ingredient to winning.

GL

That is an excellent point and a very vaild one too. I thought of starting a thread about what everyone's definition of chemistry might be. Would be interesting to hear everyone's thoughts. Great observation as usual GL.

Team Clark
03-09-2007, 03:02 PM
Baloney. I'd hazard a guess that a total of zero posters on this board hold that opinion.

That character and chemistry are often misapplied, well, I'd guess that pretty much everyone agress with that one. When and where it's misapplied is where folks start to disagree.

FWIW, I'm encouraged by some of the young players in camp too (Janish for instance strikes me as a guy who might be in for a Denorfiaesque flourish). Yet there are 29 other teams that have "good chemstry" at the moment and lots of happy campers on the roster. Plus, young players almost always bring enthusiasm and energy to the mix. It's a big part of why so many around (in fact I'm guessing that includes many you've put into the pile of not caring about character or chemistry) have been pleading for a youth movement with the Reds to flush out some of the rot that has settled during the six-year slide.

Yet what's really encouraging about some of the young players in camp right now is they seem to making consistent progress. They've made leaps to where you can look at them and realistically think they could help a major league franchise at some point in the immediate or relatively near (by the end of 2008) future. After years of watching guys take a step forward and then leap back, this certainly is a refreshing change.

I certainly agree that character and chemistry can be misapplied. GL made some great observations on that above. However, we have had many a discussion where chemistry has come up and several posters have completely devalued (sp?) it or said in so many words that it is a non factor. I plan on spending some time this evening to look up those threads. I really do hope that I can find them. Not to out the people who may feel that way but to start another thread on the perception of chemistry. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on that.

bucksfan2
03-09-2007, 03:10 PM
I think Chemistry is vastly overrated in sports. I think too many people confuse chemistry with leadership. You need a leader in the clubhouse. The guy who comes in early, works the hardest, does the things he preaches, etc. People dont have to like him but they have to respect him. Look at the Yankees every year during their slump all the dirty laundry is aired and players are calling out each other. But when they are hot every thing is peachy.

ND_redsfan10
03-09-2007, 03:12 PM
I'll agree with gonelong on this one; "chemistry" can mean a million different things... To me, chemistry is the degree to which intangibles positively or negatively affect team play. If a SS and a 2B don't get along, does it affect their ability to turn two? Same with a P and a C.

I do think that the impact of this concept, however, is overrated. Ultimately, these players are making a lot of money to perform at a very high level. Letting personal differences get in the way of winning (and further fruitful earnings) is poor economic decision-making.

The Boston Red Sox of 2004 were a hodgepodge assortment of personalities - i.e. Manny Ramirez, Curt Schilling, Pedro Martinez, and Mr. Nonchalant himself, Bronson Arroyo. I'm fairly sure Pedro and Pokey Reese weren't hanging out on the weekends, and it's obvious that Doug Mientkiewicz cared enough about "the concept of team" to run off with the winning ball.

Scott Rolen and LaRussa fought last year, as well.

M2
03-09-2007, 03:28 PM
I certainly agree that character and chemistry can be misapplied. GL made some great observations on that above. However, we have had many a discussion where chemistry has come up and several posters have completely devalued (sp?) it or said in so many words that it is a non factor. I plan on spending some time this evening to look up those threads. I really do hope that I can find them. Not to out the people who may feel that way but to start another thread on the perception of chemistry. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on that.

I think that goes to "What is chemistry?" The ChiSox in 2005 got accused of having chemistry they didn't have, at least in terms of everyone getting along. The Cardinals took home a championship last year even though one of their best players and the manager weren't talking and even though Jeff Weaver was on the team. Often it seems like "chemistry" is used to imply that the team sits around singing "Kumbaya" before and after games ... and that doesn't seem to help the Rockies one iota.

My take is that culture is more important than "chemistry," which is code for "things are going generally right for the ballclub." I'm a strong believer in a team developing a positive culture in which players understand expectations and are given the right instruction to help them reach those expectations. I also think a team culture can embrace a never-say-die attitude, which is an unadulterated good thing. In fact, that last one is something, IMO, that helped make the Reds an early season contender in seasons like 2002, 2003 and 2004. The Reds had some bad teams that played hard (if sloppy).

Mind you, this is all separate from a player's individual character, which I think everyone agrees can play a huge role in how well player realizes his talents.

gonelong
03-09-2007, 04:38 PM
I thought of starting a thread about what everyone's definition of chemistry might be.

I look forward to that one! :laugh:

Many times what I see argued about on Redszone is simply a failure to agree on the terms being used, though I don't think you'll come up with a definition of chemistry that will be embraced by the masses.

GL

Team Clark
03-09-2007, 05:00 PM
I look forward to that one! :laugh:

Many times what I see argued about on Redszone is simply a failure to agree on the terms being used, though I don't think you'll come up with a definition of chemistry that will be embraced by the masses.

GL

I do not expect a consensus. I would just love to hear everyone take.

Tom Servo
03-09-2007, 07:14 PM
found this on the Reds website:


Already in the clubhouse, teammate Josh Hamilton missed the performance. When Hamilton came out of the shower and saw Bailey surrounded by reporters, he curiously asked, "Homer, how'd you do?"

"I put up a nice five spot in the fifth, but thanks for asking!" Bailey responded with a big smile.

:lol:

OnBaseMachine
03-09-2007, 07:24 PM
Speaking of great attitudes, go over to the minor league forum and read the articles I posted on Joey Votto. I'll provide the link below.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55317

RANDY IN INDY
03-10-2007, 08:31 AM
Ahh, yes. The argument that starts with, "That depends on what the definition of_________________is.;)

TeamCasey
03-10-2007, 01:28 PM
I think the Redszone argument isn't whether chemistry plays a part in winning, but which teams had chemistry and which did not.

M2
03-10-2007, 02:39 PM
Ahh, yes. The argument that starts with, "That depends on what the definition of_________________is.;)

Well, "chemistry" is a pretty nebulous term. Every team claims to have it early in the year then apparently some lose it and, when the season ends, we all pretend it was the evenutal champion who had the most.

MartyFan
03-10-2007, 11:29 PM
I think a lot of times "chemistry" does get more obvious when a team is winning...but I think that starting it early in ST is a way to have it grow through the season.