Originally Posted by traderumor
I realize you shut the door on any different views with the above, but that is a mighty big leap in logic. The "team with a winning record" was one starting pitcher different from the team on the field the year before, when avoiding 90 losses was an accomplishment. So, to say they tinkered with a machine that was doing just fine is hardly reality.
No shut door here, but to say I'm mystified at how they went about "improving" the team is the understatement of the year. And I want someone, anyone, to blow a hole in my argument or stand on this. I've said this before and not to beat a dead horse, it started out well and then (all of a sudden) we were getting every retread that ever pitched a ball game in a Reds uniform. That reminded me of the Bowden years. Franklin, Kim, Mays, the list goes on, were brought in to do what pitchers we already had could do and that was give up great numbers of hits and runs. The bullpen was statistically better, but the guys we already had improved also, so determining the effect of that should be left to Cyclone or someone who has time to figure it. Anyway the result if obvious.
And I agree this team needed some tinkering and yes, only one starting pitcher was different, but the result will apparently be the same, no matter how much tinkering was done (hopefully not, btw). I guess the best thing to do is give it a couple of years and then judge. I just wish Robert and Wayne had done that with field management (at least a year), but adoration of Krivsky and Castillini (I can't spell his name, I know) is a little much right now.