Originally Posted by Scrap Irony
In the thread, most people agreed the Reds would be improved defensively, but argued about how much. Most said the improvement would be obvious, but not worth more than 10-20 runs over the course of the year.
That has proven extremely conservative so far. If the Reds continue to play as they have so far this season defensively, they should be among the top five or six teams in the majors.
Too, as the Reds were constructing the team, many on this site insisted Cleveland had the superior front office and their approach was praised as among the best in the game. Most agreed that Cleveland used numbers much better and more effectively than Cincinnati in constructing a team.
When discussing team defense, however, Cleveland was not mentioned.
Of course, most would rather ram a sharp stick in their eye than admit being wrong on message boards anyway.
Arguing for and against "most people," "Most" and "many on this site" is what makes me ram a sharp stick in my eye.
I'd rather discuss the article than engage in another epic strawman war.
Can we try it?