Originally Posted by mth123
I think people have been so conditioned to the Reds having no pitching, that 5 solid starters has people over-rating them. The Reds pitching is good and if the starters stay healthy at least long enough for a couple of the kids to round into solid replacements, the rotation should keep the team competitive. The thing is, the paradigm in baseball has shifted. Good teams have good pitching now. The days of 2 or 3 decent starters being enough are over. All the contenders can throw 5 guys out there that can shut you down. The Reds pitching means they aren't the Cubs or Astros, but to say it's an advantage over teams they are competing with like LA, Washington, Arizona, SF, St Louis etc is wrong. All of those staffs have 5 good starters. Pitching seems more abundant than ever. Power is the scarce commodity these days.
Exactly, which is why I said I'd take the Reds starters head-to-head against any team. It's the team with the better offense that will likely win the matchup. The Reds pitching will do the job - but will the offense score on top pitching? Even great staffs have trouble winning game after game 1-0, 2-1, 3-2. That isn't necessarily a failure of the starters - the difference is more likely that Reds pitchers face better, more balanced lineups than the other team's pitchers when they face the Reds. Everyone good has pitching, including the Reds. To take the next step, the offense has to be upgraded.