Originally Posted by Boss-Hog
Jimmy Haynes (circa 2002) is proof enough that a pitcher should NEVER be judged based on the amount of wins he racked up in a given season while ignoring all the other stats that tell you he's a bad pitcher.
RLA, not to pick on you because I'm wrong as much as anyone, but weren't you the one who was very optimistic about the rotation going into 2003 because we had assembled a 'team of winners'?
No Boss, I was all fired up because the Reds had assembled a rotation full of 200 innings guys.
I simply remember many of us on the old board giving some of our Seattle fans grief because they went out and signed a couple of pitchers who had had 5 plus era's and they thought they were going to be really good.
Well, I think Seattle won their division that year.
I am also a bit perturbed because around here, no guy the Reds get seems to be good enough. If they aren't Johnson or Clemens they have too high of a WHIP or they walk too many guys or they give up too many HR's.
I am not saying this group will lead the league in ERA, or innings pitched per start or anything else. I am just saying that in today's game, a 4.5 ERA or even higher, with a potent offense behind it CAN be competitive.....and since I am sssssooooooo tired of sitting here every February already knowing the Reds are gonna stink, I am going to use a 60 plus mill payroll as an excuse to delude myself into thinking they might just be good....maybe even really good.
If I am nuts, it will be proven soon enough.