36 times

[kaldaniels]

I see the whole discussion as a straw man. The question of being above league average has an obvious answer. Of course the Reds are. They are clearly in the top four or five teams in the league right now. No reasonable issue on that.

Whatever offensive problems they have had do not change this. The stats I do every ten games show the Reds to be about fourth on average in most major statistical offensive categories. That doesn't change the overall view of a top five NL team.

But it's not the issue I see. The issue is the expectation that the Reds would be, clearcut, one of the top one or two teams in the league this year. The Reds have not met that test by any measure.

Now -- some say it's irrelevant, make the playoffs, and it doesn't matter. Fair point. Some, like me, want a great team that will be a favorite going into the playoffs. Also a fair goal.

Saying that the Reds are above the average in a league with the Cubs, Brewers, Padres, Mets, Marlins, etc., tells me nothing new. Whether a team with the Reds makeup can win in the post-season, particularly with this wild card system, is the more genuine debate.

There are fair points throughout this.

But I take major exception that the Reds were predicted as the clear cut top 1 or 2 teams in the league this year. If there was one clear cut #1, it was the Nats. From that point it is debatable if the Reds were #2, but in no way clear cut.

[RedEye]

I see the whole discussion as a straw man. The question of being above league average has an obvious answer. Of course the Reds are. They are clearly in the top four or five teams in the league right now. No reasonable issue on that.

Whatever offensive problems they have had do not change this. The stats I do every ten games show the Reds to be about fourth on average in most major statistical offensive categories. That doesn't change the overall view of a top five NL team.

But it's not the issue I see. The issue is the expectation that the Reds would be, clearcut, one of the top one or two teams in the league this year. The Reds have not met that test by any measure.

Now -- some say it's irrelevant, make the playoffs, and it doesn't matter. Fair point. Some, like me, want a great team that will be a favorite going into the playoffs. Also a fair goal.

Saying that the Reds are above the average in a league with the Cubs, Brewers, Padres, Mets, Marlins, etc., tells me nothing new. Whether a team with the Reds makeup is likely to win in the post-season, particularly with this wild card system, is the more genuine debate.

Well, that's sort of where the conversation has been lately. More recently, though, we've been discussing whether or not their recent struggles constitute reason for panic -- whether they have "major issues". Sounds like you don't think so either.

I don't think the entire conversation is a strawman though. It's not like we're debating with some position that doesn't actually exist. Folks on this board are actually claiming that the team has serious offensive problems. Others, like me, disagree. No strawmen there. Actual positions and argumentation.

[RedEye]

There are fair points throughout this.

But I take major exception that the Reds were predicted as the clear cut top 1 or 2 teams in the league this year. If there was one clear cut #1, it was the Nats. From that point it is debatable if the Reds were #2, but in no way clear cut.

I think they were #2 overall in the ESPN preseason rankings, behind the Nats. FWIW.

[kaldaniels]

Nm

[kaldaniels]

I imagine that if you averaged out all the respectable power rankings the Reds would be the #2, but like I said, not clear cut. For instance fox sports had SF and LA over the Reds...I don't agree just an example.

But if I am being open it just struck a nerve when the poster talking about strawmen posited that the Reds were possibly the number one clear cut team heading into the year.

And I didn't post that to jump on kc...more than anything wanted to remind everyone who the overall preseason top ranked team in the NL was

[RedEye]

But if I am being open it just struck a nerve when the poster talking about strawmen posited that the Reds were possibly the number one clear cut team heading into the year.

Yeah, I agree, I think it's unfair to call the entire conversation a strawman -- not to mention I don't think that's really what a strawman is rhetorically. I see what Kc is saying, but I think he's being a bit dismissive of what we've been talking about.

There are two different debates:

1) Whether or not the Reds are in a serious offensive funk.
2) Whether or not the Reds have the right kind of team to win in the playoffs.

#2 doesn't have to trump #1.

[Kc61]

There are fair points throughout this.

But I take major exception that the Reds were predicted as the clear cut top 1 or 2 teams in the league this year. If there was one clear cut #1, it was the Nats. From that point it is debatable if the Reds were #2, but in no way clear cut.

I don't think I used the word predicted, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

My point wasn't what the pundits predicted, my point was about my own expectation and, I believe, what some others who follow the team and post on RedsZone expected.

I felt after the Choo acquisition and after last season that the Reds would clearly be one or two in the league this year and would win the division. I am disappointed. That was my point when I referred to expectations.

[RedEye]

I don't think I used the word predicted, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

My point wasn't what the pundits predicted, my point was about my own expectation and, I believe, what some others who follow the team and post on RedsZone expected.

I felt after the Choo acquisition and after last season that the Reds would clearly be one or two in the league this year and would win the division. I am disappointed. That was my point when I referred to expectations.

Understood. But why does this make the entire debate a strawman? That's where you lost me.

[kaldaniels]

I don't think I used the word predicted, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

My point wasn't what the pundits predicted, my point was about my own expectation and, I believe, what some others who follow the team and post on RedsZone expected.

I felt after the Choo acquisition and after last season that the Reds would clearly be one or two in the league this year and would win the division. I am disappointed. That was my point when I referred to expectations.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't read it that way, but if that's how you felt I have no beef with it.

[Roy Tucker]

I think they were #2 overall in the ESPN preseason rankings, behind the Nats. FWIW.

And they were looking like it till key guys got hurt.

[New York Red]

Folks on this board are actually claiming that the team has serious offensive problems.

I don't see anyone claiming that. Do you have a link?

[RedEye]

I don't see anyone claiming that. Do you have a link?

In this very thread. Care to read it?

[Kc61]

Well, that's sort of where the conversation has been lately. More recently, though, we've been discussing whether or not their recent struggles constitute reason for panic -- whether they have "major issues". Sounds like you don't think so either.

I don't think the entire conversation is a strawman though. It's not like we're debating with some position that doesn't actually exist. Folks on this board are actually claiming that the team has serious offensive problems. Others, like me, disagree. No strawmen there. Actual positions and argumentation.

Well, again, in the context of the regular season I don't think there's an issue. Without checking, my stats reports steadily show the Reds at about fourth in the league in most major stats categories.

In the regular season context, there is really no issue that the Reds offense is good enough to make the playoffs, and they probably will.

Now, the post-season, different question and much more worthy of debate.I have serious doubts there because I think the Reds team is too easy to pitch to.

Too late at night for a full debate, but I think the team stats are heavily influenced (on the upside) by three excellent hitters, two of whom are superb in the OBP category.

When a top team faces the Reds with its top pitchers, and a good game plan, in a big game, I have serious doubts because I just think that everybody can be pitched to rather easily except the big three and maybe, on a given day, Phillips.

And if you throw a lefty, then you can control Choo as well.

Again, how the Reds might fare on a big stage against the top teams is a worthy subject. Some people will say it's all random in a given game, which has validity as well. Regular season? All is pretty obvious.

[RedEye]

And they were looking like it till key guys got hurt.

Yes, they were. But wait... Ludwick got hurt so early that it's hard to factor that in; Cueto has been replaced well by Cingrani; the bullpen guys... I suppose, may have helped to avoid that June swoon...

Hmmm. I agree injuries have been a factor, but not sure that's been the main one.

[RedEye]

Again, how the Reds might fare on a big stage against the top teams is a worthy subject. Some people will say it's all random in a given game, which has validity as well. Regular season? All is pretty obvious.

Okay, gotcha. What you meant by "strawman" is clear now. Thanks.

Looking forward to the "Are the Reds a playoff caliber team?" thread you will post tomorrow then.