Turn Off Ads?
Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 368

Thread: The Reds are not a contending team.

  1. #31
    Moderator Plus Plus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    1,494

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Again, the argument focuses only on off-season player acquisition for the Reds and completely ignores the Cardinals loss of Beltran and acquisition of Peralta, and the Pirates outperforming everything possible while losing Burnett and replacing him with Volquez.

    It's the other side of last year and two years ago when every article was talking about how the Reds were the dark horse NL pennant winners.
    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou View Post
    Thus his team was punished

    Long live punishment
    Quote Originally Posted by BCubb2003 View Post
    The base you want to acquire is home.

  2. Likes:

    Old school 1983 (01-28-2014)

  3. Turn Off Ads?
  4. #32
    Flash the leather! _Sir_Charles_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    8,245

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    Followed by the stale and rude, "I'm glad they don't have to play the games" non-sense. Forget the semantics. Why is it wrong?
    I agree the response was rude and not needed. But as for why it's wrong.....

    1. I don't see either the Cards OR the Pirates having a runs allowed total lower than the Reds unless someone's predicting some very specific injuries. I expect the Cards rotation to be solid if unspectacular. I expect their bullpen to regress some from last year even if they do add back that goofy looking Motte. I expect some HEAVY regression from both the Pirates rotation AND from their pen. They could easily have more runs allowed than scored.

    2. Reds. He's taking last years stats, subtracting Choo and Arroyo and going with those numbers. He's not taking into account any anomalies from last year and adjusting the projections into this year. The Cards should score CONSIDERABLY fewer runs than last year because their numbers are NOT repeatable. The Reds should see considerable increases in offensive stats from numerous players who had surprisingly poor years. Sure, some will stay down, some might even get worse. But the odds are much greater that most will revert to their career norms. And if that happens, it will make up for a LOT of the missing WAR from Choo's departure.

    If his point is to say that the Reds have been fairly inactive this offseason, fine. He's spot on. But to say he's got indepth analysis and his projections are very astute and accurate...then he's WAY off the mark.
    2014 predictions:
    99-63 WS champs (Cards take 2nd WC, Mil 3rd, Pit 4th, Chi 5th)
    Bruce/Votto neck and neck MVP race (neither takes it)
    Bailey CYA winner
    Hamilton ROY & GG

  5. Likes:

    Drugs Delaney (01-28-2014), HeatherC1212 (01-28-2014), redsmetz (01-28-2014)

  6. #33
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,729

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by PTjvs View Post
    Of course. Every single person on this board would rather we had a few more legit boppers in the lineup. There is a ton of room between "Excellent offensive team" and "not a contender", though, and even with a clearly suboptimal offense, this team can easily be a contender.

    I honestly think the city of Cincinnati doesn't know what a contender built on pitching looks like, since we've never had one in our lifetimes before.

    jvs
    Not really. We had one last year and they went to the play-offs (thanks to the expanded format). This team took a step back from that by losing one of it's starting pitchers and it's second best offensive player. The article makes a point of saying their is a quality backfill for Arroyo and a drop-off in CF.

    How can we really argue with the logic? The team that made it in the bubble spot in 2013, took a step back, the competition has made moves to improve and the Reds haven't answered. That's all correct IMO. I personally think they will contend because of the pitching, but I also think they'll come-up short because the position players are lacking. It's not a foregone conclusion, but a lot of things would have to go right for them to make the post season. Isn't that hoping a=instead of taking action? Isn't that what the article is saying?
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

    Having better players makes "the right time" or "the big hit" happen a lot more often. PLUS PLUS

  7. Likes:

    Revering4Blue (01-28-2014), wlf WV (01-28-2014)

  8. #34
    Member RadfordVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    917

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Here is what I do not get about all these projections. They are quite inaccurate. I mean getting within 10 wins is not that great of accomplishment. If these models were really good the people would not publish them, they would take them to Vegas and make a living betting over-unders on wins every season.

    Yet these are the same people who like to throw out any baseball stats that are not predictive like ERA or Batting Averages with a high BABIP. Its funny they do not demand the same accuracy from their own projections. They all seem pointless. No more informative than the newspaper writers throwing out there preseason outlooks that have no statistical backing. Neither seem to carry any weight.

  9. Likes:

    dubc47834 (01-28-2014), jimbo (01-28-2014), REDREAD (01-28-2014), _Sir_Charles_ (01-28-2014)

  10. #35
    Pimpin...literally!!! dubc47834's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Terre Haute, In
    Posts
    1,442

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    If I were on a Cubs forum, I would be realistic and say, yeah, we probably aren't contenders. Being a Reds fan isn't what makes me think Davenport is off on his assessment. The reality of the Reds baseball team is what makes me think he is off on his assessment.

    Also, can we have a link to Davenports projections? The OP has two links in the original post but not to the thing that actually is the basis for the post.
    Yeah, I would probly to if I was on a Cubs forum. I guess I didn't do a very good job of getting my point across. What I was getting at, very pooly, is that this team has been pretty good for a few years now, and it's not like we have lost a ton of players either. So for someone to project that the Reds are middle of the road and that anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world to me is absurd. When it comes to my favorite sports teams, I'm no homer. I know my Hoosiers are having a down year and I know what to expect. I to think the Reds will have a better year then what Davenport is projecting, can I see them having that type of year, yeah sure, but I think a few things would have to go wrong for that to happen.

  11. Likes:

    Old school 1983 (01-28-2014)

  12. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    814

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedTeamGo! View Post
    His post was a definitive "the Reds are not contenders" and told redszone to stop living a fantasy world. He then went on to copy and paste the thoughts and work of another. What an excellent post. Bravo.
    So what? Are you saying that all the Redzones members should think and say that the Reds are a contender, even if they don't think that the Reds are a contender?
    What a nonsense! I will ignore you from now on.

  13. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    814

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Wow, so many complaints.

    Quote Originally Posted by junkhead View Post
    We have to be objective in evaluating our team.
    This is my point.

  14. #38
    Pimpin...literally!!! dubc47834's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Terre Haute, In
    Posts
    1,442

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    BTW, this is a baseball forum about the Reds and that was a baseball article by a non-affiliated site about the Reds, why isn't posting it and putting it's central theme in the title appropriate?

    What is appropriate?
    I have no problem with the aarticle or it's being posted. My problem was the OP saying that anyone who thinks that the Reds are contenders was living in a fantasy world. My fantasy world involves a lot more than the Reds contending this year...like Kate Upton sleeping in my bed with me every night!!!

  15. #39
    Custodial Engineer Bob Sheed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    326

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    It's like adding to your collection of VHS tapes because you're sure collectors will come around, just like they did with vinyl. Could happen! Maybe not the best idea to expect it, though.


    Sums up this offseason's "acquisitions" perfectly.
    "And why do false truths persist, getting passed down the decades as if they were fact? It comes back to the same point: People believe things that are wrong because, individually, people rarely investigate their own beliefs, particularly when what they believe makes sense intuitively. Even more so when those around them agree with them." -K.F.

  16. Likes:

    mth123 (01-28-2014)

  17. #40
    Daffy Duck RedTeamGo!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    North Canton, OH
    Posts
    2,964

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by junkhead View Post
    So what? Are you saying that all the Redzones members should think and say that the Reds are a contender, even if they don't think that the Reds are a contender?
    What a nonsense! I will ignore you from now on.
    No, of course not. I personally think they are closer to a .500 team than a playoff team, but I would not say people that are more optimistic for the season are "living in a fantasy world."

    I mainly think your posting style is awful.

  18. Likes:

    Drugs Delaney (01-28-2014)

  19. #41
    Member kpresidente's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,905

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by junkhead View Post
    Wow, so many complaints.
    The guy's predicting 80 wins. That's the lowest figure I've seen put forth by a good bit. Even the author seemed surprised. Wouldn't you expect it to generate complaints?

  20. #42
    Member Old school 1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,702

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    Not really. We had one last year and they went to the play-offs (thanks to the expanded format). This team took a step back from that by losing one of it's starting pitchers and it's second best offensive player. The article makes a point of saying their is a quality backfill for Arroyo and a drop-off in CF.

    How can we really argue with the logic? The team that made it in the bubble spot in 2013, took a step back, the competition has made moves to improve and the Reds haven't answered. That's all correct IMO. I personally think they will contend because of the pitching, but I also think they'll come-up short because the position players are lacking. It's not a foregone conclusion, but a lot of things would have to go right for them to make the post season. Isn't that hoping a=instead of taking action? Isn't that what the article is saying?
    I think the Reds will probably need to make a move in order to get to that next level, but going into the season, I don't think it's as bleak as the article is making it out to be. The Reds need to let some of the questions answer themselves then act instead of filling in then seeing that maybe the move was better suited at another spot. The inaction is frustrating, but not a death blow to the season. So much can happen between now and even the end of the spring let alone the trade deadline. But as far as being contenders, I agree with you. That we are because of the pitching and defense. Going two games under .500 IMO is not contending and that's where I think the article is off the mark.

    As far as the opening poster, I've never said it on the board, but it's always seemed like he is a bigger Choo fan than a Reds fan and is always looking to find evidence to point to Choo being better than Bruce or even Votto at times and this post seems to go hand in hand with his MO. The Reds lost Choo and are therefore sunk, never considering that the loss and underperformance of several key players last year may have had an equal negative impact on the team as Choo's positive impact.

  21. #43
    Member Mike Honcho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Briarcliff Village, KC
    Posts
    226

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    More than anything this article shows there isn't much to write about so close to spring training.
    They don't think it be like it is but it do.

    Oscar Gamble

  22. Likes:

    gilpdawg (01-29-2014), HeatherC1212 (01-28-2014), Ravenlord (01-28-2014), RedTeamGo! (01-28-2014)

  23. #44
    Member RadfordVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    917

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by junkhead View Post


    This is my point.
    If your point is we have to be objective, then it is incorrect. No one has to be objective. It is not our job to talk about baseball. We can be as partial as we like.

    Also it is incorrect that somehow we are not objective if we do not subscribe to the thoughts in that article. Those are just opinions like ours.

  24. Likes:

    IslandRed (01-28-2014), RedTeamGo! (01-28-2014)

  25. #45
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,114

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    Not really. We had one last year and they went to the play-offs (thanks to the expanded format). This team took a step back from that by losing one of it's starting pitchers and it's second best offensive player. The article makes a point of saying their is a quality backfill for Arroyo and a drop-off in CF.

    How can we really argue with the logic? The team that made it in the bubble spot in 2013, took a step back, the competition has made moves to improve and the Reds haven't answered. That's all correct IMO. I personally think they will contend because of the pitching, but I also think they'll come-up short because the position players are lacking. It's not a foregone conclusion, but a lot of things would have to go right for them to make the post season. Isn't that hoping a=instead of taking action? Isn't that what the article is saying?
    I can argue it by saying that I expect more than 60 innings from Cueto and more than 97 innings from Tony Cingrani the starter, which makes up for losing the guy who was probably our #5 starter. I would also add in that it is going to be very difficult for us to be worse at the catcher and left field positions as well.

    I also don't see the Cardinals or the Pirates making moves to improve. Made moves? Sure. But got better? Not sure about that.

    The Reds offseason has stunk. No way around it. But they are improving from within.

  26. Likes:

    757690 (01-28-2014), bigredmechanism (01-28-2014), dubc47834 (01-28-2014), REDREAD (01-28-2014), redsmetz (01-28-2014), _Sir_Charles_ (01-28-2014)


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25