Turn Off Ads?
Page 2 of 25 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 368

Thread: The Reds are not a contending team.

  1. #16
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,288

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Davenport went 1.5/6 last year in division winners (picked tie btw Atl and Wash) and bombed on selections of the Angels and Giants.

    Not paying too much attention.

  2. Likes:

    Brutus (01-28-2014), REDREAD (01-28-2014), redsmetz (01-28-2014), texasdave (01-28-2014)

  3. Turn Off Ads?
  4. #17
    Member RadfordVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    892

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    15
    5
    7
    1
    12

    0
    13
    7
    14
    7

    13
    6
    11
    4
    22

    Those are the amount of wins that he was off by in the AL last season.
    So he was off by an average of 9.1 wins.
    I would say if you are putting any stock into these projections that is the fantasy world.

  5. Likes:

    alwaysawarrior (01-28-2014)

  6. #18
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,568

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by mdccclxix View Post
    The point of saying "why even play the games" is to undermine projections and point out what they are - completely inept at predicting the future. The subject of the thread is a definitive statement, the body of the OP is pure conjecture. While I really enjoy what junkhead brings to the board, I don't think he can be surprised that his "fantasy" comment drew some reaction. Lifetime ban, c'mon.
    Every thread seems to have a crap post with that same message in it. Projections by their nature are conjecture. Nobody knows the future and everybody knows that what is predicted varies from what happens on the field. But assuming that all projections will come out on the high end of what is deemed possible for them is hoping. It can happen. Some guys can well outperform those. Other teams can fall short. We all know that you have to play the games. Good Lord, isn't that obvious? Posts like that are empty snark and nothing more IMO.
    "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:

    membengal (01-28-2014)

  8. #19
    Member Old school 1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,469

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Let's hope we can bump this thread at the end of the season and have a good laugh.

  9. Likes:

    757690 (01-28-2014), CySeymour (01-28-2014)

  10. #20
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,568

    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.
    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?
    "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

  11. Likes:

    membengal (01-28-2014)

  12. #21
    Redsmetz redsmetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Winton Place
    Posts
    11,040

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    This thread calls to mind a passing comment someone made part way into last season. I can't remember who it was. I'm not sure if it was in a game thread or some other thread, but they linked to an article about the Cards and said something about "don't read the Cardinal fans comments, they'll make you want to puke." And what were those fans saying? They were talking about all the talk last season that the Reds had the division in the bag and various ones said games needed to be played and the results seen. I never did understand why that might make any of us ill. It's certainly what we all were saying the 2012 (and 2010).

    I certainly understand what this writer is saying and I understand the sentiment of those on RZ who are concerned. The writer might well be correct. I'm not buying it. I do know that as the team is presently constituted, we'll need an awful lot to go right and we'll need a number of players to exceed expectations. The Cardinals, I don't think, are going to collapse and, while they may not have the luck they had with runners in scoring position last season, they're still the team to beat in our division. And I'm not of the mind that Pittsburgh, Milwaukee or even Chicago will make it easy for us. We'll have our work cut out for us.

    But this morning, those of us here in Cincinnati woke up to -5F and I'm not interested in mailing in a season. I'm pining for the warmth of summertime baseball. The prognosticators be damned. I want some baseball. No, I want Cincinnati Reds baseball.

    That, and frankly, the off-season isn't over. Let's see what, if anything, Walt has up his sleeve. If this is the team we go into the season with, so be it. Again, I just want baseball.
    Last edited by redsmetz; 01-28-2014 at 08:42 AM.
    In the same way that a baseball season never really begins, it never really ends either. - Lonnie Wheeler, "Bleachers, A Summer in Wrigley Field"

    The Baseball Emporium - Books & Things, that's Rallyonion.com

    The Baseball Bookstore

    http://tsc-sales.com/
    http://tscsales.blogspot.com/
    http://silverscreenbooks.com/

  13. Likes:

    cumberlandreds (01-28-2014), dubc47834 (01-28-2014), HeatherC1212 (01-28-2014), moewan (01-28-2014), Number_Fourteen (01-28-2014), RadfordVA (01-28-2014), RedsfaninMT (01-28-2014), Roy Tucker (01-28-2014), WildcatFan (01-28-2014), _Sir_Charles_ (01-28-2014)

  14. #22
    Pimpin...literally!!! dubc47834's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Terre Haute, In
    Posts
    1,272

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    I think the point of this thread is spot on and evidently some other knowledgeable baseball people do as well.

    Even if you disagree, post something useful that explains why. The whole, "I guess we don't have to play the games" non-sense is not only stale and been posted about a trillion times already, it seems fairly rude and squashes real discussion. It's not my board, but if it were, any such post would come with a lifetime ban. JMO.

    Thanks for posting junkhead, keep right on doing so.
    Yeah, but also posting that some baseball article says the Reds are not contenders and we are suppose to just go along with and calling anything else "fantasy", that is absurd. Specially on a Reds forum!!!

  15. Likes:

    Drugs Delaney (01-28-2014)

  16. #23
    Beer is good!! George Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    4,699

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Pitchers and catchers report in 9 days.
    "Boys, I'm one of those umpires that misses 'em every once in a while so if it's close, you'd better hit it." Cal Hubbard

  17. Likes:

    *BaseClogger* (01-28-2014), Always Red (01-28-2014), Bob Borkowski (01-28-2014), CySeymour (01-28-2014), dfs (01-28-2014), dubc47834 (01-28-2014), HeatherC1212 (01-28-2014), klw (01-28-2014), mdccclxix (01-28-2014), moewan (01-28-2014), mth123 (01-28-2014), Number_Fourteen (01-28-2014), Raisor (01-28-2014), redsmetz (01-28-2014), RedTeamGo! (01-28-2014), Revering4Blue (01-28-2014), TRF (01-28-2014), WildcatFan (01-28-2014), wpenn4 (01-28-2014)

  18. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,565

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by edabbs44 View Post
    Davenport went 1.5/6 last year in division winners (picked tie btw Atl and Wash) and bombed on selections of the Angels and Giants.

    Not paying too much attention.
    And that's largely true of all projection systems. Since they tend to miss outliers either way, they miss extremes.

    Clay's are good projections, better than Dan's, but that still doesn't make them gospel.
    "Even a bad day at the ballpark beats the snot out of most other good days. I'll take my scorecard and pencil and beer and hot dog and rage at the dips and cheer at the highs, but I'm not ever going to stop loving this game and this team and nobody will ever take that away from me." Roy Tucker October 2010

  19. #25
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    33,767

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by dubc47834 View Post
    Yeah, but also posting that some baseball article says the Reds are not contenders and we are suppose to just go along with and calling anything else "fantasy", that is absurd. Specially on a Reds forum!!!
    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.

  20. Likes:

    dubc47834 (01-28-2014), RedTeamGo! (01-28-2014)

  21. #26
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,568

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by dubc47834 View Post
    Yeah, but also posting that some baseball article says the Reds are not contenders and we are suppose to just go along with and calling anything else "fantasy", that is absurd. Specially on a Reds forum!!!
    So why? When I look at this team I see a roster full of Tommy Helms. Tommy Helms was a good player who was a multiple time All Star, a former Rookie of the Year and won a couple of Gold Gloves. The team went to a World Series with him playing 2B. Yet the team knew it needed to change the mix and upgrade to get to the next level. Tommy Helms was a good player and it was preposterous to think he was the reason they lost, but a roster filled with Tommy Helms at 6 of the 8 positions wouldn't win anything. That is what I see on this Reds team. Votto, Bruce and Tommy Helms at 6 other spots. A couple of those Tommy Helms are very valuable guys who plug holes and make the roster work. Filling the line-up with him is settling and is a disaster in the making. Somewhere an upgrade or two is needed to improve the collective roster. It doesn't matter that Brandon Phillips or Todd Frazier is a decent player. What matters is that if either are your third best player, then the team needs an upgrade.
    "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

  22. Likes:

    membengal (01-28-2014)

  23. #27
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,568

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by dubc47834 View Post
    Yeah, but also posting that some baseball article says the Reds are not contenders and we are suppose to just go along with and calling anything else "fantasy", that is absurd. Specially on a Reds forum!!!
    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?
    "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

  24. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    83

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    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

  25. Likes:

    dubc47834 (01-28-2014), HeatherC1212 (01-28-2014), RadfordVA (01-28-2014), REDREAD (01-28-2014), redsmetz (01-28-2014), _Sir_Charles_ (01-28-2014)

  26. #29
    A Dude in the Bushes RedTeamGo!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    North Canton, OH
    Posts
    1,766

    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 get your point. My problem is that he does not actually discuss the content he posts. He just copies and pastes an article and leaves it at that. In response to those that disagree he will post a table or screenshot from Clubhouse Confidential.

    It is completely fine to post an article, but in my opinion one should follow it up with a post explaining why they agree with the article, why they disagree with the article, or an attempt to expand on the original point. The OP posted the article and basically lumped all of redszone into a group of people that are living in a fantasy world in a sentence at the end.

  27. Likes:

    dubc47834 (01-28-2014)

  28. #30
    Member kpresidente's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,709

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    How does he arrive at this conclusion? According to Baseball Prospectus (also smart people), we should have won 94 games last year based on the underlying stats. Where is this 14-win decline coming from? Choo to Hamilton is that bad? Maybe he thinks replacing Bronson Arroyo with Johnny Cueto makes us worse?

  29. Likes:

    757690 (01-28-2014), M2 (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