Freak Show Reds (By two of our own)

[VR]

Congrats M2 & woy for an excellent article. Freakshow may be a little harsh for Reds fans to hear, but it is exactly what you get with the 2003 version. The smashmouth Tigers of the early 90's and the Rockies of the mid-90's 'only' needed a couple of solid starters as well, let's hope the Reds vision is clearer than what their fate ended up being.

It speaks so well to the long term concern of this team and it's blatant lack of pitching. I just hope this has been passed on to the Red's front office.

A 12-2 win, that's what this team needs a few of!

[BuckeyeRedleg]

Thanks for the post.

I just came across this sight last week. I may have to give it a look see.

M2. No offense, about what I said above, I just think that they could very easily be 21-31 right now. 4 games going the other way doesn't seem "freakish".

I think we could have said the same thing about the Reds last year at this time.

Anyway, congrats on your writing gig.

Hey, maybe you both will be noticed by Theo, J.P., Billy, or someone else and given a job in a front office. (another "Moneyball" reference)

[kvance]

as a longtime reds fan I have seen some bad teams. and over the last ten years the reds have had some really poor teams and some of those teams have contended for a good portion of the season. Last year was an example. Ray Knight managed a team or two that "contended" to the extent that stayed within 5 or 6 games of the top of a bad division into late summer.

My point is this team we're watching now is potentially a much better team than some of the bad teams I've mentioned above. This team is much better than last year's team, for instance, or at least it should be. This may be so far the worst pitching staff ever assembled in cincinnati, but its also one of the best offensive teams.

to just write an article and completely trash the team based on some stats through a schizophrenic 2 months doesn't tell much. I'm not one to ignore stats, but a small sample size doesn't take into account slumps and other abnormalities that won't hold true for the course of the season.

if you just watch this team play you can see they are not one of the "worst" teams ever to contend.

[Raisor]

Originally posted by BuckeyeRedleg
M2. No offense, about what I said above, I just think that they could very easily be 21-31 right now. 4 games going the other way doesn't seem "freakish".

It's the difference between winning 78 games or winning 65 games.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

Originally posted by Raisor
It's the difference between winning 78 games or winning 65 games.

Only if that pace were maintained.

[Falls City Beer]

Wow. Some people really like grapes...and are really short.

Nice work, gentlemen. You make the Zone proud.

For the record, this really helped settle a nagging question of mine--what is the likelihood that contention is a real possibility for this team? I suspected much of what you researched, but research is where the work is done. Thanks.

[M2]

kvance, the real key is that the Reds are a contending team. That they're doing it uglier than anyone in previous history is just the kind of thing that hopefully makes for a good read (your mileage may vary).

Interesting sidelight: I've received a number of e-mails from friends and family and all of them ask the same question: So what do you think will happen with the Reds? None of these people are Reds fans (until this board I was the only Reds fan I knew). So what I'm hearing from others without a rooting stake in the team is that the piece left the question of what they'll do next open-ended.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

Originally posted by Raisor
It's the difference between winning 78 games or winning 65 games.

Then it would be freakish. All I'm saying is that 4 games out of 62 is a small sample size to define abnormal. Those 4 games could have been flukes. If they continued to get outscored at the rate forementioned then the won/loss record will even out over time.

[Raisor]

Just for the information, here's how every team in the majors are doing against their "expected number of wins" using the pythig thm.


Atlanta +4
CINCINNATI +4

Kansas City +3
San Fransisco +3

Boston +2
NY Mets +2
Minnesorta +2
Chicago (A) +2
Texas +2

Tampa Bay +1
Montreal +1

Clevland even
Houston even
Seattle even

Toronto -1
Detroit -1
Pittsburgh -1
Milwaukee -1
Los Angeles -1
Colorado -1

NY Yanks -2
Baltimore -2
Florida -2
Chicago (N) -2
Anaheim -2
Arizona -2
San Diego -2

Philadelphia -3

Oakland -4

[Falls City Beer]

What about T'aint Louis?

[Legion of Dunn]

I thought it was an interesting read except for labeling the Reds "contenders." They may be hanging around in the standings (due to their early power surge and inconsistency of the division favorites) but that pitching staff will not have the Reds in the hunt for a whole season. It's a pipe dream.

[Raisor]

Originally posted by Falls City Beer
What about T'aint Louis?

Do they still have a team?

ummmmmmmmm

-5

Looks like the A's (again) and the Cards are the teams to be on the lookout for.

PSR

[Chip R]

Originally posted by Raisor
Do they still have a team?

Well, thank you, Bill Terry.

[westofyou]

Thanks to all.

Folks they're just numbers and words, it's up to you to decide what they tell YOU.

I went all the way back to 1903, no team has ever been 20-20 and had scored 50 less runs than their opponents. That's 1430 teams who have never done it.

That's a freak show.

Just like the Turtle Man I saw at the Ohio State Fair, he rolled a cigarette with his mouth and lit it.

RILA, the "reason" I wanted you to "fork over some bucks" is innocent enough, you can give a man a fish but if you teach him to fish......... don't worry I won't waste my time on you anymore, it's obvious your disdain is enough to keep you fueled.

[traderumor]

Originally posted by Terry
We've shut down the Braves offense in the current series, but in the series last week at GAB, the Braves scored 20 runs in 3 games, including 8 in Game One and 9 in Game Three.

Agreed Terry, and I recalled that when I posted, which is why I specified "starters", because the 8 in Game One was primarily off of the bullpen. Overall, you would have to say the starters have done surprisingly well against the league's top 2 offensive teams. Even the Thursday game, Dempster's E was the only thing that kept him from putting up decent starter #s (must have been the injury )