i remember back in Spring Training....our staff looked something like this:
RHP Van Poppel
RHP Reitsma (it was before trade)
and i started a thread, which i since can't find, about what i projected the team ERA and Runs Against to be based on that staff. And then Steel added onto it by projecting a much better Runs Against than i did, as well as predicting what the team ERA would have to be in order for the Reds to be competitive. as well, Steel also projected the Reds to score about 770 runs if memory serves.
what it broke down to was this:
Team ERA: 5.38
Runs Against: 872 (this is not adjusting for unearned runs, but that's later)
to be competitive ERA needs to be: 4.48
Runs Against: 720
i don't remember what Steel's projection was for what the Reds' staff was likely to do, and i really wish i did.
the actual results the Reds had were like so:
Runs Against: 832 (907)
the parenthetical number is the actualy runs againts, not just earned runs. about 8.3% of the Reds runs against were unearned. the Reds final record was 76-86. three games better than their Pythagorean Record.
by the projections i used, i had the Reds record at 71-91. removing unearned runs from the mix, it becomes 75-87.
by the projections Steel used, the record is put at 78-84. removing unearned runs from the mix, it becomes 85-77.
the Reds finished 3 games above their run differential. to me, that means their intangible elements got them 3 extra wins above their skill. so we end up with something like this
why do i mention all this? because the FO has set itself up for the same doom once again.
RHP Haynes>>Hancock (who just may make us yearn for Ryan Dempster circa 2003)
RHP Van Poppel>>Valentine
RHP Reitsma (it was before trade)>>Bong
in other words, 7/12 of what was used for those ST (i think in March) projections, is returning to the Reds. except another year of being borderline contenders until Mother's Day if this keeps up.