Last edited by RedsManRick; 01-15-2007 at 01:57 PM.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
Just a little something to mull over as we try to determine the Reds' top 10. Here's what BA's John Sickels had to say about Zach Ward in a Twins chat:
"He's probably in the top 30 but was not a factor for the top 10 for me. He's probably going to be a reliever, with his delivery and his stuff and his mentality. Then if he's a reliever, is he better than Eduardo Morlan, or Pat Neshek, or Jose Mijares, or Tim Lahey, or Yohan Pino, or . . . it's tough to project relievers. Ward would have been top 10 in the Reds system, and he's not really--in my mind--close to top 10 for the Twins. That says something about the Twins' system, but more about the Reds, IMO."
So we're not the only ones wrestling with the Reds' lack of depth.
Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong
I'm witchcrafting everybody.
I remember that came up in the aftermath of the Lohse/Ward trade. Someone asked how we could trade a pitcher that was probably in our top ten prospects and the rebuttal was that losing the tenth-best prospect is no big deal if we only have five or six that are supposed to be good and he wasn't one of them.
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible
I was just looking back at some of the previous lists, and I laughed when I saw that we ranked Sean Watson ahead of AL MVP Josh Hamilton. Watson's likely one of the 10-12 candidates who will never play MLB.
Good point, medford. Years from now, we may be talking about this year as one of the best groups of prospects ever. Imagine having a top-10 prospect list of this:
. . . because those are players the Reds had going into 2007.