We're pretty good

[RedEye]

In Philly's case, they had already seen him twice for extended appearances this spring, and sure didn't have a much firmer grasp on his stuff this time around. For what it's worth.

That's true. Isn't there some prevailing theory, though, that the pitchers start out the season "ahead" of the hitters? I don't want to curb our enthusiasm about these guys, because I'm as enthused as anyone, but I just want to know at what point their contributions will be deemed legitimate enough to be considered reliable.

Another way of putting it would be: At what point do Cueto and Volquez's performances stop being simply a question of "small sample size" and more a question of repeatable dominance?

[Larry Schuler]

Another way of putting it would be: At what point do Cueto and Volquez's performances stop being simply a question of "small sample size" and more a question of repeatable dominance?

At the end of the season when you're looking back at their 2008 stats.

[Falls City Beer]

Nothing jumps right out at you about this team as being really bad. It's early yet, but that could be a hopeful sign.

[WMR]

Nothing jumps right out at you about this team as being really bad. It's early yet, but that could be a hopeful sign.

Catching and corner outfield defense (with RF being especially poor compared on average to the rest of the majors).

[RedEye]

At the end of the season when you're looking back at their 2008 stats.

I would think there would be an earlier point in the season where we could judge their staying power. Perhaps by the time they are facing the league the second time? I can't help remember Jack Armstrong's second half in 1990 every time I think about that sort of thing (boy, he didn't fool 'em the second time, did he?) Not that I think C and V will end up like him, but it's just really one of the only comparisons I have at this point.

[PuffyPig]

I would think there would be an earlier point in the season where we could judge their staying power. Perhaps by the time they are facing the league the second time? I can't help remember Jack Armstrong's second half in 1990 every time I think about that sort of thing (boy, he didn't fool 'em the second time, did he?) Not that I think C and V will end up like him, but it's just really one of the only comparisons I have at this point.

I've always assumed that Armstrong had injury problems more than anything else.

[Falls City Beer]

Catching and corner outfield defense (with RF being especially poor compared on average to the rest of the majors).

True. I meant overall, I guess.

[RedEye]

I've always assumed that Armstrong had injury problems more than anything else.

Maybe a bad example.

Anyway, does anyone else have an idea about when we might be able to say, definitively, that these two pitchers are legit? At the all-star break? After the season? After two months? After a certain number of starts? After several years? Am I just crazy for asking this sort of question?

There has to be some sort of statistical or temporal wisdom we can use here, right?

[bucksfan2]

Maybe a bad example.

Anyway, does anyone else have an idea about when we might be able to say, definitively, that these two pitchers are legit? At the all-star break? After the season? After two months? After a certain number of starts? After several years? Am I just crazy for asking this sort of question?

There has to be some sort of statistical or temporal wisdom we can use here, right?

When they both are voted into the HOF.

I think they both showed a lot in their first start, enough to prove that they can be legit pitchers day in day out in the bigs. What Volquez did was pretty amazing. He faced the Phillies, one of the best, if not the best lineup in the NL, three times over the span of a few weeks. They both will have bumps in the road, I think Cueto may have a few more because he has never pitched at the big league level. However there will also be days with they are ouright filthy and dominant.

[RedlegJake]

I tend to think Cueto will have fewer bad days because his command is pretty consistent but I might be wrong.

[Az Red]

After 7 games, the Reds' pitching staff has 62 strikeouts, and leads the Major Leagues. ...

[WebScorpion]

After 7 games, the Reds' pitching staff has 62 strikeouts, and leads the Major Leagues. ...

...and Cueto pitches tonight.

[nate]

After 7 games, the Reds' pitching staff has 62 strikeouts, and leads the Major Leagues. ...

Beat me to it. I just noticed that one myself. Nice to lead a "good" pitching category for a change.

[Steve4192]

Catching and corner outfield defense

I agree about the corner OF defense, but catching is no more of a problem for the Reds than it is for just about everyone else. There are only so many McCann's, Martin's, and Mauer's to go around. Everyone else has to make due with scraps. Outside of the half-dozen or so teams with a standout catcher, everyone else is trotting out a bunch of journeymen.

While the Reds brand of journeyman might be at the bottom of the barrel, it's a pretty shallow barrel. The difference between the guys in the middle and the guys at the bottom is just a matter of degrees of suck. Sure, I wish the Reds catching sucked less, but it's not like there is a huge performance differential between them and the rest of the scrubs donning the tools of ignorance around the majors.

[klw]

bump up in attempt to generate good karma