Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 71

Thread: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

  1. #46
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,939

    Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

    Quote Originally Posted by REDREAD View Post
    That's actually a reasonable quick way to determine the effectiveness of a reliever.

    Chapman gave up runs in 8 appearances out of 68 games
    Broxton gave up runs 13 appearances out of 60 games last year (one of those appearances was no earned runs).

    So if we project Broxton's numbers to 68 games, that means he would've given up runs in about 15 games. The difference between Broxton and Chapman last year could be estimated that Broxton gives up runs in 7 more appearances (roughly). I'm not sure how to project that into blown saves/losses, but it's potentially significant.
    It is probably 2-3 games, at worst. Not every game is a one run lead. You don't lose every game in which your closer gives up the lead.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #47
    2013 W.S. Champions Nathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, Ohio
    Posts
    431

    Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    You don't lose every game in which your closer gives up the lead.
    Chapman did.
    "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

    I'm not a man of many words. Read my posts, and you'll see what I mean.

    Some people are Optimists (They see the glass 1/2 full).
    Others are Pessimists (They see the glass 1/2 empty).
    Me, I'm a Realist. 1/2 empty IS 1/2 full.

  4. #48
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,939

    Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
    Chapman did.
    Well it isn't likely to happen that way.

  5. #49
    2013 W.S. Champions Nathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, Ohio
    Posts
    431

    Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Well it isn't likely to happen that way.
    Agree. But, the argument was it does happen.
    "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

    I'm not a man of many words. Read my posts, and you'll see what I mean.

    Some people are Optimists (They see the glass 1/2 full).
    Others are Pessimists (They see the glass 1/2 empty).
    Me, I'm a Realist. 1/2 empty IS 1/2 full.

  6. #50
    No half measures, Walter RedEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    8,448

    Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

    Quote Originally Posted by REDREAD View Post
    Going into the offseason, the Reds needs were LF, CF, 2 bench infielders, and bullpen. Since they were able to address them all (except maybe one more LH reliever), I guess I would say the Broxton's salary was not an issue.

    Or maybe you like Broxton, but at a lower price? Like if they could get Broxton for 3-5 million, would you like the move then?
    I would like the move more if it were for less money, yes, but my larger point is a philosophical one about roster management. $21 million over three years is a lot of money. Add it to the amount the Reds plunked down on Ludwick and you've got $36 million to play with over three years.

    Generally speaking, I think the smart GM's look for RP in other places before they spend top dollar on an "established closer". IMO, at the time of the Broxton signing the team already had at least two candidates on the roster to close -- Marshall and Hoover -- along with other folks like LeCure and Simon poised to make a larger contribution.
    "I’ll kind of have a foot on the back of my own butt. That’s just how I do things.” -- Bryan Price, 10/22/2013

  7. #51
    No half measures, Walter RedEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    8,448

    Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Ray View Post
    I know where you're coming from but it's half of what Cordero was paid and Cordero was not a huge waste of money. In hindsight he gave us pretty much what he was signed to do. And hey, it's not our money. If this makes Cast feel better, have at it
    True. I like it much better than the Cordero signing. But I still don't like it. As I said, mine is more a philosophical objection. I'd rather see the money distributed toward upgrading more important parts of the roster.

    Can't argue with your point about it not being my money, of course. It's his call, but that doesn't mean I can't complain about it.
    "I’ll kind of have a foot on the back of my own butt. That’s just how I do things.” -- Bryan Price, 10/22/2013

  8. #52
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,629

    Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

    Quote Originally Posted by RedEye View Post
    True. I like it much better than the Cordero signing. But I still don't like it. As I said, mine is more a philosophical objection. I'd rather see the money distributed toward upgrading more important parts of the roster.

    Can't argue with your point about it not being my money, of course. It's his call, but that doesn't mean I can't complain about it.
    I understand. How'd you feel about the Ryan Madson signing a year ago?

    I'm OK with the Broxton deal because I feel better about him closing than Marshall or Hoover. I don't see either of those two closing on a championship team. If Chapman falters as a starter then we go back to our lights out bullpen of a year ago and that's OK too

  9. #53
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,345

    Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

    Quote Originally Posted by RedEye View Post
    Generally speaking, I think the smart GM's look for RP in other places before they spend top dollar on an "established closer". IMO, at the time of the Broxton signing the team already had at least two candidates on the roster to close -- Marshall and Hoover -- along with other folks like LeCure and Simon poised to make a larger contribution.
    I can understand that position, but I just respectfully disagree.
    If the money is there (as in the Reds' case) I don't mind spending it on proven relievers (within reason). The bullpen was a big strength last year. Bullpen is really important in the postseason.

    We've already seen that Marshall is more comfortable in a setup role and excells there. I really don't want to count on Hoover being the closer. Depth is always welcome. The great thing about signing Broxton now is that we get him for 3 years (hopefully healthy), as opposed to possibly scrambling at the trading deadline to address the pen (and giving up prospects).
    Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

    Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

  10. #54
    Member Jpup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Southern KY
    Posts
    6,967

    Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

    1. Angels
    2. Dodgers
    3. Tigers
    4. Phillies
    5. Giants
    6. Reds
    7. Nationals
    8. Blue Jays


    That's my power rankings right now. I don't know if the order matters as they should all be good.
    "My mission is to be the ray of hope, the guy who stands out there on that beautiful field and owns up to his mistakes and lets people know it's never completely hopeless, no matter how bad it seems at the time. I have a platform and a message, and now I go to bed at night, sober and happy, praying I can be a good messenger." -Josh Hamilton

  11. #55
    No half measures, Walter RedEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    8,448

    Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

    Quote Originally Posted by REDREAD View Post
    I can understand that position, but I just respectfully disagree.
    If the money is there (as in the Reds' case) I don't mind spending it on proven relievers (within reason). The bullpen was a big strength last year. Bullpen is really important in the postseason.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Ray
    I understand. How'd you feel about the Ryan Madson signing a year ago?
    We just have different definitions of "within reason" I suppose. And let me emphasize that my complaint is really just a quibble within an overall assessment of Walt's offseason. Broxton didn't break the bank, and neither did Madson -- and I much prefer those signings to the Cordero fiasco of a few years before.

    That said, I think it is also "within reason" for the most savvy front offices to save money by approaching bullpen construction in a different manner. And why not ask for perfection?
    "I’ll kind of have a foot on the back of my own butt. That’s just how I do things.” -- Bryan Price, 10/22/2013

  12. #56
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,629

    Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

    Quote Originally Posted by RedEye View Post
    We just have different definitions of "within reason" I suppose. And let me emphasize that my complaint is really just a quibble within an overall assessment of Walt's offseason. Broxton didn't break the bank, and neither did Madson -- and I much prefer those signings to the Cordero fiasco of a few years before.

    That said, I think it is also "within reason" for the most savvy front offices to save money by approaching bullpen construction in a different manner. And why not ask for perfection?
    I hear ya...

    I'm greedy. I want to stockpile pitching

  13. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Bedford, KY
    Posts
    8,992

    Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

    Quote Originally Posted by Jpup View Post
    1. Angels
    2. Dodgers
    3. Tigers
    4. Phillies
    5. Giants
    6. Reds
    7. Nationals
    8. Blue Jays


    That's my power rankings right now. I don't know if the order matters as they should all be good.
    1. Washington
    Pitching, defense, offense, and, believe it or not, upside. Really solid in all phases of the game.
    2. Cincinnati
    See Washington. Add TOR arm like Chapman as wildcard short series starter. Hope for health.
    3. Toronto
    Love J. Johnson at the front of a rotation that also includes Buehrle, and Dickey? That's going to be hard to beat in the AL.
    4. LA Dodgers
    Holes at either SS or 3B and questions around the infield, but that rotation could be great if all breaks right.
    5. LA Angels
    Unbelievable batting order 1-6, but the rotation is really weak and the pen has questions.
    "You can learn little from victory. You can learn everything from defeat."
    -- Christy Matthewson
    "Show me a good loser and I'll show you an idiot."
    -- Leo Durocher

  14. #58
    Member MikeThierry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo
    Posts
    3,703

    Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

    1. Washington
    2. Cincy
    3. Dodgers
    4. Giants
    5. Blue Jays
    6. Cardinals
    7. Los Angeles Angels of Aneheim, world, universe
    8. Tigers
    “Our next home stand follows this road trip.”

    “I just want to tell everyone Happy Easter and Happy Hanukkah.” says on the day before Easter

    Mike Shannon

  15. #59
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,181

    Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

    Quote Originally Posted by REDREAD View Post
    I guess I disagree with this.

    Where would've been a better place to spend Broxton's money?
    I think we needed another top end arm in the bullpen, especially with Chapman planned to start. Even if you make Hoover the closer, you'd need to add a reliable BP arm.

    In fact, I'd argue the Reds still need to add a good LH reliever too.

    Going into the offseason, the Reds needs were LF, CF, 2 bench infielders, and bullpen.
    Since they were able to address them all (except maybe one more LH reliever), I guess I would say the Broxton's salary was not an issue.

    Or maybe you like Broxton, but at a lower price? Like if they could get Broxton for 3-5 million, would you like the move then?
    Could the Reds have Choo in LF and Michael Bourn in CF if they didn't sign Ludwick and Broxton?
    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.

  16. #60
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,181

    Re: ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

    Quote Originally Posted by smith288 View Post
    Such as? I guess im having a difficult time trying to understand what other variables you are looking for from a national writer to do for all the teams when all that's different between end of season and now is off season moves.
    Account in some way, any way, for the reality that players' likely performance is not simply a repeat of 2012. There are lots of project systems out there. If that's too big of a hurdle, to project teams 2013 performances based on their talent and not just a recombination of 2012 performances, then the writer has asked the wrong question.

    Asking a question that one is not equipped to answer well is not an excuse for providing a weak answer. He could have written an article over just who had the best offseason without including a weak projection of 2013.

    Don't get me wrong, I understand that's a hard article to write, especially this time of year. And I know I'm being way too harsh for article that's supposed to be relatively soft/accessible. I just see that kind of lazy thinking all over the place and expect more from a print journalist than sportstalk radio.
    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.


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