espn.com predictions

[coachw513]

Who-da thunk that in order to get some positive things said about the Reds, we'd have to go to ESPN

I might suggest Mr. Rojas seek counseling/rehab immediately, however...

but put me in the corner of being incredibly excited about the possibility of a pitching laden club...if I have to hope for the Pythag to improve, I'd much rather hope to generate more offense,particularly since IMHO adding offense is much easier to do than adding defense...in this economically challenged period, one might believe that plenty of bats would be available if the Reds merit potential playoff improvement come July...

[kaldaniels]

Gripe all you want about the Reds having been a dark horse many times over the last decade...but when was the last time the Reds have gotten this much love in the preseason? Where there is smoke there's fire...

[dabvu2498]

The Charlotte Observer here picks the Reds as their surprise team. I wish I was half as high as the media seems to be.

There. Fixed that for ya!

[BCubb2003]

I love the mentions the Reds are getting, although I think it's a matter of ... if you're asked to name a surprise team, you don't go for one that has a healthy chance of winning, because that wouldn't be a surprise. You don't go for the Pirates, because they never have a chance. You've been picking the Brewers for a few years, because they often look good, but they fall short. If you pick the Reds, you can point to excellent pitching and a couple of good young hitters. You don't look too foolish.

[VR]

I am truly fascinated by the media predicting anything from the Reds. Some mention the young nucleus and the potential of the pitching staff. What has really changed though? Young players are a year older and the Reds are counting on their defense being better because of the subtraction of 2 OF's. They say they are about speed and defense in a ballpark built for the home run and then the main preacher of the speed and defense philosophy gets on the phone to Gary Sheffield. Interesting, if nothing else

I see the 2009 Reds looking very, very similar to the 2003 Marlins.....with them having a bit better offense, and the Reds having 'potentially' better pitching.

[RedEye]

Out of the 21 ESPN "experts" predictions, 10 of them had the Reds as their dark-horse team.

At a certain point, the horse starts turning to a lighter shade of dark.

[Falls City Beer]

I think most people *still* underestimate the importance of starting pitching.

[jojo]

I think most people *still* underestimate the importance of starting pitching.

I think you can win with great starting pitching and you can not win with great starting pitching. You can lose without great starting pitching and you can not lose without great starting pitching.

The Mariners won 116 games in 2001 without great starting pitching.

[Falls City Beer]

I think you can win with great starting pitching and you can not win with great starting pitching. You can lose without great starting pitching and you can not lose without great starting pitching.

The Mariners won 116 games in 2001 without great starting pitching.

Though with an excellent pen to follow a solid rotation. Defense played a huge role as well.

[Falls City Beer]

I think you can win with great starting pitching and you can not win with great starting pitching. You can lose without great starting pitching and you can not lose without great starting pitching.

The Mariners won 116 games in 2001 without great starting pitching.

The teams with truly great pitching (excellent in the 1 spot to respectable in #5) don't lose often.

The only formula that is doomed to fail is an "offense-only" approach (cf. Cincinnati Reds 2000-2008).

[jojo]

The teams with truly great pitching (excellent in the 1 spot to respectable in #5) don't lose often.

The only formula that is doomed to fail is an "offense-only" approach (cf. Cincinnati Reds 2000-2008).

I think any aspect of the game where a team truly has a sledge hammer advantage dramatically increases their chances even if flawed in other places. In '01 the Ms were sledgehammer offensively and defensively and pretty vanilla pitching-wise.

The Reds were basically an offense only team from '00-'08 but their offense wasn't actually exceptional. For instance the Yanks scored over 850 runs 7 times (over 900 twice) during that period. Boston scored over 900 runs three times during that period. The Reds actually only managed to score more than 800 twice during that period (825 and 820). Unfortunately they were the anti-'01 Ms in other aspects of the game as atrocious defense accentuated their pitching but not in a good way.

Just being good at one thing though, probably isn't going to get it done.

[redsfan4445]

we havent shown a offense that can get to the playoffs much less the world Series!!!.. they have to average 4+ runs a game and spring training they scored 3 runs or less(16 times).. and we have no solid bench and if this is the new reds, it reminds me of 1983 where soto had to throw a shut out to win 1-0!! Sigh!! not trying t be negative.. just tired of losing and they didnt get a #4 hitter to help this offense.. and they didnt improve the bench! McDonlad over Gomes is a mistake in my opnion!