NL Power Rankings: Where Are the Reds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

There's upside talent of a team that wins 90+ games and competes with the Cubs for the division. But a lot of the optimistic takes assume more than they realize. They act like Sal is definitely going to be a big asset, like Elly's 2nd half was injury rather than skill, like McClain bouncing back, that our SP pitchers will stay healthy, etc.

The projections tend to have us around .500. I think that's right as an average, but I think we have higher variance than maybe anybody else.

---

Good point, RMR. I agree, plus I love when people talk math.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herbdizzle

That's not an answer. Your off the cuff reaction isn't what I asked.

I'm curious why you don't think the Mets are a winning team.

---

It's my answer. My evidence is last year. Are they better than last year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RiverfrontRed

It's my answer. My evidence is last year. Are they better than last year?

---

Never mind. I can tell the local ball team ain't the only red hat you wear. Engaging in a real conversation with you is impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herbdizzle

Never mind. I can tell the local ball team ain't the only red hat you wear. Engaging in a real conversation with you is impossible.

---

Insisting that the Mets aren't necessarily as good as they were last year isn't really going out on much of a limb, is it?

This is the kind of thread that will feature wild takes 2 weeks into the season when weird things happen.

"The Marlins have only lost 3 games, so far. I think they're going all the way this year!"

"The Rockies' rotation is surprisingly strong! I have to reconsider my rankings"

Hard for me to believe the Cardinals will be as weak as being projected here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HokieRed

Hard for me to believe the Cardinals will be as weak as being projected here.

---

I was talking to my son yesterday about the Cardinals "rebuild". We both agreed that while on paper they look bad there's no denying the unexplainable "Devil's Magic" those bastards have had over the last two decades(even though the Brewers seemed to have usurped some of it lately) where they always find a way to somehow finish well above expectations. I'm not expecting them to be good at all, but would it surprise me to look up on say June 25th and them be 10 games over .500 and in 1st place? No, it would not at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herbdizzle

Never mind. I can tell the local ball team ain't the only red hat you wear. Engaging in a real conversation with you is impossible.

---

That's a pretty mean thing to say just because you don't care for my answer. No need to make it personal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RiverfrontRed

That's a pretty mean thing to say just because you don't care for my answer. No need to make it personal.

---

Your initial “lol” reaction can be read as a bit rude. Some folks put a lot of thought in to their takes. Just saying, lol wrong, is going to rub people the wrong way if you don’t come armed with info.

Here’s my take on the Mets:

The offense should be pretty good. They lost Pete Alonso, but added Bo Bichette, Marcus Semien, Jorge Polanco, and Luis Robert. They don’t have great depth and have several players that are older (Lindor, Polanco, Semien) or injury-prone (Robert). If you believe in Baty and Alvarez, the Mets could have a very good offense. They’re still probably above-average even if they don’t have great luck. Soto and Lindor are elite bats and they have several solid veterans around them.

Where they lose me is with the starting pitching. Freddy Peralta is nice, but the rest of the rotation is very mid. They spent plenty of money revamping their bullpen - but I think they’re definitely worse than 2025 in this department. They replaced Edwin Díaz with Devin Williams… whatever. They also added Weaver, Raley, and Garcia… this might be the oldest bullpen I’ve ever seen.

Overall, I have them in the middle tier with the Reds and Braves as their peers. I don’t think they have the pitching to be included with the likes of LA, Milwaukee, and Philly.


I’ll say 82-80 as the mean. If things go right on offense and they can get decent SP - they could win 90 games and compete for the East title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redsfan9988

Your initial “lol” reaction can be read as a bit rude. Some folks put a lot of thought in to their takes. Just saying, lol wrong, is going to rub people the wrong way if you don’t come armed with info.

Here’s my take on the Mets:

The offense should be pretty good. They lost Pete Alonso, but added Bo Bichette, Marcus Semien, Jorge Polanco, and Luis Robert. They don’t have great depth and have several players that are older (Lindor, Polanco, Semien) or injury-prone (Robert). If you believe in Baty and Alvarez, the Mets could have a very good offense. They’re still probably above-average even if they don’t have great luck. Soto and Lindor are elite bats and they have several solid veterans around them.

Where they lose me is with the starting pitching. Freddy Peralta is nice, but the rest of the rotation is very mid. They spent plenty of money revamping their bullpen - but I think they’re definitely worse than 2025 in this department. They replaced Edwin Díaz with Devin Williams… whatever. They also added Weaver, Raley, and Garcia… this might be the oldest bullpen I’ve ever seen.

Overall, I have them in the middle tier with the Reds and Braves as their peers. I don’t think they have the pitching to be included with the likes of LA, Milwaukee, and Philly.


I’ll say 82-80 as the mean. If things go right on offense and they can get decent SP - they could win 90 games and compete for the East title.

---

Because I Lol’d the Mets?! Okay. I had one problem with his list of however many. I simply don’t see the Mets additions and subtractions putting them any further ahead than last year. They’re an average team.

For a good part of '25, the Mets looked like maybe the best team in baseball(45-24). For an even better part of the season, they looked like one of the worst teams in baseball(38-55). I guess one's ranking of the Mets in '26 depends on which part of the season you think you saw the REAL Mets. I think lumping them in a tier with the Reds and Braves is pretty fair. I, for one, look for a nice bounce back year from the Braves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ky Fried Redleg

For a good part of '25, the Mets looked like maybe the best team in baseball(45-24). For an even better part of the season, they looked like one of the worst teams in baseball(38-55). I guess one's ranking of the Mets in '26 depends on which part of the season you think you saw the REAL Mets. I think lumping them in a tier with the Reds and Braves is pretty fair. I, for one, look for a nice bounce back year from the Braves.

---

I like the Braves everyday lineup, but their rotation looks perilously thin to me. Sale has had an amazing career but is entering his age 37 season. Schwellenbach looks good, but needs to have a full, healthy season at the MLB level. Strider seems like he is not the same guy he was pre-injury, but maybe he gets back to that level. After that, the rotation looks pretty bad, and their farm system seems pretty weak overall. Lots and lots of question marks on the pitching side of things for them, so they are very high variance in my estimation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha Zero

I like the Braves everyday lineup, but their rotation looks perilously thin to me. Sale has had an amazing career but is entering his age 37 season. Schwellenbach looks good, but needs to have a full, healthy season at the MLB level. Strider seems like he is not the same guy he was pre-injury, but maybe he gets back to that level. After that, the rotation looks pretty bad, and their farm system seems pretty weak overall. Lots and lots of question marks on the pitching side of things for them, so they are very high variance in my estimation.

---

So many teams have questions in the rotation.

Lots of FA options still out there (though they, too, have questions).

Glad the Reds are relatively solid in that department. (And, frankly, across the board.)

The best thing about the Red off-season is that they've added upside without sacrificing high floors. The bullpen still has a bunch of possible high-impact arms. So does the rotation. But neither is likely to fall completely apart (unless a massive amount of injuries all hit at the same time).

The offense is thinner, but the addition of Suarez and a full season of Stewart should see an improvement. Too, because of the upside of McLain, EDLC, Marte, et al, there's a super high ceiling beyond. The only hitters without a massively high ceiling, IMO, are Friedl, Trevino, and Hayes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

There's upside talent of a team that wins 90+ games and competes with the Cubs for the division. But a lot of the optimistic takes assume more than they realize. They act like Sal is definitely going to be a big asset, like Elly's 2nd half was injury rather than skill, like McClain bouncing back, that our SP pitchers will stay healthy, etc.

The projections tend to have us around .500. I think that's right as an average, but I think we have higher variance than maybe anybody else.

---

Where would you rank the pitching staff as a whole? They may not have the top end that other teams have, but there is a real chance that the Reds are going to enter almost every game with a SP who is at minimum slightly better than league average.

They won 83 games last year with an offense that was bad. If they can just get at a little more production from the aforementioned guys, as well as Geno providing some thump in the order, they should be able to approach 90 wins. I think the baseline on a normal season is 83 wins just like last year, but I think the upside is considerably higher. But a lot of the upside is "hope" and I don't really like to put the success/failure of a season on "hope."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

Where would you rank the pitching staff as a whole? They may not have the top end that other teams have, but there is a real chance that the Reds are going to enter almost every game with a SP who is at minimum slightly better than league average.

They won 83 games last year with an offense that was bad. If they can just get at a little more production from the aforementioned guys, as well as Geno providing some thump in the order, they should be able to approach 90 wins. I think the baseline on a normal season is 83 wins just like last year, but I think the upside is considerably higher. But a lot of the upside is "hope" and I don't really like to put the success/failure of a season on "hope."

---

IMO, they're in the argument for second-best after the Dodgers.

The Phillies lost an absolute ton to injury and free agency.
Pittsburgh has a fantastic top-end, but not the depth of quality arms.
Milwaukee traded their ace and lost quite a bit from their pen. They'll need to get lucky again.

At this point, assuming health, I'd feel good about the Reds being second-best.