reds44

You are ignoring the Dusty factor. Two of these guys will probably die this year. Dusty was no worse than Jerry Narron when it comes to pitcher abuse.

Not if Dusty is still at the helm, they won't. He'll be gone by a couple of years. He'll be gone after this year if we suck again (which we will).

Oh wow I was on a Cubs board and Reds argument. I'll add in my two cents. -Bruce, if he pans out, projects to be better than. He hit 21 homers in 413 ABs as a 21 year old. His body is nowhere near it's peak, and he projects to hit just as many HRs as Dunn has. There is a slight chance that Bruce turns into the absolute pud that Dunn did (and I am a Dunn fan, but that's just a fact), but assuming he doesn't Bruce is going to be a plus outfielder. Dunn is a lifetime .247 hitter, Bruce will be up around .280 which will allow him to drive in more runs than Dunn did. I understand everyone's opinon on counting stats, but if Bruce hits .280 and hits 35+ homers his walk totals will go up. Add in his plus defense and Bruce will be better than Dunn. -Harang won't get any better? We'll which Harang are you talking about? Does anybody honestly think he will go 6-17 with a 4.78 ERA again next year when he posted 4 consecutive sub 4 ERA seasons? Not going to happen. Harang will be back to pre 2008 Harang this year, which means he will be improved. As for the rest of the pitching staff, Volquez last year will be as good as he'll ever be and he'll probably regress a little this year. With that being said, he'll still be sub 4 ERA with 200 innings and 200 Ks. Cueto should take a step forward this year in his progression. He'll end up in a year or two being just as good, if not better, than Volquez. There's always the off chance that Bailey pulls his head out of his ass, but I don't expect it. -I will agree with those who don't see Votto improving that much, but I also don't see anything wrong with that. .300/.368/.506 isn't anything to bat an eye at. I expect to see his average go down a bit and his power go up. Phillips and (especially) Encarnacion are two guys who have the ability to bust out at any minute. I like Encarnacion's offense more than Phillips. I'm honestly not sure what to expect out of Chris Dickerson. He reminds me of Phillips in that he has a lot of talent, but not real sure what to do with it. One thing is for sure though, you don't have to worry about the Reds this year. Not until they solve their LF and SS problem.

And so it begins

Yes, but eventually Northwestern was going to play some real teams (they play in a BCS conference), and that's why they lost. So like I have been saying all along, if you let the schedules play out things will work out. Don't worry about what it looks like after 5-6 games.

No, I didn't. Every undefeated BCS team goes ahead of Florida (yes, including a team like Northwestern going into the day). Florida is my 2nd best 1 loss team behind USC. Are you for real? Wow. Yes. Do I think Northwestern is better then Florida? No, and it proved out on the field. Rankings right now mean very little, it will all sort itself out by the end of the year. It's pretty simple, you both play in BCS conferences, a zero loss team is ahead of a one loss team. What gets trick is when you get 0 vs. 0 or 1 vs. 1 or a non-BCS team gets thrown into the mix. Then why do you rank Northwestern ahead of Florida? You don't think they're better but you rank them ahead. Because they were more deserving. Over a 12 game schedule, the best teams will sort themselves out on the field. If you look at half a math problem and try to solve it, you are going to have issues. Just have to take it step by step. So don't rank them. 12 games isn't a big enough sample to judge teams by W-L when they don't play the same teams. Why shouldn't you rank them? As soon as you lose a game, you lose any right to complain. Win all your games, that's all they can control. Hell, don't want to rank them, fine. Just have standings.

No, I didn't. Every undefeated BCS team goes ahead of Florida (yes, including a team like Northwestern going into the day). Florida is my 2nd best 1 loss team behind USC. Are you for real? Wow. Yes. Do I think Northwestern is better then Florida? No, and it proved out on the field. Rankings right now mean very little, it will all sort itself out by the end of the year. It's pretty simple, you both play in BCS conferences, a zero loss team is ahead of a one loss team. What gets trick is when you get 0 vs. 0 or 1 vs. 1 or a non-BCS team gets thrown into the mix. Then why do you rank Northwestern ahead of Florida? You don't think they're better but you rank them ahead. Because they were more deserving. Over a 12 game schedule, the best teams will sort themselves out on the field. If you look at half a math problem and try to solve it, you are going to have issues. Just have to take it step by step.

No, I didn't. Every undefeated BCS team goes ahead of Florida (yes, including a team like Northwestern going into the day). Florida is my 2nd best 1 loss team behind USC. Are you for real? Wow. Yes. Do I think Northwestern is better than Florida? No, and it proved out on the field. Rankings right now mean very little, it will all sort itself out by the end of the year. It's pretty simple, you both play in BCS conferences, a zero loss team is ahead of a one loss team. What gets tricky is when you get 0 vs. 0 or 1 vs. 1 or a non-BCS team gets thrown into the mix.

And then some fight broke out and a fan fell onto the field.

No, I didn't. Every undefeated BCS team goes ahead of Florida (yes, including a team like Northwestern going into the day). Florida is my 2nd best 1 loss team behind USC.

I didn't, but thanks for trying to read my mind.

Ah, I KNEW something was missing from the college football season. Now with that post, the college football season is complete and I can enjoy the rest of the season in peace. Why is it a bad idea to judge stats in baseball when you have a small sample but when it's football, it's alright? They're two completely different sports. In football, everything is a small sample size because there's only 12-13 games where in baseball there's 162. I understand the sample size in baseball thing, but the sample size in football is the entire regular season. But how do you get a proper, clear idea based on W-L of such a small sample? Team A in a BCS conference has 0 zero losses. Team B in a BCS conference has 1 loss. Team A should be ranked ahead of team B. You can only control who you beat on your schedule. The Big 12 is better than the SEC anyways. So you can tell Team A is better than Team B because of their W-L record in 5 or 6 games? No, but you have to rank somebody after 5 or 5 games, and team A should be ranked higher. If Ok State ends the year with 0 losses and Florida ends with 1, OK State should be ranked higher.

LOL, this is amazing.

Ah, I KNEW something was missing from the college football season. Now with that post, the college football season is complete and I can enjoy the rest of the season in peace. Why is it a bad idea to judge stats in baseball when you have a small sample but when it's football, it's alright? They're two completely different sports. In football, everything is a small sample size because there's only 12-13 games where in baseball there's 162. I understand the sample size in baseball thing, but the sample size in football is the entire regular season. But how do you get a proper, clear idea based on W-L of such a small sample? Team A in a BCS conference has 0 zero losses. Team B in a BCS conference has 1 loss. Team A should be ranked ahead of team B. You can only control who you beat on your schedule. The Big 12 is better than the SEC anyways.

Ah, I KNEW something was missing from the college football season. Now with that post, the college football season is complete and I can enjoy the rest of the season in peace. Why is it a bad idea to judge stats in baseball when you have a small sample but when it's football, it's alright? Uh, wut? Nobody is saying X player is good or bad because they had two bad games. We are halfway thru the season, it's not a small sample size any longer. Ranking Eastern Michigan #1 if they start 1-0 would be bad, but having no loss Ok State ahead of 1 loss Florida, I have zero problem with.

This is the greatest post ever. Wins and losses are now a bad stat. That is amazing.

They still suck.

I think a manager like Dusty (or Ozzie) would have been better this posteason for the Cubs just too loosen things up. Today Ozzie was throwing crap at Cooper during an interview with his team in an 0-2 hole. With that being said, the answer is Wood and Prior.

I'm only 20 and I realize we're never winning a World Series. I've never seen a winning season for the Reds. I feel your pain. Then you've been a fan for eight seasons or loss, so no you don't. It sucks, but [expletive] happens. It WILL happen eventually.

I'm only 20 and I realize we're never winning a World Series. I've never seen a winning season for the Reds. I feel your pain.

Sorry. I seriously feel awful for all of you, and I really didn't care who won this series. Keep your heads up, they'll be back. One day they'll win it and it will be that much sweeter.

Lot of unhappy cancer patients.

This may get me banned but oh well. This is the dumbest thread in the history of this board. Dodgers fans get cancer and have all the same issues you just posted, why does a Cubs fan deserve it more then them? In the end it's sports, don't let your life's happiness depend on it. It's a game, don't make it bigger then what it is. Be pissed, be happy, be whatever, but don't make it your life.

Just tear down the main area, build a new one, keep the bleachers, and put a video board on the bud roof. And if that's not possible, new stadiu, 18--not a Cubs fan

I don't like the odds of the Reds winning a game this series.