The second half

As a baseball fan, Which would you rather see. a 15 to 14 game or a 2 to 1 game like last night. Myself I prefer the later, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here. At least on this board.

MLB higher ups want to draw fans. Many people believe that baseball is boring and if you look at the stands while a game is in progress you can see how bored some of the people are. Not all but a lot

I remember I was at a game at Riverfront back in the 80's. The Reds had a 1 run lead in the ninth with 2 outs and bases loaded with John Franco on the mound. I believe he had a full count on the batter. When the 5 people sitting in front of me all stood up and picked up their things getting ready to walk out. They weren't looking at the field but their sits. No one behind them could see a thing. Me being the overly forward person that I was screamed, Lady sit down the game is on the line! They all sat down red faced, and Franco stroke out the batter and the Reds won the game. I'm not sure why people like that even go to games.

Well this year people like that between looking at their cell phones and staring off aimlessly can see more home runs. Or at least hear the crack of the bat and the fans roar.

eburg5000 said:

As a baseball fan, Which would you rather see. a 15 to 14 game or a 2 to 1 game like last night. Myself I prefer the later, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here. At least on this board.

MLB higher ups want to draw fans. Many people believe that baseball is boring and if you look at the stands while a game is in progress you can see how bored some of the people are. Not all but a lot

I remember I was at a game at Riverfront back in the 80's. The Reds had a 1 run lead in the ninth with 2 outs and bases loaded with John Franco on the mound. I believe he had a full count on the batter. When the 5 people sitting in front of me all stood up and picked up their things getting ready to walk out. They weren't looking at the field but their sits. No one behind them could see a thing. Me being the overly forward person that I was screamed, Lady sit down the game is on the line! They all sat down red faced, and Franco stroke out the batter and the Reds won the game. I'm not sure why people like that even go to games.

Well this year people like that between looking at their cell phones and staring off aimlessly can see more home runs. Or at least hear the crack of the bat and the fans roar.

Click to expand...

Easier just to quote the whole thing ... sadly I think the day of the fan who really watches the game is long gone. I am among that group that doesn't need the dancing mascots, the hip hop music on the scoreboard and the 15 dollar plate of nachos. I go for the game. We are a group that has long since vanished.

I go to a lot of minor league games and the kids are constantly running up and down the steps, never watching anything but the line at the food stand. Mom spends zero minutes watching the game; she's the super Mom who makes sure everyone has what they need. Nobody watches the game. The kids and swinging on the railings and the ushers are too lazy or old to care. AFter all, it's paid admission.

As far as 15-14 or 2-1, it depends though the high scoring game usually includes a lot of walks, which makes the game take too long. The 2-1 game means every pitcher takes 35 seconds to get the ball, rub it, square up on the mound, lean in, read the Bible, get the sign, move the ball around in his glove, take a 14-second stretch (with nobody on base) and toss one up there that lands in the dirt. Ball thrown out of play, rinse and repeat.

That's what is wrong with the game, and add in the crap about the family that thinks it's entertainment, and screw those of us who see it as a sport ...

We are not going to win. Soon, "Budweiser" will sponsor the Reds and we will have an NBA league that goes ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! A few thousand hard-cores surrounded by people who came to watch the racing pigs in between innings. At least in the minor league games I attend, I don't pay 15 bucks to park my car.

Playing in a lot of 2-1 games most likely means you're a pretty good team. Playing in a lot of 15-14 marathons means you're probably not. I'd rather watch two good teams play irregardless of score.

Last night's game had a pitchers duel score, but there was a lot of offensive ineptitude mixed in. Combined there were 26 base runners including 10 walks. There were zero home runs and each team was 1-9 with RISP. The game took over 3 hours to score three runs.

There are a lot of teams struggling to score when they don't hit the long ball. We saw two of them last night.

Wandy and Blake ... looking for the nearest backstop.

Hit-n-Run said:

The game took over 3 hours to score three runs.

Click to expand...

Just about every game in Milwaukee seemed to go long.

On another note. Did anyone see Joe Morgan when he was in the broadcast booth last homestand. I really enjoy his analysis of the game. they said he was going to do more on this next homestand.

I wish he would do them all. and replace Thom Brennaman. or at least keep him on point. I can't stand it when he goes off on subjects that have nothing to do with the game. One game he spent 2 innings talking about how much 2 player on the opposing team looked alike I think Brennaman is one of those people that gets bored with the game. Thom and Joe buck are my 2 least liked broadcasters and are very much alike. I guess i'm in the minority on this because they are 1,2 on fox.

I used to turn the sound down and listen to the radio, but I guess everyone was doing that, so they put a delay between the two

Thom B. is well-meaning, I think, far too emotional ... but he does tend to get tiresome about his incessant promotion of the "really great people" and the "how we owe SOOOOOOOOO much to the men and women who defend our (whatevers) ..."

I don't think he cares much for baseball but I think he cares about making whatever he does more interesting than it really is.

As for the long games, that's not going to improve since all attempts so far to achieve that have done exactly the opposite. The worst offenders are the relief pitchers who all apparently have learned that taking a very long time to pitch the ball has been successful. The long hold/pause from the set motion is truly annoying. Why can't they get the signal while the hitter is adjusting his gloves for the 88th time of the at-bat?

I think the delay is technological to bleep out on-air visual mistakes.

I like Morgan but I fear he will be chewed up by sabremetrics guys. Joe is not a metrics fan.

Cincinnati Reds Top 20 prospects for 2017: Mid-season review

I'll leave this here for you guys.

navamind said:

Cincinnati Reds Top 20 prospects for 2017: Mid-season review

I'll leave this here for you guys.

Click to expand...

I think the consensus is that Senzel is legit but as a 3B, where to play him?
Castillo obviously is already an impact pitcher.
Winker probably will be on the roster next year but as a LH bat, it's tougher to see him in a 4-outfield spot with Schebler also a LH bat. Neither would be real good in CF.
Phil Ervin might be the CF of the future. Too early to tell on him but so far, he's handled it.
That leaves pitching.
It gets real tricky after that.
Mahle is the guy to watch.

It's pretty clear that Feldman isn't going to pitch much more this year.

JohnU said:

Joe is not a metrics fan.

Click to expand...

Me either.

I think Winkler, Schebler, Ervin, and maybe Hamilton, or any other of the outfielders could be traded in the off season. I just hope they will keep the right outfielders and not make some kind of trade that will be compared with the worst trades in baseball history. I think Winkler will hit for average and have a high OBP. But it is really to early to tell. Schebler who's shoulder must have fell off. was in a terrible slump. could be the stress of playing everyday wore him down.

I think the problem with trading Schebler, Winker, Ervin, or Hamilton is there isn't a lot of individual return value. The Reds don't need to trade any of them, so I don't think they will if there's no return in value.

All of those guys have at least three years of team control with Hamilton being the only one into arbitration this fall.

Unless a trade brought back a viable CF, it's hard to see how they could include BH in a trade at this point. There isn't another CF on this roster.

Hit-n-Run said:

I think the problem with trading Schebler, Winker, Ervin, or Hamilton is there isn't a lot of individual return value. The Reds don't need to trade any of them, so I don't think they will if there's no return in value.

All of those guys have at least three years of team control with Hamilton being the only one into arbitration this fall.

Unless a trade brought back a viable CF, it's hard to see how they could include BH in a trade at this point. There isn't another CF on this roster.

Click to expand...

You nailed it. What BH brings to the game isn't highly useful unless you like fast guys who can play center field. If that mattered, the Reds would be locking him up for 8 more years.
Corner outfielders with .260/30/.340 are not rare. Jay Bruce would have been worth more had that been the case.
Ervin can play CF though he has no long history there and he's only had 10 at-bats so who knows?
I don't see that the Reds are in position to make a real trade for anybody, Suarez the possible exception. I suppose a case could be made for trading Iglesias but not in the off-season. If he was gonna go, the Nats would have scarfed him up, so one wonders what kind of deal was offered there.
Looking forward at the rest of the division, it's hard to see that any of the current teams have a ton of super-dooper talent in their farms to trade, so maybe for the moment, the Reds could stay put and let what they have marinate.
Sadly, I don't see the pitching as anything next year that it isn't this year. Guys who spend the whole season/winter rehabbing aren't exactly what I want to pin my hopes on.
A rotation next year is the same list of guys we have memorized.

JohnU said:

A rotation next year is the same list of guys we have memorized

Click to expand...

Ouch!!!!

I was looking at the Bats pitchers including the ones we know about.
The only one I'd really consider now is Jackson Stephens.

Who on the 40 man roster is worthy of calling up?
A) Garrett
B) Reed
C) Stephens
D) Rookie Davis

My answer would be.....
E) None of the above.

Tyler Mahle is the only guy we haven't seen. He has to be added to the roster this fall to be protected from the rule 5 draft. I'd like to see him get added sooner and called up in September.

Hit-n-Run said:

Who on the 40 man roster is worthy of calling up?
A) Garrett
B) Reed
C) Stephens
D) Rookie Davis

My answer would be.....
E) None of the above.

Tyler Mahle is the only guy we haven't seen. He has to be added to the roster this fall to be protected from the rule 5 draft. I'd like to see him get added sooner and called up in September.

Click to expand...

A agree that Stephens is a push, but of the 4, he's the only one who's not walked 2 out of every 18 hitters he faces.
I think the front office will probably give Reed and Rookie another chance to make the club though I can't see how a Sept. callup is going to impact that. Reed is just too wild. Rookie probably is a lifetime 4-A pitcher. Garrett as well. Garrett and Reed, as lefties, may get a chance to do the "Cingrani' role.
I do know that the team is going to give Disco and Finnegan all the time to get ready but, seriously, even if they are ... are they really anything but mid-rotation guys? Compared to a rusty hulk out back of the barn, the 1981 Ford Granada was a Rolls Royce.

What ever happened to Garrett. He had pretty good control in April, But went on a steady decline after that. Maybe I just listened to much to all the hype. But with all the hype he had, he sure has fallen off the charts.

The reds in the last couple of years have traded for a lot of pitching prospects, and very few has panned out very well. I don't know if it's bad scouting or management wanting to dump salary so bad, they don't care what they get in return. The term " pitching prospects" sounds good and it takes awhile to develop them. It's a good way to hide bad trades. Like the Chapman trade.

Castillo is the exception, I don't know why Miami parted with him.

I think the Reds are not unlike almost all teams that get a flock of 'prospects' that don't pan out. We only notice because the teams that win have a Kershaw on their staff. The Reds problem is that the staff they wanted either got hurt, didn't pitch well or both. It's 2 years going on that the entire rotation has been on paper or in the whirlpool. The reason most teams don't sustain success is for that same reason. Most pitchers have a shelf life of about 4 years, tops.



I think we have condemned the whole operation as a failure when the difference between winning and losing is often a hamstring injury or a pulled lat muscle. Sad for the Reds, the whole pitching staff did that at the same time and it's going to be awhile before we know if these guys are pitchers or just throwers. Since they have all been on rehab for a year, they aren't actually getting better at pitching, just trying to decide if they have the mindset to go out there again. That's what has happened to Homer Bailey.

I'm felling better now about not losing 100 games. I think we only need 10 more wins to keep from doing that. Of course if they go on one of those 2 and 18 slumps they still could lose 100 or more games. With this rotation it's possible. I think at this point the Reds are 53 and 72.

If they can keep Storen and Wood somehow on the DL until Sept. 28, they might avoid 100 losses.