Reds Over .500 Watch

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Hadn't heard from the crowing authors of this post in a while.

Speaking of crow....how do you like yours prepared?

I don't recall ever saying that my Dreds would break .500. In fact, I have been arguing for a while now on these threads that money by in large is the determining factor for success in MLB. Teams that spend around $90 million or so typically finish .500 or better as the opposite is true.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Hadn't heard from the crowing authors of this post in a while.

Speaking of crow....how do you like yours prepared?

I'm hardly posting here anymore, but I will do an end of the year post mortem on the Reds after the season. Obviously this season hasn't been what I had hoped for, but I think they've done some good things for 2010 and beyond.

Originally posted by whodey
I don't recall ever saying that my Dreds would break .500. In fact, I have been arguing for a while now on these threads that money by in large is the determining factor for success in MLB. Teams that spend around $90 million or so typically finish .500 or better as the opposite is true.

"Typically". So what? Here's this years MLB payrolls: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries

The Mets are #2 in payroll and are out of it (granted the Mets' injuries have been catastrophic). The Cubs, Astros and Mariners are in the top ten in payroll and it would take a miracle for any of them to make the playoffs.

On the other hand, the Marlins have a $36 million dollar payroll and still have a shot. Money is a factor certainly, but hardly "THE determining" one "for success in MLB".

Originally posted by no1marauder
"Typically". So what? Here's this years MLB payrolls: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries

The Mets are #2 in payroll and are out of it (granted the Mets' injuries have been catastrophic). The Cubs, Astros and Mariners are in the top ten in payroll and it would take a miracle for any of them to make the playoffs.

On ...[text shortened]... hot. Money is a factor certainly, but hardly "THE determining" one "for success in MLB".

Here are the facts as we speak today.

Top 15 pay roll teams
First place teams account for 100%
Second place teams account for 50%
Thrird place teams account for 66%
Fourth place teams account for 25%
Fifth place teams 0%
Sixth place teams 0%

Bottom 15 pay roll teams
There are not first place teams
Second place teams account for 50%
Third place teams account for 33%
Fourth place teams account for 75%
Fifth place teams account for 100%
Sixth place teams account for 100%

To put it another way, lets look at teams above and below 0.500

Top 15 pay roll teams account for 11 teams above .500
Bottom 15 pay roll teams account for 11 teams below .500

Top 15 pay roll teams account for 4 teams below .500
Bottom 15 pay roll teams account for 4 teams above .500

As you can see, these numbers are mirror images of each other in favor of higher salary ball clubs.

Spending great sums of money in the top 15 ball clubs should get you above .500 as we see, unless you are the Cubs or Mets or Reds, (which appear to all be cursed) LOL. However, there are no garauntees.

Of course, the confounding factors include those ball clubs which are run well verses those that are run poorly. For example, the Cardinals need not spend quite as much as the Cubs in order to over take them simply because they are a much better run organization. However, if the Cardinals only spent as much as the Reds or Pirates, for example, I think the Cubs would over take them depsite being a much better run ball club.

to bad they didn't break .500

Originally posted by RBHILL
to bad they didn't break .500

For the last decade you mean? LOL.

Originally posted by whodey
For the last decade you mean? LOL.

Instead of "Red legs" I guess they are "Red in the face"

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Instead of "Red legs" I guess they are "Red in the face"

Actually, they have adopted the nickname "the Dreds"

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Instead of "Red legs" I guess they are "Red in the face"

I'm happy to say that my predictions that the "Reds would own Roy Oswalt" AND "we'll get him good at some point in the season" were both substantially correct. The Reds won 3 out of 4 when Oswalt pitched and he was not able to muster a single win against Cincinnati on my watch after dominating the Reds for years. In my Reds' last two games against Oswalt, he had a 6.00 ERA. Humility prevents me from saying more.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm happy to say that my predictions that the "Reds would own Roy Oswalt" AND "we'll get him good at some point in the season" were both substantially correct. The Reds won 3 out of 4 when Oswalt pitched and he was not able to muster a single win against Cincinnati on my watch after dominating the Reds for years. In my Reds' last two games against Oswalt, he had a 6.00 ERA. Humility prevents me from saying more.

Wow, how many losses did they pin on Roy?

Secondly, the guy played in pain all year and will have back surgery in the off season more than likely.

The Astros provided no run support all year.

How many leads did the bullpen squander for Roy?

So many of your predictions fell flat, yet you fail to mention those. Guess that is your humility showing again.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Wow, how many losses did they pin on Roy?

Secondly, the guy played in pain all year and will have back surgery in the off season more than likely.

The Astros provided no run support all year.

How many leads did the bullpen squander for Roy?

So many of your predictions fell flat, yet you fail to mention those. Guess that is your humility showing again.

I'll give a post summing up the season after the season is over. I'm already $50 poorer for the prediction of the title of this thread.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'll give a post summing up the season after the season is over. I'm already $50 poorer for the prediction of the title of this thread.

Just a word of advice, don't make the same bet next year unless you have another $50 burning a hole in your pocket. 😉