PDA

View Full Version : Who is the Reds biggest rival?



adampad
06-24-2004, 01:52 PM
After years of hating the Braves, it just isn't the same anymore. Maybe because all of those bandwagon fans have been dissappearing, or maybe the Reds just don't play them enough anymore. The rivalry doesn't seem to be there.

So who do you consider the biggest arch rival to the Reds? Cubs, Cards, Sto's? Maybe Cleveland, or Carl Lindner?

Cedric
06-24-2004, 01:53 PM
Dodgers will always be my most hated rival, obviously the schedule has killed it though. I guess the Cubs

Edd Roush
06-24-2004, 01:56 PM
The most disliked team in my point-of-view as a Reds fan is Cleveland. I just don't like the way Indians fans act. It always seems like the little Indians hitters (Belliard, Crisp, Vizquel) beat up on the Reds every year, which irks me. I think the Indians are the reds biggest rivals.

RedFanAlways1966
06-24-2004, 01:56 PM
Cubs!

Puffy
06-24-2004, 01:58 PM
Cubs!

Puffy seconds this - Puffy hates the Cubs.

zombie-a-go-go
06-24-2004, 01:58 PM
Cubbies. Grr.

Doc. Scott
06-24-2004, 02:03 PM
Cardinals.

savafan
06-24-2004, 02:06 PM
The Cardinals are a great rivalry, but I just can't hate them the way I hate the Cubs.

I wish the Reds still played the Dodgers enough for that rivalry to continue. It was fun hating the Dodgers.

jmcclain19
06-24-2004, 02:07 PM
Cubs or Cards. Indians perhaps as well.

But the Fowl Ones and the Hairy Babies still get the blood boiling.

Chip R
06-24-2004, 02:16 PM
Chip R thinks it's the Chubs too. The proximity of the two teams and the Chubs newly found arrogance makes it a great rivalry.

adampad
06-24-2004, 02:18 PM
If you ask the same question to these teams, do you think any of them would say the Reds. I doubt it. Maybe Cleveland? :(

Cubs vs. Cards
LA vs. San Fran
Cleveland vs. Chi Sox?

M2
06-24-2004, 02:22 PM
Fate

Yachtzee
06-24-2004, 02:26 PM
Indians fans actually hate Yankees more than Sox.

deltachi8
06-24-2004, 02:35 PM
DeltaChi8 thinks its pitching development

westofyou
06-24-2004, 02:40 PM
Fate

or Time

Unassisted
06-24-2004, 02:46 PM
For awhile, there was some bad blood with the Brewers. Regime change and roster shuffles on both clubs seem to have mitigated that, though. Besides, it's probably smarter not to be on the outs with the commissioner's team. ;)

Cedric and I are sittin' here on the front steps of the old school, wishin' the rivalry could be with the Dodgers again. It takes too much effort to get revved up over the "rivals" in this division. :zzz:

Could the best answer be "The Bengals?" :D

knuckler
06-24-2004, 03:04 PM
I'd say:
Cardinals - biggest friendly rivalry
Cubs - biggest unfriendly rivalry

Chip R
06-24-2004, 03:15 PM
Could the best answer be "The Bengals?" :D
Heh. :lol: It's funny cause it's true.

PressBox
06-24-2004, 03:35 PM
This is a great topic. How do you define a rival? Does the rival have to be in your division? In your league? Does the rival simply have to be a hated and despised opponent? Does a rival have to be someone who you've competed with for pennants down the stretch run of several seasons? Is a rivalry based on close games and consistent high levels of play over the course of several years? How long does it take to really become a rivalry?
Is a rivalry based on geographic proximity, as Bud Selig would have us think?

I for one have never considered the Indians a rival, just an intrigue. If they were in our division, or even in our league, then I would consider them a rival. Maybe I'm too simple. But that's how I look at it.
Now, admittedly, if the Indians and Reds were to ever rise to greatness together and both be perennieal World Series contenders, then I might be willing to revisit my considerations. Back when the Indians had Belle, Ramirez, Baerga, and those great teams in the mid / late 90s, I will admit I wanted to call them a rival. But the Reds were not up to par then, just as they aren't now.

Let's flip the question around and ask ourselves this, "Which team would call the Reds their biggest rival?" Hmmm...probably the Indians. The Cubs fans would say the Cardinals and the Cardinals fans would say the Cubs. The Braves fans wouldn't say the Reds because Atlanta has pretty much dominated Cincinnati since the early 90s. This leaves me thinking Pittsburgh and/or Houston, but they're too far away to be a rival aren't they? (But then again, Los Angeles was without question our biggest rival for two decades until the playoff format expanded.) Pittsburgh hasn't been in a division race for over ten years, and not since 94 and 95 have the Astros and Reds been vying for first place together. (And if you recall, Cinci and Houston hooked up for some great games those two summers.) But then again, Los Angeles was without question our biggest rival for two decades until the playoff format expanded.

When it comes to our rival, I'm not sure if I can answer that. I might even be inclined to say we don't have a real rival right now. I can only raise questions. When it comes to our most hated opponent, that's easy to answer. Carl Lindner.

Johnny Footstool
06-24-2004, 03:47 PM
Let's flip the question around and ask ourselves this, "Which team would call the Reds their biggest rival?"

There's the rub.

We can declare the Cubs or Cards our rivals, but in reality, they don't view the Reds as a rival at all. They're each other's rivals, and they have been for a long time.

A rivalry has to be a two-way street. Both teams need to be on somewhat equal footing and hate each other equally. The Reds and Dodgers of the '70s exemplified that. In the late-'80s, the Mets and Reds were working on a pretty good rivalry, and if the Reds would have faced the Mets in the playoffs, it would have reached legendary status.

IMO, the Reds don't currently have a rival. The closest thing to a rival would be Milwaukee, and since both teams seem to be putting things together at the same time, the rivalry may well blossom.

PressBox
06-24-2004, 03:53 PM
I agree Johnny. The Brewers are relatively close - within driving distance of Cincinnati, anyway. Developmentally, the Reds and Brewers are in about the same place right now. Over the last few years the Reds and Brew Crew have played some good games - and of course all Reds fans hate the Brewers because they swept us in Milwaukee the last weekend of the 99 season.
The stage is set...now we just need the rest of the script to be fleshed out.

max venable
06-24-2004, 04:10 PM
I'd vote for Cleveland. Ask any Reds fan in Central Ohio and they'll say the Tribe in a second.

RedsBaron
06-24-2004, 04:11 PM
There's the rub.

We can declare the Cubs or Cards our rivals, but in reality, they don't view the Reds as a rival at all. They're each other's rivals, and they have been for a long time.

A rivalry has to be a two-way street. Both teams need to be on somewhat equal footing and hate each other equally. The Reds and Dodgers of the '70s exemplified that. In the late-'80s, the Mets and Reds were working on a pretty good rivalry, and if the Reds would have faced the Mets in the playoffs, it would have reached legendary status.

IMO, the Reds don't currently have a rival. The closest thing to a rival would be Milwaukee, and since both teams seem to be putting things together at the same time, the rivalry may well blossom.
I agree, except I don't regard the Brewers as a rival either. To the extent someone wants to argue that the Cubs or Cardinals are a rival, I agree with Knuckler: Cards=friendly rival; Cubs=unfriendly rival.

Puffy
06-24-2004, 05:05 PM
, and not since 94 and 95 have the Astros and Reds been vying for first place together. (And if you recall, Cinci and Houston hooked up for some great games those two summers.) But then again, Los Angeles was without question our biggest rival for two decades until the playoff format expanded.



Puffy thinks you forgot 99, when the Astros won 98 games and the Reds won 96 and they went back and forth from August on.

MWM
06-24-2004, 05:13 PM
It's hard to have a "rivalry" when the team has been good only 3 times in the last 20 years and each time there were several years between them. Rivalries are deveoped in two ways: a natural geographic rivalry (i.e. Cards-Cubs); or a rivalry developed by two teams duking it out for a pennant over several years. The Reds-Dodgers in the 70s had that, butlost it once they played in a different division. If Cleveland played in the NL, that would be a rivalry. Right now, the games are pretty much meaningless.

The Reds started to develop a rivalry with the Astros back in 94-95, but the REds proceeded to drop in the standings while the Astros have never looked bck.

BuckeyeRed27
06-24-2004, 05:21 PM
Michigan ;)

Chip R
06-24-2004, 05:25 PM
Michigan ;)
Barry Larkin would disagree. ;)

MWM
06-24-2004, 05:26 PM
It will always be Bukeyes first, Wolverines second for me. Athletically that is. Now academically..........

BuckeyeRed27
06-24-2004, 05:27 PM
Yeah that's the only problem with Barry...well that and Moeller.

I was going to ask why you had a Michigan logo and then it said Go Bucks, MWM.

MWM
06-24-2004, 05:32 PM
Grew up wathcing the Buckeyes since I was 10. I've hardly missed a game on TV in almost 20 years. But UM is about to become my alma mater. I'm torn. Really, I am. But when push comes to shove, I'll never be able to root against the buckeyes under any circumstances........except maybe 1.

Phhhl
06-24-2004, 05:34 PM
Cardinals.

Eric_Davis
06-24-2004, 06:08 PM
Dodgers will always be my most hated rival, obviously the schedule has killed it though. I guess the Cubs

Doesn't that just bite? I loved not liking the Dodgers. It fit right in with not liking the Lakers.

Eric_Davis
06-24-2004, 06:08 PM
Win, and other cities will start claiming you as their rival. Lose and no one cares.

Eric_Davis
06-24-2004, 06:12 PM
The REDS do not have a rival. This NL Central thing screwed everything up. The CUBS and CARDS are each other's rivals. No one can step in between that. The Astros really don't have a rival. The Brewers don't have one. The Pirates were the Phillies, but I don't know now. The Mets and Phillies were rivals for a while and should continue to do so. The Marlins should be the Braves. The Padres have no one. The Rockies rivals are all pitchers.

If the REDS win, the rivalries will come.

Reds/Flyers Fan
06-24-2004, 08:04 PM
I agree with Eric_Davis.

In order to determine the Reds' "biggest rival," the other team would have to consider the Reds their biggest rival. I don't think that scenario exists. It's like college football. Probably 4 teams claim OSU as their biggest rival: m!ch!gan, Penn State, Wisconsin and possibly Iowa. But only m!ch!gan is OSU's biggest rival. In baseball, as Reds fans we would love to be identified as the anti-Cubs or anti-Cardinals...but those franchises have a lengthy history with each other that we don't share thanks to our years spent in the National League West.

That's the Reds' rivalry problem - they switched divisions, leaving behind old rivals such as the Braves, Dodgers and Giants. The only team to remain in the Reds division is the Astros, which leads me to think of them as the Reds chief rival. They are in the same position - they lost their other rivals and only retained the Reds as a division foe. The distance and differences between Cincinnati and Houston don't really matter either. Look at NFL rivalries such as Cowboys/Redskins, Cowboys/49ers and Broncos/Raiders - not exactly next door neighbors.

Astros: Reds biggest rival; teams have always been in the same division

Cards: Reds will never be their No. 1 rival so they can't be ours

Cubs: See Cards

Pirates: Best possibility at new rivalry, if Pirates ever amount to anything; right now they don't deserve the honor of being the biggest rival of one of baseball's most stories franchises

Brewers: This team is the Reds' biggest nemesis and biggest pain in the neck, but not necessarily biggest rival

Indians: Don't play near enough games vs. each other to develop a meaningful rivalry; these teams' 6 games with each other are over by the All-star break every year, which means neither team can factor into the other's stretch drives with crushing losses or huge wins - the definition of a rivalry. If the main reason people use for the Dodgers no longer being a rival is because they only play 6 games, the same applies with the Tribe

KronoRed
06-24-2004, 08:08 PM
Brewers, they ruined the 99 season

Eric_Davis
06-24-2004, 08:11 PM
Brewers, they ruined the 99 season

I agree, that Houston has the greatest chance of becoming our rival. They don't have one, we don't have one. They show more success than Pittsburgh lately, and it only takes a beanball or two from Clemens to stir up a rivalry.

Reds/Flyers Fan
06-24-2004, 08:12 PM
Brewers, they ruined the 99 season

The Brewers are like that annoying fly in your car that just won't fly out the open windows

Hap
06-24-2004, 09:42 PM
IMHO, it is the Pittsburgh Pirates.

These two teams have met in the NLCS five times. They played each other seven times in spring training, and they are very close in proximity and on the same body of water.

Marc D
06-24-2004, 11:08 PM
Agree with Hap. Since the Dodgers rivalry is dead the Pirates are the team we have faced the most and caused each other the most pain. Brewers are right up there.

Cubs new found arrogance is indeed annoying but my qualification for a rival is someone you hate because they ruined a season/dealt a crushing blow and you in turn have dealt them a blow on the way to a championship of some sort. This automatically eliminates the Cubs as anyones rivals.

This is what I don't get about the Card/Cubs, who have the Cubs ever beaten? When was the last time the Cubs beat a team in a game 7 or the last day of a season and just crushed some teams hopes? NEVER. Does Lucey view Charley Brown as a rival or just some pathetic loser who she enjoys tormenting?

The Cards are one of the winningst franchises in baseball, the Cubs are one of the worst. How can You be a Cubs fan and claim a rivalry with a team you have never beaten on a way to a championship? Same for those sad demented Red Sox fans. Are the Clippers rivals with the Lakers just because they are geographically close? NO!! You have to beat the other team to have a real rivalry, untill then its just a bad case of trophy envy and annoying fans.

The Cubbies are Charlie Brown and neither one will ever kick that bleeping ball.

Big Klu
06-25-2004, 02:04 AM
First, I think the "biggest rival" has to be a division rival, like the Dodgers were in the 70's. So that eliminates the Indians immediately. (I live in an area where most people are Indians fans, and they are amazed that I don't get "fired up" for the Reds-Indians games or respond to their taunts before the games (and after, if the Tribe win). I just think of them as another team, and each game as just another game, and it ticks them off!

Unfortunately, the Dodgers are also out, since the Reds now play them only six times a season.

It would be nice to call the Cardinals and/or the Cubs our biggest rival, but they have so much history with each other that they don't view the Reds in that vein. So they are both out.

The Brewers are an intriguing possibility, but they are still rather new to the NL. (Frankly, I still find myself thinking of the Brew Crew as an AL team with Robin Yount, Paul Molitor, Cecil Cooper, and Gorman Thomas.) Also, due to their close proximity to Chicago (many people are not aware that Milwaukee is on Lake Michigan), they desperately want a rivalry with the Cubs. There's also the Busch-vs.-Miller thing with the Cardinals, as well as memories of the 1982 World Series.

The Astros are the only team in the Reds' division that has always been in the Reds' division. There is a lot of history there, and despite the distance problem, they are a team this is easy to "get up for" as a fan, since there are years of familiarity to them. However, even when the Reds and Astros were in the old NL West, I never saw them as a true rival, but just a divisional foe.

The Pirates would be a natural choice now that they are in the same division as the Reds. They have a lot of history with the Reds from the old days, even though they were in the opposite division, because of their epic NLCS battles. Also, their relatively close proximity would lend itself to fueling the flames of a true rivalry. I have seen the Pirates play more times than any team except the Reds. I will be at the game against the Bucs Friday night, and it will be the eleventh time I have seen the Reds and Pirates play each other, though only the fourth time in Cincinnati. I have seen them play in Pittsburgh seven times. To me, a rivalry gains significance when you become familiar with and feel comfortable in the other team's home ball park. Also, the Reds opened PNC Park, and the Pirates opened GAB. Of course, it would help if the Pirates would become more competitive, but they get my vote for "biggest rival", albeit a friendly one. ( I have said on more than one occasion that if I hadn't been a Reds fan, I would probably be a Pirates fan.)


Of course, any time the Reds compete with any of their divisional rivals for the NL Central crown, there will be an added taste of rivalry, and if they compete with the same team over and over again, year-in and year-out, then that team will become a big rival. Let's face it--the only reason the Dodgers were such a big rival in the 70's was because the Reds and Dodgers were butting heads every year for the NL West title. (And it didn't hurt that both teams were chock-full of great personalities.)

RedsRule30
08-16-2004, 09:54 PM
DELETED.

Mr Red
08-16-2004, 09:58 PM
Flip a coin....either St. Louis or Chicago IMO.
Go to a cubbies game and you will see why they should be on your list.

Tony Cloninger
08-16-2004, 09:58 PM
Carl Linder
The rest of the Limiteds

RedsRule30
08-16-2004, 10:11 PM
DELETED.

macro
08-16-2004, 11:41 PM
The variety of answers that have been given in this thread provide the primary reason why realignment should never have happened. The Reds-Dodgers rivalry that I grew up living, breathing, eating, and sleeping for was killed in 1994. Ask any Reds or Dodgers fan from the early 70s until the early 90s who their team's rival was, and they'd say the other team. That was fun. That was baseball to me.

RedsRule30
08-17-2004, 12:32 AM
DELETED.

Redleg75
08-17-2004, 12:45 AM
I think it has to be the Cubs because Steve Stone in absolutely unbearably annoying -- then again so is Buck.

RedsRule30
08-17-2004, 12:48 AM
DELETED.

Edd Roush
08-17-2004, 12:50 AM
I wish the Reds had a main rival. It makes baseball so much better. I'll put Michigan vs. Ohio State out there as an example. All year you wait and anticipate that game no matter how bad the other team is doing. When that game comes, the world stops and that game is all that matters. You don't have that with the Reds. I wish you did but you just don't. Maybe if we start winning something could eventually develop with the Cardinals.

RedsRule30
08-17-2004, 01:11 AM
DELETED.

RedsRule30
08-17-2004, 01:15 AM
DELETED.

Hollcat
08-17-2004, 01:16 AM
Since the Reds are more often battling for 4th, 5th, @ 6th in the NL Central I would say it comes from one of the teams that we are usually battling with Pittsburgh or Milwaukee. We have a past with Pittsburgh that is a good basis for a rivalry with the Pirates and the Brewers seem to have had our number over the past couple of years when we were in (or thought so anyway) the division race. My vote is Pittsburgh since they are the closest NL team and play in a more similar city.
In actuality I don't feel as if there is a real good rivalry until two teams are good for an extended period of time and are battling each other for titles pretty often.
FWIW my NL Central rankings from most liked to least liked team are 1. Cincy , 2. Pittsburgh, 3. St. Louis, 4. Milwaukee, 5. Houston, 6. Chicago

Unassisted
08-17-2004, 01:20 AM
I never check old threads. LOLAnd some of us are hoping you will see the error of your ways.

RedsRule30
08-17-2004, 01:23 AM
DELETED.

Unassisted
08-17-2004, 01:27 AM
I counted. There are 7 posts in this 55 post thread that mention football. Hardly "full of football talk."

RedsRule30
08-17-2004, 01:28 AM
DELETED.

Phoenix
08-19-2004, 01:51 AM
Gotta be the Pittsburgh Pirates. Both won championships in the 70's, have met 5 times in the LCS, both similar-sized Ohio river cities...

NJReds
08-19-2004, 10:20 AM
Linder and Allen :mhcky21:

StillFunkyB
08-19-2004, 12:19 PM
I'd say:
Cardinals - biggest friendly rivalry
Cubs - biggest unfriendly rivalry

Agree. :thumbup:

Dodger should be. Shame they screwed up the schedule. Even tho the Dodgers biggest rival is the Giants.

amploud
08-19-2004, 09:40 PM
Lifelong Cardinal fan here.

I certainly wish that the Card's and Reds were each other's greatest rival. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the Cubs. For the time being, it's a lousy rivalry. Under Dusty Baker, the Cubs are a bunch of over-confident, under-achieving, arrogant, classless, sloppy-playing, whining punks. Sometimes it's like playing agaist the junior varsity team of a mental institution. I think that 3 out of 7 of the Cub's suspensions this year have occured as a result of conduct during Cardinal-Cub games. It's really rather pathetic. They expected that the division would be their's from day 1. They can't handle it now that it's not. Cub fans are also quite a treat. They go from "wait 'till next year" to "Cub's Rule" over nothing but media hype. It's sad.

On the other hand, I've always considered the Reds to be a classy organization. I've enjoyed many conversations with knowledgable Reds fans. I consider the Reds and the Cardinals to be the greatest teams with the richest history in the National League. I've darn near been mugged by Cub fans at Wrigley Field (not a good place to be wearing a Card's jersey!). On the other hand, I've never had a problem at Riverfront/Cinergy (never been to Great American). Instead, I have enjoyed a friendly banter with the Reds fans that were seated around me.

I, for one, would love to see the Reds become our biggest rival.

GAC
08-19-2004, 10:14 PM
Injury. And I might add it's another rivalry that we haven't been winning at.

Rivalries really mean nothing when you can't show competiveness on an equal plane.

2001MUgrad
08-19-2004, 11:46 PM
I'd have to agree with Carl Lindner, but
I assume you are talking about other teams.. So.. Its really hard to have a rivalry when you suck. Just ask the Redskins, it used to be down and dirty with Dallas 2 times a year, but its hard to be a rival when you never win..
With that being said a few years ago the Astros where pretty close, a few heated series between the 2 teams and a couple of bean ball games.. but then Reds started to suck and suck bad..

So, I'd have to go with Cleveland as far as most Reds fans are concerned, but with the team itself I'd have to go with getting up in the morning as their biggest rival, it must suck to see your name in the paper with blown save beside it or an L, or 2 or 3 E's or 3 or 4 K's.

Cali Red
08-20-2004, 02:28 AM
The most disliked team in my point-of-view as a Reds fan is Cleveland. I just don't like the way Indians fans act. It always seems like the little Indians hitters (Belliard, Crisp, Vizquel) beat up on the Reds every year, which irks me. I think the Indians are the reds biggest rivals.

Since I grew up in So.Cal. as a Reds fan I can relate to this. I hated anything to do with Dodger "Blue". And that Dodger "Blue" thing always sounded so gay too. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :) But boy did I hate them. The only thing I could ever stand about them was Vin Scully. We were the Big Red Machine and the Dodgers and their fans had to come out with The Big Blue Wrecking Crew. Ohhh How I hated them.

But today, the way the Cardinals have dominated us and the way George Grande always talks so highly of them, I have to say the Cardinals. :thumbdn:

RedsRule30
08-20-2004, 02:55 AM
Personally, I don't think the Reds have a rival.

From 1980-2004, the Reds have managed to make the playoffs twice, 1990 and 1995.

1990 NLCS 4-2
1990 WS 4-0 (may be awhile for another WS :( )
1995 NLDS 3-0
1995 NLCS 0-4

Total 11-6


The NL Central is one of the toughest divisions to win since it has the Cardinals, Astros, and Cubs so the drought may continue.

SteelSD
08-20-2004, 03:26 AM
Since I grew up in So.Cal. as a Reds fan I can relate to this. I hated anything to do with Dodger "Blue". And that Dodger "Blue" thing always sounded so gay too. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :) But boy did I hate them. The only thing I could ever stand about them was Vin Scully. We were the Big Red Machine and the Dodgers and their fans had to come out with The Big Blue Wrecking Crew. Ohhh How I hated them.

But today, the way the Cardinals have dominated us and the way George Grande always talks so highly of them, I have to say the Cardinals. :thumbdn:

Y'know, Cali...before realignment I hated the Dodgers like no NL team. In fact, I'd rather see the Reds lose a game to the Cardinals than give up a single run to the Dodgers.

But since the Reds are in the NL Central now, I'd have to say the Cardinals are my most hated team even if LA isn't the Reds' biggest rival anymore..

And disliking the Cards is too bad because we have a number of Cards Nation visitors who are real assets to the board.

That being said...I like MattyMo. I hate the St. Louis Cardinals.

MattyMO= Good

St. Louis Cardinals= BAD

;)