PDA

View Full Version : lack of passion



cincrazy
04-04-2006, 02:01 PM
It's only one game, and I still think this team can have a .500 season or slightly better, but I just see no fire and passion in this team. I just see this nonchalant attitude that drives me crazy. Last year, Sean Casey was a guy that continously brought that fire to the ballpark, but outside of him, I didn't really see any last year. Now that Casey's gone, who provides the fire and passion? I just don't see it in this team. In the 1999 squad that had a great year, you had Dmitri Young, Mike Cameron, Casey, Boone, Pokey Reese, etc. All of those guys had their flaws, but they played with so much passion that they almost willed that team into the playoffs. I see bad defense, an inability to hit in the clutch, thin starting pitching, and most importantly, a lack of passion. There should be an urgency to this ballclub to get off to a great start, and I hear them saying it, but I just don't see it on the field

OnBaseMachine
04-04-2006, 02:04 PM
And, obviously, Casey's passion for the game won the Reds many games over the last five years.

Lack of clutch hitting? The Reds led the NL in runs scored last year and are off to a greta start this year. They must be doing something right.

OldXOhio
04-04-2006, 02:07 PM
It's only one game

that's my opinion

kbrake
04-04-2006, 02:15 PM
Its a long season you cant expect them to be going nuts for every game. Teams that win, win because they are talented and know how to play the game ;) not because they are so excited to go play the game.

pedro
04-04-2006, 02:17 PM
Look at the Braves for instance. During the last 15 years they have been one of the most sedate teams I have ever seen and they have won 14 straight division titles. As everyone else has said, talent wins, not passion.

IowaRed
04-04-2006, 02:28 PM
I love Casey but no amount of passion can make up for this pitching staff.

westofyou
04-04-2006, 02:36 PM
Baseball is chess, the back and forths can take on a team mentality that is mob rooted in its display, that can be seen as passion. But baseball is seperate pieces in seperate instances that sometime only affect 1 guy at a time.

It's hard to go Lord of the Flies in baseball, the game is full of too many incidents of pure individualism.

KronoRed
04-04-2006, 02:45 PM
I love Casey but no amount of passion can make up for this pitching staff.
:clap:

Really, passion didn't allow 16 runs to score and neither did Adam Dunn, the pitching sucks, has for decades and will keep doing so for the foreseeable future.

traderumor
04-04-2006, 03:39 PM
Brad Lesley had passion.

vaticanplum
04-04-2006, 03:41 PM
Brad Lesley had passion.

So did John Rocker.

membengal
04-04-2006, 03:42 PM
Would passion have helped Adam Dunn catch a fly ball? Or Chris Hammond field his position? Or Jerry Narron not send Harang back out in the 6th with a pitch count at a labored 88 and then leave him in after an opening walk? If so, then I am all for passion. But, I suspect, passion had nothing to do with those mistakes.

It's one game.

SeeinRed
04-04-2006, 04:26 PM
If you're looking for some remorse for a bad performance, I love what Dunn said after the game, which was written on Marc's Blog.


After most of the group had broken up, someone mentioned the sac fly in his first at-bat and he perked up a little bit.

"That was awesome," he said. "It could've been a great day..."


That says a lot about the attitude of the team after the game. It was opening day, the happiest day of the year for the Reds and the fans, but through all of the excitement he didn't say something like "What happened in the game was unfortunate, but it was great to be a part of opening day in Cincinnati." That is what I want to see after a game. He didn't care about his sac fly, or the celebrations goin on, all he cared about was his performance and the team's performance.

If you are looking for a positive out of this loss that would have to be it. That and you have to realize that it was only one game. Don't worry about it. This is exactly why I hate that the Reds play one game then have an off day. We all sit around and think about one game. Cheer up, there's still 161 left.

cincrazy
04-04-2006, 05:33 PM
I completely realize that this was one game. And the Reds did lead the league in runs scored last year, and how much did that mean? Nothing, just as Casey's passion meant nothing in the end. It is one game, but this one game is what we saw all last season. As I said, I still believe this team can have a fairly good year, and I'm not writing anything off. But how can this team get no better with RISP, with defense, with strikeouts, etc. etc. etc. It may be an organizational effort, or a lack of hard work, I don't know. Changing the ownership was great, getting a new GM was fantastic, but in the end, the players have to make it happen, something that didn't happen yesterday, and hasn't happened the last several years. It just disappointed me to see what seemed like a lack of focus on the biggest day of the year. Maybe I'm wrong in feeling that way, but that game embarrassed me. If the team can't get up to perform well in a game such as that, and not only not perform well, but give up 16 runs and get thouroughly embarrassed by the Cubs, then what's in store for the rest of the year? All winter, people have talked about how bad we were, and the players kept talking about how they would be proven wrong, and I believe that's the case. That's why it was so disappointing to see them go out there and play like that. To be honest, I was way more embarrassed than disappointed. This is the first professional franchise in America, and to lose like that made me sick, and that's where that post stemmed from.

pedro
04-04-2006, 05:39 PM
I don't get embarrassed when the sports teams I like do poorly and neither should you.

We didn't have anything to do with the poor performance.

membengal
04-04-2006, 05:40 PM
Here's the thing, you do understand that in the course of a 162 game season that pretty much every team will have a stinker or three, right?

Perhaps the fans in Philly and Oakland are as worried about passion as Reds fans are today. One game. Small sample size. Weird conditions. Losing 16-7 doesn't emperil their chances to win 81 games (or 91 or 71 or whatever your flavor of Kool-Aid) any more than winning 16-7 would have enhanced those chances.

traderumor
04-04-2006, 05:45 PM
Here's the thing, you do understand that in the course of a 162 game season that pretty much every team will have a stinker or three, right?

Perhaps the fans in Philly and Oakland are as worried about passion as Reds fans are today. One game. Small sample size. Weird conditions. Losing 16-7 doesn't emperil their chances to win 81 games (or 91 or 71 whatever your flavor of Kool-Aid) any more than winning 16-7 would have enhanced those chances.Do you think fans in Oakland know the season started yesterday? :evil:

BRM
04-04-2006, 05:50 PM
Do you think fans in Oakland know the season started yesterday? :evil:

They had an announced attendance of over 35,000, believe it or not.

cincrazy
04-04-2006, 05:51 PM
I completely understand that it's one game. I understand that the 1999 team lost it's first three games, if i'm not mistaken, and went on to win 96. I understand all of that. But the attention to detail and the "little things" has been stressed and talked about for so long now, and I just don't see it. That's the frustrating part. I'm really not trying to be a pessimist, I DO believe this team can contend and at least hang in the race until late summer. The Cubs scored 16 runs on opening day last year, and look at how their season went. I understand all of that. I'm not saying that the Reds chances of winning went down the drain after one game, as I think many of you interpreted it. BUT, what I am saying is, if this team's attention to detail and focus doesn't improve drastically from what it's been the last several years, then it'll be more of the same on the banks of the Ohio River this summer. One of the most integral parts of surviving in the majors is adjusting to opposing teams after they adjust to you. Personally, I would say that our team isn't very good at that, and that concerns me.

cincrazy
04-04-2006, 05:52 PM
I thought it was interesting how the A's blocked out 20,000 or so seats. Did anyone else hear that mentioned on ESPN2 the other night? It went from 55,000 to 35,000. They put a big tarp over most of the seats. I hate the idea of that. That stadium was ugly enough to begin with, now it's even worse

traderumor
04-04-2006, 05:54 PM
They had an announced attendance of over 35,000, believe it or not.
Oh, that's right, they were playing the Yankees, who probably had 25,000 rooting for them.

BRM
04-04-2006, 05:59 PM
Oh, that's right, they were playing the Yankees, who probably had 25,000 rooting for them.

The ESPN announcers did attribute the atmosphere at the beginning of the game to the Yankees being in town.

KronoRed
04-04-2006, 06:21 PM
They put a big tarp over most of the seats. I hate the idea of that. That stadium was ugly enough to begin with, now it's even worse
At least they can get sellouts now, nobody was sitting in those seats anyway.

I think it looks nice

IslandRed
04-04-2006, 06:42 PM
cincrazy, I read two long posts of yours ranting about what's wrong with the Reds -- attention to detail, focus, striking out too much, hitting with RISP, defense. Yet the word "pitch" did not appear in either post. Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room.

If it seems like we have a bunch of strikeout-prone power hitters who are so-so with the glove, well, we do. But it's not because they're not trying, it's because that's the type of player they are. It's not an effort thing, it's a skills thing. And it wouldn't stop us from winning if we got half-decent pitching. A powerhouse offensive team that's pretty bad in the field? That's what the Yankees are. But they have pitching.

cincrazy
04-04-2006, 06:50 PM
Bad pitching and bad defense go hand in hand. How can a pitching staff be anywhere near decent with a crap defense behind it? And how many championships have the Yankees approach won them recently? Obviously, one of the biggest reasons this team has underachieved is because of pitching, but that's not the ONLY factor.

IslandRed
04-04-2006, 06:57 PM
Bad pitching isn't the only factor, but it's by far the biggest one, and it's where any meaningful fixing of the Reds has to start. Having a crummy defense means we'll give up more runs than we otherwise would, but it's not so terrible that a respectable runs-allowed number couldn't happen if the pitching was better.

SteelSD
04-04-2006, 07:30 PM
Bad pitching and bad defense go hand in hand. How can a pitching staff be anywhere near decent with a crap defense behind it? And how many championships have the Yankees approach won them recently? Obviously, one of the biggest reasons this team has underachieved is because of pitching, but that's not the ONLY factor.

The Yankees have won four of the last 10 World Series titles, have been the AL World Series representative 60% of the time in that span and have a streak of 11 consecutive playoff appearances. Some failure that club is. But that's neither here nor there because the Yankees have nothing at all to do with what you're complaining about.

The Reds don't have a group of sterling arms who are only held back by a substandard defense. They have a bunch of mediocre-to-bad pitchers whose collective mediocre-to-badness is exacerbated by a sub-optimal defensive alignment chosen by the Manager and GM.

It's not an effort issue. It's not a focus issue. It's a brains and ability issue. Put the right guys in the right position and you'd have less of a problem. That being said, the Reds don't make the playoffs regardless without having a bunch of truly good pitchers on their roster.

There was nothing at all wrong in 2005 with the Reds offense. Nothing. The defense wasn't optimal, but any defensive shortcomings pale in comparison to the extreme issues the Reds have with rotation and bullpen arms; even currently. The former can be dealt with using brains. The latter can be dealt with by acquiring ability. But neither of them have anything to do with focus or effort at this point.

Get smart people who can acquire truly talented players and then put them in the best possible position to help the club and you've got a good team. Don't do that and we get throngs of Joe Average fan complaining about effort on local talk radio and internet message boards.

cincrazy
04-04-2006, 08:02 PM
Part of what makes a bad baseball player, as you keep referring to, is a lack of focus and effort. Some of that can be attributed to the fact that they just don't have the ability, and others have the ability, but don't give the effort. These players HAVE the ability to run smart on the basepaths, they HAVE the ability to move runners over, etc. If you're in the major leagues, then you HAVE the ability to do the "little things." You're telling me that these veterans don't have that within them? Any "Joe Average fan" can point out that the little things matter, and that any major league player has the ability to do that. If they didn't have the ability, they wouldn't be in the majors in the first place.

TeamBoone
04-04-2006, 08:02 PM
Maybe I'm wrong in feeling that way, but that game embarrassed me.

It embarassed you???? How do you think Adam Dunn felt? Heck, the whole team for that matter. There's no doubt in my mind they wanted to crawl under a rock somewhere before the game was even half over.

And, IMHO, those feelings can kill any passion they may have felt when the game started... that and trying to stay semi warm.

I don't think any team has to be jumping up and down shouting to convey passion. We don't know what happens in the dubout or what is said there. They very well may buoy each other in ways that are not apparent to us.

NatiRedGals
04-04-2006, 08:06 PM
plus it seemed every starter that started today up in the cold weather seemed to have gotten killed !

pedro
04-04-2006, 08:07 PM
Christ had passion. Look where it got him.

cincrazy
04-04-2006, 08:12 PM
Look, I'm an Adam Dunn fan, and that post, although written in part due to his mishaps in the field, wasn't the only reason I wrote it. This team is NOT a fundamental baseball team. They fail again, and again, and again at doing the little things that win games. What i'm trying to say has been twisted around a bit. I wasn't saying that "passion" was the only thing that mattered, and that our pitching isn't an issue. Never did I say any of that. But what I am saying is this team is poor at fundamental baseball, and has been for quite some time. And until these guys actually focus on correcting that, instead of trying to go out and hit 6 solo home runs, then it will take longer than we would all like for things to turn around. (I guess I really got a doozy of a debate going didn't I? Haha. )

cincrazy
04-04-2006, 08:13 PM
Good post Pedro :cool: I'm glad a little humor was injected into this convo. It was getting a tad bit too serious for a minute. But that's a good thing. It shows how much we all care about our team

TeamBoone
04-04-2006, 08:19 PM
Good post Pedro :cool: I'm glad a little humor was injected into this convo. It was getting a tad bit too serious for a minute. But that's a good thing. It shows how much we all care about our team

Yeah, it's getting a little old too.

The game was atrocious... it doesn't mean every game is going to be that way.

The team lacks fundamentals. Yup. But they will not/do not play that way every single game.

Adam Dunn is not the worst player in baseball, but you'd sure as hell think so! People act like he's a constant defensive liability and a total **** up.

Izzardius
04-04-2006, 08:29 PM
Christ had passion. Look where it got him.

LMAO:beerme:

letsgojunior
04-04-2006, 09:58 PM
Not lack of passion, more like lack of pitching (as per usual)

wheels
04-04-2006, 10:09 PM
The Reds will never win with that pitching staff.

Now, give 'em a GOOD staff with that same defense.

What do you think would happen?

cincrazy
04-04-2006, 10:50 PM
I think that we would STILL have a crappy defense that would cost us a boat load of runs. We were one of, if not the WORST, defenses in the league last year. Our pitching staff is not a strikeout staff, so it's very important to have a good defense behind it, something we're not even close to having.

BoCcc2832
04-04-2006, 11:04 PM
And, obviously, Casey's passion for the game won the Reds many games over the last five years.

Lack of clutch hitting? The Reds led the NL in runs scored last year and are off to a greta start this year. They must be doing something right.

This is one of many ridiculous statements you all have made. First off, one person's passion CAN NOT change the fate of a team. Sean Casey was a great man, one of the greatest to put on a Cincinnati Reds uniform. But you cannot tell me that it was squarely on him. Second, just because a team scores runs doesn't necessarily mean they were all clutch. Look how many people they left on base or the average of the team w/ RISP. That will tell you the true clutch hitting-ness of the team. Not total runs, you moron.

Second, "talent wins, not passion." by pedro. True, but not always. Look at the 1999 Cincinnati team that won 96 games. Let me list the starting rotation: Pete Harnisch, Denny Neagle, Steve Parris, Ron Villone, and Juan Guzman. ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? To hear that rotation and believe the team won 96 games is beyond weird. That team will not have any future Hall-of-Famers in it, yet they miss the playoffs by one game. Yet, you want to sit here and tell me that they didn't have passion and it was sheer talent that won it for them? Oh get off of it!

Third, "Would passion have helped Adam Dunn catch a fly ball?" by membengal. No, but if Dunn had any passion at all, you would have seen a reaction to his many mistakes (wind-affected or not). But you never see disappointment or anger in our Reds faces due to mistakes or getting thrown out after a groundball.

Passion is important in all sports. I'm a runner, I know. If you don't have passion, you don't try. If you don't try, you fail. The Reds failed on Monday and sure, it's just one game. But unless hell freezes over first, I guarantee, we will see more passionless baseball from our boys in Red.

cincrazy
04-04-2006, 11:08 PM
Fantastic point. If I may elaborate a bit further, going back to the defense argument, take a look at that 1999 rotation. Would you consider that a good rotation? I wouldn't. But it had a GREAT defense behind it. Reese and Larkin was one of the best DP combos, Cameron in center, Boonie at third, it really was a very good D for the most part. True, a fantastic bullpen also had a lot to do with it, but the good defense and clutch hitting (although not as much power as this team) contributed to 96 wins. The excitement you saw out of that team after every dramatic win was awesome, jumping up and down on home plate and what not. That team is the type of team that I long for now. Maybe our team this year will come through eventually, and maybe not. Time will tell

westofyou
04-04-2006, 11:47 PM
To hear that rotation and believe the team won 96 games is beyond weird.

Maybe it was because only 6 NL relievers had over 92 IP that season and the Reds accounted for 50% of them?



ERA DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE IP GS G
1 Scott Williamson 2.16 2.41 4.57 93.1 0 62
2 Scott Sullivan 1.56 3.01 4.57 113.2 0 79
3 Danny Graves 1.49 3.08 4.57 111 0 75
4 Anthony Telford 0.63 3.94 4.57 96 0 79
5 David Weathers -.08 4.65 4.57 93 0 63
6 Brian Edmondson -1.27 5.84 4.57 94 0 68

MWM
04-04-2006, 11:55 PM
Will someone please explain what these "fundamentals" are?

westofyou
04-05-2006, 12:00 AM
Will someone please explain what these "fundamentals" are?
The little things, like sacrificing big hits for situational hitting, stealing and not striking out.

AMERICAN LEAGUE
SEASON
2004

EXTRA BASE HITS EBH
1 Red Sox 620
2 Rangers 584
3 Indians 558
4 White Sox 545
5 Yankees 543
6 A's 540
7 Tigers 539
8 Twins 525
9 Orioles 506
10 Angels 471
T11 Devil Rays 469
T11 Blue Jays 469
13 Royals 440
14 Mariners 432

SACRIFICES SAC
1 White Sox 58
2 Angels 56
3 Tigers 50
4 Indians 47
T5 Mariners 46
T5 Twins 46
T5 Orioles 46
8 Royals 40
9 Yankees 37
10 Devil Rays 35
11 A's 25
12 Rangers 23
13 Blue Jays 20
14 Red Sox 12

STOLEN BASES SB
1 Angels 143
2 Devil Rays 132
3 Twins 116
4 Mariners 110
5 Orioles 101
6 Indians 94
7 Tigers 86
8 Yankees 84
9 White Sox 78
10 Rangers 69
11 Red Sox 68
12 Royals 67
13 Blue Jays 58
14 A's 47

STRIKEOUTS SO
1 Red Sox 1189
2 Tigers 1144
3 Rangers 1099
4 Blue Jays 1083
5 A's 1061
6 Mariners 1058
7 Royals 1057
8 White Sox 1030
9 Indians 1009
T10 Twins 982
T10 Yankees 982
12 Orioles 949
13 Devil Rays 944
14 Angels 942

cincrazy
04-05-2006, 12:02 AM
Yeah, so the little things don't matter. Gotcha. And did I NOT mention the 1999 team had a great bullpen? Would you really like the Reds to model themselves after the 2005 Red Sox? How did the White Sox do? How about the Indians? The Angels? And which color of sock won the World Series again? I could have sworn it was white...

MWM
04-05-2006, 12:06 AM
The year he was referencing, the socks were Red.

westofyou
04-05-2006, 12:06 AM
Would you really like the Reds to model themselves after the 2005 Red Sox?You mean mirror a team that uses its legacy and fanbase to generate a steady revenue and then pours it into a quality and healthy MLB system that employs the best and the brightest in the business?

Nah... I like the Royals model better.

cincrazy
04-05-2006, 12:10 AM
Very true... Perhaps I should have looked at the date on the stats before shooting off at the mouth. My mistake. I would love to be in the Red Sox position, but we're not. But you know what else that 2004 Red Sox team had? The most passion that I've ever seen in a team. Coming back from a 3-0 deficit vs. the Yankees of all teams shows how much heart that team had. So what that team lacked in fundamentals, it made up for in passion, which goes back to my beginning argument yet again...

cincrazy
04-05-2006, 12:12 AM
Hey MWM, out of curiousity, ever been to an OSU-Michigan game? I go to Ohio State and was at the game my soph. year, and will be again this year. Talk about the most incredible atmosphere anywhere.

cincrazy
04-05-2006, 12:14 AM
Also, in reference to the 2004 stats, those were great team stats you pulled up, I give you credit, but I'd be interested to see what the 2004 NL stats were like. Fact of the matter is, they're very different leagues, and I bet the numbers would be at least somewhat different

westofyou
04-05-2006, 12:14 AM
which goes back to my beginning argument yet again...

Ouroboros

MWM
04-05-2006, 12:15 AM
The beauty of a 162 game season is that almost always the team with the most talent wins. Passion wasn't the difference between the Sox and their opponents that year. They played against the Angels in the first round of the playoffs and the Cards in the World Series. they were just a better team. They didn't win because they had more passion. The Cards won 105 games that year. I don't see how that happens if they lack passion. And did the Red Sox just forget about their passion in the first three games and 8 innings of the ALCS? Passion isn't a difference maker at the major league level. Talent is.

MWM
04-05-2006, 12:15 AM
Hey MWM, out of curiousity, ever been to an OSU-Michigan game? I go to Ohio State and was at the game my soph. year, and will be again this year. Talk about the most incredible atmosphere anywhere.

Was there this year.

CincyRedsFan30
04-05-2006, 12:17 AM
The Red Sox came back from a 3-0 deficit because Mariano wasn't Mariano initially and the Yankees' lack of pitching talent and depth hurt them.

That's the same reason the Yankees haven't been World Champions over the last several years.

The White Sox won last year because of PITCHING. The Astros lost the World Series because they had no hitting. The Reds have the hitting, but not the pitching. Combine last year's Astros pitching with the Reds' offense and you have an extremely good team.

I don't think passion is an issue with the team. They score Runs. Some individuals seem to misinterpret the team's strikeouts and not advancing runners as a lack of passion, when it is just how the team's players operate. They hit HR and HR teams often "look" ugly, even when they are effective.

The defense isn't great, but it won't matter until they can get some pitchers who can pitch. The defense didn't make guys like Milton and Ortiz serve up gopher ball after gopher ball last year. Neither did a lack of passion. Milton is very passionate about his job but was still historically awful last year.

cincrazy
04-05-2006, 12:20 AM
Awesome. Hopefully we'll both come into next season's game undefeated. That would be insane. And even if we both don't, I'd be willing to bet that the Big 10 title will come down to one of us anyways, as is normally the case

MWM
04-05-2006, 12:22 AM
Nah, Michigan is going to be pretty bad for the next two years.

cincrazy
04-05-2006, 12:23 AM
Mariano was Mariano. Even the best blow saves every now and then. Take a look at the WBC. We had more talent than Canada and Mexico combined, yet got smoked. And why was that? Because we didn't care as much as they did. I say we all just agree that the past several years, the Reds have been awful in MANY facets of the game. I feel bad for starting such a negative post at the VERY beginning of the season. I'm sure the team will bounce back tomorrow afternoon. I hereby offer a truce ;)

cincrazy
04-05-2006, 12:24 AM
Well I hope that isn't the case, because every time you guys are having somewhat of a down season, and we're having a very good season, you kick the crap out of us. So if you are indeed not that great in these next two years, you'll probably win both games lol.

CincyRedsFan30
04-05-2006, 12:26 AM
The difference between the WBC and the regular season is that it isn't when the players were getting millions of dollars to play the game as their job like they do during the season. ;)

westofyou
04-05-2006, 12:27 AM
Nah, Michigan is going to be pretty bad for the next two years.
Hush.

MWM
04-05-2006, 12:28 AM
They lost to Canada because Dontrelle Willis was awful - extremely awful. And if they lacked passion, how did they come back from such a hig deficit and almost win the game? And they lost to Mexico because when Oliver Perez is on his game, he's a phenomenal pitcher. Reds fans of all people should be very aware of this.

Occam's razor needs sharpening around here this week.

cincrazy
04-05-2006, 12:29 AM
Ya know, now that I think about it, Thursday night I'll be in the right field seats watching the game. Hopefully Dunn hasn't been reading some of what I wrote about his defense and feel inclined to smoke a fastball out of the park aimed right at my face

MWM
04-05-2006, 12:29 AM
Hush.

I wish it weren't so, but there's no way around it.

cincrazy
04-05-2006, 12:30 AM
But how many players did not participate on that U.S. team? Randy Winn as a starting outfielder? Yikes.

westofyou
04-05-2006, 12:32 AM
I wish it weren't so, but there's no way around it.
http://www.umich.edu/~bhl/helmet/harmmss.jpg

TeamBoone
04-05-2006, 12:40 AM
I think that we would STILL have a crappy defense that would cost us a boat load of runs. We were one of, if not the WORST, defenses in the league last year. Our pitching staff is not a strikeout staff, so it's very important to have a good defense behind it, something we're not even close to having.

The "crappy defense" probably costs the Reds a handful (or fewer) of wins.... but it's the pitching that costs them a boatload. Sooooo, IMHO, a decent pitching staff (including the BP) even with the current defense, would win a lot of games.

TeamBoone
04-05-2006, 12:48 AM
Take a look at the WBC. We had more talent than Canada and Mexico combined, yet got smoked. And why was that? Because we didn't care as much as they did.

Baseball isn't meant to be played in a round robin elimination environment... every team has the ability to win on any given day, even if they stink. That's why the World Series is exactly that... a series of games where the better team emerges.

ochre
04-05-2006, 01:00 AM
But what happens when Occam eats his own tail? Apocalypse I say.

ochre
04-05-2006, 01:06 AM
Baseball isn't meant to be played in a round robin elimination environment... every team has the ability to win on any given day, even if they stink. That's why the World Series is exactly that... a series of games where the better team emerges.
except South Africa. They'll need to find their Kelly and Amanda first.

SteelSD
04-05-2006, 01:28 AM
This is one of many ridiculous statements you all have made. First off, one person's passion CAN NOT change the fate of a team. Sean Casey was a great man, one of the greatest to put on a Cincinnati Reds uniform. But you cannot tell me that it was squarely on him. Second, just because a team scores runs doesn't necessarily mean they were all clutch. Look how many people they left on base or the average of the team w/ RISP. That will tell you the true clutch hitting-ness of the team. Not total runs, you moron.

Moron? Unacceptable language- particularly considering that you don't have a clue as to the facts of the matter.

The 2005 Cincinnati Reds:

Runs Scored w/Runners On Base: .251 Runs per Plate Appearance (NL Rank- 1st)

Batting Average w/Runners On Base: .270 BA (NL Rank- 8th)

What? You mean that the Reds were an NL average team with Runners on Base but still led the NL in Runs Scored with Runners On? Yeah. That's how it works because BA w/Runners On doesn't mean squat.

Runs Scored w/Runners in Scoring Position: .348 (NL Rank- 3rd)

Batting Average w/Runners In Scoring Position: .256 (NL Rank- 11th)

How did THAT happen? The Reds were the best team in RS with Runners On per PA and the third best team in the NL in Runs Scored with RISP, yet finished 8th and 11th in BA in those respective rankings. Why is that?

It's because your position isn't consistent with what actually drives Run scoring- either over the long haul or situationally. In short, you don't know what you're talking about.


Second, "talent wins, not passion." by pedro. True, but not always. Look at the 1999 Cincinnati team that won 96 games. Let me list the starting rotation: Pete Harnisch, Denny Neagle, Steve Parris, Ron Villone, and Juan Guzman. ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? To hear that rotation and believe the team won 96 games is beyond weird. That team will not have any future Hall-of-Famers in it, yet they miss the playoffs by one game. Yet, you want to sit here and tell me that they didn't have passion and it was sheer talent that won it for them? Oh get off of it!

Sometimes the stars align correctly. Has nothing to do with "passion" or "effort" and it has everything to do with how baseball is a strange game.

Now go find one of the players you cited whose "passion" allowed them to carry their NEXT team to victory after they left the Reds. Good luck on that.


Third, "Would passion have helped Adam Dunn catch a fly ball?" by membengal. No, but if Dunn had any passion at all, you would have seen a reaction to his many mistakes (wind-affected or not). But you never see disappointment or anger in our Reds faces due to mistakes or getting thrown out after a groundball.

Complete bunk. The perception of the unreasonable is never evidence to the contary when faced with a reasonable position. It's usually nothing more than a casual fan's expectation of that which isn't reasonable.


Passion is important in all sports. I'm a runner, I know. If you don't have passion, you don't try. If you don't try, you fail. The Reds failed on Monday and sure, it's just one game. But unless hell freezes over first, I guarantee, we will see more passionless baseball from our boys in Red.

Your "sport" (and I use that term loosely) is immesurably less complex than Major League Baseball. When the Reds underperform your casual expectations in 2006, it's going to be due to talent, not "passion".

And let's face it..."passion" may allow you to finish the race, but it won't allow you to beat a much faster runner. You know that. If you don't try, you don't get into the race. But trying ain't going to make you a winning runner if you don't have the skill to be one. That's as simple as it gets.

cincrazy
04-05-2006, 07:55 AM
And the "Joe Average fan" comment was acceptable? I'm actually pretty good friends with some of the people that I've been arguing with about this, I'm not making this personal in any way, shape or form. But that was a below the belt shot to me. I say we all just agree to disagree and end it. The purpose of this thread wasn't to start a monumental argument such as this. So my apologies for accidentally doing that. So can we please end it?

Chip R
04-05-2006, 08:03 AM
You know when this team had a lot of passion? 2003. Man, they were coming back in games, hitting game winning home runs and just creating a lot of excitement. Guys like Sean Casey and Aaron Boone were on that team. Remember how they would do The Bounce when they won a game in their last at bat? How did that team finish anyway?

cincrazy
04-05-2006, 09:32 AM
You're right. 2002 was like that, also. To wrap my thoughts on this up, I'm not saying that passion is the only thing that matters. That obviously isn't the case. I'm just saying at times, I wish they'd show a little more. I'm not saying that their lack of emotion doesn't mean that they care, but I do wish they'd show more. It's must my opinion. I know many of you disagree, and that's fine. I'm not saying passion cures a terrible pitching staff, or bad defense, etc. etc. And I'm not saying this team DOESN'T have passion. This thing has been blown way out of proportion. Quite frankly, I have a very bad case of viral bronchitis, and I don't feel like aruging over it anymore lol.

BoCcc2832
04-06-2006, 02:40 PM
Your "sport" (and I use that term loosely) is immesurably less complex than Major League Baseball. When the Reds underperform your casual expectations in 2006, it's going to be due to talent, not "passion".

And let's face it..."passion" may allow you to finish the race, but it won't allow you to beat a much faster runner. You know that. If you don't try, you don't get into the race. But trying ain't going to make you a winning runner if you don't have the skill to be one. That's as simple as it gets.

Okay, let me ask a question. (By the way, the only reason I haven't replied to your sarcasm of my response is because this website decided that "moron" was inappropriate. Well, I think making fun of Jesus Christ's passion was inappropriate. But hey, I'm not the one who pays to keep this site up, so I'll shut up) I agree that the MLB is more complex than running. But have you ever heard of Steve Prefontaine? He was a guy from Koos Bay, Oregon, someone that no one ever heard of that came out and gave it HIS ALL EVERY RACE. What happened? He became the best runner in American history, finishing fourth in the 1976 Munich Olympics. He was a person who did not have a runner's body, which is tall, lanky, and long legs. Pre did not have any of these. What he had was PASSION. When he had PASSION, he pushed everyone and dared anyone to beat him. He was the gutsiest and biggest loud-mouth (sorry, that was inappropriate language) in the history of running. What does this have with the Reds, since this is a Cincinnati Reds blogsite? If the Reds had as much PASSION as Pre did, their talent would be that much improved, as was Pre's. I am out.

edabbs44
04-06-2006, 02:46 PM
Opening day was a hard game to grade. Down 5-0 before the first AB will take the wind out of anyone's sails. Maybe if this team had any sort of pitching (mostly in the pen) they would have a little more fire. 5-0 in the 1st was all about "Here we go again."

Chip R
04-06-2006, 02:57 PM
Okay, let me ask a question. (By the way, the only reason I haven't replied to your sarcasm of my response is because this website decided that "moron" was inappropriate.

Calling someone a moron is inappropriate. I suggest you have someone read the rules at the bottom of the page to you since it appears you have not.

Blimpie
04-06-2006, 02:59 PM
They had an announced attendance of over 35,000, believe it or not.I wouldn't put much stock in "announced" attendance figures. I watched some of the Braves-Dodgers game that was played last night at Chavez Ravine. They claimed to have 35,000+ in attendance.

No...Freakin'...Way....

I'm guessing it was closer to around 15,000. Good game anyway.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-06-2006, 03:37 PM
Nah, Michigan is going to be pretty bad for the next two years.

At least the Jets did you a favor and took Herrman off your hands.

I think they will have one, maybe two losses and be ranked in the top 15, heading into the 'Shoe, next November.

Now, what to do with Carr. I say sign him to a lifetime contract. Unfortunately, I think he's gone (voluntarily) after next season.

Not enough passion.

registerthis
04-06-2006, 03:38 PM
I'm sure if the Reds called me and asked me to play I'd bring a lot of "passion" to the team.

My talent level is pretty much nil, however, so I would suck, and so would the team if they played me.

"Passion", "scrappiness" and other such immeasureable terms are based entirely on perception, and bear no effect on the outcome of games. I could care less if Dunn gets excited about hitting a home run--only that he does. I coudl care less if Austin Kearns shows passion about playing good defense--only that he does.

But, yes, the past 7 years this team's missing ingredient was *passion*. Dang it, if only we had figured that out before now, Jimmy Haynes, Joey Hamilton, Jimmy Anderson, Paul Wilson, Elmer Dessens and Ramon Ortiz would be running out of storage space for all of their WS rings.

cincrazy
04-07-2006, 01:02 AM
Show me once where I said that talent didn't matter and that passion was the only important thing. I'm not arguing about this anymore because people aren't reading everything that I'm writing, so there's no point.

Gainesville Red
04-07-2006, 01:25 AM
But have you ever heard of Steve Prefontaine? gave it HIS ALL EVERY RACE. What happened? He became the best runner in American history, finishing fourth in the 1976 Munich Olympics.

I may be about to show my complete lack of knowledge about the "sport" and history of running, but you're telling me that the best runner in all of American history only finished fourth in the Olympics? That can't be right, surely there has to have been better runners.

Like I said I don't know anything about running, and could be way off base here, just find that hard to believe.

dougdirt
04-07-2006, 01:36 AM
Boccc2832, Prefontaine may not have had a prototypical runners body, but the guy had a ton of talent. You dont get to the Olympics by not having talent. You cant just decide to go out there and give it all you have and be that good, it doesnt work that way. Guys like Ryan Freel go out there and have to bust their butt every day to be the player they are. Guys like Griffey or Arod were born with more talent in their legs than guys like Freel and no matter what, a guy like that will never be as good as Griffey or Arod. I am not saying Griffey or Arod arent out there giving it all they can, but they were just two or the most talented players that came to mind. Passion only gets you so far before talent overcomes it all.

dougdirt
04-07-2006, 01:37 AM
oh and gainsville red, I to dont know much about the history of the USA track and feild teams, but I would imagine he is referring to long distance running, as the Americans have had many medals in track events throughout Olympic history.

SteelSD
04-07-2006, 02:14 AM
Okay, let me ask a question. (By the way, the only reason I haven't replied to your sarcasm of my response is because this website decided that "moron" was inappropriate. Well, I think making fun of Jesus Christ's passion was inappropriate. But hey, I'm not the one who pays to keep this site up, so I'll shut up) I agree that the MLB is more complex than running. But have you ever heard of Steve Prefontaine? He was a guy from Koos Bay, Oregon, someone that no one ever heard of that came out and gave it HIS ALL EVERY RACE. What happened? He became the best runner in American history, finishing fourth in the 1976 Munich Olympics. He was a person who did not have a runner's body, which is tall, lanky, and long legs. Pre did not have any of these. What he had was PASSION. When he had PASSION, he pushed everyone and dared anyone to beat him. He was the gutsiest and biggest loud-mouth (sorry, that was inappropriate language) in the history of running. What does this have with the Reds, since this is a Cincinnati Reds blogsite? If the Reds had as much PASSION as Pre did, their talent would be that much improved, as was Pre's. I am out.

Sure I've heard of Steve Prefontaine. Great story (he's from Coos Bay, Oregon, BTW). But, alas, it's an example that supports my position rather than yours.

Let's assume that Steve Prefontaine worked as hard as he possibly could have. We'll assume that he ate the perfect diet (doubtful considering that he was reputed to drink a bit- which allegedly led to his death) and worked out every day in order to max out his physical potential.

Steve Prefontaine finished fourth in the 1972 Munich Olympics. Considering that you think Pre' was the epitome of "passion", how do you think those other runners beat him when he led with 600 Meters to go in the 5000M race?

One word: Talent.

Well, either that or Pre' wasn't as passionate as a guy like Lasse Viren or the two other runners who took Prefontaine down with 600 meters to go in a race he led. But then, since it appears you think Steve Prefontaine posthumouly finished fourth in the 1976 Summer Olympics, maybe you don't remember Viren's 1972 performance.

Heck, Americans Frank Shorter (who actually won a race at the 1972 Olympics) and Mary Decker-Slaney were more accomplished runners than was Steve Prefontaine and they have the medals and World Records to show it.

And you're right to ask what distance running has to do with Reds baseball. Your answer is nothing. But it is a good demonstration that trying real hard doesn't make you better than a guy who's going to be better than you no matter how hard you try.

SteelSD
04-07-2006, 02:32 AM
I may be about to show my complete lack of knowledge about the "sport" and history of running, but you're telling me that the best runner in all of American history only finished fourth in the Olympics? That can't be right, surely there has to have been better runners.

Like I said I don't know anything about running, and could be way off base here, just find that hard to believe.

You find it hard to believe because it's not to be believed. Just about any time you hear anyone mention "the best runner" and "Steve Prefontaine" in the same sentence the former quote is preceeded by the word "arguably". But, unfortunately, the only reason it's at all "arguable" is that Steve Prefontaine died tragically before his time. Sometimes an early demise propels the legend of an athlete at the expense of more accomplished performers. Movies about one's life tend to do that as well.

BTW, Mary Decker-Slaney is the only runner in US history to own EVERY American record at every distance between 800 Meters and 10,000 Meters. The "best ever" argument begins (and quite possibly ends) with her 36 National records, 17 World records (official and unofficial), and medal hardware.

westofyou
04-07-2006, 10:03 AM
But have you ever heard of Steve Prefontaine?

Oregon's biggest sport hero.

Hollywood movie.

Never heard of him.