PDA

View Full Version : Reds 8th greatest baseball franchise ever



wallerstein
04-26-2007, 09:57 AM
Those are the results of this ranking (http://www.rankopedia.com/ZoneID=3/Step1/27.htm) on rankopedia. The honors go to the Yankees, the Cardinals and the Red Sox. With your votes, the Reds can climb up a few ranks.

rotnoid
04-26-2007, 09:58 AM
I don't think we need a web site to prove that we're the greatest, most storied franchise in the history of baseball. Let the media centers have their polls, we know the truth. :thumbup:

hebroncougar
04-26-2007, 10:23 AM
I don't think we need a web site to prove that we're the greatest, most storied franchise in the history of baseball. Let the media centers have their polls, we know the truth. :thumbup:

As much as I love the Reds, I'd have to say the Yanks are 1, Cards are 2, we are 3 if I had to rank them.

MrCinatit
04-26-2007, 10:26 AM
The Cubs are ahead of us? When was this survey done? 1923?

rotnoid
04-26-2007, 10:33 AM
As much as I love the Reds, I'd have to say the Yanks are 1, Cards are 2, we are 3 if I had to rank them.

What I was saying was mostly tongue in cheek. I'll give you the Yankees, but I'm not willing to concede to the Cardinals based soley on WS titles. The Reds have a lot of amazing historical milestones in their history (which I'm sure I don't need to spell out here). I'm probably slightly biased, but I'd take Reds history over the Cardinals' any day of the week.

westofyou
04-26-2007, 10:37 AM
I'd take Reds history over the Cardinals' any day of the week.

History is a long time

Since 1970 sure, and I'd take the Cubs from 1876-1938 over the Reds any day of the week.

Shoot I'd take the Giants history in NY over the Reds too.

rotnoid
04-26-2007, 10:45 AM
History is a long time

Since 1970 sure, and I'd take the Cubs from 1876-1938 over the Reds any day of the week.

Shoot I'd take the Giants history in NY over the Reds too.

As long as we're talking about on the field results, I'm with you. I got the impression from the title "greatest franchise ever" other things would be considered. In my mind, a franchise is more than wins and losses. I guess that comes about when your lifetime has seen more losses than wins. ;)

M2
04-26-2007, 10:51 AM
What I was saying was mostly tongue in cheek. I'll give you the Yankees, but I'm not willing to concede to the Cardinals based soley on WS titles. The Reds have a lot of amazing historical milestones in their history (which I'm sure I don't need to spell out here). I'm probably slightly biased, but I'd take Reds history over the Cardinals' any day of the week.

The Reds have a wonderful history. I'd put them in a heat with the Giants, Cubs and Pirates in terms of franchise greatness.

The Braves are a decided step behind and the Phillies have a history that could best be described as embarassing.

Yet if you're going to be unbiased, then the National League has two premier franchises: the Dodgers and the Cardinals. No one else matches up in terms of sustained success, historic moments, great players and innovation (and you can lay that one squarely at the feet of Branch Rickey).

Johnny Footstool
04-26-2007, 11:01 AM
I'd give the Dodgers the edge over the Cards, mostly because letting Jackie Robinson play was such a seminal event in U.S. history.

I'd put the Reds slightly ahead of the Cubs, since the Cubs have spent roughly the past half-century as the punchline to a joke.

Degenerate39
04-26-2007, 08:58 PM
Moved up to 7th

Rojo
04-26-2007, 09:55 PM
If you count their minor league time, the Orioles are pretty storied.

GoGoWhiteSox
04-26-2007, 10:07 PM
Shoot I'd take the Giants history in NY over the Reds too.
If I'm not mistaken, the Giants are the only franchise in pro sports with 10,000 victories. The weird thing is that despite having a bevy of legendary players come through their ranks, they have not won a World Series since moving to San Francisco (their last title being in 1954 in New York).

I agree though, I'd take the Giants' history in NY over the Reds. The Reds did have their successful years, but they seemed to be spotty (late 1930's-early 1940's, early 1960's, 1970's, etc.). The Giants (especially under John McGraw) were a powerhouse for nearly three decades.

RedsBaron
04-26-2007, 10:24 PM
The Yankees are the obvious number one. I almost went with the Dodgers as number two, since, as M2 and Johnny Footstool noted, Jackie Robinson breaking the color line was more significant than any home run ever hit, but, in baseball terms, I finally put the Cardinals ahead of the Dodgers simply because the Cardinals are still the St. Louis Cardinals, while the Dodgers are a continent away from their home in Brooklyn where Jackie made history. I know it probably isn't logical, but I give a mental penalty to those teams that deserted their fans.
No offense to White Sox fans, but how in the world do the White Sox rate their number three ranking in the poll, at least as of the last time I checked?

M2
04-27-2007, 01:02 AM
No offense to White Sox fans, but how in the world do the White Sox rate their number three ranking in the poll, at least as of the last time I checked?

I noticed that U.S. Cellular Field (the New Comiskey) rated #1 on the ballpark list too. I think that tells us something about who's voting.

GoGoWhiteSox
04-27-2007, 02:52 AM
I noticed that U.S. Cellular Field (the New Comiskey) rated #1 on the ballpark list too. I think that tells us something about who's voting.
Hey now, don't blame me, I found out from this thread!:D

Besides, this compiled "list" is HARDLY credible. Tigers ahead of the Dodgers, Red Sox, and Giants?

Take this list with a grain of salt.

SteveJRogers
04-30-2007, 09:57 PM
Hey now, don't blame me, I found out from this thread!:D

Besides, this compiled "list" is HARDLY credible. Tigers ahead of the Dodgers, Red Sox, and Giants?

Take this list with a grain of salt.

Yeah, sounds like voters are basing the picks on the current state of the "franchise" rather than the franchise as a whole.

SteveJRogers
04-30-2007, 10:00 PM
And I may be biased, but the New York Mets, seriously, should be in the lower 5 of any franchise rankings. Yes even ahead of several of the "original 16" Or at least in the discussion.