PDA

View Full Version : Failed dynasty: 1990 Reds



Matt700wlw
03-26-2008, 03:16 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=dynasties/reds/080226

1990 Reds: The Nasty Boys

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jonah Keri
Special to Page 2

The 1990 World Series shaped up as a classic David vs. Goliath battle. The big, bad A's of Rickey Henderson, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Dave Stewart and Dennis Eckersley looked primed to build a dynasty by making quick work of the upstart Reds and winning their second straight World Series. Four games later, Cincinnati completed one of the most shocking World Series sweeps in history. Suddenly, an unknown, young Reds team looked like a dynasty in the making.

This wasn't a star-laden team by any means. But the Reds had no obvious weaknesses. The rotation that year included four above-average starters, including ace Jose Rijo, who went 14-8 with a 2.70 ERA. The offense featured plus players at six of the eight starting positions. Above all, there was the bullpen. If you didn't outscore the Reds in the first six innings, forget about winning. Rob Dibble, Norm Charlton and Randy Myers constituted the deadliest combination of 95-mph (or better) fastballs, swaggering attitude and occasional mullets in the game. So much so that the trio earned a nickname derived from a pre-wardrobe malfunction Janet Jackson: the Nasty Boys.

"That was a very unified bullpen," Dibble recalled. "We knew how good we were, and it was fun to actually torture hitters on other teams. It was a blast, I never had so much fun. It wasn't just baseball, it was like you were in Little League again."


Dibble said the team's best quality that season was its unselfishness. Although the roles in the bullpen were defined pretty clearly -- Tim Birtsas and Tim Layana in the middle innings, Charlton and Dibble setting up and Myers closing -- no one begrudged an occasional save going to someone else, just as no one worried about who got the game-winning hit. When the 1990 season was threatened by a lockout, the players convened on the campus of Florida Southern, near the Reds' spring training site, to train on their own. Players who had come up together in the minor leagues -- Dibble, Charlton, Chris Sabo, Barry Larkin, Eric Davis -- worked out together every day while other teams scrambled to get their players in game shape amid another looming work stoppage.


Aside from off-field warm-and-fuzzies, the common link between many of the Reds' best players was their age. Every significant Reds player -- all eight starting position players, the top four players off the bench, the top four starting pitchers and top five relievers -- were all under 30 on Opening Day. Even the manager was new, with Lou Piniella joining the team after three years with the Yankees.

Among position players, 28-year-old Davis possessed the most raw talent, using his electrifying skills to put up big numbers when he wasn't fighting injuries. Shortstop Larkin, 26, hit .301 in 1990, still a down year by his standards compared with the performances that ensued the next two seasons. Third baseman Sabo, 28, smacked 25 homers; 27-year-old second baseman Mariano Duncan hit an impressive .306/.354/.476; 25-year-old Hal Morris took over the first-base job by hitting a gaudy .340. Paul O'Neill, 27, was a fixture in right field, hitting .270 with 16 home runs.

The pitching staff also appeared to have time on its side. Tom Browning tossed 227 2/3 innings of slightly above-average ball. Rijo evolved into the staff's ace with 148 ERA+ (adjusted ERA compared with league average of 100) that ranked second-best in the NL. Jack Armstrong started in the All-Star Game with a monster first half (11-3, 2.28), and Danny Jackson had a 3.61 ERA. Myers, who was 27, saved 31 games and struck out 98 in 86.2 innings, with a 2.08 ERA. Fellow 27-year-old Charlton yielded just a 2.74 ERA in 154 1/3 innings alternating between the rotation and the bullpen. Dibble, 26, was the most impressive pitcher on the staff, striking out 136 batters in 98 innings while sporting a microscopic 1.74 ERA.


Armed with what looked like a great core of young talent and coming off their impressive World Series win, the Reds entered 1991 feeling optimistic. A month into the season, the team was 13-10 and tied for first place -- right where everyone expected. The Reds struggled through a tough May before bouncing back, sparked by a five-game winning streak in late June. On July 5, Cincinnati was 44-34, within striking distance of the NL West lead. Then everything went south. The Reds dropped 10 in a row.

Almost everyone shared the blame. Myers, Dibble and Charlton were still very good, though not as dominant as they'd been in 1990. Beyond the Nasty Boys, it was ugly. Davis struggled through more injuries than ever, playing just 89 games and hitting an abysmal .235. Duncan also tanked, posting a .288 OBP and losing his hold on an everyday job. Rijo had a huge year, going 15-6 with a 2.51 ERA and finishing fourth in Cy Young voting. But the rest of the rotation stunk, with incumbents such as Browning (14-14, 4.18) and Armstrong (7-13, 5.48) and newcomers such as Scott Scudder (6-9, 4.35) failing to deliver even league-average performances.

Asked to explain what happened in '91, Dibble just shrugged.

"I have no idea," he said. "We had a lot of injuries in '91, but we had a lot in 1990, too. We were in the NL West at the time, so we had to play some good teams like the Braves, Dodgers and Padres, with the Braves just starting their run. Maybe we did too much in the offseason. Everyone was doing card shows and charity basketball games and cashing in on newfound fame. We thought our stuff didn't stink."

Bad luck played a role, too. The Reds scored eight more runs than they allowed in 1991, suggesting the profile of a .500 team -- instead they won just 74 games. Armed with the same core of talent, plus new faces via trades, free agency and the still-productive farm system, the team figured to bounce back in '92.

That's just what happened. As tantalizing as Davis' talent was, the Reds knew they needed a more reliable option in the outfield; Bip Roberts (acquired for Myers) added a new dimension to the team, hitting .323 with a .392 OBP and 44 steals. Reggie Sanders finished fourth in rookie of the year voting with a .270/.356/.462 performance. Greg Swindell posted a 134 ERA+ in 213 2/3 innings as the team's new No. 2 starter behind Rijo. Dibble and Charlton became the new co-closers with Myers gone, saving 51 games and striking out 200 batters between them. The Reds won 90 games, enough to win the wild card, had it existed at the time, but well behind the 98-win Braves. By '93, Piniella was gone, as were many of the central figures on the 1990 team. That was that.

Nearly two decades later, it's clear what the Reds' shortfall was: They just weren't all that good. Larkin is a player who deserves a spot in Cooperstown one day, but Davis was the poster boy for those teams, a player with all the talent in the world whose inability to stay healthy eventually sapped his ability. Players such as Duncan, Sabo and Armstrong had career or near-career years in 1990, then soon fell off the map (in Sabo's case after an even better season in '91 that was wasted on a losing team). Rijo was one of the best pitchers of the early '90s, but the team was never able to fill the rotation behind him.

Expecting a team to become a superpower based largely on a trio of relievers was and is unrealistic. The Nasty Boys produced one championship, a best damn sports dude and a ton of unintentionally hilarious T-shirts. That's a pretty good legacy -- just not a dynasty.

M2
03-26-2008, 03:51 PM
Davis' kidney injury threw a big kink into the franchise's ability to build on 1990. He wasn't right again until 1996.

Yet Keri touches up something that's easy to overlook, if there was a Wild Card backi n the day (and no strike in 1994) Reds history would look a lot different. The team won a World Series in 1990 and made the NLCS in 1995. Add in a wild card in 1992 and a division title in 1994 with what looked to be dangerous playoff teams and suddenly the situation starts to brighten (though the 1990 team gets a wild card instead of a division title and, obviously, we don't know how the team would have fared in a five-game set against the Mets). Who knows, maybe another title could have been had?

Also, if the current playoff format had existed in the late '80s, the Reds would have won a division title in 1988, a wild card in 1985 and possibly gained a wild card tie with the Phillies in 1986 (dependent on whether the Phils won or lost an unplayed game 162).

1985-1995 was a fine run for the franchise.

RedsManRick
03-26-2008, 04:02 PM
I question his definition of dynasty. To me, a dynasty is when a franchise sustains success across different teams. It's when you've turned over the roster, or large chunks of it, and continue to succeed. It's when the organization, not the specific combination of players you have currently, is what leads to that success.

A nice run of even 4 or 5 years by the same core of guys is not a dynasty. A failed dynasty is when you have a successful group of guys and you can't sustain the peak -- the late 80's athletics being a prime example. The Reds had brief success and then slipped back, the dyansty card was never in play.

westofyou
03-26-2008, 04:04 PM
I question his definition of dynasty. To me, a dynasty is when a franchise sustains success across different teams. It's when you've turned over the roster, or large chunks of it, and continue to succeed. It's when the organization, not the specific combination of players you have currently, is what leads to that success.

A nice run of even 4 or 5 years by the same core of guys is not a dynasty. A failed dynasty is when you have a successful group of guys and you can't sustain the peak -- the late 80's athletics being a prime example. The Reds had brief success and then slipped back, the dyansty card was never in play.

Then define a baseball dynasty without citing the late 30's Yankees or the 49-53 Yankees.

RedsManRick
03-26-2008, 04:09 PM
Then define a baseball dynasty without citing the late 30's Yankees or the 49-53 Yankees.

It's a fine line. If all that's required is a championship and good prospects for the future, then where are early 90's Blue Jays? The 90's Braves?

How can you possibly exclude the current Sox? The basis of the whole article is that the Sox aren't a dynasty yet.

RedsBaron
03-26-2008, 05:12 PM
Then define a baseball dynasty without citing the late 30's Yankees or the 49-53 Yankees.

The 1904-24 NY Giants under John McGraw, the 1926-46 St. Louis Cardinals, and the 1941-66 Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers might meet RMR's definition.

westofyou
03-26-2008, 05:21 PM
The 1904-24 NY Giants under John McGraw, the 1926-46 St. Louis Cardinals, and the 1941-66 Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers might meet RMR's definition.

Maybe 1911-1924, but even then they had one 8th place finish.

Cars ok... and the Dodgers I'll skip the war years.

Still none won 100 games as much as Weavers O's from 1966-1980




1911 1st 99 54 .647 +7.5 NL CHAMPIONS
1912 1st 103 48 .682 +10 NL CHAMPIONS
1913 1st 101 51 .664 +12.5 NL CHAMPIONS
1914 2nd 84 70 .545 10.5
1915 8th 69 83 .454 21
1916 4th 86 66 .566 7
1917 1st 98 56 .636 +10 NL CHAMPIONS
1918 2nd 71 53 .573 10.5
1919 2nd 87 53 .621 9
1920 2nd 86 68 .558 7
1921 1st 94 59 .614 +4 WORLD CHAMPIONS
1922 1st 93 61 .604 +7 WORLD CHAMPIONS
1923 1st 95 58 .621 +4.5 NL CHAMPIONS
1924 1st 93 60 .608 +1.5 NL CHAMPIONS



926 1st 89 65 .578 +2 WORLD CHAMPIONS
1927 2nd 92 61 .601 1.5
1928 1st 95 59 .617 +2 NL CHAMPIONS
1929 4th 78 74 .513 20
1930 1st 92 62 .597 +2 NL CHAMPIONS
1931 1st 101 53 .656 +13 WORLD CHAMPIONS
1932 T6th 72 82 .468 18
1933 5th 82 71 .536 9.5
1934 1st 95 58 .621 +2 WORLD CHAMPIONS
1935 2nd 96 58 .623 4
1936 T2nd 87 67 .565 5
1937 4th 81 73 .526 15
1938 6th 71 80 .470 17.5
1939 2nd 92 61 .601 4.5
1940 3rd 84 69 .549 16
1941 2nd 97 56 .634 2.5
1942 1st 106 48 .688 +2 WORLD CHAMPIONS
1943 1st 105 49 .682 +18 NL CHAMPIONS
1944 1st 105 49 .682 +14.5 WORLD CHAMPIONS
1945 2nd 95 59 .617 3
1946 1st 98 58 .628 +2 WORLD CHAMPIONS


1947 1st 94 60 .610 +5 NL CHAMPIONS
1948 3rd 84 70 .545 7.5
1949 1st 97 57 .630 +1 NL CHAMPIONS
1950 2nd 89 65 .578 2
1951 2nd 97 60 .618 1
1952 1st 96 57 .627 +4.5 NL CHAMPIONS
1953 1st 105 49 .682 +13 NL CHAMPIONS
1954 2nd 92 62 .597 5
1955 1st 98 55 .641 +13.5 WORLD CHAMPIONS
1956 1st 93 61 .604 +1 NL CHAMPIONS
1957 3rd 84 70 .545 11
1958 7th 71 83 .461 21
1959 1st 88 68 .564 +2 WORLD CHAMPIONS
1960 4th 82 72 .532 13
1961 2nd 89 65 .578 4
1962 2nd 102 63 .618 1
1963 1st 99 63 .611 +6 WORLD CHAMPIONS
1964 T6th 80 82 .494 13
1965 1st 97 65 .599 +2 WORLD CHAMPIONS
1966 1st 95 67 .586 +1.5 NL CHAMPIONS


1966 1st 97 63 .606 +9 WORLD CHAMPIONS
1967 T6th 76 85 .472 15.5
1968 2nd 91 71 .562 12
1969 1st 109 53 .673 +19 AL CHAMPIONS
1970 1st 108 54 .667 +15 WORLD CHAMPIONS
1971 1st 101 57 .639 +12 AL CHAMPIONS
1972 3rd 80 74 .519 5
1973 1st 97 65 .599 +8 AL EAST CHAMPIONS
1974 1st 91 71 .562 +2 AL EAST CHAMPIONS
1975 2nd 90 69 .566 4.5
1976 2nd 88 74 .543 10
1977 T2nd 97 64 .602 2.5
1978 4th 90 71 .559 9
1979 1st 102 57 .642 +8 AL CHAMPIONS
1980 2nd 100 62 .617 3

SMcGavin
03-26-2008, 06:18 PM
Then define a baseball dynasty without citing the late 30's Yankees or the 49-53 Yankees.

The current Yankees? Over the past ten years: ten playoff appearances, nine AL East titles, five AL titles, three world titles. I think the roster has turned over enough since '98 for the dynasty term to apply.

savafan
03-26-2008, 07:45 PM
I've never understood this talk about Hal Morris being the primary first baseman on the 1990 team. My memories tell me that honor was held by Todd Benzinger.

gm
03-26-2008, 07:51 PM
I've never understood this talk about Hal Morris being the primary first baseman on the 1990 team. My memories tell me that honor was held by Todd Benzinger.

Benzinger by a nose 118G 376AB vs. 107/309 for HalMo

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CIN/1990.shtml

M2
03-26-2008, 07:52 PM
I've never understood this talk about Hal Morris being the primary first baseman on the 1990 team. My memories tell me that honor was held by Todd Benzinger.

Morris took the job in July of that year. Benzinger played mostly against LHPs and served as a defensive replacement/PH after that.

D-Man
03-26-2008, 07:56 PM
Also, if the current playoff format had existed in the late '80s, the Reds would have won a division title in 1988, a wild card in 1985 and possibly gained a wild card tie with the Phillies in 1986 (dependent on whether the Phils won or lost an unplayed game 162).

1985-1995 was a fine run for the franchise.

Don't forget 1987--if the Pirates had traded Rick Reuschel to the Reds rather than the Giants, the NL West would have been a very different story. (I seem to recall the Pirates were holding out for Jeff Treadway, who was one of the top minor leaguers at the time.)

That 1987 Reds offense was loaded with talent. And the back end of the bullpen was nearly as good as it was 1990, if not necessarily as dominant.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CIN/1987.shtml

savafan
03-26-2008, 08:03 PM
The 1987 Reds had horrible OBP skills, and 4 out of 5 starting pitchers with losing records.

M2
03-26-2008, 08:13 PM
The 1987 Reds had horrible OBP skills

They could have been better, and they certainly slumped late in the year, but they did finish 6th in the NL in OB (out of 12). Dave Parker's post All-Star .283 OB was the real crime on that front.

GAC
03-26-2008, 08:15 PM
Then define a baseball dynasty without citing the late 30's Yankees or the 49-53 Yankees.

Couldn't you also add the As of the early 70's?

D-Man
03-26-2008, 08:17 PM
The 1987 Reds had horrible OBP skills, and 4 out of 5 starting pitchers with losing records.

The team OBP wasn't what I would call "horrible", it was squarely league average.

That offense had a little bit of something for everyone: top-notch talent, youth, experience, walks, steals, HRs, batting average. Select your elixir.

Any shortcomings of that offense can be attributed to indecision in the management ranks--evaluating the team at the major league level, not selecting the SS of the future, farting around with Francona/Esasky at first base.

GAC
03-26-2008, 08:20 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=dynasties/reds/080226

1990 Reds: The Nasty Boys

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jonah Keri
Special to Page 2

The 1990 World Series shaped up as a classic David vs. Goliath battle. The big, bad A's of Rickey Henderson, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Dave Stewart and Dennis Eckersley looked primed to build a dynasty by making quick work of the upstart Reds and winning their second straight World Series. Four games later, Cincinnati completed one of the most shocking World Series sweeps in history. Suddenly, an unknown, young Reds team looked like a dynasty in the making.

Which shows that anything can happen in a short series. The job is just getting and getting the opportunity.

The Reds went Wire to Wire. Does that account for anything?


Dibble said the team's best quality that season was its unselfishness....

When the 1990 season was threatened by a lockout, the players convened on the campus of Florida Southern, near the Reds' spring training site, to train on their own. Players who had come up together in the minor leagues -- Dibble, Charlton, Chris Sabo, Barry Larkin, Eric Davis -- worked out together every day while other teams scrambled to get their players in game shape amid another looming work stoppage.

Bet you wouldn't see that happening today. The economics of the game changed so radically since the early 90s, and salaries skyrocketed.

RedsBaron
03-27-2008, 06:16 AM
Couldn't you also add the As of the early 70's?

Depending upon how the term "dynasty" is defined, the 1971-75 A's should be included, but this reminds me of an argument made by Bruce Markusen in a book he wrote about those A's teams entitled : "Baseball's Last Dynasty: Charlie Finley's Oakland A's." In fairness, I read only an excerpt from the book, which was quoted in Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein's "Baseball Dynasties" published in 2000.
Anyway, comparing the A's to the Big Red Machine, Markusen wrote that in determining who was better, the A's of the early seventies or the Reds of the middle seventies, "a tangible examination of each team's accomplishments proves that the A's did achieve more over a longer period of time." He then asserted that the Reds having won two divisional crowns, two league pennants and two world championships was not as impressive as the A's having won five divisional crowns, three league pennants, and three world championships, concluding with "two seasons do not make a dynasty; five seasons do."
What a selective load of garbage that was.
Markusen implied that all the 1970s Reds ever did was put together a couple of great seasons in 1975-76, while the A's endured much longer.
From 1970 though 1976, the A's won five divisional titles, three league pennants and three world championships. During those seven same seasons, the Reds won five divisional titles, four league pennants and two world championships.
The divisional titles were even at five. The Reds had the edge in league pennants, four to three. The A's had the edge in world championships, three to two (and of course, by the narrowest of margins, the 1972 A's defeated the 1972 Reds in the World Series).
An argument can be made that the 1970's A's were greater than the 1970's Reds. I don't agree, but the argument can be made. What is silly is Markusen's very selective and misleading argument.
Incidentally, in their book, Neyer and Epstein each ranked the Reds ahead of the A's. Neyer had the A's 12th and the Reds 4th all time, while Epstein had the A's 7th and the Reds 6th. Epstein said his high ranking of the Reds was "partly attributable to all of the former players who told me they were the best team they ever saw."
P.S.
During 1970-76, the A's went 652-473 in the regular season, a .580%. The Reds went 683-443, a .607%. During those seven seasons, the Reds had a better record than the A's in six of the seven seasons, 1971 being the sole exception.

15fan
03-27-2008, 09:56 AM
"Expecting a team to become a superpower based largely on a trio of relievers was and is unrealistic."

That's a bit of an oversimplification of what the Reds had.

Larkin was a young, athletic, and elite SS. He and Cal Ripken took the position from being strictly a glove position to one that was expected to dominate both offensively and defensively. They opened the door that Jeter, ARod, and Garciaparra all barged through in the mid 90s.

Rijo could dominate as well as any starting P in the game. When he was on (which was most of the time), he didn't pitch to hitters. He messed with them.

There was little doubt that Eric Davis had been hand-selected by the gods and put on this earth to show us what the perfect baseball player looked like. He was Bo Jackson with refined baseball skills. It was the kind of talent that often left you stunned in silence. Part of your brain told you what your eyes just saw. But the other part of your brain told you that there's no way that a human being could actually do what your eyes just saw. That's the way it was with a healthy Eric Davis.

2 of those 3 guys hit the injury wall. Hard and/or often. If either Davis or Rijo had stayed healthy, I think the early 90s would have looked a little different.

Oh, and much like the Reds got screwed by the 1981 strike, they also took a disproportionately big hit with Selig's strike in 1994.

Johnny Footstool
03-27-2008, 10:04 AM
The economics of the game changed so radically since the early 90s, and salaries skyrocketed.

The 1993 Reds had the second-highest payroll in all of baseball. Higher than the Yankees.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=1993

From the '92-'96, the Reds' payroll was consistently in the top 10. The KC Royals were near the top of the list as well.

The economics of the game started changing in '97 and blew up in '99. Use that USA Today payroll tool to cycle through the years. It's astonishing.

Chip R
03-27-2008, 10:08 AM
Oh, and much like the Reds got screwed by the 1981 strike, they also took a disproportionately big hit with Selig's strike in 1994.


That would have been some playoff series between the Reds and Expos.

George Anderson
03-27-2008, 10:18 AM
If either Davis or Rijo had stayed healthy, I think the early 90s would have looked a little different.

.

Same could be said about Sabo. Within 5 years he went from one of the top third baseman in the game to being totally out of it basically due to injuries.

Phhhl
03-27-2008, 10:35 AM
I didn't think it was possible to put a negative spin on what I consider to be the memorable and exciting season in my life time. That team sure never seemed like it was going to be a dynasty while it was happening. There were spare parts and older players all over the place. Billy Hatcher, Mariano Duncan, Todd Benzinger, Danny Jackson on the downside and Rick Mahler. The teams of the late 80's, with Kal Daniels and the young, healthy Eric Davis stealing 80 bags, seemed to have more of dynasty feel to it.

1990 stands as one of the greatest single seasons in team history. I don't see a reason to diminish it in any way.

westofyou
03-27-2008, 10:47 AM
Same could be said about Sabo. Within 5 years he went from one of the top third baseman in the game to being totally out of it basically due to injuries.

Sabo took a long time to impress ML scouts and he had a nebula of a career he was 26 his rookie year and he was a BA driven hitter, classic case of guy probably getting as much if not more than he probably should have.

Sabo was the type of player that made me question what level of expectation I should expect from a player.

George Anderson
03-27-2008, 10:53 AM
Sabo took a long time to impress ML scouts and he had a nebula of a career he was 26 his rookie year and he was a BA driven hitter, classic case of guy probably getting as much if not more than he probably should have.

Sabo was the type of player that made me question what level of expectation I should expect from a player.

Yea I always thought Sabo was an overachiever myself but dont you think the knee injuries played a big part in his downfall?? Kinda goes back to a thread a few months back about how things would have been different had the Reds of that era played at Crosley instead of Riverfront. There is a good chance we could have seen Sabo, Davis and Daniels with healthy wheels.

cumberlandreds
03-27-2008, 10:56 AM
I didn't think it was possible to put a negative spin on what I consider to be the memorable and exciting season in my life time. That team sure never seemed like it was going to be a dynasty while it was happening. There were spare parts and older players all over the place. Billy Hatcher, Mariano Duncan, Todd Benzinger, Danny Jackson on the downside and Rick Mahler. The teams of the late 80's, with Kal Daniels and the young, healthy Eric Davis stealing 80 bags, seemed to have more of dynasty feel to it.

1990 stands as one of the greatest single seasons in team history. I don't see a reason to diminish it in any way.

You hit the description of that team spot on. It was never going to be a dynasty. It was one year wonder team that had everything come together almost perfectly. A great season to enjoy. It didn't surprise me in the least when they fell back into the pack in 1991.

westofyou
03-27-2008, 10:58 AM
Yea I always thought Sabo was an overachiever myself but dont you think the knee injuries played a big part in his downfall?? Kinda goes back to a thread a few months back about how things would have been different had the Reds of that era played at Crosley instead of Riverfront. There is a good chance we could have seen Sabo, Davis and Daniels with healthy wheels.Perhaps, but I think the plastic elsewhere also added to these guys problems, t was almost everywhere then.

I just think Sabo was a fastball hitting, lead with your face sort of player, they tend to have short careers, he was Don Hoak when you get down to it.

15fan
03-27-2008, 11:05 AM
That would have been some playoff series between the Reds and Expos.

The 94 Expos are possibly the best single-season team to never be in the playoffs.

After starting 28-22, they went 19-8 in June, 18-8 in July, and 9-2 in August before the stoppage. That's 46-18 (.719). A .719 winning % over a full year translates into 116.5 wins.

They swept San Diego that year - won 12, lost 0. They only had losing records against 3 teams - the Giants (5-7; no one ever played well in CandleCom), the Rockies (2-4), and...Cincinnati (2-4).

cumberlandreds
03-27-2008, 12:05 PM
The 94 Expos are possibly the best single-season team to never be in the playoffs.

After starting 28-22, they went 19-8 in June, 18-8 in July, and 9-2 in August before the stoppage. That's 46-18 (.719). A .719 winning % over a full year translates into 116.5 wins.

They swept San Diego that year - won 12, lost 0. They only had losing records against 3 teams - the Giants (5-7; no one ever played well in CandleCom), the Rockies (2-4), and...Cincinnati (2-4).

Some say and rightly so,IMO, that hastened their demise in Montreal.

George Anderson
03-27-2008, 12:10 PM
Some say and rightly so,IMO, that hastened their demise in Montreal.

Talk about failures, the entire Montreal franchise from the early 80's on had outstanding players and produced nuttin.

15fan
03-27-2008, 01:14 PM
Talk about failures, the entire Montreal franchise from the early 80's on had outstanding players and produced nuttin.

They did have some talent.

In fairness, they also played in the same division as the Doc Gooden / Darryl Strawberry Mets. The Cards put some really good lineups on the field in the mid/late 80s, as did the Dawson/Sandberg/Maddux Cubs. Early 90s saw them trying to get by the Bonds/Bonilla/Van Slyke/Drabek Pirates.

In an era when only 1 team per division advanced to the post-season, those were some pretty formidable opponents to have to get past. Once they got rolling in 1994, the only thing that was going to stop them that year was the strike. Put the strike in any other year, and it's quite possible that Les Expos would have rolled through the 1994 post-season and they'd still be playing baseball in Quebec.

GAC
03-27-2008, 08:06 PM
The 1993 Reds had the second-highest payroll in all of baseball. Higher than the Yankees.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=1993

From the '92-'96, the Reds' payroll was consistently in the top 10. The KC Royals were near the top of the list as well.

The economics of the game started changing in '97 and blew up in '99. Use that USA Today payroll tool to cycle through the years. It's astonishing.

You're right. That's basically what I was implying, and you illustrate that by showing where the Red's payroll was in the early-mid 90s. It's simply astounding what has happened to payrolls since then, and why smaller market teams like the Reds, KC, Pirates, and others were left in it's wake.