PDA

View Full Version : The 1999 Reds Were Also 9-13



Edskin
04-24-2008, 12:09 PM
Just Sayin' :)

Doing whatever I can to remain positive right now.

1999 is forever etched in my memory, sometimes, I feel as if I can remember every pitch :)

Anyway, if memory serves, we started 9-13 (actually fell to 9-14). Again, if my memory is correct, we got swept near the end of the month by the Braves and I can remember thinking how lousy of a season it was going to be.

Again, just sayin' :)

Tony Cloninger
04-24-2008, 12:30 PM
The 1972 and 1995 Reds also had very bad starts ....no hitting ....up/down pitching.

redsfan30
04-24-2008, 12:32 PM
Shhhhh.....

Haven't you guys gotten the memo?

The season's over.

bucksfan
04-24-2008, 12:37 PM
I'm disappointed but far from worried right now. I think the poor portions of the roster construction will start to be worked out, the hitting will come along to more than supplant some potential fall-off from our new "big 3" starters.

That said, I want us to be at least few games over .500 when I come down May 17! :D

George Anderson
04-24-2008, 12:39 PM
I'm always amazed at people who write off seasons when its only April. I wonder if these are the same people who will leave a game in the second inning because the home team is down several runs?

Falls City Beer
04-24-2008, 12:41 PM
If there's the GM who can vault a bunch of excuses and make this squad instantly competitive, it's Jocketty. But he's going to face a pretty tough trade market, one that would have been more pliable in December of 07.

But this current roster, however it's deployed, is in no shape to contend against the likes of the Cubs. They look like a juggernaut, very much to my surprise.

M2
04-24-2008, 12:43 PM
Sure Ed, be reasonable and take the long view.

I think you've forgotten that this is baseball and that all bad 12-game stretches demand overreaction.

Roy Tucker
04-24-2008, 12:44 PM
They kicked some tail after that though...

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teamstats/schedule.php?y=1999&t=CN5



Monthly Splits

Month (Games) Won Lost WP
April (21) 9 12 0.429
May (26) 16 10 0.615
June (27) 18 9 0.667
July (28) 16 12 0.571
August (29) 17 12 0.586
September (28) 19 9 0.679
October (4) 1 3 0.250

westofyou
04-24-2008, 12:44 PM
The Coach

“Everything is magnified at the beginning of the season,” says Yankees hitting coach Kevin Long. “It’s kind of ridiculous to think David Ortiz is going to hit .100 all year or Jason Giambi is going to hit .100 all year. Nobody pays as much attention if a guy has a similar stretch in the middle of the season.”

The General Manager

“I don’t know that we have the luxury of waiting two to three months for somebody to kick in because we can’t let this league or this division get away from us,” Toronto general manager J.P. Ricciardi told reporters after he cut Frank Thomas.

The Owner

“We’ve come to the point where we just aren’t going to lose anymore.”

Bob Castellini

OnBaseMachine
04-24-2008, 12:45 PM
Great post, Ed.

Someone told me in the Krivsky thread the this was a lost season. Now you're telling me the season isn't over and there's 140 games left. Who to believe?

Falls City Beer
04-24-2008, 12:47 PM
They kicked some tail after that though...

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teamstats/schedule.php?y=1999&t=CN5



Monthly Splits

Month (Games) Won Lost WP
April (21) 9 12 0.429
May (26) 16 10 0.615
June (27) 18 9 0.667
July (28) 16 12 0.571
August (29) 17 12 0.586
September (28) 19 9 0.679
October (4) 1 3 0.250



And had a historically great set of offensive players, several ready to break out, a bullpen that was second only to the NBs in Reds' history. And surprisingly, for all the hoopla surrounding these kids in the rotation, the 99 rotation was considerably deeper than the current one.

This is a bad squad who, if they get a huge break in the Pythag. dept., will be lucky to finish at .500.

Edskin
04-24-2008, 12:53 PM
And had a historically great set of offensive players, several ready to break out, a bullpen that was second only to the NBs in Reds' history. And surprisingly, for all the hoopla surrounding these kids in the rotation, the 99 rotation was considerably deeper than the current one.

This is a bad squad who, if they get a huge break in the Pythag. dept., will be lucky to finish at .500.

Really?

We had Ron Villone and Steve Parris in that rotation. They both did well for us, but they clearly captured lightning in a bottle that season. Guys like Eddie Taubensee and Mark Lews were also pretty key contributors.

Edskin
04-24-2008, 12:56 PM
Great post, Ed.

Someone told me in the Krivsky thread the this was a lost season. Now you're telling me the season isn't over and there's 140 games left. Who to believe?

Normally, I'd say believe the other guys :)

I REALLY believe that this team has a higher ceiling than we'd had the past 5-7 years, and therefore, I am more reluctant to just throw my hands in the air and give up. Maybe that's my problem. Maybe I've just severely overrated our potential.

But I'm not willing to call it quits quite yet. Although, we honestly can't afford to fall much farther behind. When is it no longer "still very early?"

Falls City Beer
04-24-2008, 12:58 PM
Really?

We had Ron Villone and Steve Parris in that rotation. They both did well for us, but they clearly captured lightning in a bottle that season. Guys like Eddie Taubensee and Mark Lews were also pretty key contributors.

I'm assuming you've seen Arroyo, Fogg, and Belisle, no? Belisle may still turn it around, but the other two appear shot. And rookies shouldn't be counted on for full seasons, IMO.

OnBaseMachine
04-24-2008, 12:58 PM
Sorry, but I prefer this year's rotation to the 1999 rotation.

1999 rotation:

Pete Harnisch
Denny Neagle
Ron Villone
Brett Tomko
Steve Parris/Jason Bere/Steve Avery

Juan Guzman was acquired in July and replaced Avery/Bere. Neagle missed time due to injury.

Harang is better than any of those guys. Cueto and Volquez, while young, are better pitchers than anyone on that list IMO. Arroyo, while in a rough stretch right now, is a solid option at #4. The number five spot is a problem right now but many teams have holes at #5. Homer Bailey could solidify that spot later on in the summer if he continues to pitch well in Louisville.

The 1999 bullpen was better than this current squad, though.

coachw513
04-24-2008, 12:59 PM
Wasn't '99 the year of the Greg Vaughn clubhouse "meltdown" that seemed to galvanize the team and send them moving forward??...that and the unbelievable 9-0 road trip that ended up with Hal coining the nickname, the Big Road Machine...I remember all of a sudden Ron Villone coming out of nowhere and pitching 2 hit shutouts and stuff...

Unfortunately I remember the last weekend of the regular season (I despise the Brewers), and Steve Parris giving up the 2 run jack to Edgardo Alfonzo in the 1st inning of the playoff (ooops, play-in) game that took the air right out of Cinergy...that and Al Leiter dealing (hey, we still can't hit left-handers)...

Favorite memory of the year...an afternoon Pokey Reese walkoff HR against the Cardinals in extra innings...late in the season after the Reds had given up the lead in the top of the inning...was listening to the game on line and went bonkers...

You mean we get to do all that again this year??...cool...

macro
04-24-2008, 12:59 PM
The 1999 Reds were indeed 9-14 and then went 13-5 over the next 8 games to get to 22-19. They then lost three straight to fall back to .500 and then won eight straight, putting them at 30-22.

The 1972 Reds were 8-13 before winning eight straight to get to 16-13. That team would eventually get to 34-19, meaning they went an amazing 26-6 in the 32 games following the 8-13 start.

The 1975 team started 12-12 before Pete Rose moved to third base on May 3, the move that is often credited with jump-starting that team. They then went 6-1 in the next seven games to get to 18-13, but then lost 7 of 9 to end up 20-20. Things went pretty well from that point on, though. ;)

Also let me add the 1986 team, which if I recall correctly, was tabbed by SI as the second-best team in all of baseball (behind the Mets) in it's preseason feature. That team opened the season with an incredibly bad start of 9-21 and didn't see .500 until they reached 44-44 on July 19. They managed to finish a disappointing 86-76, 10 games behind the Astros.

(Data gathered from retrosheet.)

Falls City Beer
04-24-2008, 01:00 PM
When is it no longer "still very early?"

A team is either bad or it's good. There's some wiggle room to improve over the course of the early season, but in general, what's on your 25 man and in your minors is it.

I'd say it's no longer "still very early" when the first pitch is thrown in earnest.

M2
04-24-2008, 01:06 PM
This is a bad squad who, if they get a huge break in the Pythag. dept., will be lucky to finish at .500.

IMO, the big problem with the current team is how to get it to play offense and defense at the same time. Outside of Brandon Phillips and maybe Joey Votto (who's looking a lot better in the field -- who'd have guessed?) the team doesn't really have anyone who can do something constructive with the bat and the glove.

I'm not terribly worried about the bullpen, there's enough in there and in the minors to get a working mix (if not something superior, certainly something operable). 3/5 of the rotation has been superb and when's the last time we could say that? Basically, the team only needs to get one more starter in gear to have a plus rotation.

Mind you, I still consider this team a Rubik's Cube proposition and I remain unconvinced anyone's going to turn the tumblers in the right order to solve the puzzle.

You mentioned the Cubs earlier. They're certainly hitting everything at the moment. Yet it's entirely possible the rotation will devolve to Zambrano and nobody else. That club could be a fireworks show this summer.

OnBaseMachine
04-24-2008, 01:09 PM
That 1999 season was the funnest baseball season of my life. How many incredible walkoffs did that team have? As someone else mentioned, the Pokey Reese walkoff homerun against the Cardinals was downright amazing. I've never screamed so loud in my life. How about the game when they scored 24 runs in Coors Field and won 24-12? Or the 22-3 win at Phildadelphia? I remember being at a game that year in late August when Eddie Taubensee and Aaron Boone both hit grand slams to beat the Expos. If only they hadn't blown that 3-0 lead in the bottom of the 6th inning on the Friday night in Milwaukee. It was 3-1 going to the 8th inning and Scott Williamson blew it. A win there and the Reds would have been in the playoffs. Who knows how things would have went from there - the Reds could have won their sixth World Series title for all we know.

Does anyone know where I can find some audio clips of the 1999 season? I know there used to be a website that had the clip of the Pokey Reese walkoff homerun.

TheBurn
04-24-2008, 01:31 PM
That 1999 season was the funnest baseball season of my life...I agree that '99 was fun... but I still enjoyed '90 a helluva lot more !!! :D

OnBaseMachine
04-24-2008, 01:35 PM
I agree that '99 was fun... but I still enjoyed '90 a helluva lot more !!! :D

I was three years old. Unfortunately I don't remember a thing about 1990. :D

cumberlandreds
04-24-2008, 01:37 PM
They kicked some tail after that though...

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teamstats/schedule.php?y=1999&t=CN5



Monthly Splits

Month (Games) Won Lost WP
April (21) 9 12 0.429
May (26) 16 10 0.615
June (27) 18 9 0.667
July (28) 16 12 0.571
August (29) 17 12 0.586
September (28) 19 9 0.679
October (4) 1 3 0.250


I can't see this team as it's currently constructed going on a season long run like the 99 team. But I probably would have said that about the 99 team too in April of that year.

Edskin
04-24-2008, 01:38 PM
Does anyone know where I can find some audio clips of the 1999 season? I know there used to be a website that had the clip of the Pokey Reese walkoff homerun.

Pathetically enough, I remember the exact date without having to look it up :)

September 26th. It was a Sunday. The Redskins beat the Jets earlier in the day and then Pokey hit his walk-off against the Cards. It was a glorious day indeed.

I will NEVER fully get over that Friday night loss to the Brewers. It pains me to this day. I've mentioned it time and again on RZ, but I can still see Marquis Grissom robbing Eddie T. on a fly ball that would have given us the lead. Painful night.

I also clearly remember that all the Pirates needed to do was win ONE against the Mets in Shea and we would have won the WC. I kept flipping over to their games (especially the Sunday game when we had to wait the day-long rains) and Pitt just could NOT score. It was so incredibly frustrating. So, I've developed a hatred for the Brewers and the Pirates based on that weekend alone. I'm still reeling :)

BTW....I've been looking for DVD copies of individual games from that season for years with no luck.......

westofyou
04-24-2008, 01:38 PM
I agree that '99 was fun... but I still enjoyed '90 a helluva lot more !!! :D

1976 blew them both away.

RedlegJake
04-24-2008, 01:41 PM
1976 blew them both away.

1970-1976 was a helluva ride wasn't it?

M2
04-24-2008, 01:42 PM
1976 blew them both away.

Yeah, that was pretty good. Rooting for a completely dominant team was sweet. All joy, no stress.

Edskin
04-24-2008, 01:43 PM
1976 blew them both away.

I'm sure. But I was born in 1977, so I can't quite remember. :)

But seriously, this is kind of a sad revelation:

If you are a Reds fan under the age of 27, then 1999 is pretty much ALL you have. Maybe 1995, but that was a weird year with the strike and all.

I'd say you need to be 8-10 years old to really be able to enjoy a championship, so that means you had to be around by the early 80's to appreciate 1990. For those born a bit later, there hasn't been much. Not much at all.............

westofyou
04-24-2008, 01:45 PM
I'm sure. But I was born in 1977, so I can't quite remember. :)

But seriously, this is kind of a sad revelation:

If you are a Reds fan under the age of 27, then 1999 is pretty much ALL you have. Maybe 1995, but that was a weird year with the strike and all.

I'd say you need to be 8-10 years old to really be able to enjoy a championship, so that means you had to be around by the early 80's to appreciate 1990. For those born a bit later, there hasn't been much. Not much at all.............

1976 - the Reds all time highest attendance.. the only team in MLB with their highest number from that long ago.

That's a sad revelation.

macro
04-24-2008, 02:41 PM
1970-1976 was a helluva ride wasn't it?

Four World Series appearances in seven years and only one in the 31 seasons since. :(


I'm sure. But I was born in 1977, so I can't quite remember. :)

But seriously, this is kind of a sad revelation:

If you are a Reds fan under the age of 27, then 1999 is pretty much ALL you have. Maybe 1995, but that was a weird year with the strike and all.

I'd say you need to be 8-10 years old to really be able to enjoy a championship, so that means you had to be around by the early 80's to appreciate 1990. For those born a bit later, there hasn't been much. Not much at all.............

Two postseason appearances since 1979. No franchise in MLB has fewer in that time except for the Expos/Nationals and the Rays, and the Rays have only been around since 1998.

The Reds 12-year postseason drought is MLB's sixth-longest current streak. The fact that eight teams now qualify each year makes that streak even more unacceptable.

bucksfan2
04-24-2008, 03:00 PM
Sorry, but I prefer this year's rotation to the 1999 rotation.

1999 rotation:

Pete Harnisch
Denny Neagle
Ron Villone
Brett Tomko
Steve Parris/Jason Bere/Steve Avery

Juan Guzman was acquired in July and replaced Avery/Bere. Neagle missed time due to injury.

Harang is better than any of those guys. Cueto and Volquez, while young, are better pitchers than anyone on that list IMO. Arroyo, while in a rough stretch right now, is a solid option at #4. The number five spot is a problem right now but many teams have holes at #5. Homer Bailey could solidify that spot later on in the summer if he continues to pitch well in Louisville.

The 1999 bullpen was better than this current squad, though.

Neagle at that time was better than both Volquez and Cueto. At that time he was a very very good pticher.

That 99 year was a great year to be a fan. The huge difference with that team was that they knew how to score runs. I think they even set the record for number of games without a shut out. If you look back at that team they had Larkin, Vaughn, Cammeron, Casey who all had great years and a defense with Larkin, Reese, and Cammeron up the middle was top notch.

This 08 team so far has been one of the most frustrating teams. The talent is there but they just don't seem to click. They just don't seem to string together hits in order to score runs. They would have 13 hits and score 2 runs. I really think this team needs a kick in the arse. They need a team leader. They need someone to get the team fired up again. They just need something. To me it seems like they are just going through the motions on the baseball diamond.

Cyclone792
04-24-2008, 03:51 PM
The 1999 Reds were a pretty darn good ballclub ...

5.31 runs scored per game, 4th in the NL
103 OPS+, tied for 4th in the NL
4.36 runs allowed per game, tied for 4th in the NL
118 ERA+, 3rd in the NL

Reds starters had a 4.35 ERA (above league average of 4.66) while Reds relievers had a 3.36 ERA (outstanding as league average was 4.39).

That 1999 Reds team had three primary features: a world class defensive fielding team, three world class relievers, and a good offense.

The Reds may have had some names on their pitching staff that appear a bit "egh" but their world class fielding defense really aided those pitchers and allowed the Reds to get everything they could out of the outfit they had.

Then put that defense behind the trio of Williamson/Graves/Sullivan, and the Reds were tough to score on. Think about this: those three relievers combined for 318 innings pitched with a collective ERA of 2.86. That's flat dominance there by three high leverage arms with outstanding fielders behind them, especially in a league environment where run scoring was an even 5.00 runs per game (2007 NL was 4.71 runs per game, for reference purposes).

Blitz Dorsey
05-18-2008, 02:18 AM
I think it was June when the '99 Reds really took off. But I remember a slow start to the season and they started to turn things around in mid-late May.

This team could be as good as the '99 Reds if they stay healthy. I mean, they won't win 96 games of course, but they can contend.

Harang is a flat-out horse at the top of the rotation. I love Doc's nickname of Haas Harang. Very simple, but fits to a T. (We'll leave "Harangatang" for the kids.) Aaron Harang is without question one of the top 5 starting pitchers in Major League Baseball. We're talking Johan Santana, Brandon Webb, Jake Peavy, Josh Beckett and Haas. Others receiving votes include Cole Hamels, Carlos Zambrano, Scott Kazmir if healthy, Erik Bedard (I guess), and probably a few others. But Harang is definitely in my top five right now. I could see Hamels passing him by next year, but Harang is going to be one of the best pitchers in baseball for the next five years hopefully. I think he will be. Harang has been consistently excellent over the last four years and is extremely durable. He eats up innings and eats them effectively. If you give him a little bit of run support, he's a lock to win 15 games each year. He will have an ERA in the 3's and will strike out over 200 batters in over 200 innings. He won't give up many walks. His fastball "only" tops off at 94, and is usually more in the 91-92 range, but (IMO due to his 6-7 size and long arms) has a deceptively good fastball. Control is his best weapon though. Harang is also a hard worker. One of many examples is his hitting of all things. When he came here he was one of the worst hitting pitchers I had ever seen and that's saying a lot. But he's worked his way to respectability and he's just an all-around hard worker.

Volquez is a very good No. 2, although I think we all know he's going to hit the wall at some point. Let's hope he ends the season with his ERA in the 3's and not the 4's. Sounds crazy to say that now, but he is going to take some lumps eventually. I hope I'm wrong, but I think he's caught lightning in a bottle and I'm not convinced he will keep it up or even close. Then again, he is very, very good and I think he will be a stud for 10 years if he stays healthy. I like the fact he hasn't had a lot of injuries in his career.

I have concerns like everyone else about pitchers 3-5, but I think a long-term solution of Cueto, Arroyo (who is finally catching fire, let's hope) and Bailey can get the job done. It's time to get Bailey up here and stop fooling around with AAAA pitchers like Matt Belisle and Josh Fogg. Bailey will take his lumps for sure, but he's still the best option at the No. 5 slot and it's not even a question.

I love Cordero as our closer. We overpaid to get him, but then again we didn't because that's exactly how much it took to get him. That was his exact market value. Look what it has done to what was a great Milwaukee bullpen last year. There have been ripple effects. Cordero is not going to be perfect, but he's a very good closer and it helps the entire pen.

I have questions about our offense like everyone else. Have to do something about Griffey and bring Bruce up, although I think Griffey will get hot in June. Still bring Bruce up though. How 'bout get the best 25 players on the roster. What a foreign concept.

The biggest problem by far is defense. Dunn has almost become average in LF (I said almost) but paired with Griffey in right, we have the worst defensive corner outfield tandem in MLB. Encarnacion has been much better lately and will make the specatular play. But he always leaves you holding your breath and let's call a spade a spade. He's a disaster defensively, but there's nothing they can do about this year.

The biggest difference between the '99 Reds and '08 Reds is leadership. Greg Vaughn, Barry Larkin and even guys like Sean Casey and Aaron Boone were leaders. If some leaders emerge on this year's team, they might be able to stay in the race and keep things interesting for us all summer. Hey, we're not that far away. People forget we were in line for a playoff spot in late August of '06. Then we totally collapsed. And yes that was a weak year for the NL, but just thought I throw that in there. We can definitely stay competitive this year and make a push for the playoffs if things fall right. We have the talent to do it and I think Dusty will keep them motivated.

toledodan
05-18-2008, 02:28 AM
we will find out alot about this team next week. the road and the west coast are bad words for this team. i do hope the winning continues but lets revisit their chances about this time next week. for the record i like the faith!:thumbup::beerme:

redsrule2500
05-18-2008, 04:02 AM
Wow, good memory.
May 8, 1999 Reds were 12-16.
By May 30th they had achieved 24-22.

Blitz Dorsey
05-18-2008, 03:02 PM
we will find out alot about this team next week. the road and the west coast are bad words for this team. i do hope the winning continues but lets revisit their chances about this time next week. for the record i like the faith!:thumbup::beerme:

I concur. Reds always struggle on West Coast trips and this will tell a lot about the team.

Edskin
05-18-2008, 03:07 PM
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67585

RedEye
05-18-2008, 03:10 PM
I seem to remember that the '99 Reds also had a way better defense up the middle.

Just sayin'.

RedEye
05-18-2008, 03:13 PM
That said, I'm pretty sure the '08 Reds have a much better rotation. So we'll see.

Blitz Dorsey
05-18-2008, 05:00 PM
Wow, good memory.
May 8, 1999 Reds were 12-16.
By May 30th they had achieved 24-22.

I have short-term memory loss (can't figure out why, haha) but my long-term sports memory is quite good. Can't remember what my wife said to me 10 minutes ago though (well, unless it had something to do with food).

KronoRed
05-18-2008, 05:00 PM
The 99 Reds failed to reach the post season, lets aim higher then that :)

Blitz Dorsey
05-18-2008, 05:21 PM
Can whoever locked my thread at least merge it with this one? This thread was a month ago and it's not exactly the same subject. I was specifically saying the Reds caught fire around this same time; he was saying a month ago that the '99 Reds started slow. Still not sure why my thread was locked.

Blitz Dorsey
05-18-2008, 05:23 PM
The 99 Reds failed to reach the post season, lets aim higher then that :)

Nah, I'll take 96 wins and take my chances that we can either get the wildcard (we would) or would win the gottam one-game playoff at home this time.

Hollcat
05-19-2008, 02:39 AM
Seems like I remember losing the '99 team losing a series to the Twins or Royals and then really getting hot starting with a Memorial Day weekend series against the Mets.

WebScorpion
05-19-2008, 12:54 PM
I seem to remember that the '99 Reds also had a way better defense up the middle.

Just sayin'.

I think Janish, Phillips, Patterson, and Ross/Bako are pretty solid defensively.
The '99 up-the-middle defense of Larkin, Reese, Cameron, Taubensee/Larue was much better offensively though. ;)


1970-1976 was a helluva ride wasn't it?
I was 7 in 1970 and my Grandpa had season tickets... Game 2 of the World Series was my 8th birthday present. To this day, all third basemen pale in comparison to Brooks Robinson...he was inhuman that day.

I went to at least one playoff and WS game every year they were in it for those 7 years. I was conditioned to believe the Reds could come back from 3 or 4 runs down in the bottom of the ninth because they did it so many times. I really like watching baseball in all the new baseball only parks, but for pure electric excitement, you cannot beat 50,000 screaming fans in a closed circle where the noise just reverberates around the ring...you know those guys on the turf could feel it. We willed them to win and they always came through. I didn't know it then, but I probably never will see another team like it in any sport. It was a once-in-a-lifetime team.

Here's the eerie part...today's Reds are the closest construction I've ever seen to the 1976 BRM. Dunn/Foster(power), Geronimo/Patterson(defense), Griffey/Griffey(name?), Rose/Encarnacion(??), Concepcion/Janish(defense), Morgan/Phillips(all-around), Perez/Votto(power), Bench/Ugh(defense+power). If you replace Griffey with Bruce and find a catcher who is a shadow of Bench this team would appear to be in the BRM mold. Weird, eh?
:eek:

PuffyPig
05-19-2008, 01:37 PM
Here's the eerie part...today's Reds are the closest construction I've ever seen to the 1976 BRM. Dunn/Foster(power), Geronimo/Patterson(defense), Griffey/Griffey(name?), Rose/Encarnacion(??), Concepcion/Janish(defense), Morgan/Phillips(all-around), Perez/Votto(power), Bench/Ugh(defense+power). If you replace Griffey with Bruce and find a catcher who is a shadow of Bench this team would appear to be in the BRM mold. Weird, eh?
:eek:

That's quite a stretch.

THe BRM combined flawless fielding with great offense.

Foster was amuch better coplete hitter than Dunn.

Geronimo was the best fielder/thrower at any postion in the majors. And he could hit. Patterson is a preety good fielder, but he wasn't (no one was) in Geronimo's league.

Griffey Sr. in his prime was much, much better than Griffey Jr. in his decline.

Rose/EE is close probbaly.

Concepcion was the best fielding SS in baeball during thos time, and could hit also. Janish has started one major league game. And when did he become our regular SS?

Morgan was baseball's best player at the time. Add 120 walks to Phillips' resume and you are getting there.

Perez was a solid firstbaseman, but Votto is good to.

Cather? Nuff said.

The BRM had GG winners up the middle at all 4 key defensive postions.

Therreatest (but underrated) strength of the BRM was world class defense, and the abilty to turn balls hit into play into outs.

The 2008 squad is the bizarro team in that regard.

WebScorpion
05-19-2008, 03:12 PM
Geronimo was no hitter...neither was Concepcion. They both had a couple good years, but that didn't mean they suddenly became hitters. If you play enough years, you have a career year, that's all.

I agree with pretty much everything else you said. I wasn't implying that this team could be anything like the BRM, just that they have the same 'types' of players in the same spots...and even that is a stretch since, as you point out Janish is not the starter yet...neither is Patterson for that matter.