PDA

View Full Version : 5-8 Starts



redsmetz
04-19-2010, 08:46 AM
I got to wondering how other Reds teams fared after a 5-8 start. I just looked at some of our seasons where we played in the post-season (and I infamous near miss). We started out 5-8 in 1961, 1972, 1995 and 1999. Of course, the cautionary tale of the 1999 season is that losing any one particular game can have considerable consequences. Had the '99 team one just one more game somewhere in the season, the fateful playoff game would have been unnecessary.

The point is, teams have righted themselves and played well enough to see the post-season. I haven't reviewed the full seasons mentioned above to see where the ebbs and flows were, but it is good to be reminded that a bad start like we've had, isn't fatal to playing more in October.

redsmetz
04-19-2010, 08:53 AM
A side note: As folks will recognize, none of these teams won the World Series. The 1961 game lost to the Yankees, the 1972 team bested the Pirates and lost to the A's. The 1995 club swept the Dodgers, but were swept by the Braves. And, of course, the 1999 club lost the one game playoff to the Mets (well, actually to Al Leiter...).

OnBaseMachine
04-19-2010, 11:42 AM
The 1999 Reds were as many as five games under .500 on May 2nd (9-14) before going on a tear and finishing with a 16-10 May, and an overall record of 25-22 entering June. They then went on to have go 18-9 in June, 16-12 in July, 17-12 in August, 19-9 in September, and then 1-3 in October. Starting out 5-8 isn't the end of the world, but I don't think the 2010 Reds have the offense (or defense) to rebound like the 1999 Reds.

TheNext44
04-19-2010, 02:24 PM
Just for the record, the 1975 Reds were 7-6 after 13 games (20-20 after 40), the 2004 Dave Miley Reds were 8-5, as were the 2006 Jerry Narron Reds.

OnBaseMachine
04-19-2010, 02:33 PM
Speaking of bad starts, the Red Sox are 4-9 after losing to the Rays today.

blumj
04-19-2010, 02:36 PM
Speaking of bad starts, the Red Sox are 4-9 after losing to the Rays today.
First post I see coming here to get away from that. :(

Hoosier Red
04-19-2010, 02:37 PM
I vaguely remember the Reds throughout the 90's seemed to start pretty slow.
Larkin was a habitual slow starter, though his career .764 OPS in April would be 4th on the team today.

OnBaseMachine
04-19-2010, 02:38 PM
First post I see coming here to get away from that. :(

Sorry. :) You shouldn't worry too much, the Sox will turn it around and win 90 games.

LincolnparkRed
04-19-2010, 02:40 PM
So you are saying I can climb off the bridge but not necessarily put the torches away yet?

11larkin11
04-19-2010, 03:03 PM
Wait the season isn't over after 13 games?

Man, I could have swore we were mathematically eliminated already. Just goes to show what I know from reading the board.

Mario-Rijo
04-19-2010, 04:11 PM
I know I still believe they can reach the record I predicted for them (85 wins). But that isn't really the point despite what I might say. The point is I hate to watch bad baseball, it sucks!

Not only that but when a team just continually does things you know will continue to contribute to more bad baseball you expect the worst despite hoping for, even expecting something to magically change. I think the pitching will round into form to some extent, although I always expected the bullpen to come back down to earth a bit from last season. The defense should also be ok, though I'll now admit Cabrera isn't close to good enough defensively to make up for his hacktastic approach, he's like Jerry Jairston Jr without the pitch selectivity. But I also don't think Janish starting makes us any better as a team, but may save our arms which may make it worth it. The offense is just a mess and even though I am not as down on Bruce as others (he's inconsistent mechanically) most of the rest scare me.

macro
04-19-2010, 04:29 PM
Talk about your bad starts...

The 1986 team started the season ranked #1 or #2 in the Sports Illustrated preseason power rankings (I had a copy of that magazine in a box somewhere once), then proceeded to start the season 5-16, 6-19, and 8-21.

They were were 8.5 games out of first on May 2, 9.0 games out on May 5, and 10 games behind on May 10.

That team rebounded to finish 86-76.

Ghosts of 1990
04-19-2010, 04:43 PM
Wait the season isn't over after 13 games?

Man, I could have swore we were mathematically eliminated already. Just goes to show what I know from reading the board.

I don't think anyone said it's over, but I don't think the old addage of "No stats or standings count until Memorial Day" is bulletproof either with this bunch.

There are glaring, glaring problems with our 25. Problems that don't just go away.

I mean how likely is it that our team with the way they've looked wind up winning 90 games? If they started 10-3 or 9-4 no one would say they couldn't. But with what we've witnessed so far, someone would have to be out of their mind to say that.

I also believe that a lot of fans are tired of "it's only April" in Cincinnati and "there's 150 games to go" after 5 game losing streaks. At some point people are tired of having the wool pulled over their eyes and want results. This has been a patient bunch.

I admit, I didn't FULLY drink the punch before this season started. I think those who said we were bound for 90+ wins were drinking the punch and not being objective. This team's lineup is extremely thin and they didn't really hit well last season. They're not hitting this year and the pitching isn't anywhere near the strength I thought it'd be.

So yea, it's only been 13 games. There's still time to turn it around. Or there's time for a total collapse. I'd say we're more prone to collapse then to rally at this point--but I'd love to be wrong.

Roy Tucker
04-19-2010, 05:15 PM
So you are saying I can climb off the bridge but not necessarily put the torches away yet?

Sharpen up the seppuku sword.

Falls City Beer
04-19-2010, 05:32 PM
As I've said before, if this team plays .400 to .425 ball through the first month and a half of the season, the season's basically over for them. To badly paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald, the Reds don't get a second act.

LincolnparkRed
04-19-2010, 05:40 PM
As I've said before, if this team plays .400 to .425 ball through the first month and a half of the season, the season's basically over for them. To badly paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald, the Reds don't get a second act.

sad but true, the 2004 & 2006 reds say hello. June, July and August tend to be brutal to some of those early achievers

mdccclxix
04-19-2010, 06:53 PM
april 1999 stats:

http://i663.photobucket.com/albums/uu351/mdccclxix/apr1999.jpg


My question is, can Bruce = Vaughn eventually?

Falls City Beer
04-19-2010, 08:16 PM
april 1999 stats:



My question is, can Bruce = Vaughn eventually?

The question is: will they find a starter even half as effective as Pete Harnisch? He ain't on this roster--as we speak anyway.