PDA

View Full Version : Who is picking the Top 40 teams since expansion....



Tony Cloninger
01-23-2011, 08:51 PM
On the MLB Network? Tell how the 1968 and 1984 Tigers were ahead of the 1976 Reds who finished 8th on that list.

Number 1....in every single offensive category,... outscoring the 2nd best team by over 100 runs.... best defense, best bullpen. Good grief who are these morons?

Redsfan320
01-23-2011, 09:15 PM
IDK, who cares man? You know and I know that they were the greatest team ever. You may have been lucky enough to have seen them play, now just relish the memory. :beerme:

320

membengal
01-23-2011, 10:29 PM
On the MLB Network? Tell how the 1968 and 1984 Tigers were ahead of the 1976 Reds who finished 8th on that list.

Number 1....in every single offensive category,... outscoring the 2nd best team by over 100 runs.... best defense, best bullpen. Good grief who are these morons?

Yeah, I watched that program and was oddly annoyed too. Then again, their "Top 10 now" for RFers left Bruce off the list but included Heyward and Stanton. So, they've annoyed me a few times this week. Need real baseball to start...

Redsfan320
01-23-2011, 10:31 PM
their "Top 10 now" for RFers left Bruce off the list but included Heyward and Stanton.

Yeah, that was bad. I was NOT pleased with that one. But once again, they can say whatever they want about him, and we'll sit back and watch Bruce rake for the Redlegs for years to come. :beerme:

320

Tony Cloninger
01-23-2011, 10:40 PM
IDK, who cares man? You know and I know that they were the greatest team ever. You may have been lucky enough to have seen them play, now just relish the memory. :beerme:

320



I am glad that you are such a happy person but I was looking for more of a detailed reason as to why they would pick them so low.....not just a Don't worry be happy and Go reds. But hey drink a beer and don't think too hard.

Nothing about the 1984 and 1968 Tigers says Great team to me.

reds1869
01-24-2011, 06:04 AM
Those shows reflect the opinion of whoever is editing and producing. If w who see the world in Red were in charge the BRM would be up top. So if the people in charge are Tigers fans (or AL centric) there you go.

As far as RFers go, wow. They included Stanton and not Bruce? Granted, they also listed Votto 4th below other NL 1B. I don't put a whole lot of stock in these shows, even though I enjoy them.

mth123
01-24-2011, 06:39 AM
I get the outrage over the 76 Reds, but the 75 Reds were picked number 2. I don't think they wanted teams with essentially the same roster occupying spots real close together. It makes better TV that way.

The 75 team won 108 games (most in the NL since the Pirates won 110 games in 1909) versus the 76 team's 102. The 76 team had some advantages over 75. Bob Bailey, Mike Lum and later Joel Youngblood as prime bench players were an improvement over Merv Rettenmund, Terry Crowley and John Vuckovich and Rookie of the Year Pat Zachry added to the rotation was more talented than Pat Darcy or Clay Kirby. Santo Alcala may have given some of that improvement back though and Clay Carroll being dealt for Rich Hinton after 1975 was a step backward for the 76 team. A really nice late season performance from Manny Sarmiento offset the loss of Carroll a bit. Overall, I think the 76 team rolling through the post-season without a loss was a better team than 75 even if 75 won more games in the regular season.

Redsfan320
01-24-2011, 10:26 AM
I am glad that you are such a happy person but I was looking for more of a detailed reason as to why they would pick them so low.....not just a Don't worry be happy and Go reds. But hey drink a beer and don't think too hard.

Nothing about the 1984 and 1968 Tigers says Great team to me.

Ah well, actually too young to drink. The smiley just fit. I'm not sure why they would put them so far down. Maybe for the reason mth mentioned. I'm not sure. I guess, really, I'm sick of the poor National view of the Reds, too; but in the end they'll just come out looking stupid.

320

BuckeyeRedleg
01-24-2011, 11:05 AM
Yeah, I watched that program and was oddly annoyed too. Then again, their "Top 10 now" for RFers left Bruce off the list but included Heyward and Stanton.

And I think they had Choo #2 or #3. lol.

Tony Cloninger
01-24-2011, 11:06 AM
Those shows reflect the opinion of whoever is editing and producing. If w who see the world in Red were in charge the BRM would be up top. So if the people in charge are Tigers fans (or AL centric) there you go.

As far as RFers go, wow. They included Stanton and not Bruce? Granted, they also listed Votto 4th below other NL 1B. I don't put a whole lot of stock in these shows, even though I enjoy them.



I seriously doubt it was beacuse the editors and producers were Tigers fans and not big reds fans. It was voted by probably the people that work there (like the writers and former ballplayers)...which makes me question what they were thinking. It's not like they are voting for their favorite boy band and popularity of the team wins out.

Tony Cloninger
01-24-2011, 11:08 AM
I get the outrage over the 76 Reds, but the 75 Reds were picked number 2. I don't think they wanted teams with essentially the same roster occupying spots real close together. It makes better TV that way.

The 75 team won 108 games (most in the NL since the Pirates won 110 games in 1909) versus the 76 team's 102. The 76 team had some advantages over 75. Bob Bailey, Mike Lum and later Joel Youngblood as prime bench players were an improvement over Merv Rettenmund, Terry Crowley and John Vuckovich and Rookie of the Year Pat Zachry added to the rotation was more talented than Pat Darcy or Clay Kirby. Santo Alcala may have given some of that improvement back though and Clay Carroll being dealt for Rich Hinton after 1975 was a step backward for the 76 team. A really nice late season performance from Manny Sarmiento offset the loss of Carroll a bit. Overall, I think the 76 team rolling through the post-season without a loss was a better team than 75 even if 75 won more games in the regular season.


I would have switched them myself.....that 1976 basically dominated in every way and into the playoffs, which no team has ever done which is sweep all the playoff games since the 1969 format began and has been expanded.

I know they won 6 less games. I agree that Carroll trade was awful.....Clay still pitched well through 1977 which the Reds could have used very badly that year.

mth123
01-24-2011, 11:45 AM
Maybe this is overly simplistic, but, IMO, 76 was better than 75 hands down. If you want to know why 75 won more games (IMO):




Name PA R HR RBI BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+
Bench 75 605 83 28 110 0.283 0.359 0.519 0.878 140
Bench 76 552 62 16 74 0.234 0.348 0.394 0.741 109


Even though Rose won the batting titles and got a lot of hits, Perez drove in the big runs, Morgan was MVP and Foster was an emerging monster, Johnny Bench was still the Reds primary advantage over everybody else. Catchers just didn't (and still don't) drive the offense the way he did. He woke-up in the 76 post season (OPS of 1.051 in the NLCS and 1.667 in the WS) and the Reds swept everybody.

Wouldn't it be nice to have the best defensive catcher of all time with an OPS plus of 109 as his low number for a decade? That's what the Reds had that no one could match. Throughout the 70s, as great as they were, there were probably better players at their positions than Rose or Perez (my two personal favorites) and over the entire decade, even Morgan might have been eclipsed during some individual seasons, but Bench was always the best in the game at his position without it even being close.

reds1869
01-24-2011, 12:52 PM
I seriously doubt it was beacuse the editors and producers were Tigers fans and not big reds fans. It was voted by probably the people that work there (like the writers and former ballplayers)...which makes me question what they were thinking. It's not like they are voting for their favorite boy band and popularity of the team wins out.

Then I'll expand my statement to include them. My point was that it is merely opinion, and opinion is shaped by personal experience and background.