PDA

View Full Version : Comparing the Reds to the Bengals



Joseph
07-27-2011, 11:51 PM
The Reds don’t win a lot more than the Bengals. In the last five-plus seasons, 2011 included, they’ve won 47 percent of the time. The Bengals are at 42 percent. Each team has made the playoffs once.

If you extend the comparison three years, each team has won exactly 47 percent of its games. The Bengals have two division titles, the Reds one. The Bengals are more successful. They get their tails kicked in the perception game.

The above is taken directly from Paul Daugherty's column that more or less runs the Bengals through the grinder yet again [deservedly so]. But what it pointed out is that over the last 8 years both the Reds and Bengals have a less than five hundred record.

What do you make of this? Why do the Reds appear so much better off than the Bengals? Is it solely Mike Brown? We know the Bengals have no hope, but with the Reds young talent....well there is always hope.....right?

Should there be though? I mean they've done nothing for a long time now. A first round sweep. And they are on par with the Bengals of all teams.

The Bengals.

Think about that.

Why should this team be viewed differently? Because Mike Browns not running it? Because its baseball?

I'm interested to hear your opinions.

Edskin
07-27-2011, 11:59 PM
Three reasons I'd guess (coming from a non Cincy person mind you)

1. Because of the way the leagues are set up, small market teams get more of a break from fans in MLB or the NFL. Reds fans have at least a basic acceptance that we can't compete with the big market teams, which is not the case at all in the NFL.

2. Deep down, Cincy is one of the few places where MLB still trumps the NFL. The rich history of the Reds dwarfs the history of the Bengals.

3. RIGHT NOW, the Reds appear to be in decent shape organizationally.

However, Daugherty is right... They are both bad organizations.

We will not be in a serious playoff race this year down the stretch and that means that since 1995, the Reds have only been in a serious race for the post season TWICE, making it once.

Since 1995, the Bengals haven't been much better, but they haven't been worse and on the whole they've probably kept fans interested deeper into seasons than the Reds have.

MikeThierry
07-28-2011, 12:34 AM
From an outsiders perspective, I have always seen the Bengals as an incompetent organization and still do to some extent. At least with the Reds, there seems to be some sort of road map there and the guys at the top know what they are doing.

Edskin
07-28-2011, 12:50 AM
From an outsiders perspective, I have always seen the Bengals as an incompetent organization and still do to some extent. At least with the Reds, there seems to be some sort of road map there and the guys at the top know what they are doing.

I think that is Joseph's point. That is your perception, but it isn't really base in reality. Again, from 1995 through 2011 (yes I'm calling this season toast) the Reds will have given their fans an interesting September TWICE.

Orenda
07-28-2011, 01:17 AM
I don't blame the Castellini's for the Reds ineptness when they didn't own the team.

Meanwhile Mike Brown inherited a franchise and hasn't sustained any success in a league that is more conducive for a smaller market team to be competitive.

jojo
07-28-2011, 07:52 AM
I know this much.....the reds tackle better than the bengals and both Bruce and Stubbs run better routes than ocho cinco....

The reds have never lost a superbowl and the bengals have never won a world series....

buckeyenut
07-28-2011, 09:11 AM
The Reds actually usually stay in hunt longer than Bengals. My wife always joked before last year about how they typically fall off in June/July. The Bengals lose out of the gate many years.

I also think that having farm systems in MLB helps small market teams because it gives fans a perception of hope. NFL doesn't have this and the draft really doesn't help much, although it does help.

camisadelgolf
07-28-2011, 10:02 AM
First of all, there's a huge difference between 42% and 47% in sports. For example, in baseball, we're talking about the difference between a team that's expected to finish in last compared to a team that is nearly average.

And why are we looking at the past 5+ years? Because that's when Castellini took over? Don't you think it's unfair that Castellini took over a team that had been run by incompetent owners and management for several years when Mike Brown took over a team that had won its division the year prior? Why should the new regime get the blame for what the old regime screwed up? Do you think the numbers would be about the same if we covered the period of time since Mike Brown took over the Bengals?

If you want to compare the Bengals' and Reds' records over the past 20 years, the Bengals are 115-204-1, and the Reds are 1610-1668. In other words, over a 162 game season, the Reds would win 80 games on average. The Bengals would win just 58. ON AVERAGE. Over that same period of time, the Pirates--the most futile team in baseball--have averaged 73 wins per 162 games. There's futility, and then there's the Bengals. It's simply amazing.

Arguably the biggest problem with MLB is the lack of parity, which is something the NFL is highly praised for. If MLB had a salary cap, I'm sure it would have had a major effect on how many games the Reds could've won. Instead, they've had payrolls that were only 1/3 of some other teams. Could you imagine how bad the Bengals would be with the lack of parity that exists in baseball? The thought is so ridiculous that I can't even wrap my mind around it.

Paul Daugherty is cherry-picking stats. I can do that, too. By the way, since the start of the 2008 season, the Bengals win 37.5% of the time and have a division crown. The Reds win 50% of the time and also have a division crown. Daugherty's a hack and would do us all a big favor if he sought out a new profession.

Redsfaithful
07-28-2011, 10:14 AM
If you take out the 90s the Bengals look like a crappy non-descript franchise since Marvin Lewis got here. Same as probably 10 other franchises, and they actually have an excuse of being in a brutally hard division. But Mike Brown is such a buffoon, and the 90s did exist, so the city isn't going to ever cut them slack.

The Reds are getting more of a pass because last year is so immediate and the farm system is seemingly stocked.

Chip R
07-28-2011, 10:26 AM
One thing to take into consideration is that it's much easier to make the playoffs in the NFL than it is in MLB.

camisadelgolf
07-28-2011, 10:30 AM
One thing to take into consideration is that it's much easier to make the playoffs in the NFL than it is in MLB.
Yup. In a given year, 37.5% of NFL teams make it to the playoffs. The same is true for only 26.7% of MLB teams. In other words, over an 8-year period, an NFL team should go to the playoffs three times on average. The Bengals have been to the playoffs only twice in the past 20 years.

wolfboy
07-28-2011, 10:36 AM
The giant elephant in the room is the salary cap. Factor in relative parity and then we can talk about futility. The Bengals have a much better opportunity for success than the Reds.

Chip R
07-28-2011, 10:42 AM
The giant elephant in the room is the salary cap. Factor in relative parity and then we can talk about futility. The Bengals have a much better opportunity for success than the Reds.

There's that. Also consider that when the Bengals made the playoffs in the last decade, they had very easy schedules as a result of being a poor team the year before. In MLB, if the Reds finish fifth, they don't get to play the Royals, Nationals and Orioles.

Always Red
07-28-2011, 11:05 AM
If you merely consider win/loss totals and number of times in the playoffs, then yes, the Bengals and Reds are comparable.

But when you also consider ownership, organizational structure, effort to build a winner and (last but not least) fan service, it's not even close- the Reds are ascending and the Bengals, well, they may always be the Bungals, as long as they are owned by the Brown family.

dsmith421
07-28-2011, 11:07 AM
Why should this team be viewed differently? Because Mike Browns not running it? Because its baseball?

It has very little to do with on-field success, in my opinion.

The Reds -- even when they are terrible -- are still a point of pride for the city. Even when the product on the field stinks, it's still a cheap, fun day out. The franchise seems interested in drawing fans and keeping them satisfied. They engage with the community. They put on events like Redsfest and the Caravan to foster interaction with the region. GABP is a nice place to watch a game and, for a relatively generic retropark built on a tight budget, feels like home. And they have historical goodwill built up over years and years and years.

The Bengals, meanwhile, are a faceless, sterile organization playing in a faceless, characterless league. They are run by a family that views fans (and, to a larger extent, the city and county themselves) as a giant ATM. They are a nationwide laughingstock, the butt of jokes from coast to coast, and the powers that be on the team have no interest or apparent aptitude to change that state of affairs. The stadium experience is ludicrously expensive and absolutely horrible and the team makes only the most token efforts to liven things up. PBS is a billion-dollar white elephant with all the character of the 2001 slab.

Being a Reds fan is ultimately satisfying because they value your support. Being a Bengals fan is like being stuck in a Kafka novel.

klw
07-28-2011, 11:16 AM
Reds compared to Bengals. Simple answer is fewer arrests. Reds despite this season's inability to top or match last year are showing a lot of positive signs about being competitive in the future. This has a 1971 feel about things.

Edskin
07-28-2011, 12:11 PM
Maybe compared to the Benglas, the Reds are OK, but I think there are a lot of apologists in here. Since 1995 I can only find a handful of MLB teams that would be worse to follow than the Reds. Let's forget that from 2001-2009 we had zero seasons above .500

And now we've followed up a very good year with a total clunker. Yes, I am optimistic about the future finally, but far from sold. The Reds have been a bad, bad organization virtually all of my adult life.

wolfboy
07-28-2011, 12:31 PM
Maybe compared to the Benglas, the Reds are OK, but I think there are a lot of apologists in here. Since 1995 I can only find a handful of MLB teams that would be worse to follow than the Reds. Let's forget that from 2001-2009 we had zero seasons above .500

And now we've followed up a very good year with a total clunker. Yes, I am optimistic about the future finally, but far from sold. The Reds have been a bad, bad organization virtually all of my adult life.

They aren't a bad organization now.

Tony Cloninger
07-28-2011, 12:41 PM
Reds compared to Bengals. Simple answer is fewer arrests. Reds despite this season's inability to top or match last year are showing a lot of positive signs about being competitive in the future. This has a 1971 feel about things.

Or 1989, 1991, 1993..... i remember those more vividly and they smell the same.

RichRed
07-28-2011, 02:03 PM
First of all, there's a huge difference between 42% and 47% in sports. For example, in baseball, we're talking about the difference between a team that's expected to finish in last compared to a team that is nearly average.

And why are we looking at the past 5+ years? Because that's when Castellini took over? Don't you think it's unfair that Castellini took over a team that had been run by incompetent owners and management for several years when Mike Brown took over a team that had won its division the year prior? Why should the new regime get the blame for what the old regime screwed up? Do you think the numbers would be about the same if we covered the period of time since Mike Brown took over the Bengals?

If you want to compare the Bengals' and Reds' records over the past 20 years, the Bengals are 115-204-1, and the Reds are 1610-1668. In other words, over a 162 game season, the Reds would win 80 games on average. The Bengals would win just 58. ON AVERAGE. Over that same period of time, the Pirates--the most futile team in baseball--have averaged 73 wins per 162 games. There's futility, and then there's the Bengals. It's simply amazing.

Arguably the biggest problem with MLB is the lack of parity, which is something the NFL is highly praised for. If MLB had a salary cap, I'm sure it would have had a major effect on how many games the Reds could've won. Instead, they've had payrolls that were only 1/3 of some other teams. Could you imagine how bad the Bengals would be with the lack of parity that exists in baseball? The thought is so ridiculous that I can't even wrap my mind around it.

Paul Daugherty is cherry-picking stats. I can do that, too. By the way, since the start of the 2008 season, the Bengals win 37.5% of the time and have a division crown. The Reds win 50% of the time and also have a division crown. Daugherty's a hack and would do us all a big favor if he sought out a new profession.

Right on, camisa - and dsmith421 too.

CrackerJack
07-28-2011, 04:17 PM
It's about filling seats and making money here, the Reds' are just trying to stay solvent in a system the mirrors the extreme inequalities of the country's economic system.

Name one franchise in modern baseball that has ever become a "dynasty" or annual WS contender by simply drafting and developing players alone? If they do, they have to sell half the team within 2 years. St. Louis is of similar size to Cincinnati and they manage to sign FA's every year and find ways to put a good team on the field - yet I hear here how their cupboard's "bare" by a few posters, so what? They win, they practically sell-out every home game as a result, they bring in exciting players while we watch Corey Patterson and Edgar Renteria's, they have a pitching coach who knows how to handle guys and go after guys he can work with. So they whine and cry, big deal, they CARE about winning at least.

All I see here is Votto sulking around like he'd rather be doing anything other than playing baseball, and dragging everyone else down with him apparently. Guy doesn't even smile...ever. And Dusty is Dusty, still living off of one MOY award in 18 years and a sub .500 managerial record.

The Reds' traded a perennial All-Star for a guy who is in AAA.

This team isn't as well-run as people here like to think it is.

But if you compare it to the mentality of the Bengals, just about anything looks promising.

wolfboy
07-28-2011, 04:39 PM
It's about filling seats and making money here, the Reds' are just trying to stay solvent in a system the mirrors the extreme inequalities of the country's economic system.

Name one franchise in modern baseball that has ever become a "dynasty" or annual WS contender by simply drafting and developing players alone? If they do, they have to sell half the team within 2 years. St. Louis is of similar size to Cincinnati and they manage to sign FA's every year and find ways to put a good team on the field - yet I hear here how their cupboard's "bare" by a few posters, so what? They win, they practically sell-out every home game as a result, they bring in exciting players while we watch Corey Patterson and Edgar Renteria's, they have a pitching coach who knows how to handle guys and go after guys he can work with.

Over the last 20 years, the Reds have exceeded the league average attendance 6 times. Over the same span of time, the Cardinals have done it 19 times. Cardinals fans offer consistent support, which leads to the ability to spend more money year after year. Reds fans sit back and feel entitled to a winning team before they're even asked to pony up $10 for a ticket. Ever stop and consider that part of the problem might be the fans?


So they whine and cry, big deal, they CARE about winning at least.

I've met Bob Castellini, and anyone who has will never question his desire to win.


The Reds' traded a perennial All-Star for a guy who is in AAA.

Hamilton was a perennial All-Star when they traded him? Funny about that hindsight thing, huh?


This team isn't as well-run as people here like to think it is.

And it's not as poorly run as you'd like to believe.

Joseph
07-28-2011, 05:16 PM
I'm not at all questioning Castellini's desire to win or willingness to do whats right. I'm also not trying to debate the merits of Paul Dagherty's writing. I'm just merely trying to gauge the difference in everyones perception of the two organizations. We can surely do the same cherry picking and paint one franchise as great and the other as awful, but in the terms of the fact that over the last decade, give or take a little, the franchises have won around the same clip, at least in the same ballpark [pun partially intended].

I'm like many on here, I feel the Reds are headed in the right direction while the Bengals will continue to wallow in the chaotic and insecure delusions of being 'headed the right direction'.

Those of us who are fans of both teams can't deny that the comments that Reds management have been making all season are eerily similar to those the Bengals make year in year out. 'A lot of talent here', 'We are close', 'Next game we are gonna get em' etc etc etc.

All in all I just find some of the parallels interesting.

camisadelgolf
07-28-2011, 05:19 PM
Everyone knows that the number of All-Star games you've been elected to is the be-all and end-all for how good of a baseball player. Omar Infante was easily one of the game's best players last year.

Forgive the sarcasm, but Hamilton played in 89 games in 2009 and put up worse offensive numbers than Gomes did. Granted, 2010 was a huge rebound year, but he won't even play 120 games this year, and that's exactly why he was traded: he isn't durable. It was a bad trade, but the Reds had a much bigger need for pitching than they did outfield help, and if Volquez kept producing like he did when he was, ironically, an All-Star, then it would've been an awesome trade for the Reds. It's admittedly doubtful, but there's still time that it could be.

camisadelgolf
07-28-2011, 05:37 PM
I'm not at all questioning Castellini's desire to win or willingness to do whats right. I'm also not trying to debate the merits of Paul Dagherty's writing. I'm just merely trying to gauge the difference in everyones perception of the two organizations. We can surely do the same cherry picking and paint one franchise as great and the other as awful, but in the terms of the fact that over the last decade, give or take a little, the franchises have won around the same clip, at least in the same ballpark [pun partially intended].

I'm like many on here, I feel the Reds are headed in the right direction while the Bengals will continue to wallow in the chaotic and insecure delusions of being 'headed the right direction'.

Those of us who are fans of both teams can't deny that the comments that Reds management have been making all season are eerily similar to those the Bengals make year in year out. 'A lot of talent here', 'We are close', 'Next game we are gonna get em' etc etc etc.

All in all I just find some of the parallels interesting.
I get where you're coming from, and it's definitely interesting, but it makes me want to bring up my first point again. There's a huge difference between 47% and 42%.

If you cherry-pick the stats as best as you can in order to make the writer's point--which would cover both teams since 2003--the Reds would win 76.7 out of 162 games. The Bengals would win 75.9 out of 162 games. And that's after doing the most cherry-picking possible in order to favor the Bengals.

If you decided to go back only to 2006, the Bengals would win 66.8 games out of 162 (worse than the Mariners' current pace following a 17-game losing streak) while the Reds would win 78.9. And the further you go back, the larger the difference gets.

Sure, in the past 20 years, there was a brief period when the Bengals were better than the Reds (2003-6), but that period isn't relevant to today's teams. The Reds have new ownership and management. The Bengals don't. The Reds consider a .500 record a disappointment. If the Bengals pull that off this upcoming season, it will be seen as a success. At one time, the same would've been true for the Reds, but the Reds righted the ship, and the Bengals veered off path.