PDA

View Full Version : Actually, A Few Reasons To Be Interested Today.



redsfan30
09-28-2011, 09:49 AM
In an otherwise completely meaningless season finale today, there are a few things to keep an eye on.

Joey Votto sits on 29 homers.

Jay Bruce sits on 97 RBI.

The Reds as a team sit on 79 wins.

What does this mean? Absolutely nothing. However, it would be awfully cool to see this team have two hitters with 30 HR/100 RBI seasons. And while there is certainly no difference whatsoever, 80-82 looks so much better to the eye than 79-83 at the end of the day.

I haven't lurked as much around here lately so if it's been touched on I am sorry but when was the last time the Reds had two players with 30/100 seasons?

PS....go Braves!

reds1869
09-28-2011, 09:52 AM
I really hope Votto gets to 30. He has had such an impressive season considering how much teams pitched around him. I also agree that 80 looks a whole lot better than 79!

Sea Ray
09-28-2011, 10:35 AM
Dusty alluded to the idea last night that you don't want to end the season on a "9" like 29 HRs or 199 innings.

Always Red
09-28-2011, 10:58 AM
Dusty alluded to the idea last night that you don't want to end the season on a "9" like 29 HRs or 199 innings.

...or 79 wins.

Look, I like Dusty and have no problem at all with the Reds bringing him back- I think continuity is important in building a winning program.

But I'd rather hear the Reds manager talk about wins more than individual numbers of his players.

Roy Tucker
09-28-2011, 11:29 AM
...or 79 wins.

Look, I like Dusty and have no problem at all with the Reds bringing him back- I think continuity is important in building a winning program.

But I'd rather hear the Reds manager talk about wins more than individual numbers of his players.

I agree. The W count is what matters. Whatever you have to do to increase that is all that counts.

Talking about ending 9's and 97 vs. 100 is just arbitrary false milestones and a lot of number voodoo.

I'm still all fired up about a winning culture. Get off my lawn.

cumberlandreds
09-28-2011, 11:51 AM
...or 79 wins.


But I'd rather hear the Reds manager talk about wins more than individual numbers of his players.


Amen!

Benihana
09-28-2011, 11:56 AM
Am I the only one hoping the Reds lose today for the better/protected draft pick? I believe if Reds win and Blue Jays lose, Reds will get 16th pick and more importantly unprotected for signing Type A free agents.

Of course, knowing the Reds history, this will be a non-issue as there won't be any high-profile signings considered anyway.

lollipopcurve
09-28-2011, 12:02 PM
Am I the only one hoping the Reds lose today for the better/protected draft pick? I believe if Reds win and Blue Jays lose, Reds will get 16th pick and more importantly unprotected for signing Type A free agents.

Don't think so. Picks don't alternate leagues any more. I believe the Reds will get #13 or #14, based on what the White Sox do.

gonelong
09-28-2011, 12:24 PM
Nobody wants a boss that is concerned by the decimal points on the bottom line. I doubt the players are any different. A win or two one way or the other makes little difference.

It's no wonder the players like Dusty and play hard for him.

GL

westofyou
09-28-2011, 12:44 PM
I really hope Votto gets to 30. He has had such an impressive season considering how much teams pitched around him. I also agree that 80 looks a whole lot better than 79!

Al Kaline and Andres Galarrga agree. Sam Rice too

Benihana
09-28-2011, 12:47 PM
Don't think so. Picks don't alternate leagues any more. I believe the Reds will get #13 or #14, based on what the White Sox do.

I was going off of this: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/reversestandings

Sea Ray
09-28-2011, 01:02 PM
...or 79 wins.

Look, I like Dusty and have no problem at all with the Reds bringing him back- I think continuity is important in building a winning program.

But I'd rather hear the Reds manager talk about wins more than individual numbers of his players.

He very well might have. Don't take my post as a direct quote of what he said. It was late and I was channel surfing by then...:D

redsfandan
09-28-2011, 01:45 PM
Don't think so. Picks don't alternate leagues any more. I believe the Reds will get #13 or #14, based on what the White Sox do.

I thought the Reds pick was going to be protected too. But, it looks like it'll still depend on todays games.

Chicago (WS), Cincinnati, Washington*, Toronto, and Cleveland could all finish with 80 wins. If that happens 3 of those teams will get the 13-15 (protected) spots in the draft. The tie breaker will be record in previous year. Which wouldn't be good for the Reds.

* Washington will finish with less than 162 games played so if they win they shouldn't have a protected pick.

Rojo
09-28-2011, 02:58 PM
BP sitting to protect the .300. Can't blame him. He earned it.

George Anderson
09-28-2011, 03:08 PM
BP sitting to protect the .300. Can't blame him. He earned it.

Teddy Baseball disagrees.

RANDY IN INDY
09-28-2011, 03:35 PM
Teddy Baseball disagrees.

It's a different generation isn't it?

Rojo
09-28-2011, 03:40 PM
Teddy Baseball disagrees.

Whatever. Team's not going anywhere and he's played 150 games of hustlin' baseball.

kaldaniels
09-28-2011, 03:46 PM
Don't blame Dusty or the players (on any team) if on the final day of a lost season the goal becomes individual numbers. I say a big "so what" to the idea. Dusty is a manager, and in any field a good manager throws their employees a bone when they have a chance.

marcshoe
09-28-2011, 04:58 PM
Kind of interesting how Reyes' day went. Bunt for a hit, then leave the game with the batting title. That kind of thing's never sat right with me, but I don't care about it nearly as much as I used to. Things have changed.

REDREAD
09-28-2011, 05:32 PM
I guess I have no problem with things like sitting on the last day to protect your 300 batting average.

Most of us have snuck out an hour early from work, cut a class at school, etc.
Someone like Phillips has really worked hard and produced all year. I have no problem with him relaxing the last day in a lost season.

George Anderson
09-28-2011, 05:35 PM
I am not losing any sleep over what Phillips did but we all know the story of what Ted Williams did on the last day of the season in 1941 and I always admired him for that.

klw
09-28-2011, 05:41 PM
I don't think Phillips sat to protect his .300. He left last night's game with an injury and Fay Twittered that Phillips was not playing today due to injury. Adds up to a legit sitting to me.

Roy Tucker
09-28-2011, 05:43 PM
And so the season ends with a dull thud.

Dusty should have the team run laps after the game. Him too. And Walt.

Bah.

CesarGeronimo
09-28-2011, 06:04 PM
Dusty alluded to the idea last night that you don't want to end the season on a "9" like 29 HRs or 199 innings.

Oh crap, is he going to use Bronson in relief on zero days rest to get that 200th inning?;)

reds1869
09-28-2011, 06:11 PM
Re: Reyes/stat protection...this kind of thing has gone on since the 19th Century; it is nothing new.

Rojo
09-28-2011, 06:17 PM
I don't think Phillips sat to protect his .300. He left last night's game with an injury and Fay Twittered that Phillips was not playing today due to injury. Adds up to a legit sitting to me.

Either way, doesn't bother me.

RedsBaron
09-28-2011, 07:37 PM
I haven't lurked as much around here lately so if it's been touched on I am sorry but when was the last time the Reds had two players with 30/100 seasons?

Going just by memory I would say 1977 when George Foster had 52 HR and 149 RBI while Johnny Bench had 31 HR and 109 RBI.
I can recall a few other 30/100 combos from the 1960s and 1970s. In 1965 Frank Robinson had 33/113 and Deron Johnson had 32/130. In 1969 Tony Perez had 37/122 and Lee May had 38/110 and in 1970 Bench had 45/148 and Perez had 40/129. I think Ted Kluzewski and Wally Post turned the trick in 1955 when Klu had 47 HR and Post had 40 HR-I'm pretty sure both guys had 100+ RBI but I do not recall the totals.

westofyou
09-28-2011, 09:41 PM
Going just by memory I would say 1977 when George Foster had 52 HR and 149 RBI while Johnny Bench had 31 HR and 109 RBI.
I can recall a few other 30/100 combos from the 1960s and 1970s. In 1965 Frank Robinson had 33/113 and Deron Johnson had 32/130. In 1969 Tony Perez had 37/122 and Lee May had 38/110 and in 1970 Bench had 45/148 and Perez had 40/129. I think Ted Kluzewski and Wally Post turned the trick in 1955 when Klu had 47 HR and Post had 40 HR-I'm pretty sure both guys had 100+ RBI but I do not recall the totals.

Those are the only 3 combos



CINNATI REDS
SEASON
HOMERUNS >= 30
RBI >= 100

HOMERUNS YEAR HR HR RBI
1 George Foster 1977 52 52 149
2 Ted Kluszewski 1954 49 49 141
3 Ted Kluszewski 1955 47 47 113
4 Adam Dunn 2004 46 46 102
T5 Johnny Bench 1970 45 45 148
T5 Greg Vaughn 1999 45 45 118
T7 Adam Dunn 2007 40 40 106
T7 George Foster 1978 40 40 120
T7 Ken Griffey Jr. 2000 40 40 118
T7 Tony Perez 1970 40 40 129
T7 Johnny Bench 1972 40 40 125
T7 Adam Dunn 2005 40 40 101
T7 Wally Post 1955 40 40 109
T7 Ted Kluszewski 1953 40 40 108
15 Frank Robinson 1962 39 39 136
16 Lee May 1969 38 38 110
T17 Frank Robinson 1961 37 37 124
T17 Joey Votto 2010 37 37 113
T17 Tony Perez 1969 37 37 122
T17 Eric Davis 1987 37 37 100
21 Frank Robinson 1959 36 36 125
22 Ted Kluszewski 1956 35 35 102
T23 Eric Davis 1989 34 34 101
T23 Dave Parker 1985 34 34 125
T25 Johnny Bench 1974 33 33 129
T25 Frank Robinson 1965 33 33 113
27 Deron Johnson 1965 32 32 130
T28 Dave Parker 1986 31 31 116
T28 Johnny Bench 1977 31 31 109
30 Gus Bell 1953 30 30 105



or in short, 2.3% of the seasons the Reds have had they got that sort of performance from two guys in one season. The Reds have had 684 guys get 400 ab's in a season, only 4.4% of the players have had a 30/100 season, so it's pretty darn special.

marcshoe
09-28-2011, 09:53 PM
Re: Reyes/stat protection...this kind of thing has gone on since the 19th Century; it is nothing new.

Right. It used to bother me, though, but it no longer does. If there ever was a time when a sort of gentlemen's fairness was the rule, that time is well past. Leave that kind of thing to cricket. (btw, this isn't a random reference. Back when I lived in Australia, a couple of lifetimes ago, the Australian team captain Greg Chappell bowled underhanded at a critical point in the match, was branded a bad sport, and thereafter hated by many fans--but I digress.)

I remember when Griffey was in competition for the batting title in '76 and played while Bill Madlock sat to protect his average--and finished first. I don't remember the specifics regarding whether it would have helped Griffey to sit, but I do remember that his playing was considered more noble than Madlock's sitting.

Reyes today had one goal, and he achieved it by bunting for a hit. Personally, I consider that to be somewhat admirable. Do what's necessary. It not only gave him the title, but added an arrow to his free agent quiver. At one point I would have thought less of him for this, but now, it kind of makes me smile. :thumbup:

George Anderson
09-28-2011, 10:00 PM
Right. It used to bother me, though, but it no longer does. If there ever was a time when a sort of gentlemen's fairness was the rule, that time is well past. Leave that kind of thing to cricket. (btw, this isn't a random reference. Back when I lived in Australia, a couple of lifetimes ago, the Australian team captain Greg Chappell bowled underhanded at a critical point in the match, was branded a bad sport, and thereafter hated by many fans--but I digress.)

I remember when Griffey was in competition for the batting title in '76 and played while Bill Madlock sat to protect his average--and finished first. I don't remember the specifics regarding whether it would have helped Griffey to sit, but I do remember that his playing was considered more noble than Madlock's sitting.

Reyes today had one goal, and he achieved it by bunting for a hit. Personally, I consider that to be somewhat admirable. Do what's necessary. It not only gave him the title, but added an arrow to his free agent quiver. At one point I would have thought less of him for this, but now, it kind of makes me smile. :thumbup:

No Griffey sat while Madlock played and went 4 for 5. Griffey entered the game late and went 0 for 2 losing out to Madlock

westofyou
09-28-2011, 10:03 PM
Controversy

At the start of the final day of the 1910 season, Ty Cobb of the Detroit Tigers held a slim lead in the race for the American League batting title, just a few percentage points ahead of the Cleveland Indians' Nap Lajoie. While Cobb did not play in the Tigers' final two games of the season,[1] Lajoie played in two successive games on the last day of the season for the Indians.
Because Cobb did not have a plate appearance, his batting average did not change finishing with an average of .38507. However, Lajoie hit safely eight times in the Indians' doubleheader against the St. Louis Browns. With eight hits in eight at-bats, Lajoie finished the season with a .384 batting average (227 hits in 591 at bats).

Aftermath

Browns' manager Jack O'Connor had ordered rookie third baseman Red Corriden to play on the outfield grass. This all but conceded a hit for any ball Lajoie bunted. Lajoie's final at-bat resulted in a wild throw to first base, which was scored as an error. After news broke of the scandal, a writer for the St. Louis Post claimed: "All St. Louis is up in arms over the deplorable spectacle, conceived in stupidity and executed in jealousy." The issue was brought to American League president Ban Johnson, who declared all batting averages official, and Cobb the champion (.385069 to .384095). The Chalmers people, however, awarded automobiles to both Cobb and Lajoie. Cobb ultimately won the Chalmers Award in 1911 in his best year, hitting .420.

marcshoe
09-28-2011, 10:03 PM
No Griffey sat while Madlock played and went 4 for 5. Griffey entered the game late and went 0 for 2 losing out to Madlock

Okay, that was it. I just remember there was some question about the nobility of sitting vs. playing. I had the players backward; it's been a lot of years.

Always Red
09-28-2011, 10:18 PM
No Griffey sat while Madlock played and went 4 for 5. Griffey entered the game late and went 0 for 2 losing out to Madlock

And Griffey wanted to play but Sparky would not let him. When Sparky saw Madlock had 2 hits, he put Griffey in the game late, with the result you stated.
Supposedly, Griffey never forgave Sparky for doing that.

George Anderson
09-28-2011, 10:22 PM
And Griffey wanted to play but Sparky would not let him. When Sparky saw Madlock had 2 hits, he put Griffey in the game late, with the result you stated.
Supposedly, Griffey never forgave Sparky for doing that.

I never heard that before.

I wonder why Sparky would care?

REDblooded
09-28-2011, 10:28 PM
Don't blame Dusty or the players (on any team) if on the final day of a lost season the goal becomes individual numbers. I say a big "so what" to the idea. Dusty is a manager, and in any field a good manager throws their employees a bone when they have a chance.


If we weren't talking about a guy that risks winning games in order to try to get a tiring pitcher enough innings to get a "W" or a "CG" I'd agree...

But it's Dusty.

kaldaniels
09-28-2011, 11:30 PM
If we weren't talking about a guy that risks winning games in order to try to get a tiring pitcher enough innings to get a "W" or a "CG" I'd agree...

But it's Dusty.

For game 162 though, it just doesn't matter. Your point is valid but we are talking about 2 different things.

marcshoe
09-29-2011, 03:43 AM
I may have to apologize to Reyes. He came out of the game with a .337 average. Braun started the day hitting .336, but went 0 for 4 to drop to .332. Without doing the math, it seems impossible for Reyes to have known that a .337 average would win the title at the time he left the game. I assume he was just playing the odds, but with no certainty--kind of like Sparky did for Griffey in the abovementioned case.

Always Red
09-29-2011, 05:47 AM
I never heard that before.

I wonder why Sparky would care?

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/entries/2011/09/28/did_reyes_take_the_cowardly_wa.html

McCoy brings it up in his article on Reyes yesterday.

RedsBaron
09-29-2011, 06:51 AM
I can recall reading that Griffey conferred with Joe Morgan and maybe Johnny Bench about whether or not to sit out the final game or play, and that he was told by them that he should sit. Pete Rose, who never wanted to sit out any game, told Griffey he should play. Sparky reportedly considered all this advice, and, with Griffey's agreement, had Ken sit.
I wish I had a link or even an article or book I could cite for that account, but I don't. I do remember reading it, and, in fairness, it may have been Pete Rose's version.
I can also recall reading somewhere that Bill Madlock was notorious for picking those games in which he would play, deciding to sit out games down the stretch when the opposing starting pitcher was a tough one and playing if the opposing starting pitcher was of lesser quality.

Sea Ray
09-29-2011, 08:51 AM
That was painful how that worked out for Griffey. As I recall, Sparky said in hindsight that he should have played Griffey in game 161 and sat him in 162 because the pitcher was much tougher in 162. As I recall he tried to sit Griff in both games only to put him in late in the finale because Madlock was tearing it up

George Anderson
09-29-2011, 08:56 AM
That was painful how that worked out for Griffey. As I recall, Sparky said in hindsight that he should have played Griffey in game 161 and sat him in 162 because the pitcher was much tougher in 162. As I recall he tried to sit Griff in both games only to put him in late in the finale because Madlock was tearing it up

It would have been icing on the cake for the BRM had Griffey won the batting title. Foster won the HR and RBI title, along with the 4 GG awards to Bench, Morgan, Concepcion and Geronimo. Griffey winning the title would have just added to the teams greatness.

RedsBaron
09-29-2011, 09:48 AM
It would have been icing on the cake for the BRM had Griffey won the batting title. Foster won the HR and RBI title, along with the 4 GG awards to Bench, Morgan, Concepcion and Geronimo. Griffey winning the title would have just added to the teams greatness.

Actually Foster didn't win the HR title in '76, as his 29 HR trailed Mike Schmidt's 38. Foster's two HR crowns came in '77 and '78.

cumberlandreds
09-29-2011, 01:31 PM
Actually Foster didn't win the HR title in '76, as his 29 HR trailed Mike Schmidt's 38. Foster's two HR crowns came in '77 and '78.

Foster slumped badly in September. He was a frontrunner for MVP until that time also. Morgan eventually took that award.

George Anderson
09-29-2011, 01:43 PM
Actually Foster didn't win the HR title in '76, as his 29 HR trailed Mike Schmidt's 38. Foster's two HR crowns came in '77 and '78.

Getting BRM info wrong for me is like getting my kids names wrong.

Oh the shame!!!