PDA

View Full Version : How valuable is Mario Soto to the Reds?



icehole3
03-07-2012, 07:32 AM
Read where he's teaching all the Dominican pitchers the change up. :)

Spitball
03-07-2012, 10:59 AM
Read where he's teaching all the Dominican pitchers the change up. :)

I like this. I remember Johnny Podres had a great change up in his playing days. Later, he was the pitching coach for the Phillies in the early 1990s and had that staff throwing pretty good changes.

Soto was one of the first real power pitchers I saw throw a great change. I also remember Whitey Herzog saying, "The experts can't agree on Soto. Some think he is a great pitcher and the others just think he'll win 20 games a season for the next ten years." Maybe if the Reds had just had him on pitch counts and limited him to 220 innings a year...

RANDY IN INDY
03-07-2012, 11:01 AM
Soto is one of the most talented, under appreciated Reds of all time.

mth123
03-07-2012, 11:35 AM
Soto is one of the most talented, under appreciated Reds of all time.

Soto threw 63 Complete games from 81 through 85. Bronson Arroyo, like him or not, is a fairly well regarded innings horse who has thrown 11 in his Red's career.

Jim Maloney, probably the consensus pick as best Red's starter over the last 50 years, threw 54 over his best 5 year stretch.

Sea Ray
03-07-2012, 11:41 AM
Soto's weakness was mental. He was a bit of a hothead who could come unglued at times on the mound. He had no weakness stuff-wise

Unassisted
03-07-2012, 11:50 AM
Soto threw 63 Complete games from 81 through 85. Bronson Arroyo, like him or not, is a fairly well regarded innings horse who has thrown 11 in his Red's career.Soto was often the only bright spot on some bad teams during that stretch. He'd be much more highly regarded if his Reds career had been 5 years later.

mth123
03-07-2012, 11:59 AM
Soto was often the only bright spot on some bad teams during that stretch. He'd be much more highly regarded if his Reds career had been 5 years later.

Agreed. Wish they had the 1983 or so version now.

Vottomatic
03-07-2012, 03:27 PM
Well, I'm almost 50 years old, and Soto is probably in my top 3 favorite Reds of all-time. You young guys have no clue how bad the 80's teams were that he pitched for, and how little run support the guy got.

In his prime, it seemed like you could count on 9 to 12 K's per game out of Mario. He was really a dominant pitcher and totally baffled opposing hitters.

If he had pitched on a good team, I have no doubt whatsoever he would have won nearly 20 games per season in that 5 year stretch of dominance.

Just one of those great pitchers that come along every now and then that unfortunately played on a bad team.

Hoosier Red
03-07-2012, 03:34 PM
Well, I'm almost 50 years old, and Soto is probably in my top 3 favorite Reds of all-time. You young guys have no clue how bad the 80's teams were that he pitched for, and how little run support the guy got.

In his prime, it seemed like you could count on 9 to 12 K's per game out of Mario. He was really a dominant pitcher and totally baffled opposing hitters.

If he had pitched on a good team, I have no doubt whatsoever he would have won nearly 20 games per season in that 5 year stretch of dominance.

Just one of those great pitchers that come along every now and then that unfortunately played on a bad team.

I only saw him at the end of his career but he was the only pitcher I could remember at the time who had a batting average above .200. Unfortunately that probably qualified him to bat cleanup.

Spitball
03-08-2012, 11:22 AM
Soto threw 63 Complete games from 81 through 85. Bronson Arroyo, like him or not, is a fairly well regarded innings horse who has thrown 11 in his Red's career.

Soto was nearly Pedro Martinez good. It is hard to believe he only won 100 games in his career. It seems he was always losing 1-0.

I wish the Reds been more careful with him and monitored his innings more carefully. Between 1982 and 1985, he averaged over 256 innings with a high of 273.2 in 1983. Martinez never once pitched as many as 256 innings in a season. Outside of 1997-1998, he was generally pitched about 200 to 215.



Jim Maloney, probably the consensus pick as best Red's starter over the last 50 years, threw 54 over his best 5 year stretch.

Maloney was awesome. I can't imagine what kind of career totals he would have had if they had been more careful with his arm. I believe he had an extra-inning no-hitter in 1965 in which he walked 10 batters and struckout a bunch more. I can't imagine how many pitches he must have thrown in that game.

And, talk about a pitcher who could hit, Maloney was a pretty good hitter. I remember him hitting three homeruns one year. He took a real hitter's hack.

RedsBaron
03-08-2012, 03:01 PM
Maloney was awesome. I can't imagine what kind of career totals he would have had if they had been more careful with his arm. I believe he had an extra-inning no-hitter in 1965 in which he walked 10 batters and struckout a bunch more. I can't imagine how many pitches he must have thrown in that game.

And, talk about a pitcher who could hit, Maloney was a pretty good hitter. I remember him hitting three homeruns one year. He took a real hitter's hack.

Maloney had a career batting average of .201, which for a pitcher in his era wasn't bad. He hit 3 HRs in 1969.
To show you how the game has changed, I once read that after his 1963 season, when Maloney went 23-7 with a 2.77 ERA and a then Reds record 265 strikeouts, he got a job in the off season selling cars. If a pitcher had that kind of season now he would own a few car dealerships instead.

OldRightHander
03-08-2012, 03:17 PM
I've probably said this before on here, but how much of his decline was due to the workload and how much can be blamed on Pete wanting him to add a third pitch. You have to wonder if the curve messed up his elbow. Probably a little bit of both.

RedsBaron
03-08-2012, 03:21 PM
I've probably said this before on here, but how much of his decline was due to the workload and how much can be blamed on Pete wanting him to add a third pitch. You have to wonder if the curve messed up his elbow. Probably a little bit of both.

It could have been either, both or neither. It seems as if nothing in sports is more fragile or uncertain than the health of a pitcher's arm.

RedlegJake
03-08-2012, 03:37 PM
Pete has been heavily blamed in some circles for destroying Soto's career, similar to the blame Martin has gotten for ruining his talented young A's staff of the early 80s. There is some truth to both probably knowing what we know today. Maloney, btw, threw 186 pitches in that no hitter if my memory serves.

dougdirt
03-08-2012, 04:09 PM
Soto was nearly Pedro Martinez good.

Let's not get carried away here. Soto was good, even very good at times. Pedro is arguably the greatest pitcher ever. In Soto's best season, he posted a 140 ERA+. Pedro had 9 seasons better than that and 7 of those were significantly better than it.

Pedro's Career Rank - All Time
WAR (pitchers) - 23
Winning% - 7
K/9 - 3
Total K - 13
K/BB - 4
ERA+ - 2 (only a reliever, Mariano Rivera, is ahead of him)

Now, to the original question.... I would say that he is valuable, but not as valuable as it seems some fans want to make him out to be. The reason I say it is that he seems to get so much credit for minor league guys doing this or that, where as the amount of credit the other pitching coaches in the system get isn't a tenth of that combined and the other 6 guys are far more important. Soto is valuable, but overrated by the fan base because he was a Red and they know his name, while 99% of Reds fans probably couldn't name one minor league pitching coach.

George Anderson
03-08-2012, 09:39 PM
Pete has been heavily blamed in some circles for destroying Soto's career, similar to the blame Martin has gotten for ruining his talented young A's staff of the early 80s. There is some truth to both probably knowing what we know today. Maloney, btw, threw 186 pitches in that no hitter if my memory serves.


http://207.56.97.150/newsletter/en040820.htm

Eight of Soto's first nine starts were on three days rest, the other following an off day. He went at least 7 innings in the first six of those starts, completing two of them and pitching extremely well. Soto allowed exactly one run in five outings and only three in the other one. His ERA stood at 1.50 and his record at 4-1.

Oddly enough, his first rough outing was the one on four days rest. The Mets touched him for 6 earned runs in five innings of a 9-4 loss. Three days later, Soto bounced back with seven shutout innings to pick up his fifth win.

The first sign of trouble appeared on May 11 when Soto carried a one-hitter into the sixth inning before Houston sent him to the showers with a five-run outburst. A few days later, Soto said that his arm was hurting and that he wanted four days between starts.

Rose responded by saying, "I didn't expect the four-man rotation to last all season. The schedule broke right for us and we didn't need a fifth man."

Come again? How can you argue that 17 games in 17 days is a favorable schedule? Truth is, Rose went out of his way to keep everyone on three days rest for the first five weeks of the season. In the first week, he used the two off days to bring Soto back for game three. Later, when Browning was out, he used an off day to skip Browning's turn and keep everyone else on their regular day.

After missing one start with his sore arm, Soto rebounded with a complete game victory in which he carried a shutout into the ninth inning. And he got his wish. For the next two months, Rose added a fifth starter and gave Soto four days rest for all but one start.

Unfortunately, Soto's performance was quite poor during this stretch. He allowed at least four runs in seven of nine outings from June 9 to July 18 and lost eight straight decisions.

Rose concluded that Soto's problem was the extra day, so he went back to a four-man rotation. And Soto began pitching well again. In his next four starts, all on three days rest, he allowed a total of five earned runs, completed three games, and lowered his ERA by 39 points.

Contrary to Rose's view, Soto attributed his recent success to a decision to abandon his new slider. Back in spring training, he said that he had been a two-pitch pitcher, fastball and changeup, during the first eight years of his career. But he felt he needed a third pitch to stay ahead of the hitters. That experiment lasted for about half of the 1985 season, but after getting knocked around for a few weeks, he returned to the two-pitch formula.

Spitball
03-08-2012, 10:44 PM
Let's not get carried away here. Soto was good, even very good at times. Pedro is arguably the greatest pitcher ever. In Soto's best season, he posted a 140 ERA+. Pedro had 9 seasons better than that and 7 of those were significantly better than it.

I said nearly Pedro. My point was that if Soto had pitched 215 innings a year, as Pedro averaged, perhaps he would had put up similar numbers. Soto's numbers surely suffered as he pitched deeper into games. Martinez's numbers were significantly less impressive as he pitched deeper into games. Pedro was coddled. Soto was pushed.

dougdirt
03-08-2012, 11:02 PM
I said nearly Pedro. My point was that if Soto had pitched 215 innings a year, as Pedro averaged, perhaps he would had put up similar numbers. Soto's numbers surely suffered as he pitched deeper into games. Martinez's numbers were significantly less impressive as he pitched deeper into games. Pedro was coddled. Soto was pushed.

Martinez First 6 innings: 2.92 ERA
Martinez Final 3 innings: 2.93 ERA

Martinez First 6 innings: K/BB 4.18
Martinez Final 3 innings: K/BB 3.99

Martinez First 6 innings: k/9 10.04
Martinez Final 3 innings: K/9 10.01

Again, this isn't a knock on Soto.... but Pedro was arguably the best pitcher of all time. Soto, for as good as he was, isn't and never would have been in that conversation.

paulrichjr
03-09-2012, 12:20 AM
Speaking of Soto which obviously brings to mind the circle change....on 30 in 30 they interviewed Madson who mentioned that he has been teaching his to Chapman. He said Chapman came back and said something about liking it or it was really good... I can't remember for sure but hopefully between he and Soto Chapman might come up with a 95 MPH changeup or something. :)

Spitball
03-09-2012, 11:45 AM
Martinez First 6 innings: 2.92 ERA
Martinez Final 3 innings: 2.93 ERA

Martinez First 6 innings: K/BB 4.18
Martinez Final 3 innings: K/BB 3.99

Martinez First 6 innings: k/9 10.04
Martinez Final 3 innings: K/9 10.01

Again, this isn't a knock on Soto.... but Pedro was arguably the best pitcher of all time. Soto, for as good as he was, isn't and never would have been in that conversation.

I agree that Pedro Martinez is probably the greatest pitcher of all-time. I'm a Red Sox fan, and he is one of my favorites.

I don't think his final three inning totals you posted detracts from my original contention, though. I believe Soto would have had a career nearly as impressive as Martinez if he had been coddled in the same manner.

Martinez has great 7-9 inning totals due in part to his pitch limits. He pitched only 17% of his total innings after the sixth because he was usually relieved when he got within reach of 105 pitches. He rarely was left in games after the sixth to pitch himself out of trouble. A complete game was not an objective. Saving the bullpen was not his job. As an ace in the 1980s, Soto was expected to eat many innings for the good of the team.

If Soto had pitched in the 1990s and early 2000s, he would never have averaged over 250 innings a year. He would have averaged about four complete games a year like Martinez rather than ringing up more in four years than Martinez had pitching over three decades. He would not have pitched nearly a quarter of his innings after the sixth. He would have been backed by deeper and more specialized bullpens. And, he would have had an extra day's rest between starts.

When I said Soto was "nearly Pedro Martinez", I was using hyperbole to make my point. Not many approach that status, but Soto was a dominant pitcher for about four years. What could he have been if the Reds been more careful with him and monitored his innings more carefully? I would love to know.

15fan
03-09-2012, 03:01 PM
Soto's weakness was mental. He was a bit of a hothead who could come unglued at times on the mound.

His real weakness was the absolutely anemic offense he had to rely on.

In '82, Soto had a 2.79 ERA in 257.2 IP.

Dan Driessen (606 PAs) and Cesar Cedeno (543 PAs) tied for the team lead in RBI with...57.

Driessen (64), Oester (63) and Eddie Milner (61) were 1-2-3 in runs scored that year.

Every time Soto took the mound, he pretty much had to throw a CG shutout if he was going to get a W.

Freshmen at Bob Jones U scored more than the early 80s Reds.

redhawkfish
03-09-2012, 05:17 PM
[QUOTE
Freshmen at Bob Jones U scored more than the early 80s Reds.[/QUOTE]

:lol:

vic715
03-09-2012, 05:51 PM
Pete has been heavily blamed in some circles for destroying Soto's career, similar to the blame Martin has gotten for ruining his talented young A's staff of the early 80s. There is some truth to both probably knowing what we know today. Maloney, btw, threw 186 pitches in that no hitter if my memory serves.

I heard Maloney talking about that game last year and he said with the warming up before the game and in between innings that he figured he had thrown over 300 pitches.If a pitcher did that today his arm would fall off.

gilpdawg
03-10-2012, 02:10 AM
One of my bigger "man I wish I was a little bit older" moments is wishing I could have seen Soto in his prime. He was washed up when I started watching in 87.

OldRightHander
03-10-2012, 02:30 AM
I was in high school during his prime. My dad would watch how the pitching rotation was shaping up and would try to get tickets for games he pitched. I remember a few gems, sitting in the stands watching him befuddle opposing hitters.

_Sir_Charles_
03-10-2012, 10:08 AM
I was in high school during his prime. My dad would watch how the pitching rotation was shaping up and would try to get tickets for games he pitched. I remember a few gems, sitting in the stands watching him befuddle opposing hitters.

Same here. Only regret is I never got to see him in person. We lived in the Columbus area so I'd always try to forecast who'd be pitching when we'd go, but it always had to be a weekend due to my parents work. Mario was always one of my all-time favorites and clearly my favorite from that era.

OldRightHander
03-10-2012, 10:41 AM
Same here. Only regret is I never got to see him in person. We lived in the Columbus area so I'd always try to forecast who'd be pitching when we'd go, but it always had to be a weekend due to my parents work. Mario was always one of my all-time favorites and clearly my favorite from that era.

I was fortunate. My parents were teachers so summers were pretty open. Also, one of the by-products of them going through a divorce in 1984 was that each was trying to "impress the kids" to get custody. I went to quite a few games that year. One of the most memorable was on May 12.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/box-scores/boxscore.php?boxid=198405120CN5

_Sir_Charles_
03-10-2012, 01:17 PM
ORH, that box score is all SORTS of wrong. 5 walks for Soto? Davey playing THIRD?!? Ugh! :O)

OldRightHander
03-10-2012, 01:25 PM
ORH, that box score is all SORTS of wrong. 5 walks for Soto? Davey playing THIRD?!? Ugh! :O)

But missed the no no by one out, and there were some great defensive plays in that game.

jojo
03-10-2012, 07:41 PM
Martinez First 6 innings: 2.92 ERA
Martinez Final 3 innings: 2.93 ERA

Martinez First 6 innings: K/BB 4.18
Martinez Final 3 innings: K/BB 3.99

Martinez First 6 innings: k/9 10.04
Martinez Final 3 innings: K/9 10.01

Again, this isn't a knock on Soto.... but Pedro was arguably the best pitcher of all time. Soto, for as good as he was, isn't and never would have been in that conversation.

I agree. Soto was good. In his best year (1982) he was almost as good as Steve Carlton. But Pedro was much better even before one factors in the environment that Pedro had to pitch in during his career.

Sea Ray
03-11-2012, 01:41 PM
1981. That dreaded strike year where we got royally screwed. Mario was our ace. He was set to lead us to the playoffs and possibly the World Series. If he'd done that, you gotta think that would have done wonders for his career

Big Klu
03-11-2012, 03:46 PM
1981. That dreaded strike year where we got royally screwed. Mario was our ace. He was set to lead us to the playoffs and possibly the World Series. If he'd done that, you gotta think that would have done wonders for his career

Tom Seaver was the Reds' ace in 1981. Seaver was 14-2 with a 2.54 ERA and should have won the Cy Young Award.

RedsBaron
03-11-2012, 06:07 PM
Tom Seaver was the Reds' ace in 1981. Seaver was 14-2 with a 2.54 ERA and should have won the Cy Young Award.

Seaver clearly was the Reds ace in 1981, but it is debatable if he deserved the Cy Young. His WAR of 4.2 ranked fourth in the NL behind Valenzuela and Steve Carlton, who tied for the NL league with a 5.4, and behind Nolan Ryan.
Valenzuela went 13-7 with a 2.48 ERA and 135+ ERA. He lead the NL in starts with 25, complete games with 11, shutouts with 8, innings pitched with 192 and Ks with 180. He won the Cy Young.
Carlton was 13-4 with a 2.42 ERA, 151+ ERA, 24 starts, 10 CG, 1 shutout
, 190 IP, 179 K's.
Seaver had a 2.54 ERA, 140+ ERA, 21 starts, 5 CG, 1 shutout, 166 IP, 87 K's.

_Sir_Charles_
03-11-2012, 07:09 PM
1981. That dreaded strike year where we got royally screwed. Mario was our ace. He was set to lead us to the playoffs and possibly the World Series. If he'd done that, you gotta think that would have done wonders for his career

To this day, that entire season just pisses me off to no end. We finish second by a half game in the first half to the Dodgers, then finish second to the Astros by 1 or 1.5 games in the second half. If that wasn't bad enough, the Reds ended up with the best record in ALL OF MLB...and didn't even sniff the playoffs. A royal crock of you know what.

George Anderson
03-11-2012, 09:28 PM
To this day, that entire season just pisses me off to no end. We finish second by a half game in the first half to the Dodgers, then finish second to the Astros by 1 or 1.5 games in the second half. If that wasn't bad enough, the Reds ended up with the best record in ALL OF MLB...and didn't even sniff the playoffs. A royal crock of you know what.

During the strike the Reds were one of the teams that approved the two half playoff scenario. I cannot remember what the other option was but the playoff format the Reds voted for ended up screwing them. I didn't at the time and still to this day don't feel bad for them, they got what they voted for.

cincinnati chili
03-12-2012, 01:05 AM
I have no idea how valuable he is to the young pitchers in the organization, but he's hands down my favorite Red ever. Not the best, but definitely my favorite. Others said it above, but it has a lot to do with how he was the shining gold nugget in the pile of horse manure that was the post-'81 Reds. He was umpteen standard deviations better than the average player on those crappy teams, and he was a blast to watch pitch.

I suspect that if he'd come up post-1990, they'd have kept him in the pen and made him a closer (he only had two really pitches) and he'd have been really, really good. I'm talking Trevor Hoffman hall-of-fame good.

AtomicDumpling
03-12-2012, 03:22 AM
During the strike the Reds were one of the teams that approved the two half playoff scenario. I cannot remember what the other option was but the playoff format the Reds voted for ended up screwing them. I didn't at the time and still to this day don't feel bad for them, they got what they voted for.

What were the other options they could have voted for?

_Sir_Charles_
03-12-2012, 07:50 AM
What were the other options they could have voted for?

Automatically awarding the trophy to the team with the largest payroll? Just a guess. :O)

George Anderson
03-12-2012, 09:45 AM
What were the other options they could have voted for?

To pick the season up where it left off.

Sea Ray
03-12-2012, 11:26 AM
I don't know how the voting went but I feared from the day I heard about the plan that it'd workout exactly that way. What was even more maddening was that I knew that was going to be their last hurrah for awhile. That was not a real season or a real championship in my mind.

Throughout the strike I figured they'd just come back and pickup where they left off. Or if they insisted on that system they should have not allowed a division to be won by a half game. That's so unfair on many levels.

Anybody want to re-think your opinions on Bowie Kuhn? His errors make Selig's pale in comparison. You can't compare the 1981 split season debacle with someone allowing the All Star game to end in a tie. Really...

RedsBaron
03-12-2012, 12:09 PM
To pick the season up where it left off.

Which is what should have happened, even though this would have resulted in teams not playing the same number of games (unless the schedule was otherwise adjusted). MLB went for the split schedule so as to get the revenue of another round of playoffs.
While like any loyal Reds fan I complained about the Reds having the best record in the majors and not making the postseason, in fairness I am not sure the Reds were really the best team in the NL, despite their record. With nothing to play for in the second half, having already been guaranteed a spot in the playoffs by the retroactive awarding of the first half divisional crowns, the Dodgers barely played above .500 in the second half and the Phillies were a sub-.500 team. Had the Dodgers and Phillies had something truly at stake in the second half I believe they would have probably put on a better showing.
The Cardinals actually had the best over all record in the NL East in 1981, going 59-43 to the Expos 60-48 and Phils 59-48, but St. Louis also failed to make the playoffs.
The 1981 Reds either played over their heads or were just lucky, at least by the Pythagorean formula. Having scored 464 runs and allowed 440, the Reds expected record was 57-51 rather than their actual mark of 66-42. L.A. and Houston each posted poorer records than suggested by the Pythagorean formula. With 450 runs scored and 356 runs allowed, the Dodgers expected record was 67-43 rather than their actual 63-47, and the Astros, with 394 runs scored and 331 allowed, had an expected record of 64-46 rather than ther actual mark of 61-49. Had the Pythagorean formula held true the Reds would have finished third, nine games behind L.A.

George Anderson
03-12-2012, 12:17 PM
I don't know how the voting went but I feared from the day I heard about the plan that it'd workout exactly that way. What was even more maddening was that I knew that was going to be their last hurrah for awhile. That was not a real season or a real championship in my mind.

Throughout the strike I figured they'd just come back and pickup where they left off. Or if they insisted on that system they should have not allowed a division to be won by a half game. That's so unfair on many levels.

Anybody want to re-think your opinions on Bowie Kuhn? His errors make Selig's pale in comparison. You can't compare the 1981 split season debacle with someone allowing the All Star game to end in a tie. Really...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/1981_Split_Season_Schedule

RedsBaron
03-12-2012, 12:51 PM
Bowie Kuhn is in the Hall of Fame. :barf:
Bud Selig some day will be in the Hall of Fame. :barf:
I sometimes wonder why I care who is in the Hall of Fame.

RANDY IN INDY
03-12-2012, 03:04 PM
Same here, RedsBaron.

Sea Ray
03-12-2012, 03:14 PM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/1981_Split_Season_Schedule

I'm confused. I thought you said the Reds voted for it but maybe I misunderstood:


During the strike the Reds were one of the teams that approved the two half playoff scenario. I cannot remember what the other option was but the playoff format the Reds voted for ended up screwing them. I didn't at the time and still to this day don't feel bad for them, they got what they voted for.

Whereas the link you put up from BB Reference said that the Reds were a "nay" vote:


...When the matter was put to a vote, it carried easily. Among the "nay" voters were Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Baltimore -- all of whom had had a strong first half, and all of whom ended up out of the expanded playoffs even though the Cardinals and Reds finished with the best overall records in their divisions...

What's the point?

George Anderson
03-12-2012, 03:16 PM
I'm confused. I thought you said the Reds voted for it but maybe I misunderstood:



Whereas the link you put up from BB Reference said that the Reds were a "nay" vote:



What's the point?

Either I was wrong which happens every now and then or this link is wrong.

Sea Ray
03-12-2012, 03:28 PM
Either I was wrong which happens every now and then or this link is wrong.

I understand but you put the link up. I can't imagine linking a short paragraph that says the opposite of what I posted.

As I recall the idea was introduced by the Dodgers who were very powerful at the time

gilpdawg
03-12-2012, 05:47 PM
It boggles the mind that people insist Selig is the worst commissioner ever when Kuhn allowed that to happen. Not to mention the unprofessional way he handled Hank's chase of the Babe. Of course, I still believe that had Giamatti lived things would be a lot different.

westofyou
03-12-2012, 07:05 PM
Either I was wrong which happens every now and then or this link is wrong.

Reds voted against it

George Anderson
03-12-2012, 07:25 PM
Reds voted against it

Yep

Ironically, the Reds and Cardinals were two of the three NL teams (the Phillies were the other) to vote against the split-season plan.

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/cin/hof/article.jsp?ymd=20110622&content_id=20861562&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

Sea Ray
03-12-2012, 09:31 PM
It boggles the mind that people insist Selig is the worst commissioner ever when Kuhn allowed that to happen. Not to mention the unprofessional way he handled Hank's chase of the Babe. Of course, I still believe that had Giamatti lived things would be a lot different.

I agree with all of that. There's also Kuhn's veto of the Reds trade for Vida Blue. The list goes on and on. Frankly I think a lot of the Selig haters weren't old enough to remember all these things done under Kuhn

Spitball
03-12-2012, 09:52 PM
Bowie Kuhn is in the Hall of Fame. :barf:
Bud Selig some day will be in the Hall of Fame. :barf:
I sometimes wonder why I care who is in the Hall of Fame.

Well said. Sometimes I wonder how the vast public opinion, no matter how poorly formed, is so universally embraced by the voting masses. The Hall of Fame needs some changes in its system.