PDA

View Full Version : When did the perception of Reds = losers begin?



Tom Servo
08-04-2012, 01:06 AM
As I've said before I am but 22 years old, not from the Ohio area, and I lost interest in baseball around 2000 or 2001 and didn't watch much of our pastime for a while after that. But in my years of watching baseball (or sports in general) it's always interesting to me how quickly a team can go from being the toast of the town and the envy of other fans to 'all that is wrong with the sport' or 'an embarrassment', especially in our instant technology age.

So I ask you, the Reds faithful, when did you sense that the Reds were losing their standing a respected franchise to being considered an also-ran along with the Royals, Pirates, and Devil Rays? I get the impression it started with awful 66 win team in 2001 which really kicked off the Lost Decade, because I know by 2005 it was pretty well assumed by most that the Reds were now a perennial non-factor. If so, it's pretty incredible the damage Lindner, Allen, DanO, and company managed to do in just a few years.

And as a more positive note, how do you think the Reds are doing to erase that memory? Being 2010 Central Division Champions was a very good start. Maybe a World Series Title will expunge it from common fan memory for good? A lone WS appearance seemed to help do it for the Tigers and the Rays.

Scrap Irony
08-04-2012, 01:22 AM
1982.

Spurts of adequacy since, including a ton of second-place finishes under Rose and the World Series in 1990. A few decent years after, including 1994 (sigh), 1995, 1999.

After that?

2001 was the beginning of the Lost Decade, really. No pitching. At all, For a decade.

VR
08-04-2012, 01:25 AM
2003

reds44
08-04-2012, 01:31 AM
Sadly it was right around the time I joined redzone and became a diehard. I've never know the Reds as a "great baseball franchise." Sure, I know the history, but outside of 2010 I've always witnessed losers.

AtomicDumpling
08-04-2012, 01:41 AM
I think it was when Carl Lindner took over the team and started instilling the small-market mentality in the fans' minds. That ownership group fostered the belief that they simply couldn't afford to field a competitive team and it rubbed off on the fans very quickly. Too many people felt the Reds were destined to lose because Cincinnati is not a huge city. Too many people didn't realize the Reds have always been a highly profitable mid-market team with plenty of revenue to play with the big boys. Reds fans feel the team is economically disadvantaged to the point where they can't compete even though the facts prove otherwise. People just accepted the losing and no longer expected anything else. Poor little old Cincinnati is just lucky to have a team they thought. It turns out that belief is dead wrong. The owners merely used money as an excuse for their failure. It was an excuse that rings hollow because there never was a lack of money, just a lack of desire to spend the profits combined with a lack of a good strategy for building a good team. The Reds were bad because their management was bad, not because there wasn't enough money. The current management is proving that it can be done, so hopefully the mindset of the fans will change.

REDREAD
08-04-2012, 01:50 AM
For me, it started slightly before you, Tom.

In 2000, they acquired Jr before the season began. They sold tickets like gangbusters.. I think they drew 2.6 million (rounded).. At the trade deadline, they were in second place.. Now granted, I think it was 5-7 games back.. but still in second place.

What was their move? Trade off Neagle, arguably their best pitcher for mostly chaff.. Drew Henson, 2 lotto tickets, and Yarnall (destined to be sold to Japan for even more cash).

I suspected the team might be going into the toilet at that point. Later moves just confirmed it.. I remember predicting during 2001 that the Reds would be under 500 in 2003, despite Carl and Allen's grand promises that the fans would be rewarded for sacrificing 2000-2002.

I'm so thankful we have Cast as an owner now. Easily the best owner of my lifetime. The guy could've easily let Votto and Phillips walk when their contracts expired, and everyone in Cincy would've accepted it.
Instead, Cast is daring to actually build a winning team. It's awesome to be relevant again.

George Anderson
08-04-2012, 01:51 AM
I think it was when Carl Lindner took over the team and started instilling the small-market mentality in the fans' minds. That ownership group fostered the belief that they simply couldn't afford to field a competitive team and it rubbed off on the fans very quickly. Too many people felt the Reds were destined to lose because Cincinnati is not a huge city. Too many people didn't realize the Reds have always been a highly profitable mid-market team with plenty of revenue to play with the big boys. Reds fans feel the team is economically disadvantaged to the point where they can't compete even though the facts prove otherwise. The Reds were bad because their management was bad, not because there wasn't enough money. The current management is proving that it can be done, so hopefully the mindset of the fans will change.

This

WVRedsFan
08-04-2012, 01:55 AM
As an old timer, I can tell you that until 1961' the Reds were losers. My father, a life-long Reds fan stayed with them no matter the record, but if he were still with us, he'd tell you that the Reds were losers until that 61 season when the Reds met the Yankees in the World Series.

Sure, there were good and bad times since then. In 1962, they won nearly 100 games. In 1964, they took first place only to lose it to the hated Cardinals. The 70's were good with the 75-76 World Series wins, and the 80's were pretty much a bummer. Then they came back with a WS win in 1990, and outside of a couple of seasons, including 1999, they weren't very good.

It was the 2001-2009 seasons that defined the "losing Reds". A list of horrible managers, losing game after games. GM after GM and no winning record. Even with Junior Griffey, the Reds lost and lost. Bob Boone, Dave Miley, et al. No pitching and little baseball knowledge. Enter BCast. He put up with Wayne Krivsky for awhile, but finally brought in Walt Jockety. Hired Dusty and made deals to put the Reds in a position to win again. It all came together in 2010, but it was incomplete. Deals over this past winter, made the team competitive again. It's a process and it's working.

As a long time fan, I know we may not win the WS this year, but we're competing, something we haven't done since 1999, save the 2010 season. Reds may not get the pub, but that soon may be ending.

RedlegJake
08-04-2012, 02:27 AM
Heck before the 70s the Reds were just another franchise that won a pennant every twenty years. They'd have a few years here and there where they were in the running but more often they were a middle of the pack team and quite often a poor team. As far as long term history goes the Reds, taking out the BRM decade, are really very normal and are similar historically to almost every other franchise who also mostly had one exceptional decade in their history - the Braves, the Giants, the Cubs, the Phillies, and the Pirates. The Dodgers have a slightly more consistent record than the Reds historically and the Cardinals are easily the class of the NL in a historical sense. Being known as "the losers or the losing Reds", though, that really was never the case until the 2001-09 Reds. Not since before WWII anyway in the early to mid 30s.

For you young guys going from the BRM era - the 82 Reds nosedived and Rose and Murray Cook gradually brought them back to the edge, then the 90 team and through the 90s the Reds were a decent competitive team ending in 99. Then Bowden, who started as the golden boy and descended into madness (seemingly) and Lindner as owner wreaked havoc on the team in the first decade of the new century. Really, I don't think the Reds were ever that far off in the 90s but Marge was paying for a big league squad and strangling the minors all along. When she was forced out and salaries really exploded, and the Griffey deal blew up the way it did and the farm turned out to be stripped down by a decade of neglect - I don;t know. Sometimes I think Lindner is vilified a bit too much for a mess he inherited and didn't have the baseball acumen to fix. That's my opinion anyway - maybe I'm wrong. And I'm not saying he was a good owner in any way, just that some of the mess was actually shoved on him from Marge's era as owner and the stupid things she did starving the farm system.

RedlegJake
08-04-2012, 02:33 AM
WVRedsFan and other lder guys like me may feel this way:

Just 5 years ago I kind of felt that I probably would never see the Reds win another World Series before I died. I know that sounds morbid but I really felt that way with how bad the team was and how bad it seemed they were run. Then Castellini came and things started to change. Then he brought Jocketty on board. Since then I have been happy about the team's direction and excited and don't feel that old despair at all anymore!

WVRedsFan
08-04-2012, 02:41 AM
WVRedsFan and other lder guys like me may feel this way:

Just 5 years ago I kind of felt that I probably would never see the Reds win another World Series before I died. I know that sounds morbid but I really felt that way with how bad the team was and how bad it seemed they were run. Then Castellini came and things started to change. Then he brought Jocketty on board. Since then I have been happy about the team's direction and excited and don't feel that old despair at all anymore!
We're in the same camp. If you have a mind to, you could search my comments over the last five years and I've said that time and time again. We seemed like a team that would never find that winning edge again and in my 6th decade, I thought I would go to my grave not ever seeing a team that I loved do well again. With this season, I don't feel that way anymore. It may not happen this year, and it absolutely burns me up that it may be the horrible Pittsburgh Pirates that derail our surge. But, all I ever asked for was that the Reds be competitive and maybe, just maybe win a championship again. From 2001-2009 it seemed like it was impossible. The magic returned in 2010, only to see the horrible happen. this year, the right moves were made to see the team finally contend again. If I sound desperate at times, it's because I know there is not much time left. I hope this is the year!

RedlegJake
08-04-2012, 03:03 AM
We're in the same camp. If you have a mind to, you could search my comments over the last five years and I've said that time and time again. We seemed like a team that would never find that winning edge again and in my 6th decade, I thought I would go to my grave not ever seeing a team that I loved do well again. With this season, I don't feel that way anymore. It may not happen this year, and it absolutely burns me up that it may be the horrible Pittsburgh Pirates that derail our surge. But, all I ever asked for was that the Reds be competitive and maybe, just maybe win a championship again. From 2001-2009 it seemed like it was impossible. The magic returned in 2010, only to see the horrible happen. this year, the right moves were made to see the team finally contend again. If I sound desperate at times, it's because I know there is not much time left. I hope this is the year!

I wish there was a like button buddy!

RedsBaron
08-04-2012, 09:09 AM
Heck before the 70s the Reds were just another franchise that won a pennant every twenty years. They'd have a few years here and there where they were in the running but more often they were a middle of the pack team and quite often a poor team. As far as long term history goes the Reds, taking out the BRM decade, are really very normal and are similar historically to almost every other franchise who also mostly had one exceptional decade in their history - the Braves, the Giants, the Cubs, the Phillies, and the Pirates. The Dodgers have a slightly more consistent record than the Reds historically and the Cardinals are easily the class of the NL in a historical sense. Being known as "the losers or the losing Reds", though, that really was never the case until the 2001-09 Reds. Not since before WWII anyway in the early to mid 30s.

I pretty much agree with everyone else's posts on this topic. However I did want to note that the Giants had several exceptional decades while in New York, and up through World War II the Cubs were consistent pennant winners.
For the first third or so of the 20th Century the Giants were a dominant team, winnning pennants in 04, '05, '11, '12, '13, '17, '21, '22, '23, '24, '33, '36 and '37, with World Series wins in 1905, 1921, 1922 and 1933 (no Series was played in 1904).
While the Cubs only won World Series in 1907 and 1908, they won a bunch of pennants through WWII: '06, '07, '08, '10, '18, '29, '32, '35, '38 and '45.

Always Red
08-04-2012, 09:42 AM
As an old timer, I can tell you that until 1961' the Reds were losers. My father, a life-long Reds fan stayed with them no matter the record, but if he were still with us, he'd tell you that the Reds were losers until that 61 season when the Reds met the Yankees in the World Series.

Sure, there were good and bad times since then. In 1962, they won nearly 100 games. In 1964, they took first place only to lose it to the hated Cardinals. The 70's were good with the 75-76 World Series wins, and the 80's were pretty much a bummer. Then they came back with a WS win in 1990, and outside of a couple of seasons, including 1999, they weren't very good.

It was the 2001-2009 seasons that defined the "losing Reds". A list of horrible managers, losing game after games. GM after GM and no winning record. Even with Junior Griffey, the Reds lost and lost. Bob Boone, Dave Miley, et al. No pitching and little baseball knowledge. Enter BCast. He put up with Wayne Krivsky for awhile, but finally brought in Walt Jockety. Hired Dusty and made deals to put the Reds in a position to win again. It all came together in 2010, but it was incomplete. Deals over this past winter, made the team competitive again. It's a process and it's working.

As a long time fan, I know we may not win the WS this year, but we're competing, something we haven't done since 1999, save the 2010 season. Reds may not get the pub, but that soon may be ending.

Yes, the 80's were bad until the Reds re-acquired Rose to manage, and started building with younger players. Without looking, I think they finished 2nd in the division 3 times or so before breaking through with Lou at the helm in 1990.

The Lost Decade (and I first read that term as described by Cyclone, so I always credit it to him) was really the worst, at least during my lifetime. Nothing worked, and then the FO basically seemed to just give up which demoralized everyone- players and fans alike.

The Reds joined the NL in 1890; it wasn't until 30 years of baseball later, in 1919, that they won their first pennant. That's a lot of losing, right off the start line.

From the mid 20's until the late 30's, they invariably finished deep within the 2nd division. Attendance was so bad, that a new gimmick was ginned up- night baseball, in order to try to appeal to disinterested fans.

I was born in 1961, the year of the first Reds pennant in 20 years. During those interim years, Cincinnati witnessed a lot of bad baseball, with the Reds mostly finishing anywhere from 5th through 8th in what was then an 8 team NL.

But 1961 signaled a change- although the Reds did not win a pennant for another 9 years, they were mostly a very good team throughout the 60's. The 70's, of course, were a magical, legendary time that I do not need to recount here.

So, looking back, I'd have to say how lucky I have been- during my own lifetime, the Reds have been a much better team than they have for most of their existence. Yes, there are up and down years, and even a lost decade, but the last 40 years have been kind to the Reds.

I also think that the Reds, and Cincinnati in general, suffers from an East Coast baseball bias. From the beginning, the Reds were considered a western team, and as the years have gone on and the west coast has also thrived, now we are just a part of flyover country. You have to have a really special franchise, like St. Louis, to overcome perception.

I'd love for woy to weigh in on this; it really is what he loves and excels at.

HokieRed
08-04-2012, 12:10 PM
I've never had the sense that the Reds were losers. I've always thought of this as a very good franchise, with occasional down periods. Probably has to do with when I started watching them, 1955 being the first season I remember. They were already very good in 1956. finishing two games out and setting the major league record for home runs as a team, 221 if I remember correctly. And they had an electrifying rookie that season, who set the home run record for rookies, Frank Robinson. It's the way Robinson came on the scene in Cincinnati--his absolutely challenging, dominating presence--that you have to have seen to understand why some of us still mourn that trade.

cincrazy
08-04-2012, 12:18 PM
I think it happened in 2003. In 2000 we were competitive, and had Junior relatively healthy. In 2001 and 2002 we sucked, but could use injuries as an excuse. But in 2003, with a brand spanking new ballpark... even with injuries, we were so terrible. And held a firesale of sorts at the deadline, much like the Marlins of this year. How embarrassing.

vaticanplum
08-04-2012, 12:22 PM
When they had ten consecutive losing seasons.

Losing = losers. not even perception of losers, really. Just losers.

edit: sorry, it was nine seasons, not ten. Still going with that though.

westofyou
08-04-2012, 12:35 PM
21st century for this go around

Fact is until the late 50's the Reds were a middle of the road team.

Until 1945 the Cubs were known as one of the best, since then there has been a flipflop.

But it was the 21st century when the over saturation of all things informational that the reds became known as mediocre




1900-1945

WINS W L PCT
1 Giants 3901 3021 .564
2 Cubs 3861 3097 .555
3 Pirates 3840 3102 .553
4 Cardinals 3513 3424 .506
5 Reds 3385 3569 .487
6 Dodgers 3366 3556 .486
7 Braves 2941 3975 .425
8 Phillies 2924 3986 .423



Since 1946


NATIONAL LEAGUE
CAREER
1946-2011

LOSSES displayed only--not a sorting criteria
WINNING PERCENTAGE displayed only--not a sorting criteria

WINS W L PCT
1 Dodgers 5718 4724 .548
2 Cardinals 5500 4925 .528
3 Braves 5472 4948 .525
4 Giants 5406 5035 .518
5 Reds 5331 5098 .511
6 Phillies 5179 5251 .497
7 Pirates 4975 5445 .477
8 Cubs 4895 5523 .470
9 Astros 3944 4027 .495
10 Mets 3812 4148 .479
11 Expos/Nationals 3247 3583 .475
12 Padres 3169 3671 .463
13 Rockies 1437 1579 .476
14 Marlins 1435 1575 .477
15 Diamondbacks 1129 1139 .498
16 Pilots/Brewers 1062 1204 .469


2001-2009



NATIONAL LEAGUE
CAREER
2002-2011

LOSSES displayed only--not a sorting criteria
WINNING PERCENTAGE displayed only--not a sorting criteria

WINS W L PCT
1 Cardinals 901 718 .557
2 Phillies 898 721 .555
3 Braves 889 729 .549
4 Dodgers 852 767 .526
5 Giants 846 771 .523
6 Marlins 808 811 .499
7 Cubs 800 818 .494
8 Astros 799 820 .494
9 Mets 795 823 .491
10 Diamondbacks 787 833 .486
11 Padres 775 846 .478
12 Brewers 773 846 .477
T13 Reds 770 850 .475
T13 Rockies 770 851 .475
15 Nationals 725 893 .448
16 Pirates 679 938 .420

BCubb2003
08-04-2012, 12:46 PM
I think it happened in 2003. In 2000 we were competitive, and had Junior relatively healthy. In 2001 and 2002 we sucked, but could use injuries as an excuse. But in 2003, with a brand spanking new ballpark... even with injuries, we were so terrible. And held a firesale of sorts at the deadline, much like the Marlins of this year. How embarrassing.

This is pretty much right, I think. Marge Schott was willing to get free agents and field a winning team, but she left the organization in shambles. It was practically a ward of the league, by the end. Lindner rested too much on his "saving" of the franchise to move it forward. John Allen's "value engineering" turned the excitement of adding Griffey to the 1999 Reds with a new ballpark coming on line into a long slog of losing records. And Griffey's injuries prevented the Griffey era in the new ballpark from offering the boost that the McGwire era gave to St. Louis.

traderumor
08-04-2012, 01:03 PM
I think the title to the thread begs the question. The Reds had a down period, 2001-2009, and while our fandom makes us think they were awful, they were usually only second division, not a bottomed out basement team, unless it was an injury decimated season like 2001. It was hard to watch at times, but there was some legitimate promise at times.

I don't think they were ever perceived as "losers," but stuck in a rut, sort of like the Mets or the Mariners.

Tom Servo
08-04-2012, 01:31 PM
I think the title to the thread begs the question. The Reds had a down period, 2001-2009, and while our fandom makes us think they were awful, they were usually only second division, not a bottomed out basement team, unless it was an injury decimated season like 2001. It was hard to watch at times, but there was some legitimate promise at times.

I don't think they were ever perceived as "losers," but stuck in a rut, sort of like the Mets or the Mariners.
See though, I can tell you from being a Reds fan out of market people that people who knew of my Reds fandom acted as though I was cheering on a team like the Royals or Pirates. I agree that in reality the team was never quite 'completely hopeless' like the Pirates 19 straight losing seasons, but I believe that was the perception around the league and by fans of other teams.

VR
08-04-2012, 02:12 PM
Reds would have much higher status as a franchise if they had been able to play out '81 and '94. Horrible misfortune with timing.

cincrazy
08-04-2012, 02:14 PM
To me it felt completely hopeless. Maybe we never bottomed out with 100 losses year after year, but we were terrible. We had no farm system, no pitching, horrible management and ownership, and a superstar play who was always hurt, and no longer a superstar. Sure, other teams had it worse I guess, including the Pirates. But that doesn't mean our streak of futility wasn't "impressive." Arguably the worst stretch in franchise history.

westofyou
08-04-2012, 02:31 PM
To me it felt completely hopeless. Maybe we never bottomed out with 100 losses year after year, but we were terrible. We had no farm system, no pitching, horrible management and ownership, and a superstar play who was always hurt, and no longer a superstar. Sure, other teams had it worse I guess, including the Pirates. But that doesn't mean our streak of futility wasn't "impressive." Arguably the worst stretch in franchise history.

Take your pick, I vote group #1




1929 7th 66 88 .429 33
1930 7th 59 95 .383 33
1931 8th 58 96 .377 43
1932 8th 60 94 .390 30
1933 8th 58 94 .382 33
1934 8th 52 99 .344 42
1935 6th 68 85 .444 31.5
1936 5th 74 80 .481 18
1937 8th 56 98 .364 40

1945 7th 61 93 .396 37
1946 6th 67 87 .435 30
1947 5th 73 81 .474 21
1948 7th 64 89 .418 27
1949 7th 62 92 .403 35
1950 6th 66 87 .431 24.5
1951 6th 68 86 .442 28.5
1952 6th 69 85 .448 27.5
1953 6th 68 86 .442 37
1954 5th 74 80 .481 23
1955 5th 75 79 .487 23.5


2001 5th 66 96 .407 27
2002 3rd 78 84 .481 19
2003 5th 69 93 .426 19
2004 4th 76 86 .469 29
2005 5th 73 89 .451 27
2006 3rd 80 82 .494 3.5
2007 5th 72 90 .444 13
2008 5th 74 88 .457 23.5
2009 4th 78 84 .481 13

cincrazy
08-04-2012, 02:35 PM
Take your pick, I vote group #1




1929 7th 66 88 .429 33
1930 7th 59 95 .383 33
1931 8th 58 96 .377 43
1932 8th 60 94 .390 30
1933 8th 58 94 .382 33
1934 8th 52 99 .344 42
1935 6th 68 85 .444 31.5
1936 5th 74 80 .481 18
1937 8th 56 98 .364 40

1945 7th 61 93 .396 37
1946 6th 67 87 .435 30
1947 5th 73 81 .474 21
1948 7th 64 89 .418 27
1949 7th 62 92 .403 35
1950 6th 66 87 .431 24.5
1951 6th 68 86 .442 28.5
1952 6th 69 85 .448 27.5
1953 6th 68 86 .442 37
1954 5th 74 80 .481 23
1955 5th 75 79 .487 23.5


2001 5th 66 96 .407 27
2002 3rd 78 84 .481 19
2003 5th 69 93 .426 19
2004 4th 76 86 .469 29
2005 5th 73 89 .451 27
2006 3rd 80 82 .494 3.5
2007 5th 72 90 .444 13
2008 5th 74 88 .457 23.5
2009 4th 78 84 .481 13



I was hoping you'd chime in here :). I almost requested it in my post, but I had faith you'd come through even if I didn't request it! Thank God there was no Twitter in the 1930s.

Tom Servo
08-04-2012, 02:49 PM
Yeah in my original draft of this thread I noted that I expected woy to drop some knowledge of the 1930s Reds on me, he didn't disappoint. :)

westofyou
08-04-2012, 03:08 PM
I was hoping you'd chime in here :). I almost requested it in my post, but I had faith you'd come through even if I didn't request it! Thank God there was no Twitter in the 1930s.

The bank seized the team from the owner, during the worst financial crisis of all time.

I imagine the feelings of despair for these squads were so high it was electric, they didn't even have a Griffey to ponder what if about.

757690
08-04-2012, 03:21 PM
My grandfather, a die hard Reds fan his whole life -born 1903- always thought of the Reds as losers. He always called them the God $&@? Cincinnati Reds. Even the BRM didn't change his perception.

I was 10 when the Reds won their second consecutive World Series in 1976, so I couldn't understand what he was talking about. I finally got it the day they hired Dan O'Brien.

MikeS21
08-04-2012, 04:57 PM
Actually, I am of the opinion the negative feelings toward the Reds came during the Marge Schott years - simply because of the reputation of "Marge the Large."

It was 1972 when I became a Reds fan. I stuck with the team all through the 70's, and yes, I was a diehard fan during the 80's. I celebrated the the 1990's team. But somewhere around 1992 or 1993, the team started to sink. Slowly at first, but it was a definite sinking. Ironically, I guess right around the time Sweet Lou Pinella left, the franchise hit a tailspin.

To me, day I realized the depths to which this franchise had fallen was the 1996 Opening Day game when Umpire John McSherry collapsed on the field during the first inning of the game. Marge Schott, may she R.I.P., said in more less words, "Why can't we just move him and go ahead and play the game?"

That was the day I realized the pride had left Reds baseball. And I kind of felt that the Reds became a laughingstock around the country because of Marge's antics. Cincinnati was not only viewed as a small market, but as a team run by a bunch of red necks worthy of Jeff Foxworthy fodder.

DGullett35
08-04-2012, 05:30 PM
I was born in 1986 and really became a Reds fan around 1993-94 when my cousin Don became pitching coach. I was too young to remember the 1990 Reds and the only thing I remember about the 1995 season was us getting beat by Atl. and then Atl. beating the Tribe in the World Series(I hate the Cleveland Indians with a capital H. Always have and always will) I can remember going to Opening Day every year from 94-2003 and always having a glimmer of hope that that years team would be special(and yes I remember those St. Bernards crapping all over the field in the pregame festivities:)) I never considered the Reds losers. They were always somewhat competative winning 70 something games a year with a postseason berth mixed in. Going through all that as fans just makes 2012 and beyond so much sweeter. We're due for a good team and even though we were not that great for those 10 years I can say that Im still proud of the Reds and what makes a good fan is following your team through it all, the losing and the winning. heres to the 2012 Reds and also to the next decade of great Reds baseball(crossing my fingers):beerme:

westofyou
08-04-2012, 05:38 PM
Actually, I am of the opinion the negative feelings toward the Reds came during the Marge Schott years - simply because of the reputation of "Marge the Large."

It was 1972 when I became a Reds fan. I stuck with the team all through the 70's, and yes, I was a diehard fan during the 80's. I celebrated the the 1990's team. But somewhere around 1992 or 1993, the team started to sink. Slowly at first, but it was a definite sinking. Ironically, I guess right around the time Sweet Lou Pinella left, the franchise hit a tailspin.

To me, day I realized the depths to which this franchise had fallen was the 1996 Opening Day game when Umpire John McSherry collapsed on the field during the first inning of the game. Marge Schott, may she R.I.P., said in more less words, "Why can't we just move him and go ahead and play the game?"

That was the day I realized the pride had left Reds baseball. And I kind of felt that the Reds became a laughingstock around the country because of Marge's antics. Cincinnati was not only viewed as a small market, but as a team run by a bunch of red necks worthy of Jeff Foxworthy fodder.

This is a great point, at this point the water came over the dam and the deluge was under way

Blitz Dorsey
08-04-2012, 05:41 PM
There is not a single baseball fan with a knowledge of history who associates "Cincinnati Reds" with "losers." We might not be perennial title contenders, but the Reds have earned their respect as one of the best organizations in baseball. One lost decade cannot erase that.

GullyFoyle
08-04-2012, 05:47 PM
Having lived all over the country for the past 20 years (Columbus, Pittsburgh, RI, Boston, New York, Sacramento), I've never gotten the sense the Reds where considered a "Loser" franchise. Particularly here in Northern California. When people ask me who I root for more times then not, it starts a long discussion about the A's v Reds. Never "poor you".

edit: Now the Bengals on the other hand ...

Blitz Dorsey
08-04-2012, 07:32 PM
Exactly. The Bengals definitely have the national rep of being "losers" even though they've made the playoffs 2 of the last 3 years. The Reds have never had even close to such a rep.

Even when the Reds completely sucked during the oughts ... we never even finished dead last in the NL Central. The Pirates always had our back (no pun intended ... ok maybe a little).