PDA

View Full Version : I was born in 1986, is this the best Reds team since?



Reds
08-30-2012, 06:16 AM
Of course they haven't gone where the 1990 team went, but I'm loving the ride this year. Very excited. I expect to see this team in the WS. :beerme:

Todd Gack
08-30-2012, 08:22 AM
1990 was better suited for playoffs more than this team. But over the course of the season, this team is better.

I'd still take '90 in a heartbeat.

scott91575
08-30-2012, 09:10 AM
I would probably say the best team since 1994.

As for the comparison to the 90 Reds, it's very similar. Although that team had no one that would come close to Votto. Heck, they didn't even have anyone with a year as good as Frazier or Ludwick.

Votto>>Benzinger/Morris
Phillips and Duncan I will say is a wash (Duncan/Doran was better offensively but could not touch Phillips defensively)
Cozart<<Larkin
Frazier/Rolen>Sabo
Ludwick>Hatcher
Stubbs<<Davis
Bruce>O'Neill (remember, this was the pre NYY O'Neill)
Hanigan>Oliver

As for pitching, it's very similar

Cueto and Rijo a wash
Latos and Jackson a wash
Arroyo and Browning a wash
Armstrong had a better year than Bailey or Leake, but don't forget his second half was brutal after an incredible start (his ERA was almost 6 after the break).
Scudder, Robinson, and Hammond were awful, but the 90 Reds often used a 4 man rotation which was somewhat uncommon then, but not unheard of.

The 90's bullpen was superior with the #2 and #3 guys, and that is really the only thing I can see as being better for the playoffs.

As for regular season, the 90 bench was far superior. That is where I think the 90 team truly takes any advantage. Oester, Doran, Braggs, and even Herm Willingham were good bench players (you could call Hal Morris an great bench guy since technically he was not the starter, but 1B was really a 2 headed monster that year).

So I have a tough time saying the 90 Reds were better made for the playoffs. Maybe one reason is Rijo had no problem going on 3 days rest, where I doubt Cueto will do that. The nasty boys of course made a big difference too, but it's not like the current bullpen is much worse if at all. Yet they got hot at the right time after playing .500 ball for most of the year (they got to the playoffs based on their hot start).

At least that is how I remember the 1990 team.

The 94 team on the other hand did have someone who could compete with Votto. Kevin Mitchell was having an amazing season. Hal Morris was good. Brett Boone was good. Larkin, Fernandez, and Sanders were also good. That was a good lineup. The pitching was not as good as 1990 (I believe one major issue was injuries), yet they still were not bad. Rijo was still there. Smiley was pretty good. The nasty boys were gone, but the bullpen had some good players including the cowboy. Too bad we will never know how that season would have ended.

jback76
08-30-2012, 09:38 AM
1990 was better suited for playoffs more than this team. But over the course of the season, this team is better.

I'd still take '90 in a heartbeat.
Yeah 1990 without a doubt, this team has a chance though. But as of today they've won 80 games. They'll need to win 2 playoff series and a WS to perhaps better that team.

webbbj
08-30-2012, 11:18 AM
i know very little about the 1990 team other than a few of the players, they went wire to wire and were big underdogs to the As but swept them.

Baseball has changed a lot then, there is a lot more paridy so by that token i dont think any team let alone the reds would go into a series as huge underdogs or favorites.

That being said IDK, ill go with this team they have great well rounded pitching, solid lineup top to bottom (not world beaters but avg to slightly above average).

Time will tell tho.

Biff Pocoroba
08-30-2012, 12:01 PM
It's a good question and obviously, the 1990 team has the inherent advantage of having arleady completed a World Series season.

So, I'll just say that it's going to be hard for the current version to top what the 1990 team ultimately accomplished, which included:

Leading the division from wire-to-wire
Going 8-2 in the postseason against two incredibly talented teams.
Outscoring the vaunted Oakland A's 22-8 in a four game sweep.

scott91575
08-30-2012, 12:35 PM
i know very little about the 1990 team other than a few of the players, they went wire to wire and were big underdogs to the As but swept them.

Baseball has changed a lot then, there is a lot more paridy so by that token i dont think any team let alone the reds would go into a series as huge underdogs or favorites.

That being said IDK, ill go with this team they have great well rounded pitching, solid lineup top to bottom (not world beaters but avg to slightly above average).

Time will tell tho.

I would completely disagree with your parity statement. Just look to 2003 if you want to see a huge underdog win. Also, the lack of underdogs in the playoffs does not mean parity. In fact, I would state it's just the opposite. Salary disparity has hurt parity. The Yankees have been to the playoffs 15 of the last 16 years. The Red Sox and Yankees have won 6 of the last 13 WS titles. The majority of the rest are high payroll teams while most low payroll teams wallow at the bottom of their leagues. There are mid level payroll teams that break through here and there, but from 79 into the mid 90's we saw the Reds, A's, Twins, Pirates, Royals, and Blue Jays (small market due to the exchange rate at the time) all win titles. That would not happen in today's game. There was not as much salary disparity during those days. In fact, the Yankees went 14 years between playoff births. Sure, there are more playoff teams now, but can you even imagine that now?

texasdave
08-30-2012, 01:23 PM
People always say that the playoffs are a crapshoot, so wouldn't the team with the highest winning percentage in the regular season be considered the best edition of the Reds since 1986? That would be your 1999 Reds if I am not mistaken.

bmwreds31
08-30-2012, 01:27 PM
this team doesnt compare to 1990. ......

Carin4Narron
08-30-2012, 01:35 PM
1.1995
2.1990
3.1999
4.2012
5.1988
6.2010

webbbj
08-30-2012, 02:09 PM
of the 30 teams in baseball 15 of those are either currently a division leader, in the WC or only 3.5 games back or less of a WC.

Yes there are more playoff teams, but if any of those 15 teams make it to the playoffs any of them will have a legit shot of winning the WS.

Biff Pocoroba
08-30-2012, 02:14 PM
this team doesnt compare to 1990. ......

The 1990 team had a .562 regular season winning percentage. The current Reds have a .606 percentage, so not sure how you can say they don't even compare at this point in time.

Maker_84
08-30-2012, 02:19 PM
Im reserving full judgement on this team until the playoffs and what they do there. If they lose in the first round again then in the words of Mark Amazon this season was a total failure

Biff Pocoroba
08-30-2012, 02:23 PM
I wouldn't go that far Maker. The playoffs, especially a five-game series, are such a crapshoot. The best team often doesn't win.

In that respect, I think it would be unfair to diminish so completely what the team has accomplished in the regular season. However, I'd have no problem deeming it to be a terrible letdown and a major opportunity lost.

scott91575
08-30-2012, 02:24 PM
of the 30 teams in baseball 15 of those are either currently a division leader, in the WC or only 3.5 games back or less of a WC.

Yes there are more playoff teams, but if any of those 15 teams make it to the playoffs any of them will have a legit shot of winning the WS.

That is not parity. That is more playoff spots and the fact in baseball even mediocre teams can get hot and win multiple playoff series.

If there were 8 playoff spots 20+ years ago the same thing could be said in multiple years.

Parity is an equal playing field. The current situation in baseball has a much larger financial disparity between the haves and have nots vs. 1990. That is not an equal playing field, and the continued success of high payroll teams proves that.

and no, having a high payroll does not guarantee success. Yet in order to win a WS these days you will have much better chance at if you have a really high payroll.

Phoenix2
08-30-2012, 02:43 PM
I would probably say the best team since 1994.

As for the comparison to the 90 Reds, it's very similar. Although that team had no one that would come close to Votto. Heck, they didn't even have anyone with a year as good as Frazier or Ludwick.

Votto>>Benzinger/Morris
Phillips and Duncan I will say is a wash (Duncan/Doran was better offensively but could not touch Phillips defensively)
Cozart<<Larkin
Frazier/Rolen>Sabo
Ludwick>Hatcher
Stubbs<<Davis
Bruce>O'Neill (remember, this was the pre NYY O'Neill)
Hanigan>Oliver

As for pitching, it's very similar

Cueto and Rijo a wash
Latos and Jackson a wash
Arroyo and Browning a wash
Armstrong had a better year than Bailey or Leake, but don't forget his second half was brutal after an incredible start (his ERA was almost 6 after the break).
Scudder, Robinson, and Hammond were awful, but the 90 Reds often used a 4 man rotation which was somewhat uncommon then, but not unheard of.

The 90's bullpen was superior with the #2 and #3 guys, and that is really the only thing I can see as being better for the playoffs.

As for regular season, the 90 bench was far superior. That is where I think the 90 team truly takes any advantage. Oester, Doran, Braggs, and even Herm Willingham were good bench players (you could call Hal Morris an great bench guy since technically he was not the starter, but 1B was really a 2 headed monster that year).

So I have a tough time saying the 90 Reds were better made for the playoffs. Maybe one reason is Rijo had no problem going on 3 days rest, where I doubt Cueto will do that. The nasty boys of course made a big difference too, but it's not like the current bullpen is much worse if at all. Yet they got hot at the right time after playing .500 ball for most of the year (they got to the playoffs based on their hot start).

At least that is how I remember the 1990 team.

The 94 team on the other hand did have someone who could compete with Votto. Kevin Mitchell was having an amazing season. Hal Morris was good. Brett Boone was good. Larkin, Fernandez, and Sanders were also good. That was a good lineup. The pitching was not as good as 1990 (I believe one major issue was injuries), yet they still were not bad. Rijo was still there. Smiley was pretty good. The nasty boys were gone, but the bullpen had some good players including the cowboy. Too bad we will never know how that season would have ended.

Nice post. Although I would give Phillips the advantage at second base and Sabo the advantage at third (or at least a wash).

At this point in the season I would say the 2012 team is the best I've seen since the BRM era. But of course the 1990 team could finish. We'll have to see how things play out.

jback76
08-30-2012, 03:00 PM
Im reserving full judgement on this team until the playoffs and what they do there. If they lose in the first round again then in the words of Mark Amazon this season was a total failure
I have to agree, if we don't do any better than we did in 2010 the season will be a big disappointment. It's WS or at least NLCS or bust if you ask me.

Z-Fly
08-30-2012, 06:33 PM
I saw an article posted on here, stating that the 90 team was the 5th best team all time. I don't think this team is quite that good, but I do love to watch them. This is the most fun I have had watching the Reds in my lifetime.

This is the first year in a long time that, I have little interest in what's going on with the Bengals. I'll have plenty of time to catch up with them in November.

smixsell
09-01-2012, 04:11 AM
Yeah 1990 without a doubt, this team has a chance though. But as of today they've won 80 games. They'll need to win 2 playoff series and a WS to perhaps better that team.

Spot on. They can only capture that honor with a WS win.

jwmann2
09-01-2012, 07:06 PM
Yeah 1990 without a doubt, this team has a chance though. But as of today they've won 80 games. They'll need to win 2 playoff series and a WS to perhaps better that team.

Well said. Apples and oranges. I think the game has changed a lot since 1990. You won't see anymore sweeps in the World Series like you saw back then. More of the lineup is capable of going deep but at the same time, the pitching has improved I think.