PDA

View Full Version : Reds were the best team in baseball



Maker_84
10-29-2012, 12:55 AM
After watching the WS and playoffs there's no dount in my mind, but the best team doesnt always win. Votto being at 60% and Cueto going down doomed us and still should have won but lack of clutch hitting killed them.

RedTruck
10-29-2012, 12:58 AM
After watching the WS and playoffs there's no dount in my mind, but the best team doesnt always win. Votto being at 60% and Cueto going down doomed us and still should have won but lack of clutch hitting killed them.

Yup. Reds, Nationals, Yankees, Rangers, Athletics.

All really great teams that should've moved farther. Makes the sting less..stingy i gues.

HometownHero
10-29-2012, 01:00 AM
The Nats had the best team running away. They had the most wins in baseball and had tons of guys miss time along the way.

40YrRedsFan
10-29-2012, 01:14 AM
The Reds were very good, but not the best. They were below average offensively and were extremely dependent on pitching. The loss of Cueto showed that in the playoffs. We knew we were in trouble because we didn't have anyone else to shut down the opposition. If one of our pitchers had a bad game, it was almost always a loss, because our hitting couldn't come from behind (except against very weak teams for the most part)

Maker_84
10-29-2012, 01:17 AM
Sucks the Reds couldn't play in the AL during the playoffs, the NL keeps pulling away and getting better than them every season

jhiller21
10-29-2012, 01:17 AM
The Giants came back and beat up the Reds and Cards after being down, and then swept the Tigers. I have to say the best team won.

This season was special though, let's get 'em next year.

HometownHero
10-29-2012, 01:55 AM
Sucks the Reds couldn't play in the AL during the playoffs, the NL keeps pulling away and getting better than them every season

The NL had a .494 overall winning percentage this year and had a losing record for the 9th year in a row. Winning a best of 7 series in late October doesn't make your league better overall.

Maker_84
10-29-2012, 02:17 AM
The NL had a .494 overall winning percentage this year and had a losing record for the 9th year in a row. Winning a best of 7 series in late October doesn't make your league better overall.

The bottom National League teams were terrible but the teams that actually matter (top 4 from each league) and the National League is at a huge advantage. There's a reason the NL is starting to dominate the All Star game and the WS

HometownHero
10-29-2012, 03:58 AM
The bottom National League teams were terrible but the teams that actually matter (top 4 from each league) and the National League is at a huge advantage. There's a reason the NL is starting to dominate the All Star game and the WS

The top of the NL is better because they get to beat the bottom of the NL, from top to bottom the AL is a far better league. Two teams in the AL missed the playoffs this year that had better records than the NL 2nd WC team despite playing in the AL East and West where the last place teams would have a shot at a WC spot if they played in our Division.

We won 97 games 22 of those were the Astros and Cubs in 31 games meaning we had just a .572 W% vs all other teams including a losing record in IL play, that percentage would put us 5th in AL. I'm sure those teams that missed the playoffs in the AL would have loved to get 31 games with the only two teams in baseball to lose 100 games. I know the Angels would have killed to get 15 games with the Cards and Brewers rather than having 19 with the Rangers and A's.

The All Star game is meaningless with the way fans vote the least deserving players in and with so many elite players passing on the opportunity to play in it., The WS is a terrible way to judge since the best teams never win it anymore after moving to 8 and now 10 teams.

The NL's 3rd best team beating the AL's 7th best team in a best of 7 series after 5 full days off tells us absolutely nothing.

dubc47834
10-29-2012, 09:09 AM
The Nats had the best team running away. They had the most wins in baseball and had tons of guys miss time along the way.

Sure they had the most wins....by 1 game, but that doesn't make them the best team. Also not running away with it either. Reds also had their best palyer down for 2 months of the season, lost the closer before the season even started, and lost their best pitcher 8 pitches into the post season. I dont understand why you are even on this forum. All you do is hate on the Reds, I really think you are a Cubs troll....for real dude!!!

dubc47834
10-29-2012, 09:10 AM
The top of the NL is better because they get to beat the bottom of the NL, from top to bottom the AL is a far better league. Two teams in the AL missed the playoffs this year that had better records than the NL 2nd WC team despite playing in the AL East and West where the last place teams would have a shot at a WC spot if they played in our Division.

We won 97 games 22 of those were the Astros and Cubs in 31 games meaning we had just a .572 W% vs all other teams including a losing record in IL play, that percentage would put us 5th in AL. I'm sure those teams that missed the playoffs in the AL would have loved to get 31 games with the only two teams in baseball to lose 100 games. I know the Angels would have killed to get 15 games with the Cards and Brewers rather than having 19 with the Rangers and A's.

The All Star game is meaningless with the way fans vote the least deserving players in and with so many elite players passing on the opportunity to play in it., The WS is a terrible way to judge since the best teams never win it anymore after moving to 8 and now 10 teams.

The NL's 3rd best team beating the AL's 7th best team in a best of 7 series after 5 full days off tells us absolutely nothing.

Yeah....and how often does the best team in college basketball win the NCAA and that is lauded as the best post season running!!!

Old NDN
10-29-2012, 11:14 AM
I don't know about the Reds being the best team in baseball, but with a couple of breaks, they could have been where the Giants are today. They should have put them away in game #3. That's the frustrating part for me. Good season, though. Greater expectations next year.

Captain13
10-29-2012, 05:29 PM
The top of the NL is better because they get to beat the bottom of the NL, from top to bottom the AL is a far better league. Two teams in the AL missed the playoffs this year that had better records than the NL 2nd WC team despite playing in the AL East and West where the last place teams would have a shot at a WC spot if they played in our Division.

We won 97 games 22 of those were the Astros and Cubs in 31 games meaning we had just a .572 W% vs all other teams including a losing record in IL play, that percentage would put us 5th in AL. I'm sure those teams that missed the playoffs in the AL would have loved to get 31 games with the only two teams in baseball to lose 100 games. I know the Angels would have killed to get 15 games with the Cards and Brewers rather than having 19 with the Rangers and A's.

The All Star game is meaningless with the way fans vote the least deserving players in and with so many elite players passing on the opportunity to play in it., The WS is a terrible way to judge since the best teams never win it anymore after moving to 8 and now 10 teams.

The NL's 3rd best team beating the AL's 7th best team in a best of 7 series after 5 full days off tells us absolutely nothing.

Maybe those teams lost 100 games because they had to play the Reds so much.

MoneyInTheBank
10-29-2012, 06:07 PM
I can't say that a team that had possibly the worst hitter in the majors (Stubbs) and a leadoff/2 hitter with the 7th worst OBP in the majors (Cozart) in their regular lineup the best team in baseball.

Don't get me wrong, this is not a Dusty Baker bashing as there were not clear upgrades on the roster

HometownHero
10-29-2012, 06:48 PM
Maybe those teams lost 100 games because they had to play the Reds so much.

No they lost 100+ games because they had no talent, if you drop when they played each other 8-7 in Cubs favor they went 48-99 and 53-94 vs the rest of baseball.

HometownHero
10-29-2012, 06:54 PM
Yeah....and how often does the best team in college basketball win the NCAA and that is lauded as the best post season running!!!

What does the big dance have to do with who's best in baseball?

texasdave
10-29-2012, 06:54 PM
I can't say that a team that had possibly the worst hitter in the majors (Stubbs) and a leadoff/2 hitter with the 7th worst OBP in the majors (Cozart) in their regular lineup the best team in baseball.

Don't get me wrong, this is not a Dusty Baker bashing as there were not clear upgrades on the roster

Of course Baker did not have to stick them in the top two spots in the lineup and give them the most at-bats. And it's not like he doesn't do this year after year after year.

HometownHero
10-29-2012, 07:21 PM
Sure they had the most wins....by 1 game, but that doesn't make them the best team. Also not running away with it either. Reds also had their best palyer down for 2 months of the season, lost the closer before the season even started, and lost their best pitcher 8 pitches into the post season. I dont understand why you are even on this forum. All you do is hate on the Reds, I really think you are a Cubs troll....for real dude!!!

No they are the best team because they have more talent. Look at the games missed by the Reds and then the Nats and then look at the 94 win team in their division they had to play 18 times and the fact didn't get to play the two worst teams in baseball 31 games, they got to play them 15 times and went 13-2.

The Cards won 88 games so if we add up all the games play vs teams with 88 or more wins not counting the 7 H2H games with the Nats and Reds which Washington won 5-2 its.

34 games for the Reds
43 games for the Nats

While we got 6 with the Indians they got 6 with Baltimore and then 3 more with Tampa and 18 with the Braves while we got 15 with Cards who won 6 less games.

2012 Strength of Schedule
http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/rpi/_/sort/sos

There's being a Reds fan and being a homer, I'm not a homer and can clearly see what team was better and its the team that had the better H2H Record while playing more top teams and had the better overall record in a better division while have more key guys missing games.

MoneyInTheBank
10-29-2012, 08:31 PM
Of course Baker did not have to stick them in the top two spots in the lineup and give them the most at-bats. And it's not like he doesn't do this year after year after year.

Oh, I absolutely agree. To keep trotting Stubbs out and watch him hit .186 against RHP was inexcusable. Cozart should have been moved down the order. But if Stubbs is benched for let's say Heisey, the bench goes from bad to worse. The bench who had no viable option in the middle infield and starting pitching depth was shaky. Those are the kinds of things that make me hesitate to call them the "best team in baseball"

Ironman92
10-29-2012, 11:11 PM
The best team won it all in impressive fashion.

The best team in baseball wouldn't lose 3 straight at home needing just 1 win to end their season.

The Giants were 6-2 on the road in the playoffs. Down 0-2 in best of 5....WIN Down 3-1 to the defending world champs....WIN

7 straight wins to seal the postseason.

The best team in baseball was clearly the Giants....backs against the wall in ridiculous fashion and never flinched.

And they proved the 4th and 5th starters were way more important than 2 middle relief/long men

The_Mudshark
10-30-2012, 10:07 AM
After watching the WS and playoffs there's no dount in my mind,

You honestly think that the Reds were the best team in Baseball in 2012?

Maker_84
10-30-2012, 05:19 PM
You honestly think that the Reds were the best team in Baseball in 2012?

With Votto healthy and Cueto not being frail, Yes

Salukifan2
10-30-2012, 05:54 PM
The reds were definitely the best team in 2012. They were not the best collection of talent but they were without a doubt the best team. You can bash all you want on stubbs and cozart for not being great hitters but they play up the middle. Traditionalists will always tell you that the most important component to catcher, short stop, second base, or center field is defense. And you got great defense out of both of them. This years reds team is not unlike the '05 cardinals that won 100 games. Great team but not the best collection of talent. And nothing proves that more than guys like luddy and frazier stepping up in a big way when votto went down.

webbbj
10-30-2012, 09:23 PM
Any of these teams coulda won the WS, I think its as wide open of a playoff we have ever had. Oakland and Baltimore were probably the only 2 teams that were a clear notch below the rest.

But the reds, yanks, nats, tigers, giants, cards, braves were about as equal as it gets in terms of WS chances.

The giants just happened to play the best this time around.

If they played this exact playoff format 100x I think the distribution of winners would be very balanced.

Redsfansince72
10-30-2012, 09:32 PM
the Giants wanted it more.. Sadly it doesnt matter the Reds won 97 games.. they didnt bring a World Series Trophy home..The Giants stepped up starting with the Reds, then down 3-1 to the Cards and beat them.. then stopped a Detroit offense to win the World Series.. the Giants got Pence and Scutaro to bolster their lack of offense. the Reds stood pat with theirs.. Guess who wanted it more??

webbbj
10-30-2012, 09:48 PM
the Giants wanted it more.. Sadly it doesnt matter the Reds won 97 games.. they didnt bring a World Series Trophy home..The Giants stepped up starting with the Reds, then down 3-1 to the Cards and beat them.. then stopped a Detroit offense to win the World Series.. the Giants got Pence and Scutaro to bolster their lack of offense. the Reds stood pat with theirs.. Guess who wanted it more??

I dont necessarily think the giants wanted it more. they just played better and won.

HometownHero
10-30-2012, 10:56 PM
Did people not watch the Nats all year?

Salukifan2
10-30-2012, 11:12 PM
Nats were good. Still don't think they were as good as the reds. If ryan zimmerman's shoulder wasn't messed up and he didn't have the yips id agree with you. Also, they chose to shut down strasburg which made them worse.

HometownHero
10-30-2012, 11:25 PM
Nats were good. Still don't think they were as good as the reds. If ryan zimmerman's shoulder wasn't messed up and he didn't have the yips id agree with you. Also, they chose to shut down strasburg which made them worse.

They had a better record, harder schedule in a better division and better a H2H record and had more key players get hurt.

Salukifan2
10-31-2012, 01:20 AM
no idea what an h2h record is. Actually the top 4 teams in the nl central this year were better than the top 4 in the nl east. And why are you talking about strength of schedule? this is baseball. This isn't college basketball. Soon you'll have an RPI for baseball teams. The reds had a ton more experience, and so maybe that means the reds are a more durable team. Also washington had to fight alot longer at the end of the season. Cincinnati didn't even have to play the last month. And there lineup is amazingly over-rated. Their most fearsome hitter is Adam Laroche. That isn't very daunting.

HometownHero
10-31-2012, 01:31 AM
no idea what an h2h record is. Actually the top 4 teams in the nl central this year were better than the top 4 in the nl east. And why are you talking about strength of schedule? this is baseball. This isn't college basketball. Soon you'll have an RPI for baseball teams. The reds had a ton more experience, and so maybe that means the reds are a more durable team. Also washington had to fight alot longer at the end of the season. Cincinnati didn't even have to play the last month. And there lineup is amazingly over-rated. Their most fearsome hitter is Adam Laroche. That isn't very daunting.

Head to Head they had a better record than we did and beat us 5 of 7.

They Top 4 in the NL central aren't better than the Top 4 in the NL East, they get to build up their records vs the Astros and Cubs and the 1st and 2nd place teams in the NL East have more wins than the 1 and 2 in the central also they teams in the east play more games with each other since they have one less team.

The Nats have 25+ HR potential power 1st to 7th in their order and don't play in a hitters park, and they have a better bench!

HometownHero
10-31-2012, 01:42 AM
The NL East Top 4 vs NL Central Top 4 went 58-49 overall head to head this year.

Salukifan2
10-31-2012, 01:46 AM
Once again. The reds have the best TEAM not collection of talent. I would rather manage the reds. And if how many homeruns the first 7 batters hit then cardinals would have ran away with the division, and the cardinals play in a worse hitters park. By your logic any Red pitcher in GAB who can keep their era under 4 should be a cy young candidate.

Using that homerun stat just disproved your own claim.

The cardinals beat you guys in the head to head too. so did the dodgers. were you not as good as those teams?

Strength of schedule matters when you play a 16 or 33 game schedule. not 162

Salukifan2
10-31-2012, 01:50 AM
and oh yeah, chapman wouldn't have choked it up to the cardinals like storen

HometownHero
10-31-2012, 02:02 AM
and oh yeah, chapman wouldn't have choked it up to the cardinals like storen

How do you know? He's blew saves with multiple runs allowed against 3 of the worst teams in baseball this year. They both have the same amount of career blown saves but Storen has worked 27 more games.

Salukifan2
10-31-2012, 02:06 AM
Seriously? Truthfully say on this board you'd rather Have Drew Storen closing big games for you rather than Aroldis Chapman and i'll concede.

HometownHero
10-31-2012, 02:12 AM
Once again. The reds have the best TEAM not collection of talent. I would rather manage the reds. And if how many homeruns the first 7 batters hit then cardinals would have ran away with the division, and the cardinals play in a worse hitters park. By your logic any Red pitcher in GAB who can keep their era under 4 should be a cy young candidate.

Using that homerun stat just disproved your own claim.

The cardinals beat you guys in the head to head too. so did the dodgers. were you not as good as those teams?

Strength of schedule matters when you play a 16 or 33 game schedule. not 162

So the Reds have less talent and wins but are somehow the better team? Us OPS plus that takes away the park factor if you want. The Cards don't have anywhere near the pop the Nats have and that was with Werth missing half the year, Harper starting in the minors, Morse missing 1/3 of the season, their starting catcher missing almost the whole season, Zimmerman being banged up and Ian Desmond missing a month plus. Despite missing all those big bats they finished only 8 bombs behind the Brewers who play in a HR park for the NL lead.

Salukifan2
10-31-2012, 02:20 AM
So drew storen isn't as good as Chapman? Look if you think the nats are better, that's fine. But the cards wouldn't have done that to the reds.

HometownHero
10-31-2012, 02:22 AM
Seriously? Truthfully say on this board you'd rather Have Drew Storen closing big games for you rather than Aroldis Chapman and i'll concede.

I wouldn't care which one I had they both are great young closers. If I was starting a team I would take Storen since he's cheaper.

Drew Storen has 52 saves to 8 BS in his career and Chapman has 39 with 8 BS. So to think he's bad because he blew a save in the playoffs coming off injury and after working 3 days in a row thanks to the one less off day in this years NLDS then that's just comical. The Kid saved 43 games in 2011 finishing 6th in the majors he's a stud as well.

I would take Craig Kimbrel over both of them.

HometownHero
10-31-2012, 02:23 AM
So drew storen isn't as good as Chapman? Look if you think the nats are better, that's fine. But the cards wouldn't have done that to the reds.

He converts more saves and that's the name of the game, also how can you say that the Cards beat us more than we beat them this year.

MoneyInTheBank
10-31-2012, 08:16 AM
I'm probably going to regret asking this question but, since it's not regular season wins, postseason wins, head to head performance, strength of schedule or player stats that determine the best team in baseball, what is the appropriate metric to use to determine the best team in baseball?

texasdave
10-31-2012, 01:20 PM
I'm probably going to regret asking this question but, since it's not regular season wins, postseason wins, head to head performance, strength of schedule or player stats that determine the best team in baseball, what is the appropriate metric to use to determine the best team in baseball?

Whichever team you root for is ALWAYS the best team in baseball. :)

HometownHero
10-31-2012, 07:05 PM
Whichever team you root for is ALWAYS the best team in baseball. :)

I root for the Reds and have no problem saying the Nats are the best team in baseball this year with ease. They had the best record in baseball and had a winning record against all 4 of the other NL playoff teams.

texasdave
10-31-2012, 07:36 PM
I root for the Reds and have no problem saying the Nats are the best team in baseball this year with ease. They had the best record in baseball and had a winning record against all 4 of the other NL playoff teams.

I believe the OP was stating the Reds were the best team in the playoffs. Not for the entire year. With Strasburg out I think I agree with that assessment. If he was talking about the entire season then I would go with the Gnats as well.

HometownHero
10-31-2012, 10:47 PM
I believe the OP was stating the Reds were the best team in the playoffs. Not for the entire year. With Strasburg out I think I agree with that assessment. If he was talking about the entire season then I would go with the Gnats as well.

If its just in the playoffs then the Giants are clearly the best.

MrRedLegger
11-02-2012, 01:56 PM
If its just in the playoffs then the Giants are clearly the best.

That's said with hindsight though. The playoffs tell just as much of a story as the regular season does and it was my opinion that from the start of game 1 to the 10th inning in game 3 the Reds were the best team out of all others in the playoffs. Things can change slowly or quickly, just how the outcome of a series can be told through one play or through 7 games. For example, the Rangers had the best offense in baseball but after one game it didn't matter. The Braves had a much better team top to bottom than the Cardinals but essentially one (among a few) play(s) sent them home. The Giants were an inferior team to the Reds and Cardinals but 6 elimination games later they're WS Champs.

HometownHero
11-02-2012, 06:58 PM
That's said with hindsight though. The playoffs tell just as much of a story as the regular season does and it was my opinion that from the start of game 1 to the 10th inning in game 3 the Reds were the best team out of all others in the playoffs. Things can change slowly or quickly, just how the outcome of a series can be told through one play or through 7 games. For example, the Rangers had the best offense in baseball but after one game it didn't matter. The Braves had a much better team top to bottom than the Cardinals but essentially one (among a few) play(s) sent them home. The Giants were an inferior team to the Reds and Cardinals but 6 elimination games later they're WS Champs.

They were the only team to win 11 games so they were the best in the playoffs, they lost the first 2 games then went 11-3 the rest of the way and finished with a .687 W% overall.

Ironman92
11-04-2012, 04:45 PM
Lol

Dusty Baker after being up by 2 games in a postseason series is 1-7

This doesn't include being up 3-2 in the 2002 WS.