Originally Posted by ochre
I've seen this comparison used several times on this message board, but I think these statistics are misleading. You are looking at those statistics in a vacuum. While the Yankees and Red Sox no doubt relied on their offense to be successful, don't you think the fact that they also had great pitching was a larger factor in the success of their teams?
The Red Sox and Yankees featured guys like Pedro, Schilling, Clemens, Mariano Rivera, Foulke, and Mussina. They won championships because of their pitching.
The Reds score a lot of runs, but their offense is fairly inconsistent. Combine that fact with their poor pitching, and they have a recipe for losing a lot of ball games. While the Red Sox and Yankees scored a lot of runs during those years, they likely were inconsistent as well. However, unlike the Reds, they had the pitching to win those 2-1 and 4-2 games that you need to win to be successful.
The Reds are in dire need of pitching. While it would be nice to sign Dunn to a long-term contract and make him a part of the Reds future, it's not likely to happen and not the biggest need on this team. This team needs to shop Dunn for a couple of young stud pitching prospects, and try to build this team around young pitching. If the Reds sign Dunn to a long-term deal, nothing will change. They will still have lousy pitching and still lose a ton of ball games.
It's time to move in a different direction, and Dunn is the biggest bargaining chip that we have to move in that direction. Even without Dunn, this lineup will still be fairly potent in the next few years with Wily Mo Pena, Kearns, Lopez, Griffey, and Edwin Encarnacion.