Turn Off Ads?
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: It's all about being scrappy

  1. #1
    Member klw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    6,541

    It's all about being scrappy


  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Redsmetz redsmetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Winton Place
    Posts
    11,231

    Re: It's all about being scrappy

    Call it whatever we want, but what the article is highlighting is true, particulary in this (hopefully) post-steroid world. The Reds are an interesting example of this.

    I was just glancing at the 1950's rosters and records of the Reds. Those were some great teams and by the later years of that decade, the team had some of the biggest boppers around. The home run numbers were something else. But the best they did during that time was maybe 3rd place, they were middle of the pack at their best. The pitching staffs were thin. I think Brooks Lawrence's 19 wins was the decades top and we had few pitchers exceeding 10 wins. If they exceeded 10 wins, it was 1 or 2 pitchers. Of course, the stolen base was a decade away from becoming sexy. In many ways, I think this current Reds team resembles those 50's teams.

    Compare them to the 1970's Reds which had several permutations before "The Big Red Machine". Look at the team from 1970-1972 before the Joe Morgan team. It was a well rounded team, with rabbits and boppers. Some forget about Bobby Tolan and Lee May, we see the rise of Concepcion. We see Pete Rose perhaps at his noblest, moving through five different positions (Alfonso Soriano, are you listening?) for the good of the team and being an All Star at all of them, which no one has done to my knowledge. And the pitching staffs did not have Cy Young winners, but you had a rotation that had some really horses throughout. Our pitching staffs wee never lights out, but they were steady and you had 4-5 or more pitchers winning 10 or more games (I haven't confirmed that "an more", so don't hold me to that). Sadly, as has always been the Reds problem, they were burning out arms left and right. And it always seemed as if we could pluck a decent pitcher from either the Twins or the Braves during the late 60's and the 70's. And that's before even looking at "The Trade" - picking up Morgan, Geronimo, Billingham, and even Menke and Armbrister (just for the Bump, no?). And the 75-76 teams were probably the most complete teams ever.

    I'll take that type of scrappy any day of the week.

  4. #3
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    34,543

    Re: It's all about being scrappy

    Quote Originally Posted by redsmetz
    Call it whatever we want, but what the article is highlighting is true, particulary in this (hopefully) post-steroid world. The Reds are an interesting example of this.

    I was just glancing at the 1950's rosters and records of the Reds. Those were some great teams and by the later years of that decade, the team had some of the biggest boppers around. The home run numbers were something else. But the best they did during that time was maybe 3rd place, they were middle of the pack at their best. The pitching staffs were thin. I think Brooks Lawrence's 19 wins was the decades top and we had few pitchers exceeding 10 wins. If they exceeded 10 wins, it was 1 or 2 pitchers. Of course, the stolen base was a decade away from becoming sexy. In many ways, I think this current Reds team resembles those 50's teams.

    Compare them to the 1970's Reds which had several permutations before "The Big Red Machine". Look at the team from 1970-1972 before the Joe Morgan team. It was a well rounded team, with rabbits and boppers. Some forget about Bobby Tolan and Lee May, we see the rise of Concepcion. We see Pete Rose perhaps at his noblest, moving through five different positions (Alfonso Soriano, are you listening?) for the good of the team and being an All Star at all of them, which no one has done to my knowledge. And the pitching staffs did not have Cy Young winners, but you had a rotation that had some really horses throughout. Our pitching staffs wee never lights out, but they were steady and you had 4-5 or more pitchers winning 10 or more games (I haven't confirmed that "an more", so don't hold me to that). Sadly, as has always been the Reds problem, they were burning out arms left and right. And it always seemed as if we could pluck a decent pitcher from either the Twins or the Braves during the late 60's and the 70's. And that's before even looking at "The Trade" - picking up Morgan, Geronimo, Billingham, and even Menke and Armbrister (just for the Bump, no?). And the 75-76 teams were probably the most complete teams ever.

    I'll take that type of scrappy any day of the week.
    Yeah, the late 50s teams are similar to the current version of the Reds. Lots of power but sub-par pitching. But the fans really loved those teams. 1956 was the first year the Reds ever drew 1 million fans. Why someone hasn't written a book about that team yet, I don't know.

    To paraphrase George Grande, we all know the BRM's story. The guys at the top of the lineup who got on base and the guys in th emiddle of the lineup who could drive them in. The guys at the bottom of the lineup were mainly there for defensive purposes but could be counted on to get a hit when needed or move a runner over. I'll take that kind of scrappy too.

    But these sportswriters have a funny definition of smallball. Just because a team puts a bunt down successfully every once in a while or steals a base, doesn't make them a true smallball team. The White Sox last year won with great pitching and power. It helped them to have a few guys on the team who could bunt and steal but it wasn't as much of a component of their offense as Ozzie and the media would like us to think.
    The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rally-...24872650873160

  5. #4
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    43,162

    Re: It's all about being scrappy

    Quote Originally Posted by redsmetz
    Call it whatever we want, but what the article is highlighting is true, particulary in this (hopefully) post-steroid world. The Reds are an interesting example of this.

    I was just glancing at the 1950's rosters and records of the Reds. Those were some great teams and by the later years of that decade, the team had some of the biggest boppers around. The home run numbers were something else. But the best they did during that time was maybe 3rd place, they were middle of the pack at their best. The pitching staffs were thin. I think Brooks Lawrence's 19 wins was the decades top and we had few pitchers exceeding 10 wins. If they exceeded 10 wins, it was 1 or 2 pitchers. Of course, the stolen base was a decade away from becoming sexy. In many ways, I think this current Reds team resembles those 50's teams.

    Compare them to the 1970's Reds which had several permutations before "The Big Red Machine". Look at the team from 1970-1972 before the Joe Morgan team. It was a well rounded team, with rabbits and boppers. Some forget about Bobby Tolan and Lee May, we see the rise of Concepcion. We see Pete Rose perhaps at his noblest, moving through five different positions (Alfonso Soriano, are you listening?) for the good of the team and being an All Star at all of them, which no one has done to my knowledge. And the pitching staffs did not have Cy Young winners, but you had a rotation that had some really horses throughout. Our pitching staffs wee never lights out, but they were steady and you had 4-5 or more pitchers winning 10 or more games (I haven't confirmed that "an more", so don't hold me to that). Sadly, as has always been the Reds problem, they were burning out arms left and right. And it always seemed as if we could pluck a decent pitcher from either the Twins or the Braves during the late 60's and the 70's. And that's before even looking at "The Trade" - picking up Morgan, Geronimo, Billingham, and even Menke and Armbrister (just for the Bump, no?). And the 75-76 teams were probably the most complete teams ever.

    I'll take that type of scrappy any day of the week.

    My Kingdom for a League Average Team ERA

    http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41063

    Shooting Craps is a Dangerous game

    http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38263

  6. #5
    Churlish Johnny Footstool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    13,821

    Re: It's all about being scrappy

    It's incredibly easy to make the claim that good teams do all the little things right. DUH! They obviously did something right, or they wouldn't have won a championship. And we Americans love the idea that "tenacity trumps talent" -- hard-working underdogs can beat talented but lazy favorites.

    It's also easy to make a claim like that when you're not required to come up with any kind of proof.

    Unfortunately attributing winning to small ball and "doing the little things" is fallacious. All the teams named in the article have one thing in common: world-class pitching.

    I especially love how Rosenthal portrays the '04 Red Sox as a lumbering, Moneyball-obsessed golem and ignores the fact that they had the third-best AL team ERA that season.

    Here's a nice little rundown for you:

    Code:
    Team    ERA   Rank
    05 CHI  3.61  1st
    04 BOS  4.18  3rd
    03 FLA  4.04  7th
    02 ANA  3.69  2nd
    01 ARI  3.87  2nd
    00 NYY  4.76  6th
    99 NYY  4.13  2nd
    98 NYY  3.82  1st
    97 FLA  3.83  4th
    96 NYY  4.65  5th
    Of the last 10 world champions, only the '03 Marlins, '00 Yankees and '96 Yankees had less-than-spectacular pitching and offense. 3 out of 10.

    Rosenthal's article praises teams for bunting, sacrificing, and "not hurting themselves," but doesn't even mention the amazing pitching staffs those teams put together.
    Last edited by Johnny Footstool; 03-29-2006 at 11:57 AM.
    "I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful

  7. #6
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,686

    Re: It's all about being scrappy

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou
    [I]My Kingdom for a League Average Team ERA
    Amen. I wonder how close will we get to it this year... or should I say how far?
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations

  8. #7
    Charlie Brown All-Star IslandRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,859

    Re: It's all about being scrappy

    The other mistake that's often made in these articles is equating pitching and defense with smallball. Run prevention and run scoring are different issues, and there's nothing that excludes a team with good power from playing good defense or vice-versa.
    Not all who wander are lost

  9. #8
    Redsmetz redsmetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Winton Place
    Posts
    11,231

    Re: It's all about being scrappy

    Rosenthal's article praises teams for bunting, sacrificing, and "not hurting themselves," but doesn't even mention the amazing pitching staffs those teams put together.
    I wasn't necessarily endorsing the article itself. I was more responding to the "scrappy" mention and the disdain it gets on these boards. And I'm not sure "scrappy" is the best word.

    Ultimately, it's Pitching, Pitching, Pitching - and that's why I think this Reds team resembles the teams of the 50's as much as anything. The pitching staff that was coming together in the late 50's ultimately culminated in the 1961 pennant and almost grabbed the 64 pennant in the final days. And the 70's teams had good solid pitching that allowed the other cogs to win games.

  10. #9
    Churlish Johnny Footstool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    13,821

    Re: It's all about being scrappy

    Quote Originally Posted by redsmetz
    I wasn't necessarily endorsing the article itself. I was more responding to the "scrappy" mention and the disdain it gets on these boards. And I'm not sure "scrappy" is the best word.
    "Scrappy" is usually a word that is used to defend players who are lousy at all the things that make an offensive player good -- namely getting on base and hitting for power. "Proven Veterans(TM)" who the manager likes, but have no real value, are often tagged as "scrappy" in an attempt to justify the decision to give them playing time. That's why "scrappy" gets a bad rap.
    "I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful

  11. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Columbia, MO
    Posts
    39

    Re: It's all about being scrappy

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool
    "Scrappy" is usually a word that is used to defend players who are lousy at all the things that make an offensive player good -- namely getting on base and hitting for power. "Proven Veterans(TM)" who the manager likes, but have no real value, are often tagged as "scrappy" in an attempt to justify the decision to give them playing time. That's why "scrappy" gets a bad rap.
    Cheers
    "Man, what would we ever do without water? We'd like....famish or something."

  12. #11
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,686

    Re: It's all about being scrappy

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool
    "Scrappy" is usually a word that is used to defend players who are lousy at all the things that make an offensive player good -- namely getting on base and hitting for power. "Proven Veterans(TM)" who the manager likes, but have no real value, are often tagged as "scrappy" in an attempt to justify the decision to give them playing time. That's why "scrappy" gets a bad rap.
    Yep. Being scrappy means zilch if the end result is not something to show for it besides scraped elbows and a dirty uniform.
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25