Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Why The reds lose

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    10

    Why The reds lose

    Besides the obvious of pitching, the reds lack the aggressive bat With in the 2 3 4 5 spot the reds are very cautious. What I mean is taking the perfect pitch the strike pitch should be taken by the 1 2 7 and 8 batters. If the reds were able to work the the count in the early and late batters, then the 3 4 5 hitters would have a better chance at hitting the fastball, thus resulting in more runs.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    5.3 Posts Abv Replacement BluegrassRedleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South of Cincinnati
    Posts
    2,006

    Re: Why The reds lose

    Quote Originally Posted by Blarkin View Post
    Besides the obvious of pitching, the reds lack the aggressive bat With in the 2 3 4 5 spot the reds are very cautious. What I mean is taking the perfect pitch the strike pitch should be taken by the 1 2 7 and 8 batters. If the reds were able to work the the count in the early and late batters, then the 3 4 5 hitters would have a better chance at hitting the fastball, thus resulting in more runs.
    One reason for that is, with the exception of Votto, none of them are legit 2-3-4-5 hole MLB hitters.
    Rounding third and heading for home...

  4. #3
    Plan to be spontaneous Jefferson24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Illinios
    Posts
    1,199

    Re: Why The reds lose

    Quote Originally Posted by BluegrassRedleg View Post
    One reason for that is, with the exception of Votto, none of them are legit 2-3-4-5 hole MLB hitters.
    and they never will be until the Reds spend the money and get the guys they need. If the Reds drafted well enough then maybe it wouldn't be a money issue but they don't. If what you have in the major league right now is the best you have to offer then it isn't good enough.
    We only live in patches. - H. G. Wells

  5. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    7

    Re: Why The reds lose

    I agree we have no legit 2-3-4-5 hole. Votto is a good 3,Phillips would be a good 2 i think he was used in the 2 hole in 2007 his best season. If you spend to have a legit 4 you could use him in the 2 hole. Do you guys think Bruce has struggled because there is no protection in the line up? I really thought he be much different. Im more then disapointed..im sad..i though we finally had a future star. wow when he came up. I hope he turns it around.

  6. #5
    Stat geek...and proud
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Paris, OH
    Posts
    2,489

    Re: Why The reds lose

    Quote Originally Posted by toledoreds View Post
    .i though we finally had a future star. wow when he came up. I hope he turns it around.
    We do. He's ONLY 22! That means his prime years are at least 3-6 years away. If Jay Bruce isn't a fine player when he's 27 I'll know he either got hurt, or every scout and every executive in baseball was wrong.

  7. #6
    5.3 Posts Abv Replacement BluegrassRedleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South of Cincinnati
    Posts
    2,006

    Re: Why The reds lose

    Quote Originally Posted by toledoreds View Post
    I agree we have no legit 2-3-4-5 hole. Votto is a good 3,Phillips would be a good 2 i think he was used in the 2 hole in 2007 his best season. If you spend to have a legit 4 you could use him in the 2 hole. Do you guys think Bruce has struggled because there is no protection in the line up? I really thought he be much different. Im more then disapointed..im sad..i though we finally had a future star. wow when he came up. I hope he turns it around.
    I enjoy watching Brandon Phillips play (especially in the field) but he'd be a 6-hole type hitter on most contending teams. He doesn't have the approach to be a 2 guy.
    Rounding third and heading for home...

  8. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    All around
    Posts
    7,484

    Re: Why The reds lose

    Why the REDS lose?

    It varies, but to me it's very simple.

    They won under Schott: 1 World Series, 1 playoff experience into the 2nd Round ('95), 1-game short of a playoff ('99), many 2nd place finishes under Rose, the best record in baseball another year, but they got screwed by the strike and finished 2nd in both split-season standings.

    After Schott was railroaded out of town because the owners didn't want a woman among their group, the banana-king came aboard and his cheapness crippled the team. He idiotically invested a large piece of the pie into two position players in Junior and Larkin. That spelled doom until those contracts were over with.

    After the banana-king left and Castellini came aboard, everything has been uphill ever since.

    It takes time to rebuild a franchise when it's been completely destroyed. Thank you, Jim and Carl. Give the team 5 years and then ask the question, "Why do the REDS lose?"

    What year is this that Castellini and his group has owned the REDS?

    The only setback has been the hiring of Baker. If we didn't have Baker, we'd be winning this season, Dickerson would be more developed because Patterson wouldn't have gotten any at-bats last season, and there wouldn't have been the signing of Taveras because Dickerson would have had the Full-time job of CF from the get-go, plus Taveras was Baker's idea, not Walt's, and I don't care what anybody says about that. I disagree with you.

    So, the REDS have only had a hiccup under Castellini, and the Carl Lindner regime was a total fiasco from the get-go.

    The day Baker leaves is the day they win. I imagine it will be hard though for Castellini to fire Baker. This could get really ugly as good seasons get wasted (Dickerson and Hanigan this season, and possibly Dickerson and Hanigan and others next season)

  9. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    584

    Re: Why The reds lose

    Quote Originally Posted by Kingspoint View Post
    Why the REDS lose?

    It varies, but to me it's very simple.

    They won under Schott: 1 World Series, 1 playoff experience into the 2nd Round ('95), 1-game short of a playoff ('99), many 2nd place finishes under Rose, the best record in baseball another year, but they got screwed by the strike and finished 2nd in both split-season standings.

    After Schott was railroaded out of town because the owners didn't want a woman among their group, the banana-king came aboard and his cheapness crippled the team. He idiotically invested a large piece of the pie into two position players in Junior and Larkin. That spelled doom until those contracts were over with.

    After the banana-king left and Castellini came aboard, everything has been uphill ever since.

    It takes time to rebuild a franchise when it's been completely destroyed. Thank you, Jim and Carl. Give the team 5 years and then ask the question, "Why do the REDS lose?"

    What year is this that Castellini and his group has owned the REDS?

    The only setback has been the hiring of Baker. If we didn't have Baker, we'd be winning this season, Dickerson would be more developed because Patterson wouldn't have gotten any at-bats last season, and there wouldn't have been the signing of Taveras because Dickerson would have had the Full-time job of CF from the get-go, plus Taveras was Baker's idea, not Walt's, and I don't care what anybody says about that. I disagree with you.

    So, the REDS have only had a hiccup under Castellini, and the Carl Lindner regime was a total fiasco from the get-go.

    The day Baker leaves is the day they win. I imagine it will be hard though for Castellini to fire Baker. This could get really ugly as good seasons get wasted (Dickerson and Hanigan this season, and possibly Dickerson and Hanigan and others next season)
    This team lost for a long time because Marge gutted the scouting department and the farm system. She just did not get it. Remember her famous quote, what do you need scouts for all they do is sit around and watch baseball. Don't forget her hiring and sticking with leather pants. Her firing of Bob Quinn, her disrespecting of Pinella which led to him leaving, her unwillingness to pay for a flight for Eric Davis to come back to Cincy after he lacerated his kidney in the World Series, her anger at Davey Johnson because he lived with his girlfriend leading to his dismissal. Uncle Carl was cheap and could care less about winning, but the demise of this franchise began with Marge, and while I am sure some owners were not crazy about her being a woman I think her Nazi gear and Hitler comments were what really did her in.

  10. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    All around
    Posts
    7,484

    Re: Why The reds lose

    Quote Originally Posted by kfm View Post
    This team lost for a long time because Marge gutted the scouting department and the farm system.
    Yes. I forgot to add that. Carl then did nothing to fix the holes she created. In just 3 short years, Castellini turned it around 180 degrees.

  11. #10
    Member Captain Hook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    columbus,ohio
    Posts
    2,217

    Re: Why The reds lose

    It wasn't that Marge did things so horribly wrong.It was more that the owner that followed did things so completely different.Maybe in the end the money spent was about the same.She just spent the teams money on the big league roster and uncle Carl didn't.I'm not sure where Linder spent money or if he did at all but anytime you reduce the big league rosters payroll you will probably see the affects pretty fast.

    I'm only defending how she ran the team, not the person.The Reds won under her and have not won since she was kicked out.It has been about 10 years now and still we are where were at.I think that right now I'd take a idiot owner that found a way to put a winner on the field right about now.

  12. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    584

    Re: Why The reds lose

    The Reds are building a winner because they understand again what they used to understand. This team won when its farm system produced Larkin, Davis, Paul Oneil, Kal Daniels, Rob Dibble, Charlton, Browning and others. Uncle Carl was a horrible owner and I don't want to make it sound like I am defending him, but the damage was done long before he took over. The farm team is once again producing players that will help this team compete for years to come. Marge destroyed this franchise by gutting the farm system, and the only reason this team has a bright future is because they have reversed course and undone what Marge did to this franchise. Now it is once again producing players and pitchers. Marge was good to the major league payroll, but the Reds are not the Yankees, they don't have the ability to buy a championship because they cannot produce talent from their farm system. The lack of any homegrown fifteen game winner since Tom Browning demonstrates the damage she did to this franchise. She ran off good baseball people for her own personal reasons. Marge would be a great owner for a large market team but not the Reds.

  13. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    584

    Re: Why The reds lose

    Quote Originally Posted by Kingspoint View Post
    Yes. I forgot to add that. Carl then did nothing to fix the holes she created. In just 3 short years, Castellini turned it around 180 degrees.
    Your right about Bob and Carl. Bob is a winner and this team will win.

  14. #13
    5.3 Posts Abv Replacement BluegrassRedleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South of Cincinnati
    Posts
    2,006

    Re: Why The reds lose

    Marge (as clueless as she was) >>>>> Carl

    She wanted to win and generally spent money on payroll. It's too bad she didn't have some people around her advising how important the scouting department was.
    Rounding third and heading for home...

  15. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    35

    Re: Why The reds lose

    Why doesn't Ryan Hanigan play?????????????????????????

    He is arguably the hottest hitter on the Reds and plays great defense. Also, Reds pitchers seemingly perform better with Hanigan catching, though I don't have the numbers to back it up.

    This really proves Dusty is a "Veteran's dream" as manager. Either that, or the entire front office as a whole doesn't have faith in Hanigan as an everyday catcher to put Hernandez and his huge salary on the block.
    check out my new blog...www.theothergm.blogspot.com...let me know what you think

  16. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    All around
    Posts
    7,484

    Re: Why The reds lose

    Quote Originally Posted by pitcher7 View Post
    He is arguably the hottest hitter on the Reds and plays great defense.
    .645 OBP in July.

    1.400+ OPS in July.


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