So stupid ... it's funny

[Spring~Fields]

Winning streak? I'll take .500 ball the rest of the season.

Your shooting too low or I am greedy, after all these years, I want more, one game over .500. At least that would indicate that someone has an understanding on how to accomplish improvement in at least some baby steps in their profession.

While they stop selling their patrons failure.

[Cyclone792]

point taken on Kings Island, but as a father of three and a guy in my 40's, three hours at kings island would do me in. My kids would love it though.

My larger point is the '99 season. They didn't draw well in the midst of one of the best regular seasons the team had since the 70's. In fact, have the Reds ever drawn 3 million?

I lived in Cincinnati for about 5 years as a teenager. I'd walk downtown to see them play from Lower Price Hill, after saving $3 for a Red seat ticket. But for the most part it seems Cincinnati wants to reminisce about the Big Red Machine, complain Rose isn't in the HOF, and be content to sit at home and watch the game on TV, or listen to Marty talk about tomatoes.

The attendance for the 1999 season was disappointing until the final series against St. Louis (and the one-game playoff obviously). I think mostly what we got, though, was that season just avoided the typical attendance dropoff we usually see. Rather than seeing crowds dip down in the mid teens per game, attendance late that season kind of hung around its summer time June-July levels. Not really a gain per se, but the success of the season did prevent the usual attendance crash. As you point out, though, that's not something to be proud of. That team should have been drawing 30k+ on weeknights and well into the 40s on weekends, and it didn't happen.

FWIW, I'd say your take on how Cincinnati wants to reminisce about the Big Red Machine is pretty spot on too.

[Cyclone792]

What disappoints me is that I truly thought things were going to be different with Castelinni as owner. He seems (or seemed) very motivated to change things.

Of course, a 5 game winning streak will turn a lot of this venom into honey. My hope is still springing eternal.

I've seen small, incremental changes with Castellini, and I liked it at first because I took it as a sign that the tide was turning. The problem is the pace has never accelerated from that slow start.

A five game winning streak sure would help, but I think we're deep enough into the season to have a good idea on what we're going to get. I reached a bit and figured 83 wins this year - I still think this is a ~.500 team despite how miserable they've looked thus far.

The biggest problem is this organization needs to start moving toward some 90+ winning seasons, and what I've seen this season shows me the chances of that are rather unlikely.

[TheNext44]

I really wish posters would put the fact that a thread is about lineup construction in the title so I know ahead of time not to click on it.

[Hoosier Red]

Yea, that's a typical response I expected from somebody who's apparently content to accept losing month after year after decade.

The lineups are a microcosm of the fundamental problem that this organization has been a losing organization for 10 years. The Reds have folks on their payroll who can't even understand the simple picture, and the last 10 years have only bore out the fact that they also don't understand the big picture.

But if you're going to post on the lineups, post on the lineups. If it's the organization as a whole, than really blaming Dusty is nothing more than trying to push one part of a wave away as it swallows you up.

If the problem between big picture and everyday is Castellini's than point yourself that way and fire away. I certainly won't stop you. If the problem is Dusty, than by all means prove it.

What you showed is that the Reds in 2009 and 2008 had a weak top of the lineup. They continuously looked for new players(perhaps not the right new players but still.)
I think you're crazy if you don't think Dusty values OBP at the top of the lineup. But when the choice is between "sucks" and "sucks but is fast" I'd probably put "sucks but is fast" up there too. There's only one Votto and only one Rolen. Everyone else on this team has been sub par.

[dougdirt]

But if you're going to post on the lineups, post on the lineups. If it's the organization as a whole, than really blaming Dusty is nothing more than trying to push one part of a wave away as it swallows you up.

If the problem between big picture and everyday is Castellini's than point yourself that way and fire away. I certainly won't stop you. If the problem is Dusty, than by all means prove it.

What you showed is that the Reds in 2009 and 2008 had a weak top of the lineup. They continuously looked for new players(perhaps not the right new players but still.)
I think you're crazy if you don't think Dusty values OBP at the top of the lineup. But when the choice is between "sucks" and "sucks but is fast" I'd probably put "sucks but is fast" up there too. There's only one Votto and only one Rolen. Everyone else on this team has been sub par.

Of course the blame goes on Dusty for the lineups. Of course the blame goes on Walt, who approved of Dusty when he was an advisor or vice president or whatever he was and Bob for hiring him given his past choices and track record of decision making. Its an organizational problem that starts at the top and works its way down to the manager who continuously makes poor decision after same poor decision year after year after year despite so much evidence saying its a poor decision and hurting your team. No one in the Reds FO seems to know or care though.

As for Dusty caring about OBP at the top.... I don't believe it because its CF in the leadoff and SS at the #2 spot. For nearly 20 years it has been that way in Dusty Baker's lineups.

[Falls City Beer]

No one in the Reds FO seems to know or care though.

Or maybe they realize that a manager's influence isn't tremendous.

[dougdirt]

Or maybe they realize that a manager's influence isn't tremendous.

They may think that, but they are wrong as are you. Sure, no manager is making a 15 win difference. But 5-8 wins? Absolutely. And that, to me, is a tremendous difference.

[edabbs44]

Of course the blame goes on Dusty for the lineups. Of course the blame goes on Walt, who approved of Dusty when he was an advisor or vice president or whatever he was and Bob for hiring him given his past choices and track record of decision making. Its an organizational problem that starts at the top and works its way down to the manager who continuously makes poor decision after same poor decision year after year after year despite so much evidence saying its a poor decision and hurting your team. No one in the Reds FO seems to know or care though.

As for Dusty caring about OBP at the top.... I don't believe it because its CF in the leadoff and SS at the #2 spot. For nearly 20 years it has been that way in Dusty Baker's lineups.

Fairly certain that Dusty was pre-Walt.

[Falls City Beer]

Sure, no manager is making a 15 win difference. But 5-8 wins? Absolutely.

Prove it.

[dougdirt]

Prove it.

Disprove it.

I can play that game too.

But I am pretty sure that without Dusty there would have been no Patterson. No Taveras (at least starting 100 times). No Harang issue in San Diego. No one on base in front of Joey Votto for 3 straight seasons now. No Brandon Phillips batting 4th.

This team has some talent issues, no question. But those issues are further exposed by Dusty Baker.

[dougdirt]

Fairly certain that Dusty was pre-Walt.

Yes. Kind of. They both started working for the Reds in the 2008 season (Baker was hired in 2007 though).

[15fan]

Back to the original post.

Leading off with the Ps and batting the current leadoff guys 9th would be...LaRussan.

[WMR]

I wonder if batting Phillips lead-off would cause him to shorten his currently enormous swing?

[Falls City Beer]

Disprove it.

I can play that game too.

It's not a game, it's basic logic: the burden of proof is on you, not me. You made a claim that a manager could impact outcomes by a range of 5-8 games. How do you arrive at that number?

My agnosticism is not on trial here; I have no idea how much a manager impacts W/L, but I know that a manager does not perform on-field tasks. Therefore, I doubt the extent of his impact. Which is a perfectly defensible position. You, on the other hand, have affixed a number in a *positive* sense; now prove it.