Are they the best Reds team since...
1990?
1976?
2010?
Best team of your lifetime?
Best pitching staff they've ever had?
Of course all of this is predicated by the usual disclaimer- let's see what happens the rest of the way...
Are they the best Reds team since...
1990?
1976?
2010?
Best team of your lifetime?
Best pitching staff they've ever had?
Of course all of this is predicated by the usual disclaimer- let's see what happens the rest of the way...
Go BLUE!!!
Best pitching I think. I liked the 99 team better except for the gaping hole at the backend of the bullpen.Originally Posted by Benihana
This is the time. The real Reds organization is back.
Best since 76. Best pitching in my lifetime, but overall...76 would've pounded them. That offense....*drool*
I think they're better than the 2010 team, and on par with the 1999 team. The 1999 team had a better offense, but no single player as good as Votto. Both bullpens are pretty dominant, but the 2012 starting rotation is better than the 1999 rotation. Too pretty close clubs IMO.
I think there's still a lot of baseball to play ths season.
How do we know he's not Mel Torme?
Agreed, this team still may not even make the playoffs.
"Boys, I'm one of those umpires that misses 'em every once in a while so if it's close, you'd better hit it." Cal Hubbard
They showed the opening day lineup in '99 on the broadcast last night. I was about ten at the time, so I was more interested in legos, but what a solid 1-4. Cameron, Larkin, Casey, Vaughn. Would certainly be nice to have those first two right about now.
There's only 62 games. I think the meaning of "a lot" should be debated for 250 posts or so and then we can pull this thread up and say I told you say if the last 62 games proves to be less telling than the first 100.It seems to be the Redszone way these days.
My take is that this is a better team than 2010. Add a Lefty bat who can get on base vs. RHP to replace or platoon with Stubbs and its probably better than 1999. Not sure beyond that. As you say. There is still a lot of season left.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
Too early to say. This team is not as good offensively as the 2010 team, but the pitching is unquestionably better. Still, because the pitching is better, I might say they're the best team since the '99 team. That was a pretty balanced team, sans the backend of the bullpen.
Best team since 1999, to whom they're almost identical.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
Really? I think the pitching is like night and day. I didn't get to watch the 99 team as much as I'd like to...but even just looking at the stats...seems pretty clear with team is better. But maybe it's just me. I'm a pitching/defense guy. I'll sacrifice offense every time for pitching/defense.
Looking at that club though, the thing that stands out at me is the OBP of the starters. Good lord!
Last edited by _Sir_Charles_; 07-29-2012 at 03:06 PM.
I can't wait until someone dredges this thread up in about 60 games and quotes people. That's always a good time when someone does that.
They compare favorably with the 1990 club.
Great pitching top to bottom (I actually like the 2012 rotation better), especially in the pen. They are/were both superior defensive teams, and they both had just enough offense to get by.
I think I'd have to give the nod to this year's team because of the Votto factor.
"Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field?" ~ Jim Bouton
The 1990 team had both power and speed offensively. Eric Davis, Larkin, even Sabo could steal you a base, along with Duncan and others. They also knew how to manufacture runs.
Rijo was as lights out as they come and the bullpen is in all baseball history books as one of the greatest, "The Nasty Boys".
The Big Red Machine's offense is the greatest the Reds have ever seen. But the pitching was underrated.
The pitching in '99 was better than the offense. It just doesn't look that way at first glance because scoring throughout baseball was insanely high. NL teams averaged 5.00 rpg in 1999. The Reds had a 3.98 ERA (4.36 rpg overall). NL scoring this season is 4.21 rpg. Relative to league scoring, the '12 Reds are in the same basic spot as '99 in terms of run prevention.
The '99 Reds had better defense. It was one of the best defensive teams you're ever likely to see. Both teams had deep power bullpens and steady five-man rotations (the Guzman trade and Neagle return solidified the '99 rotation). Yet the '99 team did not have an ace like Cueto.
Both teams had some OB issues (essentially league average for both) and rode their power to score runs, though the '99 team had speed too.
Both teams also had busy offseasons prior to the season and got off to slow starts before hitting their stride.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
Posting Permissions
|
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. |
Reply With Quote