1990 Reds offense

[cincrazy]

I was interested to see what the team OBP's were for different championship teams in the last several years, and when I checked the 1990 Reds, the team OBP was .322, which was significantly lower than most others. Most ran between .330 to .348.

It wasn't a team with a ton of power, nor did they get on base at a good percentage. What role did the offense play in the team winning a championship? Was the bullpen and rotation so incredibly good that it overcame a weak offense, or did the offense do its part despite the weak statistical numbers?

I'm 23 so I don't recall 1990, so I was wondering what made that offense go. How did it turn into a championship offense?

[hebroncougar]

If the Reds had a lead in the sixth, it was flat over. Charlton, Dibble, Myers were unbelieveable. They were built a lot on speed, and doubles power if I recall right (w/o looking). Davis, Larkin, Hatcher, O'Neill, Sabo, Morris, Benzinger and Duncan.

edit: I just looked it up, the Reds gave up 597 runs in 1990, it's important to remember, that NO pitching staff last year was even close to that.

[PuffyPig]

The Reds offense was 3rd in the NL in OPS, 5th in runs scored. It was pretty good that year.

They gave up the least amount of runs that year also.

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by hebroncougar

If the Reds had a lead in the sixth, it was flat over. Charlton, Dibble, Myers were unbelieveable. They were built a lot on speed, and doubles power if I recall right (w/o looking). Davis, Larkin, Hatcher, O'Neill, Sabo, Morris, Benzinger and Duncan.

edit: I just looked it up, the Reds gave up 597 runs in 1990, it's important to remember, that NO pitching staff last year was even close to that.

I was looking back at some of the numbers the Reds had that year. The player that surprised me the most was O'Niel. Not because he had a bad or good year just what happened when he went to the Yankees. His high OBP as a Red was .346, his career average was .363. His high ops+ as a Red was 127 in 91, his career average was 120. He was a nice player for the Reds but was a GREAT player for the Yankees. I have no idea what happened to him but good lord he turned it on when he put on the pin stripes.

[NJReds]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

I was looking back at some of the numbers the Reds had that year. The player that surprised me the most was O'Niel. Not because he had a bad or good year just what happened when he went to the Yankees. His high OBP as a Red was .346, his career average was .363. His high ops+ as a Red was 127 in 91, his career average was 120. He was a nice player for the Reds but was a GREAT player for the Yankees. I have no idea what happened to him but good lord he turned it on when he put on the pin stripes.

A couple things IIRC. When O'Neill came to the Yankees, they got him out of the habit of being a dead pull hitter and got him to use the entire field. They also played him every day, I think the Reds sat him a lot against lefties. He also had some very good hitters around him.

[BRM]

The Reds offense in 1990 was very good compared to the league. 4th in OBP, 3rd in SLG, 1st in BA, 5th in runs. The raw numbers may look weak compared to today's game but it was pretty darn good for 1990.

[Roy Tucker]

Charlton was good in both relief and starting roles, Myers was very good, but Dibble was lights-out unbelievably good for a couple years. It's rare that you see MLB hitters consistently overmatched but that's what Dibble did. It took the league a couple years to realize he didn't throw his slider for strikes and to sit on his fastball. It was great fun to be a Reds fan during his short arc of greatness.

[dfs]

Originally Posted by cincrazy

It wasn't a team with a ton of power, nor did they get on base at a good percentage. What role did the offense play in the team winning a championship? Was the bullpen and rotation so incredibly good that it overcame a weak offense, or did the offense do its part despite the weak statistical numbers?

The offense and rotation were good. The bullpen was lights out incredible.
The offense really had a little bit of everything at every position. Well, with the exception of speed at catcher or first.

It was a team where the #5 outfielder put up a 100 OPS+. The backup catcher put up a 90. The spare infielder put up a 94. It was a team very deep in guys who were having very good (but not great) years. The same thing happened in 99.

[westofyou]

The 1990 team's RH's were horrible against RH's and good agianst LH's

.247/.309/.378 - RH
.290/.349/.438 - LH

LH's faced LH only 370 times for that team

A bad July at the dish almost sank them.

Situation        AB    R    H  2B  3B  HR  RBI   BB IBB   SO HBP  SH  SF  XI ROE GDP   SB  CS   AVG   OBP   SLG
None On        3127   82  839 166  24  80   80  234   0  505  22   0   0   0  37   0    0   0  .268  .324  .413
Men On         2398  611  627 118  16  45  564  232  73  408  20  88  42   0  41  99  166  66  .261  .327  .380
RISP           1442  544  365  76  10  25  501  180  73  265  14  36  42   0  23  41   54  18  .253  .333  .372
Close & Late    880   97  216  38   7  17   87   82  20  142   7  22   7   0  17  20   29  14  .245  .313  .363
Bases Loaded    113   79   30   4   1   1   72    2   0   22   1   0   9   0   2   9    0   0  .265  .264  .345

[George Anderson]

My thoughts on the 90' Reds

Pinella made a big difference, there always seemed to be talent there but with the nonsense with Pete and his doings from the year before it created a distraction and kept the team from excelling. Pinella came in and it brought the focus back on baseball.

If the Reds had a lead in the 7th inning then the game was over. Charlton would pitch the 7th and either Myers or Dibble would finish the game. The bullpen hands down was the best in baseball and what turned a good team into a championship team.

I think something that has been overlooked is the Reds had home field advantage all thru the playoffs. I think it would have been very tough to finish off the Pirates in Pittsburgh in the NLCS and sweeping the first two games of the WS would have been a much tougher task had the series started in Oakland.

[M2]

As others have already noted, the Reds had a pretty good offense in 1990. The game changed after expansion in 1993 (average team runs per game immediately jumped by .61).

Piniella also discovered that when you've got a hole in your lineup, Barry Larkin can fill it. He spent various parts of that season hitting 3rd, 2nd and 1st. He hit leadoff throughout the playoffs. The emergence of Hal Morris was huge that season as Todd Benzinger was a millstone around the neck of the offense.

A good year from the starting pitchers was the main reason the club won. From the 1950s-2000 the Reds usually had a good offense (though obviously not always, and specifically not from 1982-84). And there were three other things Reds fans could take for granted during that run - the Reds ran well, played good defense and had quality relievers. The franchise was amazingly consistent.

[Will M]

the defense was very good. i don't think a single player was below average & their were several very good (Davis, Larkin, Sabo)

[RedsManRick]

693 runs in 2008 would've put us 13th in the NL. In 1990 it put us 5th. The difference in league-wide offensive production in 1990 vs 2008 is pretty stark. The average NL team scored 735 runs in 2008 compared to just 680 in in 1990.

	Total	'90 rank	'08 rank
Runs	693	5th		13th
AVG	.265	1st		5th
OBP	.322	4th		13th
SLG	.399	3rd		13th
OPS	.721	3rd		13th

[Marc D]

That team also benefited from getting hot at the right times. They started the year 9-0 iirc, built a huge lead then played essentially .500 ball until the playoffs at which point they caught fire again.

A good team that gets hot at the right time is tough to beat.

[Heath]

Originally Posted by Marc D

That team also benefited from getting hot at the right times. They started the year 9-0 iirc, built a huge lead then played essentially .500 ball until the playoffs at which point they caught fire again.

A good team that gets hot at the right time is tough to beat.

A 35-12 start ain't nothing to sneeze at, except they only won 91 games.

All Rijo, Browning, Jackson, Armstrong, Mahler, etc had to do was pitch 6 innings and have a lead.

Then it was Slam the door, bolt the door, and bar the door.