Reds Thread

[CrashDavisSports]

looking to go to at least 1 reds game this year, otherwise I'm going to fall asleep on them.

I'm not that interested yet.

 

[cincygrad]

I'm not falling for it. I haven't watched much Reds baseball in the past few years, but I'm guessing we'll see their true colors here soon..... Did they ever fix all the bullpen issues that have plauged them since the days of the Nasty Boys?

 

[Cincyfan78]

The only thing I can think of is BABIP - last year the Reds were dead last in this category. That means, they were one of the most unlucky teams in all of MLB when they did put the ball into play.

This year, so far, they are 5th. They are also striking out a lot less - meaning that they are taking advantage of a potential bounce back year to the median, by getting extremely lucky with their hitting.

Pitching-wise, I find it very interesting that several castoffs have seen a 4-5MPH increase in their FB this year under the Reds - and of course, their spin rate has improved as well. Adding Driveline pitching director to their staff a few years ago has been a massive addition.

4-1 sure beats 1-4. They may not sustain it, but at least they can keep us entertained until Camps open for football...

 

[Cincyfan78]

to add on for the K portion of the batting - last year Cincinnati was 21st in K's per game at over 9.06. So far this year they are 5th, at just 8.04. So, over a full K less per game. Combine that with a higher than expected BABIP - and you get guys on base, and runs scored.

Also, it's been nice to see runs being scored on hits and not just HR's. They've hit HR's, but they've had a bunch of RBI singles, doubles, and even a SF last night by India (who looks to be every bit the part of a major leaguer).

 

[CrashDavisSports]

Reds up 8-0 today so far! WTH is going on??

Why can't the Pittsburgh Steelers be this bad?

 

[DanBengalfan]

Reds up 8-0 today so far! WTH is going on??

Why can't the Pittsburgh Steelers be this bad?

they were the last half of 2020

 

[Cincyfan78]

they were the last half of 2020

Really curious to see how they bounce back this year, or if they do. Ben may come out fresh, but I can't see him lasting long. Father time is walking through that door. They don't have a running game, they don't have an OL. Their defense is good, and their WR's aren't too shabby - but it all hinges on Ben - and the last 8+ games I think we saw a lot of why Ben should have probably retired this off-season. Not to mention, when you go back and look at their start - they won a lot of games they probably should have lost - and it covered up a lot of issues and is providing a false narrative for 2021 thinking that the first half of 2020 can be the 'norm' for that team - when in fact, it's more like the back half of 2020 is the direction of that team.

As for the Reds - 5-1 is better than 1-5. I'll take it anyway it comes. Last year they got beat down by the Pirates early in the year, and those same Pirates went on to lose 93 games. So, people who complain that "it's just the Pirates" don't understand that it doesn't matter...beating up on bad teams is what good teams should do. Beating them like the Reds did shows that maybe, just maybe, this Reds team can be better than we all thought.

 

[DanBengalfan]

Really curious to see how they bounce back this year, or if they do. Ben may come out fresh, but I can't see him lasting long. Father time is walking through that door. They don't have a running game, they don't have an OL. Their defense is good, and their WR's aren't too shabby - but it all hinges on Ben - and the last 8+ games I think we saw a lot of why Ben should have probably retired this off-season. Not to mention, when you go back and look at their start - they won a lot of games they probably should have lost - and it covered up a lot of issues and is providing a false narrative for 2021 thinking that the first half of 2020 can be the 'norm' for that team - when in fact, it's more like the back half of 2020 is the direction of that team.

As for the Reds - 5-1 is better than 1-5. I'll take it anyway it comes. Last year they got beat down by the Pirates early in the year, and those same Pirates went on to lose 93 games. So, people who complain that "it's just the Pirates" don't understand that it doesn't matter...beating up on bad teams is what good teams should do. Beating them like the Reds did shows that maybe, just maybe, this Reds team can be better than we all thought.

no matter how talented your senior QB is, such a QB needs a good OL.

Tom Brady's OL was rated #5 for 2020
Pitts: #17
ours was 30

taken from pff.com

 

[Cincyfan78]

Interesting rules testing to go on in the Atlantic League this year.

First will be the Double Hook rule regarding the DH. Basically, it goes like this - each team starts with a DH - when the starting pitcher is removed, you lose the DH and the pitcher has to bat. The focus is on incentivizing teams to allow their starters to go deeper into games.

Second one is moving the mound back 12-iches, or 1-foot. This is going to be very interesting. I'm not a big move the mound back guy, but something does have to be done if you are going to allow the shift with pitchers now routinely hitting 97-99 on the radar guns.

My preference would be to ban the shift entirely, or severely limit where players can play defensively - but another change I'd prefer to see is going back to a flat mound. Originally it was flat ground, in the late 1800's it was raised significantly. Then in the late 60's they lowered it to what we see today to off-set dominant pitching. I think it's time, once again, to lower the mound.

 

[cincygrad]

I'm not falling for it. I haven't watched much Reds baseball in the past few years, but I'm guessing we'll see their true colors here soon..... Did they ever fix all the bullpen issues that have plauged them since the days of the Nasty Boys?

LOL.... I guess I asked the right question.

No, they have never fixed their issues.

They suck.

Things are back to normal.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

LOL.... I guess I asked the right question.

No, they have never fixed their issues.

They suck.

Things are back to normal.

Annndddddd.......we're the Reds again.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Go figure, 'pen implodes in the ARZ series while the offense is hot - and then the 'pen gives up 1 run in 3 games, while the offense completely sputters out.

If you wan to win - you have to spend. This team simply does not draft well, or spend wisely in F/A to win at a consistent level. Ownership needs to really decide what it is they want to do. Do they want to wallow around in last place (behind the Pirates who are ACTIVELY trying to tank the season) and simply count their profit or do they actually want to win games.

I'm not even sure, at this point, that the organization knows HOW to achieve winning games. The roster is a mess of guys who do the same things well, and do the same things poorly. The defense is a joke, their fundamentals are poor, and they spend money in F/A on re-treads and no-body's thinking they can turn them around. It works once in a while, but it isn't sustainable for consistency. Did Mike Brown get pushed out by his family and decide to take over the Reds?

 

[CrashDavisSports]

Go figure, 'pen implodes in the ARZ series while the offense is hot - and then the 'pen gives up 1 run in 3 games, while the offense completely sputters out.

If you wan to win - you have to spend. This team simply does not draft well, or spend wisely in F/A to win at a consistent level. Ownership needs to really decide what it is they want to do. Do they want to wallow around in last place (behind the Pirates who are ACTIVELY trying to tank the season) and simply count their profit or do they actually want to win games.

I'm not even sure, at this point, that the organization knows HOW to achieve winning games. The roster is a mess of guys who do the same things well, and do the same things poorly. The defense is a joke, their fundamentals are poor, and they spend money in F/A on re-treads and no-body's thinking they can turn them around. It works once in a while, but it isn't sustainable for consistency. Did Mike Brown get pushed out by his family and decide to take over the Reds?

No, just Cincinnati sports mentality.

 

[cincygrad]

I need to ask a serious question here. Who has had more success since 1992, the Reds or the Bengals? And, is it a close race?

I ask this because the Bengals are a laughing stock in the NFL. They are constantly included when discussing the bottom 10-15% of franchises in the league - Even when we won 2 division titles in 3 years or went to the playoffs 5 straight seasons. And it's not just in national circles - In the city of Cincinnati, people treat the Bengals as epic failures and a constant embarrassment to the city. On the other hand, the Reds have sucked for years and years.... They've had a few bright moments but nothing close to sustainable success. Yet, I don't ever get the sense that Reds fans demand much out of this franchise. And in many ways, the Reds are the cornerstone franchise of the city..... They have all the history and importance.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

I need to ask a serious question here. Who has had more success since 1992, the Reds or the Bengals? And, is it a close race?

I ask this because the Bengals are a laughing stock in the NFL. They are constantly included when discussing the bottom 10-15% of franchises in the league - Even when we won 2 division titles in 3 years or went to the playoffs 5 straight seasons. And it's not just in national circles - In the city of Cincinnati, people treat the Bengals as epic failures and a constant embarrassment to the city. On the other hand, the Reds have sucked for years and years.... They've had a few bright moments but nothing close to sustainable success. Yet, I don't ever get the sense that Reds fans demand much out of this franchise. And in many ways, the Reds are the cornerstone franchise of the city..... They have all the history and importance.

Reds have been to the playoffs 5 times since 1992. They have only won one playoff series in that span, 1995, with the last 4 never making it out of the first round. If you want to make this really embarrassing, in 116 years the Cincinnati Reds have made the playoffs 16 times, and won 5 World Series. Those 5 World Series Championships are nice, but that is 116 years.

The Bengals are not much better obviously. Since 1968, the Bengals have been to playoffs 14 times (which is a much better percentage than 16 times out of 116), they are 5-14 in the playoffs, and 4 of those playoff wins came in their SB years of 81 and 88. Besides those two years, they are 1-12 in the playoffs, including an 0-7 stint since 1992 with their last playoff win coming in 1991.

At least as a Reds fan you can hang on to the 5 WS wins, but really, outside the 70's, has the Reds been worth a crap in their long lasting franchise?

 

[Cincyfan78]

I need to ask a serious question here. Who has had more success since 1992, the Reds or the Bengals? And, is it a close race?

I ask this because the Bengals are a laughing stock in the NFL. They are constantly included when discussing the bottom 10-15% of franchises in the league - Even when we won 2 division titles in 3 years or went to the playoffs 5 straight seasons. And it's not just in national circles - In the city of Cincinnati, people treat the Bengals as epic failures and a constant embarrassment to the city. On the other hand, the Reds have sucked for years and years.... They've had a few bright moments but nothing close to sustainable success. Yet, I don't ever get the sense that Reds fans demand much out of this franchise. And in many ways, the Reds are the cornerstone franchise of the city..... They have all the history and importance.

Since 1992?

Bengals. The Bengals were Uber bad from 92 - 2003, but then went to 7 playoff games in a decade stretch from 2005 - 2015, with 5 of those in a row.

The Reds had '94 and '95 and then made the playoffs and then didn't make the playoffs for 15 more seasons. Since that year, the've made the playoffs twice (I'm not counting last year's fuckery with expanded playoffs and 60 game season).

What I find interesting, though, is how both teams have approached success. Both teams instead of building on winners - decided to go the cheap route in F/A to fill gaps and holes, and while the core of the team(s) aged, the supporting cast was never good enough to sustain winning at a high level, or get either team over the bump.

If you want to win - you have to spend. Sure, you might catch lightening in a bottle, but teams that consistently win year in and out and compete for titles typically are among the top spending in the league OR have had a ridiculous run of drafting success.

Neither the Reds nor the Bengals have experienced either - and thus, their short lived success when they've had it.

 

[cincygrad]

Good points guys..... But wouldn't you agree that Cincinnati folk tend to give the Reds a much bigger break than the Bengals? I mean, I get some of the reasons.... Fans convince themselves that the Reds just can't win because of market constraints.... Or some fans don't really care as much about winning in baseball - Its more about summer, reds on radio, family outings, etc. But, the Reds are a horrible organization. Even in some of the years they were good, they weren't good enough to be memorable. About the only time in the last few decades that I thought they had a legit chance at present and a nice future was in 2012. And we know how fast that ended.

Oh, and BTW, one of the Reds titles has an asteric because of the Black Sox.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Good points guys..... But wouldn't you agree that Cincinnati folk tend to give the Reds a much bigger break than the Bengals? I mean, I get some of the reasons.... Fans convince themselves that the Reds just can't win because of market constraints.... Or some fans don't really care as much about winning in baseball - Its more about summer, reds on radio, family outings, etc. But, the Reds are a horrible organization. Even in some of the years they were good, they weren't good enough to be memorable. About the only time in the last few decades that I thought they had a legit chance at present and a nice future was in 2012. And we know how fast that ended.

Oh, and BTW, one of the Reds titles has an asteric because of the Black Sox.

I think the Reds get a pass because they are more ingrained into the fabric of Cincinnati as a sports team.

They also had Marge, who fans loved. The Bengals have/had Brown, who fans hate.

Ownership has changed for the Reds, but the nostalgia for those teams in the 70's and 80's and early 90's with Marge persist. I think that's why the Reds get a pass compared to the Bengals - despite that in the past 10 years, the Bengals have had far more success in reaching the post-season - and at least have a national name/player in Burrow right now.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

Good points guys..... But wouldn't you agree that Cincinnati folk tend to give the Reds a much bigger break than the Bengals? I mean, I get some of the reasons.... Fans convince themselves that the Reds just can't win because of market constraints.... Or some fans don't really care as much about winning in baseball - Its more about summer, reds on radio, family outings, etc. But, the Reds are a horrible organization. Even in some of the years they were good, they weren't good enough to be memorable. About the only time in the last few decades that I thought they had a legit chance at present and a nice future was in 2012. And we know how fast that ended.

Oh, and BTW, one of the Reds titles has an asteric because of the Black Sox.

Another thing that I think does mean something, but it shouldn't if they would make better signings and do a better job evaluating talent in the draft....they do not make money like the large markets. The Dodgers signed a tv deal to give them 500 million a year to broadcast Dodger games. The luxury tax kicks in somewhere there in the mid to high 200 million dollar range right? So they can spend up to the luxury tax making them be eligible for one of the highest payrolls in baseball, and still pocket 200+ million a year. When you have that much of a disparity in operating revenue, it will be hard to compete with the talent they are able to pay for. At least in football, everyone is given a level playing field. League negotiates all tv revenue as a league, not individual teams, and they create a salary cap that stays within the amount of revenue being shared from the tv rights. Equal playing field. Bengals have that advantage over the Reds, but the Reds mismanage too many portions of their roster and gamble on too many guys hoping they come through.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Another thing that I think does mean something, but it shouldn't if they would make better signings and do a better job evaluating talent in the draft....they do not make money like the large markets. The Dodgers signed a tv deal to give them 500 million a year to broadcast Dodger games. The luxury tax kicks in somewhere there in the mid to high 200 million dollar range right? So they can spend up to the luxury tax making them be eligible for one of the highest payrolls in baseball, and still pocket 200+ million a year. When you have that much of a disparity in operating revenue, it will be hard to compete with the talent they are able to pay for. At least in football, everyone is given a level playing field. League negotiates all tv revenue as a league, not individual teams, and they create a salary cap that stays within the amount of revenue being shared from the tv rights. Equal playing field. Bengals have that advantage over the Reds, but the Reds mismanage too many portions of their roster and gamble on too many guys hoping they come through.

Great point. The lack of a true salary cap in MLB really does make it so the small market teams only have a 1-2 year window before they have to spend - and that's if they get the draft/trades right for a few years in a row before that.