Honor&Glory;1366053; said:
I don't recall the 1990 Reds or the 1999 Reds being filled with 25 scrappy white guys. But I can see why you would say that...however, if you mean 'the style so many in Cincy seem to long for' as a slam, you're off base. people here want a winner and realize the offense that the Reds have rolled out since Sean Casey was in his prime was slow, reliant on the long ball and incapable of playing effective small ball the way the 90 and 99 teams did. Jim Bowden built that piece of crap ball park to be that way and the GM's that have followed felt the need to stock it accordingly. Sorry we disagree on this, but at least we do agree that we want the Reds to win again.
and, for the record, Greg Vaughn, Mike Cameron, Jeffrey Hammonds, Pokey Reese, Barry Larkin, Mariano Duncan, Billy Hatcher, Eric Davis...you remember those guys, right? weren't 'scrappy little white guys...' They were solid ball players that could run, play defense and bring things to the table that Adam Dunn has wet dreams about being able to do.
Well like I said, if you think not playing small ball the past 10 years has been the problem you are in for a treat this year.
As far as going on the record and comparing some of those names to Dunn you are really showing some serious prejudice. I'll just touch on one and leave it at that but here is Greg Vaughn vs Adam Dunn careers by the numbers:
Vaughn: 337/470/242/807
Dunn: 381/518/247/899
Vaughn hit 40+ HR's in a season exactly twice in his career, Dunn's done it 4 years in a row and counting. So Dunn makes less outs per PA, collects more bases when he gets a hit, has more power and even hits for better average. He also takes more walks and scores more runs.
But yeah I can see how he could have dreams of being as good as Greg freakin Vaughn.
The prejudice this teams fan's have against Adam Dunn is sickening. Hearing complete bunk like this(which is simply 100% pure fresh squeezed Marty venom) makes me think this fanbase has exactly the type of team they deserve.
Yeah, lets blame the losing on scoring all those nasty runs because we don't like the style they were scoring them in and completely ignore the fact that we had the worst pitching staff in baseball all those years.
The losing couldn't possibly be due to the shitty pitching allowing more runs than we could score could it? Nah, we were losing all those years because the top scoring offense in the NL struck out too much and Dunn didn't run out to LF. Fucking brilliant.
Anyway, I'm done beating my head in a brick wall over this tired old argument. If people want to form opinions completely irregardless of facts then I'm dumber for arguing with them.
Here are the facts going into 2009.
The team allowed 800 runs last year which was worse than all but 3 teams in the NL.
The team scored 704 runs which was better than only 4 teams in the NL.
The pitching isn't anywhere near as good as people are talking themselves into it being and the shitty offense just got a whole lot worse. Pitching and defense are going to get better this year? Fine I'll go along and pretend it will happen just because we want it to. Is it going to get over 96 runs better? Not a chance in hell. And that if the offense can score 704 again which it will not as it is currently constructed.
So another summer of watching sub 500 baseball is on its way because the Reds will score fewer runs than they allow. The difference this year is all the fans who blamed the losing on the type of offense we had the past few years are going to have to rationalize why we are still losing. The good news is they will get more enjoyment out of the losing because it will be done in the style that Marty and their tee ball coaches taught them is the "right" way to play the game.
Good times.