User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.5190 seconds
83 querie(s) executed
|
| |||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Wednesday, March 26, 2008ESPN: Keri: History says potential Red Sox dynasty no sure thingDynoastic work by Keri here...or as he calls it, “9,500 words of Dynasty talk and gratuitous Expos references.”
|
My BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: tampabay.com: Tampa Bay Rays minor-league affiliate's Ladies Night promotion causing a stir (8 - 3:07pm, Jul 05) Last: Justin Zeth Newsblog: NYT: Kilgannon: Why Short Al From Brooklyn, Talkative Fan, Calls No More (19 - 3:00pm, Jul 05) Last: Rich Rifkin Newsblog: seattlePI.com: Buhner 'still bleeds Mariners blue' (15 - 2:43pm, Jul 05) Last: Vander Wal Generator (Juan V) Newsblog: Plain Dealer/Pluto: Matt LaPorta is still in the minors because of Grady Sizemore's cranky elbow (8 - 2:35pm, Jul 05) Last: Tripon Newsblog: Cincinnati Enquirer/Fay: Please don't mortgage future
(4 - 2:21pm, Jul 05) Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) |
||||||||
|
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2008 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.5190 seconds | |||||||
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Name a single person on the planet who believed that 90-win team was a burgeoning dynasty.
Not that my insight was grounded in any kind of analysis, but at the time I thought of the '90 Reds as a fluky world champion in much the same way as the mid-70s Golden State Warriors team that won a championship.
I think Dibbs must be mad that his career was essentially over before he had a chance to cash in on free agency. Still, according to B-Ref he made over $7M in his career and that obviously wouldn't have happened in the pre-free agency era.
I remember everyone being very surprised that the Reds beat the A's that year.
you and about 95% of all BB fans thought that way
although the analogy I would use would be the 85 Royals (or the 60 Pirates, for those old enough to remember)
Making the huge leap of faith that Rob Dibble can, in fact, read.
The Jays of the early 90s are another interesting case. Back-to-back World Series is a really tough task in the modern era. At the same time, while the core players on those teams were very good, you could argue that they won largely thanks to contributions from guys like Jack Morris, Dave Winfield and Paul Molitor--go-for-it acquisitions who were added hoping to get 1-2 more good years out of them before they faded away. So the Jays weren't likely to keep winning after that second World Series, but they weren't a failure either. They did what they set out to do, basically, which was pretty great in its own right.
As for the Reds, definitely a fair point. They were an interesting and young team at the time, it just turned out that Sabo and Duncan weren't that good, Davis never become the superduperstar people expected, and the SP didn't materialize behidn Rijo (who was really excellent for several years, I'd forgotten how good he was when I first started working on the article).
I always thought of the 85 Royals as the last ride of a great team, even if that isn't entirely accurate. The Royals were monsters in the late 70s/early 80s
pardon me, but isn't that EXACTLY the opposite of what Selig & Co were screeching as recently as 4 years ago??
remember "lack of competitive balance"--translated as "the Yankees win too much"
so Dibble has gone over to the Seligian dark side with it's wonderful logic:
if event A happens, that proves that free agency is bad
if event (-A) happens, that proves that free agency is bad
(oh, yeah--and we need a salary cap)
Poor Charlie, his reputation is set forever. We need an IGSORM (InGameStrategyOverReplacementManager) metric to prove or disprove this reputation.
People zero in on his replacing Kendrick (a surprisingly effective rookie last year) with Lohse, as average as average gets, after Kendrick loaded the bases in the playoffs. I would not have made that move as Kendrick had pitched with tremendous poise all season long. But Charlie's reason -- Matsui a low-ball hitter, Kendrick a sinker-baller so bring in Lohse was at least defensible. Obviously a GS later, it didn't work out. Charlie had had a tremendous run down the stretch with heavy handed managing of the pitching staff. Of course, having Romero, Gordon and Myers reincarnate the Nasty Boys for a month helped the outcome.
He does understand the double switch (alright, that did take a while) and he really got the hang of shuffling his lousy 3Bs last year to maximize their effectiveness. He hustled Pat Burrell out of the game at the right times, mostly. Gene Mauch he ain't but I think he's gotten to the point where he's not too bad in that department. Or maybe he just listens to Jimy Williams, but if that's the case, it's a man knowing his limitations, which I'll take too.
Yeah, they certainly weren't pushovers. They had some great teams between 1975 and 1985, but you've got to ignore 1981 and 1983. Though they won the division, they really weren't all that good in 1984, either.
For what it's worth, my favorite APBA team of all time is the original 1975 Royals (from the set my dad bought back then). I haven't tried a '75 APBA board replay yet, but I've got a feeling they'd finish in first place.
I think that's a fair point, but the Molitor/Winfield additions were simply a matter of updating a position (DH) and Jack effect on the team wasn't that large. It was really the Alomar, Carter, Olerud core with a sprinkly of Gruber and White and such.
I was less impressed when Cito stayed just as patient with Sprague for the next four years. I think that's the fate of some would-be dynasties; they stay with their World Champion starters even when it is clear they're not very good any more (or really never were). I was very impressed when the Mets, for instance, let Ray Knight go not long after the 1986 Series; he had all the makings of a Met Forever at that point. Now, it didn't do them any good in terms of winning another Series, but OTOH Knight didn't do anybody else any good after that either.
They went 46-15 after August 1st to win the AL West by 20 games. Although they lost the ALCS to Baltimore, mainly due to poor base running, their future looked good, especially since there were no real powerhouses in the West, unlike the AL East. The future got even brighter when they picked up Tom Seaver as compensation when Dennis Lamp left. It is one of the ironies is the first few years of free agency, owners and media complained about not getting anything if they lost a player. So they demanded and got a system after a two month strike in 1981. But eventually teams like the Mets hollered "wait a minute, Chicago loses Dennis Lamp and I have to lose a player, especially the most famous Met in history". Draft picks soon replaced that.
The White Sox had four starters under 28. But Lamarr Hoyt went from 24-10 115 adjusted era to 13-18, 93. Richard Dotson went from 22-7, 130 to 14-15, 116. Floyd Bannister went from 16-10, 117 to 14-11, 86. Britt Burns had injuries and went from 10-11, 117 to 4-12, 83. The hitters saw 1983 ROY Ron Kittle and aging slugger Greg Luzinski decline. A string of mid division finishes ensued and Tony LaRussa left for Oakland.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main