Reds are still better team than the Braves
Dale Lature
easier now than at the beginning of the series with Atlanta, but the
fact is, the Braves have a better ball club."
I think Marty is sour grapes.
I still think the Reds are better, year round. The Braves srating
pitching is the best. That will often win games, as it did 90 times
this year for the Braves. But they are not so much better than the
Reds' starters by the amount that the Reds exceed the Braves in the
other categories.
The speed is no contest.
The defense is a definite edge for the Reds
Run scoring ability to the Reds.
The power is pretty even.
The team we've seen since the first of September is not what we saw
earlier, in games such as where the Reds beat the Braves 9-8 affter
trailing 8-4 in the 8th. Or the first time into Atlanta where they
took 2 of 3 on 2 extra inning homers by Gant.
POst season performance: The Braves have beaten only Pittsburgh until
theis series in post season play. I have serious doubts about the
Pirates post season abilities, with their big guns like Bonilla and
Bonds really choking. The Braves lose to Phillie, and two world
series'. They are like the BUffalo Bills of baseball. Choking at
the big game.
Yeah, sure I'm biased. I'm a Reds fan. I watch them all year. They
were awesome, all around. They were an exciting team to watch. The
Braves, good pitching. Rather boring.
I also hold a huge grudge when the Braves jerk radio broadcaster
mouths off and says that after the last series in Cincinnati in
September, the Reds proved they couldn't hit the Braves pitching.
Well, the Braves couldn't hit the Reds starters either. They never
hit Smiley, and the only reason they 've scored tonight is because
Shourek got hit smack on the pitching hand, and he's still out there
battling the pain.
And where does this jerk get offf basing his "facts" on one series?
This performance by the Reds just sickens me becuase we did not prove
to this jerk how much he really knows! IN addition, statements like
that, on the opponents sports talk shows are stupid. If anything,
they can pump up a team to shut them up. I feel fortunate to have
broadcasters with a little class.
We saw in 1995 the Pete Shourek and John Smiley that will anchor the
Reds pitching in the next few years, along with Jose Rijo, David
Wells, and Mark Portugal is the #5 man. Even though he lost game 2,
Portugal pitched well down the stretch, and is a pretty decent 5th
starter.
Let's just pray the Reds can somehow sign Ron Gant.
Sanders will again hit 25-35 homers, drive in 100 runs, and steal 35
bases.
Larkin will hit .320 and hit 15-20 homers (he could definitely hit
over .340, as he would have this year were it not for the 5-50
stretch he had after getting his thumb nearly broken.)
Tonight, it's like the Braves are living a dream the oppoosite side
of the Reds night mare. THings you never saw all season long are
happening.
IN game 2, the Braves pitcher throws a ball in the dirt in the bottom
of the ninth with the winning run on third, Lopez misses it, and it
hits his foot for crying out loud! Game over! No, the Braves are
destined to win, regardless. Some force has it so.
Tonight, a ball strikes Shourek directly on the pitching hand. He
gives up immediate back to back hits. He shakes it off. He's still in
there. He is awesome.
Avery is pitching well of course. When a team is destined to win,
things like that happen. Wild pitches, Mike Devereaux, and Charlie
O'Brien beat you when things are going wrong.
The Reds any day. World Series trophies line the Reds walls (75-76,
90).......and Atlanta? Not since they've been in Atlanta.
If the Braves let McGriff go next year, I pity their poor fans who
like offense. It could kill them. Even their starters might not be
able to make up the offensive punch they would lose.
Good year Reds. It's so sad to get no breaks at all.
The Braves are deserving of the Series. They are good. No question.
It just seems the Reds could have provided a better showcase of
baseball in all its aspects. It's a shame the country will miss that.
It's a shame for Baseball.
Dale Lature
After a night's sleep:
Only the Braves are better lately, and that's what counts.
I just wrote a congratulatory note to the Braves fans in their group.
Thought you might like to see it if you want to think about baseball
at all after the week we had:
Well Braves fans, as much as I hate it, you did it. As a Reds fan
since 1966, I know what it's like to have a good team, get to the
series, and lose. The Reds did it in 70 and 72, then got back in 75
and won finally, then again in 76, then much later in 90. Your
history in this decade is very similar. You gotr there with a
revitalized team in 91, lost, back again in 92, lost again, and
then lost in the playoffs (like the Reds in 73 vs a much weaker
team....the Mets.....as the Braves did to Philly when the Braves had
won 104 games that year), then another year not going (cause nobody
went due to the strike....in 74 the Dodgers went and that was like
nobody going because the A's killed em), then the Reds were back in
75 and won it in a thrilling World Series. In fact that great game 6
was the last World series game the Reds ever lost (they won game 7,
swept in 76 and 90).
Maybe this is the year the Braves can re-establish NL dominance. Only
3 times since 1983 have the NL teams won the series (86-Mets,
88-Dodgers, 90-Reds).
I am pulling hard for Seattle (since the Reds didn't make it, I
don't want the Indians to either, although I would love to see the
Braves pitching bring those bats down to earth with a thud like they
did against the Reds.......man did they pitch tough! )
That was the note.
I'm pulling for Seattle. They've been fun to watch. Even if
Cleveland wins tonight (which they'd better or they're in deep
trouble), the series will go back to Seattle. There the fans can get
under the Tribe's skin by "cheering on every pitch" even more,
smelling a WS appearance vs Atlanta.
We shall see.
David Schmitt
> [whine whine bitch bitch]
Man, oh man, what happens when reality takes a vacation. Dale, face it --
your Reds choked. Good teams don't choke. I belived what the media were
feeding us: the Reds were a force to be reckoned with, that they would
devour the Braves, etc. But they didn't do it when it counted.
You can call it destiny, but if that's the case, why the hell should we
even play the games if the outcome is already decided? Personally, I
don't think destiny gives a damn about the Braves, baseball, or sports in
general.
The Reds threw all they had against the Braves and still came up short:
speed, left-handed pitching, aggressive baserunning, etc. But the fact of
the matter is that the Braves were able to counter every move the Reds
had. The ability to counter your opponents strengths while leveraging your
own is the true sign of a great team, Dale. The Reds lost their last 7 or
8 games against the Braves -- that's not destiny or luck or what have
you. That's domination.
As for your desire to re-sign Gant: please do! I, for one, was happy to
be rid of "Mr. August". Ol' Ronnie will win you plenty of regular season
games -- and that's important -- but when the real pressure is on, when
the season is on the line, he disappears. Poof! He did it with Atlanta
for three postseasons, and he has continued that fine tradition with the
Reds. I'd be happy to face an entire lineup of Gan'ts in *any*
postseason. And his whining about having a score to settle, well, it was
just plain embarassing for him.
You can claim superior defense, speed, hitting, etc. but the Reds didn't
show it. Maybe on paper the Reds are better, but on the field -- where it
really counts -- the Braves exposed the Reds as a paper tiger.
Live with it.
--
David Schmitt
Kellogg Graduate School of Management '96
Dale Lature
At 03:47 PM 10/15/95 -0500, you wrote:
>(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
>alt.sports.baseball.cinci-reds)
>
>In article <45pms0$h...@cheyenne.iac.net>, dla...@iac.net (Dale Lature) wrote:
>
>> [whine whine bitch bitch]
>
>Man, oh man, what happens when reality takes a vacation. Dale, face it --
>your Reds choked. Good teams don't choke.
Like the Braves do in the series?
I belived what the media were
>feeding us: the Reds were a force to be reckoned with, that they would
>devour the Braves, etc. But they didn't do it when it counted.
Agreed. But more often than not, they would. They have proven that.
The Braves still have to prove they can win it all.
>
>You can call it destiny, but if that's the case, why the hell should we
>even play the games if the outcome is already decided? Personally, I
>don't think destiny gives a damn about the Braves, baseball, or sports in
>general.
No, I'm not talkiing about some divine choosing. I'm just talking
about the kinds of happenings it takes to go all the way. Sometimes
it's more than just record. Ask the Braves in 93 when they won 104
games then didn't even win the NLCS.
>
>The Reds threw all they had against the Braves and still came up short:
>speed, left-handed pitching, aggressive baserunning, etc. But the fact of
>the matter is that the Braves were able to counter every move the Reds
>had.
Except Shourek.
They couldn't do much against him. Neither did they do much against
Smiley. The Reds would be up 2-0 if you replayed those situations 19
times out of 20.
The ability to counter your opponents strengths while leveraging your
>own is the true sign of a great team, Dale. The Reds lost their last 7 or
>8 games against the Braves -- that's not destiny or luck or what have
>you. That's domination.
Yeah, like pitching your best three pitchers vs the reds in 4
straight series. If the reds could have thrown Shourek, Smiley, and
Wells against one Braves top starter and assorted minor league
pitchers like the Reds did the final two series of the year, it would
have been quite different (as Shourek proved).
>
>As for your desire to re-sign Gant: please do! I, for one, was happy to
>be rid of "Mr. August". Ol' Ronnie will win you plenty of regular season
>games -- and that's important -- but when the real pressure is on, when
>the season is on the line, he disappears. Poof! He did it with Atlanta
>for three postseasons, and he has continued that fine tradition with the
>Reds. I'd be happy to face an entire lineup of Gan'ts in *any*
>postseason. And his whining about having a score to settle, well, it was
>just plain embarassing for him.
The whole Braves team is 0 for the World series, so I wouldn't be
talking about choking at the end. There's something missing for such
a "dominant team": a Series trophy, which Larkin, Morris, and Rijo
all wear.
>
>You can claim superior defense, speed, hitting, etc. but the Reds didn't
>show it. Maybe on paper the Reds are better, but on the field -- where it
>really counts -- the Braves exposed the Reds as a paper tiger.
>Live with it.
Oh yeah, we all do.
If you wouold have read the rest of my post, you would see me
conceding the "results" of this to the Braves pitching, which was
awesome.
By the way, just what are you doing reading in the Reds group, if
not to just arrogantly gloat on your own team? All I posted to the
braves group was congratulations, and this post you are responding to
is for Reds fans. I am simply voicing what a lot of Reds fans
feel......the Reds are a much more interesting team......and how
frustrated we all are at how the Reds didn't really show up. Much of
that goes to the credit of the Braves starters, but 2 of whom we
should have beaten in the first two games. That's how it goes.
Why not just cap on the obnoxious Reds fans who post boastful and
arrogant stuff to the Braves group. They're the ones deserving of
ribbing.
Go read my post in the Braves group.
Charles Cole
After reading all the posts entitled "We Suck", "The Reds Are Still A
Better Team Than the Braves", etc., etc., ad nauseam, I would simply
like to point out that it's time for all of us Reds fans to get over it
and press on. Hopefully Bowden is thinking seriously about next year
already. Clearly, some changes are in order and he's a very shrewd
baseball man. I'm sure he'll bolster the club, assuming of course that
Marge "Oughta Be" Schott leaves him alone to do his work.
As for right now, let's hope the Cleveland Indians get to the show and
beat the CRAP out of Atlanta. I just hope Ted "Wonder Boy" Turner
attends the games and parades Hanoi Jane out again in a Braves hat.
That should jinx the behonkers out of them.
C. Cole
Dale Lature
>In article <45pms0$h...@cheyenne.iac.net>, dla...@iac.net (Dale Lature) wrote:
The Reds lost their last 7 or
>8 games against the Braves -- that's not destiny or luck or what have
>you. That's domination.
Let's see. Game 1: Extra innings 2-1. Oh, yes. That's what you
call dominant.
Game 2: Extra innings again. Dominantion again.
Game 3: Scoreless until the 6th. Maddux: there's dominantion. 1
point.
Game 4: The only run the Braves score off of Shourek comes after a
fluke bullseye hit right on the pitching hand. Shourek has to leave
after 6. He throws 14 and 2/3 innings vs Braves, 2 earned runs.
That's 1.22 There's some dominance vs the Braves.
Smiley, 33 innings vs the Braves this year.7 earned runs, 1.90 ERA
Dominance
Why, up until the last series, where the Reds threw Pugh and
Portugal in addition to Smiley, and the Reds were giving everybody
work for the playoffs, the Reds and Braves were 5-5. Even 8-5 is
not what you call dominance.
The first two games were just what the Braves needed to win. They
got shut down, and due to the Reds not delivering like anyone could
easily have done, even against the Braves, they were up 2-0 rather
than down 2-0. They barely escaped Cincy , avoiding being on the
verge of sweepdom themselves but for the want of two measley flyballs
or bopuncing balls........and you call that dominance.......
Who's lost their grip on reality?
I tip my hat to the Braves pitching, and to the Reds starters.
The Braves can easily stop the best of hitters.
Just git a grip on reality yourself and see the series as what it was:
hard fought, monumental battles in the first two where the Reds
missed several golden opportunities. Because they "choked" there
does not turn it into "being dominated". The Braves would have had
to show some offense to do that. They did that in one game of four,
and showed basically nothing off the Reds starters in the other 3.
We could easily have been playing game 5 in Atlanta with the Reds up
3-1. Yep, that's dominance.
austin t cho
: > "As hard as it is to admit, but it's
: >easier now than at the beginning of the series with Atlanta, but the
: >fact is, the Braves have a better ball club."
As a Braves fan, this is how I looked at it.
The Reds' have better speed than any team I've seen.
The bats between the two teams seemed about the same. Sure
you could make a statement about BA but the Braves' hits came
when they counted: they came in clutch situations and with men
on base. The pitching I believe was in favor for Atlanta, however
the overall batting avg. for Cinci caused me to believe that the
hitting and pitching would be about even for both teams.
So I believed that if one strong point was missing from
either team, the strength the opposing team had would overwhelm
the probs of the other.
austin T. cho
Stolen Child
> C. Cole
Nice Chucky, after all the talk about getting over it and pressing
on... you start WHINING again. It's a good thing Cincinnati lost,
cause if you had gone to the World Series and faced Cleveland,
you'd have gotten the crap beat out of you...then the entire country
would know that Cincinnati truly is the armpit of the entire state of
Ohio.
Stolen Child
writes:
>
>Calling Cincinnati the "armpit of Ohio" is inaccurate (ever been to
>Steubenville? Dayton? Toledo? Youngstown?) and uncalled for.
Cleveland
>is on the upswing fuelled, in part by the Indians and by the Flats.
If
>the Indians get passed another Cincinnatian (Griffey, Jr.), most of us
>down here will be routing for the Indians. You have the benefit of
better
>ownership, still you must admit that, even with that bitch Marge,
the
>I-71 Series almost happened.
Well, having spent a fair share of time in Ohio, I prefer Columbus over
both Cincinnati and Cleveland. Even without the benefit of pro sports
teams, it's fair and away better than the big two. The I-71 series was
a possibility for sure, but never a reality.
Eric Bowman
>cec...@ix.netcom.com (Charles Cole ) wrote:
Stolen Child,
I remember a couple of years ago when Atlanta was the( to borrow from
you) "armpit of baseball". They had no fans. Now they supposedly have
"fans", but that's not true, fans are the people who support their
team through bad times. So, where were you in 1990?? Why don't you
spend time in the Atlanta newsgroup talking about how you became a fan
in 1990 instead of telling us how bad the Reds are??
Eric J. Bowman
Stolen Child
>
>stln...@ix.netcom.com (Stolen Child) wrote:
>
>>cec...@ix.netcom.com (Charles Cole ) wrote:
>
>Stolen Child,
>
>I remember a couple of years ago when Atlanta was the( to borrow from
>you) "armpit of baseball". They had no fans. Now they supposedly have
>"fans", but that's not true, fans are the people who support their
>team through bad times. So, where were you in 1990?? Why don't you
>spend time in the Atlanta newsgroup talking about how you became a fan
>in 1990 instead of telling us how bad the Reds are??
>
>Eric J. Bowman
>
Hey, at least WE filled up our stadium for the NLCS...now lets talk
about real fans?
Charles Cole
>
>stln...@ix.netcom.com (Stolen Child) wrote:
>>Nice Chucky, after all the talk about getting over it and pressing
>>on... you start WHINING again.
No whining from me, pal. Read my post again and you may get the main
point about the immediate goal of "pressing on" from here, i.e. to
wish the Indians the very best of luck in beating Atlanta's brains
out since it is their hat which Hanoi Jane wears.
C. Cole
Charles Cole
Child ) writes:
>Hey, at least WE filled up our stadium for the NLCS...now lets talk
>about real fans?
Yeah, like one of your main "real" fans, Hanoi Jane. GO CLEVELAND
BEAT ATLANTA. You can bet that Jacobs Field will be filled and
waiting for you.
C. Cole
Charles Cole
Child) writes:
>Idiot. Hanoi Jane doesn't own the team, Ted Turner does....
Oh, I see. Boy, that sure makes a BIG difference. There's TWO
reasons for rooting against the eternal chokers.
>... Cleveland is gonna have to do better than YOUR losers did trying
to beat us... We'll do the same thing we did
>to Colorado and Cincinnati... that's send 25 body bags back home
>to their respective cities.
Yeah, sort of like you did with Minnesota and Toronto, right? Get
a grip, dude. Regardless of what you say, YOU have Hanoi Jane in
your camp and I hope she jynxes the shit out of your whole
organization.
Ed Williams
But, we will be the team playing the Indians at Jacobs Field.
>
Dale Lature
> Face facts the Braves are a better club!
There are no such "facts". If you don't think the Braves "got away" with two
games in Cincinnati, then you don't know the Reds. This was not the typical
Reds, even against the Braves.
>
> I've been a Reds fan for 40 years and I believe that you are the one who
> has the sour grapes.
OK.
>
> > I still think the Reds are better, year round.
> Year round! Get real! The braves had the best record in the NL!
And the Reds had that "abberation" at the beginning of the year. If the Reds
just went .500 during that time, their record was as good as Atlanta. Now
which team was the real Reds? 1-8, or the rest of the year?
> The Braves won the LCS with outstanding pitching and timely hitting. That
> is why they won the series.
That is obvious. You didn't answer my statement at all.
> You have to play 144 games plus the playoffs. Look at the Mariners!
> They were 13 games behind the Angels in August and now they are playing
> for the AL Championship.
Of course. You state only the obvious. What you fail to notice is how the
wins were accomplished. 19 times out of 20, the Reds win those first tow
games.
>
>
> A true Reds fan would admit the Reds were beaten by a better team! You
> sound like a "fair weather fan" to me.
I just don't go for this nonsense that if you lose, that means the other team
was better. Ask the Braves in 93 when they won 104 and lost to Phillie, or
the 73 Reds vs the Mets. I'm not saying it's a no-contest between the Reds
and the Braves. It just simp;ly isn't true that the best team always wins.
That is simply baseball jargon.
OK. Tell me I'm not a true Reds fan. I'm not giving up on the Reds. How is
this "fair weather"? I'm saying they should have won, and would 19 times out
of 20. I'd do this year over again in a heartbeat. Do it all with Wells and
Portugal in there instead of Jarvis and Nitowski, and the Reds would have won
nearly 100.
>
> > The Braves, good pitching. Rather boring.
>
> Maddux boring! You haven't watched much baseball.
I have probably watched more in 30 years than you have in 40.
>
> > I also hold a huge grudge when the Braves jerk radio broadcaster
> > mouths off and says that after the last series in Cincinnati in
> > September, the Reds proved they couldn't hit the Braves pitching.
>
> He was correct!
If you don't see the assenine quality to someone making such arrogant
statements, then you are blind.
>> THings you never saw all season long are
> > happening.
>
> What you saw is the better team won!
OK. Fine. Sounds like jargon to me. The better team THIS WEEK. I'll take
the Reds, especially what they had at the end of the year. Hoping of course,
that they can do something to keep Gant and Morris (a large hope)
> Get over it the Reds lost!
I'm over it. I just don't throw out my ability to observe with it!
>
> > Tonight, a ball strikes Shourek directly on the pitching hand. He
> > gives up immediate back to back hits. He shakes it off. He's still in
> > there. He is awesome.
>
> That he is!
>
> So what! I've seen the Reds play six times in the World Series. It
> dosen't change anything! The braves proved 100% that they are the best
> team in the NL. Give them credit!
I believe I gave them credit for awesome pitching. It doesn't change the fact
that the Reds blew their own outstanding pitching, and should have been up
two.
When the Championship was on the line
> the BRAVES not the Reds played like champions. Why is that so hard for you
> to understand.
I understand everything you say. I just don't translate victory in one series
into overall team analysis.
When the Reds beat Atlanta in Atlanta earlier this year, what was that? A
little conflicting message there I think.
> > Good year Reds. It's so sad to get no breaks at all.
>
> Bullshit! The Reds had their chance to win in games 1 and 2. In game
> one they led 1-0 going into the ninth and lost. In game two the Reds
> had the winning run on 3rd with no one out in the 8th inning and could
> not get the runner home. In the ninth they stranded another runner on
third.
> In games 3 and 4 the Reds got beat and beat bad pure and simple.
Uh......that's what I just said, except you seem to think that means they
would never come through. The situation you describe is exactly why This
seems to be more like fair weather fan-like to me. I say that the Reds would
somehow score those runs 95% of the time. I've seen them do that on numerous
occasions against the great Braves themselves.
>
> > The Braves are deserving of the Series. They are good. No question.
>
> Finally you admit the obvious!
I've said this all along. You just take my statements as somehow not
"accepting" what happened. I just simply do not equate particular results
with "who is better". Do you think the '90 Reds were a better overall team
than the A's?
In the Series yes. Overall, absolutely not.
>
> > It just seems the Reds could have provided a better showcase of
> > baseball in all its aspects. It's a shame the country will miss that.
> > It's a shame for Baseball.
>
> There you go again! I'm proud of the Reds! They did win their division and
> beat the Dodger in the Division Series! They got beat in the NLCS by a
> better team.
What did I just say? I said the Reds had a great year just a couple of
paragraphs back. I said that the Reds have shown they are a great team. I
said it's a shame they coul;dn't show that, and give the country a better
showcase of a totally balanced team! You just don't see what I am saying!
>They got beat in the NLCS by a
> better team.
And there you go again.
They got beat in the NLCS by ateam that performed better than they did THIS
TIME!
MY point is, the Reds are a better team! I am a REDS fan, and I saw what
they could do. And the bats did not do it....this time.
>
> Jim Cushing
> Life-Long Reds Fan(including the last place years)
YOu mean, like '82 and '83? Been there.
HOw in the owrld you got any "fair weather" idea about me is beyond me.
Gregg Rosenberg
>> > I still think the Reds are better, year round.
>> Year round! Get real! The braves had the best record in the NL!
>
>And the Reds had that "abberation" at the beginning of the year.
Every team has a period of the year where they go 1-8. The Brave's
had theirs in May, and the Reds had theirs in April. Why is the
Reds streak an "abberation" that you feel "should" be corrected for
when judging the team's record, but the Brave's losing streak stays
as part of their "really representative" record. If you correct for
both teams losing streaks, the Braves still have a better regular
season record.
>If the Reds
>just went .500 during that time, their record was as good as Atlanta. Now
>which team was the real Reds? 1-8, or the rest of the year?
Both. Baseball teams go through ups and downs, neither of which is the
"real" baseball team. The "real" baseball team only comes out in the
long run as one sees how the ups and downs balance out. In the long
run, against the same competition, the Braves had a better record.
That is pretty good evidence that they are a better team.
>Of course. You state only the obvious. What you fail to notice is how the
>wins were accomplished. 19 times out of 20, the Reds win those first tow
>games.
Huh? I say, "19 times out of 20, the Braves win those games." How
do you argue this? Really, asserting that any team would beat the
Braves 19 out of 20 times in a close game is assinine.
>I just don't go for this nonsense that if you lose, that means the other team
>was better. Ask the Braves in 93 when they won 104 and lost to Phillie, or
>the 73 Reds vs the Mets. I'm not saying it's a no-contest between the Reds
>and the Braves. It just simp;ly isn't true that the best team always wins.
>That is simply baseball jargon.
Sure, in one series the best team may not win. In a 144 game season, the
Braves had a better record by 5 or 6 games. In a 13 game head-to-head
matchup during the regular season, the Braves won 8-5 (indeed, a Brave's
fan could argue that it was only *that* close because the Reds "got lucky"
early in the year by catching the Braves when they weren't playing well,
and beating them in some close games. 19 times out of 20, the Braves
win those early season games, right?) In the playoffs, the Braves beat
the Reds 4-0. That gives the Braves a 12-5 advantage head-to-head. At
what point does that result start to tell you something about which
team is better "overall?"
>OK. Tell me I'm not a true Reds fan. I'm not giving up on the Reds. How is
>this "fair weather"? I'm saying they should have won, and would 19 times out
>of 20. I'd do this year over again in a heartbeat. Do it all with Wells and
>Portugal in there instead of Jarvis and Nitowski, and the Reds would have
>won nearly 100.
Gee, and if the Braves could do it all over again with Wohlers as a
dominant closer, Deveraux and Polonia on the bench instead of Mike
Kelly and Jose Oliva, Pena in the bullpen instead of Mike Stanton,
and Ryan Klesko and Dave Justice not hurt like they were
in May and June, then they would have won *over* 100 games and STILL
beat the Reds. What does this kind of thinking show?
>> > The Braves, good pitching. Rather boring.
>>
>> Maddux boring! You haven't watched much baseball.
>
>I have probably watched more in 30 years than you have in 40.
And you still think Maddux pitching is boring? You didn't learn
much from watching all those games. The Brave's led the league
in last AB victories, had the greatest pitcher of our time throwing
a masterpiece every fifth day, followed by lefty who is putting
together a HOF caliber career, the ROY, and the best young power
hitter in the league (Klesko) putting together a Frank Thomas
like year (.400+ OBP, .600+ slg.) Many people found that exciting
baseball.
>> > I also hold a huge grudge when the Braves jerk radio broadcaster
>> > mouths off and says that after the last series in Cincinnati in
>> > September, the Reds proved they couldn't hit the Braves pitching.
>>
>> He was correct!
>
>If you don't see the assenine quality to someone making such arrogant
>statements, then you are blind.
Log me in as someone who is blind too. Seems to me the assanine
broadcaster was dead on. In the last *7* games the Brave's played
the Reds, the Reds scored *7* runs. And they had to steal home to
get one of those. If one leaves out Avery's start in the Reds
come back win in July, the Brave's pitching dominance extends even
further.
>
>>> THings you never saw all season long are
>> > happening.
>>
>> What you saw is the better team won!
>
>OK. Fine. Sounds like jargon to me. The better team THIS WEEK. I'll take
>the Reds, especially what they had at the end of the year. Hoping of course,
> that they can do something to keep Gant and Morris (a large hope)
Why do you continue to pretend that the only time or way that the Braves
asserted their dominance was in that humiliating playoff sweep? Why do
you continue to pretend that close games are *supposed* to go to the
Reds, rather than the Braves?
>> Get over it the Reds lost!
>
>I'm over it. I just don't throw out my ability to observe with it!
Well, you are not aware that you've thrown out your ability to observe,
but we are trying to help you come around.
>> > It just seems the Reds could have provided a better showcase of
>> > baseball in all its aspects. It's a shame the country will miss that.
I would rather watch Greg Maddux cement his place as one of the greatest
pitchers of all time on opening night of the WS, as he did, then hear
all the babbling about how "great" and "awesome" Schourek is from people
who don't know the meanings of the words. Schourek had a nice season, but
he can't carry Maddux' jock.
>What did I just say? I said the Reds had a great year just a couple of
>paragraphs back. I said that the Reds have shown they are a great team. I
>said it's a shame they coul;dn't show that, and give the country a better
>showcase of a totally balanced team!
The Pirates were a "totally balanced team." They were mediocre in
everything. The Reds were a bit better in everything, and awfully "balanced,"
but not particularly great in anything. I'd much rather watch a team that
ranks among the all-time greats in an area that matters -- and base-stealing
is not such an area. I would rather watch McGriff's majestic homers and
Chipper's spectacular defense and Maddux's surgical precision and Glavine's
steely resolve and Wohler's 103 mph vanishing peas than Reggie Sanders K's
and Ron Gant's biceps. Call me crazy.
>You just don't see what I am saying!
Heck, I don't think you even see what you are saying.
--Gregg
Dale Lature
>ghro...@phil.indiana.edu (Gregg Rosenberg) wrote:
>>I would rather watch Greg Maddux cement his place as one of the greatest
>>pitchers of all time on opening night of the WS, as he did, then hear
>>all the babbling about how "great" and "awesome" Schourek is from people
>>who don't know the meanings of the words. Schourek had a nice season, but
>>he can't carry Maddux' jock.
>>The Pirates were a "totally balanced team." They were mediocre in
>>everything. The Reds were a bit better in everything, and awfully "balanced,"
>>but not particularly great in anything.
>>ranks among the all-time greats in an area that matters -- and base-stealing
>>is not such an area. I would rather watch McGriff's majestic homers and
>>Chipper's spectacular defense and Maddux's surgical precision and Glavine's
>>steely resolve and Wohler's 103 mph vanishing peas than Reggie Sanders K's
>>and Ron Gant's biceps. Call me crazy.
All of this stuff is fine for Braves fans who now think they are the
greatest thing since sliced bread. All of this from fans who now have
the chance to talk as if they invented the game of baseball, when the
facts are that this franchise(IF they can keep from blowing it this
time) is about to win it's first since 1957, and before that it was
1914! A grand total of 6 times before this year, and ONE series win.
It's kind of like the Cleveland fans they are so critical of.
The worst thing is, just what are these people doing here in this
group? What kind of "vulture" hangs around in a group of a team that
has just lost a very frustrating series?
It seems that one would rather go and celebrate with their own. It is
pretty poor to see.
I'm just watching and enjoying rthe games. Why, I even can sit back
and marvel at the pitching these guys put out there (the Atlanta),
and pull for the Indians with my heart, but intellectually I can take
pride in the fact that now the Braves are shutting down the Indians
pretty well. They've done it against what are two of the best
offenses in baseball.
Two games to go. If the tribe can get Glavine, then it's Smoltz
again. Anything can happen.
Dale Lature
>Every team has a period of the year where they go 1-8. The Brave's
>had theirs in May, and the Reds had theirs in April.
Of course. It just happened to start the season for the Reds.....no
big deal.....it was just an observation.
>>Of course. You state only the obvious. What you fail to notice is how the
>>wins were accomplished. 19 times out of 20, the Reds win those first tow
>>games.
>Huh? I say, "19 times out of 20, the Braves win those games." How
>do you argue this? Really, asserting that any team would beat the
>Braves 19 out of 20 times in a close game is assinine.
No.....the point was: IN those kinds of situations that the reds had
time after time after time.......give them that many shots again,
add to that the ball hitting the catcher's foot after he missed it,
and you get pretty big odds that the Reds just had the misfortune this
time of hitting the 1 in 20 way to lose anyway.....
>>I just don't go for this nonsense that if you lose, that means the other team
>>was better. Ask the Braves in 93 when they won 104 and lost to Phillie, or
>>the 73 Reds vs the Mets. I'm not saying it's a no-contest between the Reds
>>and the Braves. It just simp;ly isn't true that the best team always wins.
>>That is simply baseball jargon.
>Sure, in one series the best team may not win. In a 144 game season, the
>Braves had a better record by 5 or 6 games. In a 13 game head-to-head
>matchup during the regular season, the Braves won 8-5 (indeed, a Brave's
>fan could argue that it was only *that* close because the Reds "got lucky"
>early in the year by catching the Braves when they weren't playing well,
You mean just like the Braves did the last time into Riverfront?
>and beating them in some close games. 19 times out of 20, the Braves
>win those early season games, right?)
Nope.....they didn't have quite as many chances to win those games as
the Reds did in games 1 and 2.....
In the playoffs, the Braves beat
>the Reds 4-0. That gives the Braves a 12-5 advantage head-to-head. At
>what point does that result start to tell you something about which
>team is better "overall?"
I guess you think you told me
>And you still think Maddux pitching is boring?
Nope. Not what I said. I said the Braves offense is boring.
You didn't learn
>much from watching all those games. The Brave's led the league
>in last AB victories,
Due to their pitching prowess....not their hitting.
They get the chance to do that so many times becuase their offense
isn't getting the Runbs to put them ahead early.
had the greatest pitcher of our time throwing
>a masterpiece every fifth day, followed by lefty who is putting
>together a HOF caliber career, the ROY, and the best young power
>hitter in the league (Klesko)
Spoken like a true Braves fan
>Log me in as someone who is blind too. Seems to me the assanine
>broadcaster was dead on.
It doesn't justify him saying that. He did not "know" as noone can,
what is going to happen. Even one of the Braves pitchers themselves
said: "I'm not going to make any stupid predictions".
In the last *7* games the Brave's played
>the Reds, the Reds scored *7* runs. And they had to steal home to
>get one of those. If one leaves out Avery's start in the Reds
>come back win in July, the Brave's pitching dominance extends even
>further.
Now there YOU go, leaving out this or that........I guess anyone can
play that game
>Why do you continue to pretend that the only time or way that the Braves
>asserted their dominance was in that humiliating playoff sweep?
See.....only someone who is either desperate for some sense of
personal superiority, or some one who did not see those games, would
call that series a "humiliating sweep"! When it started out with two
extra inning games, and ended with the Braves scoring thier ONLY run
off of Shourek by "hitting" his pitchihng hand! They couldn't hit
him! 2 runs in 17 innings! If that was humiliating, the Braves were
just an eyelash above humilating themselves.
Why do
>you continue to pretend that close games are *supposed* to go to the
>Reds, rather than the Braves?
They're not "supposed" to, just there were an awful lot of "breaks"
the braves got, and very few "bad breaks" the Braves got.
>Well, you are not aware that you've thrown out your ability to observe,
>but we are trying to help you come around.
I don't see much chance in YOUR perspective "staightneing me out",
when it's clear what you think.....and it's clear whart I think.
>>> > It just seems the Reds could have provided a better showcase of
>>> > baseball in all its aspects. It's a shame the country will miss that.
>I would rather watch Greg Maddux cement his place as one of the greatest
>pitchers of all time on opening night of the WS, as he did, then hear
>all the babbling about how "great" and "awesome" Schourek is from people
>who don't know the meanings of the words. Schourek had a nice season, but
>he can't carry Maddux' jock.
Good. So go sniff on it yourself.
>The Pirates were a "totally balanced team." They were mediocre in
>everything. The Reds were a bit better in everything, and awfully "balanced,"
>but not particularly great in anything.
Oh shut up!
They blew away the rest ogf the majors in steals, scored more runs vs
the rest of the NL"s average runs than the Indians did against the AL
average, and better at EVERYTHING than Atlanta other than starting
rotation, but still a strong third in the NL in that area.
>ranks among the all-time greats in an area that matters -- and base-stealing
>is not such an area. I would rather watch McGriff's majestic homers and
>Chipper's spectacular defense and Maddux's surgical precision and Glavine's
>steely resolve and Wohler's 103 mph vanishing peas than Reggie Sanders K's
>and Ron Gant's biceps. Call me crazy.
You're gloating, and thank you very much, I'll take 28 homers and
99 RBI's with 36 steals, and a cannon arm every year. His post
season jitters will pass.
>>You just don't see what I am saying!
>Heck, I don't think you even see what you are saying.
GO ahaead and wallow in your own self -righteousness, and get back to
your Braves group where people care
Dale Lature
>>The Pirates were a "totally balanced team." They were mediocre in
>>everything. The Reds were a bit better in everything, and awfully "balanced,"
>>but not particularly great in anything.
>Oh shut up!
>They blew away the rest ogf the majors in steals, scored more runs vs
>the rest of the NL"s average runs than the Indians did against the AL
>average, and better at EVERYTHING than Atlanta other than starting
>rotation, but still a strong third in the NL in that area.
I tried to erase that note and leave out the above "Shut up!" but
found it was too late.
I wanted to state my apology for what might be construed as being too
abusive....but I wanted to say that it was said in the spirit of "Oh
come now" or "get outta here"......
I did react to what seemed to me to be a little mouthing off when the
guy says that the reds were not particulalrly great at anything. Just
another loud mouth gloating.........but we Reds fans know better.
IN one sense, it was good to see the Braves shut down the Indians.
Bobby Cox said in the post game interviews that "we shut down
Cincinnati too, and they are just as good a hitting club as this
one"........I was appreciative of his acknowledging that.
This post season proved once again that more often than not, good
pitching stops good hitting. The Braves stopped what I consider to be
the three top offenses in baseball.
Bruce McQuain
>I did react to what seemed to me to be a little mouthing off when the
>guy says that the reds were not particulalrly great at anything. Just
>another loud mouth gloating.........but we Reds fans know better.
Dale...I can understand your frustration concerning the Reds. On
the whole, they ARE a much more balanced team than the Braves. What
make the Braves what they are is the deepest starting pitching in
baseball and an above average bullpen. Add CLUTCH hitting (they got
'em when they needed them, and they got enough) and you have a pretty
good formula for winning and winning often. It's tough to get through
a 5 man rotation where you honestly EXPECT 4 of 5 starts to be wins.
>IN one sense, it was good to see the Braves shut down the Indians.
>Bobby Cox said in the post game interviews that "we shut down
>Cincinnati too, and they are just as good a hitting club as this
>one"........I was appreciative of his acknowledging that.
The Braves, and Brave's fans, KNOW that any trip to the post-season
for them will involve the Reds somehow. Please don't think any
Brave's fan takes the Reds lightly. They ALWAYS play the Braves
tough. What you have to acknowledge is the Brave's pitching might be
on a little different plane right now than what is average around both
leagues. Would you have believed a one-hit shut-out of the Indians in
the final game of the WS? I certainly would NEVER have made that
bet...the Indians? .291 TEAM batting average? No way? But Maddux
2-hit them and Glavin 1-hit 'em.
The Reds have NOTHING to be ashamed of...they ran into a tremendous
pitching staff who happened to be peaking at the perfect time. One of
the amazing stats of the WS was that the Indians went 9 for 91 in the
three games in Atlanta...INCREDIBLE!. That's under a .100 batting
average...who'd have thought that possible?
>This post season proved once again that more often than not, good
>pitching stops good hitting. The Braves stopped what I consider to be
>the three top offenses in baseball.
An excellent observation, Dale. They proved the old adage "good
pitching beats good hitting" and gave us something to talk about while
we chomp at the bit for "next year" to roll around so we can start all
this crazy stuff again.
All I've got to say is thank God baseball is back...
Best to you.
---------------------------------------
McQ
William Vaughan
Bruce McQuain <mcq...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> The Braves, and Brave's fans, KNOW that any trip to the post-season
>for them will involve the Reds somehow. Please don't think any
>Brave's fan takes the Reds lightly. They ALWAYS play the Braves
>tough. What you have to acknowledge is the Brave's pitching might be
>on a little different plane right now than what is average around both
>leagues. Would you have believed a one-hit shut-out of the Indians in
>the final game of the WS? I certainly would NEVER have made that
>bet...the Indians? .291 TEAM batting average? No way? But Maddux
>2-hit them and Glavin 1-hit 'em.
>
> The Reds have NOTHING to be ashamed of...they ran into a tremendous
>pitching staff who happened to be peaking at the perfect time. One of
>the amazing stats of the WS was that the Indians went 9 for 91 in the
>three games in Atlanta...INCREDIBLE!. That's under a .100 batting
>average...who'd have thought that possible?
This is the best explanation of the Braves championship I've read. They're
bats certainly didn't set any records that's for sure, but the pitching staff
rose to the occasion and handcuffed the Rocks, Reds and Tribe. I would worry a
littel if I were Braves GM - losing McGriff and the clutch hitting that won't
support them through out the reg. season when the pitching staff is down (which
isn't often) will make it hard to repeat - fortunately (for them) Mr. Turner
has some pretty deep pockets and isn't afraid to shell out the big bucks for
the right player.
later
Will
David Nieporent
Mindcrimer <mindc...@aol.com> wrote:
>dla...@iac.net (Dale Lature) writes:
>>>Chipper's spectacular defense
>LOL! Yeah right! Chipper made over 20 errors at third base.
So? Errors by themselves don't tell anything useful about defense, any
more than counting popups tells you anything useful about offense.
People with better range make more errors, but are better defensive players.
--
David M. Nieporent "We don't want 'rational' decisions made in
Niep...@pluto.njcc.com sport. We don't need your notion of 'rational.'
Deer Creek/Plainsboro, NJ We have our own." -- RLM in r.s.b, 10/27/95
DAVEY JOHNSON & ORIOLES 1996!!!!!!!!