+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: General Sports (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-90.html)
+--- Forum: Cincinnati Reds (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: Why aren't the '90 Reds one of the all time greatest teams? (/thread-19487.html)
Why aren't the '90 Reds one of the all time greatest teams? - McC - 03-09-2019
They weren't exactly loaded with stars. They had a few stars and a bunch of good players but nothing that overwhelms. One guy in the HOF. One.
They went wire to wire in first and went on to sweep the Mighty A's.
Twenty five homers led the team. Eight six RBI's led the team. As a team, they hit 125 homers. Team batting average of .265.
They had one fifteen game winner, one fourteen game winner and one twelve game winner.
Granted, they had the Nasty Boys. But does having dominant bullpen make you dominant?
The point is, they were the epitome of a winning as a team. Yet. they get no love in the all time conversation. I think that is nothing short of a travesty.
RE: Why aren't the '90 Reds one of the all tinmegreatest tems? - Circleville Guy - 03-10-2019
The Greatest Teams were so good that they won multiple Championships. That team overachieved.
RE: Why aren't the '90 Reds one of the all tinmegreatest tems? - McC - 03-10-2019
(03-10-2019, 04:00 AM)Circleville Guy Wrote: The Greatest Teams were so good that they won multiple Championships. That team overachieved.
Exactly. They won what they shouldn't have. They won as a team. It was an incredible achievement. It's one of the all time great SEASONS by a team. But it gets no respect. It's bullshit. How come overachieving doesn't matter?
WIRE TO WIRE. How many teams have done that? FIVE. In a hundred and fifty years.
When they talk all time great teams they talk about the '27 Yankees, for instance. They don't talk about the '25 through '30 Yankees, do they? I didn't say anything about dynasties, which is what you're talking about.
RE: Why aren't the '90 Reds one of the all time greatest teams? - jason - 03-10-2019
(03-09-2019, 07:41 PM)McC Wrote: They weren't exactly loaded with stars. They had a few stars and a bunch of good players but nothing that overwhelms. One guy in the HOF. One.
They went wire to wire in first and went on to sweep the Mighty A's.
Twenty five homers led the team. Eight six RBI's led the team. As a team, they hit 125 homers. Team batting average of .265.
They had one fifteen game winner, one fourteen game winner and one twelve game winner.
Granted, they had the Nasty Boys. But does having dominant bullpen make you dominant?
The point is, they were the epitome of a winning as a team. Yet. they get no love in the all time conversation. I think that is nothing short of a travesty.
Baseball values numbers and statistics like no other sport. You pretty much answered your own question in your post. Having said that... They did donkey punch Oakland in the World Series.
RE: Why aren't the '90 Reds one of the all time greatest teams? - McC - 03-10-2019
(03-10-2019, 01:47 PM)jason Wrote: Baseball values numbers and statistics like no other sport. You pretty much answered your own question in your post. Have said that... They did donkey punch Oakland in the World Series.
But the very lack of numbers is exactly what makes it such an amazing accomplishment.
RE: Why aren't the '90 Reds one of the all time greatest teams? - guyofthetiger - 03-10-2019
I personally think part of the problem was the fans did not fully embrace this team like they did the Big Red Machine. In the 70's, you went to a game and expected a win. In 1990, the fans did not expect the result they got so for lack of a better term it seemed lucky to win out. I blame that on the poor marketing of the Reds that year.
RE: Why aren't the '90 Reds one of the all time greatest teams? - Circleville Guy - 03-11-2019
(03-10-2019, 05:19 AM)McC Wrote: Exactly. They won what they shouldn't have. They won as a team. It was an incredible achievement. It's one of the all time great SEASONS by a team. But it gets no respect. It's bullshit. How come overachieving doesn't matter?They were actually talking about the A’s possibly sweeping the Reds beforehand. I kinda think that the whole steroid, bash brothers thing made some people sour on the accomplishment. I think that it’s pretty cool to see an underdog win the series. I think it was more of a special season instead of a special team, historically anyways.
WIRE TO WIRE. How many teams have done that? FIVE. In a hundred and fifty years.
When they talk all time great teams they talk about the '27 Yankees, for instance. They don't talk about the '25 through '30 Yankees, do they? I didn't say anything about dynasties, which is what you're talking about.
RE: Why aren't the '90 Reds one of the all time greatest teams? - bengalfan74 - 03-11-2019
Marge Schott cast a shadow of stink over that team that left a smell that won't go away.
RE: Why aren't the '90 Reds one of the all time greatest teams? - Goalpost - 03-11-2019
Unfortunately , the 'national' conversation was that the A's were chokers. I still remember Sabo jesting that we beat them fair and square as if he knew that the team deserved more credit.
RE: Why aren't the '90 Reds one of the all time greatest teams? - grampahol - 03-11-2019
So who says they weren't one of the all time greats? They mowed down the competition that season at nearly every stop and ran the tables in the WS against a team that was "supposed to" win it all, It's like asking what was the greatest ass wipe of all time after taking a crap.. It's all subjective.. Nobody asked me who the greatest WS champion team was. It was of course the 1990 Reds. Screw the rest of the ass wipers.. Only I know when my ass feels well wiped.
RE: Why aren't the '90 Reds one of the all time greatest teams? - Stewy - 03-12-2019
(03-09-2019, 07:41 PM)McC Wrote: They weren't exactly loaded with stars. They had a few stars and a bunch of good players but nothing that overwhelms. One guy in the HOF. One.
They went wire to wire in first and went on to sweep the Mighty A's.
Twenty five homers led the team. Eight six RBI's led the team. As a team, they hit 125 homers. Team batting average of .265.
They had one fifteen game winner, one fourteen game winner and one twelve game winner.
Granted, they had the Nasty Boys. But does having dominant bullpen make you dominant?
The point is, they were the epitome of a winning as a team. Yet. they get no love in the all time conversation. I think that is nothing short of a travesty.
I grew up watching the Reds, live and on TV. My family had season tickets for 25 years from the early 70's to the mid 90's. My point is, I've seen lots of good Reds teams over the years, and IMO the 1990 club is not even close to the conversation for best of all time. Right players getting hot at the right time, with likely one of the best bullpens EVER.
You sort of dismissed the Nasty boys as the reason, but they WERE the reason for that teams success. If the game got to 6th inning and the Reds were in the lead, the game was over......period. I have never in my 40 years of watching baseball seen a more dominant 3 man punch from the bullpen.
(Historic) The bullpen along with Rijo's lights out performance and Billy Hatcher playing out of his mind in the World Series batting .750, were the reasons they won.
But 5 players going out of their minds does not a historic TEAM make.
By comparison the Astros from a couple years ago were a much better TEAM in terms of overall and balanced talent than the 1990 Reds, but I still wouldn't even put them in the greatest of all time, so I certainly wouldn't include the 1990 Reds.
Just my opinion.
Side Note: I will never till my dying day forget, watching live, Eric Davis' crowning glory moment of hitting that HR off Stewart in the first Inning of Game 1. I was at Miami of Ohio at the time and the entire Campus was watching, literally. The collective roar across the campus was amazing. That moment set the tone for the entire series.