By Jonathan Goldstein

November 3, 2009 6:36 PM | Link to this

What is your take on Harold Baines, Bert Blyleven, Andre “the Hawk” Dawson, and Alan Trammell? Hall of Famers or not?

By jose

November 1, 2009 1:29 PM | Link to this

Alright, Mac, have it your way! If you think the BRM was the greatest team of all time, so be it. I like the ‘61 Yankees, and the ‘98 Yankees. They won 114 games during the regular season. The’61 Yankees won about 108 while overpowering a very impressive Tiger team which also won 100+ games. I also like those A’s teams. I respect your opinion Gary, but the A’s did it 3 years in a row to 2 very good teams and to one great Nat’l league team. So which one was the greatest of all time? I don’t think we’ll ever know…but we can continue to speculate. Adios amigos!

By Gary Maloy Jr.

November 1, 2009 9:55 AM | Link to this

Yeh, yeh. Read once more through my posts. I advocate a salary cap and revenue sharing. I’m all for the players having the right to work for whom they wish. But the owners can’t control themselves (can you say Alex Rodriquez?). Therefore, the idiot Selig needs to dictate other measures by which the game millions love will be saved for future generations.

By Mike-Dayton

November 1, 2009 9:37 AM | Link to this

Gary - Free Agency is nothing more than allowing a player to play/work for any team he chooses … you are remembering and glorifying a time when players had no rights, were discarded or traded at will by the owners, were released randomly and were considered from a legal standpoint - “owned” by the team. Free Agency provided the players the same rights which were already in place in America. Once free agency was in place, players had the right to find an owner willing to pay him more than his current club and owners had the right to do so (or to walk away). This is basic capitalism … players go for the most money as most people do in their own lives. Loyalty to a team in pre-free agency time did not exist as the players were servants to the owner, not loyal per se’. They did not have a choice - they had to play for that owner or not work. That is not loyalty.

By Gary Maloy Jr.

November 1, 2009 7:51 AM | Link to this

PS. The 1972 World Series. The Reds scored 21 runs to the A’s 16. In the games the Reds lost, the starting pitchers gave up 6 runs in 23 innings pitched for a 2,35 ERA. Game 1: G.Nolan 3ER in 6IP. Game 2: R.Grimsley 2ER in 5IP. Game 4: D.Gullett 1ER in 7IP. Game 7: 0ER in 5IP. I can’t see that the Reds starting pitching can be blamed for anything at all. Do you want to know why the Reds lost to the A’s in 1972? Pete Rose hit .214 while Joe Morgan was hitting a meager .125. As we know what those two were really good for, can we concede that the Reds “actually” were better than the 1972 Athletics, but came out on the wrong end of the box scores?

By Gary Maloy Jr.

November 1, 2009 7:35 AM | Link to this

MAC - I’ll give you the fact that Steinbrenner has bought his share of championships - Jose, 1977 was the perfect example with Reggie, Catfish and Don Gullett being George’s first free-agents. Like I said in my previous comment here, I hate free-agency. I do believe that some kind of revenue sharing and a salary cap is the ONLY way to save the game from itself. But, one thing can’t be denied: this year’s team in the Bronx has more home-grown players than do the Phillies. What I miss about the baseball I grew up with is the blockbuster trade. The Reds December 1971 trade with the Astros bringing Morgan, Geronimo and Billingham to Cincinnati is only one example. When did we last see a trade like that in Cincinnati? Maybe when Griffey was brought in from Seattle. The lack of loyalty modern player$ $how their teammates, fans and employers is tragic. They’re only loyal to their ego$, wallet$ and bank account$. Whatever happened to guys like (wasn’t it?) Lymon Bostock. He signed a multi-year deal with the Angels(?), started out at the Mendosa line through the all-star game, and gave his income for those months back to the team (the money went to charity). What did he get for his honesty and humility? Shot. Dead. Too bad, baseball needs guys like that.

By Gary Maloy Jr.

November 1, 2009 7:21 AM | Link to this

Funny you should ask about Charley Finleys circus show (what else can we call it?). Just last night, I pulled the DVD out and listened to Curt Gowdy narrate the highlights of the 1972 World Series. No doubt, the A’s were good. But remember, the Big Red Machine B-Team (Dennis Menke at 3rd, Bobby Tolan in CF, Cesar Geronimo in RF) lost 4 games to 3. All but one game was decided by one run. 2-1, 3-2, 1-0, 3-2, 5-4, 8-1, 3-2. The man who beat the Reds that year - Gene Tenace - was nearly never heard from again. A fluke, in other words. But, hey, they beat the Reds. They beat the Dodgers and they beat the Mets. You can’t argue history. But they disappeared pretty quickly, with Charlie Finley doing the same thing with his team that Dick Wagner would do to the BRM 3-4 years later. I hate free-agency, too, btw.

By MAC

November 1, 2009 12:47 AM | Link to this

Jose & Gary, they’re not called the damn Yankees for nothing ya know! It’s funny Jose conceeds Gary’s knowledge of the facts, but chooses to ignore the fact the 76 Reds SPANKED your over-paid, over-hyped Yankees in 4…essentially the same 77 team U try to over-inflate. Likewise, try not to ignore the fact that many/most “baseball people” agree the BRM was one of the best teams if not the best team of all time. Of course, I realize any facts that don’t praise the Yankees R ones most any self absorbed east coast Yankee type would try to ignore!!

By jose

October 31, 2009 11:30 PM | Link to this

Interesting story, Gary. Although I grew up in Brooklyn, I came to also hate the Dodgers. My dad was a Yankee fan, so I followed in his footsteps. I left Brooklyn in 1959, went to UD then taught in Trotwood. I’ve been back in N.Y. since 1970. With all this talk about those great Reds’ teams of the ‘70’s,how would you rank the Oakland A’s who won the Series from 72-74? They beat the likes of Gullett, Billingham, Seaver, Koosman, Marshall,etc. Now those were great teams!!!

By Gary Maloy Jr.

October 31, 2009 8:32 PM | Link to this

Jose - most midwesterners hate the Yankees. I’m not one of them. In ‘77 and ‘78, I rooted for the Yankees. I hated the Dodgers. I was 17 and 18 in those years, and Garvey, Lopes, Cey, Russell, Baker and ESPECIALLY LaSorda were hated people all summer. I couldn’t bring myself to root for them in October. My best friend’s Dad threatened with throwing me out of his National League house the night Reggie hit his three home runs on three pitches. When my family visited an uncle in Los Angeles, Christmas 1978, Tommy LaSorda passed by while we were waiting to go in to the Johnny Carson show. My mom asked him where her favorite player (Steve Garvey) was (it was about 7:30-8:00 p.m.). LaSorda said ‘In bed like all good athletes.’ I couldn’t hold back and asked him ‘Y’all couldn’t handle the Yankees, huh?’ He tucked his fat tail between his legs and kept walking - didn’t even answer me. I like to think I’m one of the few who managed to shut that man’s mouth. I still hate the Dodgers, btw.

By jose

October 31, 2009 1:35 PM | Link to this

I enjoyed reading your post, Gary.However, in spite of it showing your obvious knowledge of the facts, it lacked the “crudeness” so evidenced in the comments posted by O”Really. I swear, if there is a “Finishing School” somewhere in Dayton, someone should be so kind enough to enroll him. Maybe your right about the ‘76 Reds beating the ‘77 Yankees. That still wouldn’t make them the best team ever. And about the Yankees buying the ‘77 Series, well, maybe you’re right! But didn’t Gullett, Jackson, and the rest of them sell themselves? Think about it, it’s all about money! Here it is, November, and we haven’t finished the World Series, with 2 “travel days”…. N.Y. to Philadelphia…about one and one half hours from each other!

By Gary Maloy Jr.

October 31, 2009 11:43 AM | Link to this

To Mets Stunk: No, the Mets weren’t that good BUT, Tom Seaver won 18-20-21-19-11-22-14-7 games for the Mets from 1970 until he was traded (thank God) to the Reds. Jerry Koosman wasn’t Seaver, but still won 11-14-15-14-21 games from 1972-1976. Jon Matlack won 15-14-13-16-17 games for a mediocre Mets team between 1972-76. During the years 1970-76, the Mets finished 3rd,3rd,3rd,1st,5th,3rd,3rd. I wouldn’t say they weren’t in the running. Even in ‘74 when they finished in 5th place, Seaver won 21, Matlack 15 and Koosman 11. My point being, there were a load of good pitchers in both the NL West and NL East - and although the Mets were middle of the road - offensively, they had some strong pitching that the BRM had to beat. If I may mention the following in addition to what I’ve already mentioned about the power (can we call Niekro a power pitcher, hehe) pitchers of the NL between 1970-79: Steve Carlton won 178 games, Phil Niekro 165, Don Sutton 166, Tommy John 87 (1972-78), Tom Seaver 130 (1970-77), Ferguson Jenkins 80 (1970-73). We used to pummel the Pirates like Ali pummeled Quarry despite them having Steve Blass, Dock Ellis, Jerry Reuss and John Candelaria. Pitching was simply better 35 years ago. And that’s why you can’t compare the modern-day Fillys with the Big Red Machine.

By Gary Maloy Jr.

October 31, 2009 11:13 AM | Link to this

Oh Really and Jose - thanks for the chuckle. I about died at you arresting him, MAC. BaaaHahahaha. Aside from that, I really wished we’d played the Yankees in 1977. But it was difficult, what with Tony Perez in Montreal (of all places, due to an idiot of a general manager - Dick Wagner), the Yankees BUYING Don Gullett (FREE AGENCY, Jose - the Yankees bought that Series triumf) the relief corps decimated, the bum Danny Driessen on 1st base and with - get this sportsfans! - Paul Moskau, Doug Capilla (unbelievably acquired for Rawly Eastwick) and Woodie (f*ing) Fryman on the back end of the starting rotation. But if we want to argue, I’ll the the 1976 Reds ahead of the 1977 Yankees anytime. And you all can use Gullett - because we have Tom Terrific.

By Jose

October 31, 2009 11:08 AM | Link to this

I think fans around the country also realize that this game is all about money, some come out of you cave, Mac. And to you O’Really, I don’t like being called dumb, let alone by some provincial narrow minded hayseed who can’t even read!

By Oh Really

October 31, 2009 9:30 AM | Link to this

Jose - you might want to get your head out of Joe Girardi’s lap and realize you’re responding to me but it is MAC who posted the most latest comments … man, you’re dumb. Get a life too. Your Yankees are in the World Series and you’re running around with your pants down posting nonsense on a Reds’ blog????

By MAC

October 31, 2009 7:23 AM | Link to this

Only a Snob of a NY fan would consider it a level playing field. It’s anything but level and most any other fan across the country understands that.

By Jose

October 31, 2009 6:57 AM | Link to this

Well,O’Really, that’s what they call “capitalism”. It’s a level playing field, and the real difference is that the Yankees choose to spend their money!

By MAC

October 31, 2009 1:27 AM | Link to this

Jose, the difference of course is the Yanks’ WS wins R bought & paid for whereas the Reds earned theirs the hard way…developing their own players w/ an occassional trade.

By Jose

October 30, 2009 9:21 PM | Link to this

Oh, well, O’Realley, I’ll keep this one short, since you couldn’t fully comprehend my post. We’re about to win our 28th World Series! Don’t feel bad,if not the Reds, the Flyers may be in the post season!

By Oh Really

October 30, 2009 8:59 PM | Link to this

Jose - I’ll take that as a “yes” that the ‘76 spanking is still healing for you.

By Jose

October 30, 2009 7:59 PM | Link to this

Oh Really, Oh Really? Your right about stats, but baseball is a team sport not a game of individual stats. Don’t forget, your Reds lost in 70, 72,barely won in 75 and swept in ‘76. They were called the Big Red Machine in 1970 and ‘72. All things considered, they are not the greatest team of all time. And yes, I am a Yankee fan and proud of it Big Fellow! We won 27 World Series, what have you done lately? Yeah, I forgot what the Reds did in ‘76, because we’ve done a lot since…32 yrs. ago. Get out of that time warp. Enjoy the Series, I know I will, since we’re a part of it!

By Oh Really

October 30, 2009 6:21 PM | Link to this

Jose - check the stats big boy - the determination of the 75-76 Reds team is not how quickly they won the World Series, but the stats they accumulated as they got to and won the World Series. You brushing aside the Reds winning in 75 because it took them 7 games is really, really dumb and then when they sweep the next year, you say the Yankees (who won 97) “weren’t a good team” … aside from being dumb, you appear also to be a Yankee fan … so how did that spanking we put on you in 1976 really feel??? Still tender is it??

By Jose

October 30, 2009 6:09 PM | Link to this

What are you Reds fans smoking? It was those same Reds who had to go the distance to beat the Red Sox in ‘75!! Best team of all time? Give me a break! The ‘76 Yankees were overmatched because they weren’t a good team. I’ll take the ‘77 Yankees over those Reds. We not only had Guidry, but we had Jackson, Guidry, and one of your greats, Gullett. I’d also take the ‘61 Yankees and the ‘98 Yankees over those Reds.

By mike cahill

October 30, 2009 10:26 AM | Link to this

I would much prefer Joe Morgan and I would rather have Tony Perez than Ryan Howard or anyone else currently playing. He contributed with his bat, his glove and his huge heart. Trading him was the second dummest trade the Reds ever made.

By Kzoo Steve

October 29, 2009 12:23 PM | Link to this

The Phillies play in a band box. Reds played in a canyon. Imagine the dingers the BRM would have launched in that park? Top to bottom talent, this ain’t even close. And check their second best player (Howard) vs. lefties. Not good at all. That being said, I hope they whip the Yanks. Baseball ain’t baseball if the pitcher doesn’t bat.

By MAC

October 29, 2009 1:16 AM | Link to this

Good stuff Hal; I agree w/ your grading of both teams. Current Philly team is blessed w/ 3 quality lead-off men w/ speed who get on in front of 3 quality run producers. In that way, Philly is very similar to the Big Red Mach w/ Rose Griffey & Morgan, follwed by Bench, Perez & Foster. Of course, it’s what’s missing from the current Reds team. Somehow Stubbs/Dickerson, Yanish/anyone else and Votto just don’t match up. I like the Stubbs/Dickerson CF idea as Lead-off, but I’d like to see Cincy make a play for Carl Crawford to hit 2nd and then put BP in the 3 hole so he can use his speed & shorten up his stroke; he’s much more of a weapon in that role. Votto, Role and then Bruce/Gomes would be a much improved middle 3rd IMO. For all the naysayers, it’s the off season…a guy can dream can’t he?

By Scott

October 28, 2009 3:28 PM | Link to this

Is there a video game out there for a system (XBox, PlayStation, or even on a PC) where we can play this out? The 2009 Phillies vs the 1976 Reds?

By joebaseball

October 28, 2009 8:47 AM | Link to this

In summary, the Phillies are very good, but the Big Red Machine was great! All ya gotta do is look at each team compared to it’s piers. Runs scored; stolen bases; runs allowed; and most importantly, wins. Comparison not even close.

By RC

October 27, 2009 4:23 PM | Link to this

Well, if you’re going to compare long finished careers with short active ones, the short ones are at a competitive disadvantage, no? Probably makes more sense to compare the Reds’ ‘75-‘76 seasons to the Phils last couple. Which I haven’t done, but I have my uneducated impressions anyway. 1) Howard over Perez - sadly, yes. 2) Utley over Morgan - only if you’re willing to buy this slightly used bridge I got here. 3) Rollins spent 3/4 of his season with an OBP in the Taveras range. Pass. 4) Sadly, I gotta take Victorino’s all-around over Geronimo’s D, and Werth’s pop over Griffey’s BA. 5) Gullett was a solid ace, but I remember Nolan being spotty, and the other three guys as beneficiaries of a lot of runs. Am I misremembering? —- Anyway, quibbling aside, BRM all the way. And because I hate the Yankees so, GO PHILS!

By Richard L

October 27, 2009 12:15 PM | Link to this

Hal - How can you put Ryan Howard over the Dog? Perez played 23 years in the majors and Howard had 6. Both lifetime average is around .280. Time and time again, the Dog delivered RBI batting 3rd. Perez played at 180 pounds and Howard at 280. Howard’s numbers do not yet qualify for the HOF.

By ironmyke

October 27, 2009 7:20 AM | Link to this

No one could ever convince any baseball fans in this part of country over 50 (including me) that any team since or any current team of either league is comparable to the 70’s Reds.

By Harsh

October 26, 2009 11:50 PM | Link to this

To select Ryan Howard over Tony Perez reflects the same mentality that led the reds to select Dan Driessen over Tony Perez. Despite all the publicity Rose, Bench, and Morgan have received, Perez was the Big Red Machine. He was the ultimate clutch hitter and the guy who kept everyone else loose.

By Mets stunk

October 26, 2009 5:38 PM | Link to this

The Mets in the Seaver years (67-77) were hardly ever in the chase … they won in 69 and 73 and except for one year, they finish double digit games behind the division winner every … except for 1969, they never won more than 86 games. Stick them in the Western Division back then with the Reds and Dodgers and the Mets never would have been a factor in any Seaver year except 1969.

By final word

October 26, 2009 4:26 PM | Link to this

Allow me to compare with a value of 10 points to be awarded for each position. * First Base – Howard over Perez 6-4 (barely though … Perez is in the HOF you know) * Second Base – Morgan over Utley 8-2 (Utley is one of the three best second basemen in the game today but Morgan is one of three best of all time and he was in the heart of his great years * SS – Rollins Conception are tied (nobody played better SS than Conception) * Third Base – Rose over Feliz 9-1 (it could have been 10-0 really but I threw a bone to Feliz’s glove) * Catcher – Bench over Whoever is catching that day 10-0 (Greatest catcher ever versus some schmoe) * Leftfield – Foster over Ibanez 7-3 (Foster was RBI champ in 76, 77, 78) * Centerfield – Geronimo over Victorino 6-4 (Geronimo was winning Gold Gloves every year and hit .307 in 1976) * Rightfield – Griffey over Werth 6-4 (Griffey hit .336 or something with 40-50 steals) * Starting Pitching – Reds 6-4 (Gullet better than any Phillies’ starter with 2-5 for the Reds better than 1-4 for the Phillies) * Relief Pitching – Reds 8-2 (Lidge would have been middle relief on the 1976 Reds) 1976 Reds were the greatest team in the history of any sport, not just baseball and they should be anointed that in a special ceremony hosted by President Obama … Man … that felt good.

By Gary Maloy

October 26, 2009 3:15 PM | Link to this

Good point, Cait. But don’t forget the Seaver led Mets who were in the chase most every year. In addition, the Reds had to face Steve Carlton, Ferguson Jenkins in the East, as well as the Dodgers, Giants, J.R. Richard and Phil Niekro in the west. The Phillies don’t know how easy this league is.

By Cait

October 26, 2009 10:25 AM | Link to this

While I agree the LRM nickname is out of respect to the BRM, having watched both teams, the Phillies aren’t really that close in comparison. I won’t rehash points made below. But add this: The 70s Reds had to battle other dominant teams in the NL - LA Dodgers in the NL West and dominant NL East teams Pirates (and some decent Cards teams). The Phillies had to battle other dominant NL teams in … Well, that’s my point. There are no other dominant NL teams. Only St. Louis comes close. The 2008-09 competition for the Phils isn’t close to what the 70s Reds had to plow through year after year.

By valuearb

October 26, 2009 3:38 AM | Link to this

Reese, The first thing you have to address is if it’s a wash, how did the Reds win 211 games in those two years while the Phillies only 185? Then you try to compare offenses without adjusting for the different eras? The Reds average 5.2 runs per game when the league average was 4.0, the Phillies average a little under 5.0 runs per game when the league average is 4.5. The Phillie offense can’t sniff the Red Machine’s jock strap, the Red Machine was all time great. The Reds just had average pitching, but the Phillies pitching is barely better than league average. The Phillies are good, the Reds were far better and far more dominent.

By Reese

October 26, 2009 1:21 AM | Link to this

just a few stats to compare the bats of the 75-76 reds and 08-09 phillies. runs are reds 1687 to phillies 1619. homers are reds 265 to phillies 438. rbi’s are reds 1581 to phillies 1550. now this is all mute if the phillies dont wint the series. but to say their bats aren’t comparable to the reds is insane. pitching is definitely better nowadays today then back then (more specialized, makes it way tougher). i’d say its a wash for the whole thing.

By Believe It Or Not

October 25, 2009 9:20 PM | Link to this

How often has it happened that when an NFL city gets a great season from their football team-the very next professional baseball season, in the same city, comes forth with a great season, as well? The Bengals season will carry over to a great baseball season next summer, for the Cincinnati Reds. Predicted here first.

By Gary Maloy Jr.

October 25, 2009 6:26 PM | Link to this

Ralph C. - Thanks for calling me out. I missed that one. It’s been awhile - I really thought Eastwick pitched for Philadelphia longer than 1979. Oh well. I guess age really IS kreeping up on me. I stand by what I said though… The Phillies of the early 80’s with Rose, Morgan and Perez leading the way CAN be called the Little Red Machine. But today’s team? First they have to get past the Bombers (or Angels…). If they do that, then they can start trying to prove themselves in the years to come. If they manage that - then they can be called the Burgundy Boys or whatever. Until, they’re just the Phillies - or the Fillys for those of us who have never liked them.

By Mike-Cinci

October 25, 2009 2:53 PM | Link to this

Calling Utley/Morgan a wash is one of the worst calls Hal has ever made. Morgan is a 1st ballot hall of famer. He has back to back MVP awards and five gold gloves. Joe is considered by many as the best second baseman of all time. He is the true “5 tool” player. Hal has written that Joe was not one of his favorites but to be fair you have to give Morgan his due. He was a great player and I’d take him over any 2nd baseman who ever played.

By Rollo

October 25, 2009 11:56 AM | Link to this

Hal, the Phillies aren’t the fourth NL team to win back to back pennants, they’re the 17th: 2008-2009 Phillies 1995-1996 Braves 1991-1992 Braves 1977-1978 Dodgers 1975-1976 Reds 1967-1968 Cardinals 1965-1966 Dodgers 1957-1958 Braves 1955-1956 Dodgers 1952-1953 Dodgers 1942-1944 Cardinals 1939-1940 Reds 1936-1937 Giants 1930-1931 Cardinals 1921-1924 Giants 1911-1913 Giants 1906-1908 Cubs And you’re right, these Phillies couldn’t carry the 75-76 Reds’ jocks. They’re a fine team, but happen to be the class of one of the weakest leagues in baseball history.

By section 34

October 25, 2009 11:12 AM | Link to this

Wow, a bunch of Reds fans think a Reds team is better than any other. There’s a surprise. Who cares, really? It’s not like these teams will ever meet. If the Phillies win another Series, they are a great team in their own right. There’s no need to defend the mid-70s Reds like some religious zealot claiming his God is best.

By michael

October 24, 2009 8:31 PM | Link to this

I’ll take Morgan over Utley,and Perez over Howard any day. The Phils have put together a great team, but 75- 76 are just the two years the BRM went all the way. They dominated most of that decade.

By steve-o

October 24, 2009 5:26 PM | Link to this

Utley vs Morgan? It’ll be a wash once Untlet learns to steal 60 bases a year, walk 120 times and win a gold glove… sorry, but no comparison…

By Ralph C.

October 24, 2009 4:41 PM | Link to this

Rawly Eastwick didn’t play for the Phillies in 1980 & 1983. In 1980 he was with the Kansas City Royals and his career ended in 1981.

By Gary Maloy Jr.

October 24, 2009 2:56 PM | Link to this

The Reds were in the WS in 1970, 1972, 1975 and 1976. The were in the play-offs in 1973 and 1979. With the exception of 1971 (before the trade with the Astros), the Reds only won less than 90 games once in the entire decade. When the Phillies have a decade like that, including the seasons like the Reds had in 1975 and 1976, the might deserve a nickname. And, in my opinion, if a Phillies team deserve to be called the Little Red Machine, I would choose the early 80’s team where Tony Perez, Pete Rose, Joe Morgan and Rawly Eastwick played.

By Travis

October 24, 2009 2:28 PM | Link to this

There was only one Big Red Machine, the same as there was only one Murderer’s Row. Is it really that hard to generate a new nickname for a team without linking it to a previous one?

By valuearb

October 24, 2009 2:08 PM | Link to this

You can compare eras using adjusted stats. 2009 Phillies OPS+ 102 ERA+ 103 1976 Reds OPS+ 120 ERA+ 100 While Cliff Lee adds a few ticks to their ERA+ if he’s there for the season, the comparison isn’t even close. Phillie is a good team that’s above average at most everything, and plays well in the playoffs. The Reds were one of the greatest offenses in league history that carried a league average pitching staff. Runs Scored/Allowed/Diff Reds 5.29/3.91/1.38 Phillies 5.06/4.38/.68 The Red Machine wins by a mile.

By JC

October 24, 2009 1:37 PM | Link to this

Tough to compare eras in baseball. The Phillies roster might not be as good head to head but the MLB also had 5 less teams circa 1976. By default that makes the talent level per team better in the 1970s.

By John

October 24, 2009 12:17 PM | Link to this

Hal, while I do think that numbers don’t tell the whole story when it comes to ranking a ballplayer, the numbers here would seem to favor the 09 Phillies throughout the lineup. I am strictly comparing the 76 Reds and the 09 Phillies teams, and while most Reds regulars had higher averages, most Phillies had higher OPS, which is a better metric for determining a players true value offensively. And while I don’t have any defensive metrics in front of me, Jimmy Rollins is having an all-time defensive season, a historically great one, and Shane is coming off a gold-glove. And yes I am a Phillies fan. However, there is only one “BRM”, but the teams are at least comparable.

By Phil

October 24, 2009 11:01 AM | Link to this

Any reference to the BRM here in Philly is out of respect and not a call to put the Phillies on the same pedestal the 70’s Reds so deservedly stand upon. At least, that’s how this old baseball fan sees it.

By JRed

October 24, 2009 10:35 AM | Link to this

Basically agree, but like Sr. Griffey, gets the edge on Werth as an all-around player over a career, I think Morgan tops Utley, by a healthy margin. (Unless you are convinced Utley is sure-fire HOFer, which I am not.) Also, the Rollins/Concepcion wash arguably could be tipped to Davey if the weak, (can’t steal first base,) Rollins 2009 offensive numbers are given weight. The 2009 Phillies would compare much more favorably with the 1990 Reds—though the Nasty Boys bullpen would also give that Reds squad the overall edge.

By Ray

October 24, 2009 10:23 AM | Link to this

Further proof that your retirement is over-due. You have eithor forgotten how good the Reds were in the 70’s or never understood. Eithor way, credibilty zero.

By Scott

October 24, 2009 7:21 AM | Link to this

I’ll have to agree that the labels of BRM on the Phillies are due to respect, not comparison or disrespect. In my honest opinion the reason the Reds were called the Big Red Machine was more for what they did in the 70’s as a whole, not just the ‘75 & ‘76 World Series. Congrats to the Phillies for their current run. I hope Reds upper management is watching trying to figure out how to do it in Cincy.

By gary

October 23, 2009 11:54 PM | Link to this

im from philly and i dont understand the nastiness towards the Phillies. Any mention of the Big Red Machine is comming from the perspective of respect for that team. i dont think anyone is saying the phillies are better than the reds at this stage. if anything you should be proud that we’re talking about your team. we have respect for the past. would you rather have that team forgotten?? furthermore, i dont understand the tendancy to tear down one team just to praise another. can’t you have respect for both teams?

By gary

October 23, 2009 11:53 PM | Link to this

im from philly and i dont understand the nastiness towards the Phillies. Any mention of the Big Red Machine is comming from the perspective of respect for that team. i dont think anyone is saying the phillies are better than the reds at this stage. if anything you should be proud that we’re talking about your team. we have respect for the past. would you rather have that team forgotten?? furthermore, i dont understand the tendancy to tear down one team just to praise another. can’t you have respect for both teams?

By Polecat_39

October 23, 2009 11:02 PM | Link to this

Hal: I’m from the Philly area, and in my late 50’s ,so I was around for the BRM. I’m a huge Phillies fan , and believe me, fans from my era have the greatest respect for the 75/76 Reds. When we say “LRM” it’s a sign of respect and deference to the most powerful offensive lineup in baseball history (in my opinion)…Enjoy Aruba ! Jim

By Mike

October 23, 2009 10:46 PM | Link to this

I’ll grant they’re the “Big Cheessteak Sandwich Machine.” But that’s as far as I’ll go.

By Mike

October 23, 2009 10:45 PM | Link to this

I’ll grant they’re the “Big Cheessteak Sandwich Machine.” But that’s as far as I’ll go.

By Chad

October 23, 2009 10:34 PM | Link to this

Enjoy your week of fun in the sun! I’m very envious! As for the question of the Phillies: They are not now or ever will be anywhere close to the Big Red Machine.

By bob

October 23, 2009 9:10 PM | Link to this

Hal, the starting pitching? close? I know that time has a tendency to make one remember things a little more “grandness” but after Cliff Lee, who seriously comes close to Gullet,Nolan,or Billingham on that Phillie staff? Those reds pitchers were better than what the phils have;even when my memory says the reds were WAY,WAY, WAY better. Have fun in Aruba;I’m looking forward to your return.

By bob

October 23, 2009 9:09 PM | Link to this

Hal, the starting pitching? close? I know that time has a tendency to make one remember things a little more “grandness” but after Cliff Lee, who seriously comes close to Gullet,Nolan,or Billingham on that Phillie staff? Those reds pitchers were better than what the phils have;even when my memory says the reds were WAY,WAY, WAY better. Have fun in Aruba;I’m looking forward to your return.

By Sparky

October 23, 2009 8:57 PM | Link to this

Gonna kept that hardun against Joe forever, Hal? I gave Reds overall, but the way Lee is pitching I like Phils pitchin’ a lot much more.

By NatTurner

October 23, 2009 8:21 PM | Link to this

Couldn’t agree with you more. I’m a Daytonian born and raised, and I was at Game 3 of the ‘75 WS (sat in the same row in right-field green seats of Dave Winfield—no lie!)—and I lived and died with the Machine. Currently living in Jersey, I hear this “LRM” stuff every day. People are so stupid… . Not only was your position-by-position comparison good (except for Utley-vs.-Little Joe “a wash”—oh Hal!), but consider the watering down of the game since ‘75. Back then, two divisions, so harder to win a division and make playoffs; Reds in NL West, so lots more travel to LA and SF, and more often, than today’s Phils. Plus, Reds won 502 games from ‘72-‘76—call me when the Phils do that. Have a blast in Aruba, but hurry back! Larry