Here are the winning percentages for the two professional franchises in Cincinnati over the last 8 seasons (unless I’ve calculated incorrectly, in which case you can blame Virginia Public Schools).

Team A: .458
Team B: .425

Which team is which? And isn’t this just a sad state of affairs in this city?

24 Responses

  1. GregD

    I’ll guess the higher figure is the Bungals since they actually finishe .500 a couple of times and over .500 the year they went to the playoffs.

  2. David

    Chad, not to ruin the game, but from 2000-2008, the Bengals are 58-85-1. That’s a winning percentage of .4055.

    I know what you are getting at, but while expectations are never high for either team, they were shamefully low for the Bengals so a .4055 record is a win!

  3. David

    Isn’t Chris Henry a product of Virgina public schools? Can we just blame him?

  4. Aaron B.

    You know when you just figure any team has a shot on any given night(day) 42% win rate doesn’t seem terribly atrocious to me. I am sure its subpar but its not like they don’t belong on the same field as pro teams. Luck has been abysmally atrocious for the past ten years. They need some breaks to go there way and they can slip into the playoffs and earn some much needed confidence.

  5. nick in va

    Regardless of the winning % over the last 8 years I’ll take the Reds any day over the Bengals. Lets take a look at the last 18 years (since Mike Brown took over). The Bengals have 1 (that’s ONE) winning season. They have 0 (ZERO!) playoff wins. Granted, the Reds have the same number of playoff wins, but there seems to be more parity in the NFL.

    The only franchise in the league with fewer winning seasons is the Houston Texans who have been in the league all of six years. The stinking Houston OILERS (not counting the Texans) have more winning seasons in the last 18 years than the Bengals. And they haven’t been in existence since 1996. Massillon High School has an indoor practice facility. The Bengals have no such thing. The Bengals have a pathetic scouting department that, I’d wager, relies heavily on the unpaid advice of Mel Kiper.

    So while the Reds may be a sorry bunch, the Bengals will always, always (at least until Mike Brown gets a clue) be the sorriest bunch of them all.

  6. Chad

    For what it’s worth, the Reds were Team A, and the Bengals were Team B. I draw two things from this:

    (1) Yay! We’re not the Bengals! At least there’s something to be happy about.

    (2) Since the Bengals are widely considered a laughingstock, it’s sad that there would be any question who had the better winning percentage, the Reds or the Bengals.

  7. Chad

    By the way, if you just look at the last five years, you get this:

    Reds: .463
    Bengals: .481

    Ugh.

  8. Steve Price

    Keep in mind that NFL parity is somewhat artificial. They use unbalanced schedules and match winners season to season and losers season to season to induce parity.

    That makes the perpetual winners that much more impressive…and that’s why many teams bounce up and down season to season…the glass ceiling of real competition can make this year’s contender next year’s also-ran.

    In baseball…well, the inter-league joke (my opinion–along with the DH), hurts some teams, but in 162 games it’s much easier to tell what’s really happening with a team.

    Same with minor league systems…tools today make it easier to analyze…now we have so many tools, filtering through to find the “real” stats can be that much harder…

  9. GregD

    A double reverse trick question!

    It is sad that there was any question about who had the better winning percentage. Seeing the Bengals better record over the past 5 years is where I was going. I’ve tried to forget the pre-Marvin years, but now I want to forget the Marvin years, too.

  10. Jared

    The Reds may have a better winning percentage this millenia, but they’re a whole lot less interesting without Quattro Quattro. Of course, Ocho Cinco isn’t all that interesting anymore, either.

  11. GregD

    “You know when you just figure any team has a shot on any given night(day) 42% win rate doesn’t seem terribly atrocious to me. ”

    Sure, in a single, 16-game NFL season, a 40ish% win rate could be attributed to luck. A 9-7 record is .563 and 7-9 is .438.

    In 8 baseball seasons (1,296 games) the overall record speaks for itself. You don’t lose 60% of your games due to bad luck.

  12. AaronB

    At least the Reds manage to give me hope each year. Change in ownership, change in management, change in players, etc. Someday we’ll hit that magic formula and win the division.

    The bengals however have stuck me in a morass of apathy. No change in ownership. No GM. No accountability for the coaching staff. No change in the bad attitude of the players. I have no hope for this team anymore.

  13. nick in va

    I’m curious now. Is there an easy way to compile the numbers for all teams? Where do the Reds rank compared to all NL central, NL, and MLB teams over the last 8 years?

  14. GregD

    Nick, I answered, but the details of the post are held up in moderation, probably because of the URL’s. I used the game situation tool on baseball-reference dot com.

    The short version is that from 2001-2008 the Reds WPct ranks
    5th in the NL Central
    14th in the NL
    23rd in MLB

  15. David

    Well think of it this way, when Brown dies, the team has a shot of legitimacy, if they are even still in Cincinnati.

  16. nick in va

    GregD, thanks. I didn’t realize that you could do that stuff. I actually got the same results using a MySQL db I pulled from http://www.baseball-databank.org/ and running a query. I kind of like being able to run queries myself. I’ll have to poke around some more in the database I downloaded.

  17. nick in va

    So just for fun here are the Reds winning percentages for each decade since 1900 (of course, this assumes the data is correct from baseball databank):

    1900-1909: 47.8290%
    1910-1919: 47.9278%
    1920-1929: 52.0548%
    1930-1939: 43.3987%
    1940-1949: 49.9349%
    1950-1959: 48.1481%
    1960-1969: 53.6829%
    1970-1979: 59.1925%
    1980-1989: 49.9361%
    1990-1999: 52.0257%
    2000-2008: 45.3704%

    Looks like this might be the worse decade for Reds baseball since the 30’s. I guess I could change it to calculate 10 year periods instead of decades and see how it stacks up. Maybe I’ll do that later.

  18. GregD

    I looked at the 2001-2008 timeframe using the situational game tool. How frequently did the Reds allow 5+ runs per game, score 5+ runs per game, and how did they do in those situations?

    5 being a somewhat arbitrary number that, IMO, you should win most games when you score 5 and you’re likely to lose allowing 5 or more.

    The Reds allowed 5 or more runs in 708 games (54.6% of their games)
    That is 29th in all baseball during that period. Only Texas was worse.
    They did have a .234 Wpct in those situations, which is good for 16th in MLB

    They scored 5 or more runs in a game 46% of the time
    They were 16th in baseball during that period
    However, their .719 Wpct when scoring 5+ ranks them 24th.
    Oakland had the best Wpct when scoring 5+ in a game at .840

  19. GregD

    The following is the aggregate National League WPct from 2006-2008 based on runs a team scores in a game

    Exactly 1 run: .082
    2 runs: .181
    3 runs: .324
    4 runs: .445
    5 runs: .611
    6+ runs: .819

    After looking at this, it may be repetitive to information SteveP gave earlier. If the Reds have to scrap for runs and manage to squeeze out 2-4 runs per night = another losing season, even if pitching improves as we all hope.

  20. Dan

    Interesting stats, Greg. Thanks.

    And run-scoring comes down to — more than any one thing — getting on base. OBP.

    NOT speed. OBP.

    Do we have enough? Last year we didn’t… sigh…