Would the '74 Reds have won it all if the Wild Card had been in effect?

If the divisions were realigned like they are today, assuming no surprises from the expansion teams, the Reds would have won the NL Central by 10 games and would have faced Dusty Baker’s Braves in the playoffs. I imagine the Reds would have swept the Braves in embarrassing fashion, shaming Baker so much that he would never even consider the opportunity to manage the Reds when it was presented to him.

Who knows where we’d be today…

imaginary scenarios of winning?

we’re never going to win again.

I wasn’t around in 1974 so I’ll defer to those who were, but I remain partial to the idea that a 1-2 month stretch in which two great teams battle to the finish and only the best will do is more exciting than the post season tournament.

On August 18th the Reds were 2.5 games back from the Dodgers with all to play for, no safety net. By September 14th they were a mere 1.5 back having just taken the first 2 games of a 3 game series in LA. All year long the teams basically knew they had to top each other and for a month they had been in the final kick. Now there were 16 games left and only one team could advance. This is an excitement that was unique to baseball among all sports. Tune in every night folks.

Had there been a wild card the playoff seeds would have been essentially locked in since September. The teams would have been taking it easy, setting up their rotations for a short series in which luck would play a greater role. Yes, it sucks that the Pirates won their division with 88 games, but these were 6 team division. It’s not like an AL West winner today. At the beginning of the year the Reds knew they had to best the Dodgers over 162 games. They came up short. It was called a pennant race.

And this works the other way too. The 1976 Reds could have been bumped from the playoff tourney by an inferior wildcard team (say the 92 win Pirates—the Reds lost 2 straight to the Pirates in July of ‘76 and followed that with a loss to Montreal). I don’t think it likely because the 76 Reds were the greatest team in history, but I have a lot more confidence in them proving that greatness over 162 games than over 5 or 7.

The Reds didnt lose many 3 game series that year. That was one of the remarkable things about that team. They might lose a game, but losing two in a row just didint happen with them. The team was hard to beat at positions from top to bottom, starting pitching would have probably been an interesting discussion though. Of course with Sparky that didnt matter much, but the bullpen was not as good in 74 as it was in 75-76. Clay Carroll and Pedro Borbon were good but McEnaney and Eastwick had not yet come into their own. I cannot remember but I believe that the starters were Gullett, Norman, Billingham, and I think that they platooned Tom Carroll and Clay Kirby in the 4th spot, but dont quote me on that . Id say they would have at worst taken someone to a NL final game. I know this much, they were a lot of fun to listen to, and those August-September nights on the radio were something else. It was Marty’s first year in the booth, and he couldnt contain himself some nights….lol….

the sun rose and set on Reds baseball…..the bengals were ok in those days, but Reds baseball was the beginning and end of a kids sports dreams. Al Michaels was good too, but Marty was more enthusiastic. And he and Joe fit together well from the start. There were a lot of really disappointed people in 74 who thought the Reds would be back to get it all…..73 was a nightmare, and no one knew why 70 and 72 went like they did. No experts with all of their massive amounts of data to sift through. Marty and joe were the experts and they told us all what we needed to know. Reds didnt make weekend TV baseball much back then, although Tony Kubek and Curt Gowdy called a few really good games on NBC. But they werent Marty and Joe.