Talk:Cincinnati Reds

Missing text?

This entry starts with the second section saying "After the expulsion," but I do not see any "expulsion" refered to in the article. Is there a way to clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.125.254 (talk • contribs) 13 July 2006

Inexplicable '1882' reverts becoming annoying

Is it time to do something about the repeated reverting introducing the "1869" error? Acsenray (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Error? Do you read anything besides this Wikipedia page? Do you know that error doesn't mean 'difference of opinion,' and actually requires some sort of logical argument?

This page is suffering from a sort of unexplained, irrational, nerdy fixation on 'the 19th C. baseball club' as a proleptic 20th C. corporation, rather than what it was: a baseball club. The real phenomenon of a baseball club was never demonstrably equivalent in the popular understanding to 'the management of a baseball club,' as this page absurdly suggests. No normal, academic history text operates under the same margins in developing social phenomena over time. That seems to have been lost in a general current of prissiness about the Reds' 1869 founding.

19th C. baseball clubs were established and re-established with different management configurations, colors and players all the time. They still are. But then as now, fans of a club are near-unanimous in their understanding of when a club really ends and when it merely undergoes a major change, and actual historians use self-referential groups - which majoritatively means 'fans,' in this case, though they're only one part of the phenomenon of a baseball club - to definite concepts. Reds fans have never largely doubted that the Redlegs of 1869 were actually the Redlegs of 1869, and not an isolated event who just happened to have everything important in common with the same Cincinnati club in later seasons, under different owners, with slightly altered nicknames, in different ballparks, but with a fluid body of fans who knew the club to have been essentially fluid as well. The Reds changed owners in 2006. Were they 'founded' in 2006? Were the Cubs 're-founded' after they missed two years due to the Great Chicago Fire? Please explain.

I agree with you Acsenray...

The problem is if you change it to the correct information someone who doesn't want to except the facts will change it back to 1869. I check this article every so often to see if someone has changed "Established 1882" to "Established 1869"....Someone always changes it to 1869. I always have to change it back to 1882. I don't know if Wiki can lock the correct information into place so people can't keep changing it to 1869...SCSRdotorg (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"someone who doesn't want to except the facts" 'accept' ;) you probably did it subliminally, I touchtype and find myself worrying because just earlier I meant to type 'biggest' and hammered out 'gibbe-' before I caught myself. But that's just my mind jumping from segue to segue, I often find myself typing 'role' when I mean 'roll,' others I can't think of at the moment. I don't have any problems with the their triplets or your twins though.

The reason I originally came here though was to make sure someone added (not me, I am only a casual Wiki user and I don't feel comfortable editing others' pages) that the Reds changed their name during the Korean War. (I think it was the Korean War, but I know they changed their name for *some* war to distance themselves from 'the commie reds.' Dave 05:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The closest thing to a descendant of the 1869 club would be the Atlanta Braves, who still wear some red in their uniforms. Semi-protection of this article could be requested, but the vandalism would have to be constant in order for the admins to take that action. The article indicates 1953-1958 for the name change to "Redlegs", which sounds about right. It was a ridiculous political-correctness overreaction to the "red scare" of the McCarthy era. It would have made more sense to go with "Red Sox", but of course that was already taken. They never actually had the word "Redlegs" on their uniforms, they simply erased the word "Reds" from inside the "C" logo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

May be annoying, but not acknowledging the 1869 start of the team is more annoying. - there seems to be a confederacy of Reds haters who troll this page. Baseball Bugs included. Similarly - the restaurant chain of Olive Garden began in 1982 under the name "The Green Frog" - but did not call itself "The Olive Garden" until some time later. Does this negate Olive Garden's inception date? Seems that such a clunky brand of logic is fueling this "1882" revision.

The current club began in 1882. They have no connection to the 1869-70 club, which disbanded and moved to Boston. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To say they have no connection defies reason - and this seems to be an contended issue involving sports buffs cum armchair historians. One historian's perspective does not a fact make. Where are the sources (notice the plural) describing your claim? MLB seems to hold that the Reds were first, and as such, during the 1994 season, the Reds' uniforms were adorned with a sepia tone patch of that first team. The "disbanded" and "moved" team you describe then moved to Atlanta. So why didn't the Braves wear that patch in 1994?

There have been several distinct Cincinnati franchises, of which the 1869-70 club was one. The current franchise was founded in 1882. The current franchise is just the current franchise. It's not an "iteration" of anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with all historians on this subject. The original "Red Stockings" disbanded after the 1870 season, with Harry Wright and many other players moving to Boston to create a new franchise, which of course is now the Braves. A new "Red Stockings" franchise was created for the newly formed National League, then was thrown out of the league for violating certain rules. The newly formed American Association then created another "Red Stockings" franchise for the 1882 season, and joined the National League in 1890. Three different Red Stockings/Reds franchises. As for why the Reds wore patches comemorating the "original" Reds? I think it has more to do with marketing the history of baseball in Cincinnati, than any franchise connection.Neonblak ^talk - 10:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, actually, with real historians on this subject. If you've actually read histories, and you understand words like 'iteration' and 'franchise,' you understand that 'franchise' is an unknown concept in the 19th Century, whereas 'baseball club' is. And no one's actually offered any proof here that 'baseball club' really meant 'corporation,' 'franchise,' or 'baseball club owners and management.' This has become a pretty bizarre echo chamber populated by users who are a bit more into asserting what a coffee-table picture book told them than actually talking about history.

To chime in here, this franchise began operation in 1882. It was a different franchise with the same name that began operation in 1869. They are not the same franchise. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have done extensive research on the 19th century era of Cincinnati baseball. All of the newspaper clippings that I have uncovered never refer to the second Red Stockings club (1876-1880) or the third Red Stockings club (1882-current) as the same as the original Red Stockings. Reporters regularly referred to each club as different clubs.

Here is a quot from the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette from August 15th 1885. "It is a notable fact that not a dollar in fines was ever exacted by the Cincinnat Club from any of its players in the four years of its existence; and only one player (Milton West) of all that have been under engagement to it was ever fined by an umpire. Can any other club in the country make a similar boast ?".

It mentions "the four years of its existence" is a key point that the club's birthdate was indeed 1882. I have tons of articles from this time period that are similar. Somewhere down the line over the past 75 years the Reds began making the claim that they were the same team from 1869. MLB may let the Reds make that claim but they do not allow the Reds to incorperate the statistcs of the Cincinnati Reds National League club from 1876-80 into their stats. All MLB stats for the current Reds club begin in 1882.

There was a time when people thought that Abner Doubleday invented baseball in 1839. People got over it when that was proven incorrect. People will get over the fact that the Reds weren't born in 1869 as well. I did. SCSRdotorg (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You've got it right. Lee Allen's history of the Reds, from ca. 1950, makes all of that abundantly clear. And he should know, as he was a Cincinnati-born writer and historian of the game. The last time I looked at the Reds' MLB page, it seemed like they were "associating" themselves with the 1869-70 team, while not actually coming right out and saying that they were the same team, probably because they know it's factually untrue. I think a lot of this has to do with placing exaggerated importance on a team's nickname. Had the original team been called the Porkers or something like that, there wouldn't be this discussion. It's fair to say that both the 1876 and 1882 teams were named for the 1869 team. Just like the Chicago White Sox, Boston Red Sox, and St. Louis Browns picked up their nicknames from names discarded by the old National League clubs. And then there's Baltimore, which has had several teams named "Orioles", none of them directly connected with each other except for the totally obvious choice of a nickname. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Reds actually claim all over their ballpark...Est. 1869. They have merchandise that says the same thing. I think they wrap themselves around this myth because of some sort of civic pride and of course it's cool to claim you are the oldest. Problem is they see there are inconsistencies in this claim (that they are the oldest team) and as a result their media guide is a total mess. They pretty much omit any historic "firsts" in the franchise and list things only after 1900 as important. They omit the entire Association years (1882-89) in their year-to-year standings in the media guide but lists 1876 through 1880....They omit an actual part of their history while adding another Cincinnati team to it? MLB doesn't do that in their official records.

As long as references such as Wikipedia, Baseball-Reference, Retrosheet, MLB and every other statistical source keeps the history accurate, that's good enough. The Reds themselves will never let go of the myth... SCSRdotorg (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I wrong, or have you just named a vandalisable website, some guy's website, some other guy's website, MLB (incorrectly - see the official MLB site of the club you're discussing), and a fudged 'assortment' of unlisted, imaginary sources as 'history'? Read history. There's absolutely no justifiable argument for the Reds being 'founded' later simply because they were shut down for doing things that baseball clubs currently do, and then later sold out by their owners. There's been no discussion yet - and it's hard to imagine how there could be - about the fact that this logic either 're-founds' all existing clubs after they had to break for strikes or natural disasters; or 're-founds' them every time the club changes hands. Either clubs can skip a year or two in reaction to major disruptions and still be considered the same club, or they can't. And either clubs can switch owners and still be considered the same club or they can't. We're still waiting to hear any word on this (or anything, really) from 1882 vandals to this page. "I saw 1882 on the web" just isn't a historical assertion.

• Looks like you are the one who needs to read some history. The original Reds were established in 1869 and later disbanded. They did not suspend play for a natural disaster like the Chicago White Stockings and they did not move like so many franchises have over the years; they just went away. Then at the start of the National League an entirely new club with no continuity in stockholders or officers or corporate history formed. That club was expelled from the league and disbanded. It was not "sold out" by owners. Then a third club was established, again with no continuity of corporate history, and this club still exists today. I really do not understand why that is such a hard concept for some people to understand. Indrian (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Lets see. Wikipedia has it right.

Retrosheet has it right.

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/C/FR_CIN.htm

Baseball Reference has it right

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CIN/

AND, MLB has it right

http://mlb.mlb.com/cin/history/year_by_year_results.jsp

Be sure to scan down on each one and you will have your answer. You don't have to like it or accept it but any real creditable baseball source has to have it correct. 1882 is correct. SCSRdotorg (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add a quot from MLB's John Thorn about his recent article on Alexander Cartwright's apparent innovations of the game. "If a tale is told often enough, it starts to resemble the truth. I don't want anyone to think of me as a crusader on behalf of causes. I'm only interested in setting the story straight, and in recognizing other stories for what they are, some of which are legend."

This quot is appropriate for setting the story straight about the Reds history as well. No one here wants to be a crusader. It's just a matter of getting the history right. Heck, people still believe George Washington's teeth were wooden.SCSRdotorg (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Beginnings of the Machine (1941–1969)"... Thirty years to start the Big Red Machine?

Considering 1941 to be preparatory for the Big Red Machine doesn't pass the common sense test. Thirty years of the franchise cannot be devoted to the Big Red Machine. The section needs to be renamed, or at least split. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Pete Rose.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pete Rose.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)