Talk:Cincinnati Reds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Flag
Portal
 Cincinnati Reds is maintained by WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Baseball To-do:
edit 
WikiProject Ohio This article is part of WikiProject Ohio, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ohio. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.


The article had George Wright as being the one that took the Reds Stocking players (5 of the original 9) to Boston, but it was Harry that did it. George was merely a player at the time and came along with Harry, but it was Harry that did it. I did a research paper on it, and my resources included historical local newspaper articles, Harry Ellards "Baseball in Cincinnati" book published in 1907, and John Erardi and Greg Rhodes' "They Boys of Summer" 1994. I corrected the error.

I know that Ellard states the Red Stockings won 130 consecutive matches but the season totals in his own book puts the number in question. Do you have another source for the 130 claim?

Contents

[edit] Proposal to Separate the Cincinnati Franchises

There were 3 distinct versions of the Cincinnati professional baseball franchise:

1. Pre-National Association era (1869-1870). Harry Wright had been managing a Cincinnati franchise on the amateur circuit (National Association of Base Ball Players) since 1867. In 1869, he decided to make his roster professional only, recruited his younger brother George -- the best player in baseball at the time -- and finished 59-0 that season. Cincinnati had their winning streak broken the next season in a famous game against the Brooklyn Atlantics. When the all-professional National Association was formed in 1871, Harry essentially moved the team to Boston (picking up Rockford stars Barnes and Spalding on the way) and kept the Red Stockings nickname. This team has no relationship to the modern-day Reds whatsoever. Note that the pre-1871 era of baseball is a fascinating and untapped-by-wikipedia area of baseball history.

2. Early National League franchise (1876-1880). There were four players to play for both the 1880 NL team and the 1882 AA team, but three of them played for another team in between (i.e. the Reds did not stay intact playing in a minor or independent league somewhere else).

3. American Association and National League franchise (1882-present). Several other AA teams eventually switched the the NL (Pittsburgh, Saint Louis, Brooklyn).

In summary, one could argue that team "2" was somehow related to the modern franchise. Its tenuous, but it could be debated. In my opinion, though, team "1" is completely unrelated and deserves a separate identity.

I have always thought that you could make a good case that the Atlanta Braves are essentially the direct descendants of the Cincinnati Red Stockings. The Cincinnati Reds and the Boston Red Sox also have a superficial connection: their team nicknames. Furthermore, the success of the Cincinnati AND Boston Red Stockings, and the subsequent success of Albert Goodwill Spalding both on and off the field, were extremely important to the development of American baseball as we know it... including, in the case of Mr. Spalding, the Doubleday myth and thus the creation and placement of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Wahkeenah 18:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree - they should be separated. The various San Diego Padres and Los Angeles Angels have separate pages, so should the Reds. --Chancemichaels 14:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels
Is it proposed to say nothing here about baseball in Cincinnati before 1882? The section heading should be "History" rather than "Franchise history". But it is presently skimpy before 1912. What it needs is more coverage of 1881/1882-1911, not a shorter prelude on 1866-1880. Compare Cleveland Indians.
Am I missing some article on the second Cincinnati Red Stockings (1876-1880)? 1876 in baseball and following years show that some baseball project doesn't know that article, if any. There is Category:Cincinnati Red Stockings players. --P64 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, St. Louis Cardinals begins in 1882 sharp and passes over the 1880s in a few words, as the origin of a great rivalry with Chicago. (There is no prelude on baseball in St. Louis and no article on the St. Louis Brown Stockings, another charter member of the NL with Cin.) --P64 15:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I have begun to correct the St. Louis situation by writing a stub for the 1875-1877 club (Cincinnati alone is a red link in the 1876 standings). I will push that further if no one beats me to it, and I might then add a paragraph of prelude to the St. Louis Cardinals article. On the other hand, I do not play to write any article/stub for Cincinnati 1876-1880. Good luck with it. --P64 18:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that the current Cincinnati Reds franchise began in 1882. All you have to do is go to the Reds official website and check the teams year-to-year records. They begin in 1882. All of the players records for the club also began in 1882. So that in fact is the birth of this franchise. If you go to the Atlanta Braves website, their year-to-year records begin in 1871. Most people are taken in by the myth that the current Cincinnati Reds team is the same team as the 1869 Red Stockings. The Reds are guilty of enabling this myth by marketing themselves as such. But this myth is just about as fictitious as Abner Doubleday inventing baseball in 1839. Many Reds fans prefer the myth more then reality and get quite defensive when you reveal the truth. Sorry folks but the current Reds are not the same team as the original Cincinnati Red Stockings --CincySports 20:32, 13 September 2006
Greg Rhodes, the Reds' official team historian and author of numerous Reds books, makes this argument in "Redleg Journal: Year by Year and Day by Day with the Cincinnati Reds since 1866": "While there is no doubt that the organization that conducts business today as the Cincinnati Reds Baseball Club is not the same organizational entity that joined the National League in 1876, it is accurate to say that the baseball team known as the Reds is the same. The official record books, which include years in organized league play, should date the Reds history from 1876. Even though the club was substantially reorganized in 1877, 1879 and in 1881, the team that joined the American Association thet next season was still the Cincinnati Reds, just as it had been since 1876. New club organization, new owners. Same team." Salthestockbreaker 19:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay so when the Beatles broke up in 1970 (and lets say a year later) four new members used the Beatles name with new management...Would it be the same band....The answer is no. The teams name (Red Stockings) is the only thing that all three Cincinnati franchises shared. But that doesn't make them the same franchises.
You have to understand that just because it is in a book doesn't make it correct. Authors of books put in their opinion. It doesn't make it true. The Reds sell tons of merchandise and make tons of money off of the myth that the team is the oldest and a charter members of the National League. The Reds team historian will most likely fall in line with the myth.
I would venture to guess that Reds ownership over the past 50 years have no idea of the nuts-n-bolts of the Reds timeline. You think Marge Schott or Carl Linder really knew when this franchise began. Owners are to busy running a team to really care. They believe the myth because that is what they have been told for 50 years. And if they were given the truth, they would probably choose to continue marketing the myth....Money talks, while the truth gets swept under the rug.
The Baseball Hall of Fame (which is outside any influence of the Reds managment) lists the Cincinati Reds as beginning in 1882. Heck even on the Reds website, they have their year-by-year standings beginning in 1882....Go figure.... -CincySports
I thought this was an interesting discussion, but your arguments seem to be heavily influenced by some type of personal vendatta. I'm not sure why the idea of "established 1869" upsets you so much and why you believe it's part of same grand conspiracy to make money. Frankly, people don't buy Reds hats because they say "est. 1869;" they purchase them because of the Reds logo. If you rid yourself of the belief that team management is patting themselves on the back for duping Reds fans for all these years, your arguments would be a lot more persuasive. Hell, you make great points.
But when you say things like "Reds sell tons of merchandise and make tons of money off of the myth that the team is the oldest and a charter members of the National League," you lost me. Frankly, what money are they making off this myth? Do you think people become Reds fans, attend Reds games or buy merchandise because they were duped into believing the team was established in 1869? "When" the club was established has nothing to do with "why" they're Reds fans.
Also, the Reds team historian knows the history of the club better than anyone -- and all of the Reds books he wrote (including the one on the Red Stockings as well as RedLeg Journal, which I originally cited) were written before he was hired as the Reds historian. He's also worked very closely with historian John Erardi to form his official stance on the birth of the Reds franchise and has won SABR's highest research honor for his work on it. His argument has been more persuasive than anything I've read, which is why I (and many others) side with his decision. I'd encourage you to read the essay. I'm not saying it'll change your mind, but at least it'll allow you to see the other side of the argument.Salthestockbreaker 18:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Trust me I have no personal vendetta. I am a true blue Reds fan and love the history of this franchise. I just get annoyed at how people react when they are told the truth. They react the way a kid does when you tell them there is no Santa Cluas. The myth is as false as Abner Doubleday inventing baseball in Cooperstown.
I also never mentioned that there was some grand conspiracy to deprive people of the truth by Reds management. I mentioned that the Reds management really has no idea of the truth of the franchises timeline. And if they did, they would rather continue to market the myth.
Cincinnati holds the myth that the Reds are the oldest franchise with great pride. When you enter Great American Ball Park, you see two big tile pictures. One of the Big Red Machine and the other of the 1869 Red Stockings. People buy Reds merchanise from all over the world because of the history of the franchise. A history that they are being spoonfed to believe began in 1869. I see it all of the time. Casual Reds fans in conversation take great pride in this belief. And to tell you the truth....I WAS even upset when I learned the facts.
Cincinnati IS the birthplace of professional baseball, but the Reds simply are NOT the oldest team. ALL of the record books show the Reds team begins in 1882. Cooperstown states the team began in 1882. EVEN Greg Rhodes states the 1869-70 team disbanded.
I do own almost all of the books that Greg Rhodes has published. Each one of them are excellent. BUT the one glaring flaw is that their opinion states the current team is the same as the 1869 club....
This discussion was over whether the 1866-1870 Red Stockings, 1876-1880 Red Stockinsg and the 1882 to current Reds team should be listed on Wikipedia as three different franchises. While indeed they all were. I would lump all three franchises under one listing. BUT mention the facts of the three frachises. --CincySports
I can confirm this: The fact that The Cincinnati Red Stockings baseball franchise began and prospered in Cincinnati is solid. From Cincinnati, the team HEAVILY promoted the sport across the country in 1869. There's certainly something to be recognized about that. Does this change the fact that the original franchise migrated to another city? Of course not. It's reasonable to believe that a professional team would have developed in another city, if not in Cincinnati. However, the uniqueness of where/how professional baseball originated should be considered here, and neither Boston nor Atlanta is the birthplace of professional baseball. What needs to be recognized is that the history of professional baseball began in Cincinnati, and it's not unethical for current ownership to include it in Cincinnati's pro baseball history or market it with merchandising.
I agree totally with what you are saying.
There were two seperate Ottawa Senators teams of the NHL. But they aren't the same team even though the NHL issued a certificate claiming the current Senators were being "re-instated" in the NHL. The first team was from 1893 to 1934 and the current team was from 1992 to current. The original Senators won 10 Stanley Cups. The current Senators honor the original team by hanging championship banners in their hockey arena. The Reds should do the same with the original Red Stockings. But lets be clear, the current Reds team began in 1882 not 1869. That is all.....Cincinnati is the birthplace of professional baseball and that should not be ignored by the current Reds. Even though they are two different franchises.... --CincySports
We still have an article to the Cincinnati Red Stockings page, though. It either needs to be absorbed into this article, or a link to the other page, like this:
This article is about the current Major League Baseball team. For first openly all-professional baseball team, see Cincinnati Red Stockings.
--Chancemichaels 20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

[edit] Ineligible HOF

should this be a seperate section, theres only one name

I agree, this seems pointless. 63.84.231.3 19:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
is this really information that should be included in the team page? technically there are many players who aren't eligible for the HOF due to playing time requirements so if this section is going to be correct it should be ineligible for the HOF due to gambling. regardless, this is about pete rose and not the cincinnati reds MikeChasti 01:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm a diehard Reds fan from way back when who thinks that we should change our uniforms ? I like them but I think the black has to go so we can go back to more of the classic red and white look or the 70's and 80's.

AMEN!!!!!

[edit] 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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.32.125.254 (talk • contribs) 13 July 2006.

[edit] Alternate Uniforms

I notice that the page shows the home and away uniforms, but not the home alternate uniform, which they use often.

[edit] New Uniforms?

New uniforms were introduced by the Reds for the 2007 season. Any way to update this?

Just a comment on the caption to the photo of the new 2007 uniforms at the top of the page:

According to the Cincinnati Reds' website, that is actually Chris Denorfia who is modelling the Reds' home uniform and not Jeff Conine. In fact, there is a picture in their December 1, 2006 Redsfest photo gallery of Denorfia with his name badge on the back of the uniform.

[edit] Disputed points

"By some accounts, the AA team simply switched leagues starting with the 1890 season; by other accounts, the AA team folded the same year the new NL team started, and the new team simply signed many of the AA team's star players.

Who says the latter? Perhaps that author makes a technical point, one I daresay cannot be covered by the lingo ("fold" and "team").

"At the turn of the century, the Reds (shortened from the Red Stockings so not to be confused with the Boston AL entry, now shortened to Red Sox)

The statement about shortening Red Stockings to Reds should be more precise. "At the turn of the century" refers to the main clause, not quoted. The parenthetical remark implies that Reds was common by the turn of the century (I would have guessed earlier than that). The Boston team was never (never say never) called Red Stockings and was nicknamed Red Sox for 1908. --P64 14:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Boston team was called the "Red Stockings." This would be the Boston Red Stockings that joined the National Association in 1871 and the National League in 1876. By 1908, this team was no longer known as the Red Stockings and the American League team picked up the name Red Sox. The Boston Red Sox were never known as the Red Stockings, but the team now known as the Atlanta Braves definitely was originally known as the Boston Red Stockings. Acsenray 17:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This article doesn't discuss the Boston NL nicknames. It says the short-form Reds for Cincinnati NL was adopted (whether by club or writers is unsaid) to avoid confusion with Boston AL. --P64 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah. I see. Well, that would seem to be wrong then. Acsenray 14:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Its clap-trap. The Boston Red Sox had no influence over the Reds in any way shape or form. The AL Bostons adopted their nickname from the NL Bostons in the early 20th century as was stated by Acsenray.The Cincinnati Reds dropped "Stockings" from their name when they moved to the National League in 1890. I corrected it in the article. You know some books claim that Harry Wright formed the Boston Red Sox. That would be quite a feat seeing as how Wright died in 1895 and the AL was formed in 1901...lol. Wright formed the Boston Red Stockings who are now the Atlanta Braves. --CincySports 20:55, 13 September 2006

[edit] 1961 Logo

The image illustrating the 1961-1966 logo is incorrect. During this time, the point of the wishbone was removed, leaving a smooth arc. Acsenray 17:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right - the image is incorrect. The source, otherwise very reliable, is wrong on this one. --Chancemichaels 16:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels
Image was taken from [1]
The text says "Reds written in red wishbone C on black". Soxrock 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[2]
The Reds logo from 1961-66 shows no point
Which is it? Soxrock 20:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Look here - http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/exhibits/online_exhibits/dressed_to_the_nines/detail_page.asp?fileName=nl_1961_cincinnati.gif&Entryid=973
That's the correct logo for the period, the "C" does not have the point - it isn't a wishbone C. I'm also pretty sure that the logo should be red and blue, not red and black, to be accurate. I love sportslogos.net, but it isn't infallible. We should defer to the Baseball Hall of Fame database if there is any confusion. --Chancemichaels 21:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels
Actually, I think it was black, not blue, for 1961-66; at least that's the way I've seen it depicted. I've never seen an actual uniform from that era. Acsenray 14:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the Reds haven't used anything blue since 1953. Please correct me if I am wrong. For a time they were the Redlegs, I believe they permanently dropped blue. Soxrock 00:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I just read over my Baseball chronicle, the Reds who won the 1961 NL Pennant are indeed wearing a non-wishbone C. Soxrock 14:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/i/n/Talk%7ECincinnati_Reds_b340.html"