Talk:Cincinnati Reds/Archive 1

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!!!!!

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

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)

Nickname

One of the things that have become a major part of the baseball articles has been the nicknames. They've ben added to the leads as well as the infoboxes. However, the Reds are one of the notables not to have one, at least not one mentioned in the article. What nicknames do the Reds go by? I'm sure they are not known only as "The Reds". I wasn't sure if "Redlegs" or "Red Stockings" were used (typically former variations of the name are used as nicknames), so I figured I'd ask you, the people who probably know them most. - Silent Wind of Doom 18:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the source (which is rather dubious in itself), they are former nicknames, so I'm removing them. --Chancemichaels 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Famous Fans

That section had to be removed unless there is some sourcing. I am sure some are fans in a very loose sense of the word. But the Michael Rosenbaum picture has him in an NY Giants jersey and the article talks about how much he loves the NY Ranges. What evidence is there that any of those people are fans other than some of them having grown up within 20 miles of Riverfront stadium? If someone can find an article that just says that any of those people has attended a Reds game, then it would at least clear the most basic threshold.Montco 17:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Individual season articles

I now have completed my task of making an article for every individual Cincinnati Reds season. jj137^Talk 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous 1961 Logo Reappears

The 1961-1966 logo with the point on the "C" is WRONG. Please see the discussion above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.79.35.227 (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nl 1972 cincinnati.gif

Image:Nl 1972 cincinnati.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cincinnati Reds Cap (1967 - 1998).png

Image:Cincinnati Reds Cap (1967 - 1998).png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I set up archiving on this talk page because there are some pretty old comments.   jj137 ^♠ 01:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Reds 2.gif

Image:Reds 2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Reds 3.gif

Image:Reds 3.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Vida Blue trade - the entry states that the trade took place in the 76-77 offseason. In fact, the trade was made the following year on 12/9/77 and then voided by Commissioner Kuhn. I'm not sure how to correct it as the writer is using it to highlight it as a move to replace Don Gullett who left the club after the 1976 season. Jametz (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)jametz

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 page 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

Year of founding

As noted in the citations, and in the Cincinnati article, the current team dates from 1882. In fact, even if a connection could be proven to the 1869-70 professional team, that year would also be wrong, as that team began as an amateur team several years earlier. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

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?

That's correct, Harry was the team leader. I've seen different figures for the number of consecutive games, and 130 is probably the high-water-mark of those. What's probably needed is for someone to find a source that actually lists the games. I would guess that a lot of them were against local teams that didn't provide much in the way of competition, and might have been disregarded by some historians. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

1869

The team was founded in 1869. It is the oldest team in All of baseball. Reds stats go back to 1869 and all of the shirts hats and other memoribela say the team was founded in 1869 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohio state buckeyes football68 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to read the history and the discussion. The current club dates to 1882. The 1869-70 club dissolved after 1870. There is no direct connection, only the connection of the city's legacy. The Reds themselves, in their history museum, acknowledge that their club only dates to 1882. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the contents of T-shirts and caps do not qualify as authoritative sources. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Big Red Machine Section

This seems pretty wordy with all of the play-by-play - can it be cleaned up at all?--Thunderbolt2002 (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

July 4th, 2008 commemorative camouflage jerseys

Someone may want to mention these in the uniform section. See http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080709/COL03/807090379/1007/SPT . --Nick (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG

Recent history needs major pruning. You may want to split off articles to detail each season as other club pages have done. There's no earthly reason for Wily Mo Pena or Gary Majewski to be mentioned in a franchise history. 169.137.151.131 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mrredleg2007.gif

The image Image:Mrredleg2007.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphan article: 1999 National League Wild-Card tie-breaker game

There's an article 1999 National League Wild-Card tie-breaker game which has no links to it. It seems to be something to do with your team. Perhaps someone could figure out how to get a link to it. thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cincinnati Reds (American Association - 1891)

A new page was created entitled Cincinnati Reds (American Association - 1891). I think it should probably be merged into the history section of this page. Just an FYI. OlYeller^Talktome 03:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Different club. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The real problem is that this info was already covered in Cincinnati Kelly's Killers. The new article should redirect to the old one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Which I have now done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is paralleling the issue with the park in which this team played, which now exists at both Pendleton Park and East End Park (Cincinnati). -Dewelar (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Uniforms

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

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.

Major League Affilation ?

In the top right corner of this article, where it lists all of the details of this franchise, can someone add the American Association to "Major League Affiliations"? The Reds played in the Association from 1882 to 1889. I've tried to add it but can't seem to figure out how. SCSRdotorg (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nationality of Players

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball § Nationality of Players

Given the fact that baseball is becoming an increasingly more international sport (i.e., more non-U.S. leagues in existence, more non-U.S. players in the MLB), the roster formatting on Wikipedia should probably be updated to reflect that. If you look at the formatting for other international sports (such as soccer), the player nationalities are indicated using flag icons. I think this would be a beneficial update to each of the major league rosters in the MLB, it would not be too difficult to implement and it would not clutter the information on the page. However, before such change a change is implemented, I thought it would be healthy to achieve at least some form of consensus on the talk page for each team. yuristache (talk) 01:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Red Stockings of 1869

I recently reverted a change that claimed that the current Reds franchise was founded in 1869 as the Cincinnati Red Stockings. The history is clear that if any current franchise can be considered the direct descendant of the 1869 Red Stockings, it is the Atlanta Braves. The current Reds franchise was established in 1882 as a member of the American Association. Any dispute on this question should be discussed here. Acsenray (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not the first time this has come up, and it's not helped by the fact that the Reds own website associates themselves with the 1869-70 team. But that team broke up and its best players re-assembled in Boston, taking the nickname with them. That team, as you note, became the Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves - who still wear some red trim in their uniforms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs is correct. I check this article once in awhile and some person or persons keep changing the origins of this franchise back to 1869. It is incorrect. No matter what the Reds claim, this club began in 1882. The current Reds club is the third club known by that name. I have done some pretty extensive research on the 19th century baseball clubs in Cincy and newspapers of the time never referred to any of the clubs as being one in the same. SCSRdotorg (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think people change the year of origin to 1869 because even though the current team dates back to 1882 the franchise dates to the inception of the first professional baseball team. Even if that team moved and the second team was banned the Cincinnati Reds became a team in 1869. If you look on Wikipedia for the Cleveland Browns it states that their origin was 1946. Clearly that can't be correct since they moved to Baltimore in 1996 and started over in 1999. To follow your logic all the Cleveland Browns records, history and players are non existent. It may be technically correct but the Browns started in 1946 and continue to this day regardless of the mess that Art Modell made. As a Cincinnati fan, our team originated in 1869 with the first professional baseball team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.160.222.112 (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• No, the franchise does not date to the first professional team; it dates to when the current organization began, i.e. you can trace ownership, stockholders, personnel, etc. in an uninterrupted line. The original Red Stockings were incorporated in 1869, they disbanded in 1870. A new team was established in 1876 and disbanded after it was banned from the NL in 1880. Yet another new venture began in 1881, which entered the AA in 1882. This team has continued in uninterrupted operation ever since. Its founding owners and stockholders were not the same people who established the 1869 or 1876 clubs; they are different businesses. If Ford Motor Company were to close its doors tomorrow and five years from now another entrepreneur established an auto maker called Ford Motor Company, the founding of the latter firm would be 2015, not 1903. Finally, a note about the Browns; this is the exception that proves the rule and you have to understand the history. The Browns were a storied franchise near and dear to Cleveland's heart that left town in ugly circumstances. Cleveland sued over the move, and reached a legal settlement with the NFL in which the old Browns were declared to be a new expansion team called the Baltimore Ravens and that Cleveland would get a new team that would legally become the Cleveland Browns and inherit the old team's history. This settlement is unique as far as I know in American professional sports history and does not apply in this situation. Indrian (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The NFL can fool itself, but the 1946 Browns franchise plays in Baltimore now. MLB tried that in 1961 when the Senators moved to Minnesota and an expansion Senators team came along. They gave it up after a year or two, and the Twins reference their Washington origins from time to time. I don't know what Texas does in reference to its own Washington background, but the team sucked most of the time, so they probably don't make too big a thing of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, this is not really the page to go too far down this road, but the Browns case is different because it was a legal settlement, not just a marketing/appeasement ploy. Legally, the Browns are the same team they have always been even if that is ridiculous from a common sense standpoint. Its a legal fiction, but there you go. Note that I am not even a football fan, let alone a Browns fan, so I am just stating the facts as they exist without any kind of franchise bias. Indrian (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Either way, the team sucks, and all the Cleveland fans have to bask in is past glories. Meanwhile, the team formerly known as the Browns has won a Super Bowl since they moved. Legal fiction, like you said - with a hard reality for the Cleveland fans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Cleveland Browns situation is completely irrelevant here. The NFL created a legal fiction in order to appease Browns fans -- that doesn't make it the default. The current Cincinnati Reds club was not founded in 1869. Acsenray (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

book about 1975 season

I noticed this book about the 1975 season: The Machine: The Story of the 1975 Cincinnati Reds by Joe Posnanski via an excerpt from the author-- possibly useful here Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Spring Training Location Error

Under the section 'Ballpark,' the article lists the site of Spring Training as 'Goodyear Park.' This link redirects to a completely unrelated cricket stadium in South Africa. This should be changed to connect directly to the 'Goodyear Ballpark' article instead, the location where the Reds' and Indians' spring training actually occurs. I would fix this myself, but I have no idea what I'm doing and would probably screw it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.84.121 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Uniforms

The statement that the mid-50s to mid-60s Reds wore all red caps is mostly incorrect - during the sleeveless era the Reds famously wore white caps with red bills - the home hat sporting pinstripes like the uniform. The white caps were worn from 1957 through 1966. They did however wear red caps in the first years of the sleeveless uniforms, 1956. Antimatter33 (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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...

"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)

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)

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)

"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)

1881 or 1882 as the birth or the Reds ?

I hate to bring this up but should the Reds birth actually be listed as 1881 instead of 1882 ? The club was actually organized as an independent professional club during the summer of 1881. They played their first game on June 20th 1881. Here is a link to my website where I have the game posted. http://www.scsr.org/19CCBB/Teams/CR3/1881/BS/06/20.htm This independent club went on to join the new American Association in 1882. SCSRdotorg (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Louise Nippert

WHY is Louise Nippert redirected to this article? That's a horrible over-use of redirection, and a waste of the readers's time. It's also a failure to understand and use the benefit of the Wikilink. If I wanted to read about Louise Nippert, I don't want to waste time searching in an overly-long article about something else. Individual biographies deserve respect. Knowing where someone came from and how they came to achieve the life goals they reached is important. Owning a ML baseball team and living to 100 should deserve an individual article.69.15.219.71 (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect info on the club's early years?

At the very beginning of this article it states that "the Reds are the oldest major league club to have played continuously in one city"...That's not true. The Cubs are.

SCSRdotorg (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Harry and George Wright

Under Hall of Famers who played for the Reds - "Players listed in bold are depicted on their Hall of Fame plaques wearing a Reds cap insignia."

Neither of these players have caps on their plaques or played for this version of the Cincinnati Reds. The Red Stockings were dissolved after the 1870 season. Also, neither of them have Red Stockings listed as their primary team on the National Baseball Hall of Fame's website.

I removed their names just to give whomever heads up.

SCSRdotorg (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your removal and for the most part why. Just one note- There are other players listed whose primary team wasn't t he Reds but they are in the BHOF. Seems like the consensus for these articles though I have reservations. Cheers!...William 23:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)