Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Reds Propoganda

  1. #1

    Reds Propoganda

    Something I want to get off my chest here, but before I start, let me say that the Cincinnati Reds are far from the only team that does this crap, but the team perpetuates a pair of lies on a regular basis, leading to historical illiteracy and general ignorance among its fan base.

    Lie #1 - This Cincinnati Reds franchise is the oldest - the first even - in professional baseball. Yes, the city of Cincinnati hosted the first openly professional baseball team by virtue of the fact that when the (amateur) National Association created a professional category for the first time (following the 1868 season), a Cincinnati entry was the first to declare. Cincinnati, however, did not even participate in the first professional league (the National Association of 1871-1875) at all. The oldest existing franchise in professional baseball is the Atlanta Braves (1871-present) or the Chicago Cubs (though they didn't play for a few seasons due to the Great Chicago Fire). These Cincinnati Reds saw their professional genesis in 1882 with the advent of the American Association; the Reds won the pennant in their first year of existence. Why isn't this enough? Why can't the franchise be honest that it was a different franchise that was an inaugural member of the National League in 1876? That it was (yet) another franchise that Harry Wright ran in 1869-1870? What's wrong with being the third-oldest team in professional baseball? What's wrong with Cincinnati being the "birthplace" of professional baseball, but not this Reds' organization?

    Lie #2 - Marty Brennaman is a Hall of Famer. This is patently untrue also, yet he's constantly introduced as "Hall of Famer Marty Brennaman". Why the heck can't the team be honest and introduce him as "Frick Award winner Marty Brennaman"? Because that's what he is - a recipient of the Ford C. Frick Award. Marty Brennaman was not elected to the Hall of Fame. He is not a member of it. He does not have a bronze plaque on the wall, hanging next to Johnny Bench or Joe Morgan or Barry Larkin. There is no shame in winning the Frick Award. It's the highest honor a broadcaster can aspire to. Why conflate the two? It's not as if the organization has any excuse for perpetuating the confusion. I've heard former Dayton Daily News writer Hal McCoy likewise called a "Hall of Famer" by the team. (McCoy is a Spink Award winner.)

    Obviously these aren't world-changing issues and I'd rather see the Reds win 100 games this year - ha! - whatever they tell the fans, but there's no excuse for getting it wrong and it goes beyond poor scholarship. The organization is evidently pushing these falsehoods intentionally and I find that distasteful.

    Has anyone else noticed this?
    "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
    "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
    "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
    "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

  2. #2
    I notice it with other teams. The Royals introduce broadcaster Denny Matthews as "Hall of Fame announcer Denny Matthews", before every game, not as a Frick Award winner.

    Cubs broadcaster Pat Hughes doesn't know what year the Cubs played their first ever game or when the National League was formed. He stated during a Cubs-Pirates game from last week that Cubs played their first ever game in 1876 in the National Association. Hughes shared some other tidbits from 1876, such as Philadelphia and New York getting expelled from the National Association! I don't think Hughes was pushing a falsehood, he was probably going off of poorly done research performed by somebody else.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Jeltz View Post
    I notice it with other teams. The Royals introduce broadcaster Denny Matthews as "Hall of Fame announcer Denny Matthews", before every game, not as a Frick Award winner.

    Cubs broadcaster Pat Hughes doesn't know what year the Cubs played their first ever game or when the National League was formed. He stated during a Cubs-Pirates game from last week that Cubs played their first ever game in 1876 in the National Association. Hughes shared some other tidbits from 1876, such as Philadelphia and New York getting expelled from the National Association! I don't think Hughes was pushing a falsehood, he was probably going off of poorly done research performed by somebody else.
    Actually, mistakes about not knowing when your home town team was inaugurated like this Hughes fellow made about his team the Cubs would upset me more than calling a Spink Award (baseball reporting & writing) winner or a Frick Award (baseball radio/TV broadcasting) winner a Hall Of Famer. These award winners are technically not Hall Of Famers, but a majority of people refer to them as such. ESPN and MLB.TV have referred to those networks' contributor, Peter Gammons as a Hall Of Fame writer for over a decade, while he's only a Spink Award recipient, but that doesn't upset me at all.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by philliesfiend55 View Post
    Actually, mistakes about not knowing when your home town team was inaugurated like this Hughes fellow made about his team the Cubs would upset me more than calling a Spink Award (baseball reporting & writing) winner or a Frick Award (baseball radio/TV broadcasting) winner a Hall Of Famer. These award winners are technically not Hall Of Famers, but a majority of people refer to them as such. ESPN and MLB.TV have referred to those networks' contributor, Peter Gammons as a Hall Of Fame writer for over a decade, while he's only a Spink Award recipient, but that doesn't upset me at all.
    I wasn't upset by Hughes comments, I just laughed because he was so off the mark. I'm a Phillies fan who lives in the Midwest, so I don't really care for either the Cubs or Royals. If I'm driving, I'll listen to their games just because I love baseball. Now, had Hughes been talking about the Phillies first ever game and said something like, it occurred in the American Association, I would be upset.

    I do agree with Chadwick about referring to Brennaman or any broadcaster who has the won the Frick Award as Hall of Famers. It is disingenuous. But I guess a lot of casual and a few hard core fans do not know what the Frick or Spink Award is, so it is easier to just call them Hall of Famers.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Jeltz View Post
    I wasn't upset by Hughes comments, I just laughed because he was so off the mark. I'm a Phillies fan who lives in the Midwest, so I don't really care for either the Cubs or Royals. If I'm driving, I'll listen to their games just because I love baseball. Now, had Hughes been talking about the Phillies first ever game and said something like, it occurred in the American Association, I would be upset.

    I do agree with Chadwick about referring to Brennaman or any broadcaster who has the won the Frick Award as Hall of Famers. It is disingenuous. But I guess a lot of casual and a few hard core fans do not know what the Frick or Spink Award is, so it is easier to just call them Hall of Famers.
    There is a phrase that applies to the Frick & Spink Award winners being called Hall Of Famers: - "IN COMMON PARLANCE".
    It means in common language or commonly referred to as - although technically that may not be the case, or it may not be the real name, or it may not be the actual title, or the technically correct word or term.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •