PDA

View Full Version : When was the last time the Reds played the very 1st game of the season?



fearofpopvol1
03-26-2008, 12:51 PM
??

Anyone know?

I also thought that since the Reds were the very first MLB team, they were supposed to be given the right to play the very first game of each season. Why has/was that stripped? MLB greed? I know now that they get to have the first series of the season at home, but big deal.

westofyou
03-26-2008, 01:09 PM
??

Anyone know?

I also thought that since the Reds were the very first MLB team, they were supposed to be given the right to play the very first game of each season. Why has/was that stripped? MLB greed? I know now that they get to have the first series of the season at home, but big deal.


1994 was the last year of the Reds "Kicking" off the the season on the same day as others...

However, the Reds aren't the 1st MLB team, they were the first fully paid professional team and it had nothing to do with MLB at the time. So the honor was always a tenuous honor that was not always adhered to.

That said there were plenty of years in the past that the Senators opened the season before the Reds even took the field.

savafan
03-26-2008, 01:42 PM
1994 was the last year of the Reds "Kicking" off the the season on the same day as others...



Was that the year the Reds opened on Easter Sunday with Jose Rijo pitching on ESPN?

Chip R
03-26-2008, 02:45 PM
1994 was the last year of the Reds "Kicking" off the the season on the same day as others...

However, the Reds aren't the 1st MLB team, they were the first fully openly paid professional team and it had nothing to do with MLB at the time. So the honor was always a tenuous honor that was not always adhered to.

That said there were plenty of years in the past that the Senators opened the season before the Reds even took the field.


There were plenty of teams who paid their players back then but the amateur status was so coveted back then it was done pretty much under the table. The Reds were the first team to do it openly.

The Reds opening at home had more to do with geography than tradition. In the days when the NL had 8 teams, Cincinnati was the southernmost city in the league - besides St. Louis - so they opened at home. They just got so used to it it became a tradition and one year - I want to say it was in the '20s - they tried to get them to open on the road but the Reds pitched a fit and the NL backed down.

westofyou
03-26-2008, 02:58 PM
There were plenty of teams who paid their players back then but the amateur status was so coveted back then it was done pretty much under the table. The Reds were the first team to do it openly.

The Reds opening at home had more to do with geography than tradition. In the days when the NL had 8 teams, Cincinnati was the southernmost city in the league - besides St. Louis - so they opened at home. They just got so used to it it became a tradition and one year - I want to say it was in the '20s - they tried to get them to open on the road but the Reds pitched a fit and the NL backed down.

Who was the 1st "known" player who was paid?

Reach? Creighten?

As for the on the road season opener.

It was like 1937 or so, the Reds also had the only parade prior to the season that was a draw to let them have too.

The Reds didn't open up at home for a series then either. They usually opened against the Pirates or the Cubs and then took the train to their city and participated in their opening day.

Another tradition that Cincinnati has and never talks about is the complete abandonment of the Red Stockings by the fans once their long winning streak was over.

Bad enough that the team disbanded.

Chip R
03-26-2008, 03:07 PM
Who was the 1st "known" player who was paid?

Reach? Creighten?

As for the on the road season opener.

It was like 1937 or so, the Reds also had the only parade prior to the season that was a draw to let them have too.

The Reds didn't open up at home for a series then either. They usually opened against the Pirates or the Cubs and then took the train to their city and participated in their opening day.

Another tradition that Cincinnati has and never talks about is the complete abandonment of the Red Stockings by the fans once their long winning streak was over.

Bad enough that the team disbanded.

Nobody is really sure if it was Reach or Creighton.

Yeah, after the winning streak ended, the thrill was gone. Sound familiar?

savafan
03-26-2008, 03:10 PM
Another tradition that Cincinnati has and never talks about is the complete abandonment of the Red Stockings by the fans once their long winning streak was over.

Bad enough that the team disbanded.

I thought they moved to Boston

Chip R
03-26-2008, 03:20 PM
I thought they moved to Boston


The Cincinnati Base Ball Club a.k.a. the Red Stockings declined to pay players for the 1871 season so the players were free to go to other teams. The Wright brothers, and a few others joined the Boston Red Stockings (the ancestor of the Braves) while others went to Washington (I believe).

redsrule2500
03-26-2008, 03:51 PM
The Cincinnati Base Ball Club a.k.a. the Red Stockings declined to pay players for the 1871 season so the players were free to go to other teams. The Wright brothers, and a few others joined the Boston Red Stockings (the ancestor of the Braves) while others went to Washington (I believe).

Yeah, they broke up all together.

pahster
03-26-2008, 03:54 PM
MLB is greedy for allowing a team other than the Reds to open the season?

westofyou
03-26-2008, 04:01 PM
MLB is greedy for allowing a team other than the Reds to open the season?

Greedy yes!!!

http://blogs.nypost.com/40by40/Fat-Guy-in-Chair.jpg

redsrule2500
03-26-2008, 04:04 PM
I think it would be a more traditional opener if Cincinnati hosted it, as its the home of the first professional baseball team.

It's too bad, now the opener is freaking played across the world in japan.....pathetic.

backbencher
03-26-2008, 05:12 PM
My recollection is that the Reds' spot as having the first pitch of the season was superseded by the Blue Jays in the late 80s - around the time that the Rose investigations were starting. The Reds still had the first pitch in the NL for a while longer.

Cincinnati still gets to start every season at home, something (I think) no other team can claim.

savafan
03-26-2008, 08:40 PM
My recollection is that the Reds' spot as having the first pitch of the season was superseded by the Blue Jays in the late 80s - around the time that the Rose investigations were starting. The Reds still had the first pitch in the NL for a while longer.

Cincinnati still gets to start every season at home, something (I think) no other team can claim.

Except they started the 1990 season in Houston didn't they?

That worked out well. Maybe they should start the season on the road more often.

vaticanplum
03-26-2008, 10:29 PM
Except they started the 1990 season in Houston didn't they?

That worked out well. Maybe they should start the season on the road more often.

There was an owners' strike that year that pushed back the start of the season by a week or so. I think the first games of the season were pushed back to the end, so the opening in Houston wasn't supposed to happen -- it was the result of the delayed Opening Day.