Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

[Raisor]

Chain of ownership is something that can be proven.

[KySteveH]

My narrative says any team playing baseball professionally in Cincinnati is the same as the current team. Works great for me

I am sure there are Browns fans who think this current Cleveland Brown team is the same as the one from their childhood. There are probably some who don't. Neither is right. Neither is wrong.

So, by that logic, are the Yankees and Mets the same team? Are they also the same team as the Giants and Dodgers prior to their West Coast move?

The Browns and the Ravens are two distinct franchises. There is only one right way to look at that. It's no different than the Twins and Rangers. They are not the same, even though they were both the Senators at one time.

[klw]

Was 1869 the year that Jamie Moyer shut out the Reds for their only loss that year?

[[deleted]]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it clearly stipulated (as part of the deal allowing the Browns' move to Baltimore) that the new Browns team would officially be given the history, records, etc. of the old franchise? So, the Ravens were essentially starting from scratch in 99-or-whatever-year-it-was, despite the ownership remaining intact?

[Raisor]

*A* Cincinnati team was the first professional baseball club, just not *this* Cincinnati team.

[BCubb2003]

My dad likes to joke about the fellow who owns George Washington's hatchet. It has had two heads and three handles since then, but it's still the same hatchet.

[KySteveH]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it clearly stipulated (as part of the deal allowing the Browns' move to Baltimore) that the new Browns team would officially be given the history, records, etc. of the old franchise? So, the Ravens were essentially starting from scratch in 99-or-whatever-year-it-was, despite the ownership remaining intact?

No, because the Browns moved to Baltimore before the Clowns came to be.

[757690]

It's the same ownership structure for over 100 years, it's a business not some "club" team. Many of the original ownership rules are still intact without stoppage.

The Browns in Cleveland are not the Browns that won the AAFC titles in the 40's, not even in anyone's imagination.

If you want to define a team by its ownership, fine, just don't insist that I have to as well.

There are no rules about what something actually is. We define things and give them names to help us better understand the world and function within it. A tomato is a fruit, technically, but only because a group of biologists decided it was. If I want to call it a vegetable, and that works within my world view, then it's a vegetable, to me.

[757690]

My dad likes to joke about the fellow who owns George Washington's hatchet. It has had two heads and three handles since then, but it's still the same hatchet.

Exactly.

And there is not a single cell of mine currently, that was alive and part of me during last time the Reds won the World Series. I choose to claim I am the same person, but one could argue that I am not. There is no right or wrong answer here. It's however we want to define the things around us.

[KronoRed]

The New York Mets could claim kinship with the New York Metropolitans from 1880, they don't of course because that would be silly

[redsmetz]

Was 1869 the year that Jamie Moyer shut out the Reds for their only loss that year?

The actual story of that loss in 1870 is an extraordinary game (albeit w/o Jamie Moyer, of course). The game was tied 5-5 at the end of regulation and it was decided to play extra innings. The Red Stockings pulled ahead by two, but the Atlantics came back and then won it 8-7. Keep in mind that games back then often were 30-17 or some such football scores.

http://www.redsoxdiehard.com/story/stockings.html

[BCubb2003]

Maybe we should play the Six Degrees of Joe Nuxhall and see how far back we can go.

I think we can at least claim the oldest professional baseball fanbase.

[westofyou]

If you want to define a team by its ownership, fine, just don't insist that I have to as well.

There are no rules about what something actually is. We define things and give them names to help us better understand the world and function within it. A tomato is a fruit, technically, but only because a group of biologists decided it was. If I want to call it a vegetable, and that works within my world view, then it's a vegetable, to me.

Major League baseball is a business defined it by its ownership and their cities teams participation in a league

That's what the Reds are a business that participates in the NL

Since 1890

[westofyou]

Maybe we should play the Six Degrees of Joe Nuxhall and see how far back we can go.

I think we can at least claim the oldest professional baseball fanbase.

Chain from Joey Votto to Bid McPhee



Joey Votto played with Ryan Freel for the 2008 Cincinnati Reds Exclude Ryan Freel


Ryan Freel played with Barry Larkin for the 2004 Cincinnati Reds Exclude Barry Larkin


Barry Larkin played with Pete Rose for the 1986 Cincinnati Reds Exclude Pete Rose


Pete Rose played with Joe Nuxhall for the 1966 Cincinnati Reds Exclude Joe Nuxhall


Joe Nuxhall played with Estel Crabtree for the 1944 Cincinnati Reds Exclude Estel Crabtree


Estel Crabtree played with Harry Heilmann for the 1932 Cincinnati Reds Exclude Harry Heilmann


Harry Heilmann played with Sam Crawford for the 1917 Detroit Tigers Exclude Sam Crawford


Sam Crawford played with Bid McPhee for the 1899 Cincinnati Reds

[WrongVerb]

It's easier to simply say that Cincinnati was home to the first professional baseball team. This may not tell the whole story, but it sounds good and is essentially true.

That might not even be accurate. I remember hearing that the Reds were just the first organization that admitted to paying their players. There were other organizations that paid their players under the table. The Reds were just the first to call it what it was.

But again, I heard this and it might not even be true.