The first recorded grammatical debate in the comments section of Reds.com

an example of what reds.commenters probably look like

Reds.com has never been a haven for perfect grammar. Often times, fans omit simple forms of punctuation, such as periods.

Example: The bullpen didnt blow it the shortstop did he made one great play and then missed one right to him should have been a double play take 3 away 7 to 6 reds win

So, for a grammatical debate to take place on the reds.com posting board is similar to an etiquette debate taking place at a Crackerbarrel. The buffoonery began after reds.com beat reporter Mark Sheldon sent his game article to mlb.com during the eighth inning and assumed Coco Cordero would shut the door in the ninth. Not so fast. After the Reds scored an insurance run in the eighth (presumably after Sheldon sent in the article) and extended the lead to 4 (thereby erasing the save opportunity), Dusty ran out Mike Lincoln in the ninth. Before Sheldon could send an updated story to mlb.com, the old article posted on reds.com, with Coco Cordero notching a save. Sloppy? Yes. Forgivable? Yes.

Of course, a number of "commenters" from Reds.comment nation were quick to rape Sheldon and point out the glaring mistake (Hey Billy Bob, look at this, I dun found er mistake on this here computer). This is where history is made.

Commenter 1: hey mark sheldon...check your facts...Cordero did not pitch in this game. MLB.com approves your articles? Shotty at best.

Commenter 2: ...as for checking facts, yes, Sheldon got it wrong. At the same time, the word "shotty" is a misspelled (yes, the "s" is plural in misspelled) version of the Webster's-recognized word "shoddy." "Shotty" is what a redneck kills squirrels with or what a "gangsta" saws off. Check your facts.

RedlegsFan84: BTW, whoever was trying to correct grammar forgot that plural only refers to words, like nouns or adjectives, not singular letters. So the "s" in misspelled is not plural, there's just 2 of them. Thanks for playing, and remember, never correct grammar in a message board, no one cares!

Commenter 2: The word "plural" is defined as "two or more..." In other words, more than one. So two "S's" (to use the slang term for the plural of "s") is plural. Words can, indeed, also be plural. However, plurality is not simply limited to words. People/persons/peeps/boys/girls/homies/choose your slang term in multiple can also be said to qualify as "plural." The point was not to correct grammar, but rather to get some snotty smart@$ to back up off the ntz of a quality journalist who, due to deadline constraints, turned in his report in the 8th, and suffered the error of his editor missing his mistake. Look, we're faced with one of two options: get the posted article immediately, or wait for a well-edited, pretty, grammatically-correct version. Personally, as someone who was up at 7 and worked until 10, only tuning in for the full ninth inning, I'd like to get the general rundown, sans perfectionism. When all is said and done, I simply wanted to point that out, not correct what we both agree is irrelevant grammar. Grammatically- and intellectually-speaking, as one who has "it," I hate to see either flaunted, most especially by those lacking either or both.

Grooveleg: oh please. whoever mentioned the grammatical error in their post is a doosh. he [Mark Sheldon] is a professional journalist--somebody who eats, sleeps, and breathes grammar. you can't possibly think he read over it a second time and thought, "mmhmm... looks right to me!" [This guy thinks that Commenter 2 was correcting Sheldon's grammar]

Soapyjapan: I would have to say that there are multiple S's in the word misspelled. Plural is only a grammatical number, so it not supposed to be used like "the 's' is plural in misspelled". For an "s" to be pluralized, then it would look like S's. With that being said, misspelled is not spelled mis'spelled, because that would be stupid.

Well, there you have it. I hope you were as entertained as I was. We now have the first grammatical debate on reds.com documented. Whew, that was tiring, but rewarding. And the best part...it's probably not over yet.

If you would like to take part in mostly mature, friendly and intellectual online Reds discussions, I highly recommend Redszone. All you have in that forum is your name--a scary thing--but at least fans are held accountable for what they say in there. For all we know, Reds.com could be infested with Cubs fans working sabotage.

Reds.comments and a 10-inning win against the Netherlands!

The Reds only needed 10 innings yesterday to take down a fearsome Netherlands All-Star team made up of the same players that make up their regular team. While it hasn't been reported if the Netherlanders wore wooden cleats, according to comments on the Reds.com message board, based on a handful of Spring Training games, the Reds have a striking resemblance to the Big Red Machine, the 1990 World Series team, and the late 90's Yankee dynasty...really. And some have already lost faith in closer Francisco Cordero after 2 innings and 5 earned runs of baseball. Pop a bowl of corn and let's take a look at some comments.

"I hope I'm wrong, but I think the Francisco Cordero signing is going to wind up being a huge failure. He's giving up at least a run per inning. I know it's early but he needs to get it together. If he can't get guys out in the fifth inning, then how can we expect him to get guys out when it counts?"

10 years of 3.29 ERA baseball and you just threw Coco under the bus after 2 innings of Spring Training ball. It is clear that you have very poor stamina in the bedroom.

"Dickerson, Taveras and Bruce...WOW. If the speed is all it's advertised we are going to see some exciting defense this year. I think back to Griffey, Geronimo and Foster. Is the "Big Red Machine" getting tuned up for a comeback. I sure hope so, it's been too long without a championship."

This poor man has been starved for a winning team for too long because he just compared Dickerson/Taveras/Bruce to Griffey/Geronimo/Foster. Not that I need to clarify, but...In 19 seasons, Ken Griffey batted .296/.359/.431 with a 118 OPS+. In 15 seasons, Cesar Geronimo won 4 Gold Gloves in center field. In 18 seasons, George Foster batted .274/.338/.480 with a 126 OPS+. In 1977, he hit 52 home runs. Considering our starting outfield will have roughly six years of questionable big league experience, let's hold off on the Big Red Machine comparisons.

"The Yankee dynasty of the late 90's didn't have a single player that hit 30 or more home runs. Timely hitting, pitching and defense can take a team a long way."

While you are correct that the Yankees didn't have a single player that hit 30 or more home runs in the late 90's (Bernie hit 30 in 2000), they didn't abandon the long ball as you imply. They ranked 4th, 8th, and 6th in the AL in home runs in 1998, 1999 and 2000 during their three-peat. Not too shabby. Just throw out any stat that takes a shadow jab at Adam Dunn why don't you, you big jerk.

"I have been a Reds fan since 1961 and I think this team bears a striking resemblance to the 1990 team. The only difference being the bullpen. The 1990 team had the nasty boys and this year we have Rhodes(too old) and Weathers(too sad). There is still time to improve."

A striking resemblance to the 1990 World Series team? That's a tall order...

The 1990 Reds (NL ranks)

1st in BA (.265)

4th in OBP (.322)

3rd in SLG (.399)

2nd in ERA (3.39)

2nd in SO (1,029)

In other words, your memory is starting to go. You would have been perfect as James Garner in The Notebook. And you're a fan since 1961? Was that like the year you were born or something, because if not, that's kind of weird to say that you've been a fan since that year, like one day in 1961 you just decided to start liking the Reds or something, just turned on the damn switch huh? Well guess what, I've been a Reds fan since 1960, even though I was born in 1985, and there's nothing you can do about it.

"I too have been a fan since 1961. This team reminds me of another Reds team built around the idea of speed and defense. GM Bob Howsam traded power hitting 1B Lee May to Houston for a base stealing 2nd baseman named Joe Morgan and a centerfielder with an arm like a howitzer named Cesar Geronimo. The result? the BIG RED MACHINE. Walt has the right idea here."

Also starring Ramon Hernandez as Johnny Bench? You and the commenter above should have a 1961 class reunion and talk about how you make poor observations about baseball, and probably life.

"...Tavaras, Harriston/Dickerson, Votto/Gomes,Phillips, Bruce, Fernandez, EE, Gonzo/Kepp= 6 runs a game avg..."

This one is a little too easy, like picking on the goth kid. Harriston and Fernandez? Get the names right Jim. And also, the Cubs led the NL in runs per game last year with just over 5. Moral of the story--there is no way in hell the Reds will average 6 runs a game this year. If we are lucky, 4.6 runs/game, my final offer. Oh, and you're a dumbass.

Reds.comments: Bless Their Hearts

EDITOR'S NOTE

This will be a reoccurring segment on The Red Scare where we analyze certain fan comments posted under news articles and press releases from Reds.com, the official propaganda machine of the Cincinnati Reds.

On signing an outfielder

"Why Griffey Jr.? Did you see him play the past 8/9 years? He can't catch up to a 92 mph heater anymore. Walt has done an excellent job in the offseason acquiring players that make financial and team chemistry sense. Speed, defense, and pitching win games this days. Hernandez, Taveras, and Gomes were big acquistions this offseason. Remember when the Reds gave Cantu a chance two years ago? Can't wait for the season to start. GO REDS!!!!!!"

We won't go into the unfortunate injuries that have plagued Junior and how that has affected his play. But for the right price (which will not be that much) I wouldn't mind Junior off the bench. According to you, Walt has done "an excellent job" this offseason and "Hernandez, Taveras and Gomes were big acquisitions." Wow, you're easily impressed. You see, I would consider players like Bobby Abreu, Mark Teixiera and Milton Bradley as "big acquisitions." Keep drinking the water.

On the starting left fielder

"You have to start hairston, anyone can come up and hit 300 6 hrs and 15 rbi in the last 31 games of the season when no one is trying and a bunch of triple and double A cats are pitching. Hairston is faster than dickerson, will hit for a better avg, steal more bases and just be more of an asset to the team out in left. dont get me wrong i like dickerson but i think he has to prove himself in spring training to even be considered for the job."

I agree that Dickerson needs to prove himself, but give the guy some credit for putting up those numbers at the end of last year. You need to take your love affair with Jerry Hairston Jr. down a notch. He's a career .260/.330/.370 hitter who had a career year in his 11th season. Jerry is also linked to steroids in the Mitchell Report, but no one seems to give a crap because he's Jerry Hairston Jr. Give the young guy a chance to prove himself, not in Spring Training, but for the first month or two of the season. I think the idea of judging players by how they perform in Spring Training is silly. There are some fringe players that have incredible Spring Trainings and still don't make the squad and other players who make the squad after horrendous springs, which tells us that a majority of the roster spots are predetermined and involve money, not talent.

On not making any sense

"cincinasty got it right look at patterson last yr a baker buddy.last year had a lot to do with baker not the players when it comes to losing"

what?