I hadn't realized how awful the Phillies have been through history. My condolances, Philadelphians. At least Schmidt and Bowa won you one championship and Bowa is working on another.

The Cubs and the Reds both began playing that year, in their current cities, with their current team nicknames, 128 years ago.

Is this right? Were the Cubs "unofficially" called the Cubs back when they were formally White Stockings/Colts/Orphans?

The name Cubs didn't show up, formally or otherwise, until the turn of the century. Just a mistake there.

The Cincinnati part of the statement is even more incorrect. The current Reds franchise was founded 122 years ago (1882), and adopted the name "Reds" 115 years ago (1889). The team referenced in the article which had a 9-56 record is a completely different franchise.

Of course, it's hard to blame someone for getting confused about the Reds franchise history, since the Reds continue to falsely promote themselves as the "first professional franchise," an honor that they deserve no more than the Diamondbacks do. If any current team can lay claim to being the first pro franchise, it's the Braves.

By the way, don't misconstrue that last post as trying to dump on the article. I found it quite interesting.

If any current team can lay claim to being the first pro franchise, it's the Braves.


But the Braves weren't around until 1876, long after the first pro franchise. The first pro franchise was definitely Cincinnati. Longest lasting pro franchise.... well, that's the Braves.

But agreed, great article.

"Cincinnati" being the defunct franchise that existed long before the current Reds came to be.

Well, see, the way it worked was this: The Cincinnati Red Stockings of 1869 were the first professional team. After barnstorming the country in 1869 and 1870, they moved to Boston, where they were renamed the Boston Red Stockings and became a charter member of the National Association in 1871, and of the National League in 1876. The franchise that Andruw Jones now plays for is the same one that was founded in Cincinnati in 1869.

The current Cincinnati Reds team has no connection whatsoever to the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings, other than sharing a home city.

The current Cincinnati Reds team has no connection whatsoever to the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings, other than sharing a home city.

Well that and sartorially expressing the team's ardent communism.

[In the race for the AL's worst historical record], the Orioles were firmly in the cellar until Earl Weaver pulled them out in the 60's and 70's. However, they have recently returned to their losing ways and taken back the bottom rung. Oakland's recent surge has left the Twins (who spent the first half of the race in Washington) and O's to fight it out.

I think many people think of the Baltimore Orioles as an organiztion that has been, until recently, very well-run and successful over a long period of time. So It's worth pointing out that the first half of the Orioles' existence (and the one with most of the losing) occurred in St. Louis as the Browns.

The Phillies are roughly 600 games below .500 according to this chart. The next worse teams, the Braves, Twins, Orioles, and A's are all around 400 games below .500. Surprising, I never thought of the Phillies being that bad of a team, just my opinion. I guess its because I have seen them in a few World Series in my time.

THen I looked it up and realized that they won 1 World Series ever. Before 1980, were the Phillies thought of like the Cubs and Red Sox are now. That is an even longer futility streak, not winning a World Series ever in 80 years.

No, they were -not- like the Cubs and Red Sox. The Cubs, and especially the Red Sox, got close on occasion. Before 1980, just two pennants -- 1915 and 1950. Then the collapse of 1964. Only in the 1970s did some success come -- divisional crowns in 1976-78, WS in 1980, pennant in 1983, but by and large, this team has stank.

The Phillies were generally considered the weakest franchise in MLB until the 1960s. It was only through kind of a fluke of timing that it was the A's who moved away from Philadelphia rather than the Phillies -- went franchise moving suddenly became all the rage, the Phillies were in one of their spectacularly rare non-terrible periods.

The Phillies went bankrupt in 1942 and were bought out by the rest of the NL until a new owner could be found. They and the Seattle Pilots of 1969 are the only modern MLB franchises to go belly-up.

The Phillies of the 1920's, 30's and 40's, like a number of other franchises, weren't even trying to win. Whether that was due to lack of resources, lack of competitiveness or lack of skill I will leave to others to argue over. Essentially they were just along for the ride and to provide the good teams someone to play. Once Connie Mack decided to dismantle his second great A's team of the late twenties-early thirties, the fans in Philadelphia were treated to two teams that were basically of minor league caliber. Neither franchise provided major league quality baseball until the Carpenter family purchased the Phillies in the mid-forties and started spending money to acquire players.

I'm not sure if studes still hangs out here, but thanks. I really enjoy his stuff and this was no exception.

I'll echo GGC's accolades but extend them to the entirety of the THT site. Truly a great site with excellent unique content.

I followed the link at the bottom of the article to a page of various baseball research projects. After a quick look-through, many of them seemed very interesting. Has this guy published before?

No, they were -not- like the Cubs and Red Sox. The Cubs, and especially the Red Sox, got close on occasion. Before 1980, just two pennants -- 1915 and 1950. Then the collapse of 1964. Only in the 1970s did some success come -- divisional crowns in 1976-78, WS in 1980, pennant in 1983, but by and large, this team has stank.

Between Pete Alexander & Robin Roberts, the Phillies went 14 straight years finishing under .500, then went 78-76, then went 16 more consecutive seasons (tying the all-time record) finishing under .500. When FDR was president, they never finished better than 7th in the 8 team NL. Yea, historically they've been pretty bad.

Between Pete Alexander & Robin Roberts, the Phillies went 14 straight years finishing under .500, then went 78-76, then went 16 more consecutive seasons (tying the all-time record) finishing under .500.

So that's 30 of 31 years under .500.

And "under .500" greatly understates it. In those 31 seasons, the Phillies lost 100 or more games 12 times (including years of 111, 109, 109, 108, 106, and 105 losses), and 90-99 games 11 times, and 85-89 games 5 times. So in 28 of the 31 years, they lost 85 or more games. Only twice in those 31 seasons did they win as many as 70 games.

Interesting stuff - graphical displays can convey information quickly and easily.

One tiny quibble, though - the Pirates, not the Cardinals, were one of the three NL teams that dominated from 1900-1920. It's an easy mistake, as the Pirates are represented by red and black markers. The Cards made up a ton of ground during the Gashouse Gang and Musial years.

Yeah, the Phillies have stunk pretty bad historically. Perhaps the two most famous player-vs.-team court battles in baseball history -- Nap Lajoie and Curt Flood -- each happened because the player in question wanted the right to not play for the Phillies.

One tiny quibble, though - the Pirates, not the Cardinals, were one of the three NL teams that dominated from 1900-1920. It's an easy mistake, as the Pirates are represented by red and black markers. The Cards made up a ton of ground during the Gashouse Gang and Musial years.

Very true, the Cards were among the wretched until they lured Branch Rickey away from the cross-town Browns in the early 1920's. The Browns then proceeded to shoot themselves in the other foot by agreeing to allow the Cardinals to become their tenants at Sportsman's Park. I'm sure the $50,000 annual rental (I think that was the amount) looked like found money but the real result was that the Cardinals were able to use the money from the sale of their old park (Robison Field) to both fund an immediate upgrade of their team and also the creation of Rickey's farm system. Sooner or later one of the two teams was going to have to leave St. Louis anyway, it was inevitable given the size of the market and changing demographics in post-war America. The Browns just made sure it was them and not the Cardinals when they allowed Branch Rickey to change jobs.

Great comments, everyone. Thanks for being nice to me on the team nicknames and history. I knew I should have researched that part of the article more thoroughly, but I was kind of in a rush. Just goes to show you...

I also can't believe I mixed up the Pirates and Cardinals on my own graph! I actually had the Pirates in the article, then thought I saw a mistake and changed it to the Cardinals. Again, that's what I get for rushing. I'll fix that reference right now.

GGC, thanks for your encouragement, in particular. It's always nice to hear.

Sooner or later one of the two teams was going to have to leave St. Louis anyway, it was inevitable given the size of the market and changing demographics in post-war America. The Browns just made sure it was them and not the Cardinals when they allowed Branch Rickey to change jobs.

An interesting virtual history to imagine is the Browns keeping Rickey and developing into the powerhouse that the Cardinals became, and the Cardinals remaining the weak sister ... the Browns signing and developing Dean, Mize, Slaughter, and Musial, challenging if not surpassing the Yankees for AL dominance ... the Cardinals losing 100 games a year and limping off to Baltimore in the early 1950s.

Speaking as a Dodger fan, it would have been really nice if that scenario had come true. The Dodgers might have had three additional world championships (1942, 46, and 85) if it had.

Speaking as a Dodger fan, it would have been really nice if that scenario had come true. The Dodgers might have had three additional world championships (1942, 46, and 85) if it had.

But then again, Rickey might not have been available to the Dodgers under those circumstances, and who knows when the color line would have been broken - and whether the Dodgers would have been the beneficiaries of it. It was Rickey's falling-out with Sam Breadon that made him available to the Dodgers in the first place. I seriously doubt that Rickey could have tried to bring minority players to play for an integrated team in St. Louis.

-- MWE

Despite the reversals of fortune in St. Louis in the '20s, the Cardinals nearly did become the franchise that left and the Browns the one that stayed.

That's because in the off-season between the '52 and '53 seasons, Cardinals owner Fred Saigh was convicted of federal tax evasion and had to sell. He negotiated to move the Cardinals to Milwaukee but accepted an offer from the brewery to keep the team in SL. Then the Browns tried to move to Milwaukee and were refused after Braves' owner Lou Perini claimed Milwaukee as his territory via his Triple-A franchise. Perini then moved his own team there and a year later the Browns went to Baltimore.

IIRC, the Browns tried to move to LA but WWII put the kibosh on that.

IIRC, the Browns tried to move to LA but WWII put the kibosh on that.

That was likely a lot more idle speculation than serious trying.

Cross-country airplane travel was pretty dicey until the 1950s, and without being able to fly quickly, cheaply, and reliably from the Midwest to the West Coast, having a ML franchise on the West Coast would have been quite impractical.

Why are the White Sox and Red Sox spelled as "Sox" instead of "Socks"?

Why are the White Sox and Red Sox spelled as "Sox" instead of "Socks"?

SAVE SPACE, EDS CRY

"I think many people think of the Baltimore Orioles as an organiztion that has been, until recently, very well-run and successful over a long period of time. So It's worth pointing out that the first half of the Orioles' existence (and the one with most of the losing) occurred in St. Louis as the Browns. "


I remember in 1983, the Orioles touted themselves as having the best overall record in baseball since 1957.

I remember in 1983, the Orioles touted themselves as having the best overall record in baseball since 1957.

Thus demonstrating that among the many other things they did brilliantly, choosing multiple endpoints was one.

So on June 23rd the D Rays could have legitimately claimed to have been the best team in MLB since June 9th.

And in 1984, the Orioles boasted of having the best Pythagorean W-L record in baseball for the past 20 years, claiming that's what really counts.

Um, okay, that never happened.

At least there is some logic in the Orioles using 1957, as that was the year they moved to Baltimore. A true multiple endpoint argument would use 1963 or some other random year.

The Orioles moved to Baltimore in 1954.

Since they moved to Balmer in '54, and since their first winning season in Balmer was '60, it seems pretty clear that '57 was chosen only because it was the earliest year they could choose and still make the claim.

Classic use of multiple endpoints. Nine-point-five from the judges.

The Orioles moved to Baltimore in 1954.

Indeed - the O's are running a season-long promotion celebrating 50 years in Baltimore.

In '54, the O's were 5-17 against the Yankees, scoring 60 runs and allowing 101.

So far this year, the O's are 1-8 against the Yankees, scoring 50 runs and allowing 75.

It's a sort of Turn Back the Stomach thing...

Correcting some misstatements made by the estimable Eric Enders earlier:

The Cincinnati Red Stockings didn't move to Boston in 1871, although some of their players did. The team remained in Cincinnati, but reverted to amateur status, and so didn't keep any of its 1870 players.
Source- Harry Wright by Christopher Devine

The current Cincinnati franchise can trace its history only to 1891, when it was organized to replace the team which represented Cincinnati in the National League in 1890 and jumped to the AA after that season.
Source- Philadelphia Inquirer, October 6, 1890; February 15, 1891; February 24, 1891

studes, I'm really late in asking about this, but is there any plan to do historical graphs of pennant races? I have heard there is someone out there who has done them in the past. (David Kaiser showed me a graph of the 1948 AL race once.)

Also, is there any reason that games over .500 is used in one of the axises? The graph seems to mushroom out the further along you go. Of course, using winning percentages would pose similar problems on the left portion of the graph.