Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, November 08, 2019

Nats World Series Win Affirmed Their Once-Questioned Existence in D.C.

From our own(?) Chris Needham:

D.C. baseball fans are told that their baseball history is actually Montreal’s. Hipster baseball fans who’ve never set foot in Quebec and can’t name any Expos other than Tim Raines and Pedro Martinez push for a version of history that prefers a corporate lineage to the over 100 years of baseball history in Washington: of Walter Johnson and Goose Goslin; of Josh Gibson and Buck Leonard.

Bote Man sez Davey is MoY Posted: November 08, 2019 at 08:20 AM | 60 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: fans, nationals, world series

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Sweatpants Posted: November 08, 2019 at 10:44 AM (#5899686)
I like the line about how it's only those terrible, ignorant hipsters, aware only of Pedro Martinez and of Tim Raines, who try to link the Nationals to the Expos. Then he proceeds to demonstrate his knowledge of the capital's baseball history by naming obscure players like Walter Johnson and Goose Goslin.

Washington fans can celebrate whatever they want. It's the ridiculous attempts to claim that the Nationals are not and never were the Expos that annoy me, as that's just an outright lie.
   2. SoSH U at work Posted: November 08, 2019 at 11:44 AM (#5899707)
So, Chris and Bote, are the Braves wrong for flying banners for the world titles won before they reached Atlanta?

Should the Giants unretire Mel Ott's number?

Should the Dodgers remove Zack Wheat from atop the franchise's all-time hits leaderboard?

Or does this denial of the franchise's history only apply to the Washington-Baltimore area?

   3. jmurph Posted: November 08, 2019 at 11:47 AM (#5899709)
The notion that there is a shared history among three separate franchises, the other two of which still exist!, is much weirder than the notion of a shared history between the Expos and Nationals.
   4. DCA Posted: November 08, 2019 at 12:39 PM (#5899729)
The notion that there is a shared history among three separate franchises, the other two of which still exist!, is much weirder than the notion of a shared history between the Expos and Nationals.

Not really. Neither notion is at all weird.
   5. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: November 08, 2019 at 12:48 PM (#5899730)
The problem is that too many people seem to think there can be a city baseball history or a franchise history, and not both.
   6. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 08, 2019 at 12:50 PM (#5899732)
I don’t think the Nationals are really denying their links to the Expos - they inducted all the Expos Hall of Famers into their Ring of Honor, despite none ever playing a game in DC. However, in promoting the current team, its place in Washington, DC MLB history resonates much louder, not that the Nationals do that much to honor Walter Johnson and the other Senators worthies. The Nationals are similar to other franchises which don’t make much of their time in other cities where they didn’t enjoy much success. Nothing that controversial about the practice.
   7. Esoteric Posted: November 08, 2019 at 12:51 PM (#5899734)
The Expos are dead, people. Their history is a terminus, a nullity.

Get over it. The Washington Nationals do not care, and will not be made to care, about the Expos. Do not insist that its fans give a rip about some far-off city in a foreign land. Let those over there do so. And when and if Montreal gets a new team, let them incorporate the Expos' history into their own, justifiably so, without any concerns about the disjunction.

If you played for a Washington DC baseball team, whether it's Walter Johnson or Frank Howard or Josh Gibson, you're part of DC baseball history, and by association also with the current team. If you didn't, you're not. Gary Carter and Vlad Guerrero and Larry Walker and Tim Raines mean nothing to DC baseball history, or DC fans (as opposed to fans of baseball in general) despite how great they were as players.
   8. jmurph Posted: November 08, 2019 at 01:23 PM (#5899749)
Do not insist that its fans give a rip about some far-off city in a foreign land.

Crucially, it doesn't appear that anyone is really trying to do this, other than maybe the team itself. They wore Expos uniforms this summer.

But yeah, otherwise Clapper pretty much covers it.

   9. SoSH U at work Posted: November 08, 2019 at 01:42 PM (#5899765)
The Nats fans are under no obligation to care about the Expos, obviously. And I applaud any effort to recognize the city's full baseball history.

What I find ridiculous are these efforts to pretend the franchise is not the same as the one that came from Montreal, and to get pissy when others note that it is.
   10. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 08, 2019 at 01:46 PM (#5899766)
I guess DC is rooting for laundry.
   11. . Posted: November 08, 2019 at 01:55 PM (#5899769)
What even are the cities that had one major league team, then a spell in the wilderness, and then another team? (And not some 19th century/1900s version, which applies to the issue only as trivia.)

1. Milwaukee.

Can't think of any others.

So maybe that's, you know, the thing that distinguishes DC from Mel Ott's number or the weekly feats of Zack Wheat. And so this is pretty much yet another outrage-a-thon for the purpose of outrage. (Plus the DC people are always so twee and thinkey about things like this, and so they have to be all twee and thinkey about this -- but that's another matter altogether. Federal DC import types putting brain cells to something like this, when federal DC barely existed at the time of Walter Johnson, is pretty much beyond ridiculous. There's at least a 50-50 chance that Ken Burns himself, the natural master of ceremonies for such fey arcana, would find it silly.)
   12. filihok Posted: November 08, 2019 at 02:00 PM (#5899772)
An interesting philosophical question. One I should refresh my knowledge on before commenting.

But, I won't.

It's related to the idea of personhood. And there's a philosophical question about a ship. A ship sets off on a long voyage. During the voyage it needs repairs. Piece by piece, eventually, the entire ship has been replaced. None of the original ship remains. So, is this the original ship?

We've decided that entities, such as corporations, can remain intact. Take McDonald's. What does McDonald's of 2019 have in common with McDonald's of 1960, or 1955, or 1940?

Or minor league teams. My city has a long baseball history. That history is directly responsible for my current rooting interest. Of course I was going to be a fan of the team that the guys I went to watch live went on to play for. That history was interrupted for a few years when the team moved to another city and changed the name. Then, another team came with a new name (and parent club). Then the parent club changed, but the local team name remained the same. Then the team was affiliated with a different parent club for a few years. Then another parent club. So, who are we supposed to feel a baseball connection with?


So, I have to agree with Fernigal McGunnig in #5 and DCA in #4.
   13. SoSH U at work Posted: November 08, 2019 at 02:11 PM (#5899775)
So, I have to agree with Fernigal McGunnig in #5 and DCA in #4.


I do as well. I don't see why it shouldn't be both.
   14. . Posted: November 08, 2019 at 02:11 PM (#5899779)
The most likely explanation for this, and I have direct experience with it, is that the DC federal types feel a bit of rootlessness and realize that DC really isn't a "place" in the typical sense and the part that is doesn't include them, and to compensate they therefore mentally try to construct and propound a contiguous history for their new "home" that is somehow "theirs." New York also has a lot of pioneers from other places, but nothing of this sort happens here. There's a real here here that transcends and predates (*) the pioneers.(**) There is in DC, too, but its voices relative to the blabbermouth pioneers are far less influential.

(*) And which welcomes and absorbs.

(**) And which obviously makes it far more rich and appealing than its counterpart to the south.
   15. SoSH U at work Posted: November 08, 2019 at 02:12 PM (#5899780)
1. Milwaukee.


KC. And for a year, Seattle.

   16. Kurt Posted: November 08, 2019 at 02:53 PM (#5899796)
KC. And for a year, Seattle.


Substantively he's right, though. Washington DC's history of having a team from the beginning for 60 years, then not having a team for 35 years, and then having a team again is unique.
   17. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 08, 2019 at 03:04 PM (#5899797)
A similar situation is the Cleveland Browns in the NFL. The Browns relocated to Baltimore and became the Ravens after the 1995 season. An expansion team returned to Cleveland in 1999 and is regarded both officially by the league and unofficially by sites like Sports-Reference as the successor franchise to the original Browns, while the Ravens are regarded as a 1996 expansion team.

I believe this understanding is reflected in the franchise records for both teams. And look at Vinny Testaverde's stats on Pro-Football-Reference -- the franchise totals show two different rows for Cleveland and Baltimore even though in reality it was the same franchise.

Contrast that with, say, Livan Hernandez' stats on Baseball-Reference -- he has one line "WSN" that includes both his years in Montreal and Washington. That's because the Expos are officially and unofficially recognized as the predecessor team to the Nationals.

There's still a linkage with DC's extensive baseball history as seen in the statues outside the park (I recall Johnson and Gibson being there). So yeah, it can be both. I don't see why that's a problem.
   18. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 08, 2019 at 03:08 PM (#5899799)

New York also has a lot of pioneers from other places, but nothing of this sort happens here.

Except at Citi Field there is a bit of an effort to evoke some of the old Brooklyn Dodgers history and nostalgia. As a Mets fan, I don't find that inappropriate, although I know some people do. But I grew up a Mets fan because my grandfather was a Dodgers fan and couldn't stomach rooting for the Yankees after the Dodgers moved.
   19. SoSH U at work Posted: November 08, 2019 at 03:08 PM (#5899800)
A similar situation is the Cleveland Browns in the NFL. The Browns relocated to Baltimore and became the Ravens after the 1995 season. An expansion team returned to Cleveland in 1999 and is regarded both officially by the league and unofficially by sites like Sports-Reference as the successor franchise to the original Browns, while the Ravens are regarded as a 1996 expansion team.


That hasn't happened anywhere else though, including subsequent moves in the NFL. That was the NFL responding to the league-wide outrage that a team that was thoroughly well-supported by its fans year after year had hightailed it to Baltimore because the owner couldn't get a second-set of concessions from the city. Every other franchise move in the last 100 years, in every sport, is treated as a continuation.
   20. SoSH U at work Posted: November 08, 2019 at 03:10 PM (#5899801)
Except at Citi Field there is a bit of an effort to evoke some of the old Brooklyn Dodgers history and nostalgia. As a Mets fan, I don't find that inappropriate, although I know some people do. But I grew up a Mets fan because my grandfather was a Dodgers fan and couldn't stomach rooting for the Yankees after the Dodgers moved.


I think it's a good thing the Mets celebrate the former NL team located in New York. But they ought to also do it with the other former NL team that had been located in New York (as they did 60 years earlier with the uniform color choice), not just the one Freddy grew up rooting for.

   21. . Posted: November 08, 2019 at 03:10 PM (#5899802)
Cleveland had to affirmatively fight to retain the Browns' "history" and effectively won it as part of a settlement of potential litigation. I'm pretty sure, but too lazy to look it up, that most departing franchises since just voluntarily leave behind the "history." Pretty sure, e.g., the Thunder left behind the Sonics' history. I suppose, though, that the pertinent question is whether the Nats let Montreal keep the Expos' and the answer to that one is probably no. It actually has a real business impact; you'd have to think Montreal, all else equal, would pony up more money and there would be more fan interest for a continuation of the old Expos than for an entirely new franchise.
   22. SoSH U at work Posted: November 08, 2019 at 03:13 PM (#5899803)
Cleveland had to affirmatively fight to retain the Browns' "history" and effectively won it as part of a settlement of potential litigation. I'm pretty sure, but too lazy to look it up, that most departing franchises since just voluntarily leave behind the "history." Pretty sure, e.g., the Thunder left behind the Sonics' history.


BBRef doesn't treat it that way, but Football Reference does it with the Browns.
   23. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 08, 2019 at 03:21 PM (#5899806)
Pretty sure, e.g., the Thunder left behind the Sonics' history.

Nope, the Thunder 2019-2020 Media Guide certainly does include the Sonics history.
   24. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 08, 2019 at 03:33 PM (#5899809)

The Nationals Media Guide includes a mix of Expos and Washington, DC baseball history, for what it's worth. There is more of a focus on the Washington lineage but they acknowledge both.
   25. . Posted: November 08, 2019 at 03:47 PM (#5899811)
Nope, the Thunder 2019-2020 Media Guide certainly does include the Sonics history.


Yep. Here's Wikipedia:

The SuperSonics won the NBA championship in 1979. Overall, the franchise won three Western Conference titles: 1978, 1979, and 1996. The franchise also won six divisional titles, their last being in 2005, with five in the Pacific Division and one in the Northwest Division. Settlement terms of a lawsuit between the city of Seattle and Clay Bennett's ownership group stipulated the SuperSonics' banners, trophies, and retired jerseys remain in Seattle; the nickname, logo, and color scheme are available to any subsequent NBA team that plays at a renovated KeyArena subject to NBA approval. The SuperSonics' franchise history, however, would be shared with the Thunder.


Kind of an odd mixed bag. Hard to tell on the retired numbers. The internet generally has the Sonics' guys as part of the OKC retired numbers list, the media guide makes no mention of retired numbers at all, and I have no idea whether people like Gus's retired number banner has been repurposed and hung in the Thunder's arena. (Probably not.) The media guide has a bunch of Sonics history -- opening game lineups, yearly leaders, etc.
   26. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 08, 2019 at 03:53 PM (#5899814)

According to this article, Nick Collison's number, retired last season, was the "first one" that the Thunder retired.
   27. jmurph Posted: November 08, 2019 at 03:58 PM (#5899817)
Settlement terms of a lawsuit between the city of Seattle and Clay Bennett's ownership group stipulated the SuperSonics' banners, trophies, and retired jerseys remain in Seattle; the nickname, logo, and color scheme are available to any subsequent NBA team that plays at a renovated KeyArena subject to NBA approval.

They did not, sadly, leave behind Kevin Durant, so the Thunder are definitely the Sonics, even though, yes, I'm sure when Seattle gets another team they will also be called the Sonics.

Charlotte of course recently did the same thing, changing their name to the Hornets, though that was previously the name of the team that now plays in New Orleans as the Pelicans.
   28. The Mighty Quintana Posted: November 08, 2019 at 04:03 PM (#5899819)
What would the baseball equivalent of retiring Nick Collison's number be?

Rich Dauer? Rick Honeycutt? Jeff Francouer?

   29. vortex of dissipation Posted: November 08, 2019 at 05:42 PM (#5899847)
So, Chris and Bote, are the Braves wrong for flying banners for the world titles won before they reached Atlanta?


I think it's great that the Braves fly the 1872 National Association flag.
   30. Moeball Posted: November 08, 2019 at 07:04 PM (#5899864)
The idea that rings and banners only apply to cities and not franchises is very strong with NBA fans. I know a lot of people - mostly Celtics fans - who insist the Lakers have only won 11 titles - 6 behind the Celtics. I guess only the titles won in L.A. count. Apparently the 5 championships won by the Lakers in Minnesota where there are, you know, actual lakes - don't count.

Oh, and I would recommend a book - I think it's called In the Shadow of the Senators - about Josh Gibson and the Grays BITD when they used to play at Griffith Stadium.
   31. Bote Man sez Davey is MoY Posted: November 08, 2019 at 09:11 PM (#5899878)
So, Chris and Bote, are the Braves wrong for flying banners for the world titles won before they reached Atlanta?

I have no opinion on Atlanta. I've never attended a game there so they have no personal history with me. I leave that to their fans.

But I do agree with Chris that winning the World Series is akin to a baptism, washing away the stains of history and cementing this as a D.C. team with its own established history in this town. We have no need to hearken back to the team's history in Montreal, we have our own solid history to appreciate. I can't help it if others haven't caught on yet.

Some guy tweeted the other day that this was a victory for great Washington Nationals like Gary Carter. I don't even understand what that means as it's factually wrong on its face, to say nothing about the other issues.
   32. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: November 08, 2019 at 10:01 PM (#5899886)
I think this is why there's nothing wrong with Hank Aaron having his #44 retired by the Brewers, a pretty explicit nod by the city that Aaron's #44 in the rafters (facade) is to acknowledge his stardom while in Milwaukee for the Braves, not for hitting 755 as a Brewer.
   33. Brian C Posted: November 09, 2019 at 02:54 AM (#5899914)
The problem is that too many people seem to think there can be a city baseball history or a franchise history, and not both.

I think this is a crucial point, and I will add also that I think the two histories are useful for different purposes. If you're talking about the history of MLB, then obviously there's going to be a continuity in the franchise between Montreal and Washington. But if you're talking about the history of the Nationals, then perhaps it sounds paradoxical to say it, but the Montreal years are just not that important. It's merely incidental that they came from Montreal, and it's ridiculous to expect Nats fans to care about all the old Montreal players and records and whatnot.

Perhaps a bit different for the Braves, who not only kept the name and franchise identity when they moved, but also had Hank Aaron to bridge the gap. None of the Montreal greats ever played for the Nats, and certainly none of the Nats who made the move had anywhere near Aaron's cachet in two cities.
   34. Bourbon Samurai stays in the fight Posted: November 09, 2019 at 04:41 AM (#5899915)
If you're talking about the history of MLB, then obviously there's going to be a continuity in the franchise between Montreal and Washington. But if you're talking about the history of the Nationals, then perhaps it sounds paradoxical to say it, but the Montreal years are just not that important.


This is how I feel. It's nice to recognize various Expos on the ring of honor while Montreal doesn't have a team, I went to a meet and greet at the park with Tim Raines when was elected to the hall, but I would prefer that history be ceded back to whatever team Montreal eventually gets.

It seems like whether or not a team keeps its name and identity ought to be the determining factor in these kinds of conversations- when people asked who the greatest Minnesota Twin was, they aren't looking for Walter Johnson

   35. PreservedFish Posted: November 09, 2019 at 04:49 AM (#5899916)
None of the Montreal greats ever played for the Nats, and certainly none of the Nats who made the move had anywhere near Aaron's cachet in two cities.

If your definition of "greats" doesn't include Livan Hernandez, then you can kindly excuse yourself from this topic.
   36. PreservedFish Posted: November 09, 2019 at 07:09 AM (#5899917)
Doing research for a DMB league, I just googled Howie Reed, who pitched for the expansion Expos, and died in the 80s. ESPN.com considers him a Washington National.
   37. Bote Man sez Davey is MoY Posted: November 09, 2019 at 08:57 AM (#5899921)
If your definition of "greats" doesn't include Livan Hernandez, then you can kindly excuse yourself from this topic.

¡LIVAN! is a beloved figure to D.C. baseball fans for throwing the first pitch for the Washington Nationals (Opening Day in Philly) as well as throwing the first real pitch in D.C. in 34 years at RFK Stadium (1-hit shutout into the 9th inning!!). I'd guess that more baseball fans generally know Livo for his World Series appearance with the Marlins than associate him with either the Expos or Nationals.
   38. Esoteric Posted: November 09, 2019 at 09:55 AM (#5899927)
It seems like whether or not a team keeps its name and identity ought to be the determining factor in these kinds of conversations- when people asked who the greatest Minnesota Twin was, they aren't looking for Walter Johnson
This sounds right to me, and it's why continuity for teams like the Braves, Dodgers, and Giants makes sense. Also the point about if there are team greats there to bridge the gap, like an Aaron, Mays, Snider, or Koufax.

Also, I strongly agree with Bourbon Samurai (who sort of echoed my initial point) that if/when Montreal gets a team back again (give them the Rays!), they should be able to fully claim the Expos' history as their own, even if the team has a new name. A lot of greats played for the Expos, but they belong to Montreal, not to us Washington fans.
   39. My name is RMc and I feel extremely affected Posted: November 09, 2019 at 09:59 AM (#5899929)
1. Milwaukee.

KC. And for a year, Seattle.


Baltimore says hi. (And, yes, the Yankees really were in Baltimore for two years, no matter what John Thorn says. Get over it.)
   40. SoSH U at work Posted: November 09, 2019 at 10:22 AM (#5899933)
Baltimore says hi. (And, yes, the Yankees really were in Baltimore for two years, no matter what John Thorn says. Get over it.)


Baltimore shouldn't be saying hi, given SBB's parameters "not some 19th century/1900s version, which applies to the issue only as trivia."
   41. SoSH U at work Posted: November 09, 2019 at 10:26 AM (#5899935)
Also, I strongly agree with Bourbon Samurai (who sort of echoed my initial point) that if/when Montreal gets a team back again (give them the Rays!), they should be able to fully claim the Expos' history as their own, even if the team has a new name. A lot of greats played for the Expos, but they belong to Montreal, not to us Washington fans.


And if they don't, that history is gone. Excellent.

Again, there's nothing wrong with Nats fans not caring about what went on before 2005. That's fine. But it is the same franchise, just as the Dodgers, A's and Braves are the same ones that played in Brooklyn, Philly and Boston, even if the nickname is now different. Your indifference can't change that fact.

   42. Esoteric Posted: November 09, 2019 at 10:33 AM (#5899938)
But that history ISN'T gone. Three Expos greats currently wear the cap in the Hall of Fame. The story of 1994 will always live on. Vladdy and Pedro and Walker also got their starts there. Nobody is dynamiting the Bamiyan Buddhas here. It's just that it's not a part of the Washington, DC story.
   43. SoSH U at work Posted: November 09, 2019 at 10:53 AM (#5899942)
But that history ISN'T gone.


In terms of active in MLB, it would be.

I'm with Fernigal above. Tis better for both Montreal and Washington to share the Expos, rather than for either city to ignore it. Yes, Gary Carter never played in Washington. But he also never played for whatever future franchise locates in Montreal. He played for yours.

But even if you don't care, it's still your franchise. The Washington Nationals are the club that once was the Expos, in the same way those other relocated franchises are. As someone said above, get over it.



   44. PreservedFish Posted: November 09, 2019 at 11:01 AM (#5899944)
But what exactly does that mean, SoSH U? Are you just talking about the career leaderboards in the Nationals media guide? Or should the Nationals be compelled to celebrate Vlad, Raines etc the way that a living Expos franchise would?
   45. SoSH U at work Posted: November 09, 2019 at 11:11 AM (#5899945)

But what exactly does that mean, SoSH U? Are you just talking about the career leaderboards in the Nationals media guide? Or should the Nationals be compelled to celebrate Vlad, Raines etc the way that a living Expos franchise would?


I would prefer some recognition by the clubs of the team that existed in previous cities, the way they do in Atlanta and LA. (And honestly, the Nats do seem to do a little of it, far more than they do in Baltimore). I think that's the right thing to do.

But here, I'm just asking that our Nats fan friends stop trying to pretend that the club sprung fully formed out of the ether in 2005, as we see so often from Bote and from Eso in this thread.
   46. My name is RMc and I feel extremely affected Posted: November 09, 2019 at 11:44 AM (#5899962)
Baltimore says hi. (And, yes, the Yankees really were in Baltimore for two years, no matter what John Thorn says. Get over it.)

Baltimore shouldn't be saying hi, given SBB's parameters "not some 19th century/1900s version, which applies to the issue only as trivia."


Ignoring the 19th century makes sense, as many of those teams were mayflies. But ignore the (old) Orioles/Yankees, who are still very much with us? That's silly, especially in this case: Baltimore was a legit major-league town for thirty years, then cast into the wilderness for a half-century.
   47. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 09, 2019 at 11:46 AM (#5899963)
It seems like whether or not a team keeps its name and identity ought to be the determining factor in these kinds of conversations- when people asked who the greatest Minnesota Twin was, they aren't looking for Walter Johnson

This sounds right to me, and it's why continuity for teams like the Braves, Dodgers, and Giants makes sense. Also the point about if there are team greats there to bridge the gap, like an Aaron, Mays, Snider, or Koufax.

So what if the Minnesota Twins had instead kept the Senators name? Or if the Baltimore Orioles (or the Baltimore Ravens) were called the Baltimore Browns? I think much of this ambivalence/confusion simply stems from the fact that some teams kept their names while others didn't.

Personally I'm fine with having two distinct sets of records kept, one for cities and one for franchises.** AFAIC Walter Johnson can be legitimately claimed both by the Twins franchise and the city of Washington, though obviously the latter connection carries far more emotional punch.

** I say this because it's absurd that to argue that for instance, Harmon Killebrew shouldn't have all of his 559 homers for the team that originally signed him listed in at least one records page. BB-Reference does this, and it makes perfect sense.

   48. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 09, 2019 at 11:54 AM (#5899967)
Ignoring the 19th century makes sense, as many of those teams were mayflies. But ignore the (old) Orioles/Yankees, who are still very much with us? That's silly, especially in this case: Baltimore was a legit major-league town for thirty years, then cast into the wilderness for a half-century.

I agree with this take, but I think the reason some people don't count the 1901-02 Orioles as part of the Yankees' history is because of the nature of the transfer from Baltimore to New York. Kind of the same reasoning applied to determining the lineage of the Indianapolis Colts franchise, which PFB-Reference dates only back to the second Baltimore Colts team that began in 1953, but in reality there's a definite line that extends back from Indy to Baltimore to the Dallas Texans to the New York Yanks/Bulldogs to the Boston Yanks to the Brooklyn Tigers/Dodgers, whose first year was way back in 1930.
   49. depletion Posted: November 09, 2019 at 11:59 AM (#5899971)
The Mets did purposely market themselves as a continuation of Giants/Dodgers tradition. Orange and Blue. The first 6 years or so they had higher attendance when those teams visited and opposed the division of the NL into east/west (unbalanced schedule). Totally agree that keeping the name means a lot when a team relocates. When ( if) the Marlins relocate they’re probably going to scrap their name. If they didn’t have a location specific name the franchise would be worth more.
   50. PreservedFish Posted: November 09, 2019 at 12:01 PM (#5899972)
It Utah can have jazz, anywhere can have marlins.
   51. Brian C Posted: November 09, 2019 at 12:14 PM (#5899980)
Again, there's nothing wrong with Nats fans not caring about what went on before 2005. That's fine.

I get the feeling that you don't actually think this is fine.
   52. Bote Man sez Davey is MoY Posted: November 09, 2019 at 12:30 PM (#5899988)
A baseball franchise = taxi cab medallion. Got it.
   53. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 09, 2019 at 12:38 PM (#5899990)
A baseball franchise = taxi cab medallion. Got it.

No. It's a corporate entity that give you the right to compete in MLB. Typically that entity has a brand and geographical location strongly associated with it. Sometimes it changes the location, sometimes it changes the brand, sometimes it changes both. Changing either or both doesn't change the corporate entity.
   54. SoSH U at work Posted: November 09, 2019 at 12:56 PM (#5900000)
I get the feeling that you don't actually think this is fine.


You would be very wrong. I don't have a say in what someone else cares about.

   55. My name is RMc and I feel extremely affected Posted: November 09, 2019 at 02:28 PM (#5900028)
there's a definite line that extends back from Indy to Baltimore to the Dallas Texans to the New York Yanks/Bulldogs to the Boston Yanks to the Brooklyn Tigers/Dodgers, whose first year was way back in 1930.


It goes back even further than that: the football Dodgers were originally the Dayton Triangles, who go back to 1913. Per wiki:

Due to numerous transactions over the years, the Triangles have a tenuous connection to the current NFL. The Dodgers merged with the Boston Yanks franchise for the 1945 season due to player shortages. In 1946, Brooklyn's owner jumped to the AAFC and played as the New York Yankees. The Boston Yanks remained in the NFL, and in 1949 moved to New York and became the New York Bulldogs. Also in 1949, the AAFC Yankees merged with the Brooklyn Dodgers and played as the Brooklyn-New York Yankees. When the AAFC merged with the NFL, the Yankees players were divided between the New York Giants and the New York Bulldogs.

A failure at the box office, the Bulldogs were "sold back" to the NFL in 1952 and awarded to a group from Texas, who moved it to Dallas for the 1952 season as the Dallas Texans. The Texans failed after one year and were again sold back to the NFL, who folded the Texans franchise. Its remains were awarded to an ownership group in Baltimore to form the Baltimore Colts. The Colts moved to Indianapolis in 1984 and are still playing as the Indianapolis Colts. The NFL currently does not consider the Colts to be a continuation of any of its past incarnations, including the Triangles.
   56. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: November 09, 2019 at 07:25 PM (#5900105)
Every other franchise move in the last 100 years, in every sport, is treated as a continuation.


Actaually, basketball-reference considers the old Charlotte Hornets history to be part of the current Charlotte Hornets history. This is particularly strange since for a decade, the Charlotte Hornets were considered a precursor to the New Orleans Hornets until the Bobcats wanted to get the Hornets name back. Then the Charlotte Hornet's history was retconned to be the same franchise as the Bobcats, with a three year break in the middle. The New Orleans franchise should have demanded getting the Jazz name back from Utah in exchange for giving up the name Hornets.
   57. SoSH U at work Posted: November 09, 2019 at 07:32 PM (#5900109)
Actaually, basketball-reference considers the old Charlotte Hornets history to be part of the current Charlotte Hornets history. This is particularly strange since for a decade, the Charlotte Hornets were considered a precursor to the New Orleans Hornets until the Bobcats wanted to get the Hornets name back. Then the Charlotte Hornet's history was retconned to be the same franchise as the Bobcats, with a three year break in the middle. The New Orleans franchise should have demanded getting the Jazz name back from Utah in exchange for giving up the name Hornets.


I had no idea. That's bizarre.
   58. Bourbon Samurai stays in the fight Posted: November 09, 2019 at 07:42 PM (#5900111)
And if they don't, that history is gone. Excellent


In post 34 I pretty clearly state the I like the Nats honoring the Expos while Montreal doesn't have a team, and have even attended events at the park honoring Expos greats.
   59. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 10, 2019 at 12:56 PM (#5900199)

there's a definite line that extends back from Indy to Baltimore to the Dallas Texans to the New York Yanks/Bulldogs to the Boston Yanks to the Brooklyn Tigers/Dodgers, whose first year was way back in 1930.

It goes back even further than that: the football Dodgers were originally the Dayton Triangles, who go back to 1913. Per wiki:


Due to numerous transactions over the years, the Triangles have a tenuous connection to the current NFL. The Dodgers merged with the Boston Yanks franchise for the 1945 season due to player shortages. In 1946, Brooklyn's owner jumped to the AAFC and played as the New York Yankees. The Boston Yanks remained in the NFL, and in 1949 moved to New York and became the New York Bulldogs. Also in 1949, the AAFC Yankees merged with the Brooklyn Dodgers and played as the Brooklyn-New York Yankees. When the AAFC merged with the NFL, the Yankees players were divided between the New York Giants and the New York Bulldogs.

A failure at the box office, the Bulldogs were "sold back" to the NFL in 1952 and awarded to a group from Texas, who moved it to Dallas for the 1952 season as the Dallas Texans. The Texans failed after one year and were again sold back to the NFL, who folded the Texans franchise. Its remains were awarded to an ownership group in Baltimore to form the Baltimore Colts. The Colts moved to Indianapolis in 1984 and are still playing as the Indianapolis Colts. The NFL currently does not consider the Colts to be a continuation of any of its past incarnations, including the Triangles.

And here I thought I knew everything about the Colts lineage, but obviously I didn't. Thanks for adding this extra bit of info.

Checking just the PFB-Reference listed starters for the 1945 Tigers/Yanks, when 1946 came along four of them wound up with the Boston Yanks, three retired, two went to the New York Yankees of the AAFC, one to the Brooklyn Dodgers of the AAFC, and the last one went to the Eagles. None of them seemed to have careers that lasted beyond 1947.
   60. Jay Z Posted: November 10, 2019 at 07:04 PM (#5900241)
The Colts do recognize history from before 1953.

The Colts include the records from the 1947-1950 Baltimore Colts in their media guide. This was a completely different franchise than the others. It started as the AAFC Miami Seahawks, in 1946, who moved after a year. They were invited into the NFL in 1950 as part of the merger, along with the 49ers and Browns. Made for an awkward 13 team league. 12 game schedule. Colts played a "swing" schedule where they played every other team in the league once. Except for the Redskins, who they played twice, and the Bears, who they didn't play at all. The Bears got to play the Cardinals twice, who were in Chicago then.

The owner wanted a bailout from the league after 1950, which was denied, so the team folded. The players were distributed to the other teams in the first year player draft, with the college guys. So YA Tittle, Colt quarterback, was the first draft pick of the 49ers in the 1951 draft.

The team had relatively good fan support who kept a "Baltimore Colts" group together in hopes of getting another team. Which they did when the 1952 Texans failed. So the NFL tried Baltimore again in 1953.

When the Colts "adopted" the 1947-50 history, the team was still in Baltimore, so it was part of the legend of the team. There were a couple of players who played for the 1950 Colts and later Colt teams, like Art Donovan, but that was just coincidental. Donovan was drafted in 1951 by the Browns, traded to the New York Yanks, then on to Texans and Baltimore. But a lot of people cared about that history. There were a few older players, like Buddy Young, who could trace their history back to the AAFC Yanks. Probably why the Colts dumped all of that mess as history, since the best players went through Brooklyn and the New York Yankees AAFC team rather than the Boston Yanks line.

But at this point, the Indianapolis Colts recognizing a different franchise in a different city is goofy.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Eugene Freedman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogThe Astros stole signs electronically in 2017 | The Athletic (paywall)
(76 - 9:12am, Nov 13)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogGiants pick ousted Phillies manager Gabe Kapler to succeed Bruce Bochy
(4 - 9:11am, Nov 13)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogClint Hurdle retires from baseball
(4 - 9:08am, Nov 13)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogAngels hire Tony La Russa as baseball operations special assistant
(5 - 9:07am, Nov 13)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogHe told a kid to slide. Then he got sued.
(4 - 9:06am, Nov 13)
Last: villageidiom

Hall of MeritMock 2020 Modern Baseball Ballot
(31 - 8:39am, Nov 13)
Last: Tubbs is Bobby Grich when he flys off the handle

Sox TherapyJ.D. Martinez's Qualified Decision
(49 - 8:36am, Nov 13)
Last: Dock Ellis

Newsblog2020 MODERN BASEBALL ERA BALLOT
(230 - 8:07am, Nov 13)
Last: DanG

NewsblogRed Sox say Pedroia hopes to return next season
(28 - 8:03am, Nov 13)
Last: Rally

NewsblogTigers announce several staff changes in organization
(1 - 6:49am, Nov 13)
Last: My name is RMc and I feel extremely affected

NewsblogMets have a stud in Pete Alonso, but will they keep him?
(18 - 1:08am, Nov 13)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogAL ROY Alvarez unanimous, NL ROY Alonso 1 shy
(13 - 1:05am, Nov 13)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogOT - 2019 NFL thread
(89 - 1:02am, Nov 13)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

Gonfalon CubsRegrets
(95 - 12:56am, Nov 13)
Last: Meatwad

NewsblogCardinals agree to deal with Adam Wainwright for 2020 season
(1 - 12:56am, Nov 13)
Last: Howie Menckel

Page rendered in 0.5692 seconds
48 querie(s) executed