OKLAHOMA MARLINS?
Von Fourche
Uh, where the heck is Oklahoma City anyway? Is it even a state? What
is an Oklahoma? An ancient animal? Anyway, can it support a MLB team?
http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/9241005
Von Fourche
"Wunnuy" <wun...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:1140138802.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> This is clearly getting out of hand. There isn't a soul on the planet
> that believes OK city could support a MLB team. I was kidding when I
> said you know they're bluffing when you hear "watch out for the Walla
> Walla Marlins" but we're practially there.
>
Why don't the MLB/Marlins just ask: What city can build us a brand new
stadium at the tax payers expense? First one to answer gets the Marlins.
brink
"Von Fourche" <Monac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jhaJf.2160$UN....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
As "ludicrous" as it may sound that a small market like OKC could support a
team, it's working with the NBA.... the Hornets were a pretty bad team at
the start of the season but sold out every game, though there's probably
some degree of the "Ooohh... shiny!" effect to credit there... now that
the newness is worn off, the team has turned out to be pretty good and
they've continued to sell out every game.
Meanwhile, teams in New York, Philadelphia, Houston, and Phoenix are playing
to *well* less than capacity crowds.
OK, so OKC has some major strikes against it, but the NBA experiment this
season has been nothing short of a resounding success. The NFL has a team
in a tiny, podunk market too that has thrived forever, so maybe it could be
done...
brink
TheDave©
> > Why don't the MLB/Marlins just ask: What city can build us a brand
> > new stadium at the tax payers expense? First one to answer gets
> > the Marlins.
>
> As "ludicrous" as it may sound that a small market like OKC could
> support a team, it's working with the NBA.... the Hornets were a
> pretty bad team at the start of the season but sold out every game,
> though there's probably some degree of the "Ooohh... shiny!" effect
> to credit there... now that the newness is worn off, the team has
> turned out to be pretty good and they've continued to sell out every
> game.
>
> Meanwhile, teams in New York, Philadelphia, Houston, and Phoenix are
>
> OK, so OKC has some major strikes against it, but the NBA experiment
> this season has been nothing short of a resounding success. The NFL
> has a team in a tiny, podunk market too that has thrived forever, so
> maybe it could be done...
The same concerns were expressed about Sacramento 20 years ago. Seems
to have worked out well.
--
As soon as you all elect me "Benevolent Dictator", all your problems
will be solved.
TimV
> Supporting an NBA team that usually has a crowd of 10,000 and a MLB
> team that usually has a crowd three to four times bigger are two
> different things. There's no way in a million years OK city could
> support a MLB team. Have you ever been there? To refer to it as a
> "podunk" town would be an understatement. I remember watching the local
> news. It was like watching a high school put on a news show.
>
Hey now. OKC has come a long way. It is a thriving and increasingly wealthy
city. Further, with oil prices likely to never descend from the
stratasphere, it will just get wealthier. That having been said, we
couldn't support a MLB team. We're doing great with the NBA (averaging
~18500 a game), would probably do OK with NFL or NHL. But getting 25000 fans
to go to 81 games would be a stretch.
T
David the Nationals Fan
TimV wrote:
>
> Hey now. OKC has come a long way. It is a thriving and increasingly wealthy
> city. Further, with oil prices likely to never descend from the
> stratasphere, it will just get wealthier. That having been said, we
> couldn't support a MLB team. We're doing great with the NBA (averaging
> ~18500 a game), would probably do OK with NFL or NHL. But getting 25000 fans
> to go to 81 games would be a stretch.
The Metropolitan Oklahoma CIty area has a population of about 1.4
million people. That's about the same number as the Greater Norfolk
Virginia area. The median income in the region is not all that high,
but the cost of living is also lower. The MLB ticket prices would,
therefore, be perceived as higher in Oklahoma City than in much of the
rest of the country. The other quesiton is how much could the team
draw from the region as well. I'm skeptical that Oklahoma City would
be viable as a MLB market, but if they did have a team, it would likely
have far less competition from Baroque musical concerts than would
placing another team in the entertainment capital of the world.
That being said,18,500 fans a game for the MLB franchise is,
historically, barely acceptable. 18,500 works out to about 1.5
million fans. 18,500 fans would have put the Oklahoma City Ogres above
both KC and Tampa in attendance. The problem is that drawing the
target of 25,000 fans would leave them as 23rd. Arguably, at least
according to those who argue that MLB is not competitive, this would
leave them in a non-competitive position. The "real" target should be
something over 30,000 which would put a team in the middle of the pack.
And the problem is that 30,000 is probably really out of reach for
now.
TimV
>
> TimV wrote:
>>>
>> Hey now. OKC has come a long way. It is a thriving and increasingly
>> wealthy
>> city. Further, with oil prices likely to never descend from the
>> stratasphere, it will just get wealthier. That having been said, we
>> couldn't support a MLB team. We're doing great with the NBA (averaging
>> ~18500 a game), would probably do OK with NFL or NHL. But getting 25000
>> fans
>> to go to 81 games would be a stretch.
>>
>>
>
> city could support the Hornets full time?
>
If you asked me a year ago, I'd say no. However, the City has gone nuts for
the Hornets and they are not really even our team. Huge attendance for the
first dozen games could have been explained by the novelty factor and desire
to show major league sports that we could support a team. But they continue
to show and the team credits the crowd for much of their home success. I've
not had an opportunity to go to a game (when I could go, the games have
always been sold out) but those who have say it is louder and more electric
than college games (and we're nuts about college in OK). The team lost money
last year in New Orleans and is predicted to make $35 million in OKC this
year. And I've yet to see tons of fans with Hornets shirts/caps/etc. If the
team moved here permanently, and OKC Hornets merchandise were then
available, the team would make even more money.
If the team had several consecutive years of sucktitude, I'm sure they would
have attendance problems, but that is no different than even in cities 5
times the size of OKC. As long as the Hornets continue to be the only major
franchise in town they'll be a phenomenal success.
As for the MLB in OKC, we have one of the finest minor league ballparks in
the country and have demonstrated that we have adequate resources and
willingness to build state-of-the-art athletic facilities. Loyalty to MLB
teams is broadly spread here between the Royals, Rangers, Astros and
Cardinals so there isn't an intractable pull towards one team like you see
with the Cowboys in the NFL. I think we could support half a MLB franchise,
say with San Antonio, but not 81 games of a season.
T
TimV
>> in
>> the country and have demonstrated that we have adequate resources and
>> willingness to build state-of-the-art athletic facilities. Loyalty to MLB
>> teams is broadly spread here between the Royals, Rangers, Astros and
>> Cardinals so there isn't an intractable pull towards one team like you
>> see
>> with the Cowboys in the NFL. I think we could support half a MLB
>> franchise,
>> say with San Antonio, but not 81 games of a season.
>>
>
>
> 89, and I think they were called the 89ers, but that's one of my
> faovrite things about the midwest and areas like OK, is going to minor
> league games. I also saw the Tulsa team (Drillers was it?)
>
Yeah, they were the 89'ers then. At that time, they may have been owned by
Jeffrey Luria (he owned them at some point). Now they are the Redhawks and
have a much better stadium. However, they are still the Rangers' franchise,
so its not the best baseball available. I go to their games but since I have
no affinity whatsoever for the Rangers I'm simply there for the baseball
itself. The Tulsa team is AA for the Rockies, but I don't know if they are
still called the "Drillers" or not.
T
brink
"TimV" <tvanwagoner_...@ou.edu> wrote in message
news:4ckJf.8890$rL5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
I agree. It sure would be an interesting experiment though... my gut tells
me it wouldn't work but then my gut was telling me that the Hornets
carpetbagging in OKC wouldn't work either and they're dang near leading the
league in attendance.
Lots of people assert that it's "easier" to sell out an NBA arena than a
baseball stadium. This might be true, but it also fails to account for the
fact that more NBA games are sold out than MLB games because capacity is
much more limited in NBA arenas. I think the most popular teams--which
includes the Hornets--could very well be drawing more fans, there just
aren't more seats available.
How many that would be is open to speculation, but I don't think it would be
unreasonable to think that the Hornets *could* be drawing north of 20,000
fans per game.
Not only that, but the average NBA ticket price is significantly higher than
the average MLB ticket price. The closest MLB franchise to OKC is the Texas
Rangers and their average ticket price is less than $17. The Hornets'
average ticket price is over $30.
Lots of teams have el cheapo tickets in the $5 range to attract families
that don't mind spending a day at the park in the bleachers in left field.
The cheapest tickets available for any Hornets game are $10 in the
nosebleeds and they've apparently sold all those out through the remaining 3
months of the season already. Rangers have $6 for adults, $3 for kids 13
and under in their Grandstand Reserved section. With the cheapie tickets
and a season that doesn't coincide with the school year, you'd have to think
the OKC Sluggers MLB franchise would have an easier time drawing family
crowds than the Hornets.
But all of this of course ignores a few salient points--namely that OKC is
fairly isolated from any other significant markets; Tulsa is the closest
within about a two hour drive, but it's a metropolitan area with only about
500,000; Wichita-Hutchinson (about 450,000) is within a three-and-a-half
hour drive, but that's getting pretty far away and those fans are probably
considered to be part of the Royals market already though they'd be
significantly closer to OKC.
So optimistically, you'd *hope* to be drawing from those three markets for
your media revenue, plus of course the scattered souls throughout the state
of OK and parts of southern KS (not many people at all... those are some
empty stretches of land out there).
Yeah, OKC baseball might be tough. Sure would be an interesting experiment
though as the South Florida baseball experiement seems to have failed...
brink
The Enigmatic One
>
>OK, so OKC has some major strikes against it, but the NBA experiment this
>season has been nothing short of a resounding success. The NFL has a team
>in a tiny, podunk market too that has thrived forever, so maybe it could be
>done...
For some reason it strikes me that supporting an NBA team seems much easier to
sustain than supporting an MLB team.
Heck.
I'd suspect that OKC could/would support a NFL team before a MLB team.
-Tim
TheDave©
> > The same concerns were expressed about Sacramento 20 years ago.
> > Seems to have worked out well.
>
> a candidate for a team like the A's to move becuase besides only
> being 90 minutes from SF, it's got a large population of Central and
> upper CA to draw from also, besides Sac itself which is constantly
> growing. There have been rumors for years during the 90s that the A's
> were moving to Sac.
OK City today compared to Sacramento 1985, and I think the comparison
holds up better. Sacramento today is vastly different and more
advanced than 20 years ago.
Tanner
"Oklahoma Marlins" would be the 2nd worst city-mascot pairing behind
only the Utah Jazz. OK, Los Angeles Lakers makes no sense, either, but
that at least sounds cool. Utah Lakers and LA Jazz would make a lot
more sense.
brink
"Tanner" <tan...@refinancemypenis.spam> wrote in message
news:dtd7jk$7dki$1...@news.swt.edu...
>
> "Oklahoma Marlins" would be the 2nd worst city-mascot pairing behind only
> the Utah Jazz. OK, Los Angeles Lakers makes no sense, either, but that at
> least sounds cool. Utah Lakers and LA Jazz would make a lot more sense.
I don't know why franchises don't almost *always* change names when they
change cities, the Jazz being the best example of a total non sequitur.
Franchise names usually have some indigenous quality to them that gets lost
when teh team is displaced.
Remember when the Oilers remained the Oilers for a few seasons in Tennessee?
brink
Steve
no need - name wasn't city-bound. Same deal with the Braves - if
anything, there were more Native Americans down in Georgia where it's
warm. Basketball seems to be the only sport where city-bound names are
retained (giving the Titans credit for eventually getting it right).
--
Steve Alpert
MIT - B.S. (Eng.) '05, M.S. (Transp.) '06
http://web.mit.edu/smalpert/www/roads
George Grapman
original cities but kept them anyway:
Dodgers
Lakers
Jazz
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
sfb
"George Grapman" <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:GLtKf.35833
TheDave©
> Utah Lakers... would make a lot more sense.
Salt Lakers.
or, Salt Lake Ers. :-)
TheDave©
> An incomplete list of teams whose names only had relevance in their
> original cities but kept them anyway:
>
> Dodgers
> Lakers
> Jazz
Not so fast on the Dodgers. Maybe it does make sense. LA Dodgers...
LA Lakers... LA Rams... LA doesn't have an identity of it's own and has
to take on other's.
The ONLY one I can think of that is 'local' is the old AAFC Los Angeles
Dons, reflecting their Spanish/Mexican heritage.
Ronald Matthews
> Every time the Senators moved, they changed their name. The
> Giants had no need - name wasn't city-bound. Same deal with the
> Braves - if anything, there were more Native Americans down in
> Georgia where it's warm. Basketball seems to be the only sport
> where city-bound names are retained (giving the Titans credit for
> eventually getting it right).
The NFL has ruled that teams that move have to leave the team name
with the city. That is why the new Cleveland franchise is called
the Browns and the franchise that moved to Baltimore is called the
Ravens.
cordially, as always,
rm
Ronald Matthews
[top-posting deleted, unread]
Ronald Matthews
> Not so fast on the Dodgers. Maybe it does make sense. LA Dodgers...
> LA Lakers... LA Rams... LA doesn't have an identity of it's own and has
> to take on other's.
> The ONLY one I can think of that is 'local' is the old AAFC Los Angeles
> Dons, reflecting their Spanish/Mexican heritage.
And you are forgetting the Angels? In a baseball group?
--
How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?
Bob Roman
> An incomplete list of teams whose names only had relevance in their
> original cities but kept them anyway:
>
> Dodgers
Were there still trolleys to dodge in Brooklyn in 1957?
--
Bob Roman
George Grapman
George Grapman
sfb
"Bob Roman" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11vktlc...@news.supernews.com...
Roger Moore
>Not so fast on the Dodgers. Maybe it does make sense. LA Dodgers...
>LA Lakers... LA Rams... LA doesn't have an identity of it's own and has
>to take on other's.
>The ONLY one I can think of that is 'local' is the old AAFC Los Angeles
>Dons, reflecting their Spanish/Mexican heritage.
You're obviously forgetting the Los Angeles Angels (and now LA Angels of
Anaheim) and the Hollywood Stars. Not to mention the MLS LA Galaxy, WBA
LA Sparks, and who knows how many other teams in other non-big-4 leagues.
--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.
Ronald Matthews
> Ronald Matthews wrote:
>
> > The NFL has ruled that teams that move have to leave the team name
> > with the city. That is why the new Cleveland franchise is called
> > the Browns and the franchise that moved to Baltimore is called the
> > Ravens.
> Why did the Raiders (twice),Cards,Rams and Colts all keep their names?
The Browns moved after those teams. The NFL changed their rules in
time for the Browns but not the other teams.
cordially, as always,
rm
333333 33332222
[top-posting deleted, unread]
You are really crazy, aren't you? Or really stupid.
TheDave©
> > Not so fast on the Dodgers. Maybe it does make sense. LA
> > Dodgers... LA Lakers... LA Rams... LA doesn't have an identity of
> > it's own and has to take on other's.
>
> > The ONLY one I can think of that is 'local' is the old AAFC Los
> > Angeles Dons, reflecting their Spanish/Mexican heritage.
>
> You're obviously forgetting the Los Angeles Angels (and now LA Angels
> of Anaheim) and the Hollywood Stars. Not to mention the MLS LA
> Galaxy, WBA LA Sparks, and who knows how many other teams in other
> non-big-4 leagues.
Yes, I did forget the Angels and Stars. What do the Galaxy and Sparks
have to do with locality?
TheDave©
Oh, look. It changed it's name thinking we'd be fooled. Geesh!
TheDave©
> Why did the Raiders (twice),Cards,Rams and Colts all keep their
> names?
As I recall, the Browns thing was a one-time special deal, as was done
to help smooth out the potential lawsuits, etc. It doesn't apply to
every move in the future. If the NFL can't control what city a team
plays in, how the hell can it control what a team calls itself? Names
would only be limited to trademark and/or copyright laws, and so on.
TheDave©
> As I recall, the Browns thing was a one-time special deal, as was done
> to help smooth out the potential lawsuits, etc. It doesn't apply to
> every move in the future. If the NFL can't control what city a team
> plays in, how the hell can it control what a team calls itself? Names
> would only be limited to trademark and/or copyright laws, and so on.
Along those lines... in today's legal climate... if the Chicago
Cardinals were moving to St. Louis in 2006 instead of 1960, would they
still be allowed to call themselves the St. Louis Cardinals?
James Kahn
>brink wrote:
>> "Tanner" <tan...@refinancemypenis.spam> wrote in message
>> news:dtd7jk$7dki$1...@news.swt.edu...
>>
>> I don't know why franchises don't almost *always* change names when they
>> change cities, the Jazz being the best example of a total non sequitur.
>> Franchise names usually have some indigenous quality to them that gets lost
>> when teh team is displaced.
>>
> An incomplete list of teams whose names only had relevance in their
>original cities but kept them anyway:
> Dodgers
> Lakers
> Jazz
Cardinals (football)
On the other hand, there's the Pistons, whose name worked just as well
or better in their new town.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
James Farrar
Craig Richardson
<james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:48:42 GMT, "TheDave©" <n...@no.com> wrote:
>
>>> Tanner wrote:
>>> Utah Lakers... would make a lot more sense.
>>
>>Salt Lakers.
>>
>>or, Salt Lake Ers. :-)
>
>Well, that would be better than "Real Salt Lake".
Don't get me started...
What is "royal" about Salt Lake? Was the Houston club really founded
in 1836? What traditions "united" to form the DC club we know now?
Real Madrid. Real Betis. Real Zaragosa. Hannover 96. Schalke 04.
Newcastle United. Leeds United. (Hell... /Hartlepool/ United.
/Colchester/ United. /Cambridge/ United.). They have the cool names
because they /mean/ something historically. Trying to fake it for
marketing purposes sounds like ... something MLS would do (and keep
doing).
--Craig
--
Craig Richardson (crichar...@worldnet.att.net)
"Then I heard the whirring of the motorized snowmen, sound[ing] like the
death rattle of very small robot lizards, and I left the seasonal aisle"
-- James Lileks, "The Bleat", 2005/10/10
Steve
Perry Sailor
"Ronald Matthews" <r...@biteme.org> wrote in message
news:_6wKf.5665$%14.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
The NFL changed their rules BECAUSE of the Browns. Well, I don't know if
the NFL actually changed their "rules" at all, but the reason the name
"Browns" stayed with Cleveland, along with the team colors, uniforms,
franchise history, etc., is because Cleveland raised holy hell and
threatened to sue. To avoid the suit, the NFL not only agreed to all of the
above, but also to award a new Browns franchise to Cleveland in the next
expansion.
Perry
Perry Sailor
"James Kahn" <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote in message
news:dte9g1$o6q$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> In <GLtKf.35833$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> George Grapman
> <sfge...@paccbell.net> writes:
>
>>brink wrote:
>>> "Tanner" <tan...@refinancemypenis.spam> wrote in message
>>> news:dtd7jk$7dki$1...@news.swt.edu...
>>>
>>> I don't know why franchises don't almost *always* change names when they
>>> change cities, the Jazz being the best example of a total non sequitur.
>>> Franchise names usually have some indigenous quality to them that gets
>>> lost
>>> when teh team is displaced.
>>>
>> An incomplete list of teams whose names only had relevance in their
>>original cities but kept them anyway:
>
>> Dodgers
>> Lakers
>> Jazz
>
>
> Cardinals (football)
>
What am I missing? Why was Cardinals relevant in Chicago but not St. Louis
or Phoenix?
Perry
Bob Roman
> As I recall, the Browns thing was a one-time special deal, as was done
> to help smooth out the potential lawsuits, etc. It doesn't apply to
> every move in the future.
This is exactly right. The poster that said it is a general rule was
spreading misinformation -- possibly deliberately, possibly out of
ignorance.
--
Bob Roman
TheDave©
> > Cardinals (football)
>
> What am I missing? Why was Cardinals relevant in Chicago but not St.
> Louis or Phoenix?
IIRC, the football Cardinals were so named because of the color of
their jerseys.
James Kahn
>> Perry Sailor wrote:
>> > Cardinals (football)
>>
>> What am I missing? Why was Cardinals relevant in Chicago but not St.
>> Louis or Phoenix?
>IIRC, the football Cardinals were so named because of the color of
>their jerseys.
Remember the Cardinals started out in Chicago. The cardinal is the
state bird of Illinois. They then moved to St. Louis. Not so terrible,
as the baseball team had the same name, and cardinals are plentiful in Missourri.
But one doesn't usually associate the cardinal with the state of Arizona, or
with desert climates in general (though they can be found there).
Ronald Matthews
> "Ronald Matthews" <r...@biteme.org> wrote in message
> > The Browns moved after those teams. The NFL changed their rules in
> > time for the Browns but not the other teams.
> The NFL changed their rules BECAUSE of the Browns. Well, I don't
> know if
This is not inconsistent with what I have said.
> the NFL actually changed their "rules" at all, but the reason the
> name "Browns" stayed with Cleveland, along with the team colors,
> uniforms, franchise history, etc., is because Cleveland raised
> holy hell and threatened to sue. To avoid the suit, the NFL not
> only agreed to all of the above, but also to award a new Browns
> franchise to Cleveland in the next expansion.
This is true. And I am sure that if another team moves then they
will leave their name behind as well.
cordially, as always,
rm
Ronald Matthews
> "TheDave?" <n...@no.com> wrote...
The precedent has been set. That is as good as a "general rule."
cordially, as always,
rm
Richard R. Hershberger
TheDave© wrote:
> > Roger Moore wrote:
> > > Not so fast on the Dodgers. Maybe it does make sense. LA
> > > Dodgers... LA Lakers... LA Rams... LA doesn't have an identity of
> > > it's own and has to take on other's.
> >
> > > The ONLY one I can think of that is 'local' is the old AAFC Los
> > > Angeles Dons, reflecting their Spanish/Mexican heritage.
> >
> > You're obviously forgetting the Los Angeles Angels (and now LA Angels
> > of Anaheim) and the Hollywood Stars. Not to mention the MLS LA
> > Galaxy, WBA LA Sparks, and who knows how many other teams in other
> > non-big-4 leagues.
>
> Yes, I did forget the Angels and Stars. What do the Galaxy and Sparks
> have to do with locality?
My guess is that Galaxy is as in "a galaxy of stars" (e.g. on the red
carpet at the Oscars). Sparks may be a rather patronizing play on
their being little stars, perhaps?
Stars, by the way, is a traditional baseball club name going back at
least to the 1860s. The Stars of Syracuse played in the National
League most of the 1879 season before going belly-up late in the
season, and the Philadelphia Stars won the Negro National League
pennant in 1934. The use of the name in Hollywood was actually a
rather clever reinterpretation of the tradition.
Richard R. Hershberger
Bob Roman
<perry....@REMOVETHIScolorado.edu> wrote:
>The NFL changed their rules BECAUSE of the Browns. Well, I don't know if
>the NFL actually changed their "rules" at all, but the reason the name
>"Browns" stayed with Cleveland, along with the team colors, uniforms,
>franchise history, etc., is because Cleveland raised holy hell and
>threatened to sue. To avoid the suit, the NFL not only agreed to all of the
>above, but also to award a new Browns franchise to Cleveland in the next
>expansion.
The deal negotiated by the NFL between Art Modell and the city of
Cleveland was announced in early 1996. Because of this deal, the
Ravens were considered an expansion team with no history.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/ravindex.htm
One year later, the Houston Oilers announced that they were moving to
Tennessee. And unlike the situation in Baltimore, the team continued
to be known as the Oilers for the next two years.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/oti1998.htm
After the name change, the Titans continued to be the legal entity
formerly known as the Houston Oilers.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/otiindex.htm
The Houston Texans began in 2002, three years after the revival of the
Cleveland Browns. They have no association with the old Oilers, and
evidently could not have used that older name.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/htxindex.htm
This is a situation very different from the one in Cleveland.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cleindex.htm
--
Bob Roman
pearly soames
> Same deal with the Braves - if
> anything, there were more Native Americans down in Georgia where it's
> warm.
>
I don't think that native Americans have shown a preference for warmer
climates. There was the big Arcadian movement, but I think that the
northern US and Canada have a good representation of NAs.
--
Where are the prawns?
Down by the sea.
Perry Sailor
The Oilers moved to Tennessee after the Browns move, and took the name and
uniforms with them. They changed a couple of years later, but not because
they had to. And the new Houston franchise did not take the name Oilers and
considers itself (and is considered by the league) to be a new, separate
franchise. So it appears that Cleveland's situation and its resolution was
unique to Cleveland.
Perry
David the Nationals Fan
Perry Sailor wrote:
> The Oilers moved to Tennessee after the Browns move, and took the name and
> uniforms with them. They changed a couple of years later, but not because
> they had to. And the new Houston franchise did not take the name Oilers and
> considers itself (and is considered by the league) to be a new, separate
> franchise. So it appears that Cleveland's situation and its resolution was
> unique to Cleveland.
Sort of. It happened once before (at least) earlier. The Washington
Senators moved to Minnesota and became the Twins while the "new" team
in DC took the name Senators. Now the "new" team, now the Rangers, is
claiming the name Senators, which precluded the Nationals from being
called by their correct name.
My own view is that a team should not be allowed to take a name with
them when they moved. That, for example, the Braves should not have
been allowed to be called the Braves in Milwaukee or Atlanta, that the
Giants should not be the Giants in SF, the Dodgers not the Dodgers in
LA, and the A's not the A's in Oakland or KC. (not that they were
particularly athletic when they were in KC). And frankly, there are
better names for those teams out there... The Brewers or the Beer
Barons for Milwaukee, the Peaches for Atlanta, the Fog for San
Francisco, the Hollywood Stars is pretty good for the team in Chavez
Ravine, and the Monarchs or Royals for KC and the Seals for Oakland.
(And taking the PCL name has some precedent... the San Diego Padres was
the name of the PCL team....)
Perry Sailor
"Wunnuy" <wun...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:1140555788.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> David the Nationals Fan wrote:
>> particularly athletic when they were in KC). And frankly, there are
>> better names for those teams out there... The Brewers or the Beer
>> Barons for Milwaukee, the Peaches for Atlanta, the Fog for San
>> Francisco, the Hollywood Stars is pretty good for the team in Chavez
>> Ravine, and the Monarchs or Royals for KC and the Seals for Oakland.
>> (And taking the PCL name has some precedent... the San Diego Padres was
>> the name of the PCL team....)
>
> bad even WNBA or MLS teams wouldn't stoop that low.
I agree about Fog, but Beer Barons is kind of cool, especially since it's so
un-PC. And I like Peaches, although I shudder to think what their uniforms
might look like. The Macon franchise in the old Sally League was called the
Peaches through several decades. Pete Rose was a Macon Peach in 1962.
Perry
TimV
news:dtg13v$l9a$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
And a Marion Jailbird in 1990.
T
--
Remove _yourknickers_ to reply
Roger Moore
>Sort of. It happened once before (at least) earlier. The Washington
>Senators moved to Minnesota and became the Twins while the "new" team
>in DC took the name Senators. Now the "new" team, now the Rangers, is
>claiming the name Senators, which precluded the Nationals from being
>called by their correct name.
No it didn't. The Nationals is a much better name, since the original
Washington AL team was officially the Nationals for most of their
existence, including the time from 1912-33 when they were actually a good
team. And it didn't prevent them from taking what I think would have been
a great name, the Grays, which would have honored Washington's Negro
League heritage.
>the Fog for San Francisco,
The SF PCL entry was the Seals, which would be a good name.
>the Hollywood Stars is pretty good for the team in Chavez
>Ravine
The Angels was also a traditional PCL name, and is currently in use.
>and the Monarchs or Royals for KC and
>the Seals for Oakland.
As mentioned above, the Seals were the SF team, and it's more appropriate
there. Seals generally go to the oceanic coast, which San Francisco has,
but don't get into the bay where Oakland is. There's also the whole
alliteration thing. Oakland was the Oaks, which is kind of lame but at
least makes sense.
--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.
David the Nationals Fan
Roger Moore wrote:
> No it didn't. The Nationals is a much better name, since the original
> Washington AL team was officially the Nationals for most of their
> existence, including the time from 1912-33 when they were actually a good
> team.
I guess. To my mind, they were the Senators. And, of course, it is
the Senators and Joe Hardy in Damm Yankees...
> And it didn't prevent them from taking what I think would have been
> a great name, the Grays, which would have honored Washington's Negro
> League heritage.
The Grays would have been a better name. The Nationals, to me, is too
bland and I suspect is just a place holder until the team is sold to a
new owner who will pick a better name. And there is some precedent for
a name change... after all... it is the Astro's not the Colt 45's.
(Although I have some Colt 45 baseball cards...)
> >the Fog for San Francisco,
>
> The SF PCL entry was the Seals, which would be a good name.
Yes. I had a brain cramp when I put the Seals in Oakland. Didn't the
Dimaggio Brothers play for the Seals at some point.
> >the Hollywood Stars is pretty good for the team in Chavez
> >Ravine
>
> The Angels was also a traditional PCL name, and is currently in use.
Yes. And I guess the Dodgers could have claimed it when they first
arrived...
> alliteration thing. Oakland was the Oaks, which is kind of lame but at
> least makes sense.
Yes, Oaks isn't all that good. Some of the other "historic" PCL names
were great. The Sacramento Solons, the Portland Beavers, The Hawaii
Islanders, the Seattle Rainers (I think...)... the 80's trend of giving
them the names of their Major League teams is really silly...
George Grapman
>> The Oilers moved to Tennessee after the Browns move, and took the name and
>> uniforms with them. They changed a couple of years later, but not because
>> they had to. And the new Houston franchise did not take the name Oilers and
>> considers itself (and is considered by the league) to be a new, separate
>> franchise. So it appears that Cleveland's situation and its resolution was
>> unique to Cleveland.
>
> Sort of. It happened once before (at least) earlier. The Washington
> Senators moved to Minnesota and became the Twins while the "new" team
> in DC took the name Senators. Now the "new" team, now the Rangers, is
> claiming the name Senators, which precluded the Nationals from being
> called by their correct name.
I believe the Rangers said that they would relinquish their rights to
the name.
>
> My own view is that a team should not be allowed to take a name with
> them when they moved. That, for example, the Braves should not have
> been allowed to be called the Braves in Milwaukee or Atlanta, that the
> Giants should not be the Giants in SF, the Dodgers not the Dodgers in
> LA, and the A's not the A's in Oakland or KC. (not that they were
> particularly athletic when they were in KC). And frankly, there are
> better names for those teams out there... The Brewers or the Beer
> Barons for Milwaukee, the Peaches for Atlanta, the Fog for San
> Francisco, the Hollywood Stars is pretty good for the team in Chavez
> Ravine, and the Monarchs or Royals for KC and the Seals for Oakland.
> (And taking the PCL name has some precedent... the San Diego Padres was
> the name of the PCL team....)
>
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
David the Nationals Fan
Wunnuy wrote:
> I had been following the Bring baseball back to DC website since its
> inception and they had a poll to see what name they should be called
> and I think Grays came in third. That's the name I was hoping for. It
> would have been a nice honor to have a Negro League's name in the MLB.
> But I'll take Nationals over the Washington Monuments any day.
Yes. Its also better than the San Francisco Fog. If it had been in
Northern Virginia, the good name was the NOrthern VirginiA NOVA's. My
own choices in order.... The Washington Senators, The Washington
Grays, The Potomac Rivermen or the Washington Presidents.
brink
"David the Nationals Fan" <davidth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140554474....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Atlanta Peaches? SF Fog? The only things those names would be good for
would be for a "worst possible name" contest for a given city, which would
include:
LA Smog
Washington Homicides
Seattle Tsunamis
Minnesota Mosquitos
New York Goombahs
Houston Humidity
Philadelphia Cheesesteaks
brink
TheDave©
> Philadelphia Cheesesteaks
That one's funny. Like a couple others here, I thought Milwaukee Beer
Barons was actually pretty good.
David the Nationals Fan
TheDave© wrote:
> That one's funny. Like a couple others here, I thought Milwaukee Beer
> Barons was actually pretty good.
Its not all that far from the current team name... the Brewers.
Richard R. Hershberger
brink wrote:
> Atlanta Peaches? SF Fog? The only things those names would be good for
> would be for a "worst possible name" contest for a given city, which would
> include:
A traditional baseball team name in Atlanta was, and I'm not making
this up, the Crackers. Peaches looks pretty good compared to that,
doesn't it?
In the 1870s there was an amateur club in Oneida, New York named the Ku
Klux Klan. (Let the jokes about white sheets and hoods interfering
with their play begin...)
Richard R. Hershberger
Richard R. Hershberger
David the Nationals Fan wrote:
>
> > No it didn't. The Nationals is a much better name, since the original
> > Washington AL team was officially the Nationals for most of their
> > existence, including the time from 1912-33 when they were actually a good
> > team.
>
> I guess. To my mind, they were the Senators. And, of course, it is
> the Senators and Joe Hardy in Damm Yankees...
>
> > And it didn't prevent them from taking what I think would have been
> > a great name, the Grays, which would have honored Washington's Negro
> > League heritage.
>
> The Grays would have been a better name. The Nationals, to me, is too
> bland and I suspect is just a place holder until the team is sold to a
> new owner who will pick a better name. And there is some precedent for
> a name change... after all... it is the Astro's not the Colt 45's.
> (Although I have some Colt 45 baseball cards...)
I don't get the resistance to the Nationals name. It is a great old
name for Washington baseball. The original Nationals were the premier
club in Washington during the amateur era, and historically important
for being the first eastern club to make a western tour, in 1867. They
largely dominated the western clubs, with only one loss to an unknown
kid named Spalding, and served as the inspiration for the Red Stockings
to work at improving (by importing players from the east, but still...)
The Nationals of 1877-1881 were a good non-League club, being in 1880
clearly the best team in the country outside the League. They were in
the first professional baseball game ever played in Manhattan. The
1884 Nationals were one of the few Union Association teams to do
reasonably well financially, and in 1886 they joined the National
League. In the consolidation of the early 1890s they were pushed out
of the league, and the Senators were Washington's major league team
during that decade, until the contraction at the turn of the century.
The whole bit about the fans calling the AL team the "Senators" is a
bit unclear to me. I have seen any number of early 20th century
newspaper accounts that use the "Nationals" name. And it's not as if
the Senators of the 1890s were any good. Quite the contrary, they
really sucked. But for whatever reason, "Senators" had impressed
itself in the popular imagination as the Washington team name. I don't
get it, and I don't get why "Senators" strikes anyone as a better name
than "Nationals".
For whatever it is worth, I thought there were three decent proposals:
I liked, going from the top down, Grays, Nationals, and Senators. I
was pleasantly surprised when one of the good names was actually
picked.
Richard R. Hershberger
David the Nationals Fan
George Grapman wrote:
> >
> > Were there still trolleys to dodge in Brooklyn in 1957?
> >
> Most likely no, but they were there when the team was named.
Interestingly enough, there WERE Trolleys to dodge in LA when the
Dodgers moved to LA. The last of the Red Car system did not shut down
until about 1961. The Brooklyn system shut in 1956, the Chicago system
in 1958, the DC system in 1962.
Roger Moore
>A traditional baseball team name in Atlanta was, and I'm not making
>this up, the Crackers. Peaches looks pretty good compared to that,
>doesn't it?
And that isn't even the most eggregious Atlanta team name. They had a
Negro League team named the "Black Crackers", which has to be one of the
most ridiculous names out there.
Ronald Matthews
Toronto still uses "trollies" on most of the East-West routes
downtown, although we call them streetcars here. I believe that it
is the only city in North America that still uses them extensively.
cordially, as always,
rm
--
How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?
TheDave©
> > A traditional baseball team name in Atlanta was, and I'm not making
> > this up, the Crackers. Peaches looks pretty good compared to that,
> > doesn't it?
>
> And that isn't even the most eggregious Atlanta team name. They had a
> Negro League team named the "Black Crackers", which has to be one of
> the most ridiculous names out there.
LOL! Or, my son's old high school team's name (Rams) and the girl's
teams being called the "Lady Rams". That always made me laugh. I
guess Ewes didn't fit.
David the Nationals Fan
Ronald Matthews wrote:
> Toronto still uses "trollies" on most of the East-West routes
> downtown, although we call them streetcars here. I believe that it
> is the only city in North America that still uses them extensively.
>
It all depends on the term "extensive" and the term "streetcar". San
Francisco has one line (the Market Street Line) which uses the Historic
PCC cars and a number of lines that use "modern" streetcars/light rail.
I would call this an extensive network.
Other cities have "light rail" which runs in the streets for at least
portions of the trip. This includes, to personal knowledge, Houston,
Boston and Baltimore. But at least some of those systems (most notable
Houston) are small and depending on the definition of extensive, may
not qualify.
Ronald Matthews
> > Toronto still uses "trollies" on most of the East-West routes
> > downtown, although we call them streetcars here. I believe that
> > it is the only city in North America that still uses them
> > extensively.
> It all depends on the term "extensive" and the term "streetcar".
> San Francisco has one line (the Market Street Line) which uses the
> Historic PCC cars and a number of lines that use "modern"
> streetcars/light rail. I would call this an extensive network.
Toronto has (or had) some light rail as well. I think it was
replaced by a Subway extension. It was not considered to be a
streetcar. Streetcars in Toronto travel across the whole city and
are a major part of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). The TTC
claims that they use more streetcars, by far, than anyone else in
North America, and a lot of people, car drivers, criticize them
heavily for it.
> Other cities have "light rail" which runs in the streets for at
> least portions of the trip. This includes, to personal knowledge,
> Houston, Boston and Baltimore. But at least some of those systems
> (most notable Houston) are small and depending on the definition
> of extensive, may not qualify.
The only reason you are saying this is because you want to dispute
me.
cordially, as always,
rm
Perry Sailor
David the Nationals Fan wrote:
>It is far. "Beer Barons" sounds like a softball league goof name.
>Brewers is not a goofy name at all. "Chuggers," "Alkies" and
>"Drunkards" might be good names for that softball league too.
Matter of taste, I guess. I think "Beer Barons" not only isn't far from
"Brewers," but that it sounds better, punchier, and more alliterative. And
brings to mind such colorful beer barons from baseball history as Augie
Busch, Jacob Ruppert, and Chris von der Ahe.
Perry
Richard R. Hershberger
Wunnuy wrote:
> the 20th century.
Most of those nicknames through World War II are slippery, as they
tended to be unofficial or semi-official names, often used by
journalists for snappy headlines and the like. In many cases the
"played as" entries in baseball-refernce.com is based on a flawed model
of how such things worked, implying as they do that a team "played as"
a single name. Brooklyn in the first few decades of the 20th century
is a particularly egregious example. Another example is the
Philadelphia Blue Jays. This appears for a couple of years in the
1940s. The Phillies now disavow the name as merely a newspaper contest
result, but the AP ran at article at the time in which the general
manager announced the name change, and I have seen a photograph of a
pennant with the word "Phillies" and a blue jay on it. So what was the
team "playing as"?
How official was "Nationals" for the Washington American League team?
Did the front office use the name in its marketing? Did the name
appear on its letterhead? Heck if I know. How much was "Senators"
used early on? And how did "Senators" eventually win out? All
interesting questions for someone looking for a research project.
(Which I am not: I'm working on the 1874 Eastons right now.)
Richard R. Hershberger
Richard R. Hershberger
David the Nationals Fan wrote:
Philadelphia has a couple of trolley lines left in West Philly. They
aren't the predominant form of mass transit by any stretch, but Philly
mass transit consists of a bunch of independant systems that were
tossed together, and a few trolley lines got thrown into the mix.
Richard R. Hershberger
David M. Nieporent
>>>TheDaveŠ wrote:
>>>>That one's funny. Like a couple others here, I thought Milwaukee Beer
>>>>Barons was actually pretty good.
>>>Its not all that far from the current team name... the Brewers.
>>It is far. "Beer Barons" sounds like a softball league goof name.
>>Brewers is not a goofy name at all. "Chuggers," "Alkies" and
>>"Drunkards" might be good names for that softball league too.
> Matter of taste, I guess. I think "Beer Barons" not only isn't far from
> "Brewers," but that it sounds better, punchier, and more alliterative. And
> brings to mind such colorful beer barons from baseball history as Augie
> Busch, Jacob Ruppert, and Chris von der Ahe.
And (former mascot) Homer Simpson.
--
David Marc Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Jumping To Conclusions: http://www.oobleck.com/tollbooth
Ronald Matthews
> And (former mascot) Homer Simpson.
You watch all kinds of crap, don't you? Star Trek, 24, and now
Homer Simpson?
David the Nationals Fan
Ronald Matthews wrote:
> > Other cities have "light rail" which runs in the streets for at
> > least portions of the trip. This includes, to personal knowledge,
> > Houston, Boston and Baltimore. But at least some of those systems
> > (most notable Houston) are small and depending on the definition
> > of extensive, may not qualify.
>
> The only reason you are saying this is because you want to dispute
> me.
Sigh. I WAS agreeing with you. I said that, depending upon the
definition, that you were correct. Houston, Boston, San Francisco and
Baltimore's systems all have an in the street, undivided component
similar to that in Toronto. San Francisco is even running old model
(1950's) street cars. The dispute is not, frankly, whether other
cities run street cars, they do. The quesiton is whether those systems
are "extensive" or not. Is Toronto's system bigger. You bet. Is it
extensive? I don't disagree. Are these other systems also
"extensive". I have no idea. It depends on definition. But
extensive does not equate to "largest". (And, by the way, according
to the some definitions, San Diego has more KM of tramways than
Toronto... but since it really runs to the border, I would not include
it in the discussion).
George Grapman
on street level in the rest of the city.
The F line, which runs from Castro and Market to the foot of Market
and then along the waterfront to the wharf uses refurbished 1920's
trolley cars from many cities including, Milan.LA,Philly and Newark.
On a baseball note the N Judah starts at Ocean Beach, enters the
subway near Church and Duboce, resurfaces after the Emabarcadero where
it runs along the waterfront to Pacbell Park and then the Caltrain station.
Ronald Matthews
> (And, by the way, according to the some definitions, San Diego has
> more KM of tramways than Toronto... but since it really runs to
> the border, I would not include it in the discussion).
If Toronto's is not the largest then I will stand corrected. That
is what has been advertised in Toronto but I have no way of knowing
beyond that. Where did you see this thing about San Diego?
http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/circulars/ec058/02_OPENING%20GENERAL%20SESSION.pdf
If you check this article, it compares all of the systems in North
America. It says that Toronto has a larger system than San Diego,
49 miles, to 45.7 miles. And that is 45.7 miles of LRT, _not_
streetcars. The difference is that streetcars stop far more often.
And it also says that the Toronto system handles 300,000 people a
day and that it is the most "heavily patronized" in North America.
248 cars on 9 routes.
cordially, as always,
rm
Richard R. Hershberger
Wunnuy wrote:
> Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
> >> is a particularly egregious example. Another example is the
> > Philadelphia Blue Jays. This appears for a couple of years in the
> > 1940s. The Phillies now disavow the name as merely a newspaper contest
> > result, but the AP ran at article at the time in which the general
> > manager announced the name change, and I have seen a photograph of a
> > pennant with the word "Phillies" and a blue jay on it. So what was the
> > team "playing as"?
> >
>
> nickname of an American League team used by a NL team in the 40s. I
> always wondered where the name "Bluejays" came from back then. Is
> Phillie know for its bluejay population?
Not that I noticed when I lived there, but ornithology is not one of my
hobbies. I know it was picked from proposals sent in as a newspaper
contest. I think the article listed some of the other suggestions. I
might be able to dig it up if anyone is interested. This is a popular
way of choosing minor league team names today, and considering some of
the crap names out there I don't think we need assume any particular
local connection. For whatever it is worth, Johns Hopkins used the
name back then as well.
I am persuaded that at no time did "Phillies" cease to be a common
nickname for the team. As I recall, it was on the front of the jerseys
through this whole period. So it is wrong to claim that at any time
was the Philadelphia National League franchise *not* the "Phillies".
It's just that for a short time they were also the "Blue Jays".
(As a side note, the usual suspects will also tell you that the team
played as the "Quakers" in the 1880s. I haven't done an exhaustive
search, but I have not seen that nickname actually used. The usual
form in the earliest years was the "Philadelphias", which was sometimes
shortened to "Phillies", often in quotation marks. It wouldn't
surprise me to find that at some point the team was called the
"Quakers" but it certainly wasn't the usual name.)
Richard R. Hershberger
Seapig
Craig Richardson wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:23:51 +0000, James Farrar
> <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:48:42 GMT, "TheDave©" <n...@no.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Tanner wrote:
> >>> Utah Lakers... would make a lot more sense.
> >>
> >>Salt Lakers.
> >>
> >>or, Salt Lake Ers. :-)
> >
> >Well, that would be better than "Real Salt Lake".
>
> Don't get me started...
>
> What is "royal" about Salt Lake? Was the Houston club really founded
> in 1836? What traditions "united" to form the DC club we know now?
>
> Real Madrid. Real Betis. Real Zaragosa. Hannover 96. Schalke 04.
> Newcastle United. Leeds United. (Hell... /Hartlepool/ United.
> /Colchester/ United. /Cambridge/ United.). They have the cool names
> because they /mean/ something historically. Trying to fake it for
> marketing purposes sounds like ... something MLS would do (and keep
> doing).
I don't understand it, even as a marketing tool. The serious soccer
fan, like yourself, knows what those names are supposed to mean, and
sees right through the falseness of MLS teams using them. And the
people who are on the fence about soccer are going to see those names
as evidence that it's just some weird sport for foreigners.
Seapig
TheDave© wrote:
> > Perry Sailor wrote:
> > > Cardinals (football)
> >
> > What am I missing? Why was Cardinals relevant in Chicago but not St.
> > Louis or Phoenix?
>
> IIRC, the football Cardinals were so named because of the color of
> their jerseys.
I'm not sure about that, but my understanding is that that is how the
baseball Cardinals got their name.
Seapig
Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
> The whole bit about the fans calling the AL team the "Senators" is a
> bit unclear to me. I have seen any number of early 20th century
> newspaper accounts that use the "Nationals" name. And it's not as if
> the Senators of the 1890s were any good. Quite the contrary, they
> really sucked. But for whatever reason, "Senators" had impressed
> itself in the popular imagination as the Washington team name. I don't
> get it, and I don't get why "Senators" strikes anyone as a better name
> than "Nationals".
Speaking for my own tastes, I prefer "Senators" because it is more
concrete. I know what a senator looks like, (granted, a middle-aged
white guy isn't a very inspiring mascot) but "national" to me is an
adjective 99% of the time, and I'm not sure what a national looks like.
By that standard "Grays" is an even worse name. I do like the idea of
honoring the Negro Leagues, but you'd have a hard time coming up with a
blander name.
Dale Hicks
sea...@altavista.com says...
Call them the "Gray Stockings", then.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
Richard Gadsden
> Call them the "Gray Stockings", then.
Or Gray Sox? Actually, I like the Gray Sox as a name.
There's a Blue Sox playing rugby league in England, which just sounds
silly.
--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
Roger Nullset
being moved to Los Angeles. Then the city would have:
A basketball team named after the lakes in Minnesota,
A baseball team named after the trolley-dodging fans in Brooklyn, and
A football team named after a bird that does not live west of the Rocky
Mountains.
If this happened I would start pushing for a new hockey team -- the Los
Angeles Canadians.
George Grapman
the Rams.
Roger Moore
>Most of those nicknames through World War II are slippery, as they
>tended to be unofficial or semi-official names, often used by
>journalists for snappy headlines and the like.
That's true. I suspect that the Baseball Encyclopedia used a list of team
names compiled from newspaper accounts and everyone since has treated it
as gospel since it's in the Encyclopedia. I notice that in my Turkin and
Thompson (which predates the Big Mac) they don't have a list of team
nicknames but do note when a specific name was used to refer to a team in
official league standings. They note the following names (none later than
1891) as having been used that way:
Baltimore NA: Lord Baltimore (1872-4) and Marylands (1873)
Brooklyn NA: Atlantics (1872-5) and Eckfords (1872)
Elizabeth NA: Resolutes (1873)
Ft. Wayne NA: Kekiongas (1871)
Keokuk NA: Westerns (1875)
Louisville AA: Eclipse (1882-91)
Middletown NA: Mansfields (1872)
New York NA: Mutuals (1871-5)
NL: Mutuals (1876)
AA: Metropolitans (1883-87)
Philadelphia NA: Athletics (1871-5) Centennials (1875)
NL: Athletics (1876)
AA: Athletics (1882-91)
UA: Keystone (1884)
Pittsburgh AA: Allegheny (1882-86)
Richmond AA: Virginia (1884)
St. Louis NA: Red Stockings (1875)
Troy NA: Haymakers (1871-2)
Washington NA: Olympics (1871-2) Nationals (1872-3, 1875)
AA: Nationals (1884)
UA: Nationals (1884)
Interesting, there were a few cases in the NA where a city had two or
more teams, one of which was apparently known only by the city and the
other one (or more) known by a nickname. In most of those cases it
appears to have been the established team that had the nickname and the
newcomer that was known only by its city.
>How official was "Nationals" for the Washington American League team?
It was apparently official enough to appear on their uniforms in 1905-6,
at least according to the HOF.
>Did the front office use the name in its marketing? Did the name
>appear on its letterhead? Heck if I know.
I doubt it. I strongly suspect that very official documents were all
made out in the form of Washington American League Baseball Team or
something along those lines.
>How much was "Senators"
>used early on? And how did "Senators" eventually win out? All
>interesting questions for someone looking for a research project.
According to "Walter Johnson: Baseball's Big Train" (p33):
Things had gotten so bad that in March 1905, a committee of
newspapermen was commissioned to come up with a new nickname for the
team. The old one, "Senators" was though to be a "hoodoo" (a curse)
because in more than twenty seasons in the big leagues the team had
yet to finish in the first division. The incongruous term "Nationals"
was chosen, apparently in honor of the old Washington National League
teams of the 1880's and 1890's, although they, too, had been the
doormats of the league.3 Local sportswriters shortened it to "Nats",
which sounded snappier and saved space in the headlines, but neither
the fans nor visiting baseball writers took to the change completely,
continuing to call them the "Senators" until 50 years later, when the
owners finally gave in and made the name official once more.
3 Sporting Life, April 1, 1905
I'm not sure that everything in the above quote is accurate. For one
thing, he seems to be confused about the whole Washington NL/Senators
thing. He describes the "Senators" team has having never finished outside
the second division, but that would have to include their time in the NL
to get to two decades. It would seem bizarre to have changed the team
nickname from one nickname of the old, bad team to another nickname of
the same team, so it seems more likely that they were thinking about the
old amateur team who were actually very good.
At the same time, there's some indication that the team took the nickname
at least somewhat seriously for some time. They bothered to convene a
committee to pick a new nickname for the team and listened to it enough to
plaster that new name on the team's uniform for a couple of seasons.
Reputedly, at least, Clark Griffith (who obviously came along several
years later) liked "Nationals" better and insisted on keeping that name;
it wasn't until after his death that the team changed to "Senators".
Steve
>>Roger Moore wrote:
>>
>>>A traditional baseball team name in Atlanta was, and I'm not making
>>>this up, the Crackers. Peaches looks pretty good compared to that,
>>>doesn't it?
>>
>>And that isn't even the most eggregious Atlanta team name. They had a
>>Negro League team named the "Black Crackers", which has to be one of
>>the most ridiculous names out there.
>
>
> LOL! Or, my son's old high school team's name (Rams) and the girl's
> teams being called the "Lady Rams". That always made me laugh. I
> guess Ewes didn't fit.
>
--
Steve Alpert
MIT - B.S. (Eng.) '05, M.S. (Transp.) '06
http://web.mit.edu/smalpert/www/roads
Ron Johnson
Richard Gadsden wrote:
> In article <46473uF...@individual.net> on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:32:38
> -0600, dgh...@yahoo.com (Dale Hicks) wrote:
>
> > Call them the "Gray Stockings", then.
>
> Or Gray Sox? Actually, I like the Gray Sox as a name.
>
> There's a Blue Sox playing rugby league in England, which just sounds
> silly.
Well some of the nicknames for British teams are right out of
a Carlin routine.
Among the nicknames in the Premier division are Cottagers and Toffees.
Addicks is just strange.
And what the hell's the story behind the Pompey nickname?
(Checks. Ah, nobody's really sure. That makes sense) Don't
know about you but I find the thought of a team mascot ...
well interesting doesn't quite captue what I had in mind.