PDA

View Full Version : The Origins of All 30 MLB Team Names



Eric_the_Red
04-02-2010, 10:02 AM
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/51678


The Cincinnati Red Stockings, so named because they wore red socks, were baseball’s first openly all-professional team. In 1882, Cincinnati’s entry in the newly formed American Association took the same name and retained it after moving to the National League in 1890. Red Stockings eventually became Redlegs, and Redlegs was shortened to Reds. Before the 1953 season, club officials announced that the team would once again officially be known as the Cincinnati Redlegs. Around the same time, the team temporarily removed “Reds” from its uniforms. As the AP reported in 1953, “The political significance of the word ‘Reds’ these days and its effect on the change was not discussed by management.”

Tom Servo
04-14-2010, 02:03 PM
The Marlins are actually going to become the Miami Marlins? I don't like it.


And everyone knows the Houston Colt .45's and the Washington Bullets in the NBA were the coolest names ever.

Redsfan320
04-14-2010, 02:08 PM
Oops. Sorry about starting another thread on this, wasn't aware one had already been started. As for the Marlins, they need to do something to get attendance up. It has to be the league worst. I don't know how they afford to pay the players, even with MLB's lowest payroll.

320

westofyou
04-14-2010, 02:10 PM
My favorite defunct names


Braves:
Boston Beaneaters
Boston Doves
Boston Rustlers
Boston Bees

Cardinals:
St Louis Perfectos

Phillies:
Philadelphia Quakers

Dodgers:
Brooklyn Bridegrooms
Brooklyn Suburbas

RichRed
04-14-2010, 02:14 PM
The Marlins are actually going to become the Miami Marlins? I don't like it.


And everyone knows the Houston Colt .45's and the Washington Bullets in the NBA were the coolest names ever.

Most of us Bullets fans still refuse to acknowledge the name change to that W-word.

membengal
04-14-2010, 02:18 PM
Gilbert Arenas certainly doesn't.

RichRed
04-14-2010, 02:32 PM
Gilbert Arenas certainly doesn't.

The Bullets nickname has never been more apropos.


Cleveland Indians
Cleveland’s baseball team was originally nicknamed the Naps after star player-manager Napoleon Lajoie, so when the team cut ties with Lajoie after the 1914 season, it was in the market for a new name. Club officials and sportswriters agreed on Indians in January 1915. The Boston Braves’ miraculous World Series triumph may have been part of the inspiration behind Cleveland’s new moniker.

I thought the Cleveland team was originally called the Spiders but changed the name to Indians in honor of Native American player Louis Sockalexis. Pretty sure that's what I read in Ken Burns' "Baseball" book anyway.

westofyou
04-14-2010, 02:50 PM
The Bullets nickname has never been more apropos.



I thought the Cleveland team was originally called the Spiders but changed the name to Indians in honor of Native American player Louis Sockalexis. Pretty sure that's what I read in Ken Burns' "Baseball" book anyway.

It's a nifty story, but not true.

They were the Spiders in the 90's the NL version. Contracted in 1899 and merged with St. Louis the AL team was called the Blues and the Naps until a newspaper vote gave them the Indians.

While they did have Louis Sockalexis in the 90's in reality the name had nothing to do with him other than the fact that he was a Spider at one time and an Indian.

RichRed
04-14-2010, 02:58 PM
It's a nifty story, but not true.

They were the Spiders in the 90's the NL version. Contracted in 1899 and merged with St. Louis the AL team was called the Blues and the Naps until a newspaper vote gave them the Indians.

While they did have Louis Sockalexis in the 90's in reality the name had nothing to do with him other than the fact that he was a Spider at one time and an Indian.

Ahh, thanks for clarifying.

Yachtzee
04-14-2010, 11:46 PM
The Bullets nickname has never been more apropos.



I thought the Cleveland team was originally called the Spiders but changed the name to Indians in honor of Native American player Louis Sockalexis. Pretty sure that's what I read in Ken Burns' "Baseball" book anyway.

The Sockalexis myth gets dug up every time Native Americans come to Cleveland to protest the Indians name and, more specifically, the Chief Wahoo logo. Tribe fans like to cling to the myth as a justification for their argument that they are "honoring" Native American culture by continuing to use a goofy looking charicature.

Chip R
04-15-2010, 12:00 AM
The Sockalexis myth gets dug up every time Native Americans come to Cleveland to protest the Indians name and, more specifically, the Chief Wahoo logo. Tribe fans like to cling to the myth as a justification for their argument that they are "honoring" Native American culture by continuing to use a goofy looking charicature.

We need our myths too. Like the one that the 1869 Red Stockings are the ancestors of the current Reds franchise.

westofyou
04-15-2010, 02:30 AM
We need our myths too. Like the one that the 1869 Red Stockings are the ancestors of the current Reds franchise.

Biggest lie in Cincinnati sports hands down

reds1869
04-15-2010, 08:32 AM
We need our myths too. Like the one that the 1869 Red Stockings are the ancestors of the current Reds franchise.

Hey now, I like that myth. I need a screen name, you know.

In all honesty, the 1869 Red Stockings are the spiritual ancestors of this franchise. The Reds would not be here without them and the name of the modern day franchise is a direct reflection of that fact. Now, if you really want to make your head hurt, consider this fact: The 1869 Red Stockings are now the Atlanta Braves. :eek:

Redsfan320
04-15-2010, 08:56 AM
The 1869 Red Stockings are now the Atlanta Braves.

Yes indeed. They moved to Boston, where they eventually became the Boston Braves, then moved to Milwaukee, then Atlanta. Still though, they were the first pro baseball team in Cincy (or anywhere else), and, as r1869 said, they were the ancestors of the Reds, just not directly.

320

Chip R
04-15-2010, 10:37 AM
Now, if you really want to make your head hurt, consider this fact: The 1869 Red Stockings are now the Atlanta Braves. :eek:

Not necessarily. The Red Stockings were members - albiet ringers - of the Cincinnati Base Ball Club which was more of a social club than anything. Most of the club members didn't even play base ball except the ones who played recreationally. After the 1870 season, the club decided that having a professional team was too expensive and the players went elsewhere. Half went to Boston and half went to the Washington Olympics since there was a bit of dissension among the team. It would be more accurate to say that once upon a time, the Braves had members of the Cincinnati Red Stockings playing for their organization.

Also, the 1869 date is misleading. It assumes that the Red Stockings were made up out of whole cloth in 1869. The Cincinnati Base Ball club formed in 1866. Long story short, Harry Wright formed a semi-pro base ball team and lost a game to the touring Washington Nationals (with Harry's brother George as their best player) in Cincinnati. That loss provided the impetus for them to form an all professional team in 1869 since the rules were changed after the 1868 season to allow teams to hire pros over the table. George Wright came over and a few others as well and they became the 1869 Red Stockings.

A weak argument could be made that the Red Stockings are the direct ancestor of the Reds by using the Cleveland Browns example. The current day Browns say they are a continuation of the one that moved to Baltimore.

westofyou
04-15-2010, 10:41 AM
Not necessarily. The Red Stockings were members - albiet ringers - of the Cincinnati Base Ball Club which was more of a social club than anything. Most of the club members didn't even play base ball except the ones who played recreationally. After the 1870 season, the club decided that having a professional team was too expensive and the players went elsewhere. Half went to Boston and half went to the Washington Olympics since there was a bit of dissension among the team. It would be more accurate to say that once upon a time, the Braves had members of the Cincinnati Red Stockings playing for their organization.

Also, the 1869 date is misleading. It assumes that the Red Stockings were made up out of whole cloth in 1869. The Cincinnati Base Ball club formed in 1866. Long story short, Harry Wright formed a semi-pro base ball team and lost a game to the touring Washington Nationals (with Harry's brother George as their best player) in Cincinnati. That loss provided the impetus for them to form an all professional team in 1869 since the rules were changed after the 1868 season to allow teams to hire pros over the table. George Wright came over and a few others as well and they became the 1869 Red Stockings.

A weak argument could be made that the Red Stockings are the direct ancestor of the Reds by using the Cleveland Browns example. The current day Browns say they are a continuation of the one that moved to Baltimore.And hence when I hear "the oldest franchise in MLB" I have to chuckle at that blatant and obvious lie. It's really something that shouldn't be said that way, it's classic misinformation.

Chip R
04-15-2010, 10:50 AM
And hence when I hear "the oldest franchise in MLB" I have to chuckle at that blatant and obvious lie. It's really something that shouldn't be said that way, it's classic misinformation.

It is. The most accurate thing you could say is that Cincinnati had the first openly professional base ball team. But we need our myths. :)

reds1869
04-15-2010, 11:29 AM
It is. The most accurate thing you could say is that Cincinnati had the first openly professional base ball team. But we need our myths. :)

Come on, next thing I know you'll tell me Abraham Lincoln told a lie! ;)

yab1112
04-15-2010, 11:36 AM
Myth:Busted. I didn't know all that. Now I'll be forced to question all my deeply-rooted baseball beliefs

I guess sometimes ignorance is bliss :(

Yachtzee
04-15-2010, 06:57 PM
And hence when I hear "the oldest franchise in MLB" I have to chuckle at that blatant and obvious lie. It's really something that shouldn't be said that way, it's classic misinformation.

Personally, I've always questioned whether a franchise belongs to a city and its fans or to the owners. Teams exist in part because of the owners and players, but I also feel that the fans play a big role in the existence of a team. The fans are the ones who support the team and live and die with the team when it does well and when it does poorly. When a team wins a championship, it is as much a part of the city's history as it is the team's. So when these teams are purchased by new ownership and moved to new cities, I feel they have less claim to the history of the team than the city from which the team moved. The only claim some current teams have to the history of the team in other cities is the chain of ownership.

While the 1869 Red Stockings may not have a direct connection to the Reds of today through a chain of ownership, I feel the current Reds have a connection to the 1869 Reds in spirit, so I have no problem with the current Reds honoring that team, as it is part of the history of baseball in Cincinnati. Cincinnati certainly has a greater claim to that team than the Braves, who merely brought in the manager and some players from that team to play in Beantown. If anything, the 1869 Reds became defunct when they went back to amateur status, even though I suspect there might be some people that were associated with the 1869 Reds involved in the 1882 Cincinnati Reds. Were there any members of the 1882 ownership group who were members of the Cincinnati Base Ball Club fron 1866-1870?

Seriously, doesn't it seem silly for teams like the Dodgers, Giants, Braves, Athletics, Twins, and Orioles to lay claim to championships won in Brooklyn, NY, Boston, Philly, Washington, and St. Louis? The people of LA, SF, Atlanta, etc. weren't a part of those championships and have no real connection to the history. In fact, at this point, the connection with those earlier teams are so attenuated, I feel that the history of the Dodgers, Giants, Braves, etc. should be considered to start at the point when they arrived at their current cities. And while current teams in those lost cities can't necessarily lay claim to the championships of those earlier teams, I have no problem if the Mets, Brewers and Nats want to pay homage to earlier franchises in their city as part of the city's baseball history. You're more likely to have people there with an emotional and historical connection with those earlier championship teams in the city where they were won than you will in those team's new cities.

oneupper
04-15-2010, 07:02 PM
I think the Twins try to forget their Senator's legacy. The Orioles could best forget the Browns, too.

westofyou
04-15-2010, 07:03 PM
Were there any members of the 1882 ownership group who were members of the Cincinnati Base Ball Club fron 1866-1870?


No, I'm fairly certain that's not a case, nor did any of them have a hand in the first NL Cincy franchise (the one that was kicked out of the league)

The fact is spirtually connected or not the Reds are not the oldest professional franchise in baseball, a claim they trumpet about quite often.

Chip R
04-15-2010, 07:36 PM
Were there any members of the 1882 ownership group who were members of the Cincinnati Base Ball Club fron 1866-1870?


I have a list of members of the CBBC from 1866-71. If you can find members of the 82 ownership group, I might be able to confirm. Although I'm not sure why you are starting in 1882 since Cincinnati was a charter member of the NL in 1876. I realize they were kicked out of the NL after the 1880 season but one could say that they just were dormant for a year before joining the American Association.

Yachtzee
04-15-2010, 07:56 PM
I have a list of members of the CBBC from 1866-71. If you can find members of the 82 ownership group, I might be able to confirm. Although I'm not sure why you are starting in 1882 since Cincinnati was a charter member of the NL in 1876. I realize they were kicked out of the NL after the 1880 season but one could say that they just were dormant for a year before joining the American Association.

Very true. I started with 1882 because that is generally considered the official start of this "franchise." I've always considered the 1882 Reds to be a continuation of the 1876 NL Reds who were booted out for, as I understand, Sunday beer sales. But I know there's debate over whether the 1876 Reds were merely dormant a year before joining the AA in 1882 or were a new team. I can recall, but I don't remember where, an argument that the 1869 Red Stockings are tied to the current Reds through members of the CBBC. The story I remember was that, after 1870, the CBBC voted to return to amateur status, with the professional players choosing either to follow Harry Wright to Boston where he had lined up financial backing for a new team, or signing with other professional teams. The Cincinnati Red Stockings continued to exist as an amateur team until going professional again in 1876 at the advent of the NL. This new professional team was beset by turmoil in its ownership ranks during this time and was eventually booted from the NL until it reappeared in the AA in 1882 with a more stable ownership group.

Really, the only reason the whole "Reds as oldest franchise" is considered a myth is because no one can trace a direct chain of ownership from the current franchise to the original 1869 Reds. The more I think about it, the more I feel the example set by the NFL and the Cleveland Browns in the 1990s is the proper way to think of sports franchises. The history of the team belongs to the city and not the owners. I think it is especially true today, when you have fans who put so much time and money into a team through purchasing season tickets, buying merchandise and following the team on TV and Radio. The people and owners of the Braves have little to no connection to the Braves of Boston or Milwaukee these days, let alone the Boston Red Stockings of 1871. When the team moved, it essentially wiped the slate clean in favor of a fresh start in a new town.

I think the only team that can claim to be the longest continuous franchise in MLB is Cubs franchise in Chicago. Same city, continuous chain of ownership.