PDA

View Full Version : why is it the white SOX?


Cubbiesuck13
05-25-2004, 09:59 AM
i am sure this is a stupid question but bear with me please. how come sox and not socks?

DrummerGeorgefan
05-25-2004, 10:05 AM
IIRC, and others feel free to prove me wrong, the cks was replaced with an X to save on print space for box scores and headlines

MarqSox
05-25-2004, 10:07 AM
Ironically enough, the Chicago Tribune named us. We used to be the White Stockings, but the Trib found that "Sox" fit much better in headlines. Thus, they started calling us the White Sox, and the name stuck. I think the change became official around 1910 or so, though I'm not sure the exact year.

WinningUgly!
05-25-2004, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Ironically enough, the Chicago Tribune named us. We used to be the White Stockings, but the Trib found that "Sox" fit much better in headlines. Thus, they started calling us the White Sox, and the name stuck. I think the change became official around 1910 or so, though I'm not sure the exact year.

Even back then, the Tribune wanted to give us as little ink as they could get away with!

bestkosher
05-25-2004, 10:15 AM
it comes from when the chicago white stockings were owned by spaulding, ironically enough the maker of white socks for baseball.

MarqSox
05-25-2004, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by bestkosher
it comes from when the chicago white stockings were owned by spaulding, ironically enough the maker of white socks for baseball.
Not exactly. Spaulding owned the White Stockings of the National League the franchise now known as the Chicago Cubs. Once the Cubs abandoned the name, Charles Comiskey moved the St. Paul Saints to Chicago in 1900 and revived the White Stockings name for the new American League. They were the White Stockings for several years before becoming the Sox.

It's very possible that Spaulding was the first to use the name "Sox" I've never heard that, but it's plausible. Still, our franchise started out as the Stockings, and Spaulding had nothing to do with the name change.

Irishsox1
05-25-2004, 10:56 AM
If we're the White Sox, when did the Red Sox come along with their name and who came first? As a kid I was always confused as to why there were two MLB teams called the Sox, but that only the color was different.

MarqSox
05-25-2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Irishsox1
If we're the White Sox, when did the Red Sox come along with their name and who came first? As a kid I was always confused as to why there were two MLB teams called the Sox, but that only the color was different.
The Red Sox were known as the Pilgrims when we first called ourselved the Sox. We predate the usage of that name by several years. So next time someone refers to us as "the other Sox," make sure to remind them that we had the name first.

Kadafi311
05-25-2004, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Irishsox1
If we're the White Sox, when did the Red Sox come along with their name and who came first? As a kid I was always confused as to why there were two MLB teams called the Sox, but that only the color was different.

According to this website (http://www.geocities.com/prosportshistory/alpbchistory.html) the Chicago White Stockings became the Chicago White Sox in 1904 and the Boston Puritans became the Boston Red Sox in 1907.

Another interesting note, Cincinnati also called themselves the Red Stockings, then shorted the name to the Cincinnati Red Legs, before finally shortening it again to the Reds.

idseer
05-25-2004, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Kadafi311
According to this website (http://www.geocities.com/prosportshistory/alpbchistory.html) the Chicago White Stockings became the Chicago White Sox in 1904 and the Boston Puritans became the Boston Red Sox in 1907.

Another interesting note, Cincinnati also called themselves the Red Stockings, then shorted the name to the Cincinnati Red Legs, before finally shortening it again to the Reds.

not my understanding at all.
i read that cincinnati was known as the reds up until the "threat" of the 'red menace'. they changed it to the redlegs and didn't change back to the reds until the 60's.

anyone know a little more about this?

idseer
05-25-2004, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by idseer
not my understanding at all.
i read that cincinnati was known as the reds up until the "threat" of the 'red menace'. they changed it to the redlegs and didn't change back to the reds until the 60's.

anyone know a little more about this?

check out this site for an explanation:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_302b.html

Kadafi311
05-25-2004, 12:53 PM
Another interesting note, Cincinnati also called themselves the Red Stockings, then shorted the name to the Cincinnati Red Legs, before finally shortening it again to the Reds.

Allow myself to make like Karl Malone and quote... myself.

So basically yeah, like I said, they were the Red Stockings, then the Red Legs, before it was finally shortened to the Reds.

TDog
05-25-2004, 12:55 PM
A Walt Disney cartoon I saw as a kid said a baseball player's socks were "what his team was named after." Some years ago in the minor leagues, many teams had names with "Sox" in them -- Blue Sox, Silver Sox, etc. Now the biggest minor-league-team name trend seems to involve "Dawgs."

This is a cool thread. And, y'know, the Pittsburgh Pirates really did steal players from other teams, and legend has it that a Native American man played for the early Cleaveland Indians.

Cubbiesuck13
05-25-2004, 12:59 PM
This is a cool thread. And, y'know, the Pittsburgh Pirates really did steal players from other teams, and legend has it that a Native American man played for the early Cleaveland Indians.

who did they steal? and how?

SpringfldFan
05-25-2004, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
The Red Sox were known as the Pilgrims when we first called ourselved the Sox. We predate the usage of that name by several years. So next time someone refers to us as "the other Sox," make sure to remind them that we had the name first.

Hey, if we were the first "Sox" then we could just as well do away with the word "White" and just be called the Sox since we are the original ones. Then we could go ahead and add that green to the uniforms without having it conflicting with the name!

Brian26
05-25-2004, 01:52 PM
Great thread, seriously.

ode to veeck
05-25-2004, 03:42 PM
Beats the heck outta another @)*$&($&^@ trade rumor thread by a country mile

minastirith67
05-25-2004, 03:56 PM
There needs to be more threads concerning baseball history...unless it is beating a dead horse that I'm not aware of.

Certainly beats threads about so-and-so should be traded and all that nonsense. Best to write about the past and present instead of idle speculation of the future.

doublem23
05-25-2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by TDog
and legend has it that a Native American man played for the early Cleaveland Indians.

I've heard that, too. I'm not sure of his name, but in the early days of the franchise now known as the Indians, they had a Native-American player and it was supposedly some kind of scandal, so the team changed their name to the Indians, though I'm not sure if it was to immortalize him (which obviously didn't work if I can't think of his name), or to make fun of him.

For a while though, they were the Cleveland Naps, for Napoleon Lajoie (sp?), their superstar.

EDIT... All right, more history... The Indians took their name in 1915 after Louis Sockalexis, who played for an NL team in Cleveland known as the Indians, so he apparently never played for the team now known as the Indians.

From the Indians' official site (http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cle/history/cle_history_timeline.jsp)

Sockalexis' career (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sockach01.shtml)

I agree this thread is awesome. The history behind the old baseball nicknames is fascinating.

EDIT: According to baseball-reference.com, the Reds were known as the Redlegs from 1954-1959 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CIN/) .

longshot7
05-25-2004, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
The Red Sox were known as the Pilgrims when we first called ourselved the Sox. We predate the usage of that name by several years. So next time someone refers to us as "the other Sox," make sure to remind them that we had the name first.

and before that, they were the Boston Beaneaters - a name which I feel they should still be forced to use. That would keep people out of Fenway.

there's a lot of good history tidbits about names and such in Ken Burns' documentary BASEBALL. A pretty good film, imo.

Cubbiesuck13
05-25-2004, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by longshot7
and before that, they were the Boston Beaneaters - a name which I feel they should still be forced to use. That would keep people out of Fenway.

there's a lot of good history tidbits about names and such in Ken Burns' documentary BASEBALL. A pretty good film, imo.


there maybe some good facts in the film, but i have not seen a good ANYTHING by ken burns. i hate that guy.


when i was younger i had a baseball encyclopedia on cd-rom. it was the most in-depth source on any topic i have ever encountered. from history of teams to rating of just about every player ever. i wish i could remember what it was called.

DonkeyKongerko
05-25-2004, 06:03 PM
Something interesting I read in the Bill James encyclopedia is that teams didn't used to have names. They were merely known by the City they played in and whatever moniker sports writers of the time decided to give the team. Usually this was derived from an article of clothing like red or white stockings.

The first White Stockings were definitely the organization currently known as the Cubs.

npdempse
05-25-2004, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by DonkeyKongerko
Something interesting I read in the Bill James encyclopedia is that teams didn't used to have names. They were merely known by the City they played in and whatever moniker sports writers of the time decided to give the team. .

It's really amusing to see the names of some of the teams in the ill-fated Federal League. Mostly they were the city name+ fed, hence Chifeds, Buffed, Sloufeds (St. Louis).

MarqSox
05-25-2004, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by npdempse
It's really amusing to see the names of some of the teams in the ill-fated Federal League. Mostly they were the city name+ fed, hence Chifeds, Buffed, Sloufeds (St. Louis).
The Chicago team was known as the Chifeds in 1914 before becoming the Chicago Whales in 1915, and Buffalo was known as the Buffeds before adopting the Blues. Some other team names:

Indianapolis Hoosiers
Baltimore Terrapins
Brooklyn Tip-Tops
Kansas City Packers
Pittsburgh Rebels
St. Louis Terriers
Newark Pepper

Cubbiesuck13
05-25-2004, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
The Chicago team was known as the Chifeds in 1914 before becoming the Chicago Whales in 1915, and Buffalo was known as the Buffeds before adopting the Blues. Some other team names:

Indianapolis Hoosiers
Baltimore Terrapins
Brooklyn Tip-Tops
Kansas City Packers
Pittsburgh Rebels
St. Louis Terriers
Newark Pepper

it is funny to see some of the names. imagine in 80 years when teams look back on the XFL...sigh...

TheBull19
05-25-2004, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by TDog
and legend has it that a Native American man played for the early Cleaveland Indians.

That's no legend, Louis "Chief" Sockalexis played for the Cleveland Spiders in the 1890's. I actually read somewhere that all the "Sox" names in baseball, as well as the Indians' name(he died at a young age in the early 1900's, around the time the team wass looking for a new name), were in honor of him, and he was reputed to be able to throw and hit the ball further than any man alive. Some Harvard professor's studied him to see why he could throw a ball so far, according to the story. I doubt the part about the Sox teams being named after him, though, since the Stockings teams were already in existence, I believe.

TheBull19
05-25-2004, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
The Chicago team was known as the Chifeds in 1914 before becoming the Chicago Whales in 1915, and Buffalo was known as the Buffeds before adopting the Blues. Some other team names:

Indianapolis Hoosiers
Baltimore Terrapins
Brooklyn Tip-Tops
Kansas City Packers
Pittsburgh Rebels
St. Louis Terriers
Newark Pepper

Anyone know the original city and name of the team now known as the LA Dodgers(not Brooklyn)? I'll post the answer in a bit.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-25-2004, 07:05 PM
Covering this topic and other related ones, WSI's Uniform History Guide. (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=3&id=2104)

Sox Fans, who loves ya baby?

:)

TornLabrum
05-25-2004, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
Anyone know the original city and name of the team now known as the LA Dodgers(not Brooklyn)? I'll post the answer in a bit.

The original Brooklyn team was known as the "Trolley Dodgers". Later, when a bunch of the players all got married at about the same time, they became known as the Bridegrooms. When Ned Hanlon became their manager, they were known as the Superbas (after a vaudeville act known as Hanlon's Superbas.") When "Uncle" Wilbert Robinson became their manager, the were known as the Robins. When he was fired, the Dodgers name was brought back.

This was all from memory, and I might have missed a nickname or two in there from the 1800s.

TheBull19
05-25-2004, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
The original Brooklyn team was known as the "Trolley Dodgers". Later, when a bunch of the players all got married at about the same time, they became known as the Bridegrooms. When Ned Hanlon became their manager, they were known as the Superbas (after a vaudeville act known as Hanlon's Superbas.") When "Uncle" Wilbert Robinson became their manager, the were known as the Robins. When he was fired, the Dodgers name was brought back.

This was all from memory, and I might have missed a nickname or two in there from the 1800s.

Nope, not Brooklyn. 10 points to anyone who can answer!

TornLabrum
05-25-2004, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
Anyone know the original city and name of the team now known as the LA Dodgers(not Brooklyn)? I'll post the answer in a bit.

Oh, I forgot to mention, the Dodgers AFAIK always played in Brooklyn, originally in the American Association. They joined the AA in 1884 and transferred to the NL in 1890. Also AFAIK they are the only team to win two consecutive pennants in two different major leagues, having won the AA pennant in 1889 and the NL pennant in 1890.

EDIT: A little web research shows that the team was founded as the Brooklyn Atlantics in 1883 as a member of the Interstate League before transferring to the AA in 1884. No research I've ever done (and I've read several books on 19th century baseball, including a great history by Harold Seymour <sp?> has mentioned the Dodgers playing anywhere else before coming to Brooklyn.)

Now there WAS a Brooklyn team in the NL in 1877 that played in 1876 in Hartford (as the Hartford Blues, iirc), but that club folded at the end of that season. When in Brooklyn, they were known as the "Hartfords of Brooklyn."

TheBull19
05-25-2004, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum

EDIT: A little web research shows that the team was founded as the Brooklyn Atlantics in 1883 as a member of the Interstate League before transferring to the AA in 1884. No research I've ever done (and I've read several books on 19th century baseball, including a great history by Harold Seymour <sp?> has mentioned the Dodgers playing anywhere else before coming to Brooklyn.)



Looks like you're right. The article I got my info from must have been confused by the name Brooklyn Atlantics. There was a team by that name in the 1st major league, the National Association, from 1872-1875. That team disbanded in 1875 and apparently is related only by name and location w/ the Atlantics that became the Dodgers. The NA team originated as the Ft. Wayne Kekiongas in 1871 and is credited with playing the 1st major league game may 4, 1871 vs the Cleveland Forest City. My bad - I guess you get those coveted 10 points.

http://www.retrosheet.org/1stGame.htm

Interestingly, according to the play by play listed here, the Kekiongas batted in the bottom of the 9th despite leading 2-0.

SOXintheBURGH
05-25-2004, 08:23 PM
This is my favorite thread ever. I major in history at Penn State and am currently working on a badass thesis about the history of early baseball in the nineteenth century and i am allowing plenty of room at the end for the evolution of the Chicago White Sox and the American League at the turn of the century. Don't think for one minute that Abner Doubleday invented baseball, thats all a big hoax. If anyone is interested maybe I can post some excerpts for anyone really interested in baseball history.

Brett

Cubbiesuck13
05-25-2004, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by SOXintheBURGH
This is my favorite thread ever. I major in history at Penn State and am currently working on a badass thesis about the history of early baseball in the nineteenth century and i am allowing plenty of room at the end for the evolution of the Chicago White Sox and the American League at the turn of the century. Don't think for one minute that Abner Doubleday invented baseball, thats all a big hoax. If anyone is interested maybe I can post some excerpts for anyone really interested in baseball history.

Brett


i read where PA is now claiming that there was a law on the books about not playing ball near buildings. is that accurate?

TheBull19
05-25-2004, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by SOXintheBURGH
Don't think for one minute that Abner Doubleday invented baseball, thats all a big hoax.
Brett

Yeah, I saw something on TV the other week about a document from the 1790's saying no baseball could be played on a certain day, or within a certain distance from a building or something like that.

TornLabrum
05-25-2004, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
Looks like you're right. The article I got my info from must have been confused by the name Brooklyn Atlantics. There was a team by that name in the 1st major league, the National Association, from 1872-1875. That team disbanded in 1875 and apparently is related only by name and location w/ the Atlantics that became the Dodgers. The NA team originated as the Ft. Wayne Kekiongas in 1871 and is credited with playing the 1st major league game may 4, 1871 vs the Cleveland Forest City. My bad - I guess you get those coveted 10 points.

http://www.retrosheet.org/1stGame.htm

Interestingly, according to the play by play listed here, the Kekiongas batted in the bottom of the 9th despite leading 2-0.

In those days, the players pretty much ran the league (which had as its full name the National Association of Professional Baseball Players). So I really doubt that Ft. Wayne shifted a franchise to Brooklyn. In fact the 1871 Kekiongas didn't even complete their schedule, playing on 19 games, the fewest of any team in the Association.

I don't have a roster list of the 1871 Kekiongas and the 1872 Atlantics, but it could be that several of the players moved to Brooklyn lured by bigger bucks. That's pretty much what Boston did to put togehter their powerhouse NA club that won the next four pennants.

That club was in turn broken up by William Hulbert, financial backer of the Chicago White Stockings, who picked the cream of the Boston players plus Adrian Anson from Philadelphia. He then jumped from the NA and formed the National League in 1876. He was the smartest of the financial backers, weighing the league constitution in favor of the people who now became the owners. He also raised the entry fee from the $10 required by the NA to $100, mainly to insure that clubs would play their entire schedule.

TornLabrum
05-25-2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by SOXintheBURGH
This is my favorite thread ever. I major in history at Penn State and am currently working on a badass thesis about the history of early baseball in the nineteenth century and i am allowing plenty of room at the end for the evolution of the Chicago White Sox and the American League at the turn of the century. Don't think for one minute that Abner Doubleday invented baseball, thats all a big hoax. If anyone is interested maybe I can post some excerpts for anyone really interested in baseball history.

Brett

There were many forms of "baseball" played in the early days, but the game we play and watch was derived from the English children's game of rounders. Other forms of baseball included town ball, in which the teams were much bigger and the bases closer together, iirc. (Again, I'm doing a whole lot of this from memory.)

There were two games of "base ball" common in the early-to-middle 19th century. The "Massachusetts game" was not much like todays game from descriptions and field layouts I've seen. The current game is descended not from pastoral origins (like Cooperstown) but New York City.

The first club to publish a set of rules was the Knickerbockers Base Ball Club which set them down in writing in 1845. Several clubs existed before the Knickerbockers were founded and before rules were written down, though. A lot of the rules don't look much like those of the modern game, though. The first team to score 21 "aces" was the winner. Bases and distance to the pitcher's box were measured in paces rather than feet, but they did have a rule for a 9 man squad.

The whole Doubleday myth has its origin with the Cubs...or at least a former player and owner of the Cubs. (Wouldn't you know it?) Al Spalding insisted that baseball had no foreign ancestry and set out to prove it with a commission to investigate the origin of the game. Things were looking bleak until they got a letter from a guy who claimed Doubleday invented the game and pointed out the field (where the diamond at the HOF is now located.) That was all the proof Spalding needing. The commission declared Doubleday the inventor of baseball, even though Doubleday left no personal memoirs having anything to do with the game.

So as far as we can tell, baseball did evolve from rounders, and was played in and around New York City by the 1830s at the latest in a form that we would recognize as ancestral to the modern game.

TornLabrum
05-25-2004, 09:44 PM
Oh, just one more thing...

Sombody mentioned the early names of the Braves. They are the oldest continuous franchise in the history of the game.

They started out as the Red Stockings when the city hijacked most of the Cincinnati Red Stockings once they finally lost a few games. They were in the National Association in 1871.

No later than the 1880s they were known as the Red Caps, and later the Beaneaters. By the early 1900s, when a guy name Dovey owned the club, they were known as the Doves. Somewhere around 1910 or thereabouts (again going from memory), they took the name Braves. However, that name hasn't been continuous.

In the late '30s or early '40s (I'd have to look it up, and I'm too lazy), a new owner named them the Bees, and Braves Field was renamed The Hive. Fortunately that only lasted a couple of years, and the name Braves has stuck through moves to Milwaukee and Atlanta.

Cubbiesuck13
05-25-2004, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Oh, just one more thing...

Sombody mentioned the early names of the Braves. They are the oldest continuous franchise in the history of the game.

They started out as the Red Stockings when the city hijacked most of the Cincinnati Red Stockings once they finally lost a few games. They were in the National Association in 1871.

No later than the 1880s they were known as the Red Caps, and later the Beaneaters. By the early 1900s, when a guy name Dovey owned the club, they were known as the Doves. Somewhere around 1910 or thereabouts (again going from memory), they took the name Braves. However, that name hasn't been continuous.

In the late '30s or early '40s (I'd have to look it up, and I'm too lazy), a new owner named them the Bees, and Braves Field was renamed The Hive. Fortunately that only lasted a couple of years, and the name Braves has stuck through moves to Milwaukee and Atlanta.

that is some good stuff

StockdaleForVeep
05-25-2004, 10:25 PM
Wasnt there also a team in the federal league named the chicago whales?

MarqSox
05-25-2004, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by StockdaleForVeep
Wasnt there also a team in the federal league named the chicago whales?
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=395285#post395285

TDog
05-25-2004, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
That's no legend, ...

I have also read that some scholars dispute the "Chief" thing, which is why I call it a legend. The Doubleday thing, on the other hand, is a myth.

The Pittsburgh team, I have heard, apparently offered players on other team more money to play for them, before the reserve clause ended free agency for many years.

npdempse
05-26-2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Cubbiesuck13
i read where PA is now claiming that there was a law on the books about not playing ball near buildings. is that accurate?

Pittsfield, Mass.:
http://newsobserver.com/24hour/nation/story/1360383p-8572508c.html

longshot7
05-26-2004, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
Looks like you're right. The article I got my info from must have been confused by the name Brooklyn Atlantics. There was a team by that name in the 1st major league, the National Association, from 1872-1875. That team disbanded in 1875 and apparently is related only by name and location w/ the Atlantics that became the Dodgers. The NA team originated as the Ft. Wayne Kekiongas in 1871 and is credited with playing the 1st major league game may 4, 1871 vs the Cleveland Forest City. My bad - I guess you get those coveted 10 points.

I was under the impression that the Reds were the first professional team, hence the reason why (until recently) they always played in the first game every season.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-26-2004, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by longshot7
I was under the impression that the Reds were the first professional team, hence the reason why (until recently) they always played in the first game every season.

Another one of those great myths perpetrated by MLB because it sells the game. :smile:

In Cincinnati it is regarded as the Gospel Truth that theirs is the first professional baseball team. I suppose the residents of Cooperstown have similar sentiments about Abner Doubleday and the alleged first baseball diamond.

longshot7
05-26-2004, 01:47 PM
I'd also like to add (in the funny team names dept) that Joliet had a minor league team in the 19th century-early 20th called the Joliet Convicts. I also like the Kalamazoo Celery Pickers

Baby Fisk
05-26-2004, 02:15 PM
FWIW, I think White Sox is one of the best names in sports. Obviously I'm biased as we all are, but here's why I like it:

-- it is distinctive
-- its origin is simple to figure out
-- it makes for great logos
-- it prevents the use of goofy animal mascots (personal dislike)

Cubbiesuck13
08-03-2004, 11:41 PM
I heard somewhere that Chicago is the oldest city with two teams along with the only place where a city has had 3 million fans in a year for two teams. Is this true? I can't blieve that New York hasn't allready done it.

pczarapa
08-04-2004, 12:28 AM
it comes from when the chicago white stockings were owned by spaulding, ironically enough the maker of white socks for baseball.

Spalding, you'll get nothing and like it! - the honorable Judge Smails

Erik The Red
08-04-2004, 12:32 AM
According to this Baseball Almanac article (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/boston_pilgrims_story.shtml), the Puritans and Pilgrims weren't ever official names of the team that would become the Red Sox. The article refers to the book Red Sox Century (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/0395884179/baseballalmanac), in which several early-1900s newspaper articles are supposedly cited, which refer to the Red Sox by a variety of names. Here's a quote:

"Neither team had a nickname, nor would they for several more seasons. Both were simply called 'the Bostons,' although to differentiate between the two clubs, fans, sportswriters, and players commonly began referring to the NL entry as 'the Nationals,' and their American League counterparts as 'the Americans.' Other nicknames, such as the Pilgrims, Puritans, Plymouth Rocks, Somersets (so named after owner Charles Somers), or Collinsmen (after manager Collins) for the AL team and the Beaneaters, Triumvirs, or Seleemen (after manager Frank Selee) for the Nationals, were convenient inventions of the press. Their subsequent use by many historians is misleading. None of these nicknames was ever widely used by either fans or players."

Check that article out, it's an interesting read.

Iron Dragon
08-04-2004, 12:33 AM
Looks like you're right. The article I got my info from must have been confused by the name Brooklyn Atlantics. There was a team by that name in the 1st major league, the National Association, from 1872-1875. That team disbanded in 1875 and apparently is related only by name and location w/ the Atlantics that became the Dodgers. The NA team originated as the Ft. Wayne Kekiongas in 1871 and is credited with playing the 1st major league game may 4, 1871 vs the Cleveland Forest City. My bad - I guess you get those coveted 10 points.

http://www.retrosheet.org/1stGame.htm

Interestingly, according to the play by play listed here, the Kekiongas batted in the bottom of the 9th despite leading 2-0.

This is a cool thread. I live in Fort Wayne, and interestingly enough, I recently took my son on a walk through Headwaters Park in downtown. I happened to walk by a monument which had information about the Kekiongas and the first baseball game, played right there. There is no baseball diamond there now as it is a park, but it was still cool anyway.

doublem23
08-04-2004, 12:47 AM
I heard somewhere that Chicago is the oldest city with two teams along with the only place where a city has had 3 million fans in a year for two teams. Is this true? I can't blieve that New York hasn't allready done it.
Chicago is the only city to have hosted two baseball teams since the American League became the second Major League in 1901. At the league's onset, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston had a team in each league and Dodgers and Giants both called New York home in the National League. The Milwaukee Brewers moved to St. Louis in 1902 to become the Browns, adding St. Louis to that list and in 1903, the Baltimore Orioles moved to New York, to become the Highlanders (they changed their name to the Yankees in around 1913) to give New York three teams.

The Braves moved Milwaukee in 1953. The Browns moved to Baltimore to become the Orioles in 1954. A year later, Philadelphia lost the Atheltics to Kansas City in 1955. Both of New York's National League teams left for California after the 1957 season, leaving a 4-year gap when the Yankees were the only team in the Big Apple, since the Mets didn't come into existance until 1962.

Cubbiesuck13
08-04-2004, 12:51 AM
mm23, my question was basically how could New York not have had 3 million people attend games for both teams in a single year?

doublem23
08-04-2004, 01:52 AM
Not true. The closest the Mets have come to 3 million was in 2000 when they made it to the World Series. They draw 2,820,530 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYM/2000.shtml).

Chicago has never had both teams break 3 million. I don't think the Cubs ever had (it looks like the closest they ever came was last year when they drew 2,962,630 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2003.shtml)) and according to the 2003 Chicago White Sox Media Guide, the best year ever for Sox attendance was 1991, when they drew 2,934,154.

Cubbiesuck13
08-04-2004, 01:01 PM
I was a bit skeptical of the Sox breaking the 3 million mark due to their slow start and decreased capacity along with the Cubs low capacity. I guess the only city that could do this is LA.