PDA

View Full Version : More MLB revisionist history?


Hangar18
03-14-2006, 12:38 PM
I may be wrong here, but didnt the Washington Nationals come into existence in 2005? I see the MLB is adding 100 years to their history ......

http://service2.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=37924709&siteid=39917763&bfinfo=sportstores&bfpid=2099505&bfmtype=standard

Iwritecode
03-14-2006, 12:46 PM
I may be wrong here, but didnt the Washington Nationals come into existence in 2005? I see the MLB is adding 100 years to their history ......

http://service2.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=37924709&siteid=39917763&bfinfo=sportstores&bfpid=2099505&bfmtype=standard

Played As:
Washington Senators
1901-1904

Washington Nationals
1905-1955

Washington Senators
1956-1960

Minnesota Twins
1961-Present

Read more here. (http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/al/wasdc/nats.html)

Baby Fisk
03-14-2006, 12:51 PM
That shirt is technically correct, but skirts around some important facts.

The Nationals website declares that that franchise's history began in 1968 as the Expos: linky (http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/was/history/index.jsp)

The original Washington franchise is the present-day Twins. You would think their website would follow the same explanation as the Nats/Expos, but it does not. The Twins franchise declares that its history began in 1960: linky (http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/min/history/timeline1.jsp)

However, the original Washington franchise was founded in 1901 as the Senators, and took on the name of Nationals in 1905. Both nicknames stuck with the team.

So, yes, Virginia, the "Washington Nationals" did exist in 1905, but not the current Washington Nationals franchise.

Hangar18
03-14-2006, 01:00 PM
Ridiculous. In my eyes, once you leave a city/town and change your name, you also sell-out your history (looks at Milwaukee Brewers)
The White SOX were originally a StPaul franchise before 1900. They moved to Chicago in 1901 and became the White Sox. They were called something else also. This is nonsense that they will sell that as "history" when it isnt the same franchise or werent that team back in the day

Baby Fisk
03-14-2006, 01:37 PM
You could sell t-shirts that say "Chicago White Stockings 1876" and they would technically be correct.

spiffie
03-15-2006, 10:46 AM
The important question is how can this be blamed on Tribco and what about this will benefit the Cubs?

areilly
03-15-2006, 11:19 AM
Dude, what's the score?


(YES! I've wanted to post that since I first started visiting this site!)

VenturaSoxFan23
03-15-2006, 12:51 PM
I blame the NFL and their treatment of the 1999 expansion Cleveland Browns for this mix-up. They started an odd-ball trend.

Remember, when Cleveland's expansion team was admitted, the NFL said they would also assume all former Cleveland Browns records from up to 1996, when they moved to Baltimore. So, if you look for Browns' record-holders, you will see Jim Brown's name there, but he never had any sort of link with the current franchise.

The Ravens, on the other hand, are treated like they were the expansion team, as their records do not go any earlier than 1996, the year they moved. Did they do the same thing with the Houston Oilers when they split for Memphis, then Nashville? No.

Anyway, just thought I'd confuse you a little more.

downstairs
03-15-2006, 12:56 PM
Didn't the Atlanta Braves have a game against Milwaukee last year where each team was wearing throw-back "Braves" uniforms?

Hangar18
03-15-2006, 12:57 PM
I blame the NFL and their treatment of the 1999 expansion Cleveland Browns for this mix-up. They started an odd-ball trend.

Remember, when Cleveland's expansion team was admitted, the NFL said they would also assume all former Cleveland Browns records from up to 1996, when they moved to Baltimore. So, if you look for Browns' record-holders, you will see Jim Brown's name there, but he never had any sort of link with the current franchise.

The Ravens, on the other hand, are treated like they were the expansion team, as their records do not go any earlier than 1996, the year they moved. Did they do the same thing with the Houston Oilers when they split for Memphis, then Nashville? No.

Anyway, just thought I'd confuse you a little more.


Yup. The NFL committed a number of gaffes regarding the moving of teams at will. I was a big Houston Oiler fan and now .....just cant figure out who im rooting for? The Titans? The Texans? Sorry, I just decided to not be an NFL fan after all that

Baby Fisk
03-15-2006, 12:58 PM
I blame the NFL and their treatment of the 1999 expansion Cleveland Browns for this mix-up. They started an odd-ball trend.

Remember, when Cleveland's expansion team was admitted, the NFL said they would also assume all former Cleveland Browns records from up to 1996, when they moved to Baltimore. So, if you look for Browns' record-holders, you will see Jim Brown's name there, but he never had any sort of link with the current franchise.

The Ravens, on the other hand, are treated like they were the expansion team, as their records do not go any earlier than 1996, the year they moved. Did they do the same thing with the Houston Oilers when they split for Memphis, then Nashville? No.

Anyway, just thought I'd confuse you a little more.
Technically, there are three franchises in baseball that can lay claim to being the Washington franchise right now.

chaerulez
03-15-2006, 01:58 PM
Interesting enough when the Twins were the Nationals, the fans never acknowledge that name, instead they kept calling them the Senators.

Max Power
03-15-2006, 02:08 PM
Didn't the Atlanta Braves have a game against Milwaukee last year where each team was wearing throw-back "Braves" uniforms?

Yes, they did. It was in Milwaukee. Looked strange, but oddly cool.

Hangar18
03-16-2006, 09:28 AM
Yes, they did. It was in Milwaukee. Looked strange, but oddly cool.


Yes, but it was the Milwaukee BREWERS who looked like the Chumps, pretending to everyone that THEY were the Braves, which they werent.
That Brave team moved to Atlanta and are now called the ATLANTA BRAVES.

The Brewers are Chumps, and unfortuneately by association make their fans look foolish now too...........The Brewers dont have any of their AL heritage to fall back on either ............they can thank Bud Selig forward thinking

Baby Fisk
03-16-2006, 09:37 AM
Yes, but it was the Milwaukee BREWERS who looked like the Chumps, pretending to everyone that THEY were the Braves, which they werent.
That Brave team moved to Atlanta and are now called the ATLANTA BRAVES.

The Brewers are Chumps, and unfortuneately by association make their fans look foolish now too...........The Brewers dont have any of their AL heritage to fall back on either ............they can thank Bud Selig forward thinking
Plenty of AL heritage for the Brewer franchise:

http://www.historylink.org/db_images/bb05.jpghttp://www.dugout-memories.com/69pilotj.jpg

The 1969 Seattle Pilots: the team that time forgot.

Max Power
03-16-2006, 11:48 AM
Yes, but it was the Milwaukee BREWERS who looked like the Chumps, pretending to everyone that THEY were the Braves, which they werent.
That Brave team moved to Atlanta and are now called the ATLANTA BRAVES.

The Brewers are Chumps, and unfortuneately by association make their fans look foolish now too...........The Brewers dont have any of their AL heritage to fall back on either ............they can thank Bud Selig forward thinking

Oh, I agree. The Brewers played a home game and wore retro uniforms of the team that they were playing against. Dumb, in that sense. I just thought it was cool to see two teams playing each other and both wearing Braves uniforms, from different eras. By the way, the older Braves uni, that the Brewers wore with the black tomahawk, was much better looking.
This is hardly the worst crime against uniforms that an MLB team has committed. I believe Tampa Bay wore retro uniforms of a local college team last year. Now that's ridiculous.

TDog
03-16-2006, 04:19 PM
Plenty of AL heritage for the Brewer franchise:

http://www.historylink.org/db_images/bb05.jpghttp://www.dugout-memories.com/69pilotj.jpg

The 1969 Seattle Pilots: the team that time forgot.

... as documented in Jim Bouton's Ball Four. Bill Melton had one unforgettable day in Sicks Stadium (http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/sickss.htm) in which his bid for a fourth home run missed by inches and went for a double.

I even loved the Sox in 1969.