MLB teams that deserve more founding year historical credit

[zljones]

I posted this in another section but it did not get much exposure as I think it would here. I have been doing some mild research on the history of Baseball and I wanted to get some opinions on this subject (if anyone has any).

Whenever I look around the internet I see these founding years for our oldest teams:

Chicago Cubs: 1876
Atlanta Braves: 1871
Cincinnati Reds: 1882
St. Louis Cardinals: 1882
Chicago White Sox: 1894, or some say 1901
Cleveland Indians: 1894
Minnesota Twins: 1894, some say 1901
Baltimore Orioles: 1894
Detroit Tigers: 1894

I agree with the Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers and Baltimore Orioles founding years but I disagree with the rest. My interest in 19th century cards has led me to research 19th century Baseball and learn about these team's histories. Some of these teams should deserve more historical credit in my opinion. Here's the way I think it should be

Chicago Cubs: 1870
Atlanta Braves: 1871
St. Louis Cardinals: 1875
Cincinnati Reds: 1876
Chicago White Sox: 1888
Minnesota Twins: 1888
Cleveland Indians: 1894
Baltimore Orioles: 1894
Detroit Tigers: 1894

Chicago Cubs formed professionally as the Chicago White Stockings in 1870 then entered the N.A. in 1871 until the National League formed in 1876. I don't think they should be considered founded in 1876 just because that was the year of the N.L. formation. They went inactive from 1872-1874 but the same businessmen kept the organization, it never collapsed and died.

The St. Louis Brown Stockings were first formed in 1875, after 1877 season they were falling apart financially and accused of being involved in throwing games. They were kicked out of the N.L. The franchise never disappeared completely it was just inactive professionally until it was bought by Chris Von Der ah in 1882. It's the same franchise just a new owner, so why can't the Cardinals get credit for 1875-1882? The team was there just inactive.

The Cincinnati Red Stockings formed in 1866 then went pro in 1869. The team fell apart financially after 1870 season. Pieces of it went to the Boston Red Stockings in 1871. By 1876 a brand new Cincinnati Red Stockings appeared which had no relation to the original franchise so neither the Reds or the Braves get credit for 1866. This new Cincinnati Franchise was formed in 1876 in the N.L. and lasted through 1880 when Justus Thorner was in charge. The same exact franchise was brought to the A.A. along with Justus Thorner and the other Cincinnati businessmen that controlled the 1876 Red Stockings. So if it is the same franchise with the same businessmen in charge, why not give them credit for being formed in 1876? It's the same team and it transitioned into the A.A. then eventually back to the N.L. So why no credit?

The Sioux City Cornhuskers formed in 1888 in the Western Association Minor Leagues, they had issues but stayed around until after 1891. The franshise went dorment in 1892 and 1893, but the same exact franchise was brought into the Western League in 1894 which would become the Chicago White Sox. So why can't the Sox get credit for 1888? They got it as the Cornhuskers in 1894 so why not Cornhuskers of 1888? It should not matter that the team went dorment at times and maybe had new ownership it is still the same team, same franchise that evolved.

The Kansas City Blues formed in 1888 as a minor League franchise. They were around all the way until they were taken into the Western League in 1894, which is when they started getting credit. They eventually became the Washington Senators then the Minnesota Twins. Why can't the Twins get credit for 1888? Once again it's the same franchise just shuffled around.

I can understand that teams are like businesses and get new owners but it should not matter, it is still the same franchise. When the Reds came about in 1876 they were not the same franchise as 1869 Reds, so I won't give them credit for 1869 or 1866. But these other franchises never died out, they deserve more credit.

Opinions.....?

[T206Collector]

I think of it less like "historical credit" than a discussion about relative lineages, i.e., how far back can you trace the existence of a particular franchise. Are you basing it on ownership? Players? City? Team name? League? Etc. I think you could trace lineage using any or all of these criteria, as long as you specify how or why you are relying on a certain criteria to link the Minnesota Twins of the 1960s to the Kansas City Blues of the late 1800s.

[Wite3]

Umm...where are the Phillies on this list...Worchester Ruby Legs were replaced in 1883 by the Philadelphia Phillies and they never looked back!

Joshua

[zljones]

Originally Posted by Wite3

Umm...where are the Phillies on this list...Worchester Ruby Legs were replaced in 1883 by the Philadelphia Phillies and they never looked back!

Joshua

Really? I had no idea about that, well then definately add that to the list if they came from the Ruby Legs.

[z28jd]

I had enough people after I wrote this article,
http://blogs.piratesprospects.com/hi...ear-ago-today/

ask me why the Pirates say 1887 all over the place for their first year, that I wrote this article

http://blogs.piratesprospects.com/hi...-1882-or-1887/

As you can see by the dates, they are very recent. Teams have an odd way of recognizing their own beginnings. I read that the Cardinals didn't want to acknowledge their 10,000th win in franchise history because the first ten years worth of wins happened in the AA. A group of fans protested it, rightfully so. They wanted to wait until they reached 10,000 NL wins to celebrate it

[FrankWakefield]

The Cards should have counted the AA games.... MLB would. I'm a Cards fan.

The Cubs have a bunch of wins. Earlier this season, while discussing the standings with a Reds fan, I was told that wins against the Cubs shouldn't count...

The Phillies on the list... maybe it's 'cause he was talking about historical and deserving, not just historical.

Just a few provocative jabs to stir things a bit...

[jcmtiger]

Why are the Detroit Tigers last in your list?

Joe

[scooter729]

Since the Orioles were originally the St. Louis Browns who moved in '53 or '54, why doesn't that date them to 1901 instead of 1894?

The Temple Cup teams from 1894 with Hughie Jennings et al aren't the same Orioles as the team there today, so is there an older connection than 1901?

[drumback]

The Baltimore Orioles of the 1890s eventually became the New York Yankees.

[zljones]

Originally Posted by scooter729

Since the Orioles were originally the St. Louis Browns who moved in '53 or '54, why doesn't that date them to 1901 instead of 1894?

The Temple Cup teams from 1894 with Hughie Jennings et al aren't the same Orioles as the team there today, so is there an older connection than 1901?

Before they were the St. Louis Browns in 1901, they were the Milwaukee Brewers in the Western League which became the American League.

[zljones]

Originally Posted by drumback

The Baltimore Orioles of the 1890s eventually became the New York Yankees.

From my understanding the Baltimore Orioles from 1892-1899 were dead in 1899. The Baltimore Orioles from 1901 that became the New York Highlanders in 1903 then the Yankees by 1912 were not the same group at all as the 1882-1899 Orioles, not any part of it from my understanding.

[zljones]

Originally Posted by jcmtiger

Why are the Detroit Tigers last in your list?

Joe

No reason

[drumback]

I stand corrected. Wasn't thinking clearly. . However, it was a couple of the 1890s Orioles, McGraw and Robinson, who led the way in bringing about the 1901 Orioles, who eventually became the Yankees.

[zljones]

Originally Posted by drumback

I stand corrected. Wasn't thinking clearly. . However, it was a couple of the 1890s Orioles, McGraw and Robinson, who led the way in bringing about the 1901 Orioles, who eventually became the Yankees.

Yes they did. And 19th Century Baseball can be confusing as heck because they kept using the same names.

[esd10]

i believe that the 1919 cincinnati reds need to get more credit they where a very good there record was 96-44 and had some great players and a hofer in edd roush.

[jalex]

Originally Posted by esd10

i believe that the 1919 cincinnati reds need to get more credit they where a very good there record was 96-44 and had some great players and a hofer in edd roush.

Agreed, the 1919 Reds were better than history tells. Unfortunately we'll never know how good because the Sox were crooked...

And just because it's my area of collecting interest and my hometown, Indianapolis has had a pro team since 1876. The franchise changed several times, spent several years in the early NL, WL, AA, etc... as the Blues and the Hoosiers and the current Indians franchise began in 1902. Apparently, and I don't have much info on it, but the Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) played games in Indianapolis in 1878. My hometown has a rich Pro ball history...

The midwest was swarming with teams in the early baseball years. I love that era, impossible to completely understand, but fun...

Cheers,

Jim

[Hot Springs Bathers]

Zach- All 8 of the original American League teams were formed on their own and not teams migrating from the National League or the American Association where many of the owners were rounded up.

I don't know where you found the starting dates but all eight of the 2012 Media Guides for the original 8 AL teams simply list their origins back to 1901 and Ban Johnson's new league.

Until recently the Yankees have even been reluctant to add the 1901 season in their history though it was certainly their start in Baltimore!

[zljones]

Originally Posted by Hot Springs Bathers

Zach- All 8 of the original American League teams were formed on their own and not teams migrating from the National League or the American Association where many of the owners were rounded up.

I don't know where you found the starting dates but all eight of the 2012 Media Guides for the original 8 AL teams simply list their origins back to 1901 and Ban Johnson's new league.

Until recently the Yankees have even been reluctant to add the 1901 season in their history though it was certainly their start in Baltimore!

None of the A.L. teams came from the National League at all. They either formed in 1901 or they formed with Western Association League of Western League. The White Sox and Twins stem back to Western Association days. While the Tigers, Indians, and current Orioles stem stricktly from Western League. White Sox and Twins were added to the Western League in 1894 after time spent in the Western Association. The White Sox (back then Sioux City Cornhuskers) won the 1891 Western Association Championship or Pennant. They also beat the Chicago Colts and St. Louis Browns in postseason showdown with Cap Anson and the Colts and Charlie Comiskey and the Browns. That says to me the 1891 Cornhuskers were damn good!

[triwak]

I agree about the St. Louis Cardinals origins dating back to 1875, although as you mentioned, they were pretty sporadic until joining the AA in 1882. But why the modern team DOES NOT credit the AA years is beyond me - and pisses me off?! (Most memorabilia and "authorities" state 1892 as the origin year). This totally discounts 4 additional league pennants, which are not recognized on the walls of Busch Stadium. Should be 22 instead of 18. I've often wondered if they did not want any connection to Charlie Comiskey (player/manager of the AA team), because of his later Chicago connection? I'm getting ready to have a St. Louis Brown Stockings jersey made, with "Comiskey" on the back. Can't wait to see people's reaction when I go to Busch - which I do, often. Huge Cardinal fan!

[zljones]

Originally Posted by triwak

I agree about the St. Louis Cardinals origins dating back to 1875, although as you mentioned, they were pretty sporadic until joining the AA in 1882. But why the modern team DOES NOT credit the AA years is beyond me - and pisses me off?! (Most memorabilia and "authorities" state 1892 as the origin year). This totally discounts 4 additional league pennants, which are not recognized on the walls of Busch Stadium. Should be 22 instead of 18. I've often wondered if they did not want any connection to Charlie Comiskey (player/manager of the AA team), because of his later Chicago connection? I'm getting ready to have a St. Louis Brown Stockings jersey made, with "Comiskey" on the back. Can't wait to see people's reaction when I go to Busch - which I do, often. Huge Cardinal fan!

I am right with you on that. As a White Sox fan I can appreciate Comiskey for obvious reasons. And I have respect for the Cards because of Comiskey, and I accredit him for starting the Cubs/Sox rivalry and the Cubs/Cards rivalry. Of course there are other factors but Comiskey caused a stir. Comiskey also helped build the AA Browns up tremendously. If it wasn't for him with winning Championships, Chris Von Der Eh's drunk ass possibly would have sunk the team due to his gambling and drinking. It just makes me shutter that the Cardinals franchise does not want more historical credit. If they did they would be one of the top three oldest teams. They should not be upset being affiliated with Comiskey, they have to remember they hate the Cubs not the Sox. Comiskey hated the Cubs and so do I so I should get a Sox shirt with Comiskey on it with some Cardinals stuff on it too to commemorate both teams that Comiskey was a major part of, and sit at Wrigley just to tick Cubs fans off