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