MLB teams that deserve more founding year historical credit

[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