Yankee Trivia

**Old Sweater** · 02-27-2007, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by AutographCollector

Boston Americans: 1901 - 1907
Boston Red Sox: 1908 - present

Sorry dude, but in the last 100 years, Boston has had TWO names.

If you are getting your information from Baseball Almanac on this it could be misleading. Baseball Almanac currently has the the Boston Americans winning the 1903 WS and the Washington Senators winning the 1924 WS. I went and got a copy of the
WS page that I copied from Baseball Almanac in 2002 and it has the Boston Pilgrims winning the 1903 WS and the Washington Nationals winning the 1924 WS. Now we all know that the Washington Club was officially the Nationals till the latter 50's then became the Twins in 61 or so.

The WS page changed to the Senators after the new Washington Nationals started. When Boston changed to the Americans form the Pilgrims I have no clue. Just caught it today when I dug up my 2002 copy of the WS winners page from Baseball Almanac. Maybe some of Baseball Fevers members that do work for Baseball Almanac can explain why they switched names since 2002 and the reason why they did, history shouldn't change like that.

This is a good read on the past names for the Boston Red Sox.

**Old Sweater** · 02-28-2007, 08:46 AM

So Auto and Mikey, you still believe that the Red Sox only had 2 names since 1901?

**mikeymussina35** · 02-28-2007, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Old Sweater

So Auto and Mikey, you still believe that the Red Sox only had 2 names since 1901?

Yeahhhh pretty much!!!!

**RuthMayBond** · 02-28-2007, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Old Sweater

So Auto and Mikey, you still believe that the Red Sox only had 2 names since 1901?

Out with it, OS

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/

**Old Sweater** · 02-28-2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by RuthMayBond

Out with it, OS

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/

Yeah, same thing that baseball almanac has. Did you read the link I posted?

I'm sure that even baseball reference didn't do as much research as the historian in the link I posted. Like a lot of baseball history, it's who you believe yourself.

Baseball Reference also has the Twins as the Senators and they were the Washinton Nationals for 55 years or so. Look it up.

**Bigrcube** · 03-01-2007, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by Old Sweater

Yeah, same thing that baseball almanac has. Did you read the link I posted?

Sorry, but I chased this thread back and don't see the post you speak of?!
Please repost (I assume a website with info?). THANX, Mark

**RuthMayBond** · 03-01-2007, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by Old Sweater

Baseball Reference also has the Twins as the Senators and they were the Washinton Nationals for 55 years or so. Look it up.

I thought it had them as the same FRANCHISE

**KingSwisher** · 03-01-2007, 10:52 AM

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/al/bosox/redsox.html

**KingSwisher** · 03-01-2007, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Old Sweater

Yeah, same thing that baseball almanac has. Did you read the link I posted?

I'm sure that even baseball reference didn't do as much research as the historian in the link I posted. Like a lot of baseball history, it's who you believe yourself.

Baseball Reference also has the Twins as the Senators and they were the Washinton Nationals for 55 years or so. Look it up.

1956: After more then 50 years of insisting the team was officially called the Nationals the team finally change its nickname to the more commonly called Senators. The name change does not do anything to save the sinking ship that is Washington Baseball as the club finishes with another woeful 59-95 record, while finishing in 7th Place.

1960: After years of struggling with attendance, and fighting with baseball, and city officials Calvin Griffith the owner of the original Senators gets approval to move. The approval comes as the American League decides to expand 1 year earlier then planned. Part of the approval comes because one of the two expansion teams will be placed in Washington to replace the charter AL franchise that moved to Minnesota. Although the team will pick up the old name Senators, it will be as an expansion team, since the team that moved to Minnesota was allowed to keep its history.

**Old Sweater** · 03-01-2007, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Bigrcube

Sorry, but I chased this thread back and don't see the post you speak of?!
Please repost (I assume a website with info?). THANX, Mark

Post #51. Just click on the words Boston Red Sox.

**Old Sweater** · 03-01-2007, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by RuthMayBond

I thought it had them as the same FRANCHISE

Why no mention of the Nationals then?

Look what names they have for the other Boston team.

Atlanta Braves
Milwaukee Braves, Boston Braves, Boston Bees, Boston Rustlers, Boston Doves, Boston Beaneaters, and Boston Red Caps.

Here is some of the names the Boston Globe used back in the day for the Red Sox.

Analysis of the Boston Globe's daily coverage produced the following results:

Boston - 18
Americans - 6
Bostons - 1
Collins' men - 1
Bostonians - 1
the Boston boys - 1

Hmmmmm. Looks like Baseball Reference changed it's name for the Red Sox to.

It's a fairly widespread myth, though, which has taken on the appearance of fact. Late in 2002, a quick survey of key baseball websites finds the American League entry in the 1903 Series almost always termed the "Boston Pilgrims." Among these sites are those of Major League Baseball and baseball-reference.com.

**KingSwisher** · 03-01-2007, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Old Sweater

Why no mention of the Nationals then?

Uhh, because the Nationals and Senators are/were one in the same.

**Old Sweater** · 03-01-2007, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by KingSwisher

Uhh, because the Nationals and Senators are/were one in the same.

Yeah after 1956. If you go by that why all the names for the Braves? Same there to.

**Bigrcube** · 03-02-2007, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by Old Sweater

Post #51. Just click on the words Boston Red Sox.

OK, I found it. And I also found something on WIKIPEDIA.....for those who use and/or believe in that?!
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Red_Sox
and go down to NICKNAME for some interesting stuff.

WOW, I can't believe I'm actually participating in this Evil Empire Red Sox Nation stuff?!
Being a lifelong Yankees fan (as my father was before me and my son is after me).....
.....when I see someone at Starbucks or in the grocery store
with a Boston cap on.....I make sure to steer clear.
Wouldn't want to be standing too close and get any Red Sox 'JUICE' on me, ay?!

**KingSwisher** · 03-02-2007, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by Old Sweater

Yeah after 1956. If you go by that why all the names for the Braves? Same there to.

Sorry, sweetheart, but you're not quite as well read as you would have others believe. It's OK, we all make mistakes. The key is to learn from them

1899: After 8 years in which the franchise never finished .500 or better the Washington Senators of the National League are one of 4 teams eliminated when the League reduces from 12 teams to 8.

1901: With the NL reducing itself, Ban Johnson who ran the Western League, a minor league in the mid-west decides to become start a new Major League to compete with NL. Johnson's new league called the American League would have 8 teams including 3 teams in cities that lost franchise after the 1899 season, including Washington. In the franchise's first season, Washington would finish 61-72 and in 6th place in AL. One of the low points of the inaugural season comes on May 23rd when the Senators had a 9-run lead in the 9th inning with 2-outs and nobody on base for the Cleveland Blues. However, the Blues stage an amazing comeback and take the game 14-13.

1902: Washington would continue to struggle as they finish in 6th place again with a record of 61-75.

1903: Tragedy strikes Washington on July 2nd when their star hitter Ed Delahanty died in a fall from a train near Niagara Falls. Delahanty who was in his 2nd season with Washington was hitting .333 a season after batting .376. With the loss of Delahanty they would go on to finish in the basement if the American League with an awful 43-94 record, while the cause of his fall would never be determined.

1904: Washington stumbles out of the gates and never recover, losing 13 straight to start the season, and end up finishing the season with a franchise worse 38-113 last place record.

1905: The Nationals come out with new uniforms with their team name written across the chest for everyone to see. The Nats would only wear the uniform for 2 seasons, while the name Nationals has trouble catching on and after the team gets rid of it. Ironically the Nats/Senators would go 52 years before Senators would appear on the uniform long after it had become standard practice. The Nats struggles would continue finishing in 7th place with a 64-87 record.

**Old Sweater** · 03-02-2007, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by KingSwisher

Sorry, sweetheart, but you're not quite as well read as you would have others believe. It's OK, we all make mistakes. The key is to learn from them

Yes the key is to learn from them. My whole point is why does Baseball Reference have the Twins past just as the Senators when they offically were the Nationals from 1905 to 1955 and for most of the teams they have all the nicknames like for the Braves and Dodgers. Also, why does Baseball Almanac have the Senators winning the 1924 WS when the teams name was the Nationals. Even the site you went to offically has the Washington Club as the Nationals 1905-1955.

Baseball Reference and Baseball Almanac also has the Boston Club as being the Americans 1901-1907 when there really is no proven nickname for these years. Who decides for these sites to put the wrong information for the 1924 WS and having the past history of the Twins as being only the Senators then have people offering it as proof in a debate, like RMB using Baseball Reference as proof as the Boston Club being the Americans 1901-1907 when other history sites say different.

Once again, I know the Washington Club was the Nationals 1905-1955 (did think since 1901) and there is no proven nickname for the Boston Club 1901-1907

**Old Sweater** · 03-02-2007, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by Bigrcube

OK, I found it. And I also found something on WIKIPEDIA.....for those who use and/or believe in that?!
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Red_Sox
and go down to NICKNAME for some interesting stuff.

WOW, I can't believe I'm actually participating in this Evil Empire Red Sox Nation stuff?!
Being a lifelong Yankees fan (as my father was before me and my son is after me).....
.....when I see someone at Starbucks or in the grocery store
with a Boston cap on.....I make sure to steer clear.
Wouldn't want to be standing too close and get any Red Sox 'JUICE' on me, ay?!

Yeah, Wikipedia mors or less says the same thing as the link I posted about Boston's Nickname 1901-1907, they offically didn't have one.

In 1901, the American League led by Ban Johnson declared itself equal to the National League and established a competing club in Boston. For seven seasons, the AL team wore dark blue stockings and had no official nickname. They were simply "Boston" or "the Bostons"; or the "Americans" or "Boston Americans" as in "American Leaguers", Boston being a two-team city. Their 1901-1907 jerseys, both home and road, simply read "Boston", except for 1902 when they sported large letters "B" and "A" denoting "Boston" and "American". On December 18, 1907, Taylor announced that the club had officially adopted red as its new team color.

----------------------

Makes you wonder why or how most sites decided on the name Americans when there is no offical proof.

**dgarza** · 03-02-2007, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Old Sweater

Yes the key is to learn from them. My whole point is why does Baseball Reference have the Twins past just as the Senators when they offically were the Nationals from 1905 to 1955 and for most of the teams they have all the nicknames like for the Braves and Dodgers.

I doesn't make much sense why they do this, even after they pretty much tell you "ya, we know they really were not named the 'Senators,' but we're going to call them that anyway."

**mikeymussina35** · 03-05-2007, 03:42 AM

Upon joining the Reds, what future Yankee singled on the first pitch he ever saw in the majors????????

**dgarza** · 03-05-2007, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by mikeymussina35

Upon joining the Reds, what future Yankee singled on the first pitch he ever saw in the majors????????

Initially, I'll say Gullett

**RuthMayBond** · 03-05-2007, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by mikeymussina35

Upon joining the Reds, what future Yankee singled on the first pitch he ever saw in the majors????????

I'll guess Paul O'Neill

**KingSwisher** · 03-05-2007, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by dgarza

I doesn't make much sense why they do this, even after they pretty much tell you "ya, we know they really were not named the 'Senators,' but we're going to call them that anyway."

Fifty years from now your great grandchildren will be arguing in this thread about how the Yankees were really called The Bronx Bombers.

**Old Sweater** · 03-05-2007, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by KingSwisher

Fifty years from now your great grandchildren will be arguing in this thread about how the Yankees were really called The Bronx Bombers.

Well, they would be right. They were called the Bronx Bombers. Just so happens though that it wasn't the official name like the Nationals was for the Washington Club. Who knows, by then, Baseball Almanac and Baseball Reference may decide to take the official Highlanders name off their records and leaving the grandkids wondering the same thing I do. Who in the heck are they to unofficially change history by misinforming the public.