Wha'happen?: The four teams from '91 AA to move to NL

[Brownieand45sfan]

Checking the St. Louis franchise from 91 to 92, I see that no players from the end of '91 season were carried over to the NL club for '92**. Even though that AA team finished 2nd and had some good players on it and the NL Browns finished way down in the standings. Yet Chris had to find 25 ballplayers from somewhere. It seems like he found them from every source, AA and NL, *except* the club he owned only five months earlier. Most of the '91 Browns found teams elsewhere meanwhile.

Checking BAL, LOU, and WAS I find a similar state of affairs, though not "zero" players, but rather "a few".

My question: did not the 4 teams have valid player contracts that would be recognized by the league they were entering? Comiskey, e.g., is listed as "jumping" to the Reds. Why didn't the NL force him to go back? (like they did when Christy Mathewson jumped from the Gothams to the A.L. Browns a decade later )


** One possible exception is Ted Breitenstein http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/breitte01.shtml who debuted April 28, 1991 but only pitched five more games all year and very few total innings. Haven't figured out yet whether he was cut, sent to the minors or what....

[Brian McKenna]

Interesting, I didn't realize von der Ahe completely revamped the whole team.

There was a signing war betwen the two leagues in late 1891 until the merger on 12/16.

Actually the leagues merged - becoming the National League and American Association of professional ball clubs. Everything after the words "National League" would soon be dropped from reference.

Breitenstein, local STL kid, got a trial in 1891 on that debut date. He didn't return to the club until purchased from Grand Rapids on August 3. He pitched the rest of the year with STL and started the final day of the season - first game of DH - the famous no-hit game.

[tschiwau]

Awesome information guys,... thanks a lot for the cool data!

[Buzzaldrin]

Von Der Ahe didn't pick the team apart after 1891 like he did after 1887. The AA and NL merged because of sheer economics; here's the deal.

After the Player's League threat was over, NL and AA owners figured they'd finally be able to control spiralling player salaries. 1890 had been disastrous financially for both league- especiall the NL. It was the first year since 1882 that neither league had topped a million attendance. 1891, with only two leagues, was a heck of a lot better, but still nowhere near the 1887 major league peak (the Browns still led the country in attendance, as they had the majority of years since 1882).

Thing is, when NL teams signed Harry Stovey and Lou Bierbauer after the PL folded, instead of letting them return to their AA teams, the AA concluded that the NL no longer recognized its franchises and players and withdrew from the national agreement. This prompted a wave of player raids from both sides and made 1891 the second straight season of baseball warfare.

In late August, 1891, a three man AA comission and a three man NL comission met to make some sort of peace and end the raiding. However, while the meeting was taking place in Washington, NL Boston raided King Kelly from AA Boston- which to Von der Ahe and co was an act of war under guise of cease fire. They demanded Kelly's return; the NL protested.

This prompted a big flurry of player raids- in the next five months 28 players were "pirated" from one league to another (15 by the NL, 13 by the AA) for exorbitant salaries. The Browns were hardest hit, losing Comiskey, O'Neill, McCarthy, Stivetts, Boyle, Fuller, and Lyons- basically, their whole starting team.

The moguls met again in November, after sort of coming to their senses, with the chief issue being the inflated players salaries from the raids. Realizing that they couldn't co-exist financially without the National Agreement, and not trusting each other with it, consolidation became the order of the day (it had been discussed since 1887, but since the AA sold beer at games and played Sundays, and Spalding wouldn't allow it in the NL, consolidation had never come close to realization). It was a purely financial move, since baseball owners had made loads of money in the 1880's, but NOBODY was making anything in the 90s.

The NL caved on its opposition to the three AA practices of beer sales, Sunday ball, and 25 cent admission. if you think these were not a big deal, think again. These three were the sole reasons for the AA's existence in the first place- as its early teams were brewery owned and were not allowed consideration for the NL. Spalding had said he would never EVER cave on any of these, but with the AA putting franchises in both Chicago and Boston in 1892, Spalding and Soden (Boston owner) sang a completely different tune. The last thing they wanted was to lose half their fans to a Sunday playing team (and this was the age of the six day work week).

So the NL caved on all three, which means that in a large sense, the AA won the war. Four NL teams, four AA teams, and the four teams that had been in both leagues would evenly constitute the new league, named "the National League and American Association" This was very long-winded and the shortening within a few years to the National league may be one reason that people no longer recognize that the reason the leagues came together was a simple consolidation of business interests- not a case of the strong taking in the weak (it NEVER was like that).

However, that name came at the last moment. The original name for the new league, vetoed late in the day by NL magnates because it put the AA too prominently in the title, would come back to haunt everybody ten years later. What was the original name?

the American League.

[Brownieand45sfan]

Von Der Ahe didn't pick the team apart after 1891 like he did after 1887. The AA and NL merged because of sheer economics; here's the deal.(snip)

Good summary. I am sure that it was economics. But what sort of economics? Who had the upper hand in the deal? These factors make it look less like a merger and more like an unfriendly acquisition:

1. The four A.A. teams were the four cellar dwellers in the '92 NL, finishing from 40 to 54 games out (staggering!) whereas the 8th place team (NYG) was only 31 games out. Imagine the effect being that far behind had on attendance.
2. This poor finish does not seem to have been a coincidence as those four former A.A. franchises retained very few of their players from '91, the Browns not retaining a single player (except Breitenstein, up and down in the minors in '91).
3. When the NL contracted after the '99 season, it was 3 of these 4 A.A. "merged" franchises plus one franchise of the four that had A.A. roots, that got bounced.

[Buzzaldrin]

With Baltimore, it was a team in transition- they could still hit in 1892, finishing fourth in the league, but their pitching was absolutely atrocious. They had counted on McMahon and Buffinton anchoring the staff, but Buffinton was washed up and McMahon had only a so-so year, so being forced to rely on guys like George Cobb gave them one of 19th c ball's worst staffs. Two years later, they'd solved the pitching and won the pennant.

St. Louis' big problem was losing Comiskey. I don't think people realize what a genius he was at spotting talent, certainly one of the best all-time, up there with Ed Barrow. When Von der Ahe broke up the team after 87 (financial interests- Connie Mack syndrome), it was Comiskey that put together the new 88 team that was picked to finish last and instead won a fourth straight pennant. The Browns without Comiskey had five managers in 1892, and indeed different managers every single season of the 1890s (sometimes including Von der Ahe himself). They never got any better until he was forced to sell the team.

Washington finished last in the AA in 1891 (and it was their first season as a team) and there wasn't any reason to think they'd do better in 1892, although they did have a better winning percentage.

Louisville had finished second to last in 91 and also had no reason to think they'd do better, but they too had a better winning percentage in the NL in 92.

It's not fair to say that their teams weren't any good in the 90s, since Baltimore won three straight pennants. The reason that these teams (except St Loo) were shown the door after 1899 was syndicalism. After posting financial losses in 1897 and 1898, in spite of being in the thick of the pennant races, Henry von der Horst of Baltimore wanted out of baseball. During the off season, he formed a syndicate with Ferdinand Abel, Brooklyn's owner. So they created an uber team in Brooklyn, which had a larger population than Baltimore. Funnily enough, though, John McGraw- in his first ever season as a manager in Baltimore- kept Baltimore within two games of Brooklyn to the end of August. His wife died of appendicitis on the 31st, and he understandably was not the same for the rest of the season and Baltimore faded. Von der Horst out of baseball- Baltimore dissolved.

The late 1890s was a tough time for the USA- we were in a recession and attendance suffered during the Spanish American was in 1898. The Robsion brothers- who owned both Cleveland and St. Louis by 1898- created their own uber team in St. Louis, who traditionally had the largest attendance in the country. They were pissed off at Cleveland for the lame 1898 attendance figures and Stanley Robison actually stated his intention to run the Spiders as a side show. Good bye, Cleveland.

Barney Dreyfuss owned Louisville but then bought Pittsburgh, and "traded" Honus Wagner, Rube Waddell, Fred Clarke, Deacon Phillippe, Tommy Leach, and Chief Zimmer (and a few other lesser lights) basically to himself after the 1899 season. Goodbye Louisville. Why would Dreyfuss prefer Pittsburgh? Lousiville had finished last or next to last in the league in attendance almost every year of the 1890s. Pittsburgh had a bigger fan base.

Washington- created in 1891-pretty much alternated with Louisville in being bottom or next to bottom in league attendance throughout the 1890s and only once finished better than 9th in the standings. Several of Washington's best players in 1899 were puchased by Detroit, and played in the AL in 1900, but you won't find their stats at BR because it wasn't an official major league then. However, in August 1899 (the 23rd), Washington actually began releasing players, including starters Frank Bonner and Charlie Atherton, to save money. later that winter a bunch of the others were sold to Boston (NL). Goodbye Washington-

That's why these teams failed to make the cut- it wasn't anything to do with their being relics of the AA, and the reason that Bal, Wash, Stl, and Lou were the four that entered the NL was this- they didn't want two teams in one city. The National Agreement respected turf. Boston won the 1891 AA pennant, but they didn't come to the NL, neither did Philly or Cincinnati (and Philly was pretty good)- those teams were dissolved to avoid single city conflict. Milwaukee and Columbus were too small market to compete with the consolidated league, so that left the four that made the switch. The biggest problem was Von der Ahe assuming that he could put together a good team without Comiskey. That was never going to happen. Shame we didn't get to see how Boston would have fared moving straight to the NL, even without the over the hill Kelly- they had Dan Brouthers, Hugh Duffy, Hardy Richardson, Bill Joyce, Clark Griffith, and Tom Brown, and that, my friends, is the heart of a pennant winning team (though Griff wouldn't mature till 93).

[Brownieand45sfan]

Hardtimes? Was the "Gay 90s" a myth?

The late 1890s was a tough time for the USA- we were in a recession and attendance suffered during the Spanish American was in 1898.

[Buzzaldrin]

Not a myth but not a very kind truth. The Panic of 1893 was the worst economic crisis in US history till the Depression. Unemployment had stood at around 3% through 1892, then stood between 11 and 20% for the rest of the decade (well, it finally dropped to 6.5% in 1899). Here's a tip- when 5 times the usual number of the workforce is unemployed and you want them to spend their money on baseball games, beef up the offense.

1893 and 1929 marked the beginning of the US's worst two depression eras; it's no coincidence that 1894 and 1930 were the watershed years of all-time for offensive production in baseball.

"The gay nineties" refers to the enormous explosion of fantastic wealth among New York and New England society families (think Edith Wharton novels) as Southern Agriculture failed and the American trade "Empire" hit its peak. Cities exploded as well, because of massive immigration from poor European countries, so there the economic burden of the Panic was placed on the working classes and the South.

[Brownieand45sfan]

According to post #28 here........ http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...t=30769&page=2

...in Boston in 1901, the AL offered 25 cents admission, versus 50 cents for the NL.

What happened to Soden's and the NL's agreed to 25 cents admission? Any ideas?? Or did it just mean that teams were free to set a 25 cent admission?

(snip)
The NL caved on its opposition to the three AA practices of beer sales, Sunday ball, and 25 cent admission. if you think these were not a big deal, think again. These three were the sole reasons for the AA's existence in the first place- as its early teams were brewery owned and were not allowed consideration for the NL. Spalding had said he would never EVER cave on any of these, but with the AA putting franchises in both Chicago and Boston in 1892, Spalding and Soden (Boston owner) sang a completely different tune. The last thing they wanted was to lose half their fans to a Sunday playing team (and this was the age of the six day work week).

So the NL caved on all three, which means that in a large sense, the AA won the war. (snip)

[Buzzaldrin]

According to post #28 here........ http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...t=30769&page=2

...in Boston in 1901, the AL offered 25 cents admission, versus 50 cents for the NL.

What happened to Soden's and the NL's agreed to 25 cents admission? Any ideas?? Or did it just mean that teams were free to set a 25 cent admission?

Exactly.

They were also free to serve or not serve alcoholic beverages and to play or not play Sunday ball. That was the real kicker- in 1887 Sabbatarians took over the Missouri legislature, which briefly meant no Sunday ball in St. Loo. Von der Ahe immediately hatched two plans he never followed: 1) move the nation's most popular team to New York, the nation's largest market, and compete directly with the Giants. He freely admitted he would have done this had the 1887 Series been a commercial and ballfield success for the Browns, or 2) Consolidate both leagues to keep salaries down so it wouldn't matter if St. Louis couldn't play on Sundays.

[EdTarbusz]

1893 and 1929 marked the beginning of the US's worst two depression eras; it's no coincidence that 1894 and 1930 were the watershed years of all-time for offensive production in baseball.

.

I think the connection to the Great Depression and the offensive explosion of 1930 is overstated. The Stock Market crash didn't happen until the end of 1929, and it's effects were not understood until well into 1930. It would make more sense to see the offensive explosion as a panacea for the Great Depression if the ball was changed for the 1931 or 1932 seasons. In the popular venacular, these years were the real ******* of the Depression.

[Buzzaldrin]

I think the connection to the Great Depression and the offensive explosion of 1930 is overstated. The Stock Market crash didn't happen until the end of 1929, and it's effects were not understood until well into 1930. It would make more sense to see the offensive explosion as a panacea for the Great Depression if the ball was changed for the 1931 or 1932 seasons. In the popular venacular, these years were the real ******* of the Depression.

You may very well be right; I know a lot more about the links between 1890s ball and the Panic of 1893 than I do about links between 30s ball and the Depression, since studying 1890s ball is often a study of the owners and their machinations, which were necessarily economic in nature. After a bit of looking, I found that already in July 1929, Time magazine was railing against the live ball, and accusing Spalding and co. of tampering with its construction. The lively ball certainly reached its peak in 1930- where only one NL player with enough AB to qualify for the batting title hit below .250 (Hod Ford), and I wouldn't be surprised if there had been further rabbiting of the ball in the off season between 29 and 30 to create the peak, but 1) I don't have any actual evidence for this, and 2) even if I did I may not be able to connect it to the Depression in any way, and 3) in April 1930, the stock market had bounced back to its early 1929 level. I suppose I was mistaken in drawing a tenuous line that probably doesn't exist. My bad.

[EdTarbusz]

My bad.

Not really. I don't have the attendance figures in front of me, but I believe that 1930 was comparable to 1929, and that attendance began falling in 1931 and really bottomed out in 1932. I don't know whether attendance in 1930 was helped by the offensive explosion or whether people still had some discretionary income during the financial crisis. Based on my readings of the Great Depression, I believe that the Depression as it's understood today really hit hard in late 1930 or early 1931. The Stock Market crash and subsequent rebound probably seemed like the usual boom and bust cycle when the 1930 season opened.

[rrhersh]

Going back a bit earlier, there clearly is a connection between the Panic of 1873 and the baseball economy. We don't have reliable attendance figures from that era and the overall organization of baseball was still developing, so we can only look at indirect signs. With that caveat, there appears to have been a delay after the panic itself. I suspect that 1875 was a peak year; 1877 at the latest. Superficially, it looks like there was huge growth of professional baseball, from team teams at the beginning of the 1876 season to some forty or fifty at the beginning of 1877. I think this was to some extent illusory: an artifact of changes in how baseball was organized and which teams were considered "professional". In any case the end of the decade saw a clear decline, with the first signs of revival late in the 1880 season.

Richard Hershberger

[Buzzaldrin]

This I know- attendance in the NL never reached the figures posted by the NA in 1875 until 1882. Not even close.