Cin. Red Stockings (1869) - Atlanta Braves (Present)

[southwvboy]

I have always wondered if the time line of the Atlanta Braves should include the original professional Base-Ball team the Cincinnati Red Stockings. They both got off the ground due to Harry Wright and the 1876 Boston club was not only managed by Wright but consisted of a few former Cin. Red Stockings. The Current Reds boast as being the first all Professional team but I feel that the 1869 club has more of a lineage to the Braves then the Reds.

[Buzzaldrin]

The current Reds has no lineage to the 1869 Red Stockings whatsoever. They were founded in the American Association (on the ML level) in 1882. They have as much relation to the earlier team that today's Washington has to Walter Johnson's team, i.e. none.

[Brian McKenna]

I have always wondered if the time line of the Atlanta Braves should include the original professional Base-Ball team the Cincinnati Red Stockings.

1) Not so sure that Cincinnati was the "original" professional team.
2) Positive that employees don't establish the lineage of an American business entity. Even in baseball, we don't directly link the Yankees to Clark Griffith's White Sox and the Pirates where Griffith found a good deal of talent. To link the lineage of multiple player and manager relocations in baseball is a geneology tree I wouldn't want any part of.

[rrhersh]

1) Not so sure that Cincinnati was the "original" professional team.

The trend nowadays seems to be to characerize this as the first "openly professional" team. This is an improvement on the old claim that it was the first professional team, but you still would have to work pretty hard to concoct a definition that would lead to this conclusion.

For the 1869 season, the NABBP dropped the old, oft-ignored, rule against professionalism. It gave clubs the option of declaring themselves professional. About a dozen or so did this. I suppose it is possible that Cincinnati was the quickest to publish this, but I doubt it. In any case, I have never seen the claim worded that way.

What Cincinnati did was be openly professional and spectacularly successful, standing out from the crowd. Even people who weren't particularly paying attention noticed this, leading to the myth that they were the first.

2) Positive that employees don't establish the lineage of an American business entity. Even in baseball, we don't directly link the Yankees to Clark Griffith's White Sox and the Pirates where Griffith found a good deal of talent. To link the lineage of multiple player and manager relocations in baseball is a geneology tree I wouldn't want any part of.

What he said.

[rrhersh]

An additional note about the modern Reds claiming to date back to some impressively early time. As has been noted, this claim is bollocks. The modern Reds origin is perfectly straightforward, dating from 1882. This is entirely respectable and makes them tied for third oldest baseball organization in the world, but pushing it back would be even better, and as a rule marketing types aren't especially concerned with niceties such as accuracy.

We see something similar with the Phillies. They market themselves as the oldest team to stay in one city and use just one name. You have to squint pretty hard, in very dim light, for this claim to be true. Mostly, it is meaningless. But I very much doubt that the Phillies' marketing department is losing sleep.

[Steve Jeltz]

We see something similar with the Phillies. They market themselves as the oldest team to stay in one city and use just one name. You have to squint pretty hard, in very dim light, for this claim to be true. Mostly, it is meaningless. But I very much doubt that the Phillies' marketing department is losing sleep.

I have a few questions concerning the Phillies. First, when Alfred Reach purchased the Worchester club in 1882 and moved them to Philadelphia(minus the Worchester players) did he give the team a nickname? Or did the name 'Phillies' just develop over time? Second, sometime in the 1890's, wasn't the official name of the team the Quakers?

[rrhersh]

I have a few questions concerning the Phillies. First, when Alfred Reach purchased the Worchester club in 1882 and moved them to Philadelphia(minus the Worchester players) did he give the team a nickname? Or did the name 'Phillies' just develop over time? Second, sometime in the 1890's, wasn't the official name of the team the Quakers?

The question has several false assumptions built into it. Al Reach did not buy the Worcester (note the spelling) club. Worcester and Troy were booted out of the National League because their attendence was very poor. The concept was not yet developed that the franchise itself--that is, the mere fact of membership in the league--was a property right with a dollar value. So after some grumbling, the Troy and Worcester ownerships went quietly. Their places were taken in 1883 by the Philadelphia club, which was an existing club which had played the 1882 season in the League Alliance, and by a New York club. The NY situation is a little complicated. John Day owned the Metropolitan club, founded in late 1880. Day got the NL franchise and it was widely assumed that the Metropolitans would join the NL. But Day pulled a fast one, and also got an American Association franchise. So he had two franchises, but only one team. He needed a bunch of players fast, so he signed the Troy players en masse. He combined the Troy and the Metropolitan players in one pool and divided them up again, with the better players going to the NL team (which came to be known as the Giants).

Modern writers routinely interpret this as Troy moving to NY, and therefore by default Worcester moving to Philly. This misunderstands what happened. There was no connection between the old Troy and Worcester clubs and the new NY and Philly clubs, apart from several of the old Troy players being signed to the new NY club. There was no exchange of money between owners, and no transfer of reserve rights to players.

As for the name of the Philadelphia Club, its official name was the "Philadelphia Ball Club" This recycled an old name which was first used in 1873. Contrast this with the "Athletic Base Ball Club" in the AA, which also recycled a traditional name. "Athletic" was not a nickname: it was the real name. There wasn't really any such thing as an "official" nickname in those days, in the way that something like "Chicago Cubs" is a trademark. Nicknames were unofficial, well, nicknames used by journalists. "Phillies" was an obvious choice, and can be found going back to the 1873 club. Modern sources list the "Quakers" but this list is notoriously unreliable. "Quakers" pops up occasionally, but it was never as common as "Phillies". In the early years, the most common way to refer to the Philadelphia club in newspapers was as the "Philadelphias".

"Official nicknames" don't really develop until well into the 20th century. The concept is largely meaningless when applied to the 19th century.

[rrhersh]

I should add that the problem with the Phillies' claim to having used a single name unchanged since 1883 is not the "Quakers" years. It is the embarassing "Blue Jays" period that they have carefully forgotten about.

[six4three]

I should add that the problem with the Phillies' claim to having used a single name unchanged since 1883 is not the "Quakers" years. It is the embarassing "Blue Jays" period that they have carefully forgotten about.

"Blue Jays" never replaced "Phillies" as the official nickame - it only supplimented it as a second nickname. Even when they added the patch, the team kept "Phillies" across its chest. Si I think their claim is still intact, if only because they couldn't commit in 1944 and 1945.

[Matt1901]

The oldest occurrence of "Phillies" on the Philadelphia National League team's uniforms that I can find is from 1932. Does anyone know of an earlier time that the club acknowledged the name "Phillies" in team literature, a legal document or some other official way?

[KingNothing13]

My opinion, as far as the original question goes, no the Braves should not be able to trace back to 1869 and the Red Stockings. They can go back to 1876 with the Cubs as the two oldest franchises though, and that is something to be impressed with, espically the Cubs....132 years in the same city...wow.

[Captain Cold Nose]

My opinion, as far as the original question goes, no the Braves should not be able to trace back to 1869 and the Red Stockings. They can go back to 1876 with the Cubs as the two oldest franchises though, and that is something to be impressed with, espically the Cubs....132 years in the same city...wow.

If a team is able to trace its lineage pre-NL, why shouldn't it count? There were teams and it was baseball that was played. We can't simply erase history.

[KingNothing13]

If a team is able to trace its lineage pre-NL, why shouldn't it count? There were teams and it was baseball that was played. We can't simply erase history.

Hmmm..that is not quite what I meant.....let me re-phrase:

Since the Cubs and the Braves are the only two existing franchises from back then, they are the only ones that can count it.

Looking at the original National League in 1876:

Chicago - Still the Cubs. (And yes, they go back further than 1876)
Boston - Sill in existence with Atlanta (Ditto with the 1876 thing, but they are not the same 'franchise' that was in Cincinnati, correct?)
Hartford - Gone after 1877
New York - Gone after 1876
Philadelphia - Gone after 1876
Cincinnati - Gone after 1880
Louisville - Gone after 1877
St. Louis - Gone after 1877

I am getting these numbers from Baseball-reference.com. If I am at all wrong, please let me know.

[rrhersh]

Hmmm..that is not quite what I meant.....let me re-phrase:

Since the Cubs and the Braves are the only two existing franchises from back then, they are the only ones that can count it.

Looking at the original National League in 1876:

Chicago - Still the Cubs. (And yes, they go back further than 1876)
Boston - Sill in existence with Atlanta (Ditto with the 1876 thing, but they are not the same 'franchise' that was in Cincinnati, correct?)
Hartford - Gone after 1877
New York - Gone after 1876
Philadelphia - Gone after 1876
Cincinnati - Gone after 1880
Louisville - Gone after 1877
St. Louis - Gone after 1877

I am getting these numbers from Baseball-reference.com. If I am at all wrong, please let me know.

The numbers are correct, so far as they go. The Athletics didn't actually disappear at the end of the 1876 season, but they were never a major league club again.

Chicago is not, however, "still" the Cubs. That nickname came decades later. They are indeed the oldest baseball club to stay in one city, from 1874 to the present. The next candidates date from 1882.

[Matt1901]

What about the National Association?