Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why did the Braves move twice?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    1. you should have been a school marm
    2. who's point?


    Originally posted by six4three View Post
    That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that a 1947 move to Los Angeles would not have been "the first franchise move in baseball history." Modern history (at the time), but by no stretch of the imagination baseball history.

    I still think you're missing his point, though. Veeck doesn't make the case that moving is itself a bad thing, only that this move was bad. Bad in part because there was local interest in ownership that was deliberately ignored, and bad in part because the team had a strong and loyal fanbase.

    Bad, finally, because the move was about making money first and baseball second if that.

    Comment


    • #62
      efin98 and Aa3rt are, I think, missing Veeck's point - that some franchise shifts are good on principle and some are bad on principle, as stated above.

      Sorry I didn't make it clear to whom I was talking. They were the ones missing Veeck's point, you were the one with the hyperbolic claim.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by six4three View Post
        efin98 and Aa3rt are, I think, missing Veeck's point - that some franchise shifts are good on principle and some are bad on principle, as stated above.

        Sorry I didn't make it clear to whom I was talking. They were the ones missing Veeck's point, you were the one with the hyperbolic claim.
        Yeah some moves made sense. The Philly A's, Boston Braves, and St Louis Browns all made sense since those cities can't support two teams (Boston is possibly a big enough market on paper but I don't think enough people would be willing to dump the Sox). Although it would have been better if the A's went to Baltimore then the Browns could have gone to KC and it would still be driving distance of whatever fan base existed for those teams. Seattle Pilots, KC A's, and Milwaukee Braves didn't make sense as history showed since all three were replaced within a decade.

        The Giants/Dodgers double move also didn't make sense. The Dodgers should have found a way to stay, leaving NYC as a two team town. Although I think it can be a 3 team town again, I am in the minority on that one.

        Comment


        • #64
          Not going to argue for or against any of those moves, but just want to point out that it is not just about city-size. Certain cities have deeper traditions for a certain thing than others. That's why we see small cities with impressive art museums, e.g., there is a tradition of art appreciation. There are cities with deep baseball traditions that baseball will work in .. and huge cities where baseball just doesn't work (perhaps, Montreal). Green Bay, for football, is an example too (although it's proximity to MLW obviously helps a great deal).

          The St. Louis Browns were part of a deep tradition in St. Louis Baseball. I would account for this in two ways:
          1. The Browns were the first team to show signs of life in the first 20 years of the modern era, finishing 2nd in their very first year while fielding a team of late 19th century St. Louis favorites, and were the only St. louis team to finish as high as 2nd (1902 and 1922). Of course the Cardinals were the first team to finish first (1926) and the rest was, sort of, history.
          2. It was also owing in part to their playing at the same Park as the name-sake American Association team that won a four-peat in the 1880s.

          And St. Louisans just love baseball, as is evidenced by the way they've supported the Cardinals despite St. Louis undergoing the usual Rust-belt woes during the last 50 years.

          So while baseball attendance in the early 50s was in a post-war slump, Browns attendance actually went up 57% with the same last-place team in 1952 simply because the owner of the team (Veeck) reciprocated the fan's inchoate loyalty by putting a lot of thought into making the ballpark environment entertaining. Fans appreciated Veeck's understanding that it was not easy to watch a continually understocked 8th-placed team, no matter how loyal one was. It just took a little show of appreciation, to work that attendance boost. That was double the Boston Braves '52 attendance ... with 1/2 the population.
          Originally posted by aqib View Post
          Yeah some moves made sense. The Philly A's, Boston Braves, and St Louis Browns all made sense since those cities can't support two teams (Boston is possibly a big enough market on paper but I don't think enough people would be willing to dump the Sox). Although it would have been better if the A's went to Baltimore then the Browns could have gone to KC and it would still be driving distance of whatever fan base existed for those teams. Seattle Pilots, KC A's, and Milwaukee Braves didn't make sense as history showed since all three were replaced within a decade.

          The Giants/Dodgers double move also didn't make sense. The Dodgers should have found a way to stay, leaving NYC as a two team town. Although I think it can be a 3 team town again, I am in the minority on that one.
          Last edited by Brownieand45sfan; 07-03-2008, 07:32 AM. Reason: clarity

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by six4three View Post
            efin98 and Aa3rt are, I think, missing Veeck's point - that some franchise shifts are good on principle and some are bad on principle, as stated above.

            Sorry I didn't make it clear to whom I was talking. They were the ones missing Veeck's point, you were the one with the hyperbolic claim.
            or non-pedantic.

            Comment


            • #66
              Pedantic?

              Hey, words mean things. Don't blame me, blame Webster.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Brownieand45sfan View Post
                Not going to argue for or against any of those moves, but just want to point out that it is not just about city-size. Certain cities have deeper traditions for a certain thing than others. That's why we see small cities with impressive art museums, e.g., there is a tradition of art appreciation. There are cities with deep baseball traditions that baseball will work in .. and huge cities where baseball just doesn't work (perhaps, Montreal). Green Bay, for football, is an example too (although it's proximity to MLW obviously helps a great deal).

                The St. Louis Browns were part of a deep tradition in St. Louis Baseball, owing in part to their playing at the same Park as the name-sake American Association team that won a four-peat in the 1880s. And St. Louisans love baseball, as is evidenced by the way they've supported the Cardinals despite St. Louis undergoing the usual Rust-belt woes during the last 50 years.

                So while baseball attendance in the early 50s was in a post-war slump, Browns attendance actually went up 57% with the same last-place team in 1952 simply because the owner of the team (Veeck) reciprocated the fan's inchoate loyalty by putting a lot of thought into making the ballpark environment entertaining. Fans appreciated Veeck's understanding that it was not easy to watch a continually understocked 8th-placed team, no matter how loyal one was. It just took a little show of appreciation, to work that attendance boost. That was double the Boston Braves '52 attendance ... with 1/2 the population.
                I get that St Louis is probably the best baseball town in the country, evidenced by the fact it was one of the first to draw 3 million fans, but two teams in one sport is hard to support unless you are NY, LA, and to some extent Chicago. I just doubt St Louis could support two MLB teams.

                Comment


                • #68
                  I'd tend to agree.

                  Boston is a great baseball town as well, but they couldn't support two teams. Multiple teams isn't a requirement.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by six4three View Post
                    I'd tend to agree.

                    Boston is a great baseball town as well, but they couldn't support two teams. Multiple teams isn't a requirement.
                    A requirement of what?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      A city need not have multiple teams to be a good baseball town.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by six4three View Post
                        A city need not have multiple teams to be a good baseball town.
                        True .. but it is one indicator. I think Chicago, for maintaining two teams, is probably a little better baseball town than Boston, though Boston is obviously quite good. I haven't done a complete ethno-cultural analysis, but I would suspect that with Boston having a smidge more Puritan stock than most cities, "pass-times" in general are not going to hold quite the allure there that they would in other cities, like, even New York (which for a while had three teams while Boston had one). St. Louis had three teams too: during the Federal League years (New York then had *four*). St. Louis had two teams competing for fans twice during the 19th Century too.

                        You have to remember Boston I think a lot was lost when baseball started getting all rationalistic about "only 1.2 teams per 3 million in population". Baseball should have been more preservation-minded and had more respect for the initial two-league genius which brought baseball into its great flowering as the national pass-time. The competition between the AL and the NL was good for baseball, as opposed to the monopolistic situation we have now. It was neat to have leagues competing in the various cities. Like Earth I and Earth II, if anyone here ever read DC Comic Books.

                        Of course respect for that genius went totally out the window with inter-league play.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Don't forget that the White Sox spent a couple decades trying to get out of Chicago. They actually had a deal to move in 1969 - only the National League learning from its New York mistake prevented it.

                          Baseball is a business. Nothing more. Has been since the 1880s. I know that we as fans get all sentimental about teams, but we cannot lose sight of that fact.

                          Boston didn't support two teams. The evidence could not be more clear. St. Louis didn't support two teams. Tough breaks, but at least those fans got to keep major-league baseball in their city.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Well, I'm not a materialist so I don't believe *anything* is just a business. Not even a widget factory.

                            And even within so-called "business interests" there are short-term ones and long-term ones. Where baseball owners sacrifice long-term interests for short-term ones, some of us like to call them out.

                            unsubscribed

                            Originally posted by six4three View Post
                            Don't forget that the White Sox spent a couple decades trying to get out of Chicago. They actually had a deal to move in 1969 - only the National League learning from its New York mistake prevented it.

                            Baseball is a business. Nothing more. Has been since the 1880s. I know that we as fans get all sentimental about teams, but we cannot lose sight of that fact.

                            Boston didn't support two teams. The evidence could not be more clear. St. Louis didn't support two teams. Tough breaks, but at least those fans got to keep major-league baseball in their city.
                            Last edited by Brownieand45sfan; 07-03-2008, 12:03 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Don't know what you mean by "unsubscribed."

                              I think baseball teams fall into that gray area between business and civic entity - they are more than just a widget factory, but neither can they stay static, in thrall to What Was.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by six4three View Post
                                efin98 and Aa3rt are, I think, missing Veeck's point - that some franchise shifts are good on principle and some are bad on principle, as stated above.

                                Sorry I didn't make it clear to whom I was talking. They were the ones missing Veeck's point, you were the one with the hyperbolic claim.
                                I didn't miss the point, Veeck is no saint and is the last guy who should talk about moving teams. His actions in Cleveland and St. Louis were as bad if not worse than moving the club out of Milwaukee.
                                Best posts ever:
                                Originally posted by nymdan
                                Too... much... math... head... hurts...
                                Originally posted by RuthMayBond
                                I understand, I lost all my marbles years ago

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X