Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Most Popular team in New York

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

  • #16
    Most popular team in New York? MOST DEFINITELY THE DODGERS, thank you. If you were talking about winning and stuff, then it would have to be the Yankees. The Giants were losing steam in the 1950s, and the Polo Grounds were slowly deteriorating.
    SOUVENEZ-VOUS LES EXPOS!!!
    "The future's uncertain and the end is always near" - Jim Morrison

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Move to Frisco

      Originally posted by brokenbat
      made a very bad business decision
      Maybe possibly perhaps longterm -- but the SF crowds were double what they'd been in the last few years in NY. And that's after a thrilling pennant race in '51 and a World Championship in '54.

      Remember we're talking about an era when fans buying tickets was pretty much it as a revenue source.

      If O'Malley had been allowed to go out west on his own you can be sure no Dodger fans would have started rooting for the Giants. Hanging on just didn't seem like an attractive option.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Re: Move to Frisco

        Originally posted by westsidegrounds
        Maybe possibly perhaps longterm -- but the SF crowds were double what they'd been in the last few years in NY. And that's after a thrilling pennant race in '51 and a World Championship in '54.

        Remember we're talking about an era when fans buying tickets was pretty much it as a revenue source.

        .
        A couple of things that we all should keep in mind. The first is that since 1950 all home games of all three New York City teams were televised on local television. This fact, plus the worsening neighborhood surrounding the Polo Grounds & the beginning of "white flight" to Queens & Long Island probably led most directly to the drop in their attendance in the 1950's. However, I don't know what type of revenue Stoneham was getting from his radio & TV contracts. At the gate they were certainly struggling (like a lot of teams), but I'm sure that their media revenue was much greater than teams in smaller markets such as St. Louis & Pittsburgh.

        One of the main reasons Stoneham changed his mind about moving from Minneapolis to California wasn't because of attendance issues, rather it was because O'Malley convinced Stoneham that pay-per-view (cable) baseball was the waive of the future & he had connections out in California. OM was going to get a pay-per-view contract for both teams. Of course, around the corner to OM meant 15 years in reality. The company OM put his faith in (Fox ?) was bankrupt & out of business within two years of the move West. If Stoneham had done some research ahead of time, he would've realized that the technology wasn't available yet for such a grand scheme.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Re: Re: Move to Frisco

          Originally posted by Greenpeach
          (Fox ?)
          Skiatron?
          (Which may hve been part of Fox or vice versa?)
          Interesting article on the early technology, called

          "Pre-History of Pay Cable Television" by Megan Mullen

          is on line (address is too long to type, just use Google).

          One proposal from Horace that fell by the wayside was for a city-built stadium on the West Side between 60th & 72d.

          Now that would have been sweet.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Re: Re: Re: Move to Frisco

            Originally posted by westsidegrounds
            Skiatron?
            (Which may hve been part of Fox or vice versa?)
            Interesting article on the early technology, called

            "Pre-History of Pay Cable Television" by Megan Mullen

            is on line (address is too long to type, just use Google).

            One proposal from Horace that fell by the wayside was for a city-built stadium on the West Side between 60th & 72d.

            Now that would have been sweet.
            Matthew Fox was the head of Skiatron. It was very late (or early depending on your point of view) when I made my previous post.

            Comment


            • #21
              I count Jimmy Cannon as the best sportswriter of my lifetime and what he said goes. In his column of August 7, 1952, he wrote and I quote:
              "We are so big three ball clubs represent us in the big leagues. The transients come to admire the cold skills of the Yankees.....Naturally, most of the Brooklyn partisans come from the Borough, but there are many in other settlements who pull forthe Dodgers for reasons that I never fully understand......It is the Giants who are the home team in New York. The old settlers appreciate them. It is the team of the old neighborhoods, which are small towns with traditions of their own and also the club of the people who make their living in the lurid arts and are loosely classified as the Broadway mob."
              Attendance figures of that era mean nothing. My father used to take me by the hand as we walked down Edgecombe Avenue toward my Jerusalem in Coogan's Bluff. My mother refused to let the girls go to day games because the neighborhood was so dangerous. Also it just so happened to be the one time the Bums had a dynasty and the Yankees had their most successful teams. Yeah Brooklyn had its heart torn out in the midst of the only glory they had known and my heart bleeds for those who died inside like my brother, but there was another, better franchise that was leading the National League in pennants and was second in World Series when they left, and still to this day leads all of baseball in total victories, and that is Harlem's finest, Manhattan's own, the New York Giants.

              Comment


              • #22
                Horace Stoneham was his own worst enemy. He complained about attendance yet he never changed his ways. He consistently went for slow footed sluggers the 1947 team is a prime example. He habitually hired former Giant players Mel Ott and Bill Rigney both "yes" men. He was smart enough to hire Leo Durocher (who was anything but a "Yes" man), when Branch Rickey fired him and hired Burt Shotton. It was Durocher who turned the Giants around convincing the ever meddling Stoneham to acquire players such as Eddie Stanky and Alvin Dark. From 1945 until their departure in 1958, the Giants won two pennants and one World Series. Durocher was the manager of both of those teams. Without Durocher, Stoneham teams led by his nephew, Chub Feeney finished in the second division. Attendance usually coincides with the product on the field.

                Attendance in the National League was used by Stoneham as a crutch. There was a migration from the inner cities to the suburbs. Yet, Stoneham allowed Giant home games to be televised but not the road games. If your losing money because of attendance, why give the product away. Bill Terry for one offered to purchase the team and Stoneham refused to sell. If he was losing money, why not cut his losses? Stoneham was making money, he just thought he would make more money in San Francisco. He made a bad business decision.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The point about the deteriorating area surrounding the PG can't be overstressed, in my opinion. What others have said here is true. Travelling to the PG at night was perilous.

                  While it is true that the Mets thrived there for 2 years, the NYC fans were hungry for NL ball (which had been gone for 5 years by the time of the 1962 Mets debut), and the City put heavy police presence there for the games.

                  The Phillies were forced to leave Connie Mack because North Phila had become treacherous.

                  In one form or other, white flight was a large factor for the Giants, the Dodger and the Phillies.

                  Was it the only factor in their moves? No. But it played a significant part.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by EbtsFldGuy View Post
                    The point about the deteriorating area surrounding the PG can't be overstressed, in my opinion. What others have said here is true. Travelling to the PG at night was perilous.

                    While it is true that the Mets thrived there for 2 years, the NYC fans were hungry for NL ball (which had been gone for 5 years by the time of the 1962 Mets debut), and the City put heavy police presence there for the games.

                    The Phillies were forced to leave Connie Mack because North Phila had become treacherous.

                    In one form or other, white flight was a large factor for the Giants, the Dodger and the Phillies.

                    Was it the only factor in their moves? No. But it played a significant part.
                    Yes the area around the Polo Grounds was bad back then but if the Giants or even the Mets had decided that they wanted to stay there the polo grounds could have been renovated and the area improved. look if the yankees can still play across the river from the polo grounds than baseball today could still be played at the Polo Grounds.
                    LONG LIVE THE POLO GROUNDS 1891-1964
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/POLOGROUNDS1962

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by GIANT View Post
                      Horace Stoneham was his own worst enemy. He complained about attendance yet he never changed his ways. He consistently went for slow footed sluggers the 1947 team is a prime example. He habitually hired former Giant players Mel Ott and Bill Rigney both "yes" men. He was smart enough to hire Leo Durocher (who was anything but a "Yes" man), when Branch Rickey fired him and hired Burt Shotton. It was Durocher who turned the Giants around convincing the ever meddling Stoneham to acquire players such as Eddie Stanky and Alvin Dark. From 1945 until their departure in 1958, the Giants won two pennants and one World Series. Durocher was the manager of both of those teams. Without Durocher, Stoneham teams led by his nephew, Chub Feeney finished in the second division. Attendance usually coincides with the product on the field.

                      Attendance in the National League was used by Stoneham as a crutch. There was a migration from the inner cities to the suburbs. Yet, Stoneham allowed Giant home games to be televised but not the road games. If your losing money because of attendance, why give the product away. Bill Terry for one offered to purchase the team and Stoneham refused to sell. If he was losing money, why not cut his losses? Stoneham was making money, he just thought he would make more money in San Francisco. He made a bad business decision.
                      In the late 1980's I was listening to a radio interview on a Memphis station with Bill Terry. He said that in 1956 Stoneham had agreed in principal to sell the Giants to a group headed up by Terry. Terry's plan was to lease Yankee Stadium from the Yankees until the new stadium in Flushing Meadow was completed. Unfortunately, word was leaked to the press about the pending deal & Stoneham was so embarrassed that he pulled the Giants off the market.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by POLO GROUNDS 1957 View Post
                        Yes the area around the Polo Grounds was bad back then but if the Giants or even the Mets had decided that they wanted to stay there the polo grounds could have been renovated and the area improved. look if the yankees can still play across the river from the polo grounds than baseball today could still be played at the Polo Grounds.
                        My point about the the neighborhood being dangerous was that people can't use attendance figures to show the GIANTS weren't popular. Of course that skunk Stoneham should have kept the Giants here. He had no right. He should have been forced to sell. The same goes for the Bums, the Boston Braves, the St. Louis Browns, the Philadelphia A's, and the Washington Senators.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Polo Grounds

                          Originally posted by jrh31584 View Post
                          Weren't the Polo Grounds in fairly bad shape towards the end of this time period?
                          The answer to this question is No. the polo grounds as a structure was in great shape and could have stood for years.but as what has been pointed out here is the fact that the area around the PG was not that great.The Polo Grounds was not falling down.and everyone has to remmber when the stadium was torn down in 1964 the current edition of the polo grounds was only 53 years old.
                          LONG LIVE THE POLO GROUNDS 1891-1964
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/POLOGROUNDS1962

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            The Polo Grounds could have been the home of the Jets, had the wrecking ball not come so soon, especially since the Giants had moved to Yankee Stadium in 55. If you look at the seating, and shape of the stadium, that place would have been ideal for football.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Polo Grounds

                              Originally posted by MattM View Post
                              The Polo Grounds could have been the home of the Jets, had the wrecking ball not come so soon, especially since the Giants had moved to Yankee Stadium in 55. If you look at the seating, and shape of the stadium, that place would have been ideal for football.
                              The Polo Grounds was home of the New York Titans(JETS)from 1960-1963. the AFL team called the polo grounds home.So the Jets did call the PG there home.
                              LONG LIVE THE POLO GROUNDS 1891-1964
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/POLOGROUNDS1962

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by POLO GROUNDS 1957 View Post
                                The Polo Grounds was home of the New York Titans(JETS)from 1960-1963. the AFL team called the polo grounds home.So the Jets did call the PG there home.
                                No I know that. I just meant that it's too bad that before the Jets actually joined the NFL, they could have had the Polo Grounds, and not be playing in New Jersey now.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X