Talk:Western League (U.S. baseball)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Uncertain information

There is a dispute by the author's own admission concerning the accuracy of saying that the NY Yankees's history dates back to the Indianapolis team of the Western League.

See also Quick Facts here: New York Yankees

Roodog2k 22:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that two different pages claim Indianapolis as their ancestor. The other one is Oakland Athletics. I did not write either of those pages and don't know what their sources are. If anything, THOSE TWO PAGES are the ones that need the "DISPUTED" tag. Someone needs to do some research on this topic. Wahkeenah 02:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The 1960 book, The Home Team, by James Bready, indicates that the Baltimore franchise of 1901 was essentially an entirely new team, not a team transferred from elsewhere. Wahkeenah 20:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• According to Dewey and Acocella's "Total Ballclubs", the 1901 AL Baltimore Orioles (which became the Yankees) was originally a part of a second attempt at the American Association in 1900, but when the league never got off the ground, they had to wait one year (the 1900 season) before rejoining the major leagues. Ban Johnson wanted to challenge the National League by moving Western League teams (the Indianapolis team referenced here) into eastern cities, one of which is Baltimore. However, given that the Oriole franchise in question here existed prior to 1900 according to these authors, they must not have been a a relocated franchise, but a new one. --Leshii 04:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I would have to read that book in order to get the full gist of what they are saying, because it doesn't sound quite right. Meanwhile, I am taking the liberty of changing this section heading, because it's not so much "disputed" as "uncertain", with more research required, which I would do myself if I didn't have to work for a living. d:) Wahkeenah 04:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • A Baltimore franchise had existed prior to 1900 in the National League, but was dropped. John McGraw spent 1900 trying to get a franchise in a rival league. At one point reports indicated he would join a new incarnation of the American Association. Instead Ban Johnson wooed him into the American League.Acedtect

I read a few books about the history of the Minneapolis Millers and they all indicate that the Millers were abandoned by the AL following the 1900 season. Since the Nl vacated such cities as Washington, Baltimore, and Cleveland, this was perfect to move into those territories. Essentially, the Minneapolis team then was absorbed by the minor league American Association in 1902, playing there until the beginning of the 1960s when the Twins arrived in '61.

• According to newspaper accounts of the day, it is fairly clear that Minneapolis, Buffalo, and Indianapolis were released from thre league. Minneapolis was sold and apparently admitted into a new minor league under the name of the Western League. Buffalo was released to join any league it wished and the AL agreed not to poach. More research is needed to know where Buffalo went. Indianapolis actually jumped to the failed American Association which was formed in 1901 by the National League but never played. Only Kansas City is clearly identified in the accounts as having been transferred from Kansas City to Washington under the auspices of James Manning. I hope this clears up the innacuracies. Acedtect

[edit] The Western League/Western Association Confusion

The mistakes in the article are understandable; there were several organizations calling themselves the Western League or Western Association in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Essentially, this is the account of the earliest variants. The Northwestern League, founded in 1878, went briefly under the name of the Western League in 1880-1881. It became the Western Association in 1888, changed its name to the Western League in 1893 and became the American League in 1899 (not 1900). It left the National Agreement in 1900 and is (retroactively) recognized as having gained major league status by 1901.

In addition to the other Western Leagues cited in the article, there was also the Western League founded in 1900, which became the American Association in 1902.

Both pages (for Western Association and Western League) will need to be filled in with more detail, including standings, and information on the old Northwestern League is needed.

• The Western League of 1899 changed its name to American League after the season, so it took effect in 1900, and that's why it's worded that way. The "retroactive" you're referring to would have been effective in 1903 when the leagues made peace. Wahkeenah 22:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• My research confirms what Wahkeenah states. The 1899 seaosn was played under the name Western League. The name was changed to American League for the 1900 season, but the league stayed in the national agreement and avowedly played as a minor league that year. In 1901 however, Ban Johns son engineered the three expansion teams in Baltimore, Philadelphia and Boston, tossed out Indianapolis, Buffalo and Minneapolis, and convinced Manning to move Kansas City to Washington. They withdrew from the national agreement and treated themselves as a major league. The National League tried to form a new American Association to steal attendance from the AL before it could get off the ground. The AL considered itself a major league in 1901 and the National League admitted that in 1903 as Wahkeena states. I was unaware the Western League and the Western Association of 1888 were connected. What's the source on that?Acedtect19:21, 9 September 2006

[edit] Mistakes

There are several mistakes in the franchise summary. First the Detroit franchise began play in 1894 as the Wolverines, changing their name to the Tigers in 1895. Second, the Milwaukee Brewers franchise (precursor of the AL's SL Browns and today's Baltimore Orioles) operated under the name "Creams" in 1896. Third, the Sioux City (IA) Cornhuskers (precursors of today's White Sox) operated under the name "Apostles" in the years 1895, 1896 and 1898. They used the moniker "Saints" only in 1897 and 1899 before moving to Chicago in 1900. Fourth, the reference to the Toledo franchise is totally inaccurate. Begun as the Toledo White Stockings in 1894,they changed their name to the Swamp Angels in 1895 before moving to Terra Haute,In as the Hottentots for the remainder of the 1895 season. In 1896 they moved to Columbus, Ohio where they played as the Buckeyes in 1896 and the Senators in 1897, 98 and a part of '99. Later in 1899 they moved to Grand Rapids, MI where they played as the Furnituremakers. It was THIS Grand Rapids (and NOT the original GR team founded in 1894- see below)team that then relocated to Cleveland in 1900 and eventually became today's Indians. Fifth, regarding the orignal Grand Rapids team identified as a charter member in 1894, they were known as the Rippers (aka Rustlers) in 1894 and the Goldbugs in 1895, 96 and 97. In 1898 they were either disbanded or moved (not clear) and resurfaced in Omaha as the "Omahogs" aka "Babes'. Later in 1898 they finished their season out in St Joe, Mo as the Saints. After the 98 season, and again this is again unclear, the St Joe team was either disbanded or moved and it was THIS, NOT the original Toledo team, that became the Buffalo Bisons in 1899 and 1900. Some say this Buffalo team was then replaced by today's Red Sox when the AL attained major league status for the 1901 season. To repeat, the orignally chartered Toledo team became today's Indians via Terra Haute, Columbus and Grand Rapids. The originally chartered Grand Rapids team became (according to some) today's Red Sox via Omaha,, St Joe and Buffalo. As for the other three chartered franchise ie Indianapolis, Kansas City and Minneapolis, opinions are mixed. Some say the Kansas City franchise did actually relocate to Washington in 1901 and became the orignal Nationals ie Senators. This is true if one considers a team's roster to be defined as "the franchise". But if one considers "ownership license" to be the hallmark of a "franchise" then it is probably not true that the Kansas City franchise relocated and became the Washington franchise. Similarly this is true of the Indy franchise moving to Philadelphia in 1901 and becoming the A's. Perhaps only in the sense that several of the players made the move but the ownerships were different. Finally there is no evidence that the original Minneapolis Miller franchise had any connection to any of the orignally chartered Al teams in 1901 either the original Baltimore Orioles or their successor, today's Yankees. User:24.75.97.83 15:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• First, this has the tone of an editorial, which is why I moved it to the talk page. Second, you need to cite some sources. Third, teams seldom gave themselves nicknames in those days, so it is a mistake to make too much out of that issue. For example, according to Richard Bak's A Place for Summer, a history of baseball in Detroit, the 1894-1895 team was typically called the Detroits (common practice of that era) and also the Creams and occasionally the Tigers, but not particularly the Wolverines. "Tigers" was used in 1895 and largely took hold in 1896, but it was not an "official" nickname until the club got permission to use it (from Detroit's "Tiger Regiment") when the American League went major. Now, if you can cite some sources and leave out the accusatory tone, you could expand the franchise list usefully. Wahkeenah 16:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)