Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

by **LastTrain** » Fri May 17, 2019 07:42:01

phillychuck wrote:The 23-22 game always reminds me of the 1976 game where we fell behind the cubs 13-2, then ended up winning 18-16. Because of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjBt5RRxNVM

I keep watching the LF on the first HR to make sure it's not a camera glitch.

by **BatFlipsFTW** » Fri May 17, 2019 12:39:15

And theres the comeback against the Pirates where the Buccos play by play said he'd walk home if they lost the game.

He did a charity walk from Philly to Pittsburgh that offseason.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Sat May 18, 2019 07:51:28

I am reading the old Harold Seymour book Baseball: The Early Years, and there is lots of interesting stuff in it, but the thing that has struck me most so far is this: at its inception in 1876, the National League instituted a minimum get-in price of $0.50, which struck me as awfully high.

An online inflation calculator I used, which only lets you go back to 1913, suggests that $0.50 in 1913 money would be about $12 today. I can’t imagine what it would mean if we added another 37 years to the gap in time, but I will say this: I paid $4.65 to see a White Sox game in Chicago earlier this year.

Baseball: deflating America’s economy for 150 years!

by **smitty** » Sat May 18, 2019 18:55:10

BatFlipsFTW wrote:And theres the comeback against the Pirates where the Buccos play by play said he'd walk home if they lost the game.

He did a charity walk from Philly to Pittsburgh that offseason.

Jim Rooker. I remember it well.

https://archive.triblive.com/sports/pir ... ittsburgh/

by **thephan** » Mon May 20, 2019 10:57:03

Cue up the storied Chicago franchise as the teams next opponent. The Phillies (Quakers) have been around a long time, but Chicago nips our lads having joined organized ball in 1871 (Phils were 1883 and A's 1901). Until Chicago settled on a Ursidae theme for some of its prominent professional teams, they sported the names Chicago White Stockings; Chicago Colts; and Chicago Orphans.

As a side note, that first name should be a bell ringer for the South Sideers and their inferiority complex. The White Sox started as the Sioux City Cornhuskers then 1894, Charles Comiskey bought them and formed the St. Paul Saints, then in 1900 he moved them to his home town renaming them the White Stockings. In 1901 the Western League became part of the founding of the American League. The White Stockings won the championship that first year. The Cub's were going by the name Orphans at that point.

by **BatFlipsFTW** » Mon May 20, 2019 12:26:47

Would love to hear the 1900s reason for naming a team the Orphans.

by **stevelxa476** » Mon May 20, 2019 13:02:05

From Wikipedia: As a result, Chicago's club nickname transitioned, and by 1890 they had become known as the Chicago Colts,[9] or sometimes "Anson's Colts", referring to Cap's influence within the club. Anson was the first player in history credited with collecting 3,000 career hits. After a disappointing record of 59–73 and a ninth-place finish in 1897, Anson was released by the Cubs as both a player and manager.[10] Due to Anson's absence from the club after 22 years, local newspaper reporters started to refer to the Colts as the "Orphans".

by **BatFlipsFTW** » Mon May 20, 2019 13:33:43

Simpler times........

by **philliesphhan** » Mon May 20, 2019 16:46:40

thephan wrote:
Cue up the storied Chicago franchise as the teams next opponent. The Phillies (Quakers) have been around a long time, but Chicago nips our lads having joined organized ball in 1871 (Phils were 1883 and A's 1901).

I've often wondered when the Phillies actually started (and whether they were ever the Quakers as I've seen "Phillies" as far back as their first seasons) because I've actually seen articles about them prior to 1883 of them playing games in the exact same park (Recreation Park) that the National League team played in.

edit: In fact, I just came across an article in 1882 of the Phillies playing against "Quaker City"

by **thephan** » Mon May 20, 2019 23:21:32

Apparently Phillies fans have always been mostly lazy and sort of forced the Phillies moniker on the team really early.

by **thephan** » Mon May 20, 2019 23:29:42

From the game thread:

Wolfgang622 wrote:Hahaha little stare by McCutcheon at Odubel.

Reminded me of that favorite story about Ashburn living life as an expansion player with the dirty Mets. Ashburn had near misses all that season with short stop Elio Chacon on short fly balls to center field. Chacon spoke no English and apparently had no idea what Richie was shouting about. Ashburn learned from a bilingual player that he should shout yo la tengo; more or less meaning I've got it. Sure enough it worked only to have English speaking left-fielder Frank Thomas demolish Ashburn. After pulling his center fielder from the ground, Thomas asked him “What’s a Yellow Tango?

Big old story about Richie Ashburn including the Chacon chronicles.

by **thephan** » Tue May 21, 2019 10:54:07

stevelxa476 wrote:From Wikipedia: As a result, Chicago's club nickname transitioned, and by 1890 they had become known as the Chicago Colts,[9] or sometimes "Anson's Colts", referring to Cap's influence within the club. Anson was the first player in history credited with collecting 3,000 career hits. After a disappointing record of 59–73 and a ninth-place finish in 1897, Anson was released by the Cubs as both a player and manager.[10] Due to Anson's absence from the club after 22 years, local newspaper reporters started to refer to the Colts as the "Orphans".

Thanks for the clarification around that name. I was curious and put it on my todo list. I will admit to having a sinking feeling that the 1919 season and Orphan was some dower reference to the end of WWI. Glad to know that was not the case.

by **thephan** » Tue May 21, 2019 14:42:25

Everyone love good old Wrigley, going strong for 104 years. The question is how many ballparks, including Wrigley, have the Cubs (all name variants) played in?

[Reveal] Spoiler:

6

23rd Street Grounds
Location: 23rd and State streets
Years: 1876-1877
Record at Park: 42-18

Lakefront Park
Location: South of Randolph Street, between Michigan Ave. and Illinois Central Railroad tracks
Years: 1878-1884
Record at Park: 225-86

West Side Park
Location: Congress and Throop streets
Years: 1885-1891
Record at Park: 288-131
Notes: In 1891, the ballpark was used solely for Monday, Wednesday and Friday home games.

South Side Park
Location: 35th and Wentworth streets
Years: 1891-1893
Record at Park: 85-75
Notes: In 1891, the ballpark was used solely for Monday, Wednesday and Friday home games.

West Side Grounds
Location: Polk and Lincoln (now Wolcott) streets
Years: 1893-1915
Record at Park: 1042-664-32
Capacity: 16,000
Dimensions: Left field: 340 feet; center field: 560 feet; right field: 316 feet

Wrigley Field
Location: Clark and Addison streets
Years: 1916-Present
Record at Park: 1,018-640
Capacity: 38,765
Notes: Originally built as Weeghman Park, was renamed Cubs Park in 1920 and Wrigley Field in 1926.

by **SwingOnThis** » Tue May 21, 2019 14:51:22

So the Cubs enjoy a lifetime .614 winning percentage at Wrigley? Curious to see how other teams measure up over that time period.

by **lonfident** » Tue May 21, 2019 15:49:03

How did the Cubs only have 1658 home games in 103 yrs?

by **thephan** » Tue May 21, 2019 16:11:40

lonfident wrote:How did the Cubs only have 1658 home games in 103 yrs?

Good question since you are correct that there should have been something around 8000 home games.

Quick math says the Cubs total record from 1916 through 2018 is 7938 wins & 8183 losses, so that MLB site has a problem with its math. 16121 total games.
source

by **Bill McNeal** » Tue May 21, 2019 16:23:35

During WW2 the cubs and shite socks combined into one team named the bear stockings and played their games on an air ship over Lake Erie

by **thephan** » Wed May 22, 2019 10:53:58

Today in baseball history:

In 1914 Ben Tincup became the first member of the Cherokee nation to play in the major leagues. The 21 year-old Phillies right-hander made his debut at Pittsburg's Forbes Field in an 8-2 loss earning him a typical "welcome to the Phillies" kid.

In 1930, Babe Ruth had a big day in Philadelphia when tied the major league record by hitting five homers in two games and six homers in three games. He swatted three homeruns in the second game of the previous day's doubleheader, added two more in the first game of May 22's twin bill, and piled on with one more in the nightcap. Lou Gehrig also went deep three times in the second game of the doubleheader for a 20-13 Yankee victory over the A's at Shibe Park.

by **BatFlipsFTW** » Wed May 22, 2019 12:06:31

thephan wrote:
stevelxa476 wrote:From Wikipedia: As a result, Chicago's club nickname transitioned, and by 1890 they had become known as the Chicago Colts,[9] or sometimes "Anson's Colts", referring to Cap's influence within the club. Anson was the first player in history credited with collecting 3,000 career hits. After a disappointing record of 59–73 and a ninth-place finish in 1897, Anson was released by the Cubs as both a player and manager.[10] Due to Anson's absence from the club after 22 years, local newspaper reporters started to refer to the Colts as the "Orphans".

Thanks for the clarification around that name. I was curious and put it on my todo list. I will admit to having a sinking feeling that the 1919 season and Orphan was some dower reference to the end of WWI. Glad to know that was not the case.

Why would that give you a sinking feeling?

by **thephan** » Wed May 22, 2019 15:39:42

BatFlipsFTW wrote:Why would that give you a sinking feeling?

Since WWI created a substantial number of orphans, it would be of questionable taste to honor the effected by calling the team Orphans after their plight. It would not be a wonderful honorarium to that human struggle of the time.

Archived

Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Re: Going, going, gone ... the Baseball History Thread

Quick Reply