Talk:Major League Baseball

Template:Pbneutral

Founding year discussions merged

Founding of MLB

It was listed on this page as 1903 the year of the first World series. I changed it to 1869 when the first professional baseball game took place since MLB has used this date as it's founding. Major League Baseball had a Major League Baseball 100th Anniversary patch on MLB uniforms in 1969 and a Major League Baseball 125th Anniversary patch during the strike shortened 1994 season. DLA75 00:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

1869 is the generally accepted date for the beginning of openly professional baseball. The current major leagues date to 1876 and 1901, and the existing national agreement dates to 1903. But if MLB wants to date itself to 1868, then presumably that's their right. Wahkeenah 05:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there waa no league in 1869, there was no Major League Baseball. In 1869 one touring team openly admitted that all its players were paid. That is all. I don't see what right the "Major League Baseball" which puts patches on uniforms has to suggest that either itself or the activity it now oversees dates from a time when in fact neither existed. 24.36.35.188 (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone changed the year of Major League Basebll founding to 1876 the founding of the National League. As I said before since MLB uses 1869 when planing Anniversaries (100 1969) (125 1994) so lets stick to that.§DLA75 (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? The "source" is MLB's marketing department. There's no factual basis for such a date. 24.36.35.188 (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Founding Date

What possible justification is there for including 1869 as the founding date for Major League Baseball? The original Cincinnati Red Stockings became openly professional in 1869 - if you want to offer that as the beginning date for professional baseball, that makes sense, but this article is not about professional baseball, it is about the organization called Major League Baseball. I can see arguments for a variety of dates - 1876 and 1903 most prominently - but there is no conceivable justification for 1869. There was no baseball organization in 1869, much less a predecessor of MLB. The National League, which was later incorporated into MLB, was founded in 1876. I don't see how you can use a date earlier than that.--RossBarnes (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The National League was the first of what we now call major leagues, so its founding was obviously the beginning of what we now call major league baseball. It is important to carefully distinguish between major league baseball (the baseball played in the NL, AA, UA, PL, AL and FL) and Major League Baseball (the business entity).--24.36.35.188 (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Major League officially celebrated their 100th Anniversary in 1969 and 125th Anniversary in 1994 both commemorated by anniversary uniform patches with the MLB logo. MLB as a league treats 1869 as their founding. Their may be a good case agents this, but this should not be disregarded by changing the founding of Major League Basball to 1876 (the Founding of the National League) In Fact some of the NL charter teams predate the NL as Organizations. If you want to put an * feel free. --DLA75 (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is strictly impressionistic Original Research, so it's not usable without far more backup, but, as a non-baseball follower who came to the U.S. in 1961, I just don't remember Major League Baseball as an organization (like the Commissioner of Baseball, the National League and the American League) rather than a category (like professional baseball, the minor leagues and the major leagues) before a big reorganization and marketing push in the 1980's or 1990's (partly to negotiate with the Major League Baseball Players' Association which I think of as beginning as a union for baseball players in the major leagues rather than for players in Major League Baseball.) If you said "MLB" to a non-fan before then, you'd draw a blank, although "AL" and "NL" would be recognizable, as would "major league baseball" as the top tier of "American professional baseball". For example, "Brooklyn Dodgers (MLB)" or "New York Giants (MLB)" would be meaningless formulations to their most casual observers [as opposed to "Brooklyn Dodgers (NL)" and "New York Giants (NL)"].

But on first glance this whole article looks as if it came from MLB.com, as if there were such a thing in 1969 or 1935. I don't think it makes clear enough when it's referring to the unified organization that has now eclipsed the once completely-autonomous, often-hostile AL and NL, and when it's referring to U.S. baseball organized into professional leagues. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally concur. The date of the MLB's founding needs to be the date the actual organization was founded. While I can see 1876, the date of the NL's founding, as somewhat acceptable (since the NL was for all practical purposes merged into the MLB), I can't accept 1869 in any way. I am changing it back to 1876, as this is atleast more credible than 1869. - BillCJ (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, despite using the MLB logo, the 100th anniversary patches worn in 1969 were officially only commemorations of "professional baseball." Spark240 (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Major league baseball (capitalization)

I'm sorry I hadn't thoroughly read the other discussions of this same topic (spread all over this Talk Page) before my own contribution above, although it doesn't substantially change my point. Personally, I would have felt less misled if (getting into wikitrivia) the Home or Main or Mother title of this article were either "Major league baseball" or perhaps "Major League baseball" (with other capitalizations redirecting) to make clear that this article covers the principal organized (non-Negro) professional leagues as well as the organization begun in the 1960's called MLB. By way of a very faulty parallel, there's a difference between the Permanent Members of the U.N. Security Council and the Superpowers. They overlapped for several decades, but it's useful to know when an article is discussing one topic and when it's discussing another. —— Shakescene (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagreements about Founding dates

I wrote a paragraph explaining the disagreements about the founding of major league baseball but it was removed along with the founding date changed back to 1876 from 1969. I think is information is important and should be dicussed. MLB uses 1969 and the Red Stockings as their founding. If I was to disregard the MLB used date of 1869 would go with the founding of National Association of Professional Base Ball Players in 1871 which is also the begining of stats and records in most Baseball Encyclopedias. DLA75 (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I felt bad about deleting user:DLA75's paragraph completely, because I think it's a legitimate point of view for discussion here. (For technical reasons, it had to go when I changed back the date.) I retrieved it from the Edit History and reproduce it below with minor corrections for spelling, etc.

Founding

Major League Baseball has used 1869, the date of the first professional team, the Cincinnati Red Stockings, and has had official celebrations for its 100th anaversary in 1969 and 125th anniversary in 1994 which were both commemorated with league wide shoulder patches. The present day Chicago Cubs and Atlanta Braves franchises can both trace their histories back to the National Association of Professional Base Ball Players in the early 1870's. Many believe that the formation of the National League in 1876 is the beginning of Major League Baseball. Some also believe the signing of the National Agreement in 1902 is the true beginning of Major League Baseball.

—— Shakescene (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference is between 1869 (first professional team play) and the 1876 date (first National League play). Since this article is not about the history of baseball itself, but is about the Major League Baseball, then the question becomes: "Does the MLB trace its ancestry to the NL". If not, then an even LATER date would have to be used.Entirelybs (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

also the MLB history section has a page that mentions a difference between a league of players vs. a league of clubsEntirelybs (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Founding Date - analogy - one good analogy would be to use the founding of the US as an example. Would you say that the US was founded before 1776 because some of the original colonies have been around (and have charters) that predate 1776? Or maybe we should use 1774, because that was when the First Continental Congress convened. Granted, MLB doesn't have an event or document like the Declaration of Independence. But, it does have a Major League Baseball Constitution from 1903, and that wikipage also references the existence of an NL constitution from 1876. So, this is why I say the argument should be between 1876 or 1903. If we accept the "modern baseball era" then 1903 works. If we accept a pre-cursor organization, then the 1876 founding of the NL organization works, too. But simply using when the first team was organized is like giving the start of the US as the start of the founding of Massachusetts Bay colony. Entirelybs (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets compromise on 1871 since both the present day Chicago Cubs and Atlanta Braves (then Boston) date back to the National Association of Professional Base Ball Players. Major League records in Basenall Encyclopedias treat the National Association of Professional Base Ball Players like it is part of the Major Leagues and use recoeds and stats from it. 69.248.122.122 (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Every US major sports league has teams that existed before the league itself (Montreal Canadians, Philadelphia 76ers, Green Bay Packers are just a few examples). You definitely CANNOT use the founding dates of those teams when they predate the current league. I think its pretty clear to use the founding date of the current National League (1876). Anything before that may be a part of professional baseball history - its just not a direct part of MLB history. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is generally recognized that Moses Fleetwood Walker was the first Afreican Americain to play in the Major Leagues. Yet he played in the defunct American Association not the National League. Why is the American Association part of Major League Baseball history but not the National Association? DLA75 (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The NA was an entirely separate league that died, while the AA was merged into the NL following the 1891 season. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

All-American Girls Professional Baseball League

Why isn't there any history info about this? I know it already has its own page, but can't there be a little summary paragraph with a link to the main page? I don't know how to do that but if someone who knew how to and would do this it would help the page out a lot. I think that was a very important part of our history and baseball's history. Kgreg10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgreg10 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Needs review

There are entire sections of this article that are not referenced. I can't imagine that this was promoted to GA in its current form.Neonblak ^talk - 20:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Switching Leagues

In the past, how often have ball clubs switched leagues? Jumping from AL to NL and vis versa? Has the issue arisen or been proposed in modern times? --147.226.164.32 (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Only happened once in modern times. Milwaukee jumped from the AL to the NL when the Rays joined the AL in 1998. Teams often jumped from other leagues to the NL, the Pirates, Dodgers, Reds, and Cardinals all jumped from the American Association to the National Leauge, but that was in the 1880s and 1890s. If MLB adds another couple teams at some point, it is possible another team will make the jump, probably from the NL to the AL. Pretty sure all of this is covered in the relevant articles already, except for the speculation about future MLB expansion. shaggy (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

When the American League was founded, its promoter Ban Johnson deliberately put several AL franchises where established NL teams already played, specifically Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and St Louis. (This might seem commercial folly, but within a few years, many of those AL teams were playing and drawing better than their cross-town NL rivals.) At the last expansion, there would have been 15 teams in each league, which looks great in the abstract, but works terribly in practice, because you could then only have 7 pairs of teams playing within each league on any one day, automatically leaving a partnerless odd-man-out. So the Milwaukee Braves (who began as the Seattle Pilots, AL) were subtracted from the American League to leave it with 14 teams and added to the National to increase it to 16 teams. Milwaukee's previous major league ball team had been the Braves (after they had moved from Boston in 1953 and before they moved to Atlanta) in the National League, so Milwaukee fans were already familiar with their NL opponents. While there have been several shifts in city, and many changes of name, this has been the only case so far of a team switching between the American and National Leagues. Apart from Wikipedia itself, the baseball sections of most general-interest American almanacs today (such as the World Almanac and the New York Times Almanac) include a summary of the most important moves and expansions since 1903. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

MLB in media, Video Games

Normally video game references are shunned by the Wikipedia community, but I do believe they should have a reference on this page, due to the mention of MLB in media. Thoughts anyone? (Falcon_Gamer) July 14th, 2009

Promotion and relegation

Why is this concept even discussed on this page? It is completely irrelevant to North American sports. I keep finding this concept cropping up on articles about North American sports, usually accompanied (as it is here) by the unsubstantiated implication that promotion and relegation is somehow the natural or default state of affairs and that the American leagues are actively preventing it from taking hold. On the contrary, promotion and relegation is a concept that is simply foreign to the North American mind (except among those who passionately follow foreign sports). At a minimum, if the non-existence of promotion and relegation simply must be mentioned, articles should not speculate wildly about why it does not exist in North America. It's just as likely to be the fact that, in a geographically large country such as the United States or Canada, it makes more sense for every region to have a permanent top-flight team, rather than let weaker teams drift out. If promotion and relegation were used in North America, sooner or later, all of the top-league teams would be concentrated in a few urban areas and one would be able to drive a thousand miles without being able to see a ballgame. That, frankly, is the more likely explanation for why the idea has not arisen here. CoramVobis (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rankings in World Series chart

I did the major early reformatting of the World Series chart, but tried to keep the original creator's or importer's organization, which included "1st" for the Yankees (26 wins), "2nd" for the Cardinals (10), etc., and varied the background gray to distinguish the different ranks. There's value to that in that it shows that, whatever the order of their wins, two or more teams have won an equal number of series, as well as breaking up a long list of 30 teams. And it's nice to have a chart that isn't identical to all the ones on other baseball pages, since it serves a slightly different purpose here. On the other hand, I or anyone else could reformat this chart to look more like the one at World Series, which might seem less invidious to newer or less-successful teams (e.g. the Rays and Rockies have had no chance yet to become "1st" by winning 26 World Series.) Without the rankings, the chart could also be made sortable (like the one at World Series) to satisfy many readers' and editors' desires. I've wondered about this, both ways, for a long time. What do others think? —— Shakescene (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Map

I've noticed the other leagues have a map of the country with locations and colored dots based on league and division, any chance we could get that for baseball? Redwolf24 (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal on Naming Conventions

Hello, all!

Please join me here for a renewed discussion on relocated sports teams. Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

When is Target Field the Twins' home?

Two editors (with IP addresses, if that's significant) have changed the Minnesota Twins's ballpark in MLB#Current major league franchises from the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome to Target Field. Although the Twins, barring something unforeseen, have played their last game at the Metrodome, it seems premature to put them in Target Field at the moment, so I reverted the changes, while expanding the table's internal footnote (18) about Target Field. The Twins' web-site doesn't talk of Target Field as their current home, although web-sites often lag reality. However, I could very easily be wrong, and the other editors right, depending on what other sources say. This is a throwback to the extensive and repeated discussions, which many here will remember well, of the same point earlier this year at Talk:Yankee Stadium (1923) and Talk:Yankee Stadium. Does anyone else have any insights, sources or information? (For example, where are the Twins' offices now? Have the Twins' lockers been moved?) —— Shakescene (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think we can say they're in the midst of a transition right now to Target field. They're already done the symbolic move of home plate to the new park. The lockers have been cleared out at HHH for the off season. I would honestly have no problem with switching them to Target Field now. They're stated they played their last game at HHH and their season is done, which would lead me to logically conclude one way or another their next game will be at the new stadium. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with the way it's handled in the Information Box at Minnesota Twins; it's a little harder here because of the space limitations in the table (although I suppose that for the moment we could put "H.H. Humphrey Metrodome/Target Field" with an appropriate explanatory footnote). As was pointed out in the Yankee Stadium discussions, teams can sometimes end up not opening in the stadiums they'd fully planned to start in. The Metrodome situation also differs from Shea and the House that Ruth Built because the Metrodome will still operate (though without the Twins, barring some unforeseen catastrophe or legal roadblock at the not-yet-complete Target Field). —— Shakescene (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Does anyone recall how Qualcomm and Petco Park were handled in San Diego in 2004? That is a situation that mirrors this one where the new stadium wasn't quite done at the close of the previous season and the team left a stadium that is still functioning? Gateman1997 (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Until this becomes clearer (or the Twins officially move), I'm listing both stadiums (HHH 1982-2009; Target 2010). The Twins' web site currently talks about Target Field as the "2010 home of the Central Division Champions", and doesn't seem to consider it home yet, but other sources, either way, are of course welcome. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Boroughs in Franchise table

The Yankees were listed in the Bronx and the Mets in Queens in our franchise table, until User:Commandr Cody tried to apply some consistency, and listed in the footnotes when they were in other boroughs (as we list former cities for the A's and Braves). This, however, looked too detailed for me, so I changed both the Mets and Yankees to New York City, since they've never stopped being the New York Mets and Yankees, no matter what borough they were playing in. [The counter-example of the Brooklyn Dodgers doesn't really apply, because (1) that's a former home, not a current one, (2) they were never the New York (Trolley-)Dodgers or anything else, and (3) Brooklyn was an independent city outside New York City when they began playing.]

On the other hand, few will deny the strong borough identifications of these two teams, so I noted them in the stadium column, where we don't footnote former stadia as we do former cities. I did have User:Gateman's point (that we don't list neighborhoods or districts for any other hometown) in mind when doing that, so I moused over each of the other cities in the table, and they are in fact the cities where those stadia are located (e.g. Anaheim, Miami Gardens and Arlington rather than L.A., Miami or Dallas-Ft Worth). Listing the NYC borough (each over 1.5 million in population), therefore, isn't that far a stretch. Since the two L.A. teams and two Bay Area teams are in fact listed for different cities, the only counter-example might be Chicago, where we don't say North Side and South Side, although perhaps we might. It's really a judgement call, but you won't get tossed for expressing a different judgement. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think you nailed exactly why we shouldn't list the boroughs however when you bring up the "LA" teams and the A's and Giants. The A's play in Oakland, which is an independent city that is not part of San Francisco in any way shape or form. Same goes for the Angels in Anaheim. The Yankees and Mets however both play in the City of New York. Yes they're in different boroughs but if we list those, regardless of their populations, we might as well list the Padres as playing in the Gaslap District in San Diego, or that the Giants play in China Basin. The boroughs, while large both in area and population, are still just subunits of New York City and are not independent of New York City just as the North and South sides of Chicago aren't independent cities. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection needed til mid-November 2009?

Needless to say, there seems to have been more traffic on this page once the regular baseball season closed. And also many edits by IP's (unregistered editors identified only by their Internet Protocol address) trying to change text and table entries for the Yankees, Phillies and other teams. Not to condemn all IP's, because some of them have been correcting the errors of others. But should we ask for semi-protection until mid-November for this and closely-related pages (e.g. World Series, List of World Series champions, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies, Yankee Stadium, ...)? —— Shakescene (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Power Age"...

...is an adorably delusional euphemism. It seems interesting that the s-word appears nowhere on this talk page. Equally interesting is the use of the term "allegations" in sections of the article where "positive test results" would be more accurate. Mark McGwire has just released fairly well covered statement regarding his "training regiment" during a period in his career where he and Sosa, by nearly all accounts, lead a resurgence in interest in the game of baseball, which had suffered following the '94 strike. This period of his career coincides with the "Power Age".

I would like to discuss how accurate the wikipedia community would like the "Power Age" section of this article to be. Do people think this section of the article is as accurate as it could/should be? Thank you. - Gwopy 23:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

THE NEW YORK YANKEES

THE NEW YORK YANKEES ARE THE RICHEST TEAM IN THE MLB. THE YANKEES WON THE WORLD SERIES THEY ARE THE MOST RESPECTED TEAM FOR THE MLB. THE WORLD SERIES THIS YEAR THE YANKEES WON THATS THIER 27TH RING & AND PENDENT. THE YANKEES BEAT THE philadelphia phillies THE philadelphia phillies WERE THE DEFFENDING CHAMPS THEY HAD LOST BADLY AND THAT WAS THE BIGGEST UPSET FOR THE philadelphia phillies. THE YANKEES SHOWED THEY WERE MORE SUPERRYER IN THE WHOLE SEASON.