Talk:National Association of Professional Base Ball Players

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baseball or Base Ball?[edit]

Why "Baseball"? What must be done to move this to "National Association of Professional Base Ball Players"? Someone (administrator?) must write out a long redirect, and that will slow performance . . . but it's bad to write [[National Association of Professional Base Ball Players| National Association of Professional Base Ball Players]]?

The association name is a proper noun, with a common abbreviation NAPBBP that matches only the historically correct version, and it fits the 'pedia treatment of the preceding National Association of Base Ball Players (NABBP).

Why not "Base Ball" in all historical proper nouns? --P64 22:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Almost from the beginning, the game has been spelled "base ball", "base-ball" or "baseball", and those variants persisted clear into the 20th century. I haven't a clue what the wiki rules are on this. Consider the words "court house" vs. "courthouse", for example. Wahkeenah 02:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

particular Clubs[edit]

The Washington Nationals (National Association) is linked to the current Washington Nationals (National League) which is incorrect. The Washington Nationals are the former Montreal Expos which was an expansion team in 1969.

I'm not even sure if the Washington Nationals of 1872 should be linked to the Washington Blue Legs of 1873 or the Washington Nationals of 1875. baseball-reference lists them all as separate franchises. But yes, certainly none of those franchises should be linked to any of the 20th & 21st century Washington teams.
OK, that link now goes to a disambiguation page which has a large list of 19th century teams at the bottom.
Right. Today's Nationals were an expansion team in 1969, and have absolutely no connection to the Nationals of antiquity (i.e. before 1900). Even if there was any connection between that team and any of the major league Washington teams of the 1880s and 1890s, it's irrelevant, as the Washington Nationals club was absorbed by the NL in 1900. The new Nationals of 1901 (later called Senators) took the name from the old team, but as far as I know they had no other connection... nor any, of course, to the current Nationals team. Wahkeenah 21:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The St Louis Brown Stockings (National Association) is linked to the current St Louis Cardinals (National League) which is incorrect. The Cardinals may have been known as Brown Stockings in 1882, but do not have a link to the 1875 team.

Looking at the 19th Century NL franchises page, there is a red link to a team called St. Louis Brown Stockings. This is the franchise that the St Louis Brown Stockings (National Association) should be linked to as baseball-reference is stating that the 1875 team was the same franchise.
Arguably, the Brown Stockings of the NA (1875) and the NL (1876-77) are the ancestors of the current Cardinals. Although dropped from the NL in 1878, the team continued to operate in one form or another until Chris Von der Ahe came along, bought the franchise, and revived its major status by entering the club as a charter member of the AA (1882) and eventually back into the NL when the leagues merged (1892). That's according to one source, St. Louis' Big League Ballparks, by Joan M. Thomas, a recent publication by Arcadia. I would argue that more research is needed to validate all this, but it's noteworthy at least. However, the St. Louis Red Stockings or Reds of 1875 did not survive, and have no apparent connection to any other big league clubs. Wahkeenah 21:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Brown Stockings stub[edit]

Part of the above is obsolete because
There is now a St. Louis Brown Stockings stub for the 1875-1877 teams; St. Louis Brown Stockings (1876-1877) is a Redirect to that page. There were only two! inlinks to St. Louis Brown Stockings meaning 1882 or later, which now link to St. Louis Cardinals instead.

Note that St. Louis Brown Stockings covers the club(its teams) during its NA and NL membership, as for the five other clubs who abandoned NA to establish NL.

Now, too, there is one category for Brown Stockings 1875-1877 players and one for Red Stockings 1875 players. --P64 00:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe we need some consensus on these early clubs. I wrote a separate page that covers both of the early teams, on the grounds that there was too little information to justify separate articles, plus there was a contrast between them, i.e. one was strictly a local club and the other (the one that survived a little longer) was more of a national club. So now we have my St. Louis (NA) which I admit is a little misleading of a title, and your St. Louis Brown Stockings and your St. Louis Brown Stockings (1876-1877) which redirects back to St. Louis Brown Stockings. If you want your St. Louis Brown Stockings to stay, then I reckon we need a separate entry for the short-term St. Louis Red Stockings, which currently redirects back to my St. Louis (NA), and which would be about one paragraph. In short, I think we need, at most, 2 articles. What do you think? Wahkeenah 03:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
St. Louis Brown Stockings (1876-1877) is not mine but the residual of projects(?) to cover the NL with categories and annual standings. Two days ago(?), St. Louis Brown Stockings was a redirect to St. Louis Cardinals but something like ten? of 12 inlinks were meant for the earlier club or one of the three 1875-1877 seasons (eg, see Lip Pike). So I revised the two? links and dedicated simply St. Louis Brown Stockings to the earlier club.
Regarding the break between 1877 and 1882, I read your (Wahkeenah's) words both cautious here in February and firm at St. Louis (NA) in June: Folded when a new St. Louis Brown Stockings professional club was organized in 1882. So I didn't hesitate to write the distinction in stone!
Regarding St. Louis (NA), my thought was and it remains: Until someone has more to write about the Red Stockings, there is no need for a proper disambiguation page (presumably "St. Louis (NA)"). The present content of the page should remain there, because we don't have much to say about the Reds except implicitly, the Browns being what the Reds were not. --P64 20:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Clubs 1874-1875[edit]

I don't know where the sources are for the Philadelphia Pearls and Philadelphia Phillies are, but all relative online resouces have them officially called the Athletics, and as the same team as the 1873 Philadelphia club. Resources are Baseball-Reference, Baseball Almanac, and Retrosheet. I corrected it once, but it was reverted back. I do not engage in edit wars, so I will leave this evidence for future reference. Neonblak 18:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There were at least two different Philadelphia clubs in the NA simultaneously. One was "Athletic", which ran for the league's five years of existence and was brought into the National League. The other(s) was/were a second club that was simply called "Philadelphia" in the standings. Wahkeenah 18:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's the rundown on the Philadelphia-based clubs in the NA, from my old Baseball Encyclopedia:

Athletic

1871 22-7 1st place
1872 30-14 2nd place
1873 28-23 4th place
1874 33-23 3rd place
1875 53-20 2nd place
1876 Joined National League but was expelled after the season

Philadephia

1873 36-17 2nd place
1874 29-29 4th place
1875 37-31 5th place
1876 Disbanded

Centennial

1875 2-12 (did not finish)

Wahkeenah 18:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cathedrals says that the 1873-1875 club was nicknamed "White Stockings". Seems to me I've read other sources that claimed the name "Phillies" was used for that club. I'm not sure where the "Pearls" name comes from. Meanwhile, the encyclopedia indicates that Jimmy Wood was the manager for all 3 seasons of the "Philadelphia" club. Chick Fulmer also played for the "Philadelphia" club for all 3 seasons. So there is some suggestion of continuity there. It's a little hard to tell, as players in the NA bounced around quite a lot, going wherever the money was (that kind of thing, called "revolving", or what we would call "free agency", was put to a stop by the NL). Wahkeenah 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team names[edit]

OK, I introduced the "double list" of names, and looking at it now, I don't like it. I'm going to see what I can do to consolidate the lists. Wahkeenah 19:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the list change, it apears to now coincide with what most resources say, that Philly only had the three franchises, known today as the White Stockings, Athletics, and Centenials, despite the fact that other names were used in the boxscores of the day. With your changes, it looks correct. Of course, that may change one day.
    • My guess would be that "Pearls" was a sportswriter's variation on "White (Stockings)", just a way of being "cute". There's another area of confusion, though: about the two (or more) Washington franchises. I'll research that further when I can. Wahkeenah 12:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may be no good answer to the question of club and team names but I feel that revisions should be discussed. The latest changes, now one week old, were made without explanation from IP addresses with no edit history at all (Citys=>Cities, two instances) and only one other edit (Kekionga=>Fort Wayne). --P64 (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NA statistics recognized?[edit]

I've deleted a clause about MLB not recognizing the NA statistics because, on the MLB.COM website, Cap Anson's 1871-5 stats with the Rockford Forest Citys and Philadelphia Athletics are included in his totals. I've left the preceding clause about the MLB official history not classifying it as a recognized major league because I can't speak to that, but it might be worth doublechecking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbening (talk • contribs).

That note is almost three years old, August 2007.
NAPBBP 1871-75 records are today included in the "Major League" career statistical rankings that mlb.com generates on the fly. For example, Al Spalding ranks high by pitcher wins with 252: career ranks, pitcher Wins, Major League (mlb.com).
Indeed, Spalding ranks 15 in the "National League" because his 1871-75 wins are included there, too: career ranks, pitcher Wins, National League (mlb.com).
In covering the major leagues at wikipedia, how if at all should we keep up with MLB.com's installation of the historical statistical database on the web?
For what it's worth, I doubt that this represents any policy decision by MLB. I don't know; I guess that it falls within the scope of personal freedom for the author of the web application. --P64 (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently mlb.com does not provide selection of player-season records by team-season for defunct clubs. For example, visit Jim O'Rourke at mlb.com --identified as primary position, catcher. There are no links to his team-seasons for 1872, 1879, 1881-84, 1890, and 1893.
What about team-season records by league-season? For example, team totals for NAPBBP 1872?
(My purpose was to check which edition of SABR and Total Baseball records for 1872 is now incorporated, by reference to the 1872 Middletown Mansfields. That is a useful team because there were some late 1990s revisions in its playing records. I can get back to this later by visiting individual players.) --P64 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all online references include NA stats in calculating career statistics. I use Retrosheet for most of research on players, and they have the most complete statistical database for all seasons from 1871-1875. O'Rourke's] page for instance, you can see that they breakdown the stats he accumulated in each league. If the decision is made that the NA stats don't count for "MLB" career stats, you can simply substract from the grand total. Hope this nugget helps.Neonblak talk - 17:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't directly helpful. The point isn't how to find career records for players that do and do not sum the NAPBBP 1871-75 along with the NL from 1876, and so on. The point is when and how to speak of the "major leagues" and "major league baseball" here at wikipedia. The history of categories, lists, article titles, and ordinary wikiprose shows that "we" very much want to keep with and match MLB's own policing of its brandname. What else is the point of capitalizing "Major League Baseball" in uses such as categories of team and player articles? If we don't want to follow MLB's direction then we don't need to replicate articles, lists, categories along the 1875/1876 faultline (and we might choose not to do so at 1869/1870 either).
This approach was established before mid-2006 when I was a lad and it underwrites your end-2008 work, Neon, see especially NA vs. ML.
[Let me reorganize my comment and reply-to-self by collecting the comparison with cricket as a footnote --with apology to Baseball Bugs who has replied to the 23:11 version in the meantime. --P64 (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)][reply]
The same goes for First Class Cricket in the historical articles on cricket. "Major League Baseball" and "First Class Cricket" provide basic organizing principles here at wikipedia. ... Oops, I need to catch up with the times. The one-year-old article Variations in first-class cricket statistics and the relatively young article Major cricket show that cricket at wikipedia has moved some distance from "the same" position that I attributed above. --P64 (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I didn't understand what you were asking, what Bugs says below seems to be part of explanation, but it is pretty confusing, this is how I have been going about my business in the oldtime era. 1) Any player who has played since 1871 has been called a "major league" player, even he played one game for the 1875 Mutuals. Although, I do, now, call the NA player "professional baseball players" instead of "major leaguers" if they only played 1875 or before. The NL, AA, PL, UA, AL, and FL are "major" leagues, however the actual agreement between the NL and AL in, I think 1902 (?), established the entity called "Major League Baseball". I don't know the actual answer, and I am still not sure that this has an established consensus or not. Maybe this answer helps better than my last one.Neonblak talk - 04:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Far as I know, the NA is still not considered to be a "major league", but its stats may turn up for individuals as a reference point. The NA was replaced by the NL as the top professional league. Again, far as I know, "Major League Baseball", in itself, is considered to be the AL and the NL only. History books tend to put the AA, UA, PL and sometimes the FL (and once, but no longer, the NA) in the "major league" category (note lower case) in the sense of being top professional leagues in the USA. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the official MLB page for Bobby Mathews here, the top of the page states "MLB Debut: May 4, 1871" which clearly makes reference to his Fort Wayne debut. Kinston eagle (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Association_of_Professional_Base_Ball_Players&oldid=1204198989"