SPORT RIPKEN

So who are baseball’s most storied franchises anyway?

87 Comments

I wrote this earlier today and a couple of people have asked me about it:

The Yankees may be baseball’s most storied franchise, but the Cardinals and Red Sox are probably in the top four.

The question asked: who the other top-four team would be.

Good question! It was a half-throwaway thought at the time, but for what it’s worth I was thinking the Dodgers.  Then I thought a bit more and realized that the Giants have an argument too, especially if you’re looking at overall franchise history and aren’t weighting more heavily for recency.

But wait! Do we weight more heavily for World Series championships? Overall record? Pennants?  Some hard-to-define notion of tradition? Because that could change the answer too! For example, everyone knows the Yankees have the most World Series titles and most know the Cardinals are second. But I bet most of you can’t guess which team has the third most World Series titles. Give up? Yup, the Athletics, with nine. They rarely get talked of as One of the Great Franchises, though, because (a) they moved cities a couple of times; and (b) their gold and green and lack of either an historical or otherwise cool stadium makes them seem less TRADITIONAL.

Raw wins is a problem because it’ll weight too much for the longer-lived NL, right? I mean, the Cubs are second among all baseball teams in raw wins, but we’re not going to call them the second most-storied franchise, are we? Just feels wrong, even though they do have the crazy-old ballpark and tradition coming out of their ears.

Here the top teams in various categories:

World Series titles: Yankees (27), Cardinals (11), Athletics (9), Giants (7), Red Sox (7), Dodgers (6), Reds (5), Pirates (5), Tigers (4), [four teams tied with 3]
Pennants: Yankees (40), Dodgers (22), Giants (22), Cardinals (19), Braves (17), Cubs (16), Athletics (15), Red Sox (13), Tigers (11), Reds (9), Pirates (9)
Overall wins: Giants, Cubs, Dodgers, Cardinals, Braves, Reds, Pirates, Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox
Winning percentage: Yankees, Giants, Dodgers, Cardinals, Red Sox, Cubs, Indians, Reds, Tigers, White Sox
Tradition Index [which I just made up]: Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Giants, Cubs, Cardinals and, then, heck, it starts to fracture.

Thoughts?

The Yankees have to be number one, obviously. They dominate everything and have for a century. Not even close.

After that there are all kinds of arguments to make, with the big caveat being that the National League teams have a 25-year head start on the American League, thus inflating their pennant and raw win totals. Still, I think the Cardinals are a no-brainer for the top-four (my arbitrary cutoff from before). World Series titles count for a lot.

The final four teams, then, seem to be the Dodgers, Giants, Athletics and Red Sox. The Giants have the edge in World Series titles over the Dodgers but are short of the A’s. The Giants and Dodgers tie with pennants, and both had only two before the advent of the American League, so their considerable pennant advantage over Philly/KC/Oakland is still pretty legit. It shows that they were more consistent than the feast-or-famine A’s.

What to do with the Red Sox? A lot of early dominance and a lot of recent dominance, but such a relatively fallow (though rarely truly bad) period for so much of the 20th century. They made up for it in the literally “storied” aspects of this exercise because, man, they have tradition out the wazoo and people have been waxing poetically about them for so long. But really: on baseball terms they fall a bit short, don’t they? More World Series wins than the Dodgers, but far fewer pennants. A better winning percentage than the A’s but fewer pennants and World Series titles. A very interesting case indeed.

So, gun to my head, here’s what I got for my list of “most storied franchises,” whatever the heck we want that to mean:

1. Yankees
2. Cardinals
3. Giants
4. Dodgers
5. Athletics
6. Red Sox

That’s different than how I thought it would look when I came up with this half-baked notion earlier today, and it may ruffle the feathers of the people who don’t think an inconsistent, vagabond franchise like the A’s should crack this list, but it’s what my gut tells me right now.

What do you think?

Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Eminent Domain and the history of the Rangers Ballpark

Republican presidential candidate, businessman Donald Trump addresses supporters at a campaign rally, Monday, Dec. 21, 2015, in Grand Rapids, Mich. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)
Leave a comment

Eminent Domain — the right of a government take/buy private property for public use — and its implications has always been a controversial topic. It became far more controversial in the 1990s and early 2000s, however,  as the practice, which is intended for public projects like roads and stuff, was increasingly used in ways to help developers and businesses.

The controversy came to a head in the 2005 case Kelo v. City of New London in which the Supreme Court held that general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth — not just direct public works — qualified as a “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The upshot: if someone had a good argument that a shopping mall would benefit the community, Mr. Developer and the government can force you to sell them their house.

This led to a HUGE backlash, with property rights people freaking out about what seemed like a pretty clear abuse of governmental power serving the interests of developers. Some 44 states have since passed laws outlawing the use of Eminent Domain for purely economic development. Some of that backlash has gone too far in the other direction, with some laws getting passed which not only required compensation to landowners if land was taken, but merely if land was diminished in value.  Like, if the government passes an environmental regulation which makes your private, for-profit toxic waste dump less lucrative than it was, the government has to pay you. It’s crazy stuff, really. And all of those laws notwithstanding, the topic continues to be a controversial one, with battles over what, exactly, is “public” what is a “public good” and all of that raging on. It’s rather fascinating. At least for boring nerfherders like me.

In the recent GOP presidential debate Donald Trump and Jeb Bush got into it on the topic, with Trump — a real estate developer, or course — defending the use of Eminent Domain to take land for economic development and Bush — a really desperate dude who at this point will take ANY position he can if it’ll give him traction — opposing it. In the days since they’ve continued to fight about it, with Trump charging Bush with hypocrisy since his brother, George W., was an owner of the Texas Rangers when they built their new ballpark with the help of Eminent Domain.

Ahh, yes. We finally get to baseball.

Today Nathaniel Rakich of Baseballot digs into that project and looks at how it all played out against the Eminent Domain debate. It touches on stuff we talk about a lot around here: are ballparks engines of economic development or merely for the enrichment of ballclubs? If they are built by a municipality, are they public goods? Wait, how can they be public goods if you can’t just walk into them for free? And the arguments go on.

It’s fascinating stuff showing, once again, that the real world and baseball intersect all the dang time and it’s handy to have a handle on just how, exactly, it does so.

Who wants Ian Desmond? Probably not the “long shot” Rays

Ian+Desmond+Baltimore+Orioles+v+Washington+DNMQvTzHgF2l
3 Comments

Two weeks ago there were multiple reports linking the Rays to unsigned free agent shortstop Ian Desmond, but now Jerry Crasnick of ESPN.com reports that Tampa Bay signing Desmond “is a long shot” because, like most other teams, they don’t want to forfeit a draft pick to do so.

Desmond significantly dropping his asking price could always change things, but the Nationals are said to be out of the mix to re-sign him after adding plenty of veteran infield depth. And the Padres, who were believed to have some interest last month, instead signed Alexei Ramirez to start at shortstop.

Desmond rejected a one-year, $15.8 million qualifying offer from the Nationals at the beginning of the offseason and previously turned down a $100 million contract extension offer to stay in Washington long term.

Ruben Amaro is workin’ out and gettin’ ready to coach first base

Ruben Amaro Jr.
5 Comments

One of the weirder stories of the offseason was Ruben Amaro going from the Phillies front office to the Red Sox, where he’ll coach first base. That kind of transition is almost unheard of but it’s happening with old Rube.

Today Pete Abraham of the Globe has a story about how Amaro is preparing for the role. And how, while it may look weird on paper, the move actually makes a lot more sense than you might suspect given the Red Sox’ coaching staff and Amaro’s own background. It’s good stuff. Go check it out.

On a personal note, it serves as a signal to me to keep my eyes peeled for reports about Amaro from Fort Myers once camp gets started:

Amaro has been working out in recent weeks with his nephew Andrew, a Phillies prospect, to get ready for throwing batting practice and hitting fungoes.

Could we be so lucky as to get the first-ever Best Shape of His Life report for a coach? God, I hope so!

It’s pretty stupid that athletes can’t endorse beer

San Francisco Giants starting pitcher Madison Bumgarner celebrates after pitching the Giants to a 8-0 win over the Pittsburgh Pirates in the National League wild card game in Pittsburgh Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2014. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar) ORG XMIT: PAGP102
30 Comments

One of the more amusing things to spin out of the Super Bowl were Peyton Manning’s little Budweiser endorsements in his postgame interviews. It was hilarious, really, to see him shoehorn in references to going and cracking a crisp cool Budweiser multiple times. It was more hilarious when a Budweiser representative tweeted that Manning was not paid to do that. Of course, Manning owns an interest in alcohol distributorships so talking about The King of Beers was in his best financial interest all the same.

After that happened people asked whether or not Manning would face discipline about this from the NFL, as players are not allowed to endorse alcoholic beverages. This seemed crazy to me. I had no idea that they were actually banned from doing so. Then I realized that, huh, I can’t for the life of me remember seeing beer commercials with active athletes, so I guess maybe it’s not so crazy. Ken Rosenthal later tweeted that Major League Baseball has a similar ban in place. No alcohol endorsements for ballplayers.

Why?

I mean, I can fully anticipate why the leagues would say athletes can’t do it. Think of the children! Role models! Messages about fitness! All that jazz. I suspect a more significant reason is that the leagues and their partners — mostly Anheuser-Busch/InBev — would prefer not to allow high-profile athletes to shill for a competitor. How bad would it look for Alex Rodriguez to do spots for Arrogant Bastard Ale when there are Budweiser signs hanging in 81% of the league’s ballparks? Actually, such ads would look WONDERFUL, but you know what I mean here.

That aside, it does strike me as crazy hypocritical that the leagues can rake in as much as they do from these companies while prohibiting players from getting in on the action. If it is kids they’re worried about, how can they deny that they endorse beer to children every bit as effectively and possibly more so than any one athlete can by virtue of putting it alongside the brands that are the NFL and MLB? Personally I don’t put much stock in a think-of-the-children argument when it comes to beer — it’s everywhere already and everyone does a good job of pushing the “drink responsibly” message — but if those are the leagues’ terms, they probably need to ask themselves how much of a distinction any one athlete and the entire league endorsing this stuff really is.

That aside, sports and beer — often sponsored by active players — have a long, long history together:

Musial

And the picture at the top of this post certainly shows us that Major League Baseball has no issues whatsoever in having its players endorse Budweiser in a practical sense.

Why can’t they get paid for doing it?