Talk:New York Mutuals

Untitled

Here between two horizontal lines are two paragraphs cut from the article, leaving it merely poor rather than one of Wikipedia's worst. This is a hodgepodge of themes that should be covered somehow. I believe the {dispute} tag was meant for the name (and "historical revisionists") but it truly belongs on all of this. As I wrote a month ago before deciding on this export to Talk, the article should touch on all the contemporary controversies "so I have inserted hasty allusions to shamateurism and gambling. P64 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)". The question is what to say on these matters. --P64 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

---

The Mutual club may claim the championships of 1868 and 1869 or 1870. It may have been the worst transgressor in 1868, when the NABBP was still nominally for amateurs only. It was renowned for the involvement of gamblers and affiliated with machine politican Boss Tweed.

Historical revisionists want to call this club the New York Mutuals, but "Mutual" was the club's actual name, not its nickname. They were only called the "Mutuals" in newspapers in the way that teams like the Chicago White Stockings were the "Chicagos". To illustrate this fine point, the team sported green hosiery during one season, and papers referred to that year's team as the "Mutual Green Stockings."

---

championship claims

1868 and 1869? I know of controversial 1870 claims, at least from MBBC vintage base ball players, so I revised to 1870 for now. Who says 1868 and 1869? --P64 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

New York Mutual or Mutuals?

What's the name of this club? baseball-reference.com calls them New York Mutuals. --Awiseman 21:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Baseball-Reference uses common names, partly because baseball encyclopedists and data-compilers have one so for decades. There is some analogy to common and scientiic names of flora an fauna (and some disanalogy).

No club has a name like New York Mutuals, which is a nickname. Of course, none has a name like Mutual, either, which is more like a modern brand name than a corporate name. "Mutuals" is like "Rhode Islanders" or "New Yorkers" (before legislative action to sanction the latter nicknames, if any). That is, the s is a grammatical convenience.

The name is "Mutual Base Ball Club" or "Mutual Base Ball Club of New York"
without 's' or 'City' but I am not sure which of these two.

With more to say but I will try to use it in discussion somewhere higher up. This needs some coordination; at least, some agreement. --P64 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Historical revisionists" may be a curse? This section is testy. On second thought I have made it a separate sections for the club name, and replicated the dispute flag, in order to permit easy discussion of name only and removal of one dispute or the others.

I am not rewriting the entire discussion to reflect this second thought. --P64 22:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

1868 transgressor?

What does "It may have been the worst transgressor in 1868, " mean? What happened in 1868? --Awiseman 14:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That refers to the rest of the sentence: worst transgressor of :for amateurs only". But I doubt that it is reasonable regarding 1868. If the Mutuals were outstanding transgressors as pioneering professional, it must have been in 1867, 1866, ...? I have started to cover this elsewhere. See Charlie Sweasy, Andy Leonard, John Hatfield) but that is slow going, via the biographies of prominent 1868 players. --P64

Sprawling subject

Is there a New York City sports history (sub)project? I do know that project baseball is about the major leagues.

Just now I am adding "Further reading: Wright (2000)" to the articles on league clubs established before 1871. This article in contrast to the ones on shorter-lived teams, is daunting. Twenty years is three of four lifetimes when it reaches from pre-Civil War to National League. --P64 17:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cut out stuff?

I don't understand why this information was taken out? Why not leave it in with the factual tag and let people debate about? I don't even see anybody who disagrees with it. --Awiseman 20:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I was writing to your talk page when you were writing here. (But I didn't answer this question. Tell me about early baseball on Wikipedia. And what do you mean by a team name, or by historical revisionism if that is yours? That's all for now because I was on my way out the door. --P64 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok. Well, I just don't understand why it was taken out. You clearly know more than I do about old time baseball (I know very little), but it just seemed like useful information. --Awiseman 21:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

some material lost during Talk edit conflict but no time to recover --P64

Green Stockings

Awiseman, will you be more specific? For example, let's focus on the green stockings line in the second of two paragraphs I have exported to this talk, which concerns team or club names or nicknames (and seems to be the point of your original dispute). What should be the role of the "Green Stockings" example nickname in this article?

In the ProQuest historical newspapers database, searching for "green stockings" thru 1876, there are 12 hits 1869-1872 in reference to baseball. Namely: 1869 (1) Oliver Optic's Magazine, Boston, Aug 21; 1870 (2) Chicago Tribune, Jun 19 and Jun 21; 1871 (8) Chicago Tribune (2) New York Times (6), latest Aug 8; 1872 (1) New York Times. That is ten in the two daily newspapers Jun 1870-Aug 1871. The headlines alone reveal that most of these articles (nine, see next par) concern the famous Mutual club, whose team is called Mutuals, Mutes, and Green Stockings in those headlines (usually Mutuals).

Here is the "green stockings" usage in the twelve articles, in chronological order.

• the new uniforms of the famous Mutuals include green stockings
• junior team of the Active club, Chicago
• junior team of the Active club, Chicago - also once called "the young green legs"
• "the Green Stockings of the Mutual Club" in prose, meaning the famous Mutuals
• "the Green Stockings nine of the Mutual Club" in prose
• "the Green Stockings" in prose
• "the Green Stockings" in subtitle
• "the Green Stocking 'Champions'" in prose
• "the New-York Green Stockings beating the Brooklyn Orange-hose players" in prose (Mutual beating Eckford)
• "the Green Stockings made a new departure, and, hoisting their old war-worn flag, instead of their new green stocking emblem, they went in ..."
• "the programme for the second Eastern tour of the 'Green Stockings'" - the Forest Citys of Rockford IL
• "the 'Green Stockings'" in subtitle

In the nine articles covered in full size text, the hit for "green stockings" concerns the famous Mutual club.
What points related to this data should be in the article?

Here is a complete account of what the teams or clubs are called in the 1872 article, which is a game story with box score and note on upcoming games.

• In the headline and story, the two sides are identified thus:
  • the Baltimores (6 times) - always with both definite article and plural s, the visitors 1, their opponents 1
  • the "Green Stockings" 1, the Mutuals 4, the New Yorkers 1, their own 1
• In the box score, the two sides and the umpire's affiliation are identified thus:
  • Baltimore 3
  • New York 3
  • the Atlantic 1 - with definite article but without plural s
• In the notes on four upcoming games, the eight participants are identified thus: the Baltimores, the Eckfords, Atlantic, Athletic, Mutual, Athletic, Mutual, Boston.

What points related to this data should be in the article? -P64 00:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I think you're missing the point here. I am asking, why did you remove those paragraphs? Were they wrong? What was the reason? They seem to fit in fine, and what a little tweaking (like removing "historical revisionists") I think they work fine in the article. But I want to know your reasons for taking them out. And I have no idea what connection your research has to do with that. --Awiseman 13:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)