Does that remind you of anything?
Ok, so the Phillies generally stunk even when the Athletics were around, and the A's got even worse when they moved to Kansas City. But are we really sure that Philadelphia kept the team that it really wanted?
Let us examine the facts in the intertwining histories of the four clubs:
- The Braves left Boston in 1953. They won a championship in Milwaukee within five years. The A's left Philadelphia in 1955. They would be the Yankees' de facto AAA club for the better part of a decade. The Phillies and Red Sox stayed put and would win a combined two World Series in the next half-century.
- The Braves integrated their team in 1950 and the Athletics followed in 1953. The Phillies and Red Sox were the last teams to integrate in the National and American Leagues, respectively--both milestones occurred after Jackie Robinson had retired from baseball.
- The Braves move to Atlanta in 1966, indirectly allowing Allan H. Selig to emerge from the Milwaukee wastes as a formless, diabolical metallic goo a la the T-1000. They are mostly terrible for the next couple decades, and everyone laughs at Ted Turner. The Athletics move to Oakland in 1968 and field some of the best squads in MLB history during the 1970s. The Red Sox are periodically dangerous. The Phillies win a title, and everything falls into chaos.
- Through the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Braves pioneer the "3 awesome pitchers and Mark Lemke" strategy and the A's pioneer the "buff sluggers who will alternately be quite willing and very reluctant to talk about the past" method. Both make multiple trips to the postseason. The Red Sox choke in '86. The Phillies blow it in '93.
- Both the Braves and A's engineer a sustained level of success by cultivating their farm systems and being choosy when it comes to re-signing their aging stars. Additionally, Oakland establishes itself at the vanguard of the sabermetric movement. The Phillies and Red Sox throw a lot of money around and frantically wave shiny objects to keep their fans distracted. Ironically, this works for the Sox while the others suffer chronic disappointment despite fielding competitive teams.
Of course you wouldn't. I think the major difference is that the A's were rightly perceived as usurpers to many fans (despite all the winning), yet somehow the Red Sox were the heart and soul of Boston sports even after they mercilessly poached the Braves' fanbase and stole their traditions to pass off as their own, right down to the Jimmy Fund.
Philly might feel like more of an American League town, but the Phillies perfectly embody the city's massive inferiority complex--a place that was once the damn capital of the United States but is no longer a part of the nation's "first tier" of urban metropolises. And in a way, the Braves exemplify similar inadequacies as a place that was the past and present epicenter of Southern culture but at the expense of being associated with these guys.
But it's still fun to think what might have been in Philadelphia: Charlie O's elephant, Rollie Fingers's mustache, seeing Jose Canseco actually steal 40 bases, Barry Zito ghostriding with Pat Croce (you know it would happen).
Yet I'm glad it didn't turn out this way. "Oakland Oakies" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Home of the Braves? [The Phoenix]
No comments:
Post a Comment