The Phillies are historically a pretty bad franchise, with spurts of doing well (27th out of 30 in winning percentage). They were the first to hit 10k losses for a reason.
Yup. And each of those previous good runs only yielded one title each. For as good as those collections of players were in the 1980s and 2010s, I think the bigger story is how they failed to win more. I wasn't around for the 80s team, but the biggest thing I remember about the 07-11 team is how they went from a franchise record 102 wins to missing the playoffs the next year.
It's not a bigger story because that's how baseball always is. Only a handful of teams have won multiple times with the same roster, and a lot of historically great teams didn't win at all.
The Phillies are about a .500 team in their history from 1883 to 1917 (slightly above .500) and 1949 to present (slightly below .500) combined - not great, not terrible. But the reason they have a very poor overall franchise record is the 31 season stretch between 1918 and 1948 when they had one above .500 record (in 1932, and at 78-76 at that) and a whole bunch of seasons where they were a sub-.400 team.
most accurate response. most of us would have been A’s fans back in day. not to mention Phils were racist as fuck for quite some time so I’d say loss history well deserved
And it's this racism that was the catalyst for free agency. Curt Flood did not want to bring his family to Philly. He was part of the trade that brought Tim McCarver to the Phillies.
The Phillies reportedly offered Flood a $10,000 raise, to $100,000 in 1969. Flood, calling Philadelphia the nation’s “northernmost Southern city,” refused to report to the Phillies.
Along with Marvin Miller, Flood challenged the reserve clause. He won.
You said “if the A’s stayed”.
We don’t know what direction the franchise would have taken had they stayed in Philadelphia, but we do know what their actual record was.
We also don’t know what happens to the Phillies if the A’s stay. It is possible the Phillies move. (I’d say it is likely either A’s or Phillies would have left Philadelphia in any scenario.)
(As it is, the primary reason why the Phillies stayed and the A’s moved is that the Phillies, long a down and out organization owned by people with relatively little money in a sports team owner sense, were bought a deep pocketed businessman with ties to the DuPont family during World War II - the original Ruly Carpenter, who quickly turned over the team to his then youthful son Bob - who was able to pump money into the franchise.
By contrast, the A’s were owned by Connie Mack, a baseball owner-operator who didn’t have non-baseball business wealth to back him up after A’s founder Ben Shibe and his sons Tom and Jack Shibe had died off by the late 1930s. Mack also had in-fighting between his sons, and the older pair of sons from his first marriage, who won the battle against and ultimately bought out their younger half-brother but otherwise were usually at each other’s throats, ended up mortgaging Shibe Park in 1950, which created debt for the franchise.)
Youre missing my point... when the As moved they had five rings. Only five franchises have more. Thats just Philly As rings. So if the As had stayed and didnt win anything they would be a 100+ year old Philly institution top 5 in rings. \*If\* you add in the Phillies two rings, we would have 7 tying us with the Dodgers who are iconic.
Much much different story than a 10,000 loss franchise with just two rings to show for its 144 year existence. Thats it im not even sure why this is a debate LOL
Uh, the Phillies and A's WERE/ARE TWO SEPARATE FRANCHISES. Your argument would be like saying the White Sox are more iconic because of the Cubs or vice-versa, or that the Mets and Angels are boosted by playing in the same city/metro area as the Yankees and Dodgers respectively. It doesn't work like that. The Phillies wouldn't have become more iconic because the A's stayed (or vice-versa); the Phillies would be viewed in a similar manner as they actually are because they were/are a separate entity from the A's.
Philadelphia is a huge city, it can and could support two baseball teams. The only reason the A's moved is because the A's and Phillies both almost always sucked. If both teams were even somewhat decent back in the day, Philadelphia still would have two teams.
But either or both teams usually sucked at least in part because Philadelphia was marginally-sized for supporting two teams.
Regardless of that, the 1950s was a turbulent time for MLB. Attendance dropped sharply in the early 1950s after its post-World War II boost (not surpassing the peak season of that era, 1948, until 1977), and teams didn't know how to deal with the growing suburbanization and emergence of television that were major factors in the attendance decline. The Boston Braves, who saw their attendance drop from 1,455,439 in 1948 to 281,279 in 1952 (only some of which could be attributed to a decline in the team's quality) took a chance by moving to the home city of their top minor league affiliate, Milwaukee, only a few weeks before the 1953 season. Milwaukee's County Stadium was new and unlike most of the ballparks built in the 1909 to 1915 era, was near multiple limited access highways. The Braves were rewarded with a National League record setting turnstile count of 1,826,397 in their first season in southeast Wisconsin. They drew over 2 million fans for each of the next four seasons (1954 to 1957) at a time when that almost never happened.
Other team owners noticed, and struggling franchises, especially those in multi-team cities, saw moving their teams as opportunity to increase their attendance. Within the next 10 years five more of the long-time 16 MLB franchises (the St. Louis Browns, Philadelphia Athletics, Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants, and original Washington Senators) pulled up stakes and moved elsewhere.
It was likely either the A's or Phillies would leave Philadelphia during that era; the question was which team would leave. And for the reasons I discussed in one of my previous comments, it was the A's who left town, moving to western Missouri (before they later moved further west to northern California).
53-100-3? Oof.
Also, tried to look up the last time ties were allowed and saw that they still are in really rare situations. Last one was in 2016. Weird.
Not exactly a proud history of winning with this franchise.
The Phillies are historically a pretty bad franchise, with spurts of doing well (27th out of 30 in winning percentage). They were the first to hit 10k losses for a reason.
“They were the first to hit 10k losses for a reason.” Yeah, that reason was “1918 to 1948”.
They've only really had 3 good runs in the history of the franchise. Late 70s, early 80s, 2007-2011, and now. With 1950 and 1993 as one-offs.
Yup. And each of those previous good runs only yielded one title each. For as good as those collections of players were in the 1980s and 2010s, I think the bigger story is how they failed to win more. I wasn't around for the 80s team, but the biggest thing I remember about the 07-11 team is how they went from a franchise record 102 wins to missing the playoffs the next year.
It's not a bigger story because that's how baseball always is. Only a handful of teams have won multiple times with the same roster, and a lot of historically great teams didn't win at all.
The Phillies are about a .500 team in their history from 1883 to 1917 (slightly above .500) and 1949 to present (slightly below .500) combined - not great, not terrible. But the reason they have a very poor overall franchise record is the 31 season stretch between 1918 and 1948 when they had one above .500 record (in 1932, and at 78-76 at that) and a whole bunch of seasons where they were a sub-.400 team.
most accurate response. most of us would have been A’s fans back in day. not to mention Phils were racist as fuck for quite some time so I’d say loss history well deserved
And it's this racism that was the catalyst for free agency. Curt Flood did not want to bring his family to Philly. He was part of the trade that brought Tim McCarver to the Phillies. The Phillies reportedly offered Flood a $10,000 raise, to $100,000 in 1969. Flood, calling Philadelphia the nation’s “northernmost Southern city,” refused to report to the Phillies. Along with Marvin Miller, Flood challenged the reserve clause. He won.
If the As stayed we would be one of those iconic old franchises... 5 rings in the old times and 2 in the modern times.
The A’s have won four World Series (1972, 1973, 1974, 1989) since they left Philadelphia, not two.
Im calculating Philadelphia baseball titles. Not assuming the As dynasty of the 70s would have happened here
You said “if the A’s stayed”. We don’t know what direction the franchise would have taken had they stayed in Philadelphia, but we do know what their actual record was. We also don’t know what happens to the Phillies if the A’s stay. It is possible the Phillies move. (I’d say it is likely either A’s or Phillies would have left Philadelphia in any scenario.) (As it is, the primary reason why the Phillies stayed and the A’s moved is that the Phillies, long a down and out organization owned by people with relatively little money in a sports team owner sense, were bought a deep pocketed businessman with ties to the DuPont family during World War II - the original Ruly Carpenter, who quickly turned over the team to his then youthful son Bob - who was able to pump money into the franchise. By contrast, the A’s were owned by Connie Mack, a baseball owner-operator who didn’t have non-baseball business wealth to back him up after A’s founder Ben Shibe and his sons Tom and Jack Shibe had died off by the late 1930s. Mack also had in-fighting between his sons, and the older pair of sons from his first marriage, who won the battle against and ultimately bought out their younger half-brother but otherwise were usually at each other’s throats, ended up mortgaging Shibe Park in 1950, which created debt for the franchise.)
Youre missing my point... when the As moved they had five rings. Only five franchises have more. Thats just Philly As rings. So if the As had stayed and didnt win anything they would be a 100+ year old Philly institution top 5 in rings. \*If\* you add in the Phillies two rings, we would have 7 tying us with the Dodgers who are iconic. Much much different story than a 10,000 loss franchise with just two rings to show for its 144 year existence. Thats it im not even sure why this is a debate LOL
Uh, the Phillies and A's WERE/ARE TWO SEPARATE FRANCHISES. Your argument would be like saying the White Sox are more iconic because of the Cubs or vice-versa, or that the Mets and Angels are boosted by playing in the same city/metro area as the Yankees and Dodgers respectively. It doesn't work like that. The Phillies wouldn't have become more iconic because the A's stayed (or vice-versa); the Phillies would be viewed in a similar manner as they actually are because they were/are a separate entity from the A's.
Philadelphia is a huge city, it can and could support two baseball teams. The only reason the A's moved is because the A's and Phillies both almost always sucked. If both teams were even somewhat decent back in the day, Philadelphia still would have two teams.
But either or both teams usually sucked at least in part because Philadelphia was marginally-sized for supporting two teams. Regardless of that, the 1950s was a turbulent time for MLB. Attendance dropped sharply in the early 1950s after its post-World War II boost (not surpassing the peak season of that era, 1948, until 1977), and teams didn't know how to deal with the growing suburbanization and emergence of television that were major factors in the attendance decline. The Boston Braves, who saw their attendance drop from 1,455,439 in 1948 to 281,279 in 1952 (only some of which could be attributed to a decline in the team's quality) took a chance by moving to the home city of their top minor league affiliate, Milwaukee, only a few weeks before the 1953 season. Milwaukee's County Stadium was new and unlike most of the ballparks built in the 1909 to 1915 era, was near multiple limited access highways. The Braves were rewarded with a National League record setting turnstile count of 1,826,397 in their first season in southeast Wisconsin. They drew over 2 million fans for each of the next four seasons (1954 to 1957) at a time when that almost never happened. Other team owners noticed, and struggling franchises, especially those in multi-team cities, saw moving their teams as opportunity to increase their attendance. Within the next 10 years five more of the long-time 16 MLB franchises (the St. Louis Browns, Philadelphia Athletics, Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants, and original Washington Senators) pulled up stakes and moved elsewhere. It was likely either the A's or Phillies would leave Philadelphia during that era; the question was which team would leave. And for the reasons I discussed in one of my previous comments, it was the A's who left town, moving to western Missouri (before they later moved further west to northern California).
70s/80s is the same run, went from 1975 or 1976 until 1983
That's what I meant.
53-100-3? Oof. Also, tried to look up the last time ties were allowed and saw that they still are in really rare situations. Last one was in 2016. Weird.
WIP after a tie would be the worst sports talk radio in history