What MLB team did Baltimore fans root for before 1954?

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think the difference is that Baltimore had a famous major league team in the 1800s, then a dynastic International League team in the teens and 20s.  And I think Baltimore always saw itself as a "big" city at least on par with Washington and others. 

Akron had few or none of those things.  Even in the chaotic 19th century they never had a major league team, even briefly.  Butts Wagner (Honus' brother) played briefly for Canton in the low-level Interstate League in 1895... Akron had a team in the 1920 IL featuring Jim Thorpe, but they didn't have one in '19 or '21.  Apparently they had a Yanks' affiliate in the 30s.  I'm guessing the sporadic fielding of teams in the area made it hard to be a fan of the local team.  And in 1940 Akron had 250k people, Cleveland 900k.

All true.    Although Akron did have an identity completely separate of Cleveland’s, as the self-styled “Rubber Capital of the World.”

And to this day, as I can personally attest, it is the home of the greatest drive-in hamburger joint in  the entire world.     If you are ever within 50 miles of the place, do yourself a favor and go there.   Humble, but to die for.   http://swensonsdriveins.com/

[atomic]

22 hours ago, Frobby said:

All true.    Although Akron did have an identity completely separate of Cleveland’s, as the self-styled “Rubber Capital of the World.”

And to this day, as I can personally attest, it is the home of the greatest drive-in hamburger joint in  the entire world.     If you are ever within 50 miles of the place, do yourself a favor and go there.   Humble, but to die for.   http://swensonsdriveins.com/

In 1940 Baltimore was the 7th largest city in the country and Akron was 38th.  It is surprising Baltimore didn’t have a major league team at that time.  
 

 

[DrungoHazewood]

8 hours ago, atomic said:

In 1940 Baltimore was the 7th largest city in the country and Akron was 38th.  It is surprising Baltimore didn’t have a major league team at that time.  
 

 

In 1940 Major League Baseball hadn't expanded, contracted, or allowed a team to move in 38 years.  And they wouldn't do any of that for another 12.  Baseball decided that it was divine providence that Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia and St. Louis had multiple teams, but California, Texas, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Seattle, Canada, the Mountain Time Zone, and the entire South had none.

[Frobby]

15 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

In 1940 Major League Baseball hadn't expanded, contracted, or allowed a team to move in 38 years.  And they wouldn't do any of that for another 12.  Baseball decided that it was divine providence that Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia and St. Louis had multiple teams, but California, Texas, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Seattle, Canada, the Mountain Time Zone, and the entire South had none.

I think what I’d say is that in 1940 “the major leagues” and “baseball” were not as synonymous as they are today.     I mean, there was nothing stopping someone from forming a league including the cities and geographies you listed that had no major league team, and then paying enough to attract the best talent.    So I don’t blame the existing major leagues for standing pat, but I do wonder why nobody else made a serious effort to fill the void.   

[ShaneDawg85]

I can only speak from experience listening to my grandfather, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some fans in the area back then that liked the Yankees.  My grandfather sure did, he loved Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford, plus they were regionally close and successful.  You weren't getting success out of the Phillies, Athletics, or Senators at that time.

[Larry18]

28 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think what I’d say is that in 1940 “the major leagues” and “baseball” were not as synonymous as they are today.     I mean, there was nothing stopping someone from forming a league including the cities and geographies you listed that had no major league team, and then paying enough to attract the best talent.    So I don’t blame the existing major leagues for standing pat, but I do wonder why nobody else made a serious effort to fill the void.   

Nothing except the reserve clause. In the ‘40s players that jumped to the Mexican League received lifetime bans. 

[atomic]

44 minutes ago, ShaneDawg85 said:

I can only speak from experience listening to my grandfather, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some fans in the area back then that liked the Yankees.  My grandfather sure did, he loved Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford, plus they were regionally close and successful.  You weren't getting success out of the Phillies, Athletics, or Senators at that time.

Plus sports weren't as popular back then.  The 1940 Phillies drew an average of 2600 fans per game.  1952 Phillies drew 9400 fans per game.  It wasn't until 1974 that the Phillies averaged 20,000 fans per game.  1953 Senators drew 7900 fans per game.  That version of the Senators never drew more than 13,500 fans per season.  

For reference the Women's soccer league that Drungo likes to belittle averaged 7400 fans per game this past season. 

[atomic]

Also 1953 Philadephia A's averaged 4600 fans per game.  Most people probably didn't follow baseball. 

With the Great Depression, World War 2 and Korean War they had real things to deal with. 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I think what I’d say is that in 1940 “the major leagues” and “baseball” were not as synonymous as they are today.     I mean, there was nothing stopping someone from forming a league including the cities and geographies you listed that had no major league team, and then paying enough to attract the best talent.    So I don’t blame the existing major leagues for standing pat, but I do wonder why nobody else made a serious effort to fill the void.   

That's what I was trying to get across with the International League Orioles.  Everyone knew the majors were a little better, but the Orioles were really good and they were local. 

The PCL tried pretty hard in the 1950s, successfully lobbying for an Open classification instead of AAA.  That pressure was a big part of the Majors allowing teams to move west, and then expand.  And even before that they were pretty good at keeping players for a long time, even though many could have gone east and become MLB regulars.  I think that the PCL could/should have tried to go major earlier and it would have worked.  In a lot of ways the structure of MLB would make more sense with 3-4 leagues that are more geographically compact.

And the Federal League gave it a go in 1914-15, but with no real western teams.  I think the travel times were a big hindrance before jet airline travel became common.  Washington to LA on a train probably took 48-72 hours.  Jet travel really started in the 1950s, and by the end of the decade there were MLB teams on the West Coast.

[DrungoHazewood]

22 minutes ago, atomic said:

Also 1953 Philadephia A's averaged 4600 fans per game.  Most people probably didn't follow baseball. 

With the Great Depression, World War 2 and Korean War they had real things to deal with. 

While there's a lot of truth there, the 1948 Indians drew 2.6M.  Although attendance took a huge hit in the 50s, probably due to TV more than anything else. The Dodgers and Giants moved because they couldn't draw fans.  The Dodgers were in the biggest city in the US, winning 90+ games most years in the 1950s, but even after the Korean War and the advent of night baseball they had years where they barely broke 1M at the turnstiles.  

TV, and the beginning of the decay or perceived decay of inner cities.  People fled to the suburbs in this era.  And while we think of places like Ebbets Field and the Polo Grounds as famous, historic places, by the mid-50s they were 40-50 years old, built to 1910s standards or worse and shoehorned into little blocks in neighborhoods that were getting a little neglected.

[DrungoHazewood]

42 minutes ago, atomic said:

For reference the Women's soccer league that Drungo likes to belittle averaged 7400 fans per game this past season. 

I don't belittle it, enjoy it.  I just think that you overstate its impact and popularity to try to make a point.  

[atomic]

3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

While there's a lot of truth there, the 1948 Indians drew 2.6M.  Although attendance took a huge hit in the 50s, probably due to TV more than anything else. The Dodgers and Giants moved because they couldn't draw fans.  The Dodgers were in the biggest city in the US, winning 90+ games most years in the 1950s, but even after the Korean War and the advent of night baseball they had years where they barely broke 1M at the turnstiles.  

TV, and the beginning of the decay or perceived decay of inner cities.  People fled to the suburbs in this era.  And while we think of places like Ebbets Field and the Polo Grounds as famous, historic places, by the mid-50s they were 40-50 years old, built to 1910s standards or worse and shoehorned into little blocks in neighborhoods that were getting a little neglected.

It is interesting that 1948 was a high water mark for the Yankees attendance until 1979.  And MLB 1948 attendance per game average was not matched again until 1977.

Maybe the reason Frobby parents were into the Indians was because baseball was so much more popular in the Cleveland area than most parts of the country.  

 

[Larry18]

1948. The first year both leagues were integrated at the start of the season

[DrungoHazewood]

5 minutes ago, atomic said:

It is interesting that 1948 was a high water mark for the Yankees attendance until 1979.  And MLB 1948 attendance per game average was not matched again until 1977.

Maybe the reason Frobby parents were into the Indians was because baseball was so much more popular in the Cleveland area than most parts of the country.  

 

There was a huge, pent-up demand for entertainment in the immediate post-WWII era.  The country had been at war or in the Depression for more than 15 years.  The GIs got back from Europe and the Pacific and baseball attendance absolutely boomed.  But then it rapidly fell off with the introduction of TV, suburban flight, urban neglect, uncompetitive teams (especially 2nd teams in Boston, Philly, St. Louis, etc).  Other sports started gaining traction like football and basketball.  Also, I think people just got tired of the Yanks running away with the league almost every single !@#$%^ year.  

Free agency, good pennant races, and teams marketing and trying to generate revenues to keep up with the Yanks and Dodgers started to build interest in the 70s.  Also helped that in the 60s MLB got better aligned with the population, although franchise movement and expansion was chaotic and at least in the short term caused some harm as well as good.  See: the millions of people who still claim to be Brooklyn Dodgers fans, despite them drawing less fans than the 2019 Orioles just before they moved.

[DrungoHazewood]

4 minutes ago, Larry18 said:

1948. The first year both leagues were integrated at the start of the season

That probably helped attendance some.  But we can't pretend that this wasn't a divisive issue at the time. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing some segment of the population stayed away because of integration.