With a surviving American Association (baseball), what does Ban Johnson do w/his Western League?

[DTF955Baseballfan]

I asked a bunch of questions on the Baseball Fever site, and it overwhelmed them since there were so many, plus what-iffing just isn't as interesting, especially with not as many knowledgeable of 19th century baseball. (I mean, the 19th century forum is dead ont hat site.)

So, I'll make it a lot simpler here, since not a lot of readers - especially pre-1900 - know baseball, anyway.

I've figured out how to work things with my variation on "If Baseball Integrated Early." Let's just say there's a more stable American Association with several integrated teams that survives through the 1890s, thanks to a league president who began by financing the 1869 Red Stockings' trip east in exchange for them playing his integrated club and founded the league in 1879, though it really becomes major league in 1881 with the Reds and Alleghanys (futgure Pirates) added. Oh, and some American history from "Growing Mouse" changes, too, like TIlden in 1876 winnign and a GOP backlash against his poor job, etc.. .

So, Amos Rusie held out the whole year against Andrew Freedman's Giants OTL in 1896 (Freedman was very hard to get along with, so much so NL Presidential candidate Al Spalding said he shouldn't be allowed to run a club like that.) NL owners paying him not to play in return for his not filing suit, a suit they worried could quash the Reserve Clause, but with the A.A. surviving, the league war starts here as Rusie jumps to the A.A. and others trickle over in 1896, it becomes a flood before 1897. Star shortstop George Davis, who jumped with other Giants in 1901 to the A.., and others would also jump in '97.

This brings us to Ban Johnson's Western League, which OTL became the American League.

Is he ready to try and challenge the major leagues in 1896/7? Probably not, but would he try a merger? Also, if Rusie doesn't go back tot he Giants, would Johnson try to take advantage and move a team to New York as well as Chicago? The Giants would *really* be struggling,after all, partly because without Rusie in a few years, they can't trade for Christy Mathewson.

But, this could prod the NL to integrate a little because Rube Foster might get signed by John McGraw since he doesn't have Mathewson in 1901, if he ends up in New York anyway. (Baltimore stays together TTL)

Clearly, there are enough players who would at least not be totally agaisnt playing either with a black player or agaisnt one that the AA could survive, teams barnstormed all the time OTL. And, since the 1869 Reds TTL play against a team with a couple black players which one of the main characters founds, it's become acceptable to do it. And, the AA forms pretty fast once New York and PHilly are kciked out of the league for not completing the schedule in 1876.

 

[Ivan Lupo]

If the AA was able to at least hold onto it's more successful teams before they defected to the NL, there might not be much room for the Western League if it didn't have access to the big eastern markets. But it wasn't the defectors from the AA that was the biggest problem, it was the fact that there weren't enough teams capable of operating for more than a few seasons before folding altogether.

Let's examine the formerly AA teams playing in the NL by 1892: Baltimore Orioles, Cincinnati Red Stockings, Pittsburgh Alleghenies, Louisville Colonels, St. Louis Brown Stockings, Brooklyn Bridegrooms, Cleveland Spiders, and Washington Statesmen. Compare this to the non-AA teams of the NL: Chicago White Stockings, Boston Red Stockings, New York Giants, and Philadelphia Phillies. In fact, by the time the NL decided to contract from 12 to 8 teams (cutting Baltimore, Louisville, Cleveland, and Washington), there were twice the number of former AA teams then native NL teams playing, with former AA teams like Baltimore, Brooklyn, and Cleveland winning 5 pennants between them, while New York and Boston won 4.

So one could even argue that a more successful AA could actually absorb the NL instead, just based on the teams that were in the NL as of 1892. But you already see that most of the major markets in the United States at this time are already represented. Where does the Western League even place teams by this point? Remember that travel was still a big problem for teams in this period, mostly bound to travelling by train. Well, the Western League in this period had teams in Detroit, Sioux City, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids, Kansas City, Toledo, Buffalo, Minneapolis, and Indianapolis, and most of these didn't last that long, or started late before it became the AL. Of these, it's only the Detroit Tigers, Sioux City Cornhuskers, Grand Rapids Rippers, Milwaukee Brewers, and Kansas City Blues that exist today as the Detroit Tigers, Chicago White Sox, Cleveland Guardians, Baltimore Orioles, and Minnesota Twins being the corresponding franchises. Further, Sioux City via St. Paul was placed in Chicago to compete with the existing White Stockings there, while Grand Rapids, Milwaukee, and Kansas City were transferred to bigger markets that lost their NL teams after their contraction, specifically Cleveland, Baltimore, and Washington.

I believe then that the Western League wouldn't have had enough access to the really big markets to provide much competition, and probably doesn't declare itself a major league, though you could see the more successful minor league and profitable teams be invited to become major league teams in both the NL and the AA.

And if enough successful teams in any of these leagues maintain their success with Black players, yeah, I could definitely imagine a much earlier re-intigration, especially since the pool of top notch players would be spread thin among so many teams.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Thanks, I tend to think of travel in 1930s/1940s terms, but train travel would probably be a fair amount tougher in the 1890s.

I read somewhere that ihaving either 8 or 12 teams was preferrble to 10 becasue of the symmetry between east and west for rail travel, in fact; although there were a few years leagues had a odd number of teams really early. And, you could probably juggle the schedule to do 6 and 4 if you had 10 teams.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

I'll also note that I asked on "Sports What-ifs" in the post-1900 forum which clubs were most necessary. I think Pittsburgh (easiest to butterfly, too) and Brooklyn) it really wreaks havoc when your champion witches leages as they did in 1889-90) are musts to have stay; of course if it doen't fold the AA would keep St. Louis and Philadelphia. I think part of its problem was expanding by too much too soon in 1884; if they just go to 10 teams even, it would be a help, and a weaker team can always move to New York then to replace the Metropolitans. I think Cleveland would b e more enticed to stay if New York and Brooklyn can both give them revenuein away games.

Cincinnati was originally an NL team and was bankrupt; if they move *after* 1890(or even before with the agreement) and the NL only takes them with an agreement on the NL's part to let the AL have one of the Players' League teams, it would be a fair trade if they lose Cincinnati but get Boston. They lose a popular team and a market they were solo in, but gain a larger market where a good team can draw well and where OTL the upstart Red Sox began outdrawing the Beaneaters right away. Which means their Boston Red Sox just need to pull a bunch of Beaneaters away in the late 1890s like OTL's 1901.

I don't think the AA needs Louisville, and if Baltimore would bolt, and be the only one - or only one besides Cincinnati - that does (Louisville can just go to the NL on its own), then that would be stable enough for the American Association to betill they start signing more top N players.