Talk:Cleveland Spiders

Merge with the 1899 season article

Most of the text of the article on the 1899 season is copied directly from the main article; the only new information is some roster and statistics tables which could easily be incorporated into this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.133.141 (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Road games?

Why did they play so many games on the road? --AW 20:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's in the article. Nobody was showing up to watch the games. Baseball Bugs 21:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, thanks --AW 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Due to lackluster attendance, other NL teams refused to travel to Cleveland's park." Is this correct? I'm sure I read that it was Cleveland's decision to play road games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevarms (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It could be a bit of both. Here's their day-by-day results in 1899. [1] One curious thing is that they came back home from time to time. Another is that they actually managed to get all 154 games in. Earlier in the game's history, a team like that would have folded mid-season. Instead, they went on the road. Notice that through June, they had actually played the majority of their games at home. Then they took off for awhile, but played a homestand in August. I'm guessing the league was propping them up, paying their bills, whatever. Somebody needs to write a book, if they haven't already, that reviews that team in depth to see what really happened.

Month-by-month home-and-road games played, if my math is correct:

Apr 0-8

May 18-8

Jun 14-11

Jul 2-28

Aug 7-23

Sep 1-27

Oct 0-7

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Name

I came to the article wondering how the Spiders got their name, but I don't find the answer. Does Cleveland have some sort of special connection to arachnids? Is it a metaphor? I have no idea, but I'd recommend including the name's origin. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It was because many of the players were really skinny.. seriously.. [2].Spanneraol (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the story. Keep in mind that was never an official nickname, it was just a newspaper invention. Once they want on the road for most of 1899, the papers called them the "Wanderers", and it's doubtful they were "Happy" Wanderers. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the quick replies. Old-time baseball nicknames tend to have fascinating stories behind them. I don't know if thedeadballera.com is a reliable source, but I'd recommend adding the name's origin to the article in some way. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Name vs. nickname in lead

Hey JonRidinger- hope you're well. Most sources, including the Fleitz book, commonly use the term "name" to refer to how these teams were generally identified. I understand that these names were technically *nicknames* as baseball clubs did not formally adopt these as their legal names until later. For the purposes of the lead (and to avoid confusing the typical reader), however, I suggest an explanation on name-vs.-nickname be either footnoted or moved to the body. Minor point, but I want to keep the lead as clear as possible. Arguably, a "nickname" is a type of name anyway, even if not a formal, legal name. Levdr1lp / talk 06:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey there...that's OK. I don't think we need a formal explanation of name vs nickname unless a section was added to further explain the origin of the Spiders name. I do like what you did expanding the Spiders name origin in the body and moving it. There's nothing unclear about using terms like "known as" or "was called", but they do suggest lack of formality. "Named" suggests something more official. I think "initially known as" is still accurate and flows better than "two short-lived names" since, again, there was no formal naming/branding process like we have today and both the Forest Citys and Blues names seem to have been used at the same time (different sources favor one or the other...not an uncommon occurrence). There was no "renaming" of the team from Forest Citys to Blues; again, that suggests some kind of formal change which is not accurate.

I also removed the "despite..." break in the sentence about the Robisons. Syndicate ownership wasn't all that uncommon and was partially related to the problems the other NL teams had that were contracted with the Spiders (the practice itself was banned after the 1899 season). A short article on syndicate ownership may be in order... In any case, the Spiders were the most extreme case of it. Even so, it's commentary about the practice itself that isn't really needed in the lead. I took out "brother-owners" as it's a term I've never seen and couldn't find elsewhere. Owners is sufficient. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Of note, the Fleitz book we have both drawn from refers to the team as the Blues in 1887 (see page 9: "...the Cleveland Blues were left to their own devices...") and doesn't seem to mention the name "Forest Citys", while the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History and the Cleveland Indians Encyclopedia refer to them initially as the Forest Citys and not the Blues (page 389...it also refers to the first Cleveland Blues as the Forest Citys). That's why I'm not a fan of using "renamed" or listing one name for 1887 and another for 1888. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm mostly ok with your points here, but I do not agree that using "despite" or linking to conflict of interest is a problem or that it adds "commentary". It's explanatory. I don't have it right now, but there's a NYT source from 2009 which refers to the St. Louis purchase as "brazen conflict of interest". Simply noting that owning a second team constitutes COI does not, in my view, add commentary. It merely underscores a key point regarding the nature of the team's ownership. It's pretty important, so much so that I think it's essential to have in the lead. Regarding the banning of syndicate ownership, I've seen some sources stating it wasn't fully banned/outlawed until as late as 1910. What source are you using for the ban taking effect concurrent to the league contraction? Levdr1lp / talk 19:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't argue it wasn't a conflict of interest, but the subject of the article is the team. In the text of the article it could be appropriate, but not the lead. The main issue in the lead is summarizing that the owners bought another team and shipped the talent there and led to the horrible season that ultimately collapsed the franchise. The extra commentary on the conflict of interest seemed to suggest that it was unique to the Spiders situation or was unusual, which it wasn't. The syndicate ownership issue seems to be cloudy. The first source I found for syndicate ownership says is from Baseball-Reference, but is their "bullpen", which is a Wiki, so on second thought I'm not sure it would pass reliability. It says the NL banned majority ownership in more than one team in 1899, but there were instances where owners still had minority interests in other teams. Another source lists it at 1927 and another at 1910 (AL). Sounds like it may have been a more an incremental process of restricting/enforcing it before totally banning any connection with more than one team. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not simply that the Robison brothers owned a second team (and by "own", I mean had a controlling interest) it's *how* they went about it. No, they were not alone in engaging in syndicate ownership, but they were the most egregious. This is not in dispute. Essentially all sources on the Spiders club note the extraordinary nature of the Robison's actions -- the degree to which they sabotaged one club to stack another. It was unusual -- not the practice alone, but also the quality of it. The Booklyn Superbas' owners also robbed a second team they owned, the Baltimore Orioles, but did not take it to the extremes the Robisons did -- and they're the only other specific case I've found which led to the 4-team contraction and (eventual?) ban on syndicate ownership. If you search for coverage on the Spiders, you will undoubtedly find info on the 1899 team. And if you're reading about 1899, then you will certainly be reading about the Robisons and the blatant COI of owning two teams. I just don't see how plainly describing what existed -- a very significant conflict of interest -- is anything other than a balanced take on this subject given the coverage available. Coverage dictates content. Levdr1lp / talk 20:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I already said I agree this is the most extreme case. The Orioles are one (also contracted in 1899), along with the Pittsburgh Pirates and Louisville Colonels, among others. In terms of the lead, the issues behind why the purchase was an issue beyond the direct effects to the team are secondary details, especially now since the lead and article have developed more. As I said, bottom line, they bought another team and transferred all the best players there, team was horrible, they were contracted. The reader is not disserviced to not have a statement about conflict of interest in the lead since this article is about the entire franchise, not specifically the 1899 team. More details can be added in the body of the article for that section, plus the 1899 Cleveland Spiders season article mentions it. And also as I hinted, a separate article on syndicate baseball (used in sources over "syndicate ownership") seems to be in order as the concept is discussed in multiple sources and was far more common than the Spiders. It came up recently with the sale of the Montreal Expos back to MLB. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

On a related note I don't like using "both" in "The Spiders began play as both..." because it seems to suggest those were the only names, when they were simply the most common. Many times, news articles would just say "the Cleveland team" or use an entirely different nickname. How does "Early names for the team included the Forest Citys and Blues" work for you? --JonRidinger (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: the early names, done. Levdr1lp / talk 21:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I like what you did with the infobox. Much better! --JonRidinger (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)