Category talk:Chicago White Stockings (NABBP) players

coverage

This section is composed late in the same long weekend as the following section "1870 and 1871". In this note my purpose is to report on coverage in the same way that I have done for many other NABBP teams during the intervening day.

Beside seven of the players with pages in the category, Marshall Wright and Bill Ryczek list these members of the 1870 team.

• Ed Duffy, 1870 ss
• Clipper Flynn, 1870 of
• Marshall King, 1870 of,ss,3b,c
• Ed Pinkham, 1870 p

• Burns, 1870 p
• Keerle, 1870 of

That is four regulars and two subs (total 13 players). I give red links to the major leaguers.

Beside seven of the players with pages in the category, major league databases list these members of the 1871 team.

• Ed Duffy, 1871 ss
• Tom Foley (outfielder), 1871 of,c
• Ed Pinkham, 1871 3b,of

• Marshall King, 1871 of,c

That is three regulars and one sub (total 11 players). I give red links to the major leaguers. --P64 (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

1870 and 1871

1870 This team contended for championships in 1870 and 1871. Here is a list of 1870 players, where star(*) marks those who played for this team again in 1871.

• Ned Cuthbert
• Ed Duffy *
• Clipper Flynn
• Charlie Hodes *
• Marshall King *
• Bub McAtee *
• Levi Meyerle
• Ed Pinkham *
• Fred Treacey *
• Jimmy Wood *

• Burns (pitcher)
• Bill Craver
• Keerle

This is incomplete but it covers ten regulars and three others. It will be useful for tracking what pages that have been created.

1871 There were four more players on the 1871 team (NAPBBP, hence "major leaguers").

• Mike Brannock
• Tom Foley (outfielder)
• Joe Simmons
• George Zettlein

Cubs? Perhaps all of the players for both seasons should be added to the all-time roster of the "Cubs". --P64 (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question, I think that they probably should since they are the only team that could claim this, the Red Stockings (Braves) were created for the 1871 season. One point to be made though, and records do not show this yet, the Chicago White Stockings of 1870-71 folded after their field burned down during the Great Chicago Fire, and some historians are now saying that the new White Stockings that were created in 1874 should be considered a seperate team, due the fact that it was run with different owners/management/players. Until that is ironed out, I guess we have to treat these players as "Cubs".Neonblak ^talk - 00:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The club didn't go out of business. It leased grounds, built a ballpark, let the ballpark for games and/or hosted games itself. (There were some major league games. See 1872-1873 in the list of alternate site games at retrosheet.)

There is a big problem with marking a new ballclub when a club is reorganized. Businesses continually reorganize and persist at the same time, without going out of business. In the news, reorganization commonly means a change in directors or officers. Even if we would be more restrictive, waiting for reorganization as a new form (such as a new corporation filed with the state), we would recognize far too many new ballclubs.

(The alternative that focuses on team nicknames is worse: all-time roster of Boston Red Caps players, and so on. Congratulations to the Chicago Cubs, their fans, their wiki-editors, if they consistently go back to 1874 they are doing much better than most.) --P64 (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)