Talk:Worcester Worcesters

message: Regarding the latest history revision of Worcester’s 19th century National League team, they were called the Brown Stockings aka Ruby Legs.  I don’t care what any revisionist writer says as that is his opinion, nothing more.  There may not be any contemporary accounts of the name, (Remember, they played in the 1800's)  but that does not mean the names did not exist.  There are numerous historical documents referring to “Brown Stockings” and “Ruby Legs” and the names did not just come out of nowhere.  There’s just too many references.  According to the Society for American Baseball Research, one in particular refers to a National League game played at League Park in Cleveland, Ohio on 6/9/1881 - “Cleveland Spiders 5  Worcester Brown Stockings 3".  If the SABR historical text has the exact date, park it was played in and final score, then chances are the nicknames are correct as well.  Think about it.....  He also mentions the team was expelled by the league in 1882 because of minuscule attendance.  That there was no direct purchase by Alfred Reach and Colonel John Rogers, who would later change the name to the Phillies.  Can he prove they were expelled? -- Originally posted to article by  at 03:46, 9 Jun 2005
**I agree with you, I think someone was a little zealous in their edit.  SABR, which you pointed out, Baseball-Reference.com, and Retrosheet.org all refer to this team as the Ruby Legs.  Many teams from the 1800s have been given a permanent modern name with city followed by their nickname, even though the teams were referred to in different ways when they played. Neonblak 13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by 64.136.26.227 

message: This link to John Clarkson's career stats at mlb.com:
shows that Major League Baseball recognizes the "Brown Stockings" as a name, though, when you try to find them, they do not exist anywhere else on the site. LonelyBeacon 18:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MLB says otherwise ... sort of

message: ...since everyone agrees "Worcester (NL)" or "Worcester (1880-82)" is preferable to the awful "Worcester Worcesters", who's going to change it? RMc (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't change it to "Worcester (1880-82)" because that makes it seem like the article is about the town of Worcester during that three year period. Spanneraol (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather see "Worcester Baseball Association" or "Worcester (National League)" before an abbreviated version or the years. National League is a descriptor, but unless you know baseball you don't necessarily know what "national league" it's referring to. Worcester Baseball Association is clear, concise, official, and descriptive. If others disagree because it was never a commonly used name, then that's fine with me, it's just my opinion. But I'm against unnecessary abbreviations and the years invite possible confusion. — KV5 • Talk •  01:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think when we are talking about this era of baseball team names, using the official name might be the best course of action; just have every other possible name redirect to it. So if a vote were held, I'd go with "Worcester Baseball Association". One nitpick though, was baseball one word at all in the early 1880s, as opposed to "base ball" or "base-ball"?Neonblak talk -  10:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was all three. The two older usages didn't die out until about the 1910s. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd vote for "Worcester (National League)" as the best option. As far as any of us can tell, "Worcester Baseball Association" was never used except in incorporation papers, if even then, so I do question whether it really qualifies as a "common name"; press accounts and, I would presume, common parlance would call the team "Worcester" or "the Worcesters" or "the Worcester nine." Confusion by non-Americans over what "National League" means will be quickly dispelled by the lede sentence of the article. ``` W i k i W i s t a h ``` 02:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK, so...