| Testy Copy Editors http://www.testycopyeditors.org/phpBB3/ |
|
| controversial question? http://www.testycopyeditors.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7551 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | majorbabs [ Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | controversial question? |
My baseball friend says this always gets debate going, but he wouldn't tell me why so I ask the TCEs: If Babe Ruth were still playing today for the same team he last played with, who would he be playing for? Would someone like to explain the controversy, please? |
|
| Author: | Crabby Editor [ Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ruth retired following a stint with the Boston Braves in 1935. The Boston Braves were temporarily named the "Boston Bees" after this time. They returned to being called the Braves in the 1940s. The Braves moved to Milwaukee in 1952 and to Atlanta in 1967. |
|
| Author: | Vanderhoof Viking [ Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't know what the controversy would be. Ruth played his last season, 1935, with the Boston Braves in the National League. They then moved to Milwaukee before moving to Atlanta, where they still are. So if he was playing today for the last team he played for, he would be playing for Atlanta. If your friend's point is that the last team Ruth played for (Boston Braves) doesn't exist anymore, I would say he's right, but there's no controversy either way. I do know there were rumours that Ruth was hoping to be a manager with, I believe, Brooklyn, but he never played for the Dodgers. |
|
| Author: | ADKbrown [ Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Vanderhoof Viking wrote: I do know there were rumours that Ruth was hoping to be a manager with, I believe, Brooklyn, but he never played for the Dodgers.
Baseballlibary.com says Ruth coached for the Dodgers in 1938. |
|
| Author: | B Cubbison [ Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
A related dispute is that the Atlanta Braves claim to be the oldest franchise in baseball, the descendants of the Cincinnati Red Stockings. |
|
| Author: | Wayne Countryman [ Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
B Cubbison wrote: A related dispute is that the Atlanta Braves claim to be the oldest franchise in baseball, the descendants of the Cincinnati Red Stockings.
I always thought the Reds descended from the Red Stockings. But then, I once had a job tryout turn sour when I offered during a between-deadlines discussion of the etymology of the slang "crackers" that a minor league team in Atlanta had used that name. So what do I know. Maybe the Braves are descended from the Mayans, who walloped the ol' horsehide long before Abner Doubleday didn't "invent" baseball. [Sorry. I'm bored with football and eager for pitchers and catchers to report.] |
|
| Author: | B Cubbison [ Fri Jan 26, 2007 2:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wayne Countryman wrote: I always thought the Reds descended from the Red Stockings.
That's more or less the dispute. The Red Stockings left for Boston, then the Reds started up with a gap in the timelin and a league change or two. The Braves claim to be the oldest franchise in baseball, but that's like saying you have George Washington's hatchet, except it's had five new handles and three new heads. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|