OT: Diamond DeShields is Back!!!..[edit] but the Brooklyn Dodgers aren't! | Page 9 | The Boneyard

OT: Diamond DeShields is Back!!!..[edit] but the Brooklyn Dodgers aren't!

Status
Not open for further replies.

JordyG

Stake in my pocket, Vlad to see you
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
13,103
Reaction Score
54,870
My In-Laws, wife, and relative if they are any near what the rest of the Brooklyn area (larger than Brooklyn) is common--it is not a subject I now will every approach in their company--this long after...
As you can see I'm not alone. Unlike many teams who have left certain areas Brooklynites still bleed blue. To us it was first being held hostage, then a betrayal. Those of you who can't understand, try to envision the greatest love of your life, the one person/thing you would have died for, leaving you not for love, not for money, but for greed. Then 5 years later beat the (still) hated Yankees. Unforgivable.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
3,110
Reaction Score
8,777
As you can see I'm not alone. Unlike many teams who have left certain areas Brooklynites still bleed blue. To us it was first being held hostage, then a betrayal. Those of you who can't understand, try to envision the greatest love of your life, the one person/thing you would have died for, leaving you not for love, not for money, but for greed. Then 5 years later beat the (still) hated Yankees. Unforgivable.

Though I just missed being old enough to go to Dodger games when the team was in Brooklyn, I've had this conversation with old time Dodger fans before.
While the residents in the borough of Brooklyn may have loved "dem bums", unfortunately not many showed their appreciation by actually going to Ebbets Field. In 1955 the Dodgers drew just over 13,000 per game. This was the same amount they drew in 57, their last year in Brooklyn.
 

UcMiami

How it is
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
14,101
Reaction Score
46,586
Though I just missed being old enough to go to Dodger games when the team was in Brooklyn, I've had this conversation with old time Dodger fans before.
While the residents in the borough of Brooklyn may have loved "dem bums", unfortunately not many showed their appreciation by actually going to Ebbets Field. In 1955 the Dodgers drew just over 13,000 per game. This was the same amount they drew in 57, their last year in Brooklyn.
Boston still hasn't gotten completely over trading Babe Ruth to the Yankees and that was a lot longer ago than the Dodger's move.
 

Kibitzer

Sky Soldier
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
5,676
Reaction Score
24,714
I had lousy service at the hospital where I had been a patient since 4:15 Thursday morning.Just went home today and because I slept about 3 hours the whole time there. I am trying to catch up alittle bit. So that is why I didnt respond. Keeping my foot is my top priority right now!

I can identify with your situation. Be strong. Have faith. Be well.
 

JordyG

Stake in my pocket, Vlad to see you
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
13,103
Reaction Score
54,870
Though I just missed being old enough to go to Dodger games when the team was in Brooklyn, I've had this conversation with old time Dodger fans before.
While the residents in the borough of Brooklyn may have loved "dem bums", unfortunately not many showed their appreciation by actually going to Ebbets Field. In 1955 the Dodgers drew just over 13,000 per game. This was the same amount they drew in 57, their last year in Brooklyn.
Your argument is specious. In a small neighborhood ballpark like Ebbets Field was, the Dodgers never averaged more than 23K. In 1956 they drew 15.7K, the most since 1951. 1956 the year after their championship. In 1956 the Yankee's in that cavernous stadium which could hold 100K, the year they won the WS, drew 19K. Your numbers are skewed to today's averages. Teams didn't draw then as they do now. Drawing a million a year then was considered a good drawing team.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
3,110
Reaction Score
8,777
Your argument is specious. In a small neighborhood ballpark like Ebbets Field was, the Dodgers never averaged more than 23K. In 1956 they drew 15.7K, the most since 1951. 1956 the year after their championship. In 1956 the Yankee's in that cavernous stadium which could hold 100K, the year they won the WS, drew 19K. Your numbers are skewed to today's averages. Teams didn't draw then as they do now. Drawing a million a year then was considered a good drawing team.

If you check the facts regarding the Dodgers and attendance, I think your opinion would be different.
Your argument that the Dodgers would have somehow drawn significantly more people if their park was larger doesn't hold water. If Ebbets field held 30,000 more seats the result would have been 30,000 more empty seats during the games.
(The Dodgers did not have one regular season sellout in 57).
While it's true that teams today draw significantly more than in 1957, the perennial powerhouse Dodgers finished 5th out of 8 NL teams and 10th out of 16 total teams in MLB in attendance in 1957.
That puts them below average in attendance and this is for a team that was perpetually in the pennant chase.
Such attendance figures can only be described as disappointing. Unless, that is, you think that a pennant winning team should be satisfied with bottom half attendance figures.
 

JordyG

Stake in my pocket, Vlad to see you
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
13,103
Reaction Score
54,870
If you check the facts regarding the Dodgers and attendance, I think your opinion would be different.
Your argument that the Dodgers would have somehow drawn significantly more people if their park was larger doesn't hold water. If Ebbets field held 30,000 more seats the result would have been 30,000 more empty seats during the games.
(The Dodgers did not have one regular season sellout in 57).
While it's true that teams today draw significantly more than in 1957, the perennial powerhouse Dodgers finished 5th out of 8 NL teams and 10th out of 16 total teams in MLB in attendance in 1957.
That puts them below average in attendance and this is for a team that was perpetually in the pennant chase.
Such attendance figures can only be described as disappointing. Unless, that is, you think that a pennant winning team should be satisfied with bottom half attendance figures.
Again specious, in an age where 1 million in attendance was considered a success. And I never said or implied that a larger stadium would have produced larger crowds. I merely compared them to the (hated) Yankee's and Yankee stadium, which in order to fill needed 81K more butts than their season average. THAT'S an overhead. THAT's disappointing numbers compared to the Dodgers' 15K. This in a town where the Dodgers had to compete with two other major league baseball teams for attendance and headlines, not to mention a myriad other sporting teams. No other team in major league history had that disadvantage.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
35,439
Reaction Score
31,219
As you can see I'm not alone. Unlike many teams who have left certain areas Brooklynites still bleed blue. To us it was first being held hostage, then a betrayal. Those of you who can't understand, try to envision the greatest love of your life, the one person/thing you would have died for, leaving you not for love, not for money, but for greed. Then 5 years later beat the (still) hated Yankees. Unforgivable.
I was born in Brooklyn to a diehard Dodger fan, while they were still there. Alas, too young to remember much, and we were in CT by 1956, so I missed them leaving too. I do know my parents were devastated.
 

semper

Paleographer
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
2,223
Reaction Score
1,852
Yankees, Yankees, boo boo boo, put 'em in the garbage two by two
Dodgers, Dodgers, yay, yay,yay, put em on the field and let them play!!
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
3,110
Reaction Score
8,777
Again specious, in an age where 1 million in attendance was considered a success. And I never said or implied that a larger stadium would have produced larger crowds. I merely compared them to the (hated) Yankee's and Yankee stadium, which in order to fill needed 81K more butts than their season average. THAT'S an overhead. THAT's disappointing numbers compared to the Dodgers' 15K. This in a town where the Dodgers had to compete with two other major league baseball teams for attendance and headlines, not to mention a myriad other sporting teams. No other team in major league history had that disadvantage.

"No other team in major league history had that disadvantage" ?
How about the Yankees and the Giants ?
Didn't they all play in the same city and thus subject to the same disadvantages ? And if the Dodgers truly we're at a disadvantage, wouldn't that legitimize them leaving ?
Old Yankee Stadium had a seating capacity of approximately 69,000.
I don't know where your 100,000 figure comes from and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make bringing empty seats into a conversation about attendance anyway.
You can't be serious stating the Dodger attendance should have been considered a success in 57 when they finished 10th out of 16 teams because they drew just over 1,000,000.
Imagine if we applied that same standard to other aspects in sports.
Using your 10 out of 16 and empty seat criteria, would any owner say the following and be believed ?
"Even though our total attendance was below league average, only 2/3 of our seats we're empty and that should be considered a success. Also, though we finished 10th in a 16 team league, we still had a successful year".
I don't think that would fly.
 

JordyG

Stake in my pocket, Vlad to see you
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
13,103
Reaction Score
54,870
"No other team in major league history had that disadvantage" ?
How about the Yankees and the Giants ?
Didn't they all play in the same city and thus subject to the same disadvantages ? And if the Dodgers truly we're at a disadvantage, wouldn't that legitimize them leaving ?
Old Yankee Stadium had a seating capacity of approximately 69,000.
I don't know where your 100,000 figure comes from and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make bringing empty seats into a conversation about attendance anyway.
You can't be serious stating the Dodger attendance should have been considered a success in 57 when they finished 10th out of 16 teams because they drew just over 1,000,000.
Imagine if we applied that same standard to other aspects in sports.
Using your 10 out of 16 and empty seat criteria, would any owner say the following and be believed ?
"Even though our total attendance was below league average, only 2/3 of our seats we're empty and that should be considered a success. Also, though we finished 10th in a 16 team league, we still had a successful year".
I don't think that would fly.
If you think playing in a city with the greatest baseball franchise, perhaps the greatest franchise in sports period isn't a disadvantage what is? I understand the Giants leaving since their stadium in Coogan's Bluff was directly across the water from Yankee stadium, not the Dodgers who had Brooklyn all to themselves.

Again you are using today's perception and applying it to the 50's, where again, 1 million in yearly attendance was the standard. That only changed when seating capacities and stadiums increased in size across sports in the 70's.

I apologize. You are correct in that Yankee stadium's capacity was only 69K, twice that of Ebbets Field. That's 50K empty seats in 1956 as compared to the Dodgers 23K. Yet the Yankees never threatened to leave. In fact, 19K led the league in attendance, a figure no team today could survive on.

No, what really burned O'Malley was the deal the Yankees got in 1953 when Topping and Webb sold the stadium for big money and O'Malley saw the true value of Ebbets field. From that point on he tried to broker a new deal for a new stadium using the Dodgers brand and stadium (and us fans) as leverage. He saw the city dragging its feet (would it be Atlantic yards, Queens etc.). When Moses refused to intervene in buying the land he bolted.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
3,110
Reaction Score
8,777
If you think playing in a city with the greatest baseball franchise, perhaps the greatest franchise in sports period isn't a disadvantage what is? I understand the Giants leaving since their stadium in Coogan's Bluff was directly across the water from Yankee stadium, not the Dodgers who had Brooklyn all to themselves.

Again you are using today's perception and applying it to the 50's, where again, 1 million in yearly attendance was the standard. That only changed when seating capacities and stadiums increased in size across sports in the 70's.

I apologize. You are correct in that Yankee stadium's capacity was only 69K, twice that of Ebbets Field. That's 50K empty seats in 1956 as compared to the Dodgers 23K. Yet the Yankees never threatened to leave. In fact, 19K led the league in attendance, a figure no team today could survive on.

No, what really burned O'Malley was the deal the Yankees got in 1953 when Topping and Webb sold the stadium for big money and O'Malley saw the true value of Ebbets field. From that point on he tried to broker a new deal for a new stadium using the Dodgers brand and stadium (and us fans) as leverage. He saw the city dragging its feet (would it be Atlantic yards, Queens etc.). When Moses refused to intervene in buying the land he bolted.

My last post on this subject.
1. In your first paragraph you argue both sides of the question. You state that playing in the same city as the Yankees is a disadvantage and use the Giants as an example but also state that it wasn't to the Dodgers because they had Brooklyn (pop. 2,000,000) all to themselves.
2. Never did I compare today's attendance with 1957. The Dodgers finished 5th out of 8 teams in attendance in 57. That was in in the bottom half no matter how you slice it.
BTW. There were multiple stadiums around in the 50's that were huge and held way more fans than the stadiums built in the 70's. (See NY, Cleveland, etc.)
3. You continue to mention empty seats when discussing attendance.
A reminder.
Attendance counts either tickets sold or actual bodies through the turnstile.
Empty seats counts... Nothing, literally.
4. Yes, O'Malley left because he saw a chance to make more money.
However, the facts remain that the Dodgers played in what was called the "4th largest city in America" yet had below average attendance figures some years in the 50's. If their fans want to see a major factor in the Dodgers leaving Brooklyn, all they have to do is look in the mirror.
 
Last edited:

JordyG

Stake in my pocket, Vlad to see you
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
13,103
Reaction Score
54,870
My last post on this subject.
1. In your first paragraph you argue both sides of the question. You state that playing in the same city as the Yankees is a disadvantage and use the Giants as an example but also state that it wasn't to the Dodgers because they had Brooklyn (pop. 2,000,000) all to themselves.
2. Never did I compare today's attendance with 1957. The Dodgers finished 5th out of 8 teams in attendance in 57. That was in in the bottom half no matter how you slice it.
BTW. There were multiple stadiums around in the 50's that were huge and held way more fans than the stadiums built in the 70's. (See NY, Cleveland, etc.)
3. You continue to mention empty seats when discussing attendance.
A reminder.
Attendance counts either tickets sold or actual bodies through the turnstile.
Empty seats counts... Nothing, literally.
4. Yes, O'Malley left because he saw a chance to make more money.
However, the facts remain that the Dodgers played in what was called the "4th largest city in America" yet had below average attendance figures some years in the 50's. If their fans want to see a major factor in the Dodgers leaving Brooklyn, all they have to do is look in the mirror.
1) Brooklyn had a BOROUGH to themselves, but not the city. Competing with the Yankees in the same city is a disadvantage no matter what BOROUGH you are in. It's even a disadvantage to teams in other sports. Brooklyn may have been called the 4th largest city in the US, but Brooklyn is now and will forever be a borough of different and distinct neighborhoods. The Dodgers were a neighborhood team that wasn't really (relatively) united until Jackie Robinson came along. The Yankees drew from all boroughs, and still do, whereas the Mets draw mostly from Queens and Long Is.
2) Wha? There were a few large stadiums during the early half of the 20th century, but nothing like the explosion during expansion. The average size of baseball stadiums went way up. As did of course popularity and attendance.
3)Empty seats count for nothing? Attendance tells only part of the story. Are you a business man? Do you know what overhead is? Topping's overhead was easily twice that of the Dodgers. Their break even number was much higher than O'Mally's. Although O'Malley's attendance was down, the club's numbers were still in the black.
4) The real reason's for O'Mally leaving were as I've stated. Greed. And ego.

So lets hold a mirror up to the current Dodgers. Ownership and LA now has the team they deserve. Selfish players, questionable management, indifferent fans. I couldn't be happier.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
11,335
Reaction Score
25,045
58 years is a long time to hold a grudge.

To the Brooklyn (extended) community--it is NOT a GRUDGE--it is 20 times Benedict ARnold, it is/was a betrayal. The love affair Brooklyn (extended) had with them bums is something only an old time BUMS fan shall ever know--and I'm on the outside looking in (ok pushed in by my in laws)


giphy.gif
 

Monte

Count of Monte UConn
Joined
Feb 15, 2015
Messages
2,057
Reaction Score
6,487
Per Raul: Love her or not, the Boneyard's favorite player is ready to go!!!!


Lady Vols' DeShields has regained her health, confidence
I think a lot of her answers depend on how she was interviewed. If she was asked a lot of questions with the word "you" in them, then she had to answer with the word: "I."
I know she has shown cockiness in the past, but I would rather have a player on my team like that, instead of one who is more withdrawn and has doubts about herself.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
 

RoyDodger

Retired in the Southwest
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
574
Reaction Score
434
As a born and bred Brooklynite losing the Dodgers to the left was devastating to the entire Brooklyn community which never really recovered. Whenever anyone brings up their betrayal my blood just boils. Yeah, teams move and owners (and players) nowadays show little to no loyalty to communities. But the Dodgers move was never because they were a money losing franchise. On the contrary, they just wanted to make more. O'Malley wanted a new stadium, and when the city seemed to drag its feet and then offered Queens as a site he simply packed his bags. Good riddance. I have a good time now watching the Dodgers lose. I enjoy how they've gotten the Puig and the "come late, leave early" fans they deserve. I especially enjoyed watching the Mets crush them in 5 last year. After all these years I still wish them nothing but the worst. Hold a grudge long? Not me.

The Dodgers moved to LA after the 1957 season. I was 12 (born in Brooklyn but raised in the Bronx) and living near Yankee Stadium and hating the Yankees. But I had been to LA twice in the 1950s (my grandmother lived in Pacific Ocean Park) and the guys who moved west were still Hodges, Furillo, Snider, Campanella (albeit he never played due to his terrible car accident), Erskine, Newcome, Reese, etc. I wasn't about to give up my team, my favorites. No one is left from the Dodgers that moved west in '58 except Vin Scully, Don Newcombe (who still works for the team), and Tommy Lasorda. The O'Malleys moved on long ago and some of Walter O'Malley's descendants now own the San Diego Padres.

Someone mentioned Eminent Domain which is intended for purchase of property by government for public purposes. But as is often the case the purchases are really made for business or other interests. A few years back I had a lawyer friend in Malibu whose father had been a very successful criminal lawyer. She told me that Los Angeles had used eminent domain to buy his property in downtown LA. According to her, it apparently was not developed for many years and is now the site of the Catholic Church's Cathedral in Los Angeles.

And then there's Vin Scully. I, of course, remember him on WMGM in NY doing the Brooklyn Dodger games in the 50s (with Warm-Up Time, the pre-game show starring Marty Glickman and, of all people, Gussie Moran, the tennis player). I know that Vin became a legend in LA (at Dodger Stadium early on because you could hear his voice announcing the game since so many people were using transistor radios). But, living most of my life in NY, Virginia, and Connecticut, I obviously didn't hear him that often except for when he, as I recall, did NBC baseball with Joe Garagiola. But then in the late 1990s, I had a friend working for the Dodgers and on a visit to LA and Dodger Stadium got to meet Vinny in my friend's office behind the press box. Finally, having moved to New Mexico in 2013, I get to see almost every Dodger game on TV, and have heard plenty of Vin Scully broadcasts. Interestingly, although he is certainly still one of the greats, he can drive you crazy with his unending stories about the players and the past. Over the years I've learned where almost every player in a Dodger game was born, how tall they are, how much they weigh, where they went to high school, where they went to college, their wife's name, their mother's name, and on ad infinitum. Vinny will come up with some amazing stories and details (my wife makes me turn off the sound at times when he simply goes overboard with details). One of my "favorite" Scully stories concerned St. Louis manager Mike Matheny and how he met his wife somehow because of bird poop that landed on his hat (I may have the details wrong, but you can hear him tell the details on YouTube). One time when Rene Rivera (now of the Mets) was playing for the Padres, Scully couldn't stop talking about his twins. It got to the point that when Rene Rivera comes up, we immediately joke about his twins. And those are just two of seemingly hundreds and hundreds of stories that Scully tells on Dodger broadcasts. If you've ever seen a Dodger broadcast from LA, you'll be familiar with his famous statement: "It's time for Dodger baseball" at the opening of the game.

Finally, just wanted to note that this talk about the Dodgers seems appropriate in this thread since Diamond DeShields' father, Delino, played for the Dodgers (and came over in one of the worst trades in Dodger history--he was traded to the Dodgers for Pedro Martinez in November 1993, a day that will live in infamy).

And here I am, a few years younger, with Vinny in 1998 (I believe) at Dodger Stadium.

royvinny.jpg
 

Monte

Count of Monte UConn
Joined
Feb 15, 2015
Messages
2,057
Reaction Score
6,487
1) Brooklyn had a BOROUGH to themselves, but not the city. Competing with the Yankees in the same city is a disadvantage no matter what BOROUGH you are in. It's even a disadvantage to teams in other sports. Brooklyn may have been called the 4th largest city in the US, but Brooklyn is now and will forever be a borough of different and distinct neighborhoods. The Dodgers were a neighborhood team that wasn't really (relatively) united until Jackie Robinson came along. The Yankees drew from all boroughs, and still do, whereas the Mets draw mostly from Queens and Long Is.
2) Wha? There were a few large stadiums during the early half of the 20th century, but nothing like the explosion during expansion. The average size of baseball stadiums went way up. As did of course popularity and attendance.
3)Empty seats count for nothing? Attendance tells only part of the story. Are you a business man? Do you know what overhead is? Topping's overhead was easily twice that of the Dodgers. Their break even number was much higher than O'Mally's. Although O'Malley's attendance was down, the club's numbers were still in the black.
4) The real reason's for O'Mally leaving were as I've stated. Greed. And ego.

So lets hold a mirror up to the current Dodgers. Ownership and LA now has the team they deserve. Selfish players, questionable management, indifferent fans. I couldn't be happier.
Today, as always, the bottom line is money. The fans may be indifferent, but the club does not care. The Dodgers lead the Majors in attendance, and have a huge TV contract. They are also in first place, but as you say, many of the "indifferent" fans probably don't know it!
 

RoyDodger

Retired in the Southwest
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
574
Reaction Score
434
Since when has money not been the bottom line in virtually any for-profit business? Which reminds me of one more thought. In the early to mid-1950s, the neighborhood around Ebbets Field was going downhill. While attendance was not dropping precipitously, it was fairly stagnant (ranging between 1.282 million in 1951 and 1.020 million in 1954). By that point, Walter O'Malley was already talking about a new ballpark to be located in Brooklyn. I've attached the cover of the 1954 Dodger yearbook. The powers-that-be in NYC (Mayor Robert Wagner and Port Authority honcho Robert Moses) did everything they could to discourage O'Malley from getting other property in Brooklyn. Los Angeles came along and offered O'Malley the proverbial "offer that could not be refused." And O'Malley, needing a west coast partner, convinced Horace Stoneham, owner of the NY Giants, to move west with him (Stoneham had been considering moving the Giants to Minneapolis). I have always reminded SF Giants fans that they should thank the Dodgers for the Giants move to San Francisco.

yb1.jpeg

View attachment 15376
 

JordyG

Stake in my pocket, Vlad to see you
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
13,103
Reaction Score
54,870
Since when has money not been the bottom line in virtually any for-profit business? Which reminds me of one more thought. In the early to mid-1950s, the neighborhood around Ebbets Field was going downhill. While attendance was not dropping precipitously, it was fairly stagnant (ranging between 1.282 million in 1951 and 1.020 million in 1954). By that point, Walter O'Malley was already talking about a new ballpark to be located in Brooklyn. I've attached the cover of the 1954 Dodger yearbook. The powers-that-be in NYC (Mayor Robert Wagner and Port Authority honcho Robert Moses) did everything they could to discourage O'Malley from getting other property in Brooklyn. Los Angeles came along and offered O'Malley the proverbial "offer that could not be refused." And O'Malley, needing a west coast partner, convinced Horace Stoneham, owner of the NY Giants, to move west with him (Stoneham had been considering moving the Giants to Minneapolis). I have always reminded SF Giants fans that they should thank the Dodgers for the Giants move to San Francisco.

View attachment 15377
View attachment 15376
Yes, but the real seeds for O"Mally's displeasure goes to 1953 when the Yankee"s were sold for big money and O"Mally's jealousy/ego/greed saw his team as near equivalent in value. His attendance may have been stagnant, but the Yankee's and Giants with far larger overheads on far bigger plots of land had bigger financial troubles. Especially the Giants. Plus of course compared to the Yankee's which just had a new infusion of money, the percentage of empty seats was far lower. The idea of the Atlantic Yards was a big money project which financially the city couldn't afford; and yes, eminent domain was a problem then. By the time the Nets came along eminent domain was a bludgeon for a starved borough. Not so for Wagner. O'Malley was offered the same plot given to the Mets, but O'Malley wanted a sweetheart deal and the city refused.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
446
Guests online
5,096
Total visitors
5,542

Forum statistics

Threads
157,059
Messages
4,079,769
Members
9,972
Latest member
WillngtnOak


Top Bottom