Whose records are they?

Recent correspondences with fellow baseball history blogger and Washington DC resident Mark Hornbaker* have gotten me thinking again about a comment left here last fall. It’s one of those things that I wanted to address in more depth, but got placed on the back burner due to several other projects I was working on at the time.

* by the way- welcome to readers from History’s Perspective and NationalsPride.com, and I highly recommend Mark’s work to those who are interested in baseball history.

Here is the comment, still found on the “About” page:

Edward J. Cunningham Says:
October 1, 2007

I admire your admiration for the Minnesota Twins, but I have a nitpick—a huge one.

The Dodgers, Athletics, and to a lesser extent the Giants consider their previous incarnations as part of their history. At McAfee Colisseum you see the world championships of the Philadelphia A’s celebrated as well the Oakland champions of the 70’s and 80’s. The Dodgers never let you forget their Brooklyn past, and although the Giants emphasize their history in S.F., you will see old New York Giants like John McGraw honored along with SFers like Willie Mays.

Not the case in Mnnesota. You will not see ANY Washington player honored who did not play in Minnesota. Harmon Killebrew, yes, but no mention of Johnson, Harris, Goslin, Cronin, or Vernon.
You’ll see the pennant and world championship teams of 1965, 1987, and 1991 mentioned, but no reference to 1924, 1925, and 1933. That’s the way it should be. I don’t blame the Twins for not mentioning Walter Johnson during the Hometown Hero contest, but it galls me that MLB prohibited us from using him.

The point is that the history of the Washington Nationals/Senators does not belong with the Minnesota Twins any more than the history of the Montréal Expos belongs to my team. They belong to the city where those events actually happened.

…and my response…

Scot Says:
October 2, 2007

I’m not sure that I buy that history “belongs” to anyone.

The fact is that the roots of the Twins’ franchise go back to Washington. You are right, the pennants of 1924, 1925, and 1933 don’t hang in the Metrodome, and I personally think that is a joke. To honor those teams and players as part of your franchise past makes sense, and is not a slight to Washington, nor does it take your memories of the team away from you.

Prior to Mr. Cunningham’s comment, I always assumed that there was no question that the Twins should be recognizing what I saw as their own franchise history. After all, why wouldn’t they? Admittedly, my opinion was formed for purely selfish reasons. I am fascinated by baseball history, particularly the dead ball era, and love the idea that my favorite team has roots all they way back to the beginning of the 20th century (not to mention the greatest pitcher of all time to call their own). His comment gave me pause, and while I still stand by my response, it has certainly opened up a new perspective for me.

The issue is not a new one, and truly is emotional for some people. In my research I came upon a point/counter-point article refereed by The Sporting News in the September 14, 1963 issue. In it, the publicists for the Twins and new Senators faced off in an argument over to whom the records actually belong.

The catalyst for the conversation was a barely publicized ruling by AL President Joe Cronin (who certainly had Washington roots) at the time of the 1961 expansion that the Minnesota Twins would officially be recognized as the “new” franchise while the city of Washington and the expansion Senators would maintain the old Washington records. Herb Heft wrote on behalf of the Twins:

The solution to the question of the rights of the old Senators’ records has been suggested in the past by the new Senators and their pen-pals on a take it or leave it basis.

We haven’t taken their dictation in the past and we ain’t a-goin’ to start now.

The Twins have never presumed to tell the new Senators which records they should use as their yardstick on present performances.

We have felt all along that the new Senators have every right to claim, if they want, that the records of Sam Rice, Joe Cronin, Walter Johnson, Mickey Vernon et al., were set by Washington major league players. But for them to claim categorically that the Twins relinquished claim to these club records because the Calvin Griffith club allegedly was a creation of the 1960 American League expansion to ten teams-while the Quesada club was a continuation of the Griffith team-is preposterous.

More than that, it is a contention of remarkable convenience.

…and in this corner Burton Hawkins representing the Washington Senators…

The conclusion that the Washington Senators’ records are the sole possession of the Washington Senators was reached, probably without too much brain damage, by The Official Baseball Guide, One For the Book and the American League Red Book, among numerous other publications. That wise judgment by qualified experts is being contested by a voice from the wilderness.

It is significant that the questionable tactics of the Minnesota Twins employing records of the Washington Senators arose not in Washington, but in Minnesota, where Sports Columnist Dick Cullum was having his doubts of the propriety of the Twins appropriating items which aren’t theirs.

Hawkins goes on to address what I think was, and still might be, the real issue:

The Griffiths elected to divorce themselves from Washington baseball three years ago. It might be well to point out that major league baseball existed in Washington long before the arrival of the Griffiths and will exist long after their exit. The Washington Senators have been engaged in continuous business in the same city since 1901 under several ownerships but always as an American League franchise.

Now that the agony of divorce has been consummated, there’s a wee effort on the part of at least one to dream vainly of perpetuating the marriage. There’s a clinging to a memory rather than a confrontation with reality.

Hawkins then moved on from a divorce analogy to a birth analogy:

The Twins were spawned simultaneously in Minnesota and orphaned immediately from association with Washington when they deserted home and changed teams.

The pain of a lost team is evident in Hawkins’ response, and I don’t think he used the divorce and orphan analogies by accident.

The closest I have experienced to a franchise moving is when the North Stars moved south. I was just starting to follow hockey at the time, so the roots weren’t terribly deep for me. Still, to this day I have trouble watching the Dallas Stars play, almost as if this southern city that has no business following hockey has stolen something from me.

In 2001 it appeared as though the Twins were as good as gone due to Bud Selig’s contraction scheme. Though they ultimately stayed put, the small taste of my favorite baseball team leaving was enough for me to know that I don’t want to go down that road again. I can’t imagine what it would be like to lose two teams within an 11-year span. That is why I am somewhat sympathetic to a DC baseball fan who wants the Twins to continue ignoring their ties to the 1901-1960 Washington American League franchise.

Still, the ties are undeniable. Minnesota and the first Washington AL team share Harmon Killebrew, Camilo Pascual, Jim Kaat, Earl Battey, and a host of others including, for better or worse, Calvin Griffith himself.

I don’t see it as a slight to Washington baseball fans if the Twins were to hang a 1924 World Series banner, or to place Johnson and Rice along side Killebrew and Puckett among the retired numbers. It doesn’t follow to me that honoring the franchise’s past would diminish the memories and rich history of baseball for baseball fans with roots in Washington. To the contrary, I think that honoring those players and records in Minnesota would help to tell the story of Washington baseball to a generation of Minnesota baseball fans whose baseball time lines don’t tend to reach back beyond 1961.

What say you?