Say the city of NY built both teams new stadiums, how would that have changed baseball history?
What if the Dodgers and Giants never left New York?
- Thread starter Nelliebunky
- Start date
The original plans were for O'Malley to build a privately financed stadium in Brooklyn and for Horace to take the Giants to Minnesota. Of course Moses is the evil one since for him it was Flushing or Nothing. Boo. Hiss. CA baseball happens with expansion. Rickey's Continental League forced the issue and LA and SF get expansion teams.
Los Angeles and San Francisco would be getting expansion teams anyway once baseball expanded. Instead, New York got an expansion team, to replace the Giants.
So other than the butterflies on the teams themselves, the effect was New York going from three teams to two.
Expansion teams in 1961-2 would to San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, and Washington. So Los Angeles would get one American league team (the Angels) instead of an American and a National League team. There would be no rivalry with the expansion National League baseball team. An expansion team would go to San Francisco instead of the Mets.
When the divisions are created in 1969, they are affected by an additional team on the East Coast instead of the West Coast. If the Dodgers are still in New York, I don't think they could get away with putting the Cubs and Cardinals in the East. The Dodgers would be in the East instead of the West, the Cubs and Cardinals would be in the West, and either the Braves or the Reds would wind up in the East instead of the West.
The NYC area can support three teams, but I'm not sure if one of the teams don't wind up moving elsewhere eventually. I don't think southern California gets three teams in this timeline, they get the Padres as their NL expansion team in 1969 and that is it. The Angels probably stay in LA proper instead of moving to Anaheim. There is a chance the Padres will be put in LA as well instead of San Diego.
So other than the butterflies on the teams themselves, the effect was New York going from three teams to two.
Expansion teams in 1961-2 would to San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, and Washington. So Los Angeles would get one American league team (the Angels) instead of an American and a National League team. There would be no rivalry with the expansion National League baseball team. An expansion team would go to San Francisco instead of the Mets.
When the divisions are created in 1969, they are affected by an additional team on the East Coast instead of the West Coast. If the Dodgers are still in New York, I don't think they could get away with putting the Cubs and Cardinals in the East. The Dodgers would be in the East instead of the West, the Cubs and Cardinals would be in the West, and either the Braves or the Reds would wind up in the East instead of the West.
The NYC area can support three teams, but I'm not sure if one of the teams don't wind up moving elsewhere eventually. I don't think southern California gets three teams in this timeline, they get the Padres as their NL expansion team in 1969 and that is it. The Angels probably stay in LA proper instead of moving to Anaheim. There is a chance the Padres will be put in LA as well instead of San Diego.
Well the real problem with both teams staying in New York. If Robert Moses dies early or never comes to power, no one would have stood in the way of building the Dodger Dome, on land that is currently a mall with the Barclay Center adjacent. I say dome because it would have been the first domed stadium ever built, and IIIRC would have seated around 50,000 people. Unfortunately for the neighborhood, a good portion would probably be turned to a parking lot.
If they get their stadium, there is no reason that the Dodgers would leave Brooklyn. Now as for the Giants, they were losing in war for relevance with the all powerful Yankees, and had trouble selling out the cavernous and decrepit Polo Grounds. It is a true fact that the Giants were on the way out as far as I can recall. From what I know, Stoneham had every intention of relocating to the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area. Even to that point, they bought the minor league Minneapolis Millers because of this.
As for who gets to Los Angeles, the Saint Louis Browns have made clear that they want to move to Los Angeles, so they could theoretically take up the Los Angeles Angels branding, and before Chavez Ravine they could play out of LA's Wrigley Field. Maybe the Phillies could move to San Francisco and become the Seals.
If they get their stadium, there is no reason that the Dodgers would leave Brooklyn. Now as for the Giants, they were losing in war for relevance with the all powerful Yankees, and had trouble selling out the cavernous and decrepit Polo Grounds. It is a true fact that the Giants were on the way out as far as I can recall. From what I know, Stoneham had every intention of relocating to the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area. Even to that point, they bought the minor league Minneapolis Millers because of this.
As for who gets to Los Angeles, the Saint Louis Browns have made clear that they want to move to Los Angeles, so they could theoretically take up the Los Angeles Angels branding, and before Chavez Ravine they could play out of LA's Wrigley Field. Maybe the Phillies could move to San Francisco and become the Seals.
Reportedly, when the Philadelphia Athletics were purchased, and moved to Kansas City, there was a 3 year lease And the owner had thoughts of moving them to Los Angeles afterward.
The Athletics did poorly enough that I can see them moving after 1957. Maybe Gene Autry buys that team instead of Charlie Finley. Or Finley could buy it still. The owner's death of a heart attack in 1960 was sudden enough that Finley could catch him off guard of guard, especially if Autry had already been planning to get an expansion team.
But, remember, if the giant moved to Minnesota then Washington needs a place to move. You could get the Senators moving to San Francisco - The American league already has a team in Los Angeles in this scenario - and then the National League expanding into Los Angeles with Gene Autry owning the team.
The Los Angeles area is too big to have only one team. Although Autry probably moves the clubto Anaheim in this time line. Then they have a rivalry with the padres starting in 1969.
The Athletics did poorly enough that I can see them moving after 1957. Maybe Gene Autry buys that team instead of Charlie Finley. Or Finley could buy it still. The owner's death of a heart attack in 1960 was sudden enough that Finley could catch him off guard of guard, especially if Autry had already been planning to get an expansion team.
But, remember, if the giant moved to Minnesota then Washington needs a place to move. You could get the Senators moving to San Francisco - The American league already has a team in Los Angeles in this scenario - and then the National League expanding into Los Angeles with Gene Autry owning the team.
The Los Angeles area is too big to have only one team. Although Autry probably moves the clubto Anaheim in this time line. Then they have a rivalry with the padres starting in 1969.
The St. Louis Cardinals and Browns are/were both west of the Mississippi (barely).
I’ve seen this before, but I think the Giants still move and without the Dodgers, Minnesota is a very likely home as their main farm team was there. It also gives a rival to the Braves in Milwaukee. As for the Dodgers, well if the O’Malley Family and Robert Moses can work things out, then I see the Dodgers “moving” from Ebbets Field to Shea Stadium ( if it’s still called that) by 1962. The Dodgers keep the Brooklyn name and stay successful as a franchise.
As for butterflies and ripple effects, California might not get baseball until 1961. The Senators probably move to LA and become the Angels, and there is probably an expansion team in San Francisco. Personally I’d like to see them be called the Seals as that was their PCL team. The Senators are also recreated.
As for the NL, they won’t want to miss out on the west coast, so I’m guessing you have an LA expansion team along with Houston. Maybe you get an Oakland expansion team but I don’t think they beat out Houston.
By 1966 the A’s leave Kansas City and I’m guessing they might head for Dallas or Atlanta as those were other options IRL along with Oakland, so I’m guessing Atlanta gets the A’s. As for the Braves, they still might move. It’s weird because they were a good club in Milwaukee but you might not want to have Minnesota and Chicago lose a rival, though I’m guessing they lose out like Kansas City and the Braves move to Oakland, and change their name to the Oaks.
The 1969 expansion then goes as planned with Kansas City, and Seattle getting teams in the AL and Montreal and San Diego get teams in the NL. The Senators also still move to Texas and the Seattle team moves to Milwaukee in the 70s and then baseball is done until 1977 when the AL expands to Toronto and Seattle.
Things then mostly go like otl in regards to expansion. Milwaukee switches back to the NL, and later Houston is in the AL. I’m sure there is a lot more that could be written though.
As for butterflies and ripple effects, California might not get baseball until 1961. The Senators probably move to LA and become the Angels, and there is probably an expansion team in San Francisco. Personally I’d like to see them be called the Seals as that was their PCL team. The Senators are also recreated.
As for the NL, they won’t want to miss out on the west coast, so I’m guessing you have an LA expansion team along with Houston. Maybe you get an Oakland expansion team but I don’t think they beat out Houston.
By 1966 the A’s leave Kansas City and I’m guessing they might head for Dallas or Atlanta as those were other options IRL along with Oakland, so I’m guessing Atlanta gets the A’s. As for the Braves, they still might move. It’s weird because they were a good club in Milwaukee but you might not want to have Minnesota and Chicago lose a rival, though I’m guessing they lose out like Kansas City and the Braves move to Oakland, and change their name to the Oaks.
The 1969 expansion then goes as planned with Kansas City, and Seattle getting teams in the AL and Montreal and San Diego get teams in the NL. The Senators also still move to Texas and the Seattle team moves to Milwaukee in the 70s and then baseball is done until 1977 when the AL expands to Toronto and Seattle.
Things then mostly go like otl in regards to expansion. Milwaukee switches back to the NL, and later Houston is in the AL. I’m sure there is a lot more that could be written though.
There was a plan drawn up to have the Giants as tenants of the Yankees at least through the 1959 season. Had in gone through, the Polo Grounds would have been overhauled or replaced, with the Giants remaining in New York. Then... Subway Series in 1962 and 1963, all else being equal.
Last edited:
Just a note, there were signs IOTL of Brooklyn fans saying they would rather have the Dodgers in LA than Queens. If you're not a New Yorker you might not understand the difference, but a team with a Brooklyn identity could never play in Queens. They would be the New York Dodgers at that point.
Just of interest, its possible the Cincinnati Reds, stuck at the ramshackle Crosley Field and in a small market, could have been convinced to replace the Giants. first playing in the Polo Grounds, then Shea Stadium. Also it will not be called Shea Stadium as the name comes from the man responsible for the Continental League who brought the Mets to town. Little bit of trivia, he also is responsible for the creation of the New York Islanders.
But should the Giants and Dodgers stay put, what are the chances of a merger between the PCL and MLB? If that's plausible, how would the PCL be divided between the AL and NL?
Oh boy. Maybe Robert Moses Stadium? That’d be a disaster waiting to happen?
Also we’re the Reds close to moving ? Seems weird sir a one team town to lose a team in those days but I guess a decade later Kansas City and Milwaukee got teams and with Milwaukee being originally the Seattle Pilots, they got the Mariners in the 70s.
Also, I guess it makes sense that Brooklynites wouldn’t like a team with the name of their borough in Queens. I know the boroughs are like their own cities. The thing is is, was there any site for a stadium in Brooklyn? Also I doubt the club could just rebuild Ebbetts Field as they weren’t super rich, right?
Ebbets Field didn't have anything close to sufficient parking and wasn't close to public transit. That's a killer when the fan base moved to the Levittowns.
O'Malley wanted to build at the present site of the Nets arena because the trolleys ran right by it.
Actually, Ebbetts Field was close to public transit. Several Brooklyn trolley coach lines ran right past it.