Before today’s Brain Game, a heartfelt salute to the late Paul Harvey. Perhaps more than anyone else, he’s the man who got me interested in journalism, trivia, and storytelling. Never once do I recall turning on his radio show and not learning something before he’d say “Good day!” God bless you, Paul. We’ll miss you.
Major League Baseball is getting ready to kick back into gear after some time off. I might actually watch some games this year, since I imagine that – for the first time in many years – the players still in the game are all starting off on an even keel (without any performance-enhancing substances in their system). Notwithstanding that hotly-debated subject, baseball has changed a bit over the past decade or so, as evidenced by the Q and A in today’s Brain Game. (Remember to think geographically as well as “mascotly,” if that’s a word.) Good luck!
What THREE Major League Baseball franchises
will begin play in the 2009 season under different
full names than they used for the 1999 MLB season?
Comments (14)
Comment
- subscribe /
- give a gift /
- terms of service /
- about /
- contact us /
- write for us /
- ad info /
- subscriber services /
- press /
- privacy policy /
- rss /
© 2012 Mental Floss Inc. All Rights Reserved. Mental Floss is a registered trademark owned by Felix Dennis. mentalfloss.com is a trademark owned by Felix Dennis.
Disclaimer: All submissions made to mental_floss become the property of Mental Floss Inc and may be used without further permission by the submitter and without compensation to the submitter. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not submit anything to mental_floss.
I’m waiting for the last team to be called the “Los Angeles, California Angels of Anaheim, in Orange County.”
posted by Mike on 3-2-2009 at 7:58 am
Mike, you’re absolutely right. As you obviously know, it’s hilarious that they’ve been known (successively) as the L.A. Angels, the California Angels, the Anaheim Angels, and now the L.A. Angels of Anaheim, all without moving out of the area.
Kinda like how the New York Giants have played home games in Connecticut and New Jersey as well as New York. I was kinda hoping they would be the home team when they played the Dolphins in London, England, as well – that would have made for some nice trivia – but Miami was given that nod.
posted by Sandy Wood on 3-2-2009 at 8:21 am
I hereby call “shenanigans” on this question, which asked for teams having “different full names”. I discounted (in my head) the Rays because they had the same city name, as well as the Angels because they had the same city and mascot name, just an additional city name (which is just dumb).
Or am I overthinking?
posted by TBV on 3-2-2009 at 9:15 am
Wow TBV, looks like someone has a case of the Mondays. You “over-thought” it?
The Devil Rays dropped the “Devil”, what more obvious answer to this question could you have gotten? The others were hard cuz the team relocated and last one “re-marketed” themselves. Also, the Rays’ change was most recent, making it the easiest answer to come up with.
If you discounted these answers, what answers did you come up with?
You even copied the crux of the question in your post “different full names”. If a team changes their nickname (Rays) or adds a city name (LA) then their full name HAS CHANGED?
posted by Jonny on 3-2-2009 at 10:34 am
I came up with the Expos/Nationals, but that was it.
Yeah, overthinking. But Jonny, am I “overthinking” to point out your misuse of the question mark in your 2nd and last sentences? Or am I just being rude?
posted by TBV on 3-2-2009 at 10:56 am
Sandy,
Sorry to disappoint buddy, but I can remember last season when everyone supposedly started off on an “even keel.” Now, it’s THIS season. Or is it?
The problem is that people like A-Rod are still around. They did them back when they were posh, and are still living with the effects. Even if there actually isn’t anyone who has done steroids, the stain on the game of baseball is permanent for this generation.
To digress:
To be straight, I don’t encourage the use of steroids. And I understand the purist’s claim that everyone should be starting from the same place. I would pose that’s hardly a reasonable argument considering the sport. The proof is in the winners; the most successful franchises of late have been teams without A-Rod, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa (don’t tell me he’s not or wasn’t a doper), Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, etc. The Red Sox, the A’s, and Devil Rays (always the Devil Rays to me) have solid teams from the top down, with skilled management making tactical decisions about recruitment and trading. Teams like the Yankees will never do well unless they too restructure their off-the-field playbooks, even though they have the money and attractiveness for the best in the league.
Back on topic: to be sure, there’s nothing natural about the physical fitness of a baseball player. Sports in themselves are “unnatural,” so training for a sport must also be unnatural. “Natural” fitness would describe someone lean, not bulky with strength, but agile and able to survive on little. Like Survivorman. FAT pitchers and first basemen are the opposite of that, and muscular shortstops, while indeed agile, are generally slow and bulky when asked to run, say, 100 feet (instead of 90), and probably consume 4-5k calories a day.
Besides all of that, any stat geek who’s actually played baseball (and maybe has read the book “Moneyball” by Michael Lewis) knows how little “strength” has to do with the game. The only area where it matters a good deal is for outfielders throwing into the infield quickly. I played baseball for ten years. I can go to the batting cage for two to three hours a day, hit 200+ balls, and be up for more. But put me in right field and make me throw to third without the cutoff, you’re talking about an hour max before your arm hurts too much to lift. If I can even make that throw anymore.
Moreover, rookies who enter the game may have the same strength as 5 or 10 year veterans, but lack the experience and confidence to perform well. Anyone who tries and argues that steroids counteracts lack of experience or confidence doesn’t know what they are talking about. First, using steroids doesn’t teach you anything (about the game, I mean) and second, there’s not a whole lot of confidence boosting when your testicles shrink up into your pelvis.
Batting requires more eye-hand coordination than anything else. Take a look at Ken Griffey Jr., or Hank Aaron for that matter. They didn’t use steroids and still hit as well as, say, Bonds. The majority of people in the 500 club didn’t use steroids, but rather, played the game for 15 years. For you Moneyball fans, Bonds’ HR record is more an indicator of how long Bonds has played, than his prowess at batting. Deter Jerke (or is that Derek Jeter?) is in line to break the HR record, as was ARod, IF he stays in the game long enough. And yes, that’s a big “if,” as it is for most players.
This whole argument about the use of steroids and the “purity” of the sport reminds me a lot of Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron. The next logical step for MLB is to handicap the better players, so that everyone is truly on an “even keel” in terms of physical fitness.
Again, I’m not arguing for steroids, just against nuts. Sorry for the rant.
posted by Joel on 3-2-2009 at 11:23 am
No, you should have pointed out that I forgot to put an exclamation mark there too, as in “You ‘over-thought’ it?!?!” (he said in shock and disbelief).
But perhaps I was just being kind the first go-around.
posted by Jonny on 3-2-2009 at 11:34 am
Joel, you’re correct in saying that the stain is permanent. My statement about everyone being “on an even keel” really only justifies it in my own mind, not in reality. I lost interest in pro baseball several years ago – the too-long season, the rent-a-World-Series-winning-team tactic, the drug situation, the out-of-control contracts. It just got the better of me.
I guess, too, the funny thing is this: Few of the players who obviously did steroids played on teams that won the World Series. Many of them won individual honors, and that’s what it’s all about in most players minds.
And MLB (and the other professional leagues) need to realize that if the players don’t have any faith and pride in the team on which they play, it’s tough to convince the fans to do so.
I guess we’ll learn a lot when the season begins and we see how many people are in the stands, huh?
posted by Sandy Wood on 3-2-2009 at 12:12 pm
TBV, I did the best I could by (1) referring to them as “franchises” instead of teams, (2) saying “full names” and (3) mentioning in the opening that you should think about geography as well as mascots.
So I appreciate the feedback, but I think I did okay for a Monday! ;)
posted by Sandy Wood on 3-2-2009 at 12:15 pm
Jonny, your kindness was appreciated.
posted by TBV on 3-2-2009 at 12:15 pm
I got the two harder ones, but the Expos were so nonexistent I forgot that they moved.
Maybe the Angels could go with something like “The Los Angeles, California Angels of Anaheim, sponsored by Goodyear”?
posted by My hmphs on 3-2-2009 at 2:34 pm
I didn’t have the same trouble as the others who commented. The Expos and the Angels were most obvious, and then the Rays, but it took all of five seconds for a lifetime baseball fan to figure out.
Go Twins!
posted by Matt on 3-2-2009 at 2:39 pm
I too was confused by the “full name” and gave up after finding 1 complete full name change and 2 partial name changes. To make the question clear it could have said “at least one part of the full name changed” As far as steroids are concerned; I don’t yet believe baseball is clean.
posted by Steve on 3-2-2009 at 2:56 pm
I’m with Matt. I spent 15 seconds on this questions, coming up with the Rays and the Angels right off the bat, but needing a little more time with the Expos/Nationals. That might just attest to my dork factor when it comes to MLB though.
posted by Rachel on 3-2-2009 at 4:36 pm