: Why is there such an aura surrounding the Dodger's move to Brooklyn (i.e.,
: endless lamentations, commentaries, books, etc. about it by old baseball
: hands), but not about the Giants' move to San Francisco? If anything, you'd
: think the Giants' move would be the more epoch-shattering, given that it
: came first...
Following up to several other good comments...
The Giants by 1958 were probably analagous to the '74 Yankees. The Giants
1900-1940 were the best team in the NL, and actually gave the Yankees
serious competition for baseball's #1 elite franchise -- if you want to
cut it off at 1937, the Yankees had only had moderate success (pennants in
1921-23, 26-28, 32, and then 36-37; that's just nine pennants compared
with seven for the Giants in the same era, plus six more earlier in the
century). After that, however, the Giants went south, with just two
pennants and one second place finish in 1938-1957. (The Giants missed the
first division just three times 1904-1937). So the Giants had shed their
frontrunner fans, but didn't have anything espeically appealling, except
Meanwhile, the Dodgers were a lot like today's Red Sox. A legacy of
failure, but also a recent history of coming close lots of times. The Sox
have been to the postseason six times in the last six*** years; the
Dodgers had 7 NL pennants over 17 years. The Dodgers, of course, finally
won, in 1955, but then lost in '56. And then, suddenly, they were gone.
If the Yankees had up and moved after 1974, I doubt if all that many
people would have cared all that much, as long as they were eventually
replaced. But imagine if the Sox won in 2001, and then moved in 2003. I
think that's what it was like.
Except, I should add, that the Dodgers were and are hideously evil.