DC Baseball - use of the Nats / Nationals 1956 - 2005

[Five Banners]

You highlighted the use of “Nats” and then appeared to make a non sequitur regarding Senators versus Nationals, while I pointed out the continued use of Nats in common parlance for 1959 team originally referenced.

As far as where and when “Washington Nationals baseball history starts” as focused on the name as it relates to Senators, we can look at this again. It does appear that Washington Nationals was the official name for much of the existence of some if the teams that played in Washington.

Again, the whole thing started when a guy who has been a fan of whatever local MLB team has played in Washington used a nickname for the team that he and sportswriters used for that team in 1959. Now it’s actually persisted to the point of disputing this person‘s account of how things were? Of course, it’s easy to go to any archive, and here’s this from the year in question:

https://sabr.org/bioproj/topic/washington-senators-ii-team-ownership-history/#_ednref2

“Shirley Povich, “‘No Intention to Move Nats,’ Griffith Says,” The Sporting News, June 3, 1959: 11.”

As for the whole arguing for arguing’s sake aside, there’s enough interaction with self appointed geniuses to act like our area is copying “let’s go Mets“, has no baseball history, and no one around here basically followed baseball until 2005 – – permutations of which I’ve actually heard Mets fans seem to indicate to their kids at games – – that it’s worth pointing out.

Plus, if the argument and back-and-forth remotely looks like it at least has some humor in it like a couple of comments or something rather than looking more like rattling the cage of a well-intention retiree being willing to share baseball history with us and then escalating it to what looks like the point of badgering, that’s one thing. Otherwise, get real.

[Elvir Ovcina]

Imagine being a compositor at the Evening Star or the Washington Post and imagine trying to fit letters to a headline. Do you save space by filling in "Nats Win for Porterfield's 22nd" or do you use "Nationals"?

Or imagine that it is 2000 or 2002 and you rebel at the injustice of Angelos asserting that Baltimore owns Washington DC. You join others to demonstrate against Angelos and for Washington's own baseball history. You have joined the Washington Baseball Historical Society. Guess what the newsletter of WBHS is called. Yes, it is "Nats News".

(Incidentally, Phil Woods, dedicated and loyal, writes a column every month.)

I'm not judging the why - although that's certainly plausible as a reason - but it's pretty indisputable given recollections of folks like yourself and written records from Povich et al. that people did call that version of the Senators the Nats.  Learning these things is fun.  Seeing them disputed in colorfully misguided fashion is amusing in a different way.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

I'm not judging the why - although that's certainly plausible as a reason - but it's pretty indisputable given recollections of folks like yourself and written records from Povich et al. that people did call that version of the Senators the Nats.  Learning these things is fun.  Seeing them disputed in colorfully misguided fashion is amusing in a different way.

fun, like whacking your head into a wall a number of times?  You know, because it feels so good when it stops?

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Not a farm topic that has anything to do with the Red Wings.  However, has something to do with the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys of 2022.

[Five Banners]

Imagine being a compositor at the Evening Star or the Washington Post and imagine trying to fit letters to a headline. Do you save space by filling in "Nats Win for Porterfield's 22nd" or do you use "Nationals"?

Or imagine that it is 2000 or 2002 and you rebel at the injustice of Angelos asserting that Baltimore owns Washington DC. You join others to demonstrate against Angelos and for Washington's own baseball history. You have joined the Washington Baseball Historical Society. Guess what the newsletter of WBHS is called. Yes, it is "Nats News".

As this has been broken out, here’s some of your thoughts on the subject from 2010:

“yes, I lived through the 1959 season when the Nats broke the Phillies major league record for consecutive losses. Something like 13 or 14 straight.

(Note: That team had infielders like Herbie Plews, Ken Aspromonte, Reno Betoia, one catcher (Courtney) who couldn't throw to second base without skipping the ball, and another catcher (Eddie Fitzgerald) who couldn't hit much above .230.

However, they had Harmon Killebrew (tied Mantle for HR champ with 42 homers, rookie-of-the-year Bob Allison (about 31 home runs), big Jim Lemon (33 HR), and former AL HR champ Roy Sievers who hit 21 home runs playing about half the season.  No set-the-table guys, but probably more power than any other team in baseball. And Camilo Pascual who threw a curve-ball that sometimes caused right-handed hitters to hit the dirt on a pitch that ended as a called strike at the knees on the outside corner.)

On the team nickname: as best I know, Washington had National league teams named The Statesmen and the Nationals. The NL contracted about 1899, so the new AL put a franchise in DC, naming them the Senators. After the great Clark Griffith got control of the team, sometime around 1913, he began to call them the Nationals. The newspapers (see the Post re-print of the 1924 season) often just called them "The Griffmen".

By the '50s, they were officially the Washington Nationals, down to the identification on baseball cards. Nobody cared: we also called them the Senators and Nats for short. About 1956, Calvin, the son of Clark, made them the Senators...the 1959-60 home uniforms had "Senators" on the chest...plain "Washington" on the road uniforms.

The expansion team was always the Senators, and people always called them the Nats, as in "Lets go Nats!". The shorter name also made it easier on newspaper headline-writers.

Therefore: it is fully Washingtonian to call the baseball team both Nationals and Senators. (At least I do!)”

[blue911]

For the record, I'm suggesting the current Nats be given a nickname of "Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys," but I guess France has that one, too.

Nowhere is there a mention of bath-avoiding, so it can’t be France.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Nowhere is there a mention of bath-avoiding, so it can’t be France.

or smoking smelly cigarettes while wearing a beret and complaining about the loss of Algiers.

[welch]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/senators-nationals-nats-whats-in-a-name/2012/10/05/75e95352-0ef9-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html

It is worth quoting the article:

By John KellyOctober 6, 2012

Whenever stories about the National League East Champion Nationals mention the last baseball team from Washington to be involved in the postseason, they invariably refer to the 1933 Washington “Senators” in the American League. I contend that they were also known as the “Nationals,” or “Nats” for short.

I recall as a young guy in the 1930s sitting with my buddies on one of our porches in Southeast D.C. and listening to Arch McDonald broadcast home games of the Nats from old Griffith Stadium or from the studio of WJSV. Arch would strike a gong: once for a single, twice for a double, and, much to our delight, four times when it was a home-team home run.

I believe the team was not known officially as the “Senators” until the expansion team was formed in 1961, replacing the talent-loaded team absconded to Minneapolis by Calvin Griffith.

— Bill Allison,

New Carrollton


Charlie Brotman, the longtime public address announcer of the old Washington Senators baseball team, poses in his basement full of Washington sports memorabilia in Takoma Park, Md. (GERALD HERBERT/ASSOCIATED PRESS)
Oh, for a simple name like the Yankees. The truth is that for decades, Washington’s professional baseball team answered to two names: the Nationals and the Senators. Or four, if you add the Nats (beloved by headline writers) and the Griffmen, in honor of manager/owner Clark Griffith.

Phil Wood, MASN’s “Nats Talk Live” host and the font of all D.C. baseball knowledge, said there was a team in Washington in the 19th century called the Nationals. When the American League was started in 1901, the city’s new franchise was called the Washington Senators.

“But because of the old name, people still called the team the Nationals,” Phil said. “Eventually more people were calling them the Nationals than the Senators. If you look at old stationery up to 1956, it says ‘Nationals.’ ”

Pre-1957, the names were often used interchangeably. The Post could refer to the Nationals in the body of a story while mentioning the Senators in the photo caption.

“If you go back and look at old baseball cards from the ’30s and ’40s, half would say ‘Senators,’ and half would say ‘Nationals,’ ” Phil said.

“Even in the 1950s. Look at the 1955 Topps card for Roy Sievers. It says ‘Washington Nationals.’ ”

Then something happened. That something was Charlie Brotman, now a famed local PR guy, but in 1956 he was the newly hired stadium announcer for Washington’s major league ballclub.

“They said in addition to this, we’d like you to be the editor and publisher of our press guide and programs and our yearbooks, all the printed matter for next year,” Charlie told Answer Man. “I said ‘Terrific. Now I have a question: Who are we?’ ”

Charlie had to put the team’s name on the cover. But which name? Should it be the Senators, the Nationals or the Nats?

Calvin Griffith, Clark’s nephew and adopted son, told Charlie, “Just work it out.”

The graphic artist that Charlie was working with was Zang Auerbach, brother of basketball coach Red Auerbach. Charlie asked Zang what sort of eye-catching illustration he could do if the team was called the Washington Nationals.

“Nothing,” Zang said. “It just lays there.”

But with the “Senators,” there was a world of possibility. The team could be anthropo­mor-phized. An artist could come up with a caricature of an old-time Senator who would be throwing balls, batting and catching.

And, thus, the cover of the 1957 yearbook features a gloved, cigar-chomping Colonial-style figure in a wind-up, the word “Senators” emblazoned in red above him. The fellow is reminiscent of another sports logo Zang Auerbach designed: the leprechaun of the Boston Celtics.


“And that’s how we became the Senators in 1956,” Charlie said. “It sounds so outrageous that someone could come up with the name for a major league team that way.”

Said Phil Wood: “Charlie Brotman probably had more to do with renaming the club the Senators than anyone else.”

Charlie, how do you feel about the Nationals’ success this season?

“I feel like champagne,” said Charlie, 84, “and I’m one of the bubbles.”

I remember the same baseball cards that Phil does. I think he's a couple years younger than I am, but I saw that Topps called the team "Senators" one year and "Nationals" later. Bob Wolff worked for the Griffiths, and he switched about 1956. Look at the uniforms: the away uniforms had "WASHINGTON" spelled across the chest. Many years, the Nats had a 'W' over the heart of their home uniforms, but about 1958 or '59, Calvin G. had them spell out "Senators".

Fans still called them "Nats" when we cheered. It has more punch. Hits with kind of a "wham", while "Let's go Senators" kind of trails off.

**

And Five Banners, I stand by that! (How did you find the discussion from twelve years ago?)

[Five Banners]

It is worth quoting the article:

I remember the same baseball cards that Phil does. I think he's a couple years younger than I am, but I saw that Topps called the team "Senators" one year and "Nationals" later. Bob Wolff worked for the Griffiths, and he switched about 1956. Look at the uniforms: the away uniforms had "WASHINGTON" spelled across the chest. Many years, the Nats had a 'W' over the heart of their home uniforms, but about 1958 or '59, Calvin G. had them spell out "Senators".

Fans still called them "Nats" when we cheered. It has more punch. Hits with kind of a "wham", while "Let's go Senators" kind of trails off.

**

And Five Banners, I stand by that! (How did you find the discussion from twelve years ago?)

As part of the Society of Nationals – Senators - Griffmen - Nats - Natinals Research

[Scrapple]

So we were once named the “Blue Legs” in 1873. If we keep losing at this percentage the new owners might consider linking us to that name and calling us the “Blue Balls”.  We’ve gone from the penthouse to the outhouse in just 3 short years.

Painful, but you can’t take my World Series from me. 💪🏻😎👍🏻🍻🏆🍾
GO NATS!!! GO BLUE LEGS!!! GO BLUE BALLS!!!


The early years: 1872–1899[edit]
The first professional baseball teams and leagues formed in the late 19th century and several were based in Washington, D.C. Many early teams used the names "Nationals" and "Senators" but were otherwise unrelated organizations.

The National Association Washington Olympics (1871–1872)
The National Association Washington Nationals (1872)
The National Association Washington Blue Legs (1873)
The National Association Washington Nationals (1875)
The Union Association Washington Nationals (1884)
The American Association Washington Nationals (1884)
The National League Washington Nationals (1886–1889)
The American Association Washington Statesmen (1891)
The National League Washington Senators (1892–1899)
"First in war, first in peace, and last in the American League": 1901–1971[edit]

1902 Logo
Washington was continuously home to a major league baseball team from 1901 until 1971. Two separate franchises alternated between the nicknames "Senators" and "Nationals" and sometimes used the names interchangeably.

The American League Washington Nationals/Senators (1901–1960): The team was officially named the "Senators" from 1901-1904, the "Nationals" from 1905-1955 and the Senators again from 1956-1960 but nonetheless was commonly referred to as the Senators throughout its history (and unofficially as the "Grifs" during Clark Griffith's tenure as manager from 1912-1920).[1] In 1961, this team moved to Minneapolis-St. Paul and became the Minnesota Twins.
The American League Washington Senators (1961–1971): This expansion team began play in Washington immediately following the departure of the former franchise. In 1972, this team moved to Dallas–Fort Worth and became the Texas Rangers.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Curious for the folks who followed the last Washington AL club - was the Nats used as a nickname for them, or only the Twins precursors?

I started following baseball in '67 up in Boston, and I don't recall anyone there using the Nats/ Nationals for the Frank Howard teams. 

[Five Banners]

Curious for the folks who followed the last Washington AL club - was the Nats used as a nickname for them, or only the Twins precursors?

I started following baseball in '67 up in Boston, and I don't recall anyone there using the Nats/ Nationals for the Frank Howard teams.

It certainly remained in the headlines:

https://boundarystones.weta.org/2017/11/17/time-bob-hope-almost-bought-washington-senators

^ Shirley Povich, “Nats Listed for Sale, but there are no Offers,” The Washington Post, September 28, 1968.
^ Shirley Povich, “Nats Sale Hinged to Vanity,” The Washington Post, October 6, 1968.
^ Shirley Povich, “Bob Hope Enters Bidding for the Nats,” The Washington Post, November 7, 1968.

[welch]

Curious for the folks who followed the last Washington AL club - was the Nats used as a nickname for them, or only the Twins precursors?

I started following baseball in '67 up in Boston, and I don't recall anyone there using the Nats/ Nationals for the Frank Howard teams. 

We called the expansion Senators "the Nats" for short. Nobody thought twice about it, because everyone around us called them "Nats" whenever we did not call them the full "Senators". (Incidentally, nobody called them "the Sens". That names a hockey team in Ottawa)

For examples, take a look at A Whole New Ballgame, by Stephen J. Walker (2009). Turn to page 202 and onward, where Walker lists his newspaper sources. Story after story by George Minot, Bill Gildea, and Bob Addie mentions "Nats" did this and "Nats" did that.Oh, and every Washington baseball fan should have a copy of Walker's book. It is built around the reunion of the 1969 team. Walker autographed my copy "Enjoy stories of D.C.'s best team since 1960! Go Nationals!".

For an account of my favorite team, there is David Gough's They've Stolen Our Team: A Chronology and Recollection of the 1960 Washington Senators, 1997. I opened it randomly to page 92, where Gough quotes Bob Addie, the Post's daily reporter on the baseball team:

Taking time to report upon the Senator's success at the gate, columnist Bob Addie of the Post stuck an elbow in Calvin Griffith's rib urging him to sign a lease to use the new stadium. He wrote, "I wonder what the Nats would have drawn at home this year if they had a larger capacity? They have drawn crowds of more than 20,000 on seven occasions. It must be remembered that the good seats at Griffith Stadium are limited. It's safe to say that the Nats could have drawn at least a million people if their capacity had been 40,000.

[welch]

And everyone stopped calling our team "the Nationals" as soon as Bob Wolff started calling them "the Senators". I had called them "the Senators", but felt uneasy, being six or seven, when Wolff called the team that other name. "Nationals" was OK in 2005, but many of us still wanted the team to be called "the Senators".

In addition to Scrapple's detailed and dependable list of Washington teams, I think there was a gentlemanly team called "the Potomacs" in the late 1860s. They were clobbered by the professional "Nationals" about 1870. Povich has an account of that first professional team touring the Midwest.