Boston Braves popularity vs. Red Sox

[538280]

I have always wondered, when the Braves were in Boston (until 1952) what were the fans like in Boston? Were there and even amount of Red Sox and Braves fans? Did the Red Sox have more fans? Was it a regional thing, like the Brooklyn Dodgers in Brooklyn,the New York Giants in Manhattan, and the New York Yankees in the Bronx? I've always wondered about this, and I've never been able to find any answers.

[JACKIE42]

I have always wondered, when the Braves were in Boston (until 1952) what were the fans like in Boston? Were there and even amount of Red Sox and Braves fans? Did the Red Sox have more fans? Was it a regional thing, like the Brooklyn Dodgers in Brooklyn,the New York Giants in Manhattan, and the New York Yankees in the Bronx? I've always wondered about this, and I've never been able to find any answers.

http://bostonbraves.tripod.com/yearly.html
http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/bos/history/year_by_year_results.jsp

It's hard to understand why the fans seemed to support the Red Sox, more then they did the Braves, as neither team was so much better then the other in the standings. Except in the forties and early fifties the Red Sox seem to be a better team also having Ted Williams, and Jimmy Foxx, while the Braves had really only one major star at the time Warren Spahn and the rivalry with the Yankee's may have helped. I also think Fenway was a better ball park. Not sure I answered your question, maybe you would get better answers if you ask the question in the Red Sox forum.

[efin98]

I have always wondered, when the Braves were in Boston (until 1952) what were the fans like in Boston? Were there and even amount of Red Sox and Braves fans? Did the Red Sox have more fans? Was it a regional thing, like the Brooklyn Dodgers in Brooklyn,the New York Giants in Manhattan, and the New York Yankees in the Bronx? I've always wondered about this, and I've never been able to find any answers.

Offensively good team vs. a defensively good team. The Sox had the guys who could hit, the Braves had the guys who could pitch...

And there's no "regional" rivalry since the two teams played literally a mile away from each other on the same trolley line...

[538280]

Another puzzling thing is that in the famous "Summer of '49", which was made into a book by David Halberstam about how the Red Sox attracted huge crowds and got large fan support in their battle with the Yankees, that was actually the year after the Braves won the NL pennant. Why didn't the Braves attract the same attention?

[538280]

A similar situation is with the Cubs/White Sox. Neither has had a particular edge in the standings, but it seems the Cubs always get more fan support.

[538280]

I am going to start this same thread in the Red Sox forum, hoping for replies.

[efin98]

Two words: Ted Williams.

Also helps that the Sox were jostling with the best team in baseball of that era for the pennent...

[538280]

Two words: Ted Williams.

Also helps that the Sox were jostling with the best team in baseball of that era for the pennent...

The Red Sox didn't always have Ted Williams.

[efin98]

The Red Sox didn't always have Ted Williams.

They had him when they needed him, the Braves couldn't counter with anything like Williams until it was too late.

Before Williams both teams were mediocre for a long 20 year span, it was Williams that tipped the scales in the Red Sox's favor.

[Iron Jaw]

But the Braves were indeed the team that lured Babe Ruth back to Boston - a bit too late, of course.

[efin98]

But the Braves were indeed the team that lured Babe Ruth back to Boston - a bit too late, of course.

That was too short of a tenure with the Braves to have an impact.

[538280]

Why didn't the Braves play Babe Ruth more? Even if he was in the twilight of his career and he wasn't that good anymore, he could still draw lots of fans.

[efin98]

Why didn't the Braves play Babe Ruth more? Even if he was in the twilight of his career and he wasn't that good anymore, he could still draw lots of fans.

He played as often as everyone else on the team, he was only there because he thought he was going to become manager of the team. He didn't, and left part of the way through the season.

[Coal Cracker]

A similar situation is with the Cubs/White Sox. Neither has had a particular edge in the standings, but it seems the Cubs always get more fan support.
The Cubs are the "loveable losers" and play at the friendly confines of historic Wrigley Field. The White Sox suffered through the Black Sox scandal, had a horrid owner in Charlie Comiskey, played in an aging Comiskey Park for years and several threats of the team moving to Milwaukee, Tampa, etc. I'm not a great source of information on this subject but just from general knowledge this what I have gathered. The Yankees and Mets have a similar situation as well. The Yankees and Cubs have a national appeal while the Mets and White Sox have more localized fan bases.

[wamby]

Another puzzling thing is that in the famous "Summer of '49", which was made into a book by David Halberstam about how the Red Sox attracted huge crowds and got large fan support in their battle with the Yankees, that was actually the year after the Braves won the NL pennant. Why didn't the Braves attract the same attention?

The Braves had a lot of internal dissention in 1949, regarding the managing practices of Billy Southworth, whihc I believe was led by Eddie Stanky. With the Braves in 4th place after 111 games, Southworth left the team. I remember reading that Southworth may have had a nervous collapse in 1949. During one of the games of the 1949 World Series, Southworth did a Gillette commercial and the announcer asked him if, health permitting, Southworth would return in 1950. Southworth said he hoped he could. He did return and managed the Braves in 1950 and part of 1951.

I think that team dissension, especially in a city like Boston (which Halberstam said had probably the worst core of baseball reporters in the majors) was still bad for the box office. This was only 10 years after the Cry-Baby Indians of 1940. Combine this with a mediocre Braves team and a Red Sox team having a great season (until the end of the season), made the Braves the lesser draw.

[538280]

He played as often as everyone else on the team, he was only there because he thought he was going to become manager of the team. He didn't, and left part of the way through the season.

If that is the case, then I'd say the Braves certainly should have made Ruth the manager.

[efin98]

If that is the case, then I'd say the Braves certainly should have made Ruth the manager.

Probably wouldn't have done any good past one or two years. The team just wasn't all that good during that era.

[Swiss]

Add all that you said that entering the forties, the Red Sox had a "better past" than the Braves: 5 Red Sox's World Series against the Braves' 1914 Miracle.

By 1950, when Boston baseball made the half century balance, it's very obvious that the Red Sox had the things better plus they had Teddy Ballgame.

Having a rivalry against the Yankees sells a helluva quantity of tickets.
The Boston Braves hadn't any strong rival in the NL because the NYC counterparts were rivals themselves: Giants and Dodgers so they played bitter between themselves.
The Cubs had and have the Cards. The Reds had and have the Pirates.
So who were "hating" the Braves fans?

[wamby]

Add all that you said that entering the forties, the Red Sox had a "better past" than the Braves: 5 Red Sox's World Series against the Braves' 1914 Miracle.

By 1950, when Boston baseball made the half century balance, it's very obvious that the Red Sox had the things better plus they had Teddy Ballgame.

Having a rivalry against the Yankees sells a helluva quantity of tickets.
The Boston Braves hadn't any strong rival in the NL because the NYC counterparts were rivals themselves: Giants and Dodgers so they played bitter between themselves.
The Cubs had and have the Cards. The Reds had and have the Pirates.
So who were "hating" the Braves fans?

I think the Yankees/Red Sox rivalry was (and is) blwon way out of proportion. BY 1950 there had been exactly two races involving those two teams. In 1948 when the Red Sox knocked off the Yankees (after which the Red Sox were knocked off by the Indians) and 1949 when the Yankees clinched the pennant on the last day of the season.

In the era you mention the biggest NL rivals were probably the Dodgers and the Cardinals, although the Dodgers and Giants became biteer rivals when Durocher moved to NY.

As far as I could tell the biggest rival the Braves had then were the Dodgers.

[Swiss]

As far as I could tell the biggest rival the Braves had then were the Dodgers.

Yeah, but it was in 1948 when the Braves won their pennant. They must fight against a very good Dodger team. But it was a one season rivalry; after 1948, the Dodgers-Braves games weren't the same thing meanwhile the Braves' attendance was declining.

The Dodgers-Giants rivalry always was too bitter, too strong no matter the year they are playing. Remember "nice guys finish last", "Is Brooklyn still in the league?" and other niceties... :D (GO GIANTS)

[efin98]

I think the Yankees/Red Sox rivalry was (and is) blwon way out of proportion. BY 1950 there had been exactly two races involving those two teams. In 1948 when the Red Sox knocked off the Yankees (after which the Red Sox were knocked off by the Indians) and 1949 when the Yankees clinched the pennant on the last day of the season.

In the era you mention the biggest NL rivals were probably the Dodgers and the Cardinals, although the Dodgers and Giants became biteer rivals when Durocher moved to NY.

As far as I could tell the biggest rival the Braves had then were the Dodgers.

The Braves really didn't have a rival, they actually were more like spoilers. Brooklyn may have been the team that received the worst of the spoilage...They were one of those middle of the pack teams that were not bad, not good, just mediocre. They could always count on at least one team being worse than them...

And You are right about the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry. It's pure garbage brought about before the 1999 ALCS. The Red Sox/Yankees rivalry is a fluke, just so happens that once or twice a decade the two were good at the same time and spoiled each others' chances that year :rolleyes:

[efin98]

Yeah, but it was in 1948 when the Braves won their pennant. They must fight against a very good Dodger team. But it was a one season rivalry; after 1948, the Dodgers-Braves games weren't the same thing meanwhile the Braves' attendance was declining.

The Dodgers-Giants rivalry always was too bitter, too strong no matter the year they are playing. Remember "nice guys finish last", "Is Brooklyn still in the league?" and other niceties... :D (GO GIANTS)

They may not have been "rivals" in the traditional sense but they were spoilers. They had a role in upsettnig the post season plans of at least one team by not losing like they were supposed to.

Think of it as the way Tampa Bay manages to beat New York when New York needs it least...and manages to beat Boston when the Red Sox need it least.

[Gooch]

I think Fenway Park was yet another attraction. When Tom Yawkey bought the team (in 1933) he built the park as a state-of-the-art baseball palace and the fans came in droves. Aside from having more talented and colorful players (Foxx, Grove, Cronin, Willams, etc.), the Sox also had a better home field. (Does anyone even remember Braves Field?).

[efin98]

I think Fenway Park was yet another attraction. When Tom Yawkey bought the team (in 1933) he built the park as a state-of-the-art baseball palace and the fans came in droves. Aside from having more talented and colorful players (Foxx, Grove, Cronin, Willams, etc.), the Sox also had a better home field. (Does anyone even remember Braves Field?).

Like I said, better drawing cards- offense sells tickets.

And he rebuilt the stadium after a fire, it's current configuration is only as old as the 1930s and was pretty much unchanged for 50 years.

[bostonredsox1975]

I think the final nail in the coffin was when the Red Sox won the AL pennant in 1946. There is always a buzz in a city after a team makes it to the World Series. I think the Braves didn't make a big enough dent in Boston to get more fans. I think when Philadelphia had two teams this happened with the A's.

[efin98]

I think the final nail in the coffin was when the Red Sox won the AL pennant in 1946. There is always a buzz in a city after a team makes it to the World Series. I think the Braves didn't make a big enough dent in Boston to get more fans. I think when Philadelphia had two teams this happened with the A's.

I don't think it was the '46 pennant. The Braves won the Pennant in '48 and fielded pennant calliber teams before and after that...

[Rome Colonel]

The Red Sox had a better record than the Braves most years. People tend to go with a winner.

By the time Ruth left the Red Sox both teams had won 6 pennants, but the Braves had won only one since 1898. In the minds of most fans the Sox of the 20s were still winners, even if they weren't. The Braves only hope was to start winning and change the fans' perceptions. Unfortunately for the Braves they weren't much better in the 20s than the Red Sox (both lost 90 or more games 7 times). Once Yawkey took command the Brave's fate was sealed, although they did hang on for another 20 years. When you look at the attendance figures you see that it happened very quickly.

Prior to 1945 an attendance of over 500,000 was substantial. From 1901 to
1945 the Braves went over the half million mark only three times. The Red Sox did it 17 times. The Braves three biggest seasons were consecutive (1931-33) and at the point where the Red Sox hit rock bottom, losing 111 games in 1932. However, when what's referred to as Fenway Park II opened in 1934 Sox attendance more than doubled to over 610,640, even though they were only 76-76. The Braves were 78-73 that year, but their attendance fell over 40% to 303,205. This trend continued until the Braves left town.

[southendgrounds]

Unlike Chicago, New York or Philly, which all had shifts between the most popular teams over the years, the Red Sox dominated Boston from Day One. Red Sox Century by Glenn Stout gives some nice background. The Beaneaters' leading fans, the Royal Rooters, were dissatisfied with the Beaneaters and the National League in 1900 (interesting given that they had won 5 titles over previous 10 seasons - but they appeared to have high expectations) and encouraged the AL to locate a team there. The AL signed Irish Beaneater star Jimmie Collins to captain the team and signed the greatest pitcher of the era, Cy Young. The AL offered 25 cents admission, versus 50 cents for the NL, and the Huntington Ave Grounds was literally built a stone's throw from the South End Grounds. The Boston Americans blew away the Beaneaters right out of the gate. The World Series win in 1903 cemented the fan base.

Braves made noise in 1914 with WS win, but it was between Sox wins in 1912, 1915 and 1916. Sox dropped way off in the 20's, but the Braves failed to capitalize as they dropped off just as far. In early 30's Braves returned to contention while Fenway was reduced in capacity due to a fire in the late '20's, leading to the only four seasons (1930-1933) that the Braves ever outdrew the Sox. In '33 Yawkey bought the Sox, he rebuilt Fenway and started loading up the team with stars like Foxx and Grove, followed by the arrival of Williams. The '34 reconstruction of Fenway was pivotal, as Yawkey created many construction jobs during the height of the Depression, which built loyalty to the Sox from workers, their friends and families.

After the war, the Sox firmed up its edge with '46 pennant. Braves won '48 pennant, but Sox were in great pennant race with Indians and Yankees the same year, followed by more great pennant races in '49 and '50. As baseball entered the '50's, the post war attendance boom dwindled, hurting the Braves more than the Sox.

Except perhaps between the fire of the '20's and the '33 reconstruction at Fenway, Braves Field was never as nice a park as Fenway. It was built to handle large crowds, as the largest park built prior to Yankee Stadium, but lacked charm. It had large foul areas and I believe it also suffered from being somewhat windy, so not generally a great place to enjoy a game.

Ultimately, though, the key factor was Yawkey. If a typical underfunded owner buys the Sox in '33, there would likely have been no new Fenway and no spending spree on star players. The Braves may have been able to build on their momentum from the early '30's. The Sox may have ultimately had to abandon a rundown Fenway and leased from the Braves, a la the Phillies and Cards. The chance of a Sox ascendance in the '40's would have been reduced, leaving a '48 Braves pennant as the post-war high water mark in Boston, and the Red Sox as the likely relocation candidate.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Here's a question: What if the Boston Braves hadn't moved?

The Braves, after moving to Milwaukee, were the best team in the NL, other than the Dodgers, all things considered. They won two pennants, a World Championship, and just missed the pennant in a few other years (where they arguably should have won).

What if they had posted their Milwaukee records in Boston? The Sox went into decline in the fifties and early sixties. What if it was the BOSTON Braves that were World Champions in 1957? What if the BOSTON Braves won 1 or 2 more pennants during the "Milwaukee years"? All of this, coupled with the fact that the Boston Braves also won the pennant in 1948.

A lot of the posters here cite "Ted Williams" as a key factor, but the Braves of the late fifties would have had Eddie Mathews AND Hank Aaron AND Warren Spahn. They were contenders, and won two pennants; the Red Sox didn't do squat in the fifties. The Red Sox were clearly better than the Braves from the time Ted Williams came up through 1947, but that was the only window of time where that was CLEARLY true. During the years of the twenties and thirties when the Braves were bad, it could be argued that the Red Sox were worse.

The Braves had a horrible year on the field and at the gate in 1952. It is somewhat hard to fault ownership for moving, but given that they left Milwaukee after only 13 seasons in that city, one honestly wonders if it was the best decision. The 1952 Braves were horrible, but the 1953 Braves were 2nd place finishers, and pennant contenders. Would Boston NOT have supported them?

[Los Bravos]

"The fans in Boston are great baseball fans. When the city had two teams, the Braves always seemed to take the back seat to the Red Sox. The Red Sox were considered the glamorous team.

"But the fans came over to us in 1948 when we won the pennant. But we knew that would be temporary. When we started losing again, many of those fans went back to the Red Sox."

In a related vein, the way they went from toast of the town in Milwaukee to having to move has always been a huge mystery, to me. Almost everyone who played there in the 50's says it was an unbelievable experience, most fans say the same thing from the other side, yet it was all over with so quickly.

[aqib]

In a related vein, the way they went from toast of the town in Milwaukee to having to move has always been a huge mystery, to me. Almost everyone who played there in the 50's says it was an unbelievable experience, most fans say the same thing from the other side, yet it was all over with so quickly.

I don't think it was a case that the market wasn't supporting them. Attendance had declined as the team started falling to the middle of the pack, but the move was made after the team was sold to a guy who wanted a team to move to Atlanta.

[Los Bravos]

And the 1965 numbers are really bad because they were essentially a lame duck franchise, kept in town for one last fruitless season by a pending lawsuit. Everybody knew they were on the way out and essentially thought "Why bother?".

[efin98]

I think many have overlooked that the Braves weren't quite as good as their '48 run indicate, plus shortchange the Red Sox and their great years between '46 and '51...even though they were both OK the Red Sox were actually contenders most years with really one year being way out of it(and they still had a great year!)while the Braves flirted with the top that one year and were winners but not to as much of an extent as the Red Sox...

Regarding attendance, even after the move the Red Sox were drawing decent numbers, and once the novelty wore off in Milwaukee they were actually on parr wth the Braves which actually turns out to be a higher percentage of people attending games at the park if you adjusted for capacity differences...and frankly when the bottom fell out of the Red Sox they were still drawing well, even drawing more than Milwaukee a couple of years right up to their departure.

[dkane739]

Another reason I think could be the simplicity of getting to Fenway compared with Braves Field. Where Kenmore sits at the branch of the B,C and D lines, Braves field was only accessible from the old A line and current B line. That along with a more recently renovated stadium, historically better teams and the fact that Braves field was also well known for it's railroad smoke just made the Red Sox an easier option.

Personally I wonder what it would be like being a 2 team town. Would we be a divided City. I fun to imagine what could have been, but it's not realistic.

[Imgran]

if the Braves had won that World Series in the 50's as the Boston Braves while the Sox were still cursed, I wonder how long the Fenway Faithful hold out with a winner to back over in the NL. The Red Sox had some truly horible years during the 50's and 60's.

[efin98]

if the Braves had won that World Series in the 50's as the Boston Braves while the Sox were still cursed, I wonder how long the Fenway Faithful hold out with a winner to back over in the NL. The Red Sox had some truly horible years during the 50's and 60's.

They would have lasted until the early 60s and the Red Sox would have wound up in Atlanta if the attendance bottomed out and they couldn't get revenue coming in from events in the ballpark like BC and the Patriots(provided they stayed out of Braves Field).

One of the two would have moved out of the city into the suburbs, most likely the Red Sox(simply too small to play in anymore) and moved into the massive proposed dual use stadium ala what was done in Philly, Pittsburgh, Cincy etc.

[efin98]

Another reason I think could be the simplicity of getting to Fenway compared with Braves Field. Where Kenmore sits at the branch of the B,C and D lines, Braves field was only accessible from the old A line and current B line. That along with a more recently renovated stadium, historically better teams and the fact that Braves field was also well known for it's railroad smoke just made the Red Sox an easier option.

Personally I wonder what it would be like being a 2 team town. Would we be a divided City. I fun to imagine what could have been, but it's not realistic.

A couple of corrections- no D line then so it was one line each, trains actually went right to the ballpark off of a spur so access was never a problem for fans, Braves Field was actually closer to the trains than Fenway is so you had a longer walk to get to Fenway, and the railroad was using diesels by the early 50s so smoke wasn't a problem as it may have been(if ever) in the past.

[Brownieand45sfan]

My 2 cents as a Brownie fan.

First Cent: The Boston Red Sox from 1925-27 had three 100-loss seasons in a row, a feat not to be repeated in the AL until expansion (with eight more games in the schedule). That would have been the time for the Braves fans to make their move.

Second Cent: MLB's franchise-shift mania in the 50s was looking pretty bankrupt by the 60s, to wit:


Barthelmy had revealed his reluctance to stay in Milwaukee as soon as he bought the team in late '62.
The A's would be gone again by '68.
Washington lost one team just to get another one back.
New York lost two teams with rich traditions, just to be given one back after the spell had broken.
Baltimore Oriole's attendance for '58 and '59 was down 22% and 16% from their first-season high-water mark, despite having teams that were almost at .500 compared to the first-season O's who went 54-100 (i.e. the bloom was already off the rose). Had not Paul Richards and Lee MacPhail's rebuilding effort finally caught fire in 1960, culminating eventually in the WS victory of 1966, the Orioles franchise was trending the same way as Milwaukee's, and Baltimore could have been headed - if not to Atlanta - then to Toronto or Denver (the two jilted Continental League cities). The Orioles also got a break attendance-wise when they no longer had to compete against a star-studded 5th-place-finishing old Senators (of 1960) and instead competed against an expansion Senators whose attendance was 150K lower right out of the box in '61 than the old Senators (no rose, not even a bloom).

[nl1899fan]

I always figured the Red Sox were more popular in the late 1940's and early 1950's because they had better name recognition and a fearsome lineup. Even though I'm not a Sox fan and this was before my time I know about the likes of Williams, Stephens, Doerr, Pesky, Dropo, Di Maggio, Zarilla, Kinder, Parnell and Kramer. Aside from Spahn and Sain the Braves of that time seem to lack the marquee names even though they had solid players and teams at the time. I also get the feeling that if you went to a Sox game you might see them pound out 10-15 runs while going to a Braves games would get you a more sedate 4-3 score and fans always seem to enjoy a slugfest.

[PlayJay]

He played as often as everyone else on the team, he was only there because he thought he was going to become manager of the team. He didn't, and left part of the way through the season.

It's documented that Babe never got a managerial position because the owners thought he couldn't even manage himself. The 1935 Braves, under a manager who would wind up in Cooperstown for his abilities (Bill McKechnie), lost 115 games. Could Babe Ruth have done worse? :hp

I often wonder how many Boston baseball fans who watched the outcome of the 1957 World Series thought the wrong team left town?

[DisabledMess]

A similar situation is with the Cubs/White Sox. Neither has had a particular edge in the standings, but it seems the Cubs always get more fan support.
I wonder why that is?

[Rome Colonel]

I wonder why that is?

Possible reasons, in no particular order of importance:

1. Cubs are on the more affluent side of town where people have more disposable income. It's also the safer side of town.

2. The mystique of Wrigley Field.

3. Although they haven't won since 1945 the Cubs have won more than twice as many pennants as the Sox and long ago established the stronger tradition. There is no Sox equivalent to "Tinker to Evers to Chance."

4. The Black Sox scandal hurt the Sox for decades. I haven't checked but the Cubs probably outdrew them every year from 1921 to 1950.

5. The Cubs have been media darlings for years, the "lovable losers" sort of thing. The team's agonizing failures in 1969, 1984, and 2003 have strengthened this cult. There will never be a Sox equivalent to Steve Goodman's "A Dying Cub Fan's Last Request."

6. Thanks to favorable coverage and exposure via cable TV the Cubs have built up a much stronger natoinal following over the last 25 years. When people visit Chicago they're far more likely to head for Wrigley than US Cellular Field.

Over the years I probably have met more people from Chicago who were Sox fans than Cub fans. The Sox even had their own literary champion in James T Farrell. But in the public mind, especially beyond the city, the Cubs have always been the more popular or at least the more visible team and the Sox have continued to be the "other" team.

[six4three]

I think that's a pretty good summary.

[FENWAY FRANKY]

1) All the aforementioned reasons in this thread PLUS

2) The advent of Television.

As soon as Yawkey started televising the Red Sox road games (even to a miniscule audience of people who had TV's in 1951), Perini and the Braves were GONE. Perini bristled against even putting the Braves on TV in Milwaukkee because of his conviction that TV keeps paying baseball fans home. His prejudice against TV along with the no personal food into the ballpark issue (side note: as a kid, my grand-dad and I always brought a small picnic basket of goodies into Fenway for games between 1958 and 1965, when the practice was finally stopped by the Red Sox, so we could all pay "Fenway Prices" for so-so food/beer) along with the other reasons mentioned in this thread (read: the Twins, who even Selig tried to kill off in his failed contraction proposal) sent the Braves packing again.

In reality, Atlanta has been the Braves best home (winning games and winning new fans) since the pre-Red Sox days of the 1880's and 1890's in Boston.

As always, just my opinion.

[teamrap]

1) All the aforementioned reasons in this thread PLUS

2) The advent of Television.

As soon as Yawkey started televising the Red Sox road games (even to a miniscule audience of people who had TV's in 1951), Perini and the Braves were GONE. Perini bristled against even putting the Braves on TV in Milwaukkee because of his conviction that TV keeps paying baseball fans home. His prejudice against TV along with the no personal food into the ballpark issue (side note: as a kid, my grand-dad and I always brought a small picnic basket of goodies into Fenway for games between 1958 and 1965, when the practice was finally stopped by the Red Sox, so we could all pay "Fenway Prices" for so-so food/beer) along with the other reasons mentioned in this thread (read: the Twins, who even Selig tried to kill off in his failed contraction proposal) sent the Braves packing again.

In reality, Atlanta has been the Braves best home (winning games and winning new fans) since the pre-Red Sox days of the 1880's and 1890's in Boston.

As always, just my opinion.



I totally disagree that television had any influence on the Braves leaving Boston ... this was 1952 not 1962 ... there were very few TVs around and it was considered a novelty ... TV broadcasts were limited to a few hours each day (basically watching the news, Sid Caeser, and Uncle Milty) ... I'm sure it never even entered Perini's mind as competition for money spent at the gate, unless he was "Karnac the Great" and could see ten years in the future