« My Bro Thought This Was Dexter Manley | Home | DMV: May Olie’s Bottle Always Be Full »
Your 2009 Nats and O’s Are the Worst Shared-Market MLB Teams Since WWII
By Jamie Mottram | September 24, 2009
Since joining forces with Chris two-plus years ago, we’ve made 224 posts about the Nationals and 132 about the Orioles. This is what happens when you grow up in a one-team area and another moves in after the roots have run deep. Also, when you have a blog and lots of time on your hands.
Some would argue that you can’t have two teams. But of course we adopted the Nats when they moved into RFK, and, despite the Post’s lack of coverage and Peter Angelos’ best efforts, we can’t just ditch the O’s. Plus, both teams play on the same regional network. So, while they don’t share a city, there’s no arguing that they, like the Mets-Yanks, Cubs-White Sox, Angels-Dodgers and A’s-Giants, share the same market.
Which got me thinking: With the Nats on the cusp of a second-straight 100-loss season (no small feat in its own right) and the O’s in danger of losing 100 for the first time since their historically awful 1987 season, is this the worst shared-market tandem ever?
To tell you the truth, I expected the answer to be yes. Easily yes. It has to be yes. But the answer is actually no. Not even close.
The 1945 Phillies and A’s, both Philadelphia teams, had a combined winning percentage of .322. To put that into perspective, this year’s Nats and O’s are at .370, and the next closest duos in the past 80 years are the ‘48 Cubs and White Sox (.376) and the ‘79 A’s and Giants (.386).
But, you know, things were a bit different back in ‘45. There was a massive war going on, and the entire league boasted 16 teams and zero black players. I’m not even sure we should count the shit that happened then.
So, in summary, thesis proved: We shouldn’t bother with either anymore.
Topics: Infinite Sadness, Nationals, Orioles, Philly Sucks | 3 Comments »
September 25th, 2009 at 6:21 AM
Are they really a shared market? I can’t get Baltimore TV channels and I can’t buy a Baltimore Sun at my local newsrack.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:09 AM
I see your point, though I don’t know why you’d want either of those things.
But consider this: The Post dedicated a beat writer to the O’s through 2008, and still would if a) business was better and b) the team was any good. Why would they do that if they weren’t in-market?
September 26th, 2009 at 1:35 AM
O’s, Stroh’s and Nationals. Nothing like piss to wash down two shit sandwiches.