Replies

I am a product of a mixed marriage - Mom Dodgers, Dad Giants, so I can speak to the Horace Stoneham question.

The Dodgers had issues with a tiny stadium and excessively “urban” surroundings. But the Giants had a huge ballpark, won pennants in 1951 and 1954, made money and had Willie Mays.

But the evil Walter O’Malley was crafty, and the drunkard Horace Stoneham was stupid.

The poll you are referring to was run by the Daily News in the 70s to choose the most evil man of the 20th Century, so far. O’Malley finished second.

O’Malley, as everybody knows, got a fantastic deal from LA. But the 707 was not flying yet, and the nearest major league city (I mean National League, of course, but I repeat myself) - the nearest major league city to LA was St. Louis, some teams still travelled on trains, and so to make LA work O’Malley needed a rival on the West Coast.

So, he got the seedy drunk Stoneham to sign up to have the Giants play in a small city, in a tiny ballpark (Kezar Stadium) and to abandon the Greatest City in the World, just so the Dodgers (spit) could have a rival.

And that’s the rest of the story.

I am a product of a mixed marriage - Mom Dodgers, Dad Giants, so I can speak to the Horace Stoneham question.

I am as well. My father was New York Giants, my mother was New York Yankees. She converted upon marriage. My father abandoned the Giants and adopted the Mets. My mother stopped practicing altogether.

My brother and I both became Dodger fans.

I knew most of the background of the story, outside of Stoneham's drunkeness (I followed the Dodger side of things). I do think we are referring to different polls, but either way, O'Malley was a villain. I also understood that Stoneham was given his pick of cities, and chose San Fran. Maybe he was manipulated, but does an owner of a major league franchise have to be discussed as if he were a mental incompetent?