Very interesting DG.
If the Dodgers, Giants and Braves count wins from another city in their total, I think we can go ahead and count our total prior to the move to the National League. At least we have done it all in the same city.

Call me a nit-picker (and where DID I put those nits?), but the relevant question in my mind is whether Von der Ahe sold the Brown Stockings to the owners of the transplanted Spiders. If he did, then the franchise has continuity from 1882 through today. The 19th-century American Association WAS a major league until folding; but if you only count National League wins, then the Cards “only” have 9,148 wins.

Tasty stuff, DG!

For me the weight falls upon the idea that the teams history has its ties to the senior circuit, seated in St. Louis and evolved from its beginnings to where they are today. Baseball-Reference.com got it right…count them all, all the way back to 1882.

Count me in the pro-1882 group, if for no other reason than because it makes the Cards (or Browns, as they were known then) the first World Series winners - they beat the White Stockings (now known as the Cubs) in 1886, after having tied them (3-3-1) in 1885.

Besides, just because the Cards played in a different major league before 1892 shouldn’t count against them - after all, the Brooklyn Dodgers (or Bridegrooms, as they were known in those days) won the AA pennant in 1889, moved over to the NL in 1890 and won *that* pennant, too!

Yes, Von der Ahe sold the team to the Robisons, and he did it after the franchise was absorbed into the NL in 1892 after the American Association folded (three other AA teams - Washington, Baltimore, and Louisville - were also absorbed into the NL). The Cards lost many of their players between the 1891 and 1892 seasons, though, and for that reason some historians say it wasn’t “really” the same franchise - but that’s a silly argument; after all, the Florida Marlins lost almost all *their* players between 1997 and 1998.

At any rate, the Cards finished way down in the standings almost from the git-go upon their absorption into the NL, and Von der Ahe became increasingly erratic in his ownership (and even management - he took over in the dugout on several occasions) as the decade progressed. Finally, near bankruptcy, he sold to the Robisons, who already owned the Cleveland franchise.

The Robisons felt that St. Louis was a better baseball location than Cleveland, and proceeded, in 1899, to transfer all their good players - Jesse Burkett and Cy Young just to name two - to St. Louis, leaving Cleveland with the dregs. (That Cleveland team was, of course, the infamous Cleveland Spiders, who went 20-134 that year.)

The next year the NL decided to contract back to 8 teams, dropping three of the old AA teams - Louisville, Washington, and Baltimore (the latter two thereafter joining the new American League) but kept the Cardinals, dropping the Cleveland franchise (Cleveland would also later get an AL franchise).

Which means not only are today’s Cardinals the descendants of the old AA Browns, but they were the only AA franchise to *survive* all the league machinations of the 1890’s and 1900’s. That oughta cound for something, and that’s another reason why I’m in the “1882″ corner.

I think that period should count with the AA since that is the period that the St. Louis and Chicago rivalry began. Both teams had different names back then but the history remains. I believe it was the 1885 or 1886 game for what was then the world series, that ended in a tie. [3 games to 3]. So with that long history in mind it should count all those games from when they played as the first St. Louis Browns.

I still want to know, what makes Miles a “valuable backup” as opposed to an everyday 2nd baseman or shortstop? Not being local, it is far easier for me to look at batting stats and overall fielding percentages than to be able to watch his range and arm.

In all this talk about improving the Cards up the middle, and all the turnover from one year to the next for the last several years, I don’t see much acknowledgment of the old axiom that anything your middle infielders give you offensively is a plus, that what you really want from the 4 and 6 guys is prime defense. Same for the catcher.

It seems that the exceptional shortstops who field pretty well and hit for power (in the Ernie Banks mold) will never number enough to populate every team. Nor will there be sufficient high RBI 2nd basemen to fill the rosters. So why agonized about it? Put two decent fielders with averages above .275 out there and forgetaboutit. The middle infield is, to me, just a distraction from the real problem — bullpen and another reliable starter.

Count me as yet another purist. I belive that the Cardinals win total should be counted all the way back to 1882. All Chris Von der Ahe did was switch the team into another league - a move necessitated by the demise of the American Association following the 1891 Season. The Cardinals are one of three teams from the American Association that still survive today. the Los Angeles Dodgers (then known as the Brooklyn Bridegrooms) and the current version of the Cincinnati Reds are the other two. Another source that would back the arguement up is Cardinals Journal by John Snyder.

It seems obvious that the wins should be counted in the same way that the Dodgers, Cubs, Phillies (losses), etc., are counted. Do they count antecedent teams from the American Association, or just the NL?

Just to be contrary, if you’re only counting “National League” wins, wouldn’t you have to exclude inter-league games?