19th Hole: The Readers Take Over

STRONGHOLDS
Sir:
I could really relate to Ron Fimrite 's article They're Beginning To Sound Like a Broken Record (Sept. 26). I have been to 22 Dodger home games this season, each time taking an average of five kids from our parish school. The kids get in for only a buck, and they have a blast. Not only do the Dodgers play an exciting brand of baseball, but the whole atmosphere is party-like. Everybody has a great time, win or lose. It's good, wholesome fun—even the food is super (I think the stadium could be called the world's largest outdoor restaurant).

As for Tom Lasorda, he's done more to bring this city together than anyone in recent history. The Dodgers certainly do have a great organization. Now, if we could only get some World Series tickets!
LEO GUTIERREZ
Los Angeles

Sir:
A more amazing attendance record is now being approached at Boston 's Fenway Park . Two million fans will have seen Red Sox home games this year, a record for Fenway. The smallest park in the majors, it is little more than half the size of Dodger Stadium and is in a town where frigid weather early and late in the season is not uncommon and rain is possible anytime. In addition, the parking is downright terrible. Fenway also lacks some of the other niceties of Dodger Stadium , but Red Sox fans still come out in droves to root for their team, some to be turned back from standing-room-only sellouts. It makes one wonder how much better the Sox would draw in an area as big as L.A. with a stadium of similar size. Probably a lot, but nothing can replace Friendly Fenway. It's one heck of a place to watch a ball game.
BOB CONWAY
Midland, Mich.

Sir:
SI gets very excited about the Dodgers drawing nearly three million fans from a population base of seven million. Our Royals have drawn 1.8 million, which is more than 100% of metropolitan Kansas City 's population. As for your comments about Dodger Stadium , we in Kansas City welcome the opportunity to show off Royals Stadium any day this month.
DON FLOWERS
Kansas City , Mo.

ROOTS
Sir:
In SCORECARD (Sept. 26) you state that the 1889 St. Louis Browns of the American Association became the present-day Baltimore Orioles . Incorrect. Those Browns, an AA team from 1882 to 1884 and again from 1887 to 1891, were a National League team known as the Maroons in 1885-1886. In 1892 they rejoined the NL and later came to be—and still are—known as the St. Louis Cardinals .

The Baltimore Orioles of Earl Weaver were the St. Louis Browns of the American League from 1902 to 1953 and were known as the Milwaukee Brewers in the AL 's first year—1901. Ironically, another team of Baltimore Orioles and the St. Louis Browns both played in the AL in 1902. Those Baltimore Orioles , an original AL franchise, became the New York Highlanders and, eventually, the New York Yankees . And what Baltimore Oriole team did John McGraw play for and manage? Why, the one that was an NL franchise from 1892 to 1899.
ANDREW SPARK
Monroe , N.Y.

Sir:
To err in this matter seems only human when one considers the following: the Atlanta Braves were once the Boston Red Stockings; the Chicago Cubs were the White Stockings; the Yankees were the Orioles ; the Orioles were the Browns and, before that, the Brewers ; the Phillies were the Blue Jays ; and the Rangers and Twins each were the Senators, a name used by more than one team in the 1800s. The Cardinals , Pirates , Reds and Dodgers all came from the American Association, which played the National League in a number of series between 1882 and 1890. In fact, in 1886 the Browns-Cardinals won their first series against the White Sox-Cubs.
JAMES G. LEE
Minneapolis

Sir:
Concerning the forfeitures in the 1889 pennant race, you state: " Brooklyn went on to win the pennant with a 93-44 record, while the Browns finished second with 90-45. Had the Browns won the two forfeit games, they would have taken the championship."

Absolutely true. But had the Browns won only one of the games, they would also have won, with a 91-44 record, which would have been better than Brooklyn 's 92-45.
THE REV. JIM KILL
Chicago

JENNER 'S POT OF GOLD
Sir:
Regarding Bruce Jenner and his endorsements, commercials, speeches, clothing lines, etc. (Back to Bruce in a Moment. First, This Commercial, Sept. 26), why is it always the guy who makes half a million dollars a year (or his agent) who says that the money doesn't mean anything? Jenner is out to make a buck, and that's fine. But don't let him tell us working stiffs (who don't make $500,000 in a lifetime) that money is unimportant. If it were so unimportant to Jenner , he'd be a high school coach somewhere.