Mutrie and the Maroons – Why New York’s National League Team Became the Giants

“Giants” of the Game

The earliest unambiguous example of “Giants” as the nickname for New York’s National League baseball team appeared in a brief report of an exhibition game that took place in Jersey City the day before.

Gotham Giants in Jersey.

The New York Leaguers went to Jersey City yesterday and played the Eastern League team of that place. Mutrie's giants were in good form, but the Jerseys gave them a hard battle. The pleasure of witnessing Keefe's first appearance in the maroon stockings was reserved for the patrons of the Jersey grounds. Keefe was not in his regular position but in right field, where he did that little he was obliged to in a satisfactory manner. The new nickname of the League representatives of this city is quite expressive as that of "ponies," by which Mutrie's old friends, the Mets, are known. Giants though they are, however, they found difficulty in hitting Hughes's delivery safe, and made only eight base hits, while Dorgan was hit safely six times. The score by innings and summary follows:

New York World, 14 April 1885, page 3, column 3 (From Barry Popik’s Big Apple Etymological Dictionary). 

Less than two weeks later, a widely circulated news item announced the new name, among others.

The St. Louis League club will be known as the Maroons, the New Yorkers have been the Giants, Providence the Cripples and Chicago the Babies. –  [Exchange.]

Boston Globe, April 24, 1885, page 2.

The nickname caught on rapidly. 

No one at the time explained the reason for adopting the nickname.  Dozens of explanations appeared decades later, some of them clearly wrong with respect to some of the details.[i] 

Some say it was the size of the players, some the way they played.  Some credit manager James Mutrie, others credit a sportswriter.  Some say it happened in their first year in the National League in 1883, others in 1885 or 1888.  Some claim it was during a pennant race with Chicago, others during a game against Philadelphia.

Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph, February 2, 1936, page 19.

Separating the wheat from the chaff, the most likely chain of events is that James Mutrie called them “giants” (in size and playing skill) fleetingly without any thought of naming the team, was overheard by a sportswriter named P. J. Donohue who took up the name and popularized in through use in his newspaper, the New York World, where it first appeared on April 14, 1885.  This conclusion is consistent with the fact that the earliest few examples of the name in print are from The New York World and supported by two early explanations of the origin, one directly from the horse’s mouth. 

Thirty-five years after the fact, James Mutrie remembered saying the name first, but remembered that “somebody took it up,” after which it caught on as a nickname. 

“Yes, I named the Giants myself,” he said with a chuckle.  “It was perfectly natural to call them that.  The boys were all tall in those days, because most of them were sluggers and they didn’t go in so much for speedy playing then.  It was a day when they were winning, and I looked out at them and said: ‘They’re giants in playing and in stature, too.’ Somebody took it up and they have been known as the Giants ever since.  There is nobody playing to-day like those old sluggers.”

New-York Tribune, September 3, 1921, page 16.

Boston Globe, February 13, 1925, page 13.

An earlier explanation of the name identified the “somebody” who took up the name as P. J. Donohue, the sports editor of the New York World, where the name first appeared.  

The New York Nationals were dubbed the "Giants" by the late P. Jay Donahue, who was the sporting editor of the New York World, in the summer of 1885, when that team was making a strenuous fight against the Chicago team for the championship. It was their deeds, and not their stature, as many rooters think, that was responsible for the name.

The Cincinnati Enquirer, August 21, 1910, sports section, page 3. 

Peter J. Donohue, as seen in Harry Clay Palmer's, Athletic Sports in America, England and Australia, Philadelphia, Hubbard Brothers, 1889, page 593 (P. J. Donohue had a close relationship with both John B. Day, a principle investor in the team, and James Mutrie, their manager.  In 1886, for example, the three of them established a sports journal, The Sporting Times.). 

While these stories may explain how the team became the “Giants” in April of 1885, they leave open two questions: why did the team need a new nickname after two years in the league, and why were they suddenly playing like “giants” after two relatively mediocre seasons, finishing 6^th and 4^th in an eight-team league? 

Why Not Maroons?

Although modern references generally refer to New York’s National League teams of 1883 and 1884 as the “New York Gothams,” they were not generally known as such at the time.  They were most commonly referred to simply as the “New Yorks,” but since “Gotham” is a synonym for “New York City,” sportswriters occasionally substituted “Gothams” for “New Yorks.”  The name was not considered a nickname or team name in the conventional sense.

But that’s not to say they didn’t have an informal nickname.  They were frequently referred to as the “Maroons” in reference to maroon trimmings on their uniforms.  The name even popped up a few times early in the 1885 season before the name “Giants” became more commonplace.

The maroons got back at the [Providence] grays in great style to-day.

New York Times, June 4, 1884, page 5.

The Maroons had the right to select another umpire and chose one of their own players.

Buffalo Commercial, September 27, 1884, page 3.

Roger Connor, of the Maroons, . . . has a percentage of 325 in five years’ playing, and he improves like wine with age.

Buffalo Times, April 8, 1885, page 1.

Maroons they were and Maroons they might have stayed, but for the admission of another new team into the League in 1885 – the St. Louis Maroons.  The St. Louis Maroons had played under that name in the Union League the previous season, but needed a new home when that league folded at the end of the season.  The National League was happy to oblige, as the St. Louis Browns of the American Association had demonstrated the potential profits to be had in the city. 

With two “Maroons” in one league, something had to give.  Luckily, New York’s fortunes were looking up – they had reason to believe that they would improve from also-rans to “giants” of the League.  A new name soon followed.

Why Giants?

The name “Giants” first appeared in a pre-season exhibition match with a minor opponent.  It’s not surprising they looked like giants in comparison, but they had good reason to believe that they could be League “giants” in the upcoming season.  It wasn’t just wishful thinking.  The roster had improved, drastically as a result of some good old-fashioned double-dealing, insider trading, and a secret business trip to Bermuda – all through the efforts of James Mutrie.

When James Mutrie switched teams from the original Metropolitans to the new Metropolitans of the American Association before the 1883 season, his business partner John B. Day took over management of the renamed New Yorks in the National League.  In his first two seasons in the American Association, Mutrie led the Mets to a 4^th place finish in 1883 and 1^st place in 1884.  Day, on the other hand, plodded through two seasons in 6^th and 4^th place. 

But despite their poor showing, New York’s National League team made much more money.  The National League is said to have attracted a better class of patron.  They charged twice as much for admission (50 cents, as opposed to 25 cents), which kept out the riff-raff, and did not serve alcoholic drinks, which kept out the drunken riff-raff.

They pay big salaries and an immense ground rent. . . .  Both the New York League and Metropolitan Clubs have been playing until recently on these grounds, which are divided by a fence, and in every instance, when both clubs played on the same day, the League team drew by far the largest audience, leaving the Mets but a handful of people.

The Times (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), August 24, 1884, page 3.

To address the problem, the Metropolitan Exhibition Company, the Metropolitans and the New Yorks all conspired amongst themselves to improve their collective fortunes by transferring the champion manager, best hitter and best pitcher from the pennant-winning Mets of the American Association to the money-winning New Yorks of the National League.

Since the two teams were controlled by the same ownership group, one might imagine it would be a simple thing to just move players from one team to the other.  But little was simple in professional baseball between the 1884 and 1885 seasons.  The National League and American Association were negotiating a baseball treaty to avoid inter-league competition for players, keep down player costs, and to make player contracts more predictable to put all of the teams on a more stable business footing. 

The fruit of those negotiations was the so-called “National Agreement,” an overarching document governing the business of baseball that still controls the game today.  The National Agreement introduced the “reserve rule,” a system in which teams could reserve the exclusive right to renew contracts year-to-year with players already under contract, without the risk that another team could seduce them away with a higher salary. 

At the time, the “reserve rule” was commonly referred to as the “ten-man rule,” because it limited teams’ reserve lists to ten players – all of other players being free agents from one season to the next.  When a team “released” a player from a contract or from its “reserve list,” they sent a notice to the league offices where they maintained a running list of reserved players and released players.  In turn, the league offices sent out notices to all other teams when players were available.  Teams could not sign a player until ten days had elapsed, to give all teams a fair chance to learn about the player’s availability and deal with them on an equal basis. 

There were no such rules for manager, however.  Mutrie’s move from the Mets to the New Yorks seemed certain before the New Year.[ii]  By the end of January, rumors were already swirling that Mutrie would bring the Mets’ big slugger, third-baseman “Dude” Esterbrook, and their future hall-of-famer, pitcher Tim Keefe, with him.[iii]  In return, New York would transfer pitcher Ed Bagley and third-baseman Frank Hankinson to the Metropolitans.

Tim Keefe and "Dude" Esterbrook, Leslies Illustrated, July 10, 1886, page 325.

James Mutrie finally pulled the trigger on March 26, 1885.  Acting as manager of the Metropolitans, he released Tim Keefe and “Dude” Esterbrook, after which they all promptly disappeared.

Keefe and Esterbrook Hid Away.

New York, March 26. – The Metropolitan Exhibition Company to-day released Keefe and Esterbrook, of the Metropolitan Club . . . .  This is the first move toward the transfer of these players . . . to the New York Club. . . .  As soon as these players received their release they at once disappeared from the city, and the closest search failed to find where they have gone.

Cincinnati Enquirer, March 27, 1885, page 2.

But Mutrie did not leave town unnoticed. Someone spotted him on the deck of a steamer leaving New York Harbor.  Knowing that his star players would be hot-tickets on the open market, he had purchased some hot tickets of his own, taking his star players on a cruise to Bermuda (mistakenly reported as Havana) – away from the prying eyes and eager checkbooks of meddling baseball managers looking to improve their roster.

It appears that the two ball tossers, immediately after receiving their release, were provided with tickets to Havana.  The steamer had hardly left her moorings when Manager Mutrie of the New Yorks emerged from the cabin.  The three gentlemen are by this time enjoying the sunny climate of Cuba.  At the proper time- that is, after the ten days’ limit has expired, they will return to New York.

Boston Globe, April 1, 1885, page 3.

Two weeks later, on April 12, 1885, Mutrie reappeared, this time as manager of the New Yorks of the National League, his new acquisitions in tow, just in time to play an exhibition game in Jersey City the following day.

The roster changes likely gave James Mutrie good reason to believe his team might be “giants in playing, as well as in stature” in the new season.  No longer the also-rans of 1884, they now had the best hitter and the best pitcher from the previous season’s pennant winners in the American Association; in exchange, they had only lost Bagley and Hankinson.

In 58 appearances for the Metropolitans in 1884, Tim Keefe won 37 and lost 17, with an ERA of 2.25.  Ed Bagley, the pitcher who swapped roster spots with Keefe, won 12 and lost 18 in 31 appearances for the New Yorks that year (his first year in the majors), with an ERA of 4.16.  That’s a potential 27-game swing with similar performances on their new teams in 1885 – a “giant” difference. 

Keefe upheld his end of the bargain with the New York Giants in 1885, winning 32 and losing only 13, with an improved ERA of 1.58.  Bagley made only 14 appearances for the Mets in 1885, with 4 wins, 9 losses and an ERA of 4.93.  Tim Keefe is now in the Hall of Fame, Ed Bagley never made it back to the majors.

“Dude” Esterbrook had 150 hits (.314) in 112 games at third base for the Metropolitans in 1884.  His counterpart, Frank Hankinson, had 90 hits (.231) in 105 games at third base for the New Yorks; a potential difference of 60 hits with similar performances in 1885 – a “giant” step up. 

Esterbrook didn’t quite live up to his billing, but still got more hits in fewer games for New York in 1885 (92 hits in 88 games, .256) than Hankinson did for the Mets (81 hits, 94 games, .224), so it was still a “giant” improvement.

As a team the newly named New York Giants made giant strides in 1885, improving from 4^th place with a record of 62-50 in 1884 to 2^nd place with a record of 85-27, just two games behind the champion Chicago White Stockings, spending most of the first month of the season in first place and coming within a half-game of first toward the end of August.

The New York Giants regressed in 1886 and 1887, finishing 3^rd and 4^th respectively, before winning the pennant two seasons in a row in 1888 and 1889, finally earning their new nickname.

The roster moves brought New York’s National League team a nice new nickname, but Mutrie’s and Day’s names were now “Mudd,” at least within the ranks of the American Association executives who dealt with the aftermath of the roster moves at their spring meetings.  They also threatened the National League with baseball war, even if the moves were technically legal under the National Agreement. 

The case of the Metropolitans for transferring Keefe and Esterbrook to the League was taken up, and the Metropolitans fined $500 and Mutrie expelled.  Resolutions were adopted to be presented to the League Committee setting forth that the American Association will respect the League rule no longer, and that if the League wants peace, it must ask for it. 

Decatur Herald (Decatur, Illinois), April 29, 1885, page 1.

Dark Clouds Gathering.

There is everything to indicate that the action of the American Association at the recent meeting will result in a bitter war.  Mr. Day, of the Metropolitan Exhibition Company, feels that he has been grossly insulted, and it does look as if the expelling of Jim Mutrie and the fining of the Mets was a direct slap at him.  It is generally conceded, too, that the action of the association was unjust, for the Mets violated no National agreement or American Association rules, and when Mutrie took the talented ball players to the Bermudas he was simply acting under the orders of the exhibition company.  It is therefore, not right that he should suffer.

Indianapolis Sentinel, May 1, 1885, page 4.

There were unrelated problems in baseball at the time that also threatened peaceful coexistence in baseball.   But if the New York Giants’ name was influenced, at least in part, by questionable roster moves that fanned the flames of a possible baseball war, it has something in common with other famous baseball team nicknames. 

The Pittsburgh Pirates, for instance, became “Pirates” shortly after their owner pirated several players in questionable (yet perfectly legal) roster moves, earning himself the nickname, “The Pirate King,” first sung to the tune of “The Pirate King” song in The Pirates of Penzance.  See my earlier piece, The Pittsburgh Pirates of Penzance – the Dramatic and Musical Origin of the Pittsburgh Pirates’ Team Name.

The St. Louis Cardinals were named for a new uniform color they adopted when their owner, in a move similar to what Mutrie did with only two players, swapped the entire rosters of the Cleveland Spiders and the St. Louis Browns, both of which were held under common ownership.  The Browns were a bad, yet profitable team in a great baseball town.  The Spiders were a successful, yet unprofitable team in a difficult baseball town – the primary complaints being the inability to play baseball on Sundays and sell beer at the stadium.  See my earlier piece, Sunday Baseball and the Cleveland Spiders - How the St. Louis Browns Became the Cardinals.

Earlier Giants?

Anyone who chooses to poke around online, searchable newspaper archives might run across a couple or a few examples of the word “Giants” with reference to a major league team from New York City. 

Two instances appear with respect to the New Yorks of the National League, one in 1883 the other in 1884.  Both cases appear to be a one-off example of the word “giant” to refer to the team’s abilities, although in one instance, it may be meant ironically with mocking derision.  If either of these two examples were evidence that the nickname preceded Mutrie’s move from the Mets to the Giants in 1885, it would upset the nearly universal attribution of the name to Mutrie since they occurred while he was still managing the Metropolitans in the American Association, not the National League team that would eventually become the Giants.

[For more information on the interconnected early histories of the New York Metropolitans and the New York Giants, see my piece, “Mets Might Be Giants, an Alternative History of the New York Giants.”]

A third example relates to Mutrie’s American Association Mets in 1884, but it appears to refer to both teams as “giants,” the two teams then battling it out for first place in the Association.  If this example were evidence that the name “Giants” applied to Mutrie’s Mets in 1884, it would turn the whole world upside down.

When New York’s National League team faced the Chicago in early-August of 1883, for example, they were sitting in sixth place (in an eight-team league), thirteen games out of first (Chicago was in third place, two-and-a-half games back) – hardly “giants,” unless intended as ironically derisive.  Curiously, however, it appeared in Chicago, one of the cities that routinely referred to their own team by the name “Giants,”[iv] so it seems unlike they used the name as a general nickname for New York.

Chicago Tribune, August 3, 1883, page 7.

When New York faced Buffalo in a National League contest early in the 1884 season, New York was in first place and Buffalo in sixth, in which case the descriptive use of the name would make sense.  Buffalo newspapers regularly referred to the team as “Maroons” in 1884, and this is the only example of “Giant” I have seen.

Buffalo Times, May 16, 1884, page 1.

A more obviously generic, descriptive use of “giants” with respect to a New York team appeared later that same season, but in relation to James Mutrie’s American Association Metropolitans, not the National League team that would become the “Giants” a few months later.  Heading into a late-season struggle with the Columbus Buckeyes, the Metropolitans and Buckeyes had the most and second-most number of wins in the league[v], making “giants” an apt description of both teams.

At Columbus, Sept. 21, the giants met and the game was witnessed by the largest crowd of the season, who witnessed a most exciting game.

The Sporting Life, October 1, 1884, page 3.

Summary

During spring training in 1885, the New York Maroons were given a new nickname shortly after the St. Louis Maroons joined the League.  James Mutrie had just returned from a trip to Bermuda.  Before leaving, as manager of the Metropolitans, he released two stars from his American Association pennant-winning team of 1882.  Before returning, as manager of the New York National League team, he signed those same two stars to his new team.  It was a big improvement to the team – some might say a giant improvement. 

During the team’s first exhibition game after his return, a 4-1 win at Jersey City on April 13, 1885, Mutrie may have described the team as “giants in playing and in stature,” and may have been overheard by P. J. Donohue of the New York World.  The next day, the New York World published the first-known example of the team’s new nickname, “Giants,” in print.

---

[i] Several examples are collected on the New York Giants page of Barry Popik’s Big Apple Etymological Dictionary.

[ii] Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 28, 1884, page 9.

[iii] Brooklyn Daily Eagle, January 25, 1885, page 9.

[iv] The Chicago White Stockings were regularly referred to as the “Giants” in the mid-1879s and still, on occasion, as late as 1880. See my piece, “Mets Might Be Giants, an Alternative History of the New York Giants.”

[v] The Metropolitans were in first place by three games over Louisville, but Columbus was technically in third place, a half-game behind Louisville, despite having one more win, due to having played two more games with two more losses.