Back in those days there were two New York Giants franchises, as well. What was it about those old teams? You'd think that NOT copying the same name from the other team in your city would be the first priority in naming your team.

I can see what you mean. I give you some other perspective thou. Over here in Europe you have lot of clubs that have teams and individual athletes in more than one sport. Take Swedish team Djurgårdens IF (IF = Idrotts Förening = Athletic Club) That has teams in the major leauge in both Hockey and Soccer, teams in basketball, football, handball. They have boxing and a couple of other sports as well. It makes it quite easy to be a fan since you support your club in just about every sport.
I guess it would differ with the giants thou since that was two different entities as I understand it.

Using the same team name was not laziness, it was good marketing. Several new professional teams have used the same mascot as an existing professional team in the same city for brand identification. Some of these changed team names once gaining recognition. The Boston Braves, like the Pirates/Steelers, were one of these. After a successful first season the football team changed their name to the Redskins keeping an Indian as their connection. They later moved to Washington DC. The Yankees were one that never caught on. Several Yankees football teams were started in New York, but none survived. The Giants were so successful that they kept the same name. There was also a Brooklyn Dodgers football team through the 1930's and into the early 40's.

Yeah its also the same concelt as say a high school your football team name is the same as the baseball... Why can't a city have the same name for their sports teams that represent the city.

You're free to have what ever opinion you'd like, of course, but I don't see that there is anything to back up your statements. Teams gain popularity based on the interest the area has in the sport, and by the success of the team in question. If you make a good early impression, you have a chance to catch on.

Professional teams don't copy names of other teams in their city, or even state, anymore, and yet they seem to do just fine... Provided that they win enough games to be relevant.

So, I maintain that it was lazy to copy the name of another professional franchise in your same city. Trying to ride the coat tails of another organization makes you look weak. Not many people (myself included) have even heard of the Boston Braves as a football team. That's probably a good reason why they changed their name and later left. The baseball team is what people remember. So if you're trying to make an argument that this was good marketing strategy by bringing up obscure references, you are kind of defeating your own point. There is no way of being able to prove that those teams gained recognition because of their names. They were recognized because they played in professional leagues. If the name had anything to do with it, they wouldn't have changed it.

Again, if you want to be successful, you have to win. The Pittsburgh and New York teams had some success... Because they won. But it was dumb to have had the same names, imo.