|
A Game of Inches Updates, Chapter 1
The nature of a book of firsts is that it is always a work in progress. Although A Game of Inches was published only last year, I have already
received and uncovered a great deal of new information. I encourage anyone who
has read the book to contact me with questions,
concerns, comments, updates, and corrections. A few simple corrections have been
made in new printings, but longer updates will have to wait for the next
edition. For now, I’ll be putting such updates to both volumes on these pages on
an ongoing basis, so check back frequently if interested.
Links to Updates to Other Chapters
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapters 4-5
Chapters 6-8
Chapter 9
Chapters 10-12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapters 15-17
Chapter 18
Chapters 19-21
Chapters 22-26
CHAPTER 1: THE THINGS WE TAKE FOR GRANTED
1.3 Mass-circulated Rules
On pages 223-224 of Baseball Before We Knew It,
David Block lists some fifteen clubs that published their rules and by-laws
prior to 1860.
1.5 Uniforms
The 1837 constitution of the Olympics of Philadelphia notes
that that townball club also had uniforms. (the entire constitution is reprinted
in Dean Sullivan’s Early Innings)
1.7 Running Counterclockwise
While the reasons for this key feature of baseball remain
unknown and probably will always stay that way, it turns out that John Schwartz
advanced and interesting theory in the 1978 Baseball Research Journal.
Schwartz noted that the counterclockwise direction is more convenient for
right-handers, since it means that right-handed batter’s momentum leads them
toward first base, while right-handed fielders have an easier time throwing to
first base. Thus, he suspects that the counterclockwise orientation that has
proven so beneficial to left-handers was actually adopted for the convenience of
right-handers. (John Schwartz, “Baseball: The Counterclockwise Sport,”
Baseball Research Journal 1978, 69-72)
1.8 Overrunning Bases
I’ve discovered that a vote was indeed taken on the issue after
the 1888 season, but according to the Aberdeen (SD) Daily News of
November 22, 1888, “A proposition to permit the overrunning of second base was
voted down.”
1.10 Balls and Strikes
A lot of new information:
I intend to add an explanation of the origins of the terms “ball” and
“strike.” The latter term was used because until 1858 there were no called
strikes, which meant that one occurred only when a batter actually struck at a pitch and missed. Nobody
bothered to change the term when called strikes started. Ball was a shortened form of
“unfair ball,” which was what umpires originally called to warn a pitcher.
According to the Protoball website, the called strike was
“first employed at a New York vs. Brooklyn all-star game at Fashion Race Course
on Long Island. The umpire to call the first strike is D. L. Adams.” I’m not sure
about this; if I can confirm it, I’ll add it.
Before the paragraph on the 1879 decision to make every
pitch either a ball or a strike, I’m going to add this one: “There continued to
be strong resistance to the concept of every pitch being called either a ball or
strike. When the Cincinnati Commercial proposed such a rule in 1878, the
Chicago Tribune dismissed the notion as being ‘too nonsensical to need
comment. Ask one of the Bostons or Olympics of 1871 about the only game that
ever was played under that rule. The rule was repealed after one game had been
played under it’ (Chicago Tribune, July 28, 1878, 7).”
I'll probably also add a list of how many balls and strikes
were required in each year during the 1880s as the rules-makers were searching
for the perfect balance. The problem is not making it too long and confusing
because the two major leagues often used different numbers.
I’m going to add much more on how the historic number of
four balls and three strikes was finally arrived at and on how little
significance was attached to it. Here’s a draft:
”Despite the enduring balance struck in 1889, relatively little significance was
attached to it at the time. The 1888 season, played with five balls and three
strikes as benchmarks, had seen offenses struggle to keep up with the pitchers.
In response, many radical ideas for ending “the growing tendency of ball playing
to degenerate into a ‘pitchers’ battle’” were proposed at that year’s
post-season meetings. (Philadelphia Inquirer, November 24, 1888)
“Some argued that the number of strikes per at bat
should be doubled to six, while others advocated reducing the number of balls to
three. Also popular was the idea of moving the pitcher back five feet to
approximately sixty feet from home plate. Brooklyn president Charles Byrne,
however, persuaded his colleagues that having the pitchers in line with first
base would all but eliminate base-stealing. Others believed that the solution
was to again allow batters to request high or low pitches. (Chicago Tribune,
November 21, 1888, 3; Aberdeen (S.D.) Daily News, November 22,
1888)
“But none of these approaches garnered enough support
to be adopted, so a much more modest change carried the day: ‘The committee
discussed the suggestions exhaustively, and finally decided to let the matters
stand just as they were last season, except to hold the pitcher down to four
balls. Three strikes and four balls will, then, be the rule for next season.’ (Chicago
Tribune, November 21, 1888, 3)
“This historic rule change, thus, was a compromise and one
that appears to have been entirely satisfactory to no one. Even its supporters
could hardly have expected four balls and strikes to endure very long – after
all, the number of balls and strikes had been modified almost every year for the
past decade. Henry Chadwick, for example, commented, ‘There is no radical
change in the pitching rules, the only prominent amendment made being the
reduction of the number of called balls giving the batsman his base from five
balls to four.’ (Evansville Journal, April 27, 1889, 7) Yet that is
precisely what happened, as four balls and strikes has become one of the staples
of baseball.”
1.11 Strike Zones
1.11 Strike Zones
Before the last paragraph, I’ll add: “Defining what
constituted a high or low ball also caused confusion. At the National League’s
meetings after the 1876 season, “The question of defining high and low balls was
considered at some length, and settled by making a low ball one from the knee to
the belt of the striker, and a high ball one from the belt to the shoulder. The
exact waist ball was defined as a low ball.” (Chicago Tribune, December
10, 1876, 7)
To the last paragraph, after sentence two, I’m going to
add: “The new rule specified that any pitch that crossed home plate between the
batter’s knee and shoulder was a strike (Aberdeen (S.D.) Daily News,
March 16, 1887).”
I’ll also
modify the last paragraph to reflect that the idea had been circulating for
quite a few years before being adopted. In 1876 the Chicago Tribune
wrote, “Another fruitful source of dispute has been as to the height at which
the ball passed the striker, and it would certainly simplify matters very
greatly if a good ball were defined to be one which was over the plate, as high
as the striker’s knee, and no higher than his shoulder. It would give the
pitcher a trifle more leeway, and there-be [sic] a benefit.” (Chicago Tribune,
November 19, 1876, 10) Harry Wright was lobbying for the uniform strike zone as
early as 1882. He explained: “One of the most difficult tasks [the umpire] has
is to correctly call balls and strikes. If it is a little below or above the
waist, a kick will follow from the batsman or pitcher. I believe that any ball
which passes over the plate between the shoulder and knees should be termed
fair. If such a scheme is adopted, it will compel the batter to hit.” (Boston
Globe, November 5, 1882, 8) So this was yet another key rule change made at
least in part to make the umpire’s job a bit easier.
1.14 Nine Players
I’m going to add this nice description of why many resisted
the idea of a standard number of players: “The game of baseball as played by
‘professionals’ to-day and the game called baseball by the country boys of
twenty years ago differ greatly, though there is no doubt that the present game
is the legitimate evolution of the older one. … There were no regular
outfielders, and the game could be played by six boys – three on a side. But
while half a dozen could play the game, half a dozen rarely did, and the number
was often twenty or more. In such a case the field was covered by the
superfluous players as they chose.” (“Old Baseball: The Game as the Boys Used to
Play it,” Indianapolis Sentinel, April 3, 1887)
1.17 60’6”
I also need to add that the Players’ League modified the
distance slightly during its lone season of 1890: the size of the pitcher’s box
was increased by 6 inches and the front line moved back a foot to be 51 feet
from the plate. (Chicago Inter-Ocean, March 30, 1890)
I’m going to expand the last sentence of the first
paragraph to explain why the1888 proposal to move the pitcher back five feet was
unsuccessful. Something like this:
“Star pitcher Tim Keefe was vehemently opposed to the
proposal, claiming that the change would ‘put a premium on brute strength,’
instead of skilled pitching. Keefe even preferred letting batters again call
for high and low pitches to having to pitch from five feet farther back. (Kansas
City Star, October 23, 1888) In the end, the proposal was defeated but
apparently the argument that swayed the rule-makers was a very different one
advanced by Brooklyn president Charles Byrne. Byrne convinced his colleagues
that having the pitchers in line with first base would all but eliminate
base-stealing (Chicago Tribune, November 21, 1888, 3).”
1.18 Diamonds
I plan to give more weight to the idea that the term became
popular in order to distinguish the fact that the home base was one of the four
bases in the Knickerbockers’ game, something that wasn’t the case in the
Massachusetts game and other versions. For example, an 1887 article comparing
the Knickerbockers’ version to simpler ones stated: “The next important
difference lay in the placing of the bases, or ‘byes,’ as they were then often
called, and as many a reader of these lines will doubtless remember. The
accompanying diagram will make this point clear. ‘A’ is the position of the
striker, or ‘batter’ as he was then denominated; ‘1,’ ‘2,’ ‘3’ and ‘4’ are byes,
‘4’ being the home ‘bye’ and the termination of the runner’s journey around what
was then the square, and not the diamond.” (“Old Baseball: The Game as the Boys
Used to Play it,” Indianapolis Sentinel, April 3, 1887) While it isn’t
strictly accurate, this term appears to have been a good way of differentiating
the two shapes. I’m now inclined to believe that this explanation worked in tandem with the
one advanced in the entry.
1.20 Foul Ground
I’m going to expand the third sentence into its own
paragraph (or two) and better explain the advantages of having foul territory.
One key reason, as I note, was the lack of available land. But I also need to
note how precious baseballs were and that the concept of foul territory was an
important way to reduce the risk of losing the ball. Rules would be designed
specifically for the aim of keeping the ball in play; e.g., “if a ball were
batted over the fence it was ‘out.’” (“Old Baseball: The Game as the Boys Used
to Play it,” Indianapolis Sentinel, April 3, 1887) In addition, many who
played versions like the Massachusetts game in which there was no foul territory
disliked the fact that batters could simply tip baseballs off behind them.
James D’Wolf Lovett even claimed that batters deliberately tried to disable
catchers by means of such tips. (Phil Bergen, “Lovett of the Lowells,”
National Pastime 16 (1996), 63) The final advantage – probably not foreseen
by the Knickerbockers – was that foul territory made it possible for spectators
to watch the action from close proximity.
1.21 Out on Fly
I want to expand
this explain why many resisted the change; namely, that in the game at that time
the hitters had all the advantages and the fielders struggled to make even one
out. After all, there were lively baseballs, underhand pitching, uneven fields,
and fielders wore no gloves and often had the sun in their eyes. As one account
described it: “The ball used at that time was highly elastic, being composed
largely of rubber, and was known as a ‘live ball’; consequently there were some
marvelous exhibitions of batting, home-runs being more common than base hits of
today. This situation put the outfielders in the position of star actors in the
game and they were depended upon for at least three-fourths of the put-outs.
The result was that a game consisted mostly of a display of heavy batting and
base running, with the score usually going up to some forty or maybe fifty
runs. A game was not considered probably won at any stage, short of a lead of
twenty runs. This of course grew tiresome, and prolonged the game
unnecessarily.” (Harry Slye, “Early days of Baseball in Baraboo – there were
giant players in those days,” Baraboo Daily News, June 25, 1925) Because
the defense’s helplessness made the game so tiresome, catches on two bounds were
sometimes considered outs in casual games between younger players. (“Old
Baseball: The Game as the Boys Used to Play it,” Indianapolis Sentinel,
April 3, 1887) So the idea of taking away the easiest way to record an out
understandably struck many as a terrible idea!
1.26 New Balls
After the
paragraph describing Rasty Wright’s argument, I need to note that the problem
even continued to arise in the major leagues from time to time. In an American
Association game on July 27, 1890, Brooklyn was ahead 18-8 in the eighth inning
but had to forfeit because they were the home team and had exhausted the supply
of balls. And a National League game in Louisville on May 23, 1895, was
forfeited for the same reason. (Source:
Retrosheet forfeit list)
1.27 Catchers Signaling to Pitchers
As I explained in the
Introduction (page 17), nineteenth-century journals and newspapers often
reprinted one another’s
articles without attribution. The result is that there is always the
possibility that the source I cite is not the original one. The December
12, 1883, article that appeared in Sporting Life turns out to be just
such a case; the article had previously appeared in the
Rocky Mountain
News,
November 26, 1883, 2. But it didn’t originate there either, as the source
was given as a Chicago exchange. The version that
appeared in the Rocky Mountain News also included this interesting
commentary:
“A pitcher, to be
effective, should deliver his ball as he chooses himself, sizing up his batsman
and signing to his catcher what he pitches. Unless such tactics are followed
half the pitcher’s effectiveness is destroyed.”
I’ve
been doing quite a bit more research on this topic for a book on catchers and am
becoming convinced that during the 1870s the idea of signaling was one
championed by Chadwick but generally disliked by catchers.
I’m
increasingly getting the sense that catchers prided themselves on being able to
handle whatever the pitcher delivered and saw no need for such communications.
1.31 Home Team Last
Alongside the Cummings account, I want to add this one:
“The game of baseball as played by ‘professionals’ to-day and the game called
baseball by the country boys of twenty years ago differ greatly, though there is
no doubt that the present game is the legitimate evolution of the older one. …
The two best players were selected to ‘choose sides,’ and they sometimes decided
who should have first choice of players by tossing up a stone, upon which one of
them had solemnly spat. One called out ‘wet’ and the other ‘dry’; the falling
of the stone decided the matter. But the more common method was for one of the
two ‘choosers’ to toss a ball club into the air; the other would catch it and
then there was a superimposing of grasped hands. This method was called
‘choosing up,’ and the one who held the club last had first choice. But he had
to have a firm grip, and it was decided whether he had a fair hold by his
ability to toss it over his head. If he had hold by but one finger he often
failed. Sometimes this important matter was settled by ‘driving down.’ If the
grasp on the club was less than a full hand (no allusion to the great game of
poker intended), it was not enough.” (“Old Baseball: The Game as the Boys Used
to Play it,” Indianapolis Sentinel, April 3, 1887) But I’ll stress
that such rituals appear to have been the domain of amateur games, not
professional ones.
1.32 Substitutions
A new paragraph after the fourth paragraph: “At first, the
rule permitted substitutions until the start of the fourth inning, but that was
too lax for many. Following the 1876 season, the Chicago Tribune
grumbled that the rule “as it now stands, is indefinite, and means nothing, or
if it has a meaning, it is that either club have a right to change any part, or
the whole, of their nine up to the end of the fourth inning – a thing probably
never contemplated by the gentlemen who made the rule.” (Chicago Tribune,
November 19, 1876, 10). At the winter meeting the following month, the rule was
changed to allow late-comers to be substituted only if they had arrived by the
end of the first inning (Chicago Tribune, December 10, 1876, 7).”
I plan to rework what are now the fifth and sixth paragraphs extensively
to add details about how arguments involving Anson made the rule change allowing
substitutes necessary. Some of the new or added details:
The dispute between Anson and Rogers was the result of an
injury to Philadelphia catcher Jim McGuire in a game on August 28, 1886. The
matter became so contentious that depositions were taken.
I will probably mention an August 5, 1884, game in which
deaf-mute pitcher Thomas S. Lynch made his only major league appearance for
Chicago. Lynch held the lead after seven innings but then claimed to have hurt
his arm. When the opposing catcher refused to allow a replacement, Lynch and
Anson switched places and Anson gave up four runs to earn the loss, his only
major league decision.
I'm also going to add a summary of the 1888 dispute that
seems to have been directly responsible for the rule change: “ ‘Buck’ Ewing
capped the climax of his conduct on the ball field by refusing yesterday to take
his position behind the bat when so ordered by Umpires Powers and Daniels, and
they, after coaxing him to resume his place, gave Chicago the game by a score of
9 to 0. Ewing’s refusal to play was brought about by an injury he claimed to
have received from a wild pitch in the fifth inning. The facts, however, as
told by both umpires, are that the wild pitch struck in front of the plate,
bounded, and hit Ewing on the wrist. No complaint was made at the time and the
inning was played out. The New Yorks took their turn and still nothing was
said. When the visitors went in at the beginning of the sixth Ewing notified
Brown to take his place. Anson at once protested and then Ewing for the first
time complained of being hurt. Anson and Williamson tried to coax him out, but
met with a flat refusal. Daniels then produced his watch and gave ‘Buck’ five
minutes to get in his position. ‘Buck’ did not move except to button his
jacket, and Umpire Powers, at the expiration of the time, announced that Ewing
had refused to take his position and that the game was forfeited to Chicago …
[reviews game, 9-2 Chicago at the time after 5 in fifth] … Manager Mutrie
couldn’t use language strong enough in his anger against Anson and Powers. He
was indignant at Anson because he protested against Brown taking Ewing’s place,
and at Powers because he made alleged wrong decisions and upheld Anson’s
protest. Mutrie held in his hand a message from President Young. It was an
answer to one James had sent protesting against Powers, and it told James that
Daniels had been sent to umpire the games. That was all the consolation he
got. ‘What do I think of it’ said A. G. Spalding. ‘I think it was the meanest
piece of business that I ever saw on a ball field. It bears out the reputation
that Ewing has always had. His action today was the most childish that has ever
come under my notice. There is a clause in the constitution that provides for a
fine of $300, but that is when a Captain takes his men off the field. In
Ewing’s case, the fine, if any is imposed, should be made by the club’s
management. I regret that there is no such clause in the playing rules.’” (Chicago
Tribune, September 13, 1888, 3)
And to show the direct connection between the Ewing
incident and the rule change, I’ll add this commentary from Chadwick: “The most
radical change made in the playing rules by the committee was that which allows
the introduction of a new player in the nine as substitute for a player retired
by the captain for causes other than the customary disabling of a player by
‘illness or injury.’ Under the new code if the captain of either team in a
match game finds that the pitcher is giving out or that his catcher’s hands are
not in good condition, though neither player is disabled to the extent covered
by the terms ‘illness or injury,’ he can at the end of any innings [word
missing?] from service on the field and substitute a new player, and such
retired player can not again take part in the game.” (Henry Chadwick,
Evansville Journal, April 27, 1889, 7)
1.33 Overhand Pitching
I’m going to expand on the next-to-last sentence to include
some of the interesting reactions to the historic change. For example, Tim
Keefe believed that overhand pitching was not practical, explaining: “the higher
the ball is thrown, the harder it is upon the arm. No pitcher can stand the
strain, and the result will be that the arm must be kept down. Whitney,
Radbourne, and Galvin kept their arms up as high as they cared to last season,
which is the best reason in the world for the fact that they won’t throw any
higher this season. They would not be able to stand the strain if they ever
tried it. Then a high thrown ball is not so deceptive nor so hard as a ball
delivered from below the shoulder. The pitcher delivering the ball high above
his shoulder will probably deliver it straight, as the curve entails too much of
a strain upon the arm.” (Cleveland Leader, April 10, 1884) I’ll also
include this note: “Daniels, the umpire, thinks that it will be impossible to
enforce the pitching rules of the American Association code, which obliges the
pitcher to deliver the ball from below the line of the shoulder. He prefers the
League rule, which gives the pitcher perfect freedom to deliver the ball as high
as he likes.” (National Police Gazette, April 26, 1884)
|
