|
A Game of Inches Updates, Chapter 2
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 1
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 2: BATTING
2.1.1 Place Hitting
I’m continuing to refine my thoughts on this topic and intend to add this new
next-to-last paragraph: “As Cobb’s description suggest, Keeler’s ability to find
holes for this hits may have been a case of poking at the ball so that it landed
in the spaces between the infielders and outfielders rather than by aiming for
the ones between the outfielders. An 1897 note, for instance, claimed: ‘There
is such a thing as scientific batting. [Fred] Tenney of Boston, [Mike] Griffin
of Brooklyn, [Hugh] Jennings, Keeler, and [William] Clarke of Baltimore are
extremely successful in ‘lifting’ flies over the infield, and each man does so
with evident intention.’ (Chicago Tribune, May 21, 1897, 6)”
2.1.2 Swings
One of the difficulties of researching early baseball
history is that Henry Chadwick wrote so much of the extant material that it can
be very difficult to differentiate his opinions from what actually occurred.
I’m starting to believe that this was the case with the comments of his
reprinted in this entry. While I suspect there was a tendency for batters to
adopt a single basic approach, it also appears that there were more variations
than Chadwick suggested. For example, an 1888 article stated: “In the National
League there are about 125 players, and none of them hold a bat or use it in the
same manner … The knowledge of their peculiarities, together with knowing that
some players can hit only a high ball and others a low ball, enable pitchers to
use strategy when facing opposing teams, and the best pitchers are those that
have made a study of them.” (New York World, reprinted in Dallas
Morning News, May 20, 1888) Had things changed that dramatically from the
situation described by Chadwick in his 1867 and 1873 comments? Was Chadwick
right? Was this author? Or does the truth lie somewhere in between? Obviously
more research is needed, but I’m inclined to believe that the truth lies
somewhere in between.
2.1.4 Choking Up
I’m going to add a new paragraph after the first one as
follows: “There seems, however, to have been some initial stigma that choking up
on the bat was unmanly. Cap Anson, for instance, grasped his bat six inches
from the handle until 1876. Then his father, ‘advised his boy, as he still
calls him, to take his club like a man and get the whole force of it on the
ball.’ (Tim Murnane, Boston Globe, June 16, 1889, 17)”
2.1.6 Open Stances
Tim Murnane’s article in the Boston Globe, June 16,
1889, 17, cites Jimmy Ryan and Mike “King” Kelly as other Chicago batters who
used stances as open as Anson’s.
2.1.10 Switch-hitter
I intend to add a mention in
the third paragraph that according to Murnane, John McMullin was the first
left-hander to throw a curve (Boston
Globe, March 7, 1915)
2.1.11 Changing Batter’s Boxes
David Fleitz’s recent biography of Cap Anson describes
Anson (and imitators) necessitating the original rule by changing boxes in 1894
(David Fleitz, Cap Anson, 227). So obviously his actions in 1897 were
addressed at the loophole in the wording of the rule enacted in response to his
actions in 1894.
I remain puzzled that it took until 1907 to close the
loophole. Possibly Gruber was mistaken, but I’ve found no evidence of that.
2.1.12 High-low
I’m going to add more indications that many batters were
cavalier about the change before the 1887 season. Cap Anson, for example,
stated: “I don’t find any trouble with the pitching. So far I have been
successful in hitting high and low balls. It hasn’t made a great deal of
difference to me which way they come.” (Chicago Tribune, April 16, 1887,
2) And Sam Wise added: “I haven’t bothered my head any … A man ought to smash
at any kind of a ball if he thinks he can hit it. That’s the way I do. I don’t
care whether it is a high ball or a low ball, so long as I think I can hit it.”
(Boston Globe, March 13, 1887, 6)
And yet another point of view: “The left-handed twirlers
will prove effective this year on account of batsmen not being allowed to call
for high balls on them. They can pitch to suit themselves.” (Rocky Mountain
News, (Denver, CO), April 13, 1887, 10)
2.1.13 Peeking
I need to link peeking to the
emergence of the catcher’s crouch -- until
it was common for catchers to crouch, peeking would have been of dubious value
because of the relative ease with which an upright catcher can reposition
himself.
2.2.1 Bunts
I’ve gained a lot of additional insight into the many
complex factors that made bunting become both very popular and very
controversial between 1886 and 1894.
To begin with, I need to stress that bunting and deliberate
fouls (see 2.3.2) were viewed as virtually synonymous by many. For example, the
adoption of the new rule after the 1886 season allowing the umpire to call a
strike on a deliberate attempt to foul the ball off prompted the Chicago
Tribune to write, “Bunting will not hereafter be tolerated. Every batsman
must attempt to make a fair hit, and any attempt to hit the ball foul will be
called a strike.” (Chicago Tribune, November 17, 1886)
Cap Anson
commented, “If I was an umpire, I would call strikes on all bunted fouls,
whether intentional or unintentional. I would do that to protect myself, and
think umpires should be instructed to do it. If they are the question of
whether the foul was intentional or not will never arise.” (Chicago Tribune,
April 16, 1887, 2) But that wasn’t how umpires were instructed to interpret the
rule, a development that enabled players like Arlie Latham to continue to take
advantage of the rule. (See entry 2.3.2 “Deliberate Fouls” for details.)
Then I need to frame the renewed calls in the 1890s to ban
the bunt as the result of the belief that the 1886 rule had failed and that
banning the bunt was the only way to eliminate deliberate fouls.
Before the next-to-last paragraph, I’m going to insert Gus
Schmelz’s response to claims that the bunt was unmanly: “So far as the bunt
being effeminate is concerned, that illusion can easily be dispelled if any of
the parties who raise that objection will stand up to the plate and try to turn
down a fast, high ball. It will only take one carom of the ball from the bat to
the face to knock all the effeminate idea out of their heads. And as for action
– why if you don’t get it when a greyhound like Tom Brown step to the plate,
bunts the ball before anybody knows what he is going to do, and then shows as
pretty a streak of running as mortal man ever looked at, where do you get it?” (Brooklyn
Eagle, January 19, 1893)
I need to reword the current next-to-last paragraph to note
the important role played by the decision to move the pitcher back to the
current distance of 60’6” from the plate. I’ll probably replace the first
twelve words with something like this: “The issue gained new traction in 1893 as
a result of the decision to move the pitcher to sixty feet, six inches away from
the plate (see 1.17). The gaping space where no fielder stood again made the
bunt seem embarrassingly easy, which brought renewed calls for its abolition.
Instead,”
I want to elaborate on why the rule changes of 1893 and
1894 proved to be an effective compromise. I’ll probably add something like
this: “This proved to be a compromise that satisfied everyone. Cap Anson, for
instance, stated, ‘I wanted the bunt entirely abolished. Instead it was so
penalized that the pitcher will in a measure get what is his due. If the batter
hits the ball foul it will be called a strike, which is right and proper. The
pitcher puts the ball over the plate and ought to have the credit for it. That
is not so good as cutting out altogether, but it answers the purpose admirably …
The bunt … had degenerated into a nuisance and players who were utterly
incapable of making it in a hundred years wore out pitchers by fouling the ball
so many times in succession that the man in the box was finally tuckered out.’ (Philadelphia
Inquirer, April 8, 1894)”
I also want to add: “By 1897 sacrifice bunts were so
commonplace that a Chicago Tribune columnist responded to a reader’s
question by stating, ‘A player should always sacrifice when a runner is at
first, no one out, unless the opponents have a lead of more than two runs.’ (Chicago
Tribune, May 21, 1897, 6)”
I'll also probably eliminate the claim in the
fourth-from-last paragraph that Chicago was a prominent exponent of the bunt.
That claim is made in the preceding paragraph, but I think Rogers was referring
to deliberate fouls rather than what we now call bunts.
I have a lot of work to do!
2.2.2 Fair-fouls I have quite a bit of additional
information to add.
Tim Murnane suggested another reason for the banning of the
fair-foul in a 1910 article: “Early in the history of the game John McMullen,
Ross Barnes and a few others made remarkable batting records by hitting the ball
into the ground in such a way that it caromed off onto foul ground, and at times
clean into the bleachers, the baserunner then being allowed all he could make on
the hit. The rules were then changed so that any ball passing to foul ground
before first or third bases was declared foul.” (Murnane’s Baseball, Boston
Globe, February 6, 1910) I want to link this to the entry on foul ground
(1.20) and the various reasons why there was an emphasis on keeping balls from
leaving the playing area (scarcity of baseballs, fan interference, more
difficult for umpires).
I also want to note that not all concurred with Chadwick’s
assessment of the skill associated with the fair-foul. The Chicago Tribune
sniffed that the fair-foul, “although requiring a peculiar kind of skill, was
far from being an athletic feat.” (Chicago Tribune, October 26, 1879, 7)
I need to emphasize the important role of Harry Wright in
bringing about the rule change.
A November 1876 article stated: “Harry Wright has been
heard from on the subject, and his idea is to consider as foul all hit balls
that pass outside the foul lines before reaching first base or third base, and
as fair all hit balls that strikes the ground and pass into the infield and in
front of the first base or third base, or that shall be fielded inside of the
foul line.” (Chadwick Scrapbooks)
Wright gave this explanation, “This will equalize the
batting and fielding, and also tend to lessen the discretionary power of the
umpire, and relieve him of responsibilities now resting upon him. In deciding
fair or foul, he need watch the course of the ball only, and only where it
strikes the ground before passing the bases.” Chadwick commented: “Though the
rules are now nearer perfection that they have yet been, it is yet in order to
test any improvement by a season’s experience; and of all the plans presented to
obviate the difficulties which follow in the wake of fair-fouls, this new rule
would appear to be the best. It does not entirely do away with the chances for
short hits, as balls can still be ‘blocked’ so as to go to the field
comparatively dead in front of the home-base and on fair ground, thereby
rendering pretty active fielding on the part of the pitcher, catcher, or first
and third basemen necessary to throw the batsman out at first base. It is,
however, desirable that the vexatious doubts of the accuracy of the umpire in
judging of fair-fouls should be removed in some way or other, and we know of no
more feasible rule than this new one, which, by the way, was suggested in The
Clipper in 1873, when it was proposed by someone to make all balls foul
which went within a triangular space in front of the home base – a rule
practically useless.” (Henry Chadwick, “Harry Wright At Work,” New York
Clipper, undated clipping in French Scrapbooks)
To showcase the new idea, Harry Wright arranged to have it
used in a postseason exhibition game between Boston and Hartford on October 28,
1876. Accounts of the attempts were mixed:
The Boston Globe commented: “The working of the new
rules was of interest to many, as the umpire avoided quandaries in his
decisions, and the rabble did not ‘Hi-yah’ when a fair-foul was made, as the
change did away with this kind of batting.” (Boston Globe, October 30, 1876, 8)
But, according to the Chicago Tribune: “Certain
ball-player in Boston and Hartford, having contrived rules to shut out fair
fouls and bound catches on fouls, tried them in a game one day last week, but
didn’t see much difference from the old way.” (Chicago Tribune, November
5, 1876, 10)
And Chadwick reported that the experiment proved,
“satisfactory to the spectators, though somewhat perplexing to the players
through their lack of familiarity with its provisions.” (New York Clipper,
undated clipping)
Finally, I’m
going to add this before the last paragraph: “The wording of the new rule did
have one minor flaw, leaving the status of a batted ball that hit first or third
base ambiguous. According to Henry Chadwick, ‘such a ball was called foul
because it did not pass “in front of the base.”’ At the end of the 1877 season,
the rule was amended to specify that such balls were fair. (Brooklyn Eagle,
January 27, 1878, 3)
2.3.2 Deliberate Fouls
I want to do quite a bit more to show how closely the
efforts to prevent deliberate fouls were linked to other key concepts in early
baseball.
I’m going to add cross-references to entries 1.20 “Foul
Ground” and 1.32 “New Balls” and discuss why the scarcity of baseball made it
essential to do everything possible to prevent this tactic.
I’ll also add a cross-references to entry 2.2.2
“Fair-Fouls” in paragraph six and note that keeping balls from leaving the
playing field was one of the reasons for the important rule change after the
1876 season that banned fair-fouls.
Before the comments in paragraph 11 about how Arlie Latham
continued to exploit the new rule in 1887, I need to describe the background
more fully. In particular, as is mentioned above in the additions to the entry
on “Bunts” (2.2.1), I need to stress that bunting and deliberate fouls were
viewed as virtually synonymous by many. For example, the adoption of the new
rule after the 1886 season allowing the umpire to call a strike on a deliberate
attempt to foul the ball off prompted the Chicago Tribune to write,
“Bunting will not hereafter be tolerated. Every batsman must attempt to make a
fair hit, and any attempt to hit the ball foul will be called a strike.” (Chicago
Tribune, November 17, 1886) Cap Anson commented, “If I was an umpire, I
would call strikes on all bunted fouls, whether intentional or unintentional. I
would do that to protect myself, and think umpires should be instructed to do
it. If they are the question of whether the foul was intentional or not will
never arise.” (Chicago Tribune, April 16, 1887, 2) But the umpires were
not so instructed, a development that enabled Latham to continue to take
advantage of the rule.
I need to point out that Anson’s idea was eventually
adopted.
The Bushong letter cited in paragraph nine was dated April
12, 1887.
Paragraph 18 currently ends: “, and the American League
followed suit two years later.” I’m going to replace that with: “Two years
later, the American League very reluctantly followed suit” and cite the
Washington Post, March 1, 1903, 32 (an article that claims that the American
League was forced to adopt the league after being tricked and outwitted)
At the end I want to add a paragraph noting that strenuous
efforts to discourage batters from fouling balls off continued to be used in
amateur ball, the minor leagues and the Negro Leagues long after the prosperity
of the American and National leagues made it possible for those leagues to
become more tolerant. There’s a telling anecdote in Brad Snyder’s Beyond the
Shadow of the Senators about Newark Eagles owner Abe Manley sending a note to
one of his players in the middle of an at bat threatening to fine him if he
fouled off any more pitches. (p. 158)
I want to draw more attention to the close links between
this entry and Keeping Balls in Stands (entry 16.2.7).
2.3.3 Crouches
I want to add these important comments from a Sporting
News article in 1906: “When [Stone] first joined the Browns he was let go by
Boston because Jimmy Collins did not like his [crouching] style and considered
him a doubtful batter … His explanation of the advantages of the crouch is that
it gets the eyes in a better position to follow the ball, as they are almost on
a direct line with any delivery that comes over the plate. Secondly, the crouch
sets the muscles so that a quick chop can be taken at the ball instead of the
longer swing employed by most players. As a matter of fact, Stone can and does
hit the ball with terrific force, when it looks as though he is going to let it
pass without attempting to hit it, so close to the leather to him before he
starts his strike.” (quoted in John McMurray, “George Robert Stone,” in David
Jones, ed., Deadball Stars of the American League, 786)
2.4.1 Muscle Building
To the end of the entry I’m going to add: “and other
injuries. Tim Murnane, for instance, claimed in 1889 that heavy lifting had
caused arm injuries to many star players and had fallen out of favor.” (Tim
Murnane, “How the Stars Play Combinations,” Boston Globe, March 10, 1889,
22)
2.4.3 Batting Practice
I want to point out that a key reason for structured
batting practice being slow to develop was the belief that batting was such an
instinctive skill that it could not be taught.
I’ll add a
cross-reference to entry 7.2.4, where I’ll be discussing this belief in more
detail.
Marty Payne sent me these interesting notes on another
manager who was beginning to structure his batting practice in 1888: the
Baltimore Daily News on April 30, 1888 stated that Billie Barnie was looking
for a way to improve his team’s “weak hitting.” Instead of a couple of players
hitting and the rest fielding, he insisted all players take a turn. A follow-up
note on May 22 indicated that Barnie had refined this to a specific number of
pitches per player.
2.4.4 Swinging Multiple Bats in the On-Deck Circle
I’m going to add a cross-reference to entry 9.5.2 on
Doughnuts.
|
