Baseball; the Last Great American Pastime by Edward Drobinski - HTML preview

Baseball; the Last Great American Pastime

Page 339

Christy Mathewson describes the objectives of the “inside

game” in detail throughout his book, “Pitching in a Pinch.” He

differentiates between "good" and "smart" ballplayers.

In his book, “My Thirty Years in Baseball,” John McGraw

said "I do not like the lively ball. I think the game far more

interesting when the art of making scores lies in scientific

work on the bases.” His use of the word “lively” seems to

clearly indicate that some type of change had been made; though

it is possible that the word relates to the results rather than

the source of them. It certainly seems more efficient, if not

interesting to McGraw, to hit a home run if one could, rather

than hit a single, steal second, and try to score on another

batted ball.

John McGraw was truly one of baseball’s greats, more than

most people know today. He excelled at playing and managing, and

is sometimes called “the best player to become a great manager.”

As a manager he successfully handled baseball’s “change.” I

guess he just preferred the older, “dirty” method of play of his

earliest years, which he helped define.

Ty Cobb was usually not specific about the matter other

than his few evaluations of Ruth. But, what he is quoted as

Baseball; the Last Great American Pastime

Page 340

saying, post retirement, implied agreement with McGraw; in that

he did not like the style of baseball being played. No specific

comments regarding the deadness of the ball are known.

An un-named baseball maven of 2016 sort of addresses the

issue thusly.

Question. “Was the Dead ball era based on necessity due to

the composition of the ball?

Response. “Not necessarily the pure composition of the

ball, but the fact that a single ball was used throughout the

game (Contradicts player testimony regarding ‘single.’ The more

commonly used words were ‘A few.’) until it was nothing more

than a chewed up pieced of oblivion. It ties into another of

your questions, ‘How significant were doctored pitches?’ It's

difficult to quantify the degree of movement added by doctoring

a pitch because every pitcher does so differently with different

substances in different amounts. However, the fact that baseball

felt the need to ban the practice and the success of the

spitball was banned of (sic) pitchers who excelled in the art

ought to be an indication of the significance of a doctored

ball.”

Baseball; the Last Great American Pastime

Page 341

Writer’s note: The spitball was banned in two stages. In

the winter of 1919–1920, managers voted to partially ban the

spitball, allowing each team to designate at most two pitchers

who would be permitted to legally throw spitballs. Then,

following the 1920 season, the spitball was banned league wide,

except for existing spitballers who were grandfathered in and

allowed to keep throwing the pitch legally until they retired,

the last of which didn’t hang it up until 1934. The spitball is

known by a host of other names including “shineball” and its

most successful user was Eddie Walsh; who retired with the all-

time lowest ERA of 1.82. Of course, pitchers seeking advantage,

still throw them today, but with the co-operation of their

catcher, have gotten much better at hiding that they are.

Question. “Was the era (Dead ball) markedly different than

those surrounding it?

Response. “The differences lie in the scoring environment

and the players themselves. By 1904, the average runs per game

dipped to below 4.0 and continued to remain below 4.0 until

1920. Prior to this, the average runs per game was rarely ever

below 5.0. The advent of a fielding glove as well as other

subtle changes to the actual gameplay (number of balls for a

Baseball; the Last Great American Pastime

Page 342

walk, fair-foul rule, foul-strike rule, bunting strikes) formed

a higher scoring game to baseball's ancestor, test cricket,

whose matches can last days and scores can run in the hundreds.

Furthermore, the typical player was no longer Irish. It was so

common for a player in the 1880s to be of Irish descent (and

perhaps an Irish immigrant) that Irishmen playing baseball was a

stereotype. In 1882, the number of Southern and Eastern European

immigrants spiked. The total number of immigrants reached a then

record 5.2 million for the decade. The increased talent pool,

which began extending to more rural areas of the country

(particularly with the formation of the AL) heightened the

talent. The game continued its overall trend of professionalism.

The gap between an average person and a professional player

widened. This is a heavily scandalous era as far as gambling and

alleged game-fixing. It was noticed as early as 1920, when

writer Irving Sanborn discussed the relationship between

gambling and scoring. The lower-scoring environments of the

1910s, in which corrupting a pitcher could secure a certain

outcome, led to higher rates of gambling. The article is called

‘Consider the Pitchers: They Shin Not Neither Shall They Spit.’

I do not have it, as I am going off what is told in 1921 by Lyle

Spatz and Steve Steinberg.”

Question. “Did relief pitching begin to change things?”

Baseball; the Last Great American Pastime

Page 343

Response. “No. Baseball witnessed 1911 as the first season

where 1,000 games were finished (a starter doesn't receive a

GF). Relief pitching remained of little importance in decades

before WWII, as most ace starters were relied upon to finish a

game. The fact that pitchers were expected to go the distance in

the higher scoring environment only hurt them further.

Seems to me there was a great evolution to the sport in the

first two decades of the 20th century. If we categorize the

Deadball Era from say 1901-1920, how do we account for the

multiple changes in the ball during that time? The style of

play? Rule changes?

One interesting tidbit I have come across relates to WWI.

The end of the war meant higher importation of Austrian wool the

end of the 1910s, allowing for a ball more tightly wounded.

Unfortunately I don't have a lot of information for this

particular question.”

Well, we digressed there a bit, though in a sense all these

things seem to be related. Like with much of history, we will

likely continue to revise our outlooks, based on new discoveries

or a new logic, it is unfortunate that we will never have any

more testimony from those who were on the field at the time. We

Baseball; the Last Great American Pastime

Page 344

do have some quotes; which some say many have been fabricated.

What can one do? Whatever any revisions come, I will think that

the reason ballplayers did not hit many home runs before 1920,

was primarily because they weren’t trying to.