When you hear of the word “Baseball” what rings through your mind? Do you think of a ball that has a base? Or do you sometimes think it’s a type of sport played somewhere else in the world? It would interest you to know that the word “Baseball” is a sport, and it is played in this part of the world and this sport is being played across Major states around the country. Bookmakers have included this great sport in their betting markets. You can get to see this sport through...
When you hear of the word “Baseball” what rings through your mind? Do you think of a ball that has a base? Or do you sometimes think it’s a type of sport played somewhere else in the world? It would interest you to know that the word “Baseball” is a sport, and it is played in this part of the world and this sport is being played across Major states around the country. Bookmakers have included this great sport in their betting markets. You can get to see this sport through...
0 Comments
Friend of the blog, Cliff Blau, sent along a nice article about David Reid that appeared in the Official Record of September 3, 1885. The article appears to have been largely based upon one that appeared in the Clipper on December 2, 1882, but was updated to note Reid's death. The image also appears to be the same one that appeared in the Clipper but is a much nicer version and, therefore, is worth sharing. Reid, of course, was a newspaper man and sports writer in St. Louis, who worked for the St. Louis Times, Republic, and Post-Dispatch. Before moving to St. Louis, he also wrote for various newspapers in New York and Philadelphia. For a time, in the early 1880s, he was the secretary for the St. Louis Browns. He was an interesting guy, with many friends in the baseball fraternity, who died suddenly, at the young age of 37, on May 2, 1885. Tip of the hat to Cliff for passing this along. There's also some useful information on slot games waiting for you here. Last week someone in the comments asked if I had the box score for game two of the 1885 world's championship series and I had to admit that I did not. When I originally went through the game accounts of that series, the sources that I was using didn't publish the box score and, while I believed that I had seen one in Sporting Life at some later point, I failed to grab it. Why wouldn't I have the box score to this game? Why wouldn't it have appeared in sources that carried the box scores for the other games in the series? There is a simple reason for that. Game two was the forfeit. Kelly quickly stole second, took third on a wild pitch, and scored on a single to center by Anson. Pfeffer raised a fly to short right and Nicol muffed it, but threw Anson out at second, while Pfeffer secured his base. After Pfeffer had stolen second Williamson hit a slow grounder along the line to first. The ball was spinning as it traveled, and when near first base it reached the outside of the base line it struck the edge of the turf and turned so sharply inside the line that Comiskey failed to stop, and it struck the inside of the bag and ran a short distance beyond it. Meanwhile somebody shouted "Foul!" Pfeffer ran in from second and Williamson, after hesitating when the ball was outside the line, made a dash when it changed its course and reached first in safety. Comiskey claimed that the ball was foul, Sullivan insisted that it was fair, but Comiskey said it was not under American Association rules, to which Anson answered by calling for the rules. Another squabble was followed by Comiskey calling his men off the field. There was a rush of spectators into the field and while one crowd gathered around Anson, Superintendent Solari and a special officer escorted Sullivan off the field, a second crowd following them to the gate and abusing Sullivan at every step. So the game officially went into the books as a 9-0 victory for the Chicagos and everything in the box score is kind of irrelevant. It is, of course, interesting from a historical point of view and as a record of what actually happened but it was still a forfeit.
This box score, which I'm happy to share with you, comes from Sporting Life of October 21, 1885. I feel that it's my role in this life to collect every single quote that I can find proclaiming the greatness of Fred Dunlap. Luckily, these quotes exist in abundance. As we wrap up Fred Dunlap Month, I'm going to share a few of them with you: Second bag was guarded by Fred Dunlap, who was a wonderful fielder...Fred Dunlap was at one time, I refer to his engagement at Cleveland before he came to Detroit, the best second baseman in the country. What a ball player this Dunlap was… Fred Dunlap. This famous second baseman...Dunlap is the king of second baseman, and a first-class all-round player. Charley Sweasey, Al Reach, Jimmy Wood, Ross Barnes, John Burdock and Fred Dunlap were the great second basemen of the past... ...(Seeking) facts from the old sports who have seen the rise and fall of baseball players for nearly fifty years, it is surprising upon how few points these old experienced men agree. But his difference of opinion serves to show that these old fans have formed opinions of their own and have not blindly followed the lead of others. Fred Dunlap was in the '80's one of the great players of the National League, sharing with Fred Pfeffer the honor of being the star second baseman of the profession. Al Spink called Dunlap "far and away the greatest second baseman that ever lived" and said that "of the great players of the olden times Fred Dunlap was considered by many the greatest." "(None of his contemporaries) could begin to compare with Dunlap in all around work or in covering the bag," he wrote in The National Game. Spink is not a lone voice in the wilderness. Stanley Robinson called Dunlap the greatest second baseman of his time and "perhaps the greatest player that ever lived." James Spaulding called Dunlap "the greatest second baseman who ever lived." Al Bauer, in 1886, called Dunlap "the best baseball player on the diamond." The Sporting News, at the same time, called Dunlap "the king pin of second basemen and the greatest fielder in America." This testimony, of course, is not hard evidence that Dunlap was the best second baseman of his era but it is not nothing. Contemporary opinion does have some impact on how we evaluate players. There is value in the fact that a lot of people watched Dunlap play and decided that he was better than Hardy Richardson or Bid McPhee or Ross Barnes. Again, that's not to say that he was better than those guys - who were all great ballplayers (and I'm sure we can put together a list of quotes like this for all of those guys) - but Al Spink and Stanley Robinson saw those guys play. We didn't. So, yes, we have a lot of tools at our disposal that we can use to evaluate a player's value but it is important to take into account contemporary opinion. The Troy Times in comparing Ferguson's record with that of Dunlap, says: This has to be one of the earliest reference to Dunlap as the best second baseman in the country. It's certainly the earliest that I've seen. While the article goes on to compare Bob Ferguson to Dunlap, the important thing is not whether or not Ferguson was better than Dunlap but that Ferguson was being compared to the young Dunlap. Fred Dunlap was the standard to which all other second baseman were held. Even years after his playing days were over, baseball writers were still comparing young second basemen to Dunlap. I think it was Bill James who wrote about Satchel Paige and said that all Negro League pitchers were compared to him. This pitcher or that pitcher was as good as Paige or better than Paige or was faster than Paige; the point being not that these men were better than Paige but that Paige was the standard to which all other Negro League pitchers were held. Paige was, most likely, the best pitcher in the history of the Negro Leagues and it was natural to hold him up as the standard. The same seems to be true of Dunlap. While Dunlap may or may not be the best 19th century second baseman, he was for some time the best second baseman in the game and, in 1883 and 1884, the best player in the game. There are many people who saw him play and believed that he was the best player of all-time and his play set a standard for second basemen that lasted until the days of Nap Lajoie. When the late Fred Dunlap was in his prime, he was generally referred to as the king of second baseman; yet his claim to that title was always disputed. As a matter of fact there were at least two men covering the same position whose respective followers claimed that their particular favorite was the only real king. Fred Pfeffer, of the Chicagos, and Bid McPhee, of the Cincinnati (Association) Reds, were the men who divided the honors with Dunlap. Burdock, of the Bostons; Lew Bierbauer, of the Athletics (although the latter was a comparatively kid player at the time), and Yank Robinson, of the St. Louis Browns, also had their admirers, who thought them just as good as the others. To-day there can be no question about the premiership of second base. Lajoie is first in a class by himself. I really haven't said a whole lot of positive things about Dunlap during Fred Dunlap Month but, in my defense, the man's flaws are much more interesting to me than his skills as a baseball player, which were extraordinary.
Yes, I'm having a bit of fun poking at Dunlap's character but don't let that blind you to the fact that he was, arguably, the best player in the League in 1883. He was the best second baseman in the League in the early part of the 1880s and then had that monster year in the UA. The man was a great ballplayer and, ironically, that monster year in that joke of a league has kind of blinded us to his true value. A lot of folks have spent a lot of time pointing out, correctly, that the UA was a joke and that Dunlap's 1884 season has to be seen in that context. Put 1990 Barry Bonds in the Frontier League and he was going to put up some unbelievable numbers also. That's all true and I don't have any argument with it but I think the analytical quest to put 19th century leagues in their proper context has had a derogatory effect upon our analysis of the totality of Dunlap's career and has blinded us to the greatness of his play in the early 1880s. It also doesn't help that he was kind of a jerk-off. The Union Association uses a lively ball, and as a result its batsmen will make more long hits than the League and American Association players, and also more muffs of flies and grounders. The increased elasticity, which will cause it to go faster and farther from the bat than a dead ball, will cause it to be more difficult for fielders to handle. A lively ball, small ballparks, a lower level of competition and the best player in the game. I think that's a nice recipe for a monster season. Fred Dunlap took one look around him in the spring of 1884 and said the following: "I am the punishment of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you." Yeah, that was Dunlap. Or Genghis Khan. Can't remember. And, yes, I have now compared Dunlap to both Batman and Genghis Khan. Ted Sullivan was released from the management of the St. Louis Unions last night. Ill-feeling between Sullivan and some of the players had existed for some time. Anybody want to speculate about which players had "ill-feelings" towards Sullivan? *Cough* Dunlap *Cough* Not that Sullivan was a saint or anything but how does the manager get fired when the club is 28-3? I have to image that it would have something to do with the highest paid player in all of baseball going to the owner and saying something along the lines of "It's him or me." But thinking about it a little bit, I can also imagine Sullivan going to Lucas and saying something similar about Dunlap. Those two guys were serious pieces of work and it's impossible to say who was the bigger a**hole. At the moment, I'm leaning slightly towards the idea that Sullivan got himself fired but, really, it's a pick 'em. Honestly, I feel kind of bad for Henry Lucas. He was just a guy who loved the game and had the resources to start his own team and league. That's a noble thing. But he made some bad decisions and got saddled with these two j*rk-*ffs. Dunlap, Dave Rowe and Shafer have driven Ted Sullivan out of the St. Louis Unions, and as he is on the black list his lot is not a happy one. Well... You kind of have to take anything the Herald says about the UA or Dunlap with a grain of salt. But this is the best piece of evidence we have about what went down between Sullivan and his players. Regardless, Sullivan would land on his feet and be back in baseball, with the Kansas City Unions, in July. And thinking about that fact, that Sullivan would get another job in Lucas' UA, leads me to believe that it really was the players, rather than Sullivan, who instigated the whole thing. It was the universal opinion among St. Louis base ball enthusiasts yesterday that Mr. Lucas never took a better step in the right direction for the good of his club than in releasing Dunlap, whose sale to the Detroit Club was announced exclusively in the Globe-Democrat yesterday morning. By many of the Maroons' devoted admirers the news was hailed with genuine delight, and the prediction that the club would now be almost certain to do better could be heard everywhere. While Dunlap's ability as a great second baseman was never for a moment questioned, and while he is justly entitled to be called the "king of them all," there is but little doubt that his departure from the St. Louis Club is a good thing for the club and its owners. Dunlap's ways are too well known to the base ball public of St. Louis to necessitate any comment. He played well when he wanted to, and when he didn't he was the most aggravating and wretched player on the team. He wanted everything his own way, and when crossed made it disagreeable for everybody around him. As the captain of the club the players looked to him for advice and instruction, and what he said usually went with them, and it was always noticed that when it was an "off" day for Dunlap the rest of the club usually followed in his wake, and played as poorly as they knew how. Dunlap's off-days usually came when the manager and owner of the club insisted upon having a world to say as to how the nine should be run. I think we all know that Dunlap was a difficult character to deal with but I don't think I've ever read a harsher description of him. I'm sure the whole thing is an attempt to justify his sale to the fans but it also has a ring of truth to it. The fact of the matter is that the King of Second Basemen was a bit of a jerk.
Henry Lucas returned from the East yesterday morning, looking hearty and cheerful, and expressing perfect satisfaction over the results of his trip. In the afternoon a Globe-Democrat reporter had an interview with him and obtained the following story of his work for the new ball club while away: This is the earliest reference I have to Dunlap signing with the Maroons. It would be mentioned, with details regarding the contract, in both the Cleveland Herald and the New York Times on November 28, 1883. Dave Rowe and the American Association St. Louis Club are fighting. Mr. Von der Ahe claims that Rowe agreed to sign with his club, but when the contract and advance money were sent to him, he returned them and signed with the Lucas Club. Of the latter fact there is no doubt, but the fight has caused Mr. Lucas to publish Rowe's telegrams to him. In one of them Rowe refers to a "good man" that he can secure, and in another that he had contracts awaiting him from Cleveland, Providence and the St. Louis American Association Club. This shows that Rowe has used tricks. He never had a contract from Cleveland in his possession. The "good man" was evidently Dunlap. So, for the record, it looks like Dave Rowe was the one who recommended that Lucas sign Dunlap.
|
Welcome to This Game Of Games, a website dedicated to telling the story of 19th century, St. Louis baseball.
Search TGOG
Categories
All
|